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

I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward this motion. At its most basic, removal of the triple lock would make it easier for Irish troops to be deployed on military operations overseas. While some might think that is a good thing, I certainly do not. In practice, it means the State could send military personnel overseas on missions not mandated by the UN, since the clause that has served us so well for decades will have been removed. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have not clarified which potential missions currently restricted by the triple lock have motivated their move to end the current conditions. The question has already been asked several times, but I reiterate it: what are the missions the Government would like to see Irish troops take part in? Are they EU missions? To date, all of the missions on which Irish personnel have served have been UN mandated. The continuous presence of the blue helmets of Irish troops overseas is one of the great proud traditions in my constituency. Army personnel taking part in those missions is something people find great strength in. Are the missions about which I am asking led by the US, the UK or perhaps just those that are opposed by Russia? We do not know. Clarity is needed to explain this move and the implications it might have. Has the Government considered training forces from other countries if this is deemed appropriate? In that context, I refer to the provision of rifle training for Ukrainian snipers. That significantly breached our neutrality when it happened. We need answers in respect of all of these unknowns. Because the State is not mandated to interfere in this way, the public should not be either misled or led down a garden path. Deployment to train forces from another country might in the past have been deemed an act of war.

The purpose of the UN mandate for Ireland, which Fine Gael wishes to remove as part of the triple lock, is to ground us in international peace and collective security and ensure that we do not get dragged into great power conflicts. That is probably more relevant now than it has been at any time in our history. Without such a mandate, governments hold all of the power when it comes to military action. It is quite frankly hard to trust a Government which has been defined by so many inaccuracies in its own statements regarding the triple lock.

The Tánaiste's comments on the triple lock when the previous Government was in power have been well documented this evening. A couple of months ago, the leader of the Green Party, Deputy Eamon Ryan, said that the triple lock has served us well to this point. Yet, we still have legislation about to come before us that says different. The vague nature of the intentions of the move worsens our concerns when it comes to the justification for these actions. At present, the plan seems like an erosion of our neutrality. How could it not be? Why would we trust that it is otherwise? It is precisely our position and adherence to neutrality that gives us legitimacy on the world stage. The world urgently needs voices calling for and countries working towards de-escalation, demilitarisation and disarmament rather than towards the opposite. Ireland's colonial and postcolonial experiences resulting in the promotion of self determination, anti-imperialism and anti-militarism have defined our contributions to peace at international level from the outset.

The Government speaks of preserving Irish sovereignty by removing the triple lock. However, when it comes to acting unilaterally on an international stage, such as recognising the state of Palestine and Israel's imposition of an apartheid state, it shies away from being brave and uses the justification of waiting to act in consort with others. The electorate deserves a say in this matter. The Government has not been mandated to decide what Irish sovereignty should look like. That is an important point. The Government has no mandate. Whether you agree or disagree on this, it represents a significant change in policy and direction. There is no mandate. The programme for Government does not talk of removing the triple lock. Fianna Fáil did not campaign on removing the triple lock in the most recent election campaign. There is no mandate from the Irish people for this significant change. To do this without putting it to a referendum or campaigning on it prior to the next general election goes against the nature of the democratic mandate we have when we form Governments. It should be for people to decide.

This all comes from a consultative forum, which was stacked with speakers who can only be described as pro-NATO. I do not believe in a NATO like approach to military partnerships, and the Irish people clearly do not either. Frank Aiken believed that using soft power rather than militarism was an important way for Ireland, as a neutral country, to play a role on the world stage. Every time we have spoken about neutrality or the triple lock in the Chamber over the past year, I have purposely used the Frank Aiken example. Parties can have relatively proud traditions for which they stood in the past. They should have pride in that. Moves like these undermine those traditions.

In 1957, Frank Aiken told the UN General Assembly:

... like many of our fellow Members here, we are a young State, but a people with a proud and ancient history ... [It] is as such a country that we speak here today in the hope that our profound conviction, born of long experience of tragic frustration, may carry weight with this Assembly.

I agree with Frank Aiken when he said that this remains the way forward in the context of Ireland's place on the international stage. Aiken was against the notion of Ireland taking part in anything like NATO. He was renowned at the UN for never caving in to pressure from the British or the Americans. Ireland's role as a neutral country when it comes to UN interaction is a virtuous one. It was Ireland's neutrality that enabled this vitally important, independent and bloody maverick position we fought hard for. The current programme for Government commits this Government to ensuring that all overseas operations will be conducted in line with our position of military neutrality and will be subject to the triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval. To take that away without a referendum or without making it an election issue and putting it before the people is an abandonment of that mandate. Meanwhile, these calls take place when our Defence Forces are in crisis and struggling to recruit people. This crisis and the struggle to retain staff are only worsening. The Naval Service can only put one or two ships to sea to patrol and secure Irish waters. This is not to mention the missions we would potentially have to undertake abroad. There is no coherent plan in these codes. They are dangerous in their ambiguity. If this point needs to be argued, let it be put to the people by means of a referendum or as an election issue. It should not be forced through now in the absence of a mandate.

See this speech in context