Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

This is an important and timely debate on two issues that matter to the Irish people and I commend People for Profit-Solidarity on tabling the debate. I want to deal with each issue separately, the first of which is the announcement by the Tánaiste, which I have to say was a surprise and I was in the House the time it was made. He stated that it is his intention to alter the long-standing mechanism to authorise the deployment of Defence Forces personnel on overseas missions. That mechanism, as we all know, is the triple lock, which entails the support of the Government, a positive decision of the Dáil and acting on a UN mandate from either the Security Council or the General Assembly. The Tánaiste has confirmed to me in our exchange during parliamentary questions last week that, in effect, he proposes to remove one of those three pillars, namely, the United Nations sanction, and to effectively have a double lock. I have heard other voices from the Government sources, particularly from the Green Party, that there will be a third element, but that is not what the Tánaiste informed the House last week.

The Tánaiste’s justification was that current practice gives a veto power to Russia - in effect to Vladimir Putin - and China. That is the legal structure of the United Nations since it was created. The five permanent members have veto powers. This was true in Soviet times and when the United States vetoed resolutions on Israel. There is clearly a case for reform, but that is not what has been proposed. The Government did not say that we need to reform the United Nations. It wants to abandon the UN sanction requirement.

The other side of that issue is the impact this change will have on Ireland and our Defence Forces. The long-standing and international mechanism we have and that everybody in the world understands has been cited repeatedly as an assurance to the Irish people during referendum debates on EU treaties. I have cited it myself when saying that Irish troops could not be deployed on overseas missions without UN sanction. This is important. It is an important matter of trust.

Third, the triple lock mechanism was always seen as a layer of security for our troops who can act with the authority of the United Nations, usually while wearing the much-valued blue beret. Those Irish soldiers were not seen as acting on behalf of any particular geopolitical group or any particular interest, but on behalf of the United Nations. They were safer as a result of that understanding and that would be removed, were the triple lock to be removed.

Many want to undermine or belittle the United Nations. Israel's commentary on the General Assembly vote on the recognition of Palestine is the most recent and blatant example of that. Right now, the international order is being tested. The International Court of Justice, ICJ, and the International Criminal Court, ICC, are now coming under enormous pressure and strain. Ireland must be among the defenders of the international order. We have created many of these institutions. We are the founders of many of these institutions. Do they have their difficulties? Yes, but we must be defenders, warts and all, until there is something better to be put in their place. This is because those who want to undermine it now want destroy the well-established working international order. There is a real fear that these institutions will be fatally undermined by growing isolationist self-interest. That is a momentum that is gaining interest and we should not join it. Ireland should not throw in the towel and should not be seen to be going alone and removing yet another brick from the edifice that was so carefully constructed over the last number of decades since the Second World War. We should not contribute to this undermining.

The second issue is that of neutrality itself. When we last debated this issue, I quoted Ivana Bacik’s speech on her election as leader of the Labour Party. She said:

I am committed to Irish neutrality.

But I believe our non-aligned status isn’t about opting out.

It has to be about opting in.

Opting into humanitarian missions, to peacekeeping, to diplomacy, and to the prosecution of war criminals.

We are not, and we never have been, neutral against barbarism and aggression.

We are not neutral against aggression of any sort. I can see the dramatic change in attitude among our EU partners and non-EU member states which, some with very good reason, fear a growing imperialist Russia. They listen to the speeches of Vladimir Putin and they know that he wants to restore an imperial Russia. His speech on the eve of the brutal invasion of Ukraine indicated that he basically wanted to have Russian hegemony restored, not only over the Baltic states, but over many of the states of Eastern Europe that are now independent and free. They look at the savage invasion of Ukraine and believe to their core that Vladimir Putin will not stop there.

In that context, what is Ireland's role? That is the issue we should be debating here. We will come under pressure from our partners, which is understandable, and our long-standing neutrality will be challenged. They will demand that we contribute to collective defence, and we must have a thought-out, reasoned, understandable and reasonable response to that, which should be that we develop our own positive neutrality, invest in our own capacity to police and monitor our waters, our infrastructure and our airspace. Our neutrality is not real if we depend on the RAF to patrol our skies and can only have one naval vessel at sea at any given time to patrol our very extensive economic zone waters. That is not neutrality. Neutrality has in the past been an excuse to not invest in our own defence but real neutral nations are capable of at least monitoring their own skies and territorial waters.

There is a role for a nation like neutral Ireland. There is a need for it in this volatile and changing world where everybody seems to be more belligerent and fearful. There is a role for a neutral Ireland that can argue for peace and can have the reputation and the capacity to explain that clearly to our EU neighbours.

See this speech in context