Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach has opened up a set of questions. To a certain extent, the war in Ukraine has changed a lot of things. In many ways the Windsor agreement is not disconnected from the geopolitical issues of the day. In other words, because of the war in Ukraine, the European Union and the United Kingdom Government recognise that they need to be more in harmony and have a much deeper and constructive relationship post-Brexit than having constant rows about the protocol, because there are bigger issues around energy crisis because of Ukraine; the war itself, migration and so on. When I was Taoiseach, I said at that time we needed a debate and reflection on this because people were coming at different angles with different perspectives and unfortunately some people saw the Ukrainian war already as an opportunity. Some on the far left said NATO was using it as an opportunity to weaponise. This is incredible stuff really when you think of the fact that this is a war that nobody wanted bar Russia, which thought everybody would cave in and quietly condemn and do nothing about. That is the great miscalculation that was made. Yes, we need to reflect and debate what this means for the new order. What worries me more in addition to that is the more polarised debate that is taking place globally. I think we should see ourselves very much of as part of a rules-based country that fundamentally believes in multilateralism and, from a policy perspective or positioning, sees our diplomatic stances through that lens; key to the maintenance and protection of the multilateral based order. That stretches right across to Asia and Africa as well. If we had those principles, they are the strongest weapon to reduce the influence and the growth of what I would call those who are willfully breaching the multilateral order on an increasing basis. The polarisation that is emerging will also have implications for us too, not just around neutrality but broader issues around technologies, as we all know, and a more polarised world. I hope the world comes back from that. It is a concern I have. To a certain extent that was evident at the Munich Security Conference as well.

To add to the troubles, there are very significant issues around climate change and its impact on many countries in the global south. There is conflict arising from that and too much conflict arising around the world more generally. If we have an informed constructive discussion about this in the fullness in time, I think Ireland can chart a way forward for ourselves as a country but around a continuum of policies and issues. It is not just about military alignment itself. We have partnership for peace with NATO, for example, which we have had for 20 odd years, and the permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, project and so on. Again, there are intelligent ways to proceed here without reducing it all to just one single issue. That is the point I would make. We are not politically neutral - we never have been - and we are not morally neutral. We are not, however, members of any military alliance.

On the Az Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, again we are concerned about renewed fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan in September of last year. Approximately 280 soldiers from both sides died. We are concerned about the obstruction of the Lachin corridor since 12 December. That complicates issues in terms of a comprehensive peace agreement. We appreciate the work of the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, on this front, in facilitating dialogue between President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan. Hopefully, with the CSDP mission as well, we can proceed. There have been some good measures and engagements at the EU political community level last year which brought both together in the one forum which was interesting. I think that political community forum will be useful in the future for dealing with issues of this kind and in getting people under one tent, so to speak, or in the one room over two days to prevent conflict in the future.

On Senator Craughwell's points, we dealt with the Windsor agreement. On that issue of maps and counselling, there are two avenues. There is the reconciliation fund we operate in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I will ask officials to engage with the Senator on that. The shared island fund announced a call recently to civil organisations. Approximately €2.5 million was made available in that call for organisations to make a submission to seek funding. It stretches right across the full spectrum of society, community support, voluntary measures and so on. That is one potential route or there is the reconciliation fund. Those are two routes for the Senator to pursue. I invite him, or the organisations on a cross-Border basis, or whatever, if they can get a proposal together with a set organisation, we will certainly take on board what he has said.

I like to think I have dealt with that neutrality issue. Have I?