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

I want to turn from the national to the international. In a month, the Taoiseach, Ministers and officials will head around the world for St. Patrick's Day. Over 300 venues around the world will be lit green for that day. That is some achievement and some recognition for a small country with a small population. One of the items on the agenda will be to secure the 192 votes necessary to get a seat on the UN Security Council.

Why do we want this seat? I know it was decided back in 2005. What will it cost Ireland? I am not just talking about euro to secure the seat. I ask these questions in the context of strange and, what I would call, "unIreland" decisions made recently. Will we see more of these types of decisions in order to get the seat?

I have two examples of these decisions. Our neutrality puts us in a strong position, enhanced by the reputation of our troops in UN mandated peace missions. Despite protestations to the contrary, that neutrality is under threat, whether that relates to Shannon Airport, permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, or EU battlegroups. We see this increasing drawing of Ireland into the European securitisation agenda. Some months ago, there was an overwhelming vote in the European Parliament on a report emphasising PESCO's compatibility with NATO and that the EU should be capable of launching autonomous military missions.

My second example is the decision to recognise a self-appointed person as president of Venezuela whose previous role in the Venezuelan National Assembly was akin to that of speaker in other parliaments. This self-proclaimed president who is openly calling for violence on the streets. I was waiting for Ireland's voice to condemn the sanctions, which have been causing the problems in Venezuela, as well as waiting for Ireland to condemn the threat of military invasion but, instead, Ireland joined European countries in condemning the Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro.

Are these the prices we are paying in exchange for votes for a seat on the UN Security Council? The organisation of which we want to be part has permanent members with unprecedented power to veto. We see the political games that go on between the three permanent NATO members and the other two members of the council. There is a litany of failures by the Security Council in making the world more secure. A former UN Commissioner for Human Rights spoke about the pernicious use of the veto leading to the most prolific slaughterhouses, referencing Syria, the Congo, Burundi, Myanmar, and before that, Biafra, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. The most blatant recent example is Yemen. There was an initiative in 2014 to call on the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to voluntarily pledge not to use the veto in the case of genocide and crimes against humanity, which came to nothing.

Our unique voice is one that has been non-aligned, impartial and humanitarian focused. Why are we risking that for a seat on the UN Security Council, which has a serious democratic deficit and which might require us to make decisions not in keeping with a sovereign, independent republic?

See this speech in context