How can they officially support the military fight to free the (north) eastern part of a country from occupation? If they do, everybody will ask why they don’t support it for Northern Ireland. They have spent some effort to convince the public that they are a peaceful party and not the IRA. Where should they draw the line that the fight is justified for Ukraine but not for Ireland?
Neutrality in the face of one sided agression is not neutral, its bootlicking evil.
Ireland and Austria are using their “neutrality” to weasel out of responsibility. It’s politically practical. The Austrian chancellor has already said that if an EU country is attacked, they will do the absolute minimum by giving logistical and humanitarian aid and nothing else, which they are forced to do thanks to EU law. Theres neutrality and there’s bootlicking an aggressor, appeasement does not work. Standing up to an aggressor, who is attacking proactively IS NEUTRAL.
Funchion said Sinn Féin continues to support the provision of humanitarian aid to Ukraine but the proposed €90 billion EU loan was “primarily for military expenditure”. This, she said, “undermines Ireland’s neutrality”.
Cowen described Sinn Féin’s neutrality argument as “flawed and cynical”, saying: “Supporting Ukraine is about upholding the right of a sovereign country to protect its civilians … while drawing a clear moral line between defence and aggression. Neutrality was never meant to mean moral indifference.”
Doherty hit back, saying: “Ireland’s neutrality is not about moral indifference, nor does it prevent us from standing firmly against aggression or supporting victims of war. What it does mean is that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or in the financing of war.”
Yeah, Sinn Féin is totally wrong here. How are you “standing fimly” against aggression by standing by and doing nothing?
It’s like seeing a bully beating on a weak victim and instead of handing the victim a bat to defend themselves you just wait until the victim is beaten then treat their wounds.
From what I understood, I think they’re reasoning is that Ireland must remain neutral in international conflicts, as has been Ireland’s stance since 1922. So by providing a bat to one party they’re taking a side and breaking a century long policy of neutrality.
They see that one side is the aggressor, so they’re still willing to aid the other with food, medicine, clothing, etc but draw a line at weaponry.
Like I said in my other comment, I’m not sure which side I agree with, but they certainly don’t sound opposed to others providing weaponry, just they themselves would rather provide other forms of help.
To stick with your analogy, we generally wouldn’t call out a wee nurse not getting involved in two big blokes having a punch-up if they then ran in and treated the victims wounds. Ireland is only 5 million people and has suffered at the hands of imperialism, having The Troubles as recently as the late 90s. They know bloodshed, an eye for an eye, and the escalation of violence.
To make clear, as this can be a very emotional topic. I’m not taking a side (irony), just trying to explain their reasoning.
I never trusted Sinn Fein - weird nationalists
Interesting wee debate in that article.
I’m not sure which side I take, as I can understand both sides reasonings. I just thought it was noteworthy that they printed a back and forth, and the article remained relatively neutral which is rare in modern journalism.
rare in modern journalism.
The Irish Times is a high quality source in fairness.
The shinners and their ilk are basically Russian boot lickers though. They can fuck right off IMO.
It’s a pity because many of their policies are sound enough and some are innovative but this is a hard red line for me.
