Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Government welcomes this morning's debate and I have listened closely to the many points raised in the course of the discussion.

At the outset, I totally refute what Deputy Ross said about the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Charles Flanagan. Since the Minister took office, he has successfully involved himself in the Stormont House Agreement, which was a significant advancement in Northern Ireland affairs, and produced, "The Global Island: Ireland's Foreign Policy for a Changing World", a comprehensive progressive policy, and defines our neutrality as well. I wish to clarify that at the beginning. Deputy Ross was disingenuous and unfair about Deputy Charles Flanagan's record.

The Government is committed to maintaining the policy of military neutrality which has long been a key policy of successive Governments. We have most recently re-confirmed this commitment in the foreign policy review I mentioned, which states that "military neutrality remains a core element of Irish foreign policy".

Our military neutrality does not mean that we take an isolationist approach to international affairs. On the contrary, it is part and parcel of our active and principled engagement in contributing to international peace and security. It enhances perception of Ireland as an honest broker which can be trusted to act impartially.

We actively seek to promote political solutions to problems and to conflict in accordance with the guiding principles set out in the United Nations Charter, in particular, the principle that all UN members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means. We have a proud tradition of principled engagement on issues such as development, UN peacekeeping, disarmament and human rights.

We seek, through our programme of development assistance, to tackle underlying factors that may contribute to or exacerbate conflict. We work to help others to build their capacity to comply with international law and human rights. The tangible improvements that we have helped to bring about to the lives of others less fortunate are there for all to see.

Irish troops participate in peacekeeping and, where necessary, peace enforcement roles to maintain or restore peace and respect for international norms. The Defence Forces personnel have earned a well-deserved international reputation for their contribution which extends, unbroken, for more than 50 years. They put their lives on the line in order to contribute to collective security.

At the heart of this debate are two questions: first, is it necessary to incorporate provisions on military neutrality in the Constitution and, second, is it desirable to do so? I would answer "No" to both questions.

It is not necessary to incorporate a commitment in the Constitution because military neutrality is a policy to which, as I have said, we have been and remain firmly committed. Moreover, we already have in the Constitution commitments under Article 29 to "the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations" and to "the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes".

Our EU membership is entirely consistent with our military neutrality. The Common Security and Defence Policy is focused on equipping the Union to contribute to peace and stability in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The EU treaty makes clear that there will be no common defence without the unanimous agreement of the European Council and furthermore, the Constitution provides that Ireland cannot participate in such a common defence. This provision could not be changed without a referendum.

Ireland is not a member of NATO and has no intention of becoming one. We participate in Partnership for Peace to ensure the Defence Forces can co-operate more effectively and safely with contingents from partner countries in increasingly challenging UN operated or mandated missions led by the European Union and NATO. These include other non-NATO members such as Austria, Finland and Sweden. As with these other countries, we decide on the scope of our engagement in accordance with our military neutrality.

In view of our continuing commitment to military neutrality and the constitutional and legislative safeguards in the triple lock, as outlined by the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, the Bill would bring no added value. Amending the Constitution is not something that should be done lightly. I have no doubt that Deputy Seán Crowe proposed the Bill for well intentioned reasons. I am sure many of the supporters of his party which were mentioned in The Irish Timesyesterday would not agree with the Bill either. We must be conscious of potential effects which cannot be foreseen. Placing these provisions in the Constitution could restrict Ireland's capacity to play an active role in UN mandated actions. We would risk tying the Government's hands when it needed to respond quickly and effectively to urgent situations. These are outcomes which neither the Government nor the people would support, but we must be mindful of the potential consequences.

Much has been said about the Government's policy on the use of Shannon Airport by United States aircraft. It has been argued that Shannon Airport is, in effect, a US base. That is simply not true. The Government permits foreign military aircraft to land at Shannon Airport only where they comply with a series of conditions, including that the aircraft are unarmed, carry no arms or ammunition and do not engage in intelligence gathering. These are strict conditions by any measure. Our policy on Shannon Airport has been maintained under successive Governments for decades; it is almost as old as our policy of military neutrality. There is no incompatibility between the two. These conditions are applied to all foreign military aircraft, including those of the United States. The large numbers of applications received from the United States are due to geographical factors. We do not vary the conditions depending on the government involved and there is no favouritism. We are objective in applying the same regime to all governments.

In the time available to me it has only been possible to give a brief response to the Bill. I thank all those who contributed to the debate, but I advise them that the Bill is unnecessary and should be opposed.

See this speech in context