8/13/2019 Editorial: Sabbaticals matter - their pay proves
it
1/1
TRINITY NEWS
Est 1953
towardssomerevival of thecollegiate spirit,
which modern conditions tend to discourage
t
HEAD TO HEAD: IRISH NEUTRALITY IN WWII
Irish neutrality defined us interms of our relationship to
Britain
EOIN SHEEHAN
NIALL MURPHY
SABBATICALS
MATTER THEIR PAY
PROVES ITLETS GET this straight before I begin. No, I donot have
long hair, a beard down to my bellybut-ton and a joint hanging out
of my mouth. As faras Im concerned, if I have to sit here and
imag-ine all the people, all 7 billion of us, then maybeits time to
pop the pill. So no, I dont really fit thestereotype. That does not
mean that I cant seethe virtue in neutrality though.
The first question which would immedi-ately spring to mind is;
how could Ireland, acountry seemingly determined to instil a
senseof Church imbued moral virtue into its people,
stand by and watch the persecution of millionsduring the Second
World War?
When Ireland decided to stay neutral in 1938,the decision was
praised from both sides of thedivide in Ireland.
In a country still scarred by the memories ofa divisive civil
war, British imperialist violence,the decision made eminent sense.
In 1938, itwould have been naive to presume that the allieswere the
good guys. Who could say that themassacre of Amritsar only a
handful of yearsearlier, and the degrading approach of
Britaintowards India and all of its colonies, represent-ed moral
virtue?
Furthermore, while nobody could havedoubted that anti-Semitism
was rife in Germanyat the time, when the war began the Holocausthad
yet to turn into the Final Solution. Sowhile Nazi Germany was no
doubt seen as beingmorally bankrupt, joining in with Churchill
andall the racist, imperialist policies which he andhis country
stood for, on the basis of that being
the morally correct thing to do, would have beenimpossible.The
important statement that Ireland sent
out to the world, and still sends, that war is un-acceptable as
a means of settling internationaldisputes and imperial rivalries,
embodies the
kind of morality that reasonable people sub-scribe to. Had every
other country followed ourexample, the war would not have had to
hap-pen. In the face of the threat of a British inva-sion for not
joining in the war effort, the braveryinvolved in staying neutral
becomes a lot easierto appreciate.
Irelands small size and relatively impro-vised armed forces made
the decision all themore morally acceptable. Lets stop and
imaginefor a minute (yes thats right, another referenceto Herr
Lennon).
When the Irish government would have firstheard of the horrors
being committed duringthe holocaust, the war would have been in
fullswing. With not enough supplies to feed its ownpeople, and an
army of about 10- 15,000 soldiers,a few WWI tanks and a handful of
rusty fighter
jets, the question surely arises, what use couldIreland have
been in bringing WWII to a soonerconclusion?
A headline in the Irish Times stating thatthe Irish Air force
destroys the Germans andfrees thousands of Jews from certain death
wasabout as likely as Churchill stating his desireto see a free and
independent India. To sendenough Irish troops and soldiers into the
war toactually make the bother of it worthwhile wouldalso
necessarily have involved conscription, adisgusting violation of
the rights of man andwould have led to certain death for most.
Andwhat of the benefit of this sacrifice to the alliedcause? Zilch.
Zero. Nada. Absolutely nothing.Would it not have been immoral, in
those cir-
cumstances, to march them to their death?If Minister Shatter
thinks that sending youngmen to be cannon fodder for an imperialist
armyis morally virtuous, then I think he should re-sign. Now, where
did I leave my sandals?
IRISH NEUTRALITY in WWII was defend-ed then and is defended
today as a necessarypolicy of self-preservation by the Irish
State.Apologists for De Valera point to the dangers ofpicking sides
in the war: what would stop one ofthe belligerents from invading
us? Would it nothave been an embarrassing loss of sovereigntyto
open up the t reaty ports to allied shipping?
Primary School textbooks tend to attempt tosoothe the conscience
of some by arguing thatthe Irish State did its bit; did we not send
firetrucks to Belfast following its bombing? Did wenot allow the
British to build a radar facility inthe South? Yet all this misses
two crucial conse-quences of our neutrality in WWII.
Firstly, our efforts to maintain a ne utral pol-icy placed us on
the wrong side of history. Andsecondly, we yet again allowed
ourselves to bedefined internationally in terms of our
relation-ship with Britain and missed the opportunityto become part
of a wider, global and Europeancommunity.
Attempting to justify wars in terms of theirmorality is always
dangerous, witness the pro-ponents of the Iraq war as they tried to
justifythat action in terms of good versus evil. Butvery
occasionally a conflict threatens to alterthe balance of power and
the nature of the in-ternational system so drastically, that one
can
argue its being as a moral crusade. WWII is onesuch rare
case.
Britain cannot be considered morally equiv-alent with Nazi
Germany. That it was our ownlong held grievances and victimization
com-plex that prevented us from taking a position isshameful. The
phantom of a potential GermanInvasion was just that. Hitler had no
strategicreason for invading Ireland and was alreadylooking to wrap
up operations in Western Eu-rope as quickly as possible to
concentrate hisfull attention on Barbarossa. The Irish
policyinvolved watching closely as the two sidesfought, only
committing once one clearly hadthe upper hand.
What is morally reprehensible about Irishneutrality is that we
allowed our grievancesagainst Britain to cloud the simple reality
thatNazi Germany threatened to permanently alterthe map of Europe
while spreading Nazism,Dictatorship and Racism across its area of
op-erations. Such moral cowardice places Irelandfirmly on the wrong
side of History.
Our failure to help the war effort forced usto accept scraps off
the table when the MarshallPlan was implemented to reconstruct
post-warEurope. At the creation of the UN, Irelandsapplication for
membership was vetoed by theUSSR on account of our neutrality in
the war.De Valeras infamous visit of condolence to Am-
bassador Hempel in the aftermath of Hitlersdeath caused outraged
in the United States andelsewhere.
In short, the post-war period saw the worldreconfigured. The
Marshall Plan and increasedEuropean harmony foresaw the need for
closeEuropean integration to forestall potential con-flict in the
future. The UN offered new hopesfor world peace. Yet in all this
Ireland remainedalone, a bitter, resentful and
backward-lookingisland, dogged in its refusal t o move beyond
theperceived injustices of the past.
While links between Europe and the UnitedStates were cemented,
while the foundations of
the European project were set, Ireland sat sulk-ing on the si
delines. What could we have done?Militarily, very little. But
opening up the ports toAllied convoys may well have saved thous
andsof merchant seamens lives. U-boats would nothave had as free a
hand as they did to engagein Irish waters. But more importantly, we
couldhave been part of something bigger; we couldhave defined
ourselves in terms broader thansimply being Britains put upon
neighbor. I do
believe there is such a thing as being on thewrong side of
History. Irish neutrality in WWIIis one episode which will be seen
in the futureas holding back Irelands evolution into an out-ward
looking, modern, democratic state.
20EDITORIAL
TRINITY NEWS
The decision to stay neutral waspraised by both sides of the
divide
AS ELECTION season is upon us once more thenetworking, flyering,
debates and disputes start inearnest this week. For the candidates,
friends will bemomentarily made and rivalries wrought for longer.
Forthe rest of Trinity, the campaign period signals anythingfrom a
mild annoyance to the political highlight of the
college year especially for those who face workingwith the
sabbaticals from September.
Previous election results show that the former groupprevails the
turnout never commands more than 25%of the student body. This is
not exclusive to Trinity UCD voters constitute just over 25% of its
students,with NUIG languishing at the bottom at just
17%turnout.
Why is this the case? A Trinity News vox populishowsthat the
average student feels sabbatical officers havenot got a great
enough power to significantly affect theircollege lives. Indeed,
the recent de-politicisation of theStudents Union marked by a
willingness to compro-mise on the fees issue and reluctance to toe
the hyper-
bolic USI line is testament to the real influence of theUnion
sabbaticals.
The officers are in a position to compromise on, not todictate,
college policy. They are there to represent whatthey conceive the
student opinion to be not to enforceit. And even in this they do
not always succeed, asopinion is bound to be divided among the
16,000student body.
This has caused many students to question the needfor this level
of Union representation. Supporting fivefull-time officers, along
with the other StudentsUnion expenses (9,200 class representative
training,for example) does not come cheap. This is especiallytrue
for students who, despite footing the bill, feel littleconnection
or loyalty towards the Students Union. Callit a clique or ivory
tower for many, House 6 goings-onhave little impact on their
everyday lives.
Yet a complete lack of a Students Union would makestudent
interests highly vulnerable. While a collegelike the University of
Limerick proves that a nationalunion of students is superfluous to
representing theirinterests, this is no mandate to forego
representation atuniversity level.
It is important for a union to dedicate itself torepresent its
students interests at board meetings andother decision-making
forums in short, to make thestudent voice heard. While some may
argue that thisdoes not warrant a nine to five position, the
imperativefor representation remains.
Furthermore, mechanisms for supporting studentwellbeing are
crucial to those facing difficulty in thisuniversity. While Trinity
does admirable worksupporting students in dire straits, the Union
providesa more like-minded approach to welfare and hardshipwhich is
a crucial resource to those mostvulnerable in the college
community.
Back to the elections while turnout might be low,the onus is on
those who do vote to create a Unionwhich embraces the above ideals.
The very fact that theyreceive such healthy renumeration (despite
assurancesthat they are paid less than the minimum wage, thisis a
great deal more than many graduates will receive
in the coming months, without the bonus of accom-modation), is
testament to their importance in Trinity.The days ahead for all
eleven candidates will be a hardslog but the chance to represent
16,000 of their peers isarguably a job worth fighting for.
EDITORS NOTE: While this newspaper contains advertisementsfor
individuals campaigning for Students Union sabbatical
officerpositions, Trinity Newswould like to make clear that it does
notendorse a particular candidate and remains unbiased in its
capacityas Dublin Universitys independent newspaper.
t
