Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am not saying Deputy Gannon was crazy in this context but he mentioned that Kosovans in this country do not want conflict. I am absolutely certain they do not; he is right on that. However, our peacekeepers in Kosovo have been cited by Sinn Féin in its policy document on neutrality as a threat to our neutrality and as an erosion of it. Peacekeeping in Kosovo is included in a list of things that have eroded our neutrality. There have been a lot of things said in this debate that do not add up. There has been a lot of criticism of the US. I do not speak for President Biden but Members should take a look at his last few tweets. They have all been about the Palestinian people and about aid and support for Palestinian people. There has been criticism of France, one of our closest allies.

Yet there are contradictions. Deputy O’Reilly rightly said that Ireland has played a leading role on the international stage through our diplomats, governments and representatives over many decades. Deputy Ó Murchú said the Irish Government has been a positive. That is the case because of the steady hand the Government has had on foreign policy. We react where it is absolutely necessary and consider things over time. It is fair to say that the initial position of the Tánaiste is now basically the position that pretty much the rest of the EU has taken. There have been divergent views around the EU table - that is not a secret - but that was the position the Tánaiste took on day one. He did not take two days, like the leader of the Opposition, to condemn that Hamas attack. The position he took on day one is the current position and is the correct position in terms of what is right by international humanitarian law, namely, that we condemn it unreservedly when 1,200 people get killed by Hamas and acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself but we also say to Israel that it has to do this within the confines of international law. That applies to everybody.

The Government has said in relation to neutrality that there is a changed geopolitical context and a wider threat environment in Europe, and that this calls for a serious consideration of our approach to international security issues and the contribution we can and should make to the safety and security of Europe. In a highly globalised economy, and Ireland is a highly globalised country, we cannot rely on our geographic isolation for our security, nor isolate ourselves from world events. As we debate these issues, it is important to be clear on precisely what we are discussing. Ireland’s policy of military neutrality has been practised by successive governments over many decades, and Fianna Fáil Governments are very proud of that policy because it has contributed to the global standing of Ireland and has contributed to world peace. Those who have actually implemented it on the ground, our soldiers, deserve the greatest thanks of all. This means we do not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. It is also important to reiterate that there are no plans to alter our policy of military neutrality. The Government’s countermotion explicitly reaffirms this position, a policy that I have been proud of for many decades.

I also want to reinforce the important aspects of Ireland’s foreign policy which have shaped our engagement for decades. We have a long-standing commitment to contributing to international peace and security, as enshrined in the UN Charter. This means we take an active approach – we do not sit back - towards peace support operations and crisis management. We contribute to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, work for human rights and development and promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. This is our consistent position, which, to be fair, is acknowledged in this motion and has been acknowledged by some of the speakers in the Opposition. We also support a strong EU role, with our fellow democracies in Europe, in supporting the maintenance of international peace and security and we engage actively in the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, and since 2017, through the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO.

PESCO is presented by some members of this House as a Trojan horse, leading to the eventual participation by Ireland in a notional European army. This is a false narrative that is deliberately peddled by some in an effort to misrepresent the reality. Many people today quoted neutral Austria but they did not tell us the reasons Austria is neutral. There is a very complicated historical picture there around the Soviet Union leaving Austria. Austria is also a member of PESCO but it does not see it as a threat to its neutrality. Our participation in PESCO is entirely voluntary, with groups of EU member states co-operating with one another on projects of mutual interest. Ireland has the joint lowest rate of participation of the 26 participating member states. The Government believes we need to do more, not less, through PESCO, if we want our Defence Forces to have the capabilities they need. The Opposition talks about providing our Defence Forces with that capability. Particularly in Kildare, in Deputy Cronin’s area, the Defence Forces would support further capabilities for the work they need to do.

We believe that a multilateral system, with the UN Charter at its heart, remains our strongest protection and the State’s most important security asset, though getting involved in the world. Ireland’s commitment is to a values-based foreign policy, to multilateralism and to a policy of military neutrality. That does not insulate us from the harsh new security environment. As the Tánaiste said, neutrality is not a magic charm to protect us from malign actors. Against this backdrop, the Tánaiste recently convened a consultative forum on international security policy. The aim of the forum was to build a deeper level of understanding of the threats faced by the State and to examine the security policy options available. The forum discussed these issues in a wider foreign policy context, including Ireland’s work to protect the rules-based international order and the lessons from our UN Security Council membership. The chairperson of the forum recently submitted a report which provides an overview of these discussions and the public consultation. The report is now being reviewed by the Tánaiste and has been published online.

It is the Government’s view that the motion presented by the Independent Group effectively closes off deliberations on this report before they have begun. This also has the effect of reducing those options to the binary ones presented in the motion, rather than holding a nuanced, open conversation on the international security challenges facing the State and the best way to address them. Further, we do not believe a referendum enshrining neutrality in our Constitution is appropriate. There are already several provisions in our Constitution that underpin Ireland's foreign and security policy. In particular, Article 29 reads, "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." There are certainly outdated provisions in the Constitution de Valera wrote and we need to change them, but here is one that is certainly not outdated. Article 29.4.9, which is an amendment from more recent times, 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." In other words, we cannot take part in a European common defence without a referendum. We just cannot do it. This has been widely thrashed out in various European referendums we have had. Indeed, the protocols attaching to the Lisbon treaty specifically recognise Ireland’s policy of military neutrality. They state, "The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality." That is one of the protocols.

At the same time, the motion makes reference to the need for the State to ensure its territory cannot be used by other states to transport war material or personnel to third countries for the purpose of war or other armed conflict. Everyone in this House already knows that foreign state and military aircraft that are permitted to land at Irish airports, including at Shannon Airport, must comply with strict conditions. These include routine stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and must not engage in intelligence gathering, and that the flights in question must not form part of any military exercises or operations. These conditions are applied to all international partners. They are not specific to individual states, and are with full respect for Ireland’s military neutrality. These will continue to be held up.

As the House is aware, earlier this year the Government approved Ireland’s participation in the EU assistance mission in support of Ukraine, the mandate for which is to strengthen the capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces to defend the country’s territorial integrity under international law and to deter and respond to Russia’s aggression. In July, the Government agreed to increase the level of the Defence Forces’ engagement, including through the provision of basic military training, mine flail training, leadership training and drill instructor training. These training modules respond directly to the identified needs of the Ukrainian armed forces and reflect the capacity and capability of the Defence Forces. All training delivered will be within the terms of the Government’s approval. Ireland has participated actively in CSDP crisis management missions across the world for many years.

Importantly, the Government’s view is that the countermotion proposed sets out the context of Ireland’s international engagement more accurately and more comprehensively than as provided in the original motion. It does not pre-empt the important discussions the Dáil has to have on the outcome of the report prepared by the chair of the consultative forum. It is clear from the substantial engagement in the forum, as well as the debate here today, that there is a real interest and diverse range of views on Ireland’s international security policy.

As the Tánaiste said, this is welcome. The countermotion calls for an ongoing debate on these important aims. It explicitly commits to having a Dáil debate on the outcome of the consultative forum, including its report, and possible next steps without delay.

See this speech in context