Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann: notes:

— that Article 29.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality";

— that Article 29.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination";

— that Article 29.4.9^oof Bunreacht na hÉireann states "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State";

— that Article 28.3.1^oof Bunreacht na hÉireann states "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann";

— that the "triple lock" reinforces Ireland's policy of neutrality and ensures that Ireland will not engage in military actions inconsistent with our neutral status, that through its requirement of United Nations (UN) approval for military deployments it ensures that Ireland adheres to the principles of international law and demonstrates a commitment to resolving conflicts through peaceful and diplomatic means, and that it ensures that decisions to commit Irish troops to military operations are made democratically and transparently;

— the declaration of neutrality referring to "Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality" was lodged along with the Single European Act's ratification instrument;

— that the Maastricht Treaty states that the treaty "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States";

— the Seville Declaration inserted into the Treaty of Nice, to facilitate the holding of a second referendum on the matter and the insertion of Article 29.9 into Bunreacht na hÉireann that the State would not take part in any EU common defence arrangement;

— the Irish Guarantee on the Lisbon Treaty which sets out that Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality will be unaffected, and which guarantee facilitated the holding of a second referendum on the matter;

— that repeated polls confirm the unwavering support of the majority of Irish people to Irish neutrality, and the most recent Irish Times/Ipsos poll, June 2023, found that 61 per cent of people surveyed favour the retention of our current model of neutrality; and

— the judgment of the High Court in Horgan v An Taoiseach [2003] IEHC 64 highlighting "the great historic value attached by Ireland to the concept of neutrality";

further notes:

— an estimate of at least 3.5 million US troops, along with onboard weapons, have passed through Shannon Airport since 2001;

— the exponential growth in European Union (EU) military spending and the commitment by EU member states to increase defence expenditure by €70 billion by 2025, bringing the annual EU spend on military and weapons technology to €284 billion per year;

— the devastating and catastrophic consequences of the war industry on climate change; and

— the involvement of Defence Forces' personnel in rifle weapons training of Ukrainian military personnel under the EU Military Assistance Mission Ukraine;

acknowledges:

— not being part of a military alliance remains a central part and fundamental pillar of our foreign policy since the foundation of the State;

— the long and proud tradition of Irish neutrality and its historical significance;

— Frank Aiken's commitment to the promotion of disarmament and peaceful conflict resolution on the international stage through his work at the UN and the subsequent successful adoption of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970;

— Ireland's record of peacekeeping around the world and the significant role our neutrality plays in enhancing our international reputation as a peacekeeping and non-aligned nation;

— that our policy of neutrality has earned respect for Ireland among the international community and entitled us to engage internationally in diplomatic efforts, to promote peace and to contribute to conflict resolution as a trusted mediator and facilitator;

— that neutrality necessitates active investment in peaceful solutions and conflict resolution and requires the allocation of resources towards the improvement of public services by investing in healthcare, education, infrastructure, and climate action, rather than in military expenditure; and

— at a time of increased instability in the world, now more than ever is the time for Ireland to use our role as a neutral country to facilitate the peaceful resolution of conflicts;

and calls on the Government to:

— affirm and reiterate our steadfast commitment to neutrality;

— initiate legislation for the purposes of holding a referendum enshrining neutrality in our Constitution;

— maintain and strengthen our role as a responsible, non-aligned and impartial nation, promoting peace, stability and diplomacy on the global stage;

— continue to support international peacekeeping efforts, diplomatic negotiations and humanitarian initiatives in alignment with the principles of neutrality;

— work to raise awareness of the importance of neutrality and its contribution to global peace;

— ensure the inspection of civilian and military planes travelling through Irish airports to verify that they are lawful, including in accordance with SI No. 224/1973 – Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order, 1973;

— properly fund and resource our Defence Forces; and

— confirm and ensure that Irish Defence Forces' personnel are not, and will not be, involved in lethal weapons training of foreign military forces.

Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaithe a bhí sásta an rún seo a shíniú. Is iad siúd na Teachtaí Pringle, Joan Collins, McNamara, Harkin agus Fitzmaurice. Is cúis bhród dom seo a chur os comhair na Dála agus a rá go soiléir go bhfuil gá práinneach lenár nguth a úsáid, guth tír neamhspleách agus neodrach. Níos mó ná riamh, tá gá leis an nguth sin a chloisteáil. Táimid faoi scáth an chogaidh i nGaza. Agus muidne i mbun cainte agus i mbun díospóireachta anseo, tá daoine - gasúir agus leanaí - á mharú ar shráideanna Gaza, agus muidne ag seasamh agus gan rud a dhéanamh.

Sin an comhthéacs inniu ach bíonn comhthéacs ann i gcónaí. Bhí comhthéacs nuair a rinne na Stát Aontaithe agus an Ríocht Aontaithe cogadh mídhleathach san Iaráic in 2003, 20 bliain ó shin, an rud ceannann céanna. Is féidir aon bhliain a úsáid agus rud a chur i gcomhthéacs. An rud is tábhachtaí dúinne ná go bhfuilimid ag rá go bhfuil gá le neodracht gníomhach. Ní hionann neodracht agus seasamh ar leataoibh; ní hé sin atá i gceist againne.

10 o’clock

Is é an rud atá i gceist againn ná ról gníomhach, bunaithe ar an méid oibre, obair na gcapall, a rinne fear d'Fhianna Fáil, Frank Aiken, ag dul siar, ag tógáil air sin agus ar an obair atá á déanamh ag ár gcuid saighdiúirí ar fud an domhain agus ag cur in iúl gur rud dearfach é polasaí neodrachta. Ní polasaí diúltach é ach polasaí a mbaineann dualgas leis chun a chur in iúl don domhan, de bharr ár n-eispéiris féin sa tír seo agus de bharr stair na tíre, go bhfuil bealaí eile ann agus a bheith sásta ár nguthanna agus ár dtuairimí a chur in iúl nuair atá rud mícheart ná éagóir á dhéanamh. Rinneadh éagóir ar mhuintir Iosrael nuair a chuaigh Hamas trasna na teorann. Níl drogall ar bith orm é sin a rá ach, ag an am céanna, tá dualgas orm agus orainn sa Dáil a chur in iúl go bhfuil éagóir ollmhór á déanamh ag arm Iosrael faoi láthair. Ní féidir seasamh a thabhairt agus cáineadh a dhéanamh ar dhream amháin gan cáineadh a dhéanamh ar an dream eile.

I thank the Tánaiste. It is an extremely important topic as he well knows, and I know it is dear to his own heart, although I might not agree with all of his views on it. I have put this motion today with the help of my colleagues, Deputies Thomas Pringle, Joan Collins, Michael McNamara, Marian Harkin and Michael Fitzmaurice, and I look forward to the support of other small and bigger parties here today.

I do this not to embarrass the Government nor to be contentious or argumentative. Now more than ever, with the focus on what is happening in Gaza, it is bringing into acute focus how we should use our neutral role in a very active manner. I have to say that having seen the Government's countermotion or amendment, and while I often use the word "despair" and try not to because we need to give hope, nonetheless I despair of what the Government has put back in response to my motion. I have set out the articles in the Constitution, the most recent one put in after the Nice treaty. I have set it all out, and the Government has absolutely ignored it. It has not even acknowledged in its countermotion that there is a constitutional basis obliging us to take a peaceful role in the world. Following the various referendums, we put in declarations, guarantees and warranties that we would not abandon our neutral policy.

Going back to the ratification of the Single European Act in 1987, it was acknowledged that Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality was lodged along with Single European Act's ratification instrument. The Maastricht treaty in 1992 said that the treaty "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States", including Ireland. When the people of Ireland voted against the Nice treaty, the Seville Declaration was put in to facilitate the holding of a second referendum. That took us up to 2001 and 2002. The insertion of Article 29.9 into Bunreacht na hÉireann, which I have laid out, says that the State would not take part in any EU common defence arrangement. Then we move forward to 2008 and 2008, and the Lisbon treaty. When it was rejected on the first occasion, we had a guarantee put in to facilitate the holding of a second referendum. We have had repeated polls confirming the people's support for Irish neutrality. The most recent poll in The Irish Timesin June 2023 found that 61% of people surveyed favoured the retention of the current model of neutrality.

Regarding the consultative forum on international security policy, the report of which was published, and I thank the Tánaiste for that, although I have serious problems with the way that forum was initiated and conducted, I will quote from the report of the consultative forum on international security policy, the title alone of which I hope I have time to come back to. The chairperson acknowledges:

It was frequently expressed and rarely contradicted that there is currently no popular mandate in Ireland to abandon the policy of neutrality.

[...]

There was a palpable and widely held sense of pride in Ireland's value-based foreign policy and global reputation as honest brokers ... There was a particularly strong sense of pride in Ireland's history of peacekeeping since 1958 [an unbroken record] with 508 Irish soldiers deployed overseas as of 1 October 2023.

[...]

A considerable majority [that is a use of words that, when we have the debate, I will come back to] of those who spoke ... on this topic expressed the view that there is presently no public appetite for a change to the current position on neutrality [and so on].

I know the Tánaiste has repeatedly confirmed that the Government has no intention of joining NATO, and I take that on board. However, I find his statements with regard to our neutrality extremely worrying, agus gan dabht, tá blas na bréagchráifeachta i gceist. Tá bréagchráifeacht go smior sna ráitis a thagann ó Roinn an Aire. While the Tánaiste says the Government is not going to change our neutrality, his amendment tell us the Government has "no plans" at the moment. Given the history I have just outlined, there are "no plans" - that is exactly what it says - at the moment to change our neutrality "The Government reaffirms its commitment to a policy of military neutrality and reiterates that it has no plans to join a military alliance". There are "no plans".

Let me just look at what we are doing here. Twenty years ago, there was an illegal war on Iraq. The Tánaiste will remember that. There were huge protests on the streets. I was among 100,000 people who were on the streets of Dublin. I think there were more than a million people in London. It was an illegal war with fabricated reasons and propaganda. Twenty years later, Guantánamo Bay is still open, bringing home the consequences of what happens when we let a consensus mentality and propaganda take over. Twenty years later, the UN rapporteur, an tOllamh Fionnuala Ní Aoláin - her title is very interesting: the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism - visits Guantánamo Bay and praises the Biden regime for helping her out in allowing her technical visit. I am going to read the following out because it is important to say:

The [special rapporteur, 20 years later] ... reaffirms the UN Special Procedures finding of structured, discriminatory and systematic rendition, secret detention, and torture and ill-treatment at multiple (including black) sites and at Guantánamo Bay. She acknowledges that the vast majority of the men rendered and detained there were brought without cause and had no relationship whatsoever with the events that took place on 9/11. Every one of the 780 Muslim men who were held at Guantánamo Bay - including the 30 ... who remain [there, 20 years later] - lives(/d) with their own distinct experiences of unrelenting psychological and physical trauma.

I have to say that this report is a moderate one in context. She looks at the victims and the effect on victims as well. She follows up three different strands, one of which is the prisoners and what they suffered. I use that to say that, 20 years later, that is just one of the consequences of what we allowed to happen, an illegal war in Iraq based on propaganda. Today, we look in the context of Gaza, and while we have rightly condemned Hamas, there has been absolutely no condemnation of Israel for the breach of international law; absolutely no condemnation. If we look at Hamas and who the greatest supporters of Hamas are, I quote the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, back in 2019. He made a statement at a March 2019 meeting of his Likud Party's Knesset members, which was reported in the newspaper Haaretz:

Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian state. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organisation with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars [and so on].

This was Benjamin Netanyahu back in 2019. It has repeatedly been printed in various media to say that was the active policy of Israel regarding Hamas. The Tánaiste might reflect on that. In March 2019, Benjamin Netanyahu told his party that "anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas". This was reported in lots of papers.

To return to the motion before us today, if the Tánaiste is committed to neutrality, I have no idea why he could not accept even the first part of the motion, which sets out our tradition, our constitutional provisions and the comments of the Supreme Court in the case taken by the very courageous Ed Horgan, who acknowledged that the traditional policy of neutrality was held dearly by the Irish people. I have no idea why the Tánaiste could not have acknowledged that and come back to us to give us reasons it cannot be enshrined in the Constitution. He is going against the wishes of the majority of the people in Ireland. My experience, reading and listening have told me that the vast majority of people in Ireland want neutrality as an active policy enshrined in our Constitution, allowing us to take a proud position in the world with regard to conflict resolution building on our past, the Troubles and what we have done in Colombia, of which we have been very proud, and what we have done throughout the world. Why can we not enshrine that in our Constitution? There is no argument other than the one made by the Tánaiste yesterday at the forum and presumably today that we need flexibility. If anything, neutrality has been extremely flexible since its origins back with Wolfe Tone. It has permitted each Government great flexibility but the kernel is that we remain non-aligned. The kernel is that we are not afraid to speak truth to power as in this case with Israel.

While I have the utmost understanding of where the Israeli people and the Jewish people have come from and understand their fears and dread, what they have done to Gaza is simply unacceptable. It has been an open-air prison for almost 17 years and there has been refugee status in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for 70 years. It has faced constant humiliation and degradation. The Secretary General of the UN has begged for a humanitarian opening for one, two or 20 trucks to go in. On a daily basis up to now, I understand that between 100 and 500 trucks were needed to keep the people alive, as 80% of them depend on outside help and humanitarian assistance. Now we are not even letting in one truck. Humanitarian organisations and UN organisations are telling us that they will pull out tonight. Collective punishment of the Palestinian people is a war crime. It is against all international human rights provisions and laws. I have no idea why we cannot stand up, say that and use our voice to say "what you're doing is wrong; we will work with you for a peaceful solution". I have no idea why we cannot do that. I do not know why we have to play games or engage in the hypocrisy of saying one thing but not something else.

It is worth looking at an tOllamh Fionnuala Ní Aoláin's title because there was no mention of human rights in the consultative forum. Look at the title and the framing of that. I will not use too much of my time on that except to say that I was horrified at the manner in which it was set up and the framing of the discussion with no mention of human rights and no open discussion of neutrality or how it could serve us. There was a framing in terms of terror, fear and the war industry. The Tánaiste can shake his head all he likes but at the end of the day, we have to talk to each other as human beings and have to find a way to reflect what the people of Ireland want. I have resorted to shaking my head myself. It does not really help matters. The Tánaiste needs to tell us why he thinks we need to be more flexible in our neutrality policy given the debacle that has ensued following the Hamas attack on Israel and Israel's war on the Palestinian people, the debacle in Europe and the comments of Ursula von der Leyen and others when we are waiting for a common response. We are a sovereign independent nation and fought dearly for that status. Why are we not using our voice loudly and clearly to Israel and equally to Hamas to bring a perspective to the situation that differs from Europe?

The misuse of the veto has been put forward as one of the reasons we should get rid of the triple lock. The triple lock was vital in getting the various treaties passed so that we would need a UN resolution and the agreement the Government and the Dáil. Repeated statements from the Tánaiste tell us that this needs to be changed and flexibility allowed, without any analysis of what has happened regarding the veto in the UN. I agree that the veto has been misused on occasions by Russia and the US, almost equally if you look at the history of the veto. I understand that recently when Brazil brought a motion on stopping the war or having a humanitarian pause, it was the US that objected to it. I understand when you look at President Biden's speeches, not his less nuanced speeches but the more nuanced speeches, he is saying "don't do what we did; don't do what we did in Iraq and face the consequences of that". When you talk about training, and this brings the hypocrisy to the fore, we will send troops over to train Ukrainian people to defend themselves. It would never even be conceived that we would send our Army to help the people of Gaza. I am not saying one should or should not do it. I am asking the Tánaiste to reflect on our hypocrisy and how we will take a certain stand and adopt a certain narrative when it suits the powers and when it does not, we will do something else. That is not what neutrality means.

See this speech in context