Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

There is something kind of Orwellian about this Bill. It arises from European Union policy, although it also contains a national element, as has been described, to control the export of dual-use items, technology, things that might have apparently benign uses but can also be used for military purposes. We want to control the export of those things presumably to prevent greater proliferation of military hardware to regimes that we would be worried might put them to wrong uses. On the face of it, that is a very admirable imperative. What I find surreal and Orwellian about it is that the very European Union that is suggesting some sort of ethical policy when it comes to the export of military hardware is, in fact, one of the main suppliers of military hardware to some of the nastiest regimes in the world. That is continuing, indeed, in the current context where the EU itself, largely supported by our own Government, is arguing for more and more military expenditure to ramp up the military-industrial complex in Europe and for member states to spend more as a proportion of national income on producing weapons that are designed to kill human beings, as we should always remind ourselves. That is what the military-industrial complex largely does; it produces things to extinguish life on a grand scale. The European Union that says we should control our exports of dual-use technology, or the Irish Government in echoing all of this, is actually saying we should spend more on single-use military hardware that kills human beings.

Italy and Germany export huge amounts of arms and military hardware to Israel. I could mention the United Kingdom in this regard as well. Of course, the UK is no longer in the European Union but it exports massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The second biggest exporter of weapons to Israel is Germany. It accounted for 24% of Israel's arms imports between 2009 and 2020. Germany does not provide data on the weapons it delivers, but it issued licences for arms sales to Israel worth €1.6 billion from 2013 to 2017. Undoubtedly, that will have increased very significantly since those figures were published. Italy is next, having provided 5.6% of Israel's major conventional arms imports between 2009 and 2020. From 2013 to 2017, Italy delivered €476 million worth of arms to Israel. The two countries have done deals in recent years whereby Israel has got training aircraft in return for missiles and other weapons. That does not look to me much like an ethical policy when it comes to the export of military hardware to regimes that use it for evil purposes. Let us call a spade a spade.

Very likely on the jets that flew over Gaza and killed children over the last few days, that bombed residential areas in Gaza, the weapons they used for those attacks would have come courtesy of major European Union states. They were killing innocent people. Those states like Germany and Italy, the European Union more generally and Ireland because we are part of the European Union and we say very little about this kind of stuff, know that Israel is involved in a criminal siege of Gaza, which has turned the latter into a permanent humanitarian catastrophe. It is besieged in what is undoubtedly an illegal action in the context of any meaningful idea of international law. It is a collective punishment of the people of Gaza, which is both a crime against humanity and a war crime. Israel is involved in a decades-long illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and denies basic rights to Palestinians guaranteed under international law, like the right to return of millions of refugees who are living in the most appalling conditions all over the Middle East. It denies them that right, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN special rapporteur on the Middle East. It is a state that is guilty since its foundation of operating a policy of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and repeated war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as we speak and an explicit and blatant policy of continued expansion of illegal settlements, of driving people out of the homes where they have lived for decades and of repeated military incursions.

This year has been the deadliest one for Israeli attacks on land that, under international law, is designated for the Palestinians. There have been repeated military attacks and killing of Palestinians day in, day out and week in, week out. The EU continues to allow the export of weapons and military hardware to a state that is doing all this. It then comes along and says it is going to control dual-use technology to prevent the export of stuff that could be used for military purposes by rogue regimes. At the same time, European states are allowed by the EU to arm a rogue state, and one which is possibly one of the worst offenders in those terms it is possible to imagine.

We could add to that military exports to Saudi Arabia while it prosecutes the war in Yemen. That war has brought 10 million people to the brink of starvation and has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. This involves major European states like France and Germany. When she was a minister in the German Government, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, went to Saudi Arabia, which is the most brutal dictatorship in the world, and concluded a major arms deal between Saudi Arabia and Germany to sell this foul, obnoxious, authoritarian dictatorship the weapons to kill Yemeni women, children and men. Saudi Arabia has now been doing that for a decade. Then the EU comes along with this regulation. If that is not the definition of surreal and Orwellian, I do not understand what is. I do not mean to be critical as I am sure the officials have put a lot of work into this Bill, but from a political point of view it is just an exercise in meaningless tokenism because what is the actual effect? The reality of what is going on is massive arms exports to regimes like the Israeli apartheid regime and the Saudi regime. The list does not end there but those are certainly two of the most obnoxious examples.

Some of the countries we list as being ones we can authorise for dual-use technology include some of the other big warmongers in the world, such as the US. It has the biggest arms expenditure in the world. While everybody condemns the absolutely savage invasion by Russia of Ukraine, it is worth bearing in mind that the US, for example, spends $877 billion a year on weapons, whereas Russia spends about $86 billion. The US spends ten times more on military hardware than Russia does. Russia is a brutal invading power, but the US is the biggest arms producer in the world and the spends the most of its budget on military hardware.

The UK, which is obviously no longer an EU member, is, I think, spending $70 billion a year on weapons. It has a massive arms industry exporting military hardware all over the world. Both the UK and US used their hardware to devastating effect in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, which was every bit as criminal and considerably more murderous than Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Billions of dollars' worth of weapons, including nuclear-tipped missiles and so on, were used to devastating effect on the people of Iraq. This led directly and indirectly to a million deaths, four million people being driven from their homes and Iraqi society being devastated for decades to come. The US and UK bombed part of the country back into the Stone Age and destroyed vast swathes of its infrastructure and so on, but that is all allowed; it is no problem. We can sell what we like to the US and UK, pretty much, and they can sell whatever they like to whichever regimes they like, but apparently we are going to control the export of dual-use goods that could be put to the wrong purposes by certain regimes. Does the Minster of State not think it is kind of Orwellian? What exactly is this going to achieve against that sort of background? It is really quite incredible.

There is something I would not mind a little clarity on. I heard Deputy Jim O'Callaghan say it. When we ask for sanctions against Israel, there is the usual excuse we get. Let us remind ourselves it is not just the left or those who are long-standing supporters of the Palestinians who are arguing for sanctions against Israel for its apartheid policies and crimes against humanity. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN special rapporteur and multiple human rights organisations are all arguing for sanctions against Israel of the sort the Irish Government very quickly imposed on Russia. What excuse does the Irish Government give? It says we cannot do that because it must be agreed EU policy. We are not allowed, therefore, to take unilateral action. I would not mind clarity on this, but what the Minister of State said was in this area we have discretion. Is that not right? We are broadly transposing the principles being espoused by the EU, hypocritical as those may be for the reasons I have outlined, but we also have a certain amount of autonomy and discretion in how we do this, when we do it and precisely how we define which things we may control the export of where we believe they could be put to the wrong uses. If it is the case we have some autonomy and discretion in this area, why is that not used by the Government to impose sanctions on Israel? Why does the Government consistently refuse to do what most of the global human rights community is now asking and what the Palestinian people have been asking for for decades, namely, impose sanctions on Israel for its war crimes, its apartheid, its crimes against humanity, the siege of Gaza, the indiscriminate killing and the ethnic cleansing? Why will we do absolutely nothing?

I got an email today that is somewhat connected to this in that it is from a Palestinian from Jerusalem who moved to Dublin in 2021 and is doing a masters. He got first-class honours, by the way. He has already made a formal complaint to Dublin Airport, but I think he wants it conveyed to the Government as well. It concerns the Israeli airline, El Al. This student was going through Israeli security in Dublin Airport before his travel with the airline to go home for a visit from Dublin to Tel Aviv on 27 April. It was news to me that there is Israeli security at Dublin Airport and I see it is news to the Minister of State too. The student describes pretty shocking treatment at their hands:

After the Israeli security have conducted a full- body security check on me, they commanded me to physically remove my clothes; threatened me - despite me saying no - that if I don’t take off my trousers, they will deny me boarding on the flight. I had a breakdown in the airport and that did not stop them from harassing me; I was dazzled that this has happened on Irish grounds.

I am dazzled; I am absolutely shocked. I was not even aware El Al was flying from Dublin Airport. I would not mind an answer to this, though I am aware the Minister of State might not have it here. Is Israel doing pre-clearance security for flights from Dublin? If it is, that is really shocking. I am only reading from an email I received, so it is a question. I am not asserting it is the case, but this is what we are being told by a young Palestinian living and studying here. I believe there should be a complete policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against the Israeli state while it is committing crimes against humanity, including war crimes, ethnic cleansing, illegal occupation and illegal military attacks on other people's territory. Why would we not impose sanctions? Not only are we not doing that, but the EU gives Israel favoured trade status and Ireland continues to treat it essentially like a normal state.

If this is true we are even expanding that relationship with them and allowing the officials of this state, which is guilty of war crimes, to operate in this sort of manner on Irish territory, which is quite shocking.

As the Minister of State is aware, next week Sinn Féin is bringing a Bill to the Dáil asking for the Government to divest any investments it has in the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund that have any connection to the Israeli apartheid regime. It will be interesting to see what the Government's response to that is. If there is any serious intent behind this Bill, the stated objective of which is that rogue regimes that might use exports from this country for evil, murderous and immoral purposes, then surely the logic of that is that we should do everything we can to in no way support or facilitate a regime that is committing the sort of crimes the Israeli state commits against the Palestinians. Surely that is the inescapable logic of what the Government is suggesting is behind this Bill. That logic should extend to other brutal, murderous, authoritarian and undemocratic regimes. On the face of it the Bill has worthy objectives but unless this Government and the European Union start to practically act like they are serious about choking off any support for regimes that commit murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, including against Palestinians, Yemenis or other oppressed and exploited people across the world, then it is meaningless and hypocritical tokenism.

See this speech in context