Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to focus on a couple of aspects. The Tánaiste mentioned that the position of many EU countries in respect of a ceasefire has moved on significantly since October.

I acknowledge that he has been making strong and constructive statements in regard to working for peace and pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza. Unfortunately, the Irish Embassy in Israel seems to be signing up in May - I refer, for example, to a statement from 5 May - to statements which are still quoting the line from 13 October which stated unequivocally that Europe stands with Israel in response to the events of 7 October. The language used by Ursula von der Leyen in her 13 October statement, which seemed to offer a blank cheque, has been widely discredited. That statement was extensively quoted in a statement signed by an Irish delegate along with many other EU delegations on 5 May.

In that context, did the Irish Embassy in Tel Aviv seek political guidance from the Department or from officials before signing or issuing recent statements which undermine or almost counteract the work the Government seems to be doing at European Council meetings in trying to push for a more nuanced position? It is important to say that the position mentioned by the Tánaiste is not about taking sides but about international law. My understanding of neutrality is that it is not simply the absence of a military alliance or membership. Neutrality is the idea of applying international principles and international law equally to all on the basis of those principles and not on the basis of interests. It is not about having our allies and friends and thinking that different laws can apply to our friends and enemies. That is one of the reasons Ireland has been so effective internationally and at the UN. It is seen as a neutral country in that context. Our embassy in Tel Aviv built on its previous comments in another tweet yesterday. Are those statements being cleared?

There are concrete actions that Ireland can take. I am a co-sponsor of the occupied territories Bill. The Tánaiste mentioned the importance of separation. We should not be trading with occupied territories. This is a place where Ireland can give leadership. The arms embargo Bill seeks to ensure we are not complicit in the international arms transfer to Israel. We have had zero inspections of planes going through. There should be no exemptions for flights which may potentially be implicated in the arms trade and that arms channel to Israel.

The bulk of my questions are on that disarmament space. There are a few pieces here. I would like to speak about the dangers of some of the co-operation we are hearing about at European level. The fact is that not all of Europe operates on the basis of neutrality or principles. Many European countries have foreign policies and defence policies that are based on interests and assets. Indeed, Ursula von der Leyen has spoken about European interests. There is a danger that we could be complicit in military actions - or indeed the funding, researching or procurement of military actions - which are not in line with international law and its principles, but are pursued on the basis of the protection or promotion of interests. Many countries have a colonial past, with many colonial and former colonial interests. Germany has had a tenfold increase in the transfer of arms to Israel. The EU has agreed to a new ammunition fund, from which German factories will benefit, and Ireland is contributing to this. Indeed, it may be producing ammunition which we helped indirectly to co-fund, and which may be used in Gaza.

This is where it is really important for Ireland to have its unique space and to hold out, rather than simply falling into a simplistic approach. Will the Tánaiste clarify how we bring our neutrality into ensuring we are not complicit in all of this? On disarmament, how do we balance the narrative of promoting global disarmament at a time when there is a kind of rush towards armament? Frank Aiken was very strong and clear on importance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This idea that we all arm ourselves up and that leads to mutual defence is not actually what leads to security. On global disarmament and specifically in the Swiss peace meetings, there are concerns around point 9 of the ten-point Ukrainian plan around security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic space. That needs to be respecting of neutrality and the fact that certain countries which have a neutral position do not contribute through military participation.

On the issue of cluster munitions, Ireland as a neutral country without a defence industry was able to negotiate the global ban on cluster bombs. We have seen both Russian and Ukrainian use of cluster munitions. Ukraine has been given cluster munitions from the United States. Will Ireland raise the issue of the inappropriateness of the use of cluster bombs by all sides at that Swiss meeting? What is our unique voice going to be? What are we going to bring that is different from simply saying that we back the ten-point plan? Are we going to bring learning from our own peace process on the difficulties and the complicated shifts and moves that have to happen in order to achieve peace? Those are some of my questions.