Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am going to step outside the consensus as the Taoiseach outlined it in his nine-page contribution regarding Europe and everybody being on side. I am horrified that over the nine pages, there is not a single word about bringing the war to an end or about the way in which we have used our voice in Europe and on the UN Security Council. What are we doing, as a proud, neutral country, to stop this horrific war? I did not hear anything about that in his contribution. I heard that we have time to look at new candidate countries to enlarge the EU and time to talk about different matters that arise at various other meetings, but no sense of urgency in respect of the absolutely illegal Ukrainian war perpetrated by Russia. Up to 19 June, there had been 4,569 civilian deaths, of whom 304 were children, while a further 5,699 people had been reported as injured, with the real figure, of course, reaching much higher.

Nevertheless, the Taoiseach referred in his contribution to “many predicting that the war in Ukraine may be long”. What is his opinion on that? What are we saying as a country? Are we saying it is okay to have a long war, with the devastating consequences of even just the figures I outlined, not to mention what Deputy Ó Cathasaigh referred to in the context of the consequences for other countries, not least those in Africa, and for the millions of people who are under threat of starvation at the moment? At what stage will we take courage in our hands, recognise that as a small, neutral country we have a role in promoting peace and realise that the consequences of this war are far greater than those relating only to Ukraine or its neighbouring countries? This has the most serious consequences for the world, including the prospects of a third world war and a catastrophe of climate change. The Minister of State knows that, as does the Taoiseach, yet over nine pages, the latter’s contribution did not even mention it.

It did not address any of the hypocrisy in regard to how we treat some countries and some refugees completely differently from other countries and other refugees. I acknowledge we have to react and I fully support the effort to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people who are here, but one must at some stage begin to look at the hypocrisy in our policy, which is determined by the bigger boys in Europe and not by our voice, a voice that should have a moral component given our experience and our history. We are here today parsing a contribution that, conveniently, omitted any reference to what Ursula von der Leyen stated last week, namely, “Ukrainians are ready to die for the European perspective.” Does that not encapsulate the emptiness of the language regarding what is happening?

What does it mean to say Ukrainians are willing to die for the European perspective? What does “the European perspective” mean? We give additional money, and rightly so, in order that the International Criminal Court can function more effectively, but is that the sole purpose of the money we have given? We have gone from giving a couple of hundred thousand euro, I understand, to giving a couple of million euro. Is that to make that instrument more effective? If so, I welcome that. Is it to deal simply with Ukraine and with Russia’s crimes against humanity or will we look at other countries that have already been referred to the International Criminal Court, such as Israel’s behaviour and what it has done to Palestine?

Where is the answer from Europe and where is this on the agenda in the context of the Amnesty International report that has been with the Government for months on end, which has described as apartheid the system operated by Israel when it comes to Gaza, Palestine and what is happening there? Where is the reference to that? How will we keep our integrity as a neutral country if we use our voice only with some conflicts and not with others? Where is our voice on the deal being done with Israel for the importation of oil? There is this misuse of language and a failure to deal with the catastrophic consequences of what we are allowing to happen, and all the while we talk about enlarging and expanding a European project without using our voice to say we should halt for a moment and should remind ourselves that the most important thing is to use every diplomatic sinew in our body to stop this war.

See this speech in context