Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Due to time constraints, I will avoid getting into a conversation as to what we mean by neutrality, but that might be an interesting debate for another day. I presume we are not neutral when it comes to international terrorism. We are not neutral when people get blown up on the underground in London or in Spain. We are not neutral about cyber-crime, which has the capacity to cause major disruption in this country and others. We are not neutral when we see conflict in other countries where we believe an intervention is required to bring about either peace enforcement or peacekeeping. The term "neutral" is often bandied about without being analysed. We are neutral in the sense that we are not aligned with any other army and will not declare war on anyone. We are neutral for historical reasons in particular circumstances. Within the European and treaty framework, our position is well stated and understood.

In dealing with defence issues, what is our involvement with NATO? We are part of Partnership for Peace, which provides for peacekeeping and enforcement in co-operation with EU member states that are members of NATO. EU member states that are not members of NATO participate in Partnership for Peace and NATO is a lead organisation in the context of that arrangement. For that reason there is a relationship, but we are not formally part of NATO in that sense. There is connectivity. A total of 21 members of the EU are members of NATO, while others are not. In the context of Europe itself, Finland, Sweden and Austria are neutral states, but they have no difficulty in engaging. There is a very important and constructive engagement which centres around peacekeeping and enforcement and playing our role in security issues in Europe, which is very important. We cannot be in a position, as a state, in which we seek financial help from Europe but are not willing to help others who have difficulties. As a state, we are recognised as possibly contributing above our weight. The type of thing we do is ably described by the training mission in Somalia, which is a UN-authorised mission co-ordinated at EU level, with a member of the Irish Defence Forces effectively in charge of a multinational group training young people to be efficient soldiers in Somalia to support the government there and to address the terrorism that has bedevilled that country. When I meet the Secretary General of NATO, I do not need to enter into a diatribe about our neutrality, what we are not doing and what we are against. It is a constructive engagement on issues of common interest based on our playing a meaningful role in European security and defence policy in the EU context. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and I are absolutely ad idem on these issues. We both attended the defence meeting that took place a couple of weeks ago, to which I referred. The morning and lunchtime sessions concerned defence. At the lunchtime session, the foreign Ministers joined the defence Ministers, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was there for the conversation we had about Mali and the Council Ministers' meeting to be held. A foreign affairs meeting was held thereafter.

We must adopt an approach that is realistic. The pooling and sharing issue is important and indirectly relevant to all of this. For example, in south Lebanon, we are engaged with troops from Finland on a UN mission rather than an EU one. The first 12 months of that mission involved Irish troops solely and then the Finns joined us. Pooling and sharing simply means that to an extent, when one is engaged in a joint peacekeeping and enforcement operation, everyone has equipment that is similar. If one is working with Finnish troops, there is no point in having two communications systems that are incompatible with each other. It also ensures that one has similar types of arms. I will return to the point about armaments made by the Deputy. In the current financial environment, there may be a particular type of resource that our Defence Forces would need on another UN mission. It may not be financially necessary for us to acquire that particular resource at the moment but it may be that, in conjunction with a defence force from another state, members are trained in the use of that resource and it might be made available on a sharing basis. There are issues of that nature that are important.

In respect of armaments, from talking to Catherine Ashton, I am aware that she knows where Ireland stands on all of these issues. We are playing an important and meaningful role. One issue we are looking at is whether our naval service might play some role in Operation Atalanta off the Horn of Africa, where very substantial work has been done and where lives have been saved. Occasionally, we need to get real on the issue of munitions. When we send peacekeepers to southern Lebanon or Bosnia-Herzegovina or when members of our Defence Forces are in different parts of the world where they may be at risk, they do not go there with water pistols. Our Defence Forces need modern resources that allow them to fulfil their capabilities at home and abroad and play a meaningful role in UN missions. This means that they must have access to armaments and other resources, appropriate vehicles, tanks and whatever particular type of resource is required, such as guns or defensive protective resources. Europe does need an armaments industry. There is no point in having defence forces with bows and arrows, because we would be putting them in danger. There is a need to be realistic about this. Of course, since time immemorial, bad people have obtained armaments and done bad things with them, but to defend our sovereignty we need a defence force that has a degree of capability and sufficient armaments. Therefore, these must be manufactured somewhere. This country does not manufacture arms but Europe has an interest in ensuring this industry works efficiently. We have an interest in ensuring that if there are resources we require, we can get them without unnecessary expense.

In the maritime area, interesting work is being done in Haulbowline, with many start-up businesses and research and development into the type of resources used by the Naval Service, whether for diving or identifying threats at sea. A range of work is being done in this area.

Resourcing our Defence Forces and other defence forces has manufacturing and jobs benefits to Ireland, as has our doing much more in this area, particularly in providing the type of resources genuinely needed in peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions which are common to defence forces throughout the world. It is an area in which we could be doing more. We are starting to do some things and we have a meaningful role to play.

Members may be interested to know that one of the issues to be examined at the informal defence meeting to be held in February is how the European Union, as a Union as opposed to simply under other mechanisms, can play a more co-ordinated role in UN peacekeeping and peace enforcement, and we hope a representative from the high leadership end - if I can put it that way euphemistically - of the UN will attend this meeting. It would help us stamp our individual identity on what we want to see in peacekeeping and how we want to see greater connectivity and co-ordination between EU member states, and the EU as an entity, with the United Nations.