Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to speak on this report. As the Minister knows, in Sinn Féin we saw this consultative forum on international security policy as unnecessarily political and narrow. I attended the four days of the forum and contributed to each of the sessions. We made clear in our submission our vision and ambition for Ireland as a neutral and independent state, playing a key role in peacemaking, peacekeeping and humanitarianism. Within that, we outlined our belief that our neutrality should be enshrined in our Constitution and in EU treaties, this being the desire of the majority of Irish society.

On the forum, what we warned about in theory we saw and experienced in practice, as the Government’s preferred position was elevated and reflected, day after day and panel after panel, while in the main, those who wanted to keep and protect our neutrality were forced to contribute from the floor. It was extraordinary that the majority view of the people of the State, which is to protect our neutrality, was largely confined to informal contributions. It was almost as if we were bit-part players or guests in something of national import, when in truth, in a referendum, when it comes, the people will be the ultimate deciders. I was glad to see that Louise Richardson’s report stated so clearly that: "It was frequently expressed, and rarely contradicted, that there is currently no popular mandate in Ireland to abandon the policy of neutrality." I would put it to the Tánaiste that the Government should attend to that wish and that lack of a popular mandate, and apply itself to making sure it is enshrined in our Constitution.

We have responsibilities to our partners, as the report points out, and we share this world. However, events have rapidly overtaken the report because we also have the responsibility to be ethical and compassionate and be a courageous voice of people who have been abandoned by those international partners referred to in the report. As is unmissably the case with Gaza, when Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gave what she called the EU’s “full support” to Israel. That full support from Ursula Von der Leyen opened hell on the innocent children of Gaza, where the civilian people of Gaza have been reduced to medieval siege conditions by the most moral army in the world. In reality it is the most amoral army in the world. President von der Leyen has no difficulty calling the removal of food, water and power a war crime when it is done by Russia but when it came to Israel, she gave it the EU's “full support”. There are serious questions here for the “partners” mentioned in the report, and for how democracy functions in the EU. There is a huge gap and disconnect between people marching on the streets for their belief in humanity and desires as democrats, and the pet projects of their EU leaders, conducted behind closed doors. This is a dangerous development for the EU, which is visible for all to see and one we cannot ignore.

The Tánaiste said earlier that during the consultative forum many contributors also expressed a clear view in favour of working more closely with our international partners. They were invited guests who were brought in because that was their opinion. There were hand-picked panels. Everything has changed since then. In the context of the report and our responsibilities and values as outlined, we must speak up for people who are murdered; killed; maimed; terrorised; blown to pieces by Hellfire rockets and shrapnel; burned by white phosphorous; pounded by land, air sea and drone; and crushed by concrete. Parents are losing their children and children losing their parents. Thousands and thousands of bodies are piled high. These are images reminiscent of the Holocaust. Extremely big questions remain about the behaviour of the EU and countries the reports refers to as our “partners”.

It is vital that Ireland remains neutral and has an independent foreign policy and an independent voice in Europe. That is a voice the Tánaiste has used in part, even though he lacks the courage to go far enough He should have agreed with us to refer Israel to the International Criminal Court, a court where it belongs gan dabht ar bith.

See this speech in context