Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I begin by thanking Deputy Connolly and the Independent Group for bringing forward this motion. It is hugely timely and appropriate that we discuss Ireland's position in the world now despite what the Tánaiste said in his comments earlier today.

Last week, I began my contribution to the statements on the conflict that has been raging in the Middle East, with an expression that feels warranted to reiterate here today. We are living through horrible times. In the 109 years that have passed between today and the beginning of the First World War, the world has not been bereft of conflict, war, massacres, genocides, terrorism, evasion, and loss of life on an industrial scale. I certainly would not try to create a hierarchy of these tragedies and their impact upon the generations on whom they befell; I just know that once again we are living through horrible times. Though fortunate enough to be far removed from these horrors, we must each have particular atrocities etched in our minds that capture the barbaric nature of the war. Is it the bombings of the maternity hospital in Mariupol; the counter-offences from Ukraine where every yard of heavily minded territory is being fought with the loss of an, as yet, incalculable number of human lives; the barrel bombing of Aleppo; the drone warfare rained upon the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; the first climate-related conflicts in the Sahel; or the tragedies currently unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East?

While fully appreciating our position in the world is, at this point, a luxury, why in the name of God would we wish to be anything other than a voice of peace in this horrific world? More than ever, as war rages in so many areas around the world and nuclear armed superpowers are once again actively engaged in proxy wars, the world urgently needs voices for peace and countries working towards de-escalation, demilitarisation and disarmament.

I want to spend some time discussing several findings from the much-maligned and much-discussed consultative forum on international security policy that was initiated this year by the Tánaiste. There was an assertion that Ireland's neutrality "is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Ireland’s global standing as a force for good in international affairs". It was reminiscent of the Tánaiste's comments that Irish neutrality is not a lucky charm to protect Ireland and that a reimagining is needed. I will return to this point. I highly refute the assertion made by the consultative forum. There is no evidence for it in the reality of Ireland's position in the world as it is today. It is almost revisionist of the position we have etched out painstakingly through decades of work by Irish politicians and diplomats at UN level over the course of almost 70 years. Let us also not forget the people who put themselves in harm's way in the name of peace on UN missions.

From the outset, the values of self-determination, anti-imperialism and anti-militarism which derived from Ireland's colonial and post-colonial experience have defined our contribution to peace proposals at the United Nations. Liam Cosgrave, our first Minister for External Affairs to attend the UN, outlined that Ireland is unique in that it is the only western country that has long experience of being treated as a colony, not only having been temporarily occupied during a war but having been governed over many generations by a foreign country whose rule people rejected and strove to shake off. He said this at the UN plenary meeting in 1956.

Ireland's diplomats and our Ministers have used this history to claim some understanding of the psychology of opposing belligerents and have always appealed to both sides in a conflict. This is reminiscent of the Taoiseach's words yesterday when he asked us to take a step back and understand the psyche of some of our European counterparts. Let us understand our own psyche and our own position. Frank Aiken, who was member of the Minister of State's party, said that like many fellow members of the UN, Ireland was a young state but had a people with a proud and ancient history. He said it was coming from such a country that he spoke in the hope that Ireland's profound conviction, born of long experience of tragic frustration, may carry weight with the UN Assembly. He spoke these words on 23 September 1957. In the present day, Irish ambassadors have explained that most UN member states, being small and former colonies, identify with Ireland's size and history, with Ireland's commitment to the rule of law, equality, justice and multilateralism, and with its discourse, policies and voting positions on decolonisation and disarmament at the UN. This is the exact soft power that is invaluable to our position in the world. It is something we should not let go of lightly.

Frank Aiken insisted that Ireland should maintain independence and not become any part of a tight group bound by agreements to support one another no matter what the subject for discussion. Radical and groundbreaking proposals from Aiken led to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This is probably one of the greatest achievements of Irish diplomacy and diplomacy as a whole in the past 100 years.

I wish I was addressing the Tánaiste, who has spoken on this. Since the foundation of the State it has been precisely our position and our adherence to neutrality that has given us legitimacy on the world stage. Any eroding of this impacts on our standing. This is an important point to make. I feel we are entering an era when politicians on the Government side see our position on neutrality as a weakness on the global stage. It is the exact opposite and always has been. The sense of having a maverick independence is what has given us credibility, legitimacy and a place. When the dogs of war and the hawks are assembling, will the Irish position simply be to go in and give a little bark behind them or will we stand forthright and be a voice for peace?

Another point I want to refer to with regard to the consultative forum is that there does not exist in Ireland a popular mandate to abandon the policy of neutrality. I did not need a consultative forum to tell me this. I am reminded every day by the people I meet on the street and when I knock on doors. I live in a constituency that has a proud tradition of people entering the Defence Forces, going overseas and putting themselves in harm's way in the name of peace. The greatest defence they have in this has always been our position on neutrality. I did not need a consultative forum to tell me this.

The Tánaiste went to great pains to speak about the triple lock and the complications that come from it in its current iteration. There is an element of cowardice in the fact he keeps speaking about engineering the conversation but never lays out a plan. This is the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If he has this conviction, he should stand over it. More to the point, he should put it to the people, either in a referendum or laid out as a policy position going into a general election, and let the people decide. This half-conversation, stating we need to speak about it and that there has been a change, is cowardly.

I want to take up another point that was made yesterday at the Security Council, that eastern Europeans here are more inclined to support NATO. I live in a constituency in the north inner city and I am very proud to come from there. A total of 40% of people in my area were born outside of Ireland. Many came here from conflicts. I remember the first refugees from Kosovo coming in the 1990s and how they enhanced the football teams. I know these people as adults now. There is no sense from them, having come from conflict, that they wish in any way to place themselves back in it. They are stringent voices for peace. We should never forget there is no evidence to support the statement that was made.

There is an idea that neutrality is not defined. If it is the case, I believe it is a purposeful and constructed ambiguity. We should not step away from Article 29 of the Constitution which states:

1 Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2 Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

3 Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

What is wrong with this definition? It has served us very well until now. It is given us the proud place we hold in the world and we should not diminish it in any way.

See this speech in context