Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— Ireland's policy of active military neutrality and non-membership of military alliances, as per the Programme for Government: Our Shared Future;

— Ireland has a longstanding commitment to contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security, as enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter;

— Ireland's policy of military neutrality is an important strand of our foreign policy and is characterised by non-membership of military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements;

— as practised by successive Governments, our foreign policy is informed by an active approach towards peace support operations and crisis management, our contributions to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, our work for human rights and development, and our efforts to promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction;

— Ireland has a long tradition of international engagement, including through participation in UN and UN-mandated, European Union (EU)-led peacekeeping missions;

— Ireland supports a strong EU role in supporting the maintenance of international peace and security and engages actively in the European Union's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), including, since 2017, through the EU's Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO);

— the Government convened a Consultative Forum on International Security Policy from 22nd-26th June, 2023, with a view to building public understanding and generating discussions on Ireland's foreign, security and defence policies;

— the Chairperson of this Consultative Forum, Louise Richardson DBE, recently submitted a report of these discussions and the associated consultation process, to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Micheál Martin TD;

— this report was brought to Government and subsequently published online on 17th October;

— this report highlights the pride in Ireland's role in the world in peacekeeping and peacebuilding, as well as a broad consensus on the importance of continued international engagement, particularly in the UN and the EU contexts; and

— this report also demonstrates a clear recognition that Ireland faces new and emerging threats, including in cyberspace and in the maritime domain, and the value of working with EU and like-minded partners in these and other areas;

recognises that:

— the Government reaffirms its commitment to a policy of military neutrality and reiterates that it has no plans to join a military alliance or enter into a mutual defence arrangement;

— the Government does not believe a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution is appropriate;

— the multilateral system – with the UN Charter at its heart – remains our strongest protection and the State’s most important security asset;

— Russia's brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, blatantly violating the UN Charter and international law, has nevertheless fundamentally changed the geopolitical and security landscape in Europe;

— in its wake, countries all over Europe have examined their foreign, security and defence policies;

— as a highly globalised country, Ireland cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events; and

— in this context, the Tánaiste is currently reviewing the report on the Consultative Forum and considering its conclusions; and

further notes that the Government:

— is committed to a Dáil debate on the outcome of the Consultative Forum, including on the Chairperson's report, and on possible next steps, without delay; and

— will consider in this light whether to bring forward a set of specific follow-up actions and policy recommendations, building on the report of the Forum, and focusing in particular on opportunities for ongoing multilateral and international engagement, further capability development and investment in the Defence Forces, and steps to tackle new and emerging threats, including through engagement at the UN and EU level.".

Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil ár dtír gníomhach i gcúrsaí agus i bpolasaithe idirnáisiúnta sa UN agus san Eoraip. Táimid neamhspleách agus tá meon neamhspleách againn i gcúrsaí gnóthaí eachtracha. Tá traidisiún ann ó Frank Aiken ar aghaidh, agus tá sé sin le feiscint i láthair ar fud na hEorpa agus ar fud an domhain.

Today’s debate on neutrality provides us with an important opportunity to clarify what Ireland’s policy of military neutrality does, and does not, actually mean. In Ireland’s case, our policy of military neutrality as practised by successive Governments over many decades means that Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. Let me be very clear on this. This Government has no plans to alter this policy. It is not part of the Government's agenda and it is not in the programme for Government. I have been a member of successive governments that have never changed our policy of military neutrality despite all of the allegations and accusations levelled.

However, it goes without saying that military neutrality does not mean we either wish to, or can, isolate ourselves from the challenging security environment we find ourselves in today. Nor does it mean we can ignore our responsibilities towards our own citizens or other international partners.

Last week, the chairperson of the recent consultative forum on international security policy, Louise Richardson, presented her report on the forum and the consultation process. On behalf of the Government, I commend her on this work. I find it extraordinary that Deputy Connolly is quoting liberally from this very honest, open and objective report even though she and many other Deputies tried everything to stop this consultative forum. Protests were organised and baseless allegations were made about the forum. Now that the forum has reported, they are quoting liberally from it. To me, that needs reflection in this House. Why was there such a concerted effort in the House to undermine that forum from the outset? Allegations focusing on the personalities and on the chair have all turned out to be baseless.

I suggest that the motion put forward by the Independent Group effectively seeks to pre-empt discussions on this report and the outcome of the forum before they have even properly begun. One of the most striking elements of the chairperson’s report is the degree to which there was broad consensus on some of the most important elements of our security and defence policies. These issues are often portrayed in a polarising light. It is worth recalling the level of agreement that exists, which the chair has helpfully reflected in her report. This includes, for example, the pride we feel as Irish people over our contribution to international peacekeeping, or the palpable desire to sustain and build on Ireland's role on the global stage.

There is recognition that we face new and emerging threats. We are increasingly aware of the havoc that can be wreaked by malicious actors in cyberspace, a reality brought home very powerfully by the cyberattack on the HSE in 2021. The only way to deal with cyberthreats is by working with others, collaborating with others, and pooling information and expertise. At the same time, our geographic situation as an island in the Atlantic forces us to confront vulnerabilities in our offshore infrastructure. One only has to look at what happened to Finland and Estonia when the gas connector and interconnector were sabotaged recently.

While the debate before and during the forum made clear that many people in Ireland have a strong attachment to neutrality, one of the most useful things that Louise Richardson drew out in her report is that there is still evident confusion as to what this does and does not mean in an Irish context. This is precisely why we need to have this forum and why we require an evidence-based debate about some of the conclusions that the report draws. Indeed, I find it hard to understand why the Independent Group is attempting to close down that discussion before it begins.

During the forum, many contributors expressed a clear view in favour of working more closely with our international partners at UN level, our European Union partners and NATO's Partnership for Peace, of which Ireland has been a member since 1999. The consultative forum was also valuable in shining a light on the areas where we must consider our national security arrangements and examine what we can do to meet the challenges we face today. For example, there was widespread acknowledgement of the need to invest more in the capabilities of our Defence Forces. Indeed this investment is already taking place through the implementation of recommendations made by the Commission on the Defence Forces and the allocation of €1.23 billion in budget 2024, demonstrating this commitment. We anticipate that this significant level of funding will enable further progress as outlined in the recently published strategic framework.

The question of the triple lock was also raised on a number of occasions. Here too, it is clear that there is no one viewpoint on how best to manage the basis for deciding how and in what circumstances we should deploy Irish troops abroad. In my view, we cannot ignore the deep and systemic challenges facing the UN Security Council. That is most evident in how difficult it is to agree or renew UN peacekeeping mandates, as we saw at first hand while serving on the council in 2021 and 2022. Even when it comes to renewing humanitarian corridors in areas such as Ethiopia and Syria, Ireland was independent and stood out for its firm and principled stand on the UN Security Council, much to the anger of some vested interests in other countries that did not agree with our position. The idea that we are not independent, that we do not have an independent voice and that we are not calling out or standing up is fundamentally wrong. We are a very proactive country. We are very active in international affairs and in conflict resolution across the world. We need an honest articulation of that. We do not need the pretence that we are not proactive, or that putting something into the Constitution would somehow enable us to do that better. In fact, it would reduce our capacity to be as proactive as we are in terms of articulating our values internationally.

As we live in an increasingly unpredictable world, it is all the more imperative that we work together to navigate the real and complex choices we face from a baseline of facts and evidence. The consultative forum and the chair's report give us a very important element of this baseline. I am committed to continuing this conversation, especially in this House, with a view to taking forward a positive and proactive international role in the area of security and defence policy. In the view of the Government, the motion we are discussing today would serve to seriously undermine this proactive international role. While paying lip service to our engagement in international peacekeeping, diplomacy and humanitarian action, the motion, if agreed, would serve to curtail Ireland’s efforts to contribute to international peace and security, rather than enhancing them in any way.

In particular, the Government would have real concerns about the proposal to hold a referendum enshrining neutrality in the Constitution. We do not believe this would be an appropriate or responsible course of action. We are fundamentally a parliamentary democracy. What definition of neutrality are people suggesting should go into the Constitution? The policy of military neutrality has always been, and remains, a deliberate policy choice on the part of successive governments since the Second World War. I have already said that the Government has no intention to alter this policy. The consultative forum reflects the esteem and respect for this policy. This does not mean that we cannot and should not continue to discuss our international security policy and challenges, and the choices we face. If this motion were passed, it would constrain the Executive's ability to exercise its policy-making authority in respect of the conduct of external relations, as already articulated in Article 29 of the Constitution. We know from previous experience that inserting overly simplistic provisions into the Constitution on sensitive and complex issues does not serve this State well.

Therefore, the motion as presented holds real risks. Why would we wish to prevent a current or future Irish government from using the full range of instruments and tools at its disposal, either bilaterally or through the European Union? Whose interests does this serve? We need to retain our right to chart an independent course of action, but this cannot be at the expense of maintaining the vital network of bilateral and multilateral partnerships, particularly as an EU member state, that we currently enjoy. These relationships, and the flexibility needed to maintain them within our policy of military neutrality, help to keep our country safe and our people secure. As I have said, a major theme that emerged from the consultative forum is the need for Ireland to leverage these partnerships to address new security challenges, particularly in areas such as cybersecurity, tackling hybrid threats and protecting undersea infrastructure. It is clear to me that we need this renewed focus on our core national security interests in an increasingly complex and contested world.

I will finish with a few words about the current international geopolitical context. We are living in unprecedented times. Russia’s appalling actions in Ukraine have demonstrated an utter disregard for international law, the UN Charter and Europe’s collective security architecture. We are also facing an appalling situation in the Middle East. The Government has repeatedly said that a commitment to multilateralism - the rules-based international order, with the UN Charter at its core - is the cornerstone of Irish foreign policy. This situation is no different. This will remain our strong and consistent message throughout this crisis. Most importantly of all, we must be cognisant of the reality of this challenging security environment and what this means. Simply put, we cannot afford to tie our hands, to isolate ourselves or to ignore our responsibilities towards our own citizens, our fellow EU member states or other friendly partners. Inserting provisions on military neutrality into the Constitution without allowing for a serious discussion of the threat environment and the appropriate policy response, as reflected in the recent report on the consultative forum, simply closes off that conversation just as it is beginning. This is the context in which the Government opposes this motion and the constitutional amendments proposed here by the Deputies. Looking ahead, I will reflect on the report on the forum and will consider whether to bring concrete recommendations to the Government by way of possible follow-up. The Government will hold an early debate in the Oireachtas on the issues involved.

See this speech in context