Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The principal reason for my reservations about including a commitment to neutrality in the Constitution is that I am opposed to neutrality. All parliamentarians and parliaments in the free world should be free to express their views. We have a duty to do so openly and with freedom. In that vein, parliaments should have the choice or freedom to make decisions on whether they should support military action, wherever such action is proposed. Each case is different, as history has shown us. The absence of a reference to neutrality in the Constitution does not mean that Members of this Parliament approved of the invasions of Vietnam or Cambodia, for example, or, in more modern times, the events that have led to the situation in the Middle East. The majority of us do not support these actions.

It would be a mistake to include a neutrality clause in the Constitution because it would leave us in a situation where parliamentarians could talk all they like about these issues but could not do anything about them. To take the situation in Syria, for instance, and the ongoing situation at the Palestinian camp outside Damascus, is there any Member of the Dáil who is not appalled that thousands of Palestinians are dying of hunger? If such a clause were inserted into the Constitution, we could all come here on a Friday morning and talk about it, but we could do nothing for the people in question. Some disagree, but it seems clear that something should be done for them. There was, rightly, outrage following the recent bombardment of Gaza. What is happening in Syria is on a completely different scale, yet we do not hear a single word about it. It is extraordinary.

Let me give another example. We have the situation in north Africa where atrocities are being committed by various fundamentalist military groups. I do not care which religion they represent; what matters to me is the treatment by these organisations which seem to have easy access to arms and so on of children and women, in particular. It is appalling, but the West, including Ireland, turns away from it. We do not want to see or talk about what is happening, but it is a serious human rights issue. As I understand there is no longer anything in it for the super powers to intervene in north Africa, the West remains neutral about what is happening there, despite the slaughter of children.

Part of the problem is that there is double-speak in the West, including in Ireland. Some might not like the example I am going to give in this regard, but I will give it.

We saw what happened in Paris over the left-wing magazine when 17 journalists were murdered. Rightly, we condemned it and people went out and marched not only in Paris but here also. I did not go out to march as only a matter of weeks before in Pakistan more than 100 people, most of them children, had been killed in a school and there was no march in this city or any place else. What is the message being sent? If one's face is white and one's religion is Christian, we will all get excited about it, but if Muslim children in Pakistan are blown to smithereens, there will not be one word about it. There was not one word in this House. That is neutrality. Do we just talk and do nothing to intervene in these instances? I do not believe that.

See this speech in context