Part 1: Jim Gavin
1. Air Intelligence officer.
Fianna Fáil’s presidential candidate, Jim Gavin, served as an Air Intelligence staff officer in the Irish Air Corps during an exemplary 20-year career with Óglaigh na hÉireann. He was one of the most accomplished pilots in the Air Corps and rose to become Chief Flying Instructor at the Flying Training School.
The Air Intelligence wing of the Air Corps is vital to the security of the State. It has participated in missions to identify paramilitary arms bunkers from the air and has assisted the Gardaí in the aerial surveillance of paramilitary activities. Nowadays it monitors private airports that might be used to smuggle weapons and drugs into the country. The service also tracks shipping around the coast of Ireland.
2. Secret Talks to Release an Irish Aid Worker.
Jim Gavin served as Chief Pilot in the Ministerial Air Transport Squadron.
One of his notable achievements was the rescue and return home of an Irish aid worker.
Gavin was the military pilot who flew Micheál Martin to Africa for secret talks to secure the release of Sharon Commins of Goal in 2009.
Commins had been abducted along with her Ugandan colleague, Hilda Kawuki, by an armed group in Sudan. She was freed after negotiations.
Gavin piloted the government jet that carried Micheál Martin, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, who went to urge the local government to initiate negotiations for the hostages’ release.
Gavin also flew a group of Garda negotiators, Defence Forces personnel, including Army Ranger Wing operators, and diplomats to Darfur on the border of Western Sudan. They successfully worked to release Commins and her colleague.
Part 2: Secret arrangements.
3. Statement in the Dáil by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern
In 2005, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Dáil there was ‘cooperation and a pre-agreed understanding on those matters.’ He was referring – in an oblique manner – to cooperation with the British government which permits RAF flights through the airspace of the Republic.
Bearing his high level ‘insider’ status with the Air Corp in mind, it is fair to ask: did Jim Gavin know about any such arrangement while in the Air Corp?
If so, when precisely did he find out about it?
If so, what did he do about it?
Assuming the arrangement does exist, does he believe the public should be afforded a say in its continuation?
If the arrangement was not put in place in a legitimate and constitutional fashion, does he believe its existence can be concealed by the Official Secrets Act or similar legislation or by military rules and practices?
What will he do about it if he becomes President?
4. Constitutional controversy over secret arrangement
Jim Gavin is undoubtedly aware of the High Court action Senator Gerard Craughwell is pursuing to clarify whether a secret arrangement exists with Britain permitting Royal Air Force flights over the Republic.
Senator Craughwell maintains that any such agreement should have been presented before the houses of the Oireachtas. The failure to do so, he argues, breaches the Constitution.
One of the most important functions of the President of Ireland is to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.
This issue has not featured in the presidential campaign thus far.
Senator Craughwell believes that the arrangement originated after the attack on the Twin Towers in New York in September 2001.
He asserts that it permits the RAF to intercept rogue aircraft in Irish airspace.
His case first came before the High Court, where he claimed that any such arrangement between the two governments was unlawful and unconstitutional unless approved by the Irish people in a referendum.
In July 2024, the High Court dismissed the State’s application to have the preliminary issue of whether the case was justiciable heard in advance of the main proceedings.
The State appealed that decision, arguing before the three-judge Court of Appeal that the claims made by Senator Craughwell were ‘not justiciable’ and that the matters raised in court were political rather than legal.
The State contended it was in a ‘difficult position’ because its policy on sensitive State security meant it could neither confirm nor deny Senator Craughwell’s claims.
Counsel for the State argued that the factual claims in the pleadings were insufficient to meet the threshold for a trial.
Senator Craughwell’s lawyers pointed out that while the Government had never confirmed or denied the existence of the alleged international arrangement, Bertie Ahern stated in the Dáil there was ‘cooperation and a pre-agreed understanding on those matters.’
The State responded by stating the Taoiseach had not referred to an ‘agreement’ and that the only fact Senator Craughwell had produced was that a question had been asked and answered in the Dáil. ‘Bare assertion is not sufficient for the case to go further,’ the State argued.
However, the Court decided to let the case proceed. It has yet to be heard.
In the Court of Appeal, Gerard Humphreys SC, representing Senator Craughwell, said there was an arrangement between the two governments that could only be one requiring approval by the Irish people under the Constitution.
He added that the Government’s failure to exercise control over Ireland’s territorial waters and airspace breached the Constitution.
Humphreys said what was sought from the Government was either a denial or an admission of an agreement or treaty with British authorities.
He clarified that there was no requirement to disclose the details of any such deal and that neither he nor his client wished to endanger Ireland’s or the UK’s security. ‘The plaintiff [Senator Craughwell] was in the Irish and British army,’ he added.
Humphreys emphasized that then-Taoiseach Ahern’s comments in 2005 were made in response to an issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition and were answers given in the Dáil ‘on a very specific matter,’ which were not ‘bare assertions,’ as claimed by the defendants.
This issue is closely linked to Ireland’s policy of neutrality, a matter which has featured prominently in the Presidential election campaign.
(Interestingly, Humphreys is a former member of the Defence Forces. He served with Military Intelligence in the Middle East. His colleague in the action, Eoin O’Connor BL, is author of the legal textbook ‘National Security Law in Ireland’, described by its publisher as ‘the first book of its kind to provide an in-depth examination of the Irish laws concerning national security, in the context of the criminal trial. It covers a wide range of topics such as entrapment, surveillance and interception, the handling of informers, and the constitutional aspects of national security.’)
Part 3: Unwelcome Presidential Statements from Áras an Uachtaráin
5. A dangerous ‘drift’.
President Michael D. Higgins has stated that he believes there is a ‘drift’ away from neutrality. Clearly, for those who are pro-NATO, this was an unwelcome message.
In stark contrast to President Higgins, Jim Gavin told RTE’s Six One News that he favours the abolition of the Triple Lock, which governs the deployment of Irish Defence Forces personnel abroad. Under existing rules, any foreign deployment of 12 or more personnel can only take place with approval from the Dáil, the Government, and a United Nations mandate.
Gavin stated that Ireland should ‘have the confidence as a nation in terms of the Executive, the Government, the Oireachtas, to make decisions where we put our troops’.
These views are not typical of those expressed – at least out loud – by members of the Fianna Fail parliamentary party and the rank and file who support them. Obviously, Micheál Martin knew where Jim Gavin stood on them. Were Gavin’s views a factor in Martin’s ‘solo run’ in choosing him as his party’s candidate? Did Martin go outside the party to secure a candidate who was instinctively and sincerely open to change on neutrality?
Part 4: Distrust, not weakness.
6. Concern based on distrust.
People who support the retention of the Triple Lock find the reference to a lack of ‘confidence’ offensive.
Support for the Triple Lock is not generated by spinelessness; it stems from distrust.
President Michael D. Higgins has spoken about a dangerous foreign policy ‘drift’ from Ireland’s tradition of neutrality. The Triple Lock prevents this drift.
7. Distrust and the Forum on International Security.
The President made his remarks ahead of a Government Forum on International Security. It was designed as a series of public meetings to take place in Cork, Galway, and Dublin, aiming to prompt a national discussion on foreign, security, and defence policy.
The President told the Business Post that this timing was ‘playing with fire’ due to the drift in foreign policy, warning leaders to avoid ‘burying ourselves in other people’s agendas’ as policy is reviewed. Ireland should steer clear of the ‘strutting and chest-thumping’ of those promoting a ‘hold-me-back version of Irish neutrality’ who want the state to ‘march at the front of the band’ into alliances such as NATO. He added:
‘The most dangerous moment in the articulation and formulation of foreign policy and its practice, since the origin of diplomacy, has been when you’re drifting and not knowing what you’re doing. I would describe our present position as one of drift.‘
The President also questioned the role of the forum’s chairwoman, Dame Louise Richardson, the Irish academic who was previously vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford. She is now president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a $4.7 billion philanthropic foundation established in 1911. The President remarked that she came to the forum ‘with a very large DBE – Dame of the British Empire’. He added, ‘I think it’s grand but, you know, I think there were a few candidates I could have come up with myself.’
He noted that the forum members were mostly ‘the admirals, the generals, the air force, the rest of it,’ and ‘the formerly neutral countries who are now joining NATO’.
Defending the forum, Micheál Martin said panellists came from ‘a wide range of backgrounds and with a variety of expertise and experience, including in peacekeeping, peacebuilding, arms control and disarmament, and conflict resolution internationally.’ He cited the Government’s ‘fundamental duty’ to address the global situation as it is. ‘Political leadership means taking on the responsibility of putting in place policies and practices to keep this country, and its people, safe and secure.’
8. Richard Boyd Barrett TD, President of the Anti War Movement.
Richard Boyd Barrett, the People Before Profit TD, said the forum was heavily biased, dominated by people with pro-NATO or pro-EU militarisation views. He acknowledged that Dame Richardson had legitimate views but noted she was on record as a supporter of US foreign policy.
He described the forum as a ‘stitch-up’ and called for a balanced debate.
‘The forum is absolutely dominated by people who’ve worked in the military, have associations with NATO, or have a record of arguing for Ireland to move away from neutrality or towards NATO or into the project of EU militarisation.‘
He added that the Government had been moving closer to the NATO military alliance by stealth.
He argued the forum lacked balanced representation. ‘I am the President of the Anti War Movement,’ he said, and
‘we were not informed about the forum by the Government. Why aren’t the people who have a known record of campaigning against militarism, campaigning for neutrality, equally represented on the panels?‘
These interventions were enough to damage the credibility of the forum, which failed to move the dial on Ireland’s neutrality when it concluded its deliberations.
9. Miscalculation.
If such a forum had taken place in Britain, it is possible the media and the public might have been impressed.
Britain is still a class ridden and servile nation. It is a place where Prince Andrew, a member of the Royal family, was able to abuse Virginia Roberts, an underage girl who was trafficked to London for him by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, yet the police will not interview him. The British public, media and parliament have hardly raised an eyebrow about police inaction.
Another indication of the pro-Establishment culture of Britain is the extraordinary number of British prime ministers who were educated at one school, Eton College; twenty so far – five since the Second World War.
If the diplomats and military attaché at the British embassy, and their colleagues in London, anticipated a mood change over neutrality, they badly miscalculated the anti-establishment nature of the Irish public.
10. Micheál Martin, pro-NATO.
Micheál Martin has questioned whether the Triple Lock is ‘fit for purpose’ and has suggested that the UN Security Council veto should be reassessed.
Clearly, he is of the same mind as Jim Gavin, the man he has sent onto the pitch in the Presidential race. If Gavin wins, he will not cause any headaches for the government.
As the Forum was taking shape, Martin justified his stance, inter alia, on the basis that the Security Council of the UN has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. ‘The increasing use of the veto is limiting the council’s ability to fulfil its mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security,’ Martin said. ‘The forum needs to examine what this means for Ireland’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy, including the implications for the Triple Lock.’
11. Leo Varadkar and the need for cooperation.
Micheál Martin is far from the only recent government figure to ‘drift’ from neutrality.
Leo Varadkar was another drifter. While in office, he spoke of the heightened risks to subsea telecommunications cables and the electricity grid.
Varadkar raised the prospect of the Government joining NATO or EU programmes to protect critical infrastructure from attack. ‘No matter how much we spent on our Defence Forces or our Navy, we wouldn’t be able to do this on our own. So, we do need to co-operate,’ he said in 2023.
‘That means co-operating potentially with NATO allies through the Partnership for Peace, which we’ve been members of for over 20 years now, or through the EU’s PESCO arrangement, which is the EU’s structured co-operation on defence and security.‘
12. Simon Harris’ proposed Double Lock legislation.
While the public was not swayed by the Forum, the Government is pressing ahead with change.
Simon Harris, Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, wants to reform the Triple Lock. He has said he does not believe a reformed Triple Lock would impact Ireland’s policy of military neutrality.
He has proposed legislation, the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025, which would remove the need for UN Security Council and General Assembly approval when deploying more than 12 members of the Defence Forces overseas when they are serving as part of an international force.
The proposal has faced strong criticism from across the Opposition benches, amid concerns that it will undermine Ireland’s long-standing military neutrality.
Harris has countered this by arguing that it should be up to the people of Ireland to decide where Irish peacekeepers are deployed, adding:
“That’s how our democracy works, how many neutral countries work. The Triple Lock is not the norm in other neutral countries.”
13. The potential for public anger about the RAF arrangement is significant.
The public has yet to engage with Senator Craughwell’s High Court action against the Irish Government regarding the apparent deal with the British government allowing RAF jets to fly over Ireland.
Should Craughwell succeed in revealing an arrangement, mistrust in the Government will be substantial.
There must have been great disappointment in Government buildings and in London when he was returned to the Seanad.
Public anger has the potential to add to distrust over neutrality and engender opposition to the Government’s Double Lock legislation.
14. Distrust over shady European bodies.
There is also deep distrust of many of the opaque European bodies encroaching on the Irish Defence Forces such as the Partnership for Peace and PESCO, which are linked to NATO.
15. The Triple Lock did not interfere with Jim Gavin’s exemplary service with MINURCAT
Jim Gavin was Chief of Military Aviation with the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT), where he was responsible for overseeing air assets and coordinating international support. That UN mission was prompted by atrocities during a refugee crisis in the region.
Gavin brought credit to his country in this role. He performed in an exemplary fashion without any difficulty caused by the existence of the Triple Lock.
He eventually rose to the rank of Commandant and retired from the Defence Forces in 2011.
Jim Gavin, however, would undoubtedly argue that the Triple Lock has the potential to thwart similar missions in the future.
Part 5: Historical precedents.
16. The long term plan for the EU never involved an erosion of, or an end to, Irish neutrality.
In every referendum on the European Union (previously the European Community (EC)) and before that the European Economic Community (EEC)), the Irish public was assured that the European project was not a threat to Ireland’s neutrality.
On the contrary, the EEC/EC/EU was presented as an anti-war triumph – Germany and France were now allies. Europe was about peace and economic growth.
Ireland’s neutrality forms an integral part of the nation’s pact with Europe, one reiterated time after time for more than half a century.
17. Jack Lynch’s secret arrangement.
Yet, behind closed doors, a number of Irish politicians have considered changes in our policy towards strict neutrality. One offered our involvement in NATO in return for movement on reunification; another was openly pro-NATO on what he saw as its merits.
Jack Lynch resigned amid a controversy over British military aircraft overflights of the Republic.
In more recent times, the release of declassified documents have confirmed that Lynch agreed in principle to a proposal from Margaret Thatcher to provide an air corridor for British army helicopters on the southern side of the Border in 1979.
The archives reveal that Lynch and his deputy, Tánaiste and Minister for Finance George Colley, ‘had no basic objection’ to the British Prime Minister’s proposal. The discussions took place in the aftermath of IRA attacks that killed Lord Mountbatten and three others on his boat at Sligo, and 18 British soldiers at Warrenpoint, Co. Down, on the same day in August 1979.
At the time, objections to British overflights were raised by Lynch’s critics within the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party and helped precipitate his downfall as Taoiseach in December 1979. Charles Haughey defeated George Colley in the election for the party leadership.
18. Charles Haughey’s secret NATO offer.
It is now well known that in 1969, Charles Haughey — then Minister for Finance — sought to open dialogue with the British government, through Ambassador Andrew Gilchrist, about movement towards the ending of partition. On 4 October 1969, Gilchrist reported to London that Haughey had met him at his home, Abbeville, to argue that reunification of the island was the best solution to the overall problem. Haughey impressed upon Gilchrist that he was willing to sacrifice anything to achieve a united Ireland. He even expressed support for rejoining the Commonwealth and granting access to Irish military bases to the Royal Navy and NATO.
19. Garret FitzGerald and NATO.
Former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald of Fine Gael was always in favour of joining NATO.
As a young man, FitzGerald had been frustrated by John A. Costello’s first Inter-Party Government (1948–1951), led by Fine Gael, because it opted to leave the Commonwealth. So annoyed was he that he initially refused to join Fine Gael and even voted for Fianna Fáil before eventually returning to the Fine Gael fold where his father had once served in cabinet.
In his first autobiography, All In A Life, he recounted his disappointment with Costello:
‘My unhappiness was intensified when, a few months after the 1948 election, the Taoiseach announced the Government’s intention to declare a republic. At that time this clearly meant leaving the Commonwealth, for the evolution of which into a body of sovereign, independent states John Costello, as Attorney General, with people like my father, Paddy McGilligan, and Kevin O’Higgins, had worked so successfully in the years before 1932. Moreover, in the months that followed that announcement the Government also decided not to join NATO.‘
20. Garret FitzGerald and Bilderberg.
FitzGerald asked his first Cabinet if any of them were members of secret organisations. He did not disclose that he was a member of the secretive pro-NATO Bilderberg Group, which had been set up with CIA funds.
It is not known how or when FitzGerald became involved with this group. He attended its annual meeting at Cesme, Turkey, in 1975, while he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is not known if he went to Turkey (and no doubt other meetings) with Taoiseach Cosgrave’s knowledge and permission.
He definitely attended the 1977 Bilderberg meeting in Torquay, England.
In 1984, when he was Taoiseach, he attended the meeting in Stockholm.
In 1985, during his visit to the US, it was discovered that he was secretly attending a Bilderberg meeting in New York. Reports reached Ireland via the US media.
People attend the annual Bilderberg meetings by invitation only. Potential invitees are carefully vetted by the security and intelligence services of NATO member states.
Press baron Sir Anthony O’Reilly attended Bilderberg at this time too.
Others who attended Bilderberg include Margaret Thatcher, whom FitzGerald first met at a Bilderberg meeting, Airey Neave, Norman Tebbit, Henry Kissinger and various NATO military commanders and CIA and MI6 chiefs.
FitzGerald did not provide an account of what was discussed at these meetings, especially anything concerning Irish neutrality.
21. Garret FitzGerald and the Trilateral Group.
Garret FitzGerald was also a member of the Trilateral Commission. Not much is known about it – or its curious associations with the British, US, and Japanese banking institutions.
22. Garret FitzGerald and the Atlantic Institute of International Relations.
FitzGerald was appointed as a Governor of the mysterious Atlantic Institute of International Relations, based in Paris.
It promoted economic, political, and cultural relations among NATO alliance members and the international community in general. Based in a mansion at 120, rue de Longchamp in Paris, it was founded in 1961 and closed in 1988.
As an Irish politician, it is difficult to understand the basis for recruiting FitzGerald to this organisation.
The institute was approved by the NATO Parliamentarians Conference in June 1959, and opened formally on January 1, 1961. Former Belgian Prime Minister Paul van Zeeland was the first Chairman of the institute. Headquarters initially were at the Hôtel de Crillon, site of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Funding of $250,000 over five years was supplied by the Ford Foundation, with a further $800,000 given between 1969 and 1973.
In 1978, talks were held to consider a merger between the Atlantic Institute and the Trilateral Commission, but no merger proceeded.
On July 12, 1984, the offices of the Institute were bombed by the left-wing guerrilla group Action Directe, who described the institute as an ‘imperialist’ organization working for NATO.
Part 6: Accusing the Irish Nation of ‘Freeloading’.
23. Opinion Polls
Opinion polls consistently show that the Irish public favour neutrality. It is the basis of Ireland’s international reputation and our ability to wield soft power around the globe. If we joined NATO, that would instantly evaporate.
24. David Lammy, ‘delivering on European security [and] global security’ and Irish neutrality.
One of the most important trans-Atlantic security issues for NATO at the moment is the protection of undersea fibre-optic cables linking the US and Europe, many of which pass through Ireland.
The change of government in Britain from the Conservatives to Labour has not softened the UK’s attachment to NATO.
David Lammy, the Labour party’s Deputy PM, is a keen supporter of NATO.
Lammy claims his role model is Ernest Bevan, the trans-Atlanticist Labour Foreign Secretary who helped create NATO.
Lammy was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary by Keir Starmer in November 2021. No sooner had he taken the role, he set about reassuring his new allies in Washington that the Jeremy Corbyn era inside the Labour party was over and that UK foreign policy under Labour would not differ from that of the Tories.
In June 2022, Lammy attended the Bilderberg conference in Washington, D.C. Labour was still in opposition at the time. The cost of this trip amounted to £6,200 and was funded by Newbridge Advisory, a firm run by John Sawyers, MI6 chief from 2009 to 2014. At the time, Sawyers was a director of British Petroleum. Lammy disclosed the benefaction in his parliamentary returns later that month.
Lammy attended the next Bilderberg conference, held in Lisbon in 2023.
Immediately after his appointment as Foreign Secretary in 2024, Lammy announced he would be ‘delivering on European security [and] global security’.
The protection of undersea fibre-optic cables linking the US and Europe, many of which pass through Ireland, are high among the issues of concern to NATO and Lammy. Presumably Lammy and his colleagues must have Irish neutrality in mind when – as Lammy put it – ‘delivering on European security’.
25. Truth, fiction or scare tactics?
If the right-wing US media is to be believed, the Irish nation needs to wake up to the imminent threat posed by Russia.
On 1 July 2024, Bloomberg News reported that a
‘Russian sub had reportedly been chased away from Cork Harbour’ and that ‘Russian attack submarines have conducted missions around the Irish Sea twice since [2022]… an unprecedented move by the Kremlin that forced the UK military to take steps to protect British and Irish waters.’
26. Shame on freeloading Paddies.
If the Irish public cannot be frightened into softening its support for neutrality, shame and embarrassment might change our minds. MI5 and MI6’s favourite newspapers are already on the job. Please see: https://coverthistory.ie/2025/10/12/freeloading-paddies/
27. Distrust over NATO war crimes.
NATO was complicit in the bombing of Libya, during which tens of thousands of people died. Libya has since become home to slave markets and the hub for migrant trafficking from Africa to Europe.
NATO is also behind the Gladio network. There is evidence which indicates that Gladio, which was exposed in the Italian parliament decades ago, was involved in false flag bombings and atrocities in Belgium and Italy. Gladio is a controversial subject and readers are encouraged to research it independently.
Irrespective of the evidence of Gladio dirty tricks, Gladio is indisputably one of the most non-transparent organisations in Europe. Do we want our military emeshed with it?
An overview of NATO’s military actions – including the slaughter of civilians – can be found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
28. Drone warfare cables run through the Republic of Ireland.
The ‘drift’ away from neutrality has manifested itself in other spheres. If the Irish public knew that CIA and Pentagon drones were controlled from American bases to attack targets in the Middle East using cables that traverse Ireland, there would likely be even greater distrust of the Government over neutrality. Unfortunately, this is an area mainstream media is hesitant to broach.
US military and CIA craft have also conducted their activities having landed at Shannon airport.
29. Billions more of Irish taxpayers money for the Merchants of Death.
Does the Irish public want to spend an additional two or three billion euro on military procurement per annum?
Tom Sharpe OBE of The Daily Telegraph suggests that
‘It’s not as though Ireland would have to instantly start buying Poseidons either: there are any number of readily available, affordable (often uncrewed) options – air, surface and subsurface – that could help with this long before you have to consider specialist ships and aircraft.‘
Do we want to enrich the merchants of death with massively increased expenditure – billions on an annual basis?
The arms industry is notoriously corrupt, often bribing Middle Eastern and other governments and officials to secure sales. Do we want our politicians mixing with these type of people on a vastly expanded scale?
Of course, we need to maintain our defence capacity and keep abreast of evolving technology, but not in the region of additional billions spent annually.
Surely the money would be better spent on housing and health.
By fielding Jim Gavin as Fianna Fáil’s presidential candidate, Micheál Martin might have turned the race for Áras – in part at least – into a referendum on the ‘drift’ from neutrality.
30. Trust in the Judiciary.
Amidst all this, one institution has stood firm and dignified: the Irish judiciary. It has consistently demonstrated unwavering integrity and independence from the Government — a standard that, regrettably, cannot be claimed by some NATO member countries.
Time will tell if the mainstream media are as independent as the judiciary. Thus far no one has pressed either Jim Gavin, Catherine Connolly, or Heather Humphreys about their views on Senator Craughwell’s legal action.
David Burke is the author of four books published by Mercier Press:
These books can be purchased here: