Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil is dedicated to Ireland's policy of military neutrality, a policy we have pursued in government and out of it. 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. However, we believe that a constitutional provision would be too rigid, too doctrinaire and unnecessary. Therefore, Fianna Fáil will oppose the Bill just as we opposed similar Bills in 2015 and in 2003.

If we were to amend Article 28, as proposed in the Bill, in the event of an international emergency where the UN Security Council had unanimously approved an international intervention involving military forces, it could mean the Dáil needing to be recalled to allow airplanes to refuel at Shannon Airport. Is this necessary? While those who propose this may feel it would not apply in this case, it is still possible that a court challenge on this basis might arise.

On the amendment of Article 29, the definition of a military alliance is open to interpretation. Is it NATO? Could it be interpreted as an EU battle group on a peacekeeping mission with a UN mandate? Is our participation in the 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 a military alliance to repel the attack. A constitutional declaration of neutrality is no guarantee that our neutrality will be respected.

Various Defence Acts passed by the Oireachtas mean that Ireland only takes part in missions that are unambiguously authorised by the UN on the basis of a sovereign decision by Government and subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann. Furthermore Article 29 of the Constitution 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 principles of peaceful resolution of international disputes.

Dr. Martin Mansergh, a former Member of this House and the Seanad, observed that our neutrality is a policy rather than a status. Since the 1930s and 1940s we have never sought to have a type of neutrality which, for instance, Belgium had before 1914, for the very good reason that it proved not to be worth the paper on which it was written. With this in mind Fianna Fáil does not see the case for amending the Constitution in this area.

The second referendum on the Nice treaty introduced a provision in the Constitution affirming that Ireland would 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 decision 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.

Of course, while no decision to create a common defence can be taken in the European Council without Ireland’s agreement, it has never been Ireland’s position that we would attempt to block the desire of other member states to establish common defence arrangements among themselves in circumstances where Ireland was not ready to participate, as long as these arrangements would not prejudice Ireland’s national interests.

At the Seville summit in June 2002, Ireland 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 that: Ireland is not party to any mutual defence commitment; Ireland is not party to any plans to develop a European army; and 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 that no obligations arising from the treaty would or could oblige Ireland to depart from that policy. These declarations are solemn political declarations of a formal kind which were deposited in the UN and we stand by them.

Ireland has always conferred fundamental importance to the UN since we joined 58 years ago and, working with other 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 organisation. This has been the stated policy of many Governments during 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 believe there is overwhelming public support for the mechanism. We acknowledge the UN is not perfect and can be slow to respond to developing crises but it is the still the guarantor of the freedoms of small nations and the best bulwark against unilateralism. Its imprimaturprovides a greater legitimacy for peacekeeping operations than any other international organisation.

Furthermore, 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 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.

Regarding constitutional provisions for neutrality, Ireland is not alone in 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 our EU partner, Finland, is not in a military alliance but does not feel any need to provide for a constitution prohibition. In the EU, only Austria has such a provision. After the war, Austria, similar to Germany, was divided into zones assigned to the four powers of the USA, the UK, the Soviet Union and France. To secure the withdrawal of those forces, and especially the Soviets, Austria provided for a constitutional statute proclaiming its neutrality in return for the withdrawal of the Soviet troops. The Swiss provide for it constitutionally. Switzerland is not in the EU and it is not so long since it joined the UN.

What would happen if we made a provision for neutrality in the Constitution? It is likely that the impact is that it would be for the Supreme Court to decide on what our neutrality could mean. 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 in the Golan Heights or the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon a form of military alliance? If the provisions of this Bill become law, that could well be for the Supreme Court to decide because I have no doubt that there would be a challenge to such missions.

A constitutional provision could be too rigid and 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. Frankly, it could undermine the entire purpose of collective security and the United Nations to which Ireland is so committed.

I will share the reminder of time available with my colleague, Deputy Jack Chamber, who has now arrived.

See this speech in context