Micheál Martin (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Ní aontaím in aon chor leis an Teachta. Go háirithe, níl aon bhaint ag an gcinneadh seo atá tógtha ag an Rialtas lenár bpolasaithe i dtaobh ár neodracht mhíleata. Níl aon bhaint aige leis in aon chor. Tá sé in am dúinn an triple lock a chur ar leataobh agus as seo amach, nuair a bheidh an reachtaíocht imithe tríd an Dáil, beimid i gceannas maidir leis an gcinneadh atá á dhéanamh againn ó thaobh ár saighdiúirí.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. He will be aware that in my previous capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and for Defence, I brought a memo to the Government in April last year indicating and identifying the need for legislation, and instructing my officials to draft such legislation, to replace the triple lock. He will also recall that I established a very effective national consultative forum on international security policy and foreign policy, which his party opposed. I could never comprehend why it was so opposed to a basic debate on fairly fundamental issues. What emerged from the consultative forum is that the triple lock had nothing to do with the perception of Ireland on the international stage as being an honest broker and a country that looks at issues through the lens of international humanitarian law, which we do. Generally, all the contributors, and they were diverse, made the point that Ireland has been very active on the global situation, uses the multilateral institutions very effectively and also that we are generous in terms of our work through Irish Aid and through development policy, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and other locations. Generally speaking, it has been an active conduct of foreign policy that has earned Ireland strong credentials. We need to get rid of some of the mythology surrounding all of this that sometimes gets articulated by the Deputy's party and others.

In respect of the triple lock, it is very clear to us that in an exercise of sovereignty, it should be the Oireachtas that decides primarily the peacekeeping missions that we send our military to, not Russia or any other member of the Security Council. Russia should not have a veto. China should not have a veto. The US should not have a veto over where we send our soldiers in the pursuit of peace. It is as simple as that. When we were on the Security Council some years back, there were many challenges in terms, for example, of our attempts to keep humanitarian corridors open. In terms of north-west Syria and the humanitarian corridor to Tigray in Ethiopia, Ireland fought very hard to keep those corridors open. When we sought a resolution linking climate and security, for example, at the Security Council, we made enormous progress in endeavouring to get such a resolution passed. Guess what? It was vetoed at the end of the day by Russia.

This is about us exercising our own sovereignty in respect of participation in peacekeeping missions. The geopolitical situation has changed very dramatically. We have no intention to abandon our policy of military non-alignment. We are not a member of NATO. We are militarily neutral. We have never been politically neutral. Deputy Doherty may have been but the State has never been politically neutral.

We are a member of the European Union. We have been part of common security and defence in the European Union from the very beginning; we never opted out.

In respect of President von der Leyen's contribution today, it is important to read it. There is a fundamental and profound challenge facing Europe now. We cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore that reality, and it will need increased military expenditure. There is no question but it will, across Europe and, indeed, here.

See this speech in context