The recent agreement between the Free State and NATO, formalised under the Individual Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP), has raised concerns among those who oppose NATO’s influence and military presence. This agreement, touted by the Free State government as a means to enhance security capabilities, is seen by critics as a dangerous step towards entanglement in NATO’s agenda and undermining the Free State’s longstanding policy of neutrality.
By entering into this agreement, the Free State is perceived as aligning itself with NATO’s interests and potentially sacrificing its independent foreign policy stance. The decision to opt for a tailored partnership, rather than full membership, may be seen as a strategic move by NATO to gradually erode the Free State’s neutrality and integrate it into the alliance’s framework.
Critics argue that the agreement opens the door for increased NATO involvement in Free State affairs, particularly in sensitive areas such as cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. This could lead to a loss of sovereignty and decision-making autonomy, as the Free State becomes more reliant on NATO resources and intelligence.
The focus on countering “hybrid threats” such as disinformation and election interference is viewed with suspicion by anti-NATO groups, who see it as a pretext for NATO intervention in domestic matters and potential interference in the Free State’s democratic processes.
The phased approach of the ITPP, with its periodic assessments by NATO, is seen as a mechanism for exerting control and influence over the Free State’s defence policy. Critics argue that this undermines the Free State’s ability to pursue an independent defence strategy tailored to its own unique security needs.
The deployment of Free State troops to the EU Battlegroup is also viewed sceptically, as it further integrates the Free State into European defence structures that are closely aligned with NATO.
Opponents of the agreement see it as a dangerous erosion of the Free State’s neutrality and sovereignty, with potentially far-reaching implications for its future security and foreign policy direction.
In another development, reports indicate that Israel Occupation Forces (IOF) personnel have undergone training at the Free State Military College over the past six years. This revelation comes at a time when Israel faces accusations of genocide in Gaza before the International Court of Justice.
The presence of IOF members alongside military personnel from various countries, including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and others, raises questions about the Free State’s increasing entanglement with NATO-affiliated forces.
Freedom of information documents reveal that IOF members received training at the Free State’s Military College between 2018 and the present day. The specific nature of this training and whether Israeli military personnel are currently undergoing training in the Free State remains unclear.
The Military College, with its diverse schools providing training in various fields, has facilitated the training of Israeli military members in the past, indicating a longstanding relationship between the Free State and the IOF.
This revelation adds to concerns about the Free State’s deepening ties with NATO and its affiliates, potentially compromising its neutrality and sovereignty in matters of international conflict.
These revelations came as Policy Exchange, a right-wing British think tank, released a report titled “Closing the Back Door: Rediscovering Northern Ireland’s (sic) Role in British National Security.” With a foreword by two former British Defence Secretaries and an endorsement from a former First Sea Lord and Security Minister, it undoubtedly reflects the views of the British military and security establishment.
The report’s core argument is that, amidst mounting challenges to the US “Rules-Based Order,” the Free State represents a vulnerable point in British national security. Throughout history, Ireland has been deemed strategically vital to Britain, serving to control North Atlantic trade routes and thwart potential European rivals.
Despite the Free State Defence Forces’ assessment that a military attack on the 26 counties is highly improbable, the report contends that the Free State remains a weak link in Western defence due to the majority of northern hemisphere undersea cables passing through its territorial waters.
Proposing increased military, naval, and air-force presence in the 6 counties, it vehemently opposes any form of Free State neutrality. The criticisms of Free State neutrality, defence spending, and perceived reliance on NATO echo those surrounding the 2023 NATO roadshow, sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The rhetoric could easily be attributed to mainstream media outlets like The Irish Times or The Business Post, or even the current affairs department of RTÉ. This alignment is not coincidental—it underscores the abandonment of Free State neutrality in favour of supporting US-led imperialism.
The Defence Forces Review, Department of Defence, and Officer Corps of the Free State military wholeheartedly endorse Atlanticism. Meanwhile, the Department of Foreign Affairs acts as a sub-office of the EU Commission’s Foreign and Security bureaucracy.
RTÉ consistently features spokespersons with NATO affiliations to interpret conflicts, reflecting the pervasive acceptance and promotion of US-led imperialism. When pundits, “independent” TDs, or government officials advocate for a “grown-up” discussion on neutrality, one must question whose interests they serve.
Is it in the Free State’s interest to invest billions in weapons from European, British, and US arms companies? Is participating in America’s wars to defend its hegemony beneficial to the Free State’s citizens? No! Those who perpetuate attacks on Free State neutrality serve imperialist agendas, not the interests of the Free State’s people.
It’s crucial to expose them as agents of imperialist domination rather than defenders of Free State sovereignty.
