Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil opposes the Bill. I see possible issues with the proposed amendments. In respect of the amendment of Article 28, in the event of an international emergency where the UN Security Council has unanimously approved a humanitarian intervention involving military forces, it could mean that the Dáil would have to be recalled so that planes might refuel at Shannon Airport. We have to ask ourselves whether this is necessary. While those who propose this may feel that it would not apply in this case, it is still possible that a court challenge might arise on this basis.

In respect of the amendment of Article 29, the definition of a military alliance is open to interpretation. Is it NATO? Could it also be interpreted as an EU battlegroup on a peacekeeping mission with a UN mandate? Is our participation in UNDOF or UNIFIL a form of military alliance? Furthermore, in the event of Ireland being attacked, would such an article not render it unconstitutional for us to form an alliance to repel the attack? A constitutional declaration of neutrality is no guarantee that our neutrality will be respected. We must be practical and take a long-term view. We must leave ourselves in a position to react to whatever may come at us.

Fianna Fáil is dedicated to Ireland's policy of military neutrality. It is a policy which we have pursued both in and out of Government and it has as a key defining characteristic non-membership of military alliances. This policy of military neutrality has gone hand in hand with strong support for international co-operation for peace and stability, as manifested in Ireland's participation in UN-mandated peacekeeping operations. Various Defence Acts passed by this Oireachtas mean that Ireland only takes part in missions which are unambiguously authorised by the UN and on the basis of a sovereign decision by Government subject to the approval of the Dáil - the triple lock system. Furthermore, in Article 29, the Constitution also confirms Ireland's dedication to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation among nations founded on international justice and morality. Article 29 also upholds our observance of the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes. Our neutrality is a policy rather than a status. Fianna Fáil does not see a case for amending the Constitution in this area.

The second Nice treaty referendum introduced a provision in the Irish Constitution 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 decisions taken by the EU to move to a common defence. The Seville declarations clarified that there was nothing in the Treaty of Nice or previous treaties that posed a threat to Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. In order 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 first was the national declaration by Ireland, which states that Ireland is not party to any mutual defence commitment, is not party to any plans to develop a European army and 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 a 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 that there is no obligation arising from the treaties which would or could oblige Ireland to depart from that policy. These declarations are solemn political declarations of a formal kind which will be deposited at the United Nations and we stand by them. We also stand by the triple lock.

Ireland has always conferred fundamental importance on the United Nations since we joined 58 years ago and working with other UN members we have supported international action in areas such as disarmament, peacekeeping, development and human rights and we are proud of this. We are strong and committed supporters of collective security through the United Nations. This has been the stated policy of many Governments over the past 58 years. Alongside this, we have endorsed and supported the primary role of the 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. While we are conscious of the opposition to the triple lock from some military and political commentators, we do believe that there is overwhelming public support for the mechanism. Furthermore, the legitimacy conferred by a UN mission bolsters the safety and security of our Defence Forces when they participate in peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions. Obviously, no mission will be without risk but the absence of the blue hat will heighten the risk.

While neutrality was the given policy of successive Governments prior to the Second World War, it was that conflict that put it to the test. In 1940, Eamon de Valera told this House that:

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 policy was the right one, apart altogether from any questions of sympathy on one side or the other.

In 1946, as the Dáil debated a motion to see admission to the newly formed United Nations, he provided another illuminating insight. He said that "I would like our people and the Members of this House to bear in mind that for six years of war the question as to whether our neutrality would be respected or not depended ultimately upon the will of, perhaps, two men." He acknowledged that those two men were President Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. He went on to say with regard to the United Nations that:

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.

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 and security internationally. It is also essential that we work actively for international peace and security taking account of the prevailing circumstances. This support for collective security has essentially been followed through the United Nations.

Let us recall very clearly that when our neutrality was most tested from 1939 to 1945, Sinn Féin and the IRA did everything but respect that neutrality and for that organisation to present itself now as a champion and guarantor of Irish neutrality lacks any semblance of credibility.

Ireland is not alone in not providing a constitutional provision for its neutrality. A number of our EU partners do the same thing. Sweden has a long-standing policy of neutrality but it is not a feature of its constitution. Similarly, its neighbour and also our European Union partner, Finland, is not in any military alliance but does not feel any need to provide for a constitution prohibition.

What would happen if we made a provision for neutrality in the Constitution? We must consider the impact of passing this legislation. Can the definition of a military alliance also be open to interpretation? Is it NATO and only NATO? Could it also be interpreted as an EU battle group on a peacekeeping mission with a UN mandate? Is our participation in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, in the Golan Heights or the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, a form of military alliance? If the provisions of the Bill became law, it could fall to the Supreme Court to decide because I have no doubt there would be a challenge to such missions.

The truth is that a constitutional provision could be too rigid, too doctrinaire. It could also have a detrimental impact on the ability of the Government to manage foreign policy issues. Neutrality should not mean neutering.

It is not long since Sinn Féin started recognising the courts of this Republic, but we do not need to confer these additional powers on them. It could undermine the whole purpose of collective security and the United Nations that Ireland is so committed to.

Let me return to what De Valera said in 1946:

It would be fatal for the small nations, including ourselves, who have any hope of collective security, to think that they can in the end dodge their obligations, if they attempt to do so, they are going to bring the whole edifice down and they might as well never have had anything to do with an organisation of this sort. Therefore our people should realise that when we enter into an organisation of this sort we are committing ourselves to take collective action with other people.

The difference between a war, such as may arise under the obligations of the charter, and other wars is as follows. This type of war would be a war of enforcement - enforcement of obligations, and also enforcement of rights. If there is ever to be a rule of law, nations must make up their minds that they will take part in such enforcement, because if there is not enforcement, then, of course, the duties and the rights that are guaranteed will be all thrown aside.

The reality is that the inclusion of a specific reference to neutrality in the Constitution could have a serious impact on our capacity to support the United Nations. There would be serious doubt as to whether we could fulfil our obligations as a member of the United Nations.

Resorting to the courts would be a clear implication of this plan to amend the Constitution and it is simply not a suitable area for judicial decision. These are not matters to be settled in the Supreme Court rather than by those of us who have been elected by the people. The people are sovereign through our electoral system and that is where sovereignty must reside. We are the legislators in this regard, elected by the people to do this job.

Another myth that Sinn Féin and other supporters of this Bill peddle is that of increasing militarisation. Throughout Europe military expenditure has declined rapidly in the past 20 years. Recent events in the Ukraine may reverse that in some countries, but here in Ireland we have reduced our Defence Forces from around 14,000 in 1990 to less than 10,000 now. In the ten years after 1997, defence spending in this country halved as a share of GDP.

Of course, the period known as the Troubles crippled our country in many ways with needless loss of thousands of lives, people maimed and a massive annual bill for defence which has been reduced due to the ending of the campaigns of terror by the Provisional IRA and other paramilitary organisations.

This Bill represents a backwards step. It would do nothing to enhance the protection of military neutrality that already exists and I restate my party's opposition to it. We did not support a similar Bill proposed by the same party while we were in government in 2003 nor did we do so in 2015, and we will not do so now.

See this speech in context