James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have waited patiently for my slot. I presume that Deputy Carthy has used up his first, second and third round-robin slots in his long engagement.

I congratulate the Tánaiste on the international work that he has done on the world stage. That is something on which I get feedback locally. The Tánaiste is leading from the front, which is welcomed and recognised by the vast majority of Irish people. Well done on that.

I apologise to the committee as I must leave shortly as I am Chair of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, which is due to meet next door in a few minutes. I thank the Leas-Cathaoirleach for facilitating me to ask my questions early in this meeting.

In terms of the planned divisions that were raised in the contribution made by Tánaiste, I want to touch on a number of them. In the context of working with others and forming alliances, that is beyond doubt. There must be a degree of realism on all sides of the House about the hostile actors that are present in the debate, both nationally and internationally, and those malign influences that want to play a part, and are already active here, in Irish politics, EU politics and international politics. It is very hard for any nation state to stand alone now. The idea that a nation State can stand entirely in isolation from others yet hope to robustly defend its own democracy and sovereignty is an antiquated concept. Recently we saw our near neighbours, the UK, suffer an attack on its defence systems. The UK Government did not name the protagonist but it was well documented at whom the finger was pointed. Recently, there was a French report that identified interference in our own electoral system in terms of online activity. It was quite an amateurish attempt but it was the one that was found. There are probably multiple other attempts that have not been detected but are beavering away. An interesting statistic has emerged from the Newtownmountkennedy protests in recent weeks, which showed that 60% or more of the online activity that co-ordinated, supported and cheered on the protest emanated from the United States or other jurisdictions but certainly not at home. I have no doubt some locals were involved, and certainly on the ground, but in terms of the online presence there were some really nefarious, hostile actors whipping things up there.

The Tánaiste mentioned Georgia in his opening remarks. Albeit Georgia is at a more advanced stage, and geographically is a lot closer to Russia and within Russia's sphere of influence, Georgia is an example of how a relatively stable and progressive State that is moving towards EU accession and membership, and embracing democratic values, can be turned around and have internal conflict generated by actors from outside who do not want a democratic liberal State to emerge. We hope that the environment there settles down in due course. The situation in Georgia should serve as a warning to all of us that we cannot take democracy for granted anywhere in this country or in the EU.

We are seeing a pattern whereby some of the hostile actors, including hostile states, are weaponising our own systems against us in terms of our human rights protections, judicial systems and systems of litigation. We have put many instruments in place to defend human rights to protect vulnerable citizens but they are being weaponised against us by others who would seek to flood our courts and systems. We see that with immigration at the moment. There are many other examples where the west is eating itself and there are many people who are celebrating, enjoying and playing a part in that.

I note the areas of collaborations that have suggested in the NATO's PfP-type of alliance. They seem to accord exactly with the ones that I think we do need to focus on and they are very similar to the ones identified by Dame Richardson in her report on the forum. I refer to things like maritime security, cybersecurity and data security. These are all items that Dame Richardson has highlighted as needing attention and I completely agree.

Last year, this committee held discussions on the Russian activity on our subsea cable intersections. The committee debates the issue at that time. We know that the cable is a weak spot but it is the critical cable that links North America to western Europe. From an economic perspective, we can have all the discussions we want about neutrality, alliances and non-alliances around these tables and in other venues but if we want to be serious about sovereignty then we must control our own destiny, which means our economic destiny. Ireland is home to 40% of the EU's data and many more multinational and successful indigenous and international technology companies. Therefore, we need to be able to secure and protect those datasets as part of our economic package. If we cannot do that then we are on a hiding to nothing and we might as well surrender our sovereignty because we need to be able to defend ourselves. Defending our borders is not just about having paratroopers stationed on the mountains or a ship in the harbour. It is actually about data cybersecurity intelligence and of course all the different channels that operate that, which are far more important than the conventional means.

As I said, it is naive that some people seem to suggest that we can do these things on our own. I think collaboration is always a good thing. Ní neart go cur le chéile, which means strength in unity and the more of that then the better we will do in any event such as sharing facilities, knowledge and strategic alliances.

As I touched on at the start, the democratic values I and probably most of us in this Chamber hold dear are under threat internationally and around the globe. Democracy is in crisis. The new world order that we thought we had - the end of history and so forth as outlined by Dr. Francis Fukuyama - is not taken for granted anymore and democracy is crumbling in very many jurisdictions. We are seeing that happen around the world and we need to stand firm in our opposition to that. Certainly when it comes to these debates I stand with western liberal democracy. I do not stand with Putin, Al-Qaeda or Hamas, which I hope is fairly clearcut and we should not in any way be confused about that.

I noticed that the Tánaiste touched upon what is sometimes labelled a NATO proxy war, or something of that nature. The term is a bit of nonsense and the Tánaiste shared my view on it. The idea is thrown about that because the Iraq war was a complex, unpopular one, all of NATO and, by extension perhaps, the EU were somehow intermingled. It was a war in which a couple of NATO member states happened to be involved; it was not a NATO war. A couple of EU states were also involved but it was not an EU war either. The last NATO wars were after the events of 11 September 2001, when there was an international response supported by a UN motion to set up an international solidarity force, which ended up playing a part in Afghanistan in the early 2000s, and before that in Kosovo, when NATO intervened to prevent the bloodshed and genocide happening in the Balkans at the time. That is action I would fully support. President Clinton was the leader in the US at the time and was supported by European allies. The decision was the right one at the time, and I would not have any hesitation in endorsing such a decision or being afraid if it had to be made again in a similar situation. We have to be realistic about these situations.

We have to realise there is connection between events at home and those abroad. If we are going to complain about the cost of living and shipping and why materials are so expensive, we must note one reason is that shipping lanes are disrupted, blocked and hijacked in many places, such as the Gulf and the Horn of Africa. We have had events such as the container ship getting stuck, but we have also had Houthi rebels shooting at passing traffic. There is a direct effect. Prices are high at home because shipping containers are being blocked in making the passage through the Gulf from producer countries in the Far East. That region is not isolated or remote. The world is an extremely connected entity now, and that is how we operate.

I welcome the fact that the EU has authorised a defensive mission, ASPIDES, to patrol the area in question. No more than subsea cables, global shipping comprises one of the arteries of the world economy, in which we are a very important participant and exposed as a state with an open economy. I know NATO patrols the Gulf and other regions and has had similar operations. If we are to prevent crises abroad, at our own borders and in our State, we need to play a positive, constructive role abroad, and that involves working with others. I would welcome any views the Tánaiste may wish to share. I thank the Chair for letting me contribute early because I will shortly have to go next door for a debate.