Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

If copies of my speech are not already in the Chamber, they will be shortly.

For today's debate, we first need to clarify what we mean when we talk about Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality. In practical terms, and as practised by successive Governments for many decades, the policy means that Ireland does not participate in military alliances, nor in common or mutual defence arrangements. As the Taoiseach has said on a number of occasions in recent weeks, military neutrality does not mean we are politically or morally neutral. Neutrality has never stopped us participating in world events nor, self-evidently, from being affected by them. It does not mean that we are inactive in situations where we see flagrant breaches of the UN charter and clear violations of international law, including international humanitarian law.

Addressing our Dáil in 1963, John F. Kennedy observed that Ireland pursues an independent course in foreign policy but it is not neutral between liberty and tyranny, and never will be. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." That is the approach we take.

For more than 60 years, not a day has passed when Ireland's peacekeepers were not on duty in blue helmets somewhere across the world. Our Defence Forces' record of continuous service is the longest of any UN member state and, with more than 500 Permanent Defence Force personnel serving as peacekeepers today, our contribution to UN peacekeeping is Europe's highest per capitaand sixth highest globally. We have also actively shaped and contributed to the development of the UN's common security and defence policy, and we are significant contributors to UN-mandated and EU-led crisis management missions around the world. Ireland was among the member states that championed the development of a civilian as well as a military crisis management capability by the EU so that today we have Irishmen and Irishwomen advising on policing and security sector reform, border management, judicial reform, human rights and gender policies, and cybersecurity and hybrid threats in Georgia, Iraq, Kosovo, Ukraine, Somalia, Libya, Niger and the Central African Republic. Ireland was also to the forefront of designing a new European peace facility which allows for the strengthening of military and defence capabilities of partners and supports the military aspect of peace support operations, notably those carried out by the African Union and other regional organisations. Ireland ensured that the facility was designed in such a way that countries which did not wish to finance or provide lethal weaponry as part of measures adopted under the peace facility could instead finance non-lethal and protective equipment. We have seen this work in practice in the crisis in Ukraine, where Ireland's share of €22 million of the €1 billion support package to the Ukrainian military has gone solely on non-lethal equipment and support.

In the view of the Government, the Bill we are discussing would serve to seriously undermine our proactive international role. Indeed, the Bill would be likely to curtail Ireland's efforts to contribute to international peace and security, rather than in any way enhance it. On this basis, the Government opposes the Bill. I will outline a number of our key concerns. The Bill could constrain the Executive's ability to exercise its authority in respect of the conduct of international relations, as already articulated in Article 29 of the Constitution. In particular, the Bill, if enacted, could constrain the Government's scope to participate in UN peacekeeping missions, particularly missions with a mandate under chapter 7 of the UN charter, which is a peace-enforcement mandate. The same would hold true for UN-mandated and EU-led or NATO-led peacekeeping or crisis management missions. Currently, the main overseas missions in which Defence Forces personnel are deployed are the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, with 344 personnel, and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, in Syria, with 132 personnel. Other missions include the UN-mandated and NATO-led international security presence, KFOR, in Kosovo, with 13 personnel; the EU-led Operation Althea in Bosnia and Herzogovina, with five personnel; and the EU-led training mission in Mali, with 20 personnel. These missions are undertaken in pursuit of the UN principles of making international peace and security, taking collective measures to prevent and remove threats to peace and protect civilians. In apparently seeking to prevent all military action other than defence of our own national territory, this Bill would potentially neutralise the ability of Ireland's Defence Forces to serve overseas. It would remove, or at least significantly constrain, a pillar of our engagement in the world which has been characteristic of this State for 75 years.

The Bill, as presented, could also potentially go a step further and preclude even the provision of non-lethal equipment and support to regional organisations, such as the African Union, or to third-country partners, such as Ukraine, through our participation in the European peace facility. It could prevent a current or future Irish Government from using the instruments and tools at our disposal, either bilaterally or through the EU, to give practice expression to our foreign policy. To be blunt, it would prevent us putting our money where our mouth is.

The Bill also purports to provide constitutional guarantees that the State shall not allow its territory to be used by other states to transport war material or personnel to third countries for the purpose of war or other armed conflict. Everyone in this House already knows that foreign state and military aircraft that are permitted to land at Irish airports, including Shannon Airport, must comply with strict conditions. These include routine stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives, and must not engage in intelligence gathering.

See this speech in context