Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

A review of the organisation of the Defence Forces and our defence policy is strategically necessary and I welcome the opportunity to participate in it. Unless we correct the fundamental flaws and contradictions in the Green Paper, which the Minister has reiterated tonight, and which has been consistently the position of this Government and the previous one we are missing an opportunity and doing a disservice to the citizens of this State, particularly to the men and women who make up our Defence Forces because the Green Paper and what we have heard so far represents a continuation of the deeper integration into the EU, US and NATO military axis.

As Raymond Deane has pointed out, the Green Paper never quite comes to grips with the contradictions between stated neutrality and the ongoing commitment to EU Common Security and Defence Policy. Neutrality is consistently misrepresented throughout the Green Paper which even gets it wrong in the context of from where it came, stating it was developed in the course of the Second World War. As Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn said, our neutrality has been a key and intrinsic part of the battle of this country for independence and is rooted in our identity from the writings of Wolfe Tone in the 1790s, to James Connolly's Irish Neutrality League, to the terms negotiated by Michael Collins, of which the demand for perpetual Irish neutrality was part. In addition, recent opinion polls show that Irish people hold neutrality dear.

As Deputy Mick Wallace said, the best defence of our realm and the best contribution to world peace we can make is one of active neutrality, but that does not mean talking about neutrality while in reality taking sides. It does not mean bandying around words like "military neutrality" when the courts of the land have shown that the State has actually breached our neutrality. In that context, frankly it is astounding and gob-smackingly brazen that there is not a single mention of the use of Shannon Airport in the White Paper - not one. It is almost beyond belief. Today, as Deputy Mick Wallace said, we hear talk about the Government and the Department being worried about lone wolf terrorist attacks, but, meanwhile, a whole pack of wolves is transiting through Shannon Airport on a daily basis, with which we do not have a problem at all. The reality is that this is the biggest threat to the security of the State. I do not say this lightly; I say it in the context of the evidence presented in court. In our case two military experts talked about interviewing Hezbollah agents who had talked about an airport in County Clare which was facilitating the US military. I honestly think that if there ever was to be a lone wolf attack in Ireland, it would probably be in retaliation for the use of Shannon Airport. It is tragic that we are having this discussion against the backdrop of the loss of Irish lives in Tunisia by a lone wolf terrorist who targeted westerners and our citizens were victims.

The Minister talked about preventing transnational terrorist groups from using the State as a refuge or base from which to direct their activities and target other countries. I agree with him. We should not allow the State to be used as a base for terrorists on their way to other countries, but is that not what is happening at Shannon Airport and in the case of the devastation in the Middle East and north Africa, which is facilitated by millions of troops transiting through Shannon Airport? The problem is that, throughout the White Paper, there is a conscious blurring of the lines. We talk about Partnership for Peace, but it really is linked with closer alliances with NATO.

There has consistently been a deliberate undermining of the triple lock. The Minister would probably love to be part of the coalition of the willing and we know from the WikiLeaks cables that the Americans think we are. There is talk about the "constraint" of the United Nations sanction, which is a key part of the triple lock provision. The people like that constraint. We like to have UN sanction if we are to be involved in any of this. When the White Paper talks about permanent members of the Security Council-----

See this speech in context