Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is a simple question at the heart of what we are debating today with Deputy Wallace's Bill, that is, whether we are neutral. Ostensibly, we are neutral. We are neutral in theory but there are questions about whether we are neutral in practice. Yet, we claim to be proud of our neutrality. If we are serious about our neutrality and about protecting it, then there should be a resounding vote next Tuesday in support of accepting Deputy Wallace's Bill. I live in hope.

Let us consider the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907. Article 2 of the convention deals with the rights and duties of neutral powers, which is central to what is being discussed. It states, "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power". The Minister of State said that the Hague Convention of 1907 should be regarded as a product of its time. I believe neutrality is not a product of its time. Neutrality is neutrality regardless of what time we are discussing.

The Hague Convention is a serious matter when we consider the way in which Shannon Airport is being used or, I should say, abused. The Government's argument is always that because weapons of war or materials of war do not cross Shannon, we are not in breach of our neutrality. However, military craft are top-secret and they only stop for a short time to refuel. Although the Customs and Revenue have the right to search all vessels and aircraft in the Irish Sovereign State, exactly how many times has this happened?

Leaving the munitions and weapons of war argument aside, it is clear that facilitating troop movements is not in accordance with a neutral nation. We have a rather woolly definition of neutrality. It is almost as if we are making it up as we go along. Is our neutrality dependent on who is asking about it? I would hold that it should be the same whether it was Russia, China or any other country. Our neutrality is far more important.

Let us go back in history. When the treaty negotiations were going on in London, those in the Irish delegation brought with them terms on our neutrality, including terms to the effect that Ireland was a neutral State, that the integrity and inviolability of Irish territory would be protected and that there would not be permission for any action to be taken inconsistent with the obligations of preserving neutrality, integrity and the inviolability of Ireland. James Connolly was one of the leaders of the Irish Neutrality League in 1914.

What is happening now in Shannon Airport is reminiscent of what happened in Ireland during the Second World War. We were neutral. I believe it was part of showing our sovereignty but, no doubt, there was preferential treatment of one side. Allied force troops who crash-landed on Irish territory were able to rejoin their units in the United Kingdom via Northern Ireland, whereas German troops were detained in the Curragh until the war ended. We know that weather reports from our Atlantic weather stations in Connemara were given to allied forces but not German forces. The Army intelligence section regularly held meetings with British counterparts about security. Due to fear of invasion, our Army grew during the early part of the war. Most of the weapons were purchased from allied powers in return for information on the movements of German ships off the coast.

All of that undermined our neutrality. I realise there was a moral argument in terms of what Hitler was doing, the Holocaust and the treatment of minority groups in the countries that Germany controlled. However, we are either neutral or we are not. I do not think that preferential treatment was equally balanced when President de Valera offered condolences to the German authorities on the death of Hitler. Some historians will argue that the theory behind this was that it was the Government's policy to maintain our uncompromising neutrality for the fledgeling Irish State. In fairness, the State did what it could to prevent Irish men and women in Northern Ireland from being conscripted.

It is interesting to note that at the end of the war Mr. Churchill taunted Ireland for remaining aloof from the Second World War. De Valera acknowledged that Churchill resisted the temptation to violate Irish neutrality. I am unsure whether that would have continued if England's survival had been at stake. Therefore, we had our own version of neutrality during the Second World War. It seems we have our own version of neutrality today as well.

If we are serious about neutrality then Deputy Wallace's Bill will be supported. It would set down a principle, notably in respect of the Hague Convention, on what constitutes neutrality. It would give statutory definition to what is now a rather loose term. At the moment, it is generally a matter of Government policy rather than a requirement of our law or Constitution, apart from one exception, the clause in Article 29.4.9o of the Constitution which states: "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State."

The last Red C poll showed massive support for maintaining a policy of neutrality with 78% in favour, a statistic that holds across different age groups and demographic indices. The use of Shannon Airport by US forces, the Government’s prevarication over investigations regarding this, the way in which questions about Shannon are answered or not answered, particularly concerning rendition flights transiting through the airport, as well as reports from Amnesty International, the Council of Europe, the UN Committee against Torture leads to the conclusion that Ireland is not maintaining a neutral stance. The US has been taking advantage of Irish airspace which means that Ireland is complicit in war crimes and the atrocity that is Guantanamo Bay. As the Irish Government is very critical and pursuing the hooded man issue, how can we stand by and facilitate what is happening in Guantanamo Bay if the exact type of torture methods are used there?

Ireland is on the United Nations Human Rights Council and respected when it comes to human rights. Our NGOs are to the fore in conflict and post-conflict countries. I know from chairing the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA, here and engaging with African parliamentarians that we are very much respected. However, we are risking that in the way we are allowing Shannon to be used. We could be a significant player against terrorism and in challenging the atrocities of Islamic State, IS, and other warlords if we were strictly neutral. We do not want to be seen to be a puppet of American or Russian or any other country aggression or imperialism. I am critical of American and Russian foreign policy but it does not make me anti-American or anti-Russian. We should never have allowed Shannon to be used as a military base, irrespective of our relationship with the US. It should never have gone on so long because it is undermining our role in human rights, humanitarian and development aid.

It is vital we include a constitutional provision on the neutrality because it will preclude future Governments from abrogating their responsibilities and commitment to neutrality. If neutrality is constitutionally enshrined as this Bill proposes, then the State will be in a stronger position as a voice of humanity and reason, as well as a supporter of peace not war. The Minister of State claimed putting this into the Constitution is neither necessary nor desirable and the Government remains fully committed. He made the point that we no longer live in an era of belligerence adhering to an outmoded law on the right to wage war but live in a modern world in which we and most other States regard the United Nations as the forum within which disputes to be settled. If all that were true, we would not have had a Bosnian situation, genocide in Rwanda or what is happening now in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the Congo and South Sudan. We have seen that the United Nations has failed in many situations.

See this speech in context