Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on the most recent European Council meeting, which was held before Christmas. I will focus on three areas, namely, Ukraine, the Middle East and the migration issue that was discussed. From a Ukrainian perspective, I am glad there is general consensus at the EU. Obviously, there are a couple of outlying EU states at the moment, but there is general consensus the European Union should support Ukraine for as long as it takes. I know there is a lot of talk in the US among some political parties that it should support Ukraine only for as long as it can, so it is very important the EU maintains its consistent position for as long as it takes or, as the Ukrainians would say, until victory, which is far more important.

In the context of Ukraine, I will focus on the European Peace Facility, the military assistance mission and the direct bilateral assistance between other states and Ukraine. It is good that Ireland is contributing to all three strands. It is contributing to the military assistance with body armour and ration packs as well as through the training of bomb disposal personnel, medics and drill instructors, which is very important and good.

There is consensus in this House that the money Ireland is providing for the European Peace Facility should be used for non-lethal aid only, which is perfectly fine, but there is an additional category we could provide for that meets that principle, namely, air defence. Ukraine, as we know, is suffering from Iranian-made drones firing at it, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles. It is very hard to have a lethal effect on something that is not alive, so it would be appropriate to allow the money we are allocating for non-lethal assistance to be used to provide radar and to use non-lethal assistance in the form of weapons and missiles to shoot down these inanimate objects. That is worth considering and it is entirely consistent with that principle.

A lot of Russian financial assets have been seized throughout Europe, particularly at the IFSC in the case of Ireland. The latest figure I heard, which may or may not still be accurate, was that this amounted to €1.8 billion worth of Russian financial assets in Ireland. I do not think it is enough to freeze that; we should seize it and use it. I know people are concerned about the repercussions and any reciprocal arrangement the Russian Federation could impose, but if there is a problem in Hungary and if there is a problem in Washington in respect of providing financial assistance to Ukraine, I think we should look at these seized Russian financial assets as well.

From a Middle Eastern perspective, it is a little more depressing that there is not consensus from a European Union point of view. I recognise there are historical reasons for this, but it is a pity there is not greater consensus. Even so, I am glad to see a lot of European states are moving towards Ireland's position, which shows how effective our diplomatic network is. It is appropriate we are looking for an immediate ceasefire to allow for more humanitarian assistance to get in and for a prisoner or hostage exchange to take place.

Another issue I am concerned about, which I have not heard anyone else raise, relates to what would happen if Ireland were to act unilaterally and not as part of the international community. Has any risk assessment been carried out in respect of our troops and diplomats in the Middle East and what the likely repercussions would be? South Africa, for instance, does not have any troops in the Middle East and it is quite appropriate for it to bring a case to the ICJ if it wishes, given it is unlikely it will face any repercussions, but Ireland does have a lot of boots on the ground out there. While I would be very supportive if there were an international community response through the ICJ, I would be concerned that if there were a unilateral approach from Ireland, there would be repercussions on the ground for our diplomats and troops. Has a formal risk assessment been conducted? I am not sure if the Minister of State has that information to hand, but if not, it might be worth considering.

I join the previous speaker in saying we are concerned about escalation and a widening of the conflict into the Red Sea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and, most especially, south Lebanon, where we have a lot of people. There seems to be a lot of commentary in both the Israeli Government and the Knesset that there is a likelihood of a move towards the Litani river in south Lebanon. That should be avoided at all costs and we should use every diplomatic lever and tool to prevent that from occurring.

On migration, I am glad to see it is on the agenda of the European Council because it is quite a sensitive topic and anybody who speaks on it should be sensitive about it. There seems to be a move to work towards a prevention approach whereby we look at the countries both of origin and of transit. Many people ask about the Irish development assistance fund, which comprises more than €1 billion depending on how you measure it, and whether that is money well spent. I think, for sure, that it is. Yes, we should be doing it from an altruistic point of view in any event, but the key message I am trying to get across is that it is also in Ireland's vital national interest that our overseas development aid budget be maintained in order that we can look after people in their countries of origin such that they will at least not feel forced to migrate to Ireland. If they come legally and in an organised, measured way, that is a completely different scenario. It is good that the issue is being discussed at a European level and here over recent months.

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the readout from the most recent European Council meeting and I look forward to the next one next month in Brussels.

See this speech in context