Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like my colleague, I thought carefully about this motion and read up on it, given that there is a UN mandate. This debate is extremely important because it is the third part of the trinity, namely, the UN resolution and authorisation by the Government and the Dáil. The Minister of State's speech gave us absolutely no background or context as to why he recommends that we send troops to Mali other than that we have to mind our friends, to paraphrase him, because we cannot stand idly by when our friends need us. At the very least, if we are going to ignore our neutrality, a proudly cherished policy going back to the 18th century, there is an onus on the Minister of State and the Government to explain why it is necessary. We have a war situation in Mali to which the Government is going to send 14 Army rangers. They are going to be changed every three or four months over a two-year period, so we are not just talking about 14 individuals.

This has crossed the boundaries of peacekeeping and entered into the area of enforcement. I find that most unacceptable as a woman, a mother and a Deputy. I took the trouble to read as much as I could about this but the onus is on the Government to provide that material to us and to explain why it needs to send special Army rangers to Mali. At the very least, as a country that has suffered at the hands of a colonial government, I would have thought that we would have a natural empathy and solidarity with the people of Mali. We ought to look at how we can use our neutrality and our voice in a more active, peaceful way. None of that has been explained.

The Minister of State has given us no background and has conveniently ignored the fact that in 2012, the French Minister foolishly and carelessly told us that France intended a full reconquest of Mali. David Cameron indicated his curious resolve in 2012 and 2013 to dedicate himself to dealing with the terrorism threat in Mali in North Africa. At the time, Mali, a landlocked state with a population of approximately 12 million, was a peaceful country. The Minister of State has conveniently ignored that Mali is very rich in raw materials such as gold, uranium, lots of oil, copper, phosphate, bauxite gems and so on. There is no clarity on that whatsoever. The Malian President was deposed, although he was not standing for re-election and had organised elections. For the first time, that Government had initiated a systematic mapping of the vast wealth under Mali's soil. Conveniently, there was a coup and the person who led it was trained in Bennington in America. Most of the people involved in the conflict since have been trained either by EU militaries or by America. We are standing here now without one word from the Government as to why our neutrality is going to be breached, with all the dangers it brings for the personnel we are sending out and for this country.

We are doing this while the soldiers on the ground in Ireland have had to find an innovative way of telling us that they are relying on family income supplement or that they have to sleep in cars because of accommodation problems. We have no problem sending out these 14 top-of-the-range Army rangers. Even if I were to agree that this is necessary, the Minister of State has to explain to us why it is so. He has to take us through the history and the resolution, which was to restore democracy. That in itself is ironic seeing as America and France were actively involved in overthrowing democracy and deposing the Malian President. Does the Minister of State think the Dáil and the people of Ireland deserve that information so that we can make our minds up as to what is necessary and what is not?

I will not be supporting this motion. I would ask Fianna Fáil to see sense, as the proud republican party that takes all the credit for the decolonisation of the country. We might ask it to reflect, show some solidarity and stand up for our neutrality.

See this speech in context