Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have the honour to make the closing intervention on behalf of the Government to this important debate. We have been reminded here today of the importance of the Constitution as the expression of our values. The preamble of Bunreacht na h-Éireann speaks of "due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity" and of Ireland striving so that "concord" can be "established with other nations". We have differences of opinion - some of these were expressed here today - but I believe we are all in agreement with those fundamental principles.

Prudence is a quality which is rightly valued in matters of state. It argues against hasty or intemperate action. It also argues against needlessly limiting the options upon which we may rely in the future. Not all things can be foreseen. Just six weeks ago, we would not have believed that we would be in the middle of a new war in Europe or that 3.8 million Ukrainians would have fled for their lives from their homes.

When we negotiated the European Peace Facility, EPF, just over a year ago, we ensured that, in line with the programme for Government, it included the option for constructive abstention in the case of a decision by member states to provide lethal equipment to a partner organisation or country. In negotiating prudently, we did not shut off the possibility of Ireland providing any support at all. Before the EPF had reached its first anniversary, Ireland did, in fact, exercise constructive abstention from lethal military support to Ukraine, but instead provided financing for protective and non-lethal equipment.

We must retain flexibility to react to world events and that is one reason it would not be prudent to change the Constitution in the ways proposed in this Bill. Nor do I believe that it would be just to do so in advance of a full national discussion.

Justice is a value which is expressed not only through national legislation but also through international law. Since 1945, there has been a legal prohibition on the use of force other than in self-defence or when authorised by the UN Security Council as part of a collective security mechanism. The Bill before us today would limit us to the first, by excluding the second.

Our foreign policy champions the rules-based international order and the primary role of the UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. That is precisely why we worked so hard to gain our current seat on the Council. The UN Charter makes clear that, where the Security Council has mandated action to restore international peace and security, all states are required to assist it. Impeding our ability to do so in any way runs contrary to the core values underpinning our foreign and security policy.

Charity, as a concept, is not normally thought of as relevant to security but in a broad sense it encompasses empathy and support. It describes a country which engages proactively with the world. Ireland has been generous in sharing its expertise, including in the provision of peacekeeping training. For example, we contribute a Defence Forces trainer to the UN Regional Service Centre in Entebbe, Uganda, providing counter-improvised explosive device, IED, training to mainly African peacekeepers. Improvised explosive ordnance is one of the most lethal risks for UN peacekeepers. Two personnel from Egypt were unfortunately killed by an IED in Mali only this month. Could this training also be helpful in armed conflict and, therefore, prohibited under this Bill? I see that as a real possibility, and as a good example of the unintended consequences of a Bill such as this.

I reiterate the point that our EU membership is entirely consistent with our existing policy of neutrality. The Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, which is an integral part of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the EU for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. In line with these objectives, last week saw EU leaders agree the Strategic Compass – an important strategy document that will guide the EU's CSDP for the decade ahead.

The Strategic Compass is not a common European defence policy. Rather, it enables the EU to better anticipate threats, respond to crises and deepen our co-operation with partners. In particular, it sets out a series of concrete actions in areas such as crisis management, resilience, capability development and the EU's partnerships with key international actors, including the United Nations. There is also a strong focus on work to strengthen the EU’s ability to respond to new and emerging challenges such as cyberattacks or hybrid threats.

The EU treaty makes clear that there will be no common defence without the unanimous agreement of the European Council. Moreover, Ireland's participation in a common defence is already prohibited under Article 29.4.9° of the Constitution. This is reinforced by the Irish protocol to the Lisbon treaty. Any change in that position could take place only with the approval of the people in a referendum to amend the Constitution.

I note also that there is simply no discussion at present among EU member states of the idea of a common defence. Throughout the two years we have spent discussing the Strategic Compass, states have focused on improved crisis management capacity, on capability development, on doing more to counter cyber and hybrid threats, on doing more to support our partners outside the EU to provide for their own security, on developing closer partnerships with other international and regional organisations, on improving interoperability – on everything, in fact, bar turning the EU into a military organisation with a common defence.

Ireland is not a member of NATO but participates in the Partnership for Peace to ensure that our Defence Forces can co-operate more effectively with contingents from partner countries in increasingly challenging UN-operated or UN-mandated missions led by the EU and NATO. In Lebanon, for example, which I visited and where I represented the Government on St. Patrick's Day, this has allowed the Defence Forces to operate side by side with their Polish counterparts in a joint Irish-Polish battalion in the UNIFIL mission, which also involves troops from Malta and Hungary.

I have already referred to the European Peace Facility where, in a context we could never have predicted, Ireland is paying for medical supplies, protective equipment and rations for Ukrainian soldiers, who are defending their country from illegal aggression by a larger neighbour. To accept the contents of this Bill would be to prevent the Government or any future Government from providing similar support - in other words, to ignore an urgent request from a partner, which is defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity, fully in line with international law and with Article 51 of the UN Charter, or to, by our inaction, draw a false equivalence between an aggressor and a victim – between the violator of the UN Charter and the violated – and then to pat ourselves on the back and to call this neutrality. Is that what this House wants? These are merely some examples of the ways in which the provisions of this Bill potentially constrain the exercise of the authority of the Executive in respect of the conduct of external relations, as outlined in Article 29 of the Constitution.

I thank the Acting Chair for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. There is a strong argument for continued discussion and reflection on Ireland's security and defence policy and on our long-standing policy of military neutrality. However, these conversations must happen at the appropriate time and in an open and informed manner. I do not believe this House wishes to limit Ireland's ongoing work to contribute to international peace and security. However, this is what enacting this Bill would amount to.

See this speech in context