Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to be able to contribute this topic as my party's spokesperson on defence. As my colleague, Deputy Collins, said, Fianna Fáil is not supporting this Bill, as we are concerned it may impact on our ability to take part in vital peacekeeping missions around the world. As a country that pursues military neutrality, Ireland has a long history and tradition of peacekeeping. As mentioned, the UN disengagement observer force could be compromised, as could the interim force in Lebanon. We would be handing over the jurisdiction, the oversight and the role of what we have in the current legislative provision potentially to the Supreme Court, which is a high bar in the context of our own participation, of which everyone collectively is proud. That is not clarified in the Bill.

We are renowned for our efforts in keeping and restoring peace in some of the world’s most dangerous places. Those of us in this House and beyond should all be very proud of that legacy and we should not compromise or undermine future missions. We should not, as this Bill provides for, take actions that would jeopardise our commitment to helping the poorest and most vulnerable people in some of the most underdeveloped in the world. The legislation could also result in difficulties and complications in the event of an international emergency where the UN has approved a humanitarian intervention and there could be a technical challenge to the Supreme Court, which could go beyond the current wording that has been provided for.

Perhaps most relevant of all, a constitutional declaration of neutrality is no guarantee our neutrality will be respected. History, unfortunately, is littered with examples of small independent peaceful countries, which have had that status completely ignored. Some Members and parties would have people believe that the country is sleepwalking its way towards becoming a fully-fledged military power, but anything but that is the case. It is worth re-emphasising Ireland’s commitment to being a militarily neutral State. Why do we have ongoing scaremongering every time defence or foreign affairs policy is discussed?

Various Bills, many of which were introduced and passed by my party, underscore the fact Ireland can only take part in missions authorised by the UN and on the basis of a decision by the Government and backed by the Dáil. Our commitment to this triple lock is sacrosanct. There are also the constitutional commitments to Ireland as being a peaceful and friendly nation which will co-operate with other nations. The various referenda on European unity over the years have resulted in some incredible red herrings surfacing, often put forward by the party which has not supported any EU referendum and which has introduced this Bill. The country was told that ratifying the Nice treaty meant Ireland was signing up to NATO. Similarly, we heard that ratifying the Lisbon treaty would result in Irish people being conscripted into a European army, none of which has happened and will not happen because of the constitutional and legislative measures we have in place, as I have outlined.

Moreover, there is no provision in the EU treaties for the creation of an EU-wide army, although again some in this House continue to suggest that PESCO is in fact that. We need to be clear that PESCO is about security and co-operation and those claiming otherwise, a bit like the Brexiteers in the UK who made wildly unsubstantiated claims, need to be called out for misleading people. The only way that could happen would be by the consent of the people. I do not know any Irish person who would want that. It is important we recognise the democratic and constitutional provisions that we have in place, which can only be changed with the consent of the people. PESCO is about defending Europe’s shared borders and improving the capacity of the EU and Ireland to support international peace and security, and to assist in crisis management, particularly humanitarian crises. If Europe is worth building, then it is worth defending. In addition, involvement in PESCO will also ensure that our Defence Forces will have access to the best equipment and training. Sending our men and women on overseas peacekeeping missions without the best preparation would not be appropriate and it would be reckless. PESCO is not about building a European army but about deepening European integration. That is not something from which Ireland should recoil in the context of Brexit and what is happening in other countries where eurosceptism is on the rise, and we will probably see that in the European elections. This is more relevant now, particularly as Brexit continues to play itself out.

Greater co-operation is also essential to properly tackle threats to national defence and security that did not exist a few years ago. The area of cyberattacks comes to mind in this regard. Such attacks have shut down apparatus in other countries, including the UK. I fear it is more through luck than design that Ireland has not been affected by such an attack. However, given our ever-growing status as a world leader in information technology and communications, it stands to reason that we remain vulnerable in this area. In addition to bolstering our cybersecurity capabilities, something which I am consistently calling on the Minister for Defence to do, greater co-operation among nations in intelligence gathering and information sharing is the best way to defend against cyberattacks. It goes beyond the historic argument of what neutrality is about in that we have to share information to defend ourselves. That is an important context not to forget in the 21st century.

However, this Bill would remove all that. Rather than follow the approach being advocated, I would like greater consideration to be given to an active neutrality approach. Such an approach would move us away from the past and reflect the reality that our sovereignty is secure, our democracy is functioning well and we are one of the most successful developed countries in the world.

Perhaps most important, it would also reflect the fact we are at a juncture in our development where we have an enhanced opportunity to focus on what we have to offer to other members of the international community. In this sense, we have a responsibility to share the lessons of our experience of peace building on this island and of peacekeeping on the international stage in the Middle East and Africa with others who may benefit from them.

In disagreeing with the proposal, I believe it is time for Ireland to further our approach in international affairs, building on our long and proud contribution in areas such as peacekeeping and development. In an era when differences between the developed and developing worlds continue to challenge us, we have an opportunity to seek to build on our reputation as a bridge between nations, and we do ourselves and the world some service in this regard. We need to continue on our present legislative and constitutional basis and oppose this proposal.

See this speech in context