Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

When the Tánaiste announced last April that he was establishing a consultative forum on international security, there was a fairly alarmed response from many Members of this House and outside the House. There was a view that this was a devious and covert attempt by the Government to jettison Ireland's well-served and popular policy of neutrality. Then, when it was announced that this forum was going to be chaired by Louise Richardson, an Irishwoman and a distinguished academic, it was pointed out that she was a person who had received an accolade from the British empire. I have to point out that I thought the British empire was an entity that ceased to exist about 100 years ago. Those who were critical of the Tánaiste and the proposed consultative forum pointed to the fact that this was inevitably part of the plot to steer Ireland into the arms of the military successors of the British empire.

We then had the publication of the programme for the consultative forum, which went on for a period of three days. It was pointed out that, astonishingly, it did not contain speakers such as Deputies Boyd Barrett or Murphy, who we have heard today. Instead it contained a collection of academics and individuals who had experience of security and army matters.

Then we got the report on 10 October last and, of course, it confirmed our worst suspicions. When one looks at the report from Professor Richardson, it contains some extraordinarily radical statements. I want to highlight some of them. On page 4, she states, "There was a palpable and widely held sense of pride in Ireland's values-based foreign policy and global reputation as honest brokers, mediators, advocates for human rights and arms control." She then made a couple of explosive suggestions, such as this one: "There was a broad consensus that Ireland needs to invest more in its defence..."Here is another one: "Broad support was also expressed for greater expenditure to address emerging threats such as cybersecurity and critical maritime infrastructure." Then she got to the section where she decided she was going to jettison Ireland's military neutrality and she said the following:

... there is currently no popular mandate in Ireland to abandon the policy of neutrality. Of those who responded to the submissions, 64 percent favoured keeping the current policy ...

[...]

For now ... there is no pressure, either internal or external, for a change in Ireland's policy of neutrality.

This confirms that many of the concerns expressed in this House and outside it about the purpose and intent of the consultative forum turned out to be false. It was not a devious and covert mechanism to jettison Ireland's military neutrality. In fact, this short and concise report reflects what was stated at the consultative forum over a period of three days. It outlines what I consider to be the broad opinion of the Irish people, which is that we respect and want to preserve our neutrality that has served us well.

Having said that, the report contains a couple of points that deserve to be reflected upon. One of those concerns whether there should be a constitutional amendment on neutrality. In effect, Professor Richardson is raising a prospect of which many people who opposed her appointment and the establishment of the forum would be in favour. It is worthwhile considering whether we should have a constitutional amendment to insert neutrality into the Constitution. My view, on balance, is that I would not support such an amendment for reasons I will express presently. However, we in this House need to be mature enough to recognise that simply because we are discussing an issue does not mean we are giving into or supporting that issue. We must be mature, brave and grown-up enough to recognise there are many complicated issues in international foreign policy and security policy that we need to discuss. By discussing them, we are not assenting to them.

At present, under Article 29 of the Constitution, international relations in Ireland are the responsibility of the Government. That is subject to the important proviso in Article 28 that the Government cannot declare war unless it has obtained the assent of a vote of Dáil Éireann. However, we should be careful about inserting into the rigid document that is the Constitution a provision such that Ireland shall always be neutral in respect of international affairs. Even limiting that to military neutrality is something we also should shy away from. We are much better placed with the current system, whereby there is broad public support for the principle of military neutrality but there is flexibility and a responsibility that rests on the Government. If the Government makes a decision in this regard that the public does not like, it can be put out of office in due course. We need to be cautious about putting ourselves in a very tight position where military neutrality is something that is absolute in the Constitution. I will not make a suggestion but I am sure we can all think of circumstances where, in the future, we may not wish to be militarily neutral; where we may wish to recognise that, in fact, we want to be involved in a dispute, whether to defend our own freedom or the freedom of others.

I welcome that Professor Richardson refers in the report to the policy of military neutrality that was adopted by Ireland during the Second World War. Unfortunately, it has now become a statement of popularity to criticise that policy. Not all parties in this House that existed back in the 1930s and 1940s supported Mr. de Valera and his policy of military neutrality but it was very effective and very beneficial from this country's point of view. In fairness to Professor Richardson, she highlights this, noting that de Valera's position was a pragmatic one as Ireland feared invasion by both Germany and Britain and did not have the means to defend itself. The Government also feared that siding with Britain would reignite a civil war. Professor Richardson says in her conclusion: "This was a pragmatic approach as, by being helpful [to the Allies], Ireland was reducing the incentive for Britain to invade." The policy that was adopted in the Second World War showed the benefit of Ireland being able to adopt its own policy in respect of not just neutrality but international affairs.

Neutrality means different things to different people. My own assessment is that, in an Irish context, military neutrality means we will not align ourselves with any exclusively military alliances. In short, it means we will not become members of NATO. I believe that is the wish of the majority of the Irish people. It is a policy the Government is right to maintain and one I would be extremely slow to change. However, there are areas we need to look at to improve the whole area of security in this country. The Tánaiste announced a couple of them earlier. We also need to give the Oireachtas a role in respect of security and the oversight of security within the State. If we look at other countries, parliaments generally have a role for elected members on security or defence committees. That is something we need to consider.

We also need to spend more on our Defence Forces. We really must recognise that, arguably through no fault of the Government, the numbers in the Defence Forces are declining considerably. In many respects, it is similar to the situation in An Garda Síochána in that it is hard to get recruits. We really will have to look at these absolutely essential public service jobs and see what we can do to make them more attractive to people. Without men and women in the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána, we really are placing the country at risk.

The forum was a good idea. We have seen in recent times, with the horrific violence in Palestine and Israel, that very strong emotions are generated among Irish people when they see that level of ongoing brutality and violence. We do not adopt a neutral position on such violence, nor would anyone in this House want to be in a position where he or she cannot speak publicly about it or we, as a country, cannot act in respect of it because we are neutral. It is important to point out what Irish neutrality is not. It does not mean we keep quiet when there is violence taking place in the world. It does not mean we do not seek to assign blame and responsibility when there are events of violence going on in the world. It does not mean we are politically neutral. The real strength Ireland has is that, in many respects, like the situation in Palestine and Israel and other areas of dispute, we occupy territory that is known to be contested. Our situation and the situation at present in Israel and Palestine both followed on from partitions that were designed to prevent sectarian conflict but that, in fact, ensured there would be such conflict. We have a great role to play in advising other countries in the world that their conflicts cannot be resolved through violence. One thing is for sure: the political objectives of Hamas and Israel, respectively, will not be achieved through violence; they will only be achieved through political consensus and solution.

See this speech in context