Mr. Declan Power:

I will address the Senator’s questions. This will be as best I remember them, so he should feel free to correct me if I go off piste. We have not signed up to the Hague Convention, but neither have a lot of countries. It is important for us to understand that one of the things that give rise to the problems we have in some of the discussions on these matters is that people have very different interpretations and definitions of what neutrality is. The Senator mentioned the Swiss. It is interesting. I will offer a brief interpretation of the Swiss and the Swedes from my own perspective, having worked alongside a number of them. Aside from my military service, I have spent considerable time on deployment as what is termed a civil-military co-ordination officer within UN missions, which has given me an insight, both civil and military, into the capacities of different countries. The Swedes and the Finns were largely very much aligned with NATO long before they joined it.

A senior member of the Swedish security services told me - we knew each other for quite a while - after the invasion of Ukraine that when Sweden declared it was going to join NATO, it was for political reasons. It was to show the Russians there was pushback. It was very easy for Sweden to do that because it had everything in place to be able to align, co-operate and co-ordinate. I thought there was a lesson there for us in that Sweden had maintained a particular foreign policy option until it was no longer suitable for the country. For the good of its national security and people, then, it was able to throw the switch very quickly. I think this is something we need to be considering. Just because you prepare does not mean you have to go down that route. We prepare all kinds of fire defences, but not in the desire to see a fire.

I have one other thing to say that I think the committee will find interesting and some members may remember it.