Letters to the Editor: Ireland is vulnerable due to gaps in our defence
Ray Cawley writes that Ireland spent nearly €30m on 'two little second-hand naval boats from New Zealand', neither which are suitable to operate in the Atlantic. Picture: David Creedon
I read with interest the letter from Kay Chalmers in the (Saturday, January 24).
As a member of the Irish Defence Forces for 30 years, I have continued, in retirement, to raise issues which I believe need to be addressed by those who are appointed with responsibility for the security of our country and its people.
I have spent some years recently, in tandem with others, in pursuit of justice for 156 families betrayed by our Government, senior echelons in the Defence Forces, and the Department of Defence since early 1962.
I refer to Jadotville.
Neither the recent ministerial incumbent Simon Harris, nor his predecessor Micheál Martin, nor secretary general at the Department of Defence Jacqui McCrum, have any background whatsoever in matters of defence, at any level... none!
We need a huge investment in defence.
We need advice from our experienced European colleagues. We have to become part of a European defence.
We need to listen to our neighbours, who will find a role for our current meagre defence resources, and please spare the country from civil servants who, without a shred of defence acumen, spent nearly €30m on two little second-hand naval boats from New Zealand, carried by a mother ship to Ireland, and — wait for it — neither of these boats, apparently, are suitable to operate in the Atlantic, where we hold responsibility for the protection of the undersea cables to the US.
Enough said... But is anybody listening? It is a joke, if it was not so serious an issue. Our country is ripe for the taking. Fact.
European leaders need to focus on what will be a continuous sluice of fallout from what the Canadian prime minister termed the “ruptured” relationship with the US.
It is inexcusable that it has taken so long for European leadership to grasp the depth of Donald Trump’s animosity to our continent.
Even a cursory analysis of the US National Security Strategy, published in late November 2025, discloses a vicious and multi-level onslaught on Europe, and should have immediately signalled in European capitals that the “transatlantic relationship” was lethally wounded — especially so when framed in the context of no critical reference whatsoever to Vladimir Putin’s warmongering.
What further warning did European leadership need, for here is the reality of Trump’s hostility to Europe in the written word, the medium for precise communication which is underpinned by structure, complexity, and permanency, unlike Trump’s normal communication medium, the spoken word, characterised by spontaneity and casualness while relying on tone, emotion, and narcissistic expression for impact.
“The pen is mightier than the sword” and infinitely more so than garrulous monologue.
We live in a digitised world where everyone, unless you’re a hermit, leaves a digital footprint. The new, as yet unpublished legislation, Communications (Interception and Lawful) Access Bill, that is to replace the outdated Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, will be seen as another welcome tool in the arsenal of An Garda Síochána and other agencies in tackling serious crime and terrorist activity both home and abroad.
While there will be many safeguards introduced into this bill to ensure that agencies, not just An Garda Síochána, when making an application for the use of covert surveillance software and electronic scanning equipment have a legal basis, and it is not used for nefarious reasons, those safeguards will have ministerial and judicial oversight with explicit statutory obligations with regards to privileged material.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties’ constant opposition to improvements to any form of garda equipment or technologies, and that includes the use of pepper spray, tasers, body-worn cameras, and facial recognition (not yet in use), makes one wonder what their objective really is. Is it to protect the citizens of this State?
It is obvious to me that its goals do not align with the protection and security of our citizens from criminal or terrorist activity, or the protection of our men and women of An Garda Síochána who, with limited resources, put themselves at risk, like other frontline workers, each day to ensure the preservation of peace and public order. That it would now oppose any move that would assist An Garda Síochána in the fight against serious organised crime, or the threat from foreign or domestic terrorism, is truly astonishing.
Many countries, including European countries, use advanced surveillance technologies, whether through covert surveillance software (Pegasus) or advanced scanning equipment like AI-powered cameras or IMSI catchers, to assist them in their fight against crime or terrorist activity. Sadly, there are authoritarian countries who, like China and Iran, use it to spy on their own people.
While some people or groups, like the ICCL, will have concerns over any advances in technologies as proposed in this yet-unpublished bill, the Government and minister for justice will ensure, with the assistance of other legal minds, that proper safeguards are fully in place before its enactment.
My question to ICCL is: Do you want a society where citizens of this State feel secure in the knowledge that our Garda Síochána has the equipment and technologies to fight crime and terrorist activity, or is it your goal just to oppose any advancements whatsoever?
Post-Venezuela, it seems that an emboldened Donald Trump now views the globe as his personal plaything, made up of land masses he can eye up, manipulate, and claim for the United States, based on whimsy, covetousness, personal obsession, and a doctrine of might is right. The US demand to take ownership of Greenland, repeated yet again at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and turn it into “red, white, and blueland” has created a full-blown geopolitical crisis, pitching Nato members into conflict with each other.
The resurrection of the tariffs stick, a blackmailing tactic to force Europe to abandon Greenland, is outrageous. None of this makes a lick of sense, beyond some illogical, narcissistic vanity project.
The US demanding Greenland has no legitimacy historically, culturally, or legally, with the island’s links to Denmark dating back to the Norse settlement of Greenland in the 10th century, long before the US even existed as a state.
The so-called security concerns are a red herring. Since 1951, the US has had a post-Second World War defence agreement with Denmark, allowing it to keep military bases in Greenland and to build additional bases, in agreement with Nato, without infringing on Danish sovereignty or the autonomous status of Greenland.
Ireland and Europe must stand firm and defend both Denmark and Greenland. It should be enough that the Greenlandic people do not want to be Americans, and planting the stars and stripes in Nuuk will not change that reality.
At a moment when it is vital that the sane world shows solidarity and common purpose, an instrument designed to achieve just that has been stymied by a tiny but aggressive minority. The Mercosur deal will create many options for growth for millions of people outside the orbit of an increasingly unreliable America. However, some of Europe’s beef farmers imagine it a victory that EU ratification of that pact must wait until a court challenge is heard.
The EU can provisionally ratify the deal while a court ruling is awaited. It should do exactly that if our politicians can find the backbone needed to serve the majority of citizens rather than those who shout loudest. It is long past time that this self-serving, bullying lobby was confronted — one sustained in Ireland alone by EU subsidies of over €1.3bn each year.
Donal Lenihan wants key Munster games in Cork (“Time to discuss Munster’s elephant in the room”, January 21). Did he complain as vociferously and as frequently when Munster had to play all their “home” Euro semi-finals in Dublin? Would Donal advocate to have a European final played in SuperValu Páirc Uí Chaoimh? The pitch is more suitable than Tottenham Stadium. Cork would be a brilliant host city. Or do all things rugby have to be in Dublin? Luimneach abú!
