As the Consultative Forum on Ireland's Security Policy begins in Cork, Prime Time’s Louise Byrne has been speaking to two panelists about some of the key topics likely to be debated over the coming months.
Brigid Laffan is an Irish political scientist and Emeritus Professor at the European University Institute. Much of her academic work has focused on issues relating to European integration.
In the wake of the UK’s Brexit vote, she said "the return of hard geopolitics in a world of Putin and Trump challenges European security and means that the State’s neutrality deserves sustained scrutiny".
Roger Cole is the founder and chairman of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA). He has campaigned over decades on issues related to neutrality and militarisation. He opposed the war in Iraq and the use of Shannon Airport by the US military.
Should the triple lock be abolished?
Currently, overseas deployment of more than 12 members of the Defence Forces requires approval from each of the Government, the Dáil, and the United Nations. This policy is referred to as the triple lock.
Brigid Laffan: I have a very clear view on the triple lock. I do not see why a sovereign, independent, Ireland should rely on the Security Council of the United Nations to allow us to deploy more than 12 troops overseas.
Effectively what we're doing is we're giving to the permanent members of the Security Council - the US, the Chinese, the Russians, the French and the British - a veto over Irish foreign policy.
I do favour a double lock. What do I mean by that? I don't think any Irish government should deploy Irish troops abroad without the sanction of the Oireachtas.
For me, as a sovereign state, Ireland has the maturity to take decisions and we shouldn't outsource it. And we certainly shouldn't outsource to the UN at a time when a permanent member of the Security Council has broken the most important norm of international politics; invaded a neighbour in order to change borders. The Security Council is not functioning with Russia.
There is no sanction on Russia in the UN Security Council because it can veto everything.
We've got to take very seriously that the world is now a more fragmented place, it's a more complex place, and we're a very globalised country.
Roger Cole: What this so-called forum is all about is destroying the triple lock. They want to be able to send Irish troops as part of an evolving EU army to take part in wars without any reference to the United Nations.
Maybe there hasn't been enough (recent UN peacekeeping missions) but it's the only global institution that brings together every single State which allows all these different States to talk to each other. When you have a UN mandate, you're representing all the countries in the world… it's not reflective of Russia or America or another country. It's reflective of a global ambition.
This year is the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, and that was an agreement agreed by people who definitely didn't like each other, but they knew that war had to come to an end. The only way you ended that war was through negotiations by people who don't like each other - and this is how this war between Russia and the Ukraine and NATO has to come to an end.
There is a serious, deeply rooted, commitment by the Irish people to the United Nations. And obviously it can change, it can alter like every other institution, but that commitment is as strong as a commitment to Irish neutrality. I don't think they're separate.
Should defence spending be increased?
Roger Cole: Spending huge amounts of money, like 2% of GDP and building up an army, I don't think Irish people like that. That's why they support neutrality, that's why we have a small army. To me, Irish people are mostly concerned about housing and the cost of it. I think governments should focus on the problems of Irish people.
I'd like to see the soldiers in the army - not the officers, but the soldiers - I'd like to find out why they're not getting more money.
I'm not against looking at [increasing defence spending]. There's definitely the issue of cyber security, where cyber attacks have been used against hospitals. So, there are definitely areas that I would have no problem [with increased spending] if there's evidence.
They'd have to explain exactly why they need all this money.
Brigid Laffan: Can anyone say that it's wrong for us to engage on cyber security, on maritime surveillance, on medical support for our armed forces? Surely, any sane human being thinks that we must give our armed forces the protections and the capabilities they need.
Most European states - following the war in Ukraine - will move to [spending] " 2-3% of gross domestic product. We will not go anywhere close to that. But I think perhaps 1% might be necessary and desirable over a period. Particularly to ensure that our armed forces are appropriately paid, they can retain their numbers and that they have the equipment and capability to defend this country and the threats it experiences.
As a society we can't be free riders on the rest of Europe and expect other countries to defend us. We also have got to protect the island, protect the sea, and know what's overhead.
Has the Government stacked the consultative forum on security?
Brigid Laffan: It's been said of the forum that a majority of the people are pro-NATO, but those claims have not been backed up by evidence. In my view, that's misinformation and it's an attempt to delegitimise the forum.
I think there are academics who favour Ireland's membership of NATO. There are people in Ireland who favour it, but I don't think that's a majority opinion either among the public or, in my view, among academics. I don't see it, and I read this work very carefully.
I don't think there's any public support for membership of NATO - and I don't see membership of NATO as a prospect. I've been called a warmonger, pro-NATO, in the pay of Lockheed Martin - an armaments company that I have never engaged with in my entire life.
It has become very personalised very quickly and I think that was also partly that the tone was set, unfortunately, by our President.
Roger Cole: Nobody could argue that this forum is a balanced thing. There's one person in favour of neutrality over four days, one on one side and everybody else on the other. That's not a debate, that's not a forum, it's a propaganda machine, and that's what they want to do.
I'm not saying they're all evil, or bad, or wrong or anything but the overall division is [for] people who want to destroy the triple lock.
I don't regret participating. At least it's a debate and an opportunity to put forward our case.
