Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is absolutely reprehensible that a person in that position would make such comments. At every opportunity available to any of us as elected representatives, particularly those in the Government, we should remind him those comments are reprehensible.

Since the 1930s and 1940s, we have never sought to have the type of neutrality that, for example, Belgium had before 1914, for the very good reason that it proved not to be worth the paper on which it was written. We already have strong provisions that protect our position. The second Nice treaty referendum introduced a provision in Bunreacht na hÉireann affirming that Ireland could not partake in common defence without further amendment to the Constitution. This gave constitutional effect to the solemn commitment in the national declaration by Ireland at Seville that a referendum would be held in Ireland on the adoption of a decision taken by the EU to move to a common defence. The Seville declaration clarified there was nothing in the treaty of Nice or previous treaties that posed a threat to Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.

For Ireland to join a common defence, the people would first have to vote to delete or amend this constitutional prohibition. At the Seville summit in June 2002, the State secured the agreement of our EU partners to declarations that reflect Ireland's position on military neutrality and European Security and Defence policy. Two declarations were included in the Nice treaty to underline the Irish position. The national declaration by Ireland states (i) Ireland is not party to any mutual defence commitment; (ii) Ireland is not party to any plans to develop a European army; and (iii) Ireland will take a sovereign decision, on a case-by-case basis, on whether the Defence Forces should participate in humanitarian or crisis management tasks undertaken by the EU, based on the triple lock of UN mandate, a Government decision and approval by Dáil Éireann.

The declaration of the European Council at the time confirmed that Ireland's policy of military neutrality is in full conformity with the treaties, on which the European Union is based, including the treaty of Nice, and there is no obligation arising from the treaties which would or could oblige Ireland to depart from that policy.

These are solemn political declarations of a formal kind which are deposited at the United Nations. We stand by these declarations and we also stand by the triple lock.

Ireland has always conferred fundamental importance on the United Nations since we joined more than 58 years ago, and working with other UN members we have supported international action in areas such as disarmament, peacekeeping, development and human rights. We are strong and committed supporters of collective security through the United Nations. This has been the stated policy of both our party and of many Governments over the past 58 years. Alongside this, we have endorsed and supported the primary role of the United Nations Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with the charter of the United Nations. This emphasis on the UN is not one we should lightly discard. Although we are conscious of the opposition to the triple lock from some military and political commentators, we believe there is overwhelming public support for the mechanism, and we strongly support it. The legitimacy conferred by a UN mission bolsters the safety and security of our Defence Forces when they participate in peacekeeping missions. No mission will be without risk but the absence of the blue hat would heighten that risk.

The United Nations needs restructuring and it is not as effective as we all want it to be. There is a need for completely new architecture with regard to participation and the right of veto in the UN Security Council, as well as the automatic inclusion of some member states on that council. Since its establishment, the body has not reflected the political developments of the past number of decades, with some continents now much more powerful than they were at the post-war configuration of the United Nations.

Whereas neutrality was the given policy of successive Governments prior to World War II, it was that conflict that put it to the test. In 1940, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Éamon de Valera, told this House:

we have chosen the policy of neutrality ... because we believed that it was the right policy for our people. It is the policy which has been accepted, not merely by this House, but by our people as a whole, and nobody who realises what modern war means, and what it means particularly for those who have not sufficient air defences, will have the slightest doubt that that policy was the right one, apart altogether from any questions of sympathy on one side or the other.

He went on to say with regard to the United Nations:

It is the small nations particularly that should welcome an organisation which is intended to give collective security. But the small nations, just like the big ones, will, if they become members of such an organisation, have to be really loyal members of it. They will have to make up their minds that the obligations which are necessary, if the organisation is to be successful, will be fulfilled and carried out.

Our neutrality from 1939 to 1945 was feasible only because we had regained control of the treaty ports from Britain in 1938. When discussing this in the Dáil in the immediate aftermath of securing the return of those ports, de Valera quite rightly emphasised sovereignty rather than neutrality. As has been pointed out in this House before, the war from 1939 to 1945 showed clearly that military neutrality by itself is not sufficient to maintain conditions of peace. It is important that we recognise the importance of neutrality in our country over the years. On behalf of my party, I reiterate that the people are sovereign in this country. Bunreacht na hÉireann provided for the sovereignty to reside in our people through our electoral system and that is where sovereignty should remain.

See this speech in context