Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

14. To ask the Minister for Defence if he will clarify his views on Irish neutrality following his comments reported in the latest edition of NATO Review on the subject. [29308/13]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agreed to an interview with NATO Review on 21 March this year. The question I was asked regarding Ireland's neutrality was how important it is for a militarily neutral country like Ireland to be in partnership with an organisation like NATO. In response to this question I referred to the fact that although we are a neutral country, our traditional stance on neutrality bears no relevance to the fight against terrorism or cyber security issues which are real threats for Ireland and the European Union today. In relation to the issue of neutrality, Ireland's policy of military neutrality is defined by non-participation in a military alliance or mutual-defence arrangements.

Ireland's military neutrality is particular to its own unique history and geopolitical position and is not affected by participation in Partnership for Peace. Ireland's membership of Partnership for Peace since 1999 is consistent with our traditional foreign policy approach and objectives such as the protection of human rights, support for development and arms control measures and our overall security policy, including non-membership of military alliances.

There is no mutual defence commitment involved and the partnership provides a voluntary framework for security co-operation. The principles of the Partnership for Peace are anchored in the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe charters, and are consistent with Ireland's foreign policy goals, particularly the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister is aware, Ireland has a proud tradition of neutrality. Our people are very proud of it, have endorsed it and wish to see it continue but it is active neutrality. Ireland has been one of the highest per capita contributors to overseas aid in the world. That has been our tradition. Our tradition in the missionaries is one of active participation in assistance to the developing world. We have made a real contribution to conflict resolution. As I speak, people are assisting the process in Colombia in a real way, learning from the lessons here in Ireland. It has happened in Sri Lanka also and will happen in many other countries. We have a proud tradition of blue helmet peacekeeping operations. We have an active, participative role. We do not sit on the fence. We play to our historical strengths. We are not a country that colonised other countries. We were colonised, and that gives us real strength and credibility in playing a role in conflict resolution. That is the context.

The concern is that we have had the Beyond Neutrality document from Gay Mitchell, from the Minister's party. We have had these comments from the Minister. Can the Minister confirm decisively that the Fine Gael Party, and the Minister as Minister for Defence, stand by and are proud of our position of neutrality and wish to move forward on that basis?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very proud of the dynamic role we are playing in peacekeeping operations over the world and in our engagement with partners in the European Union. I recognise the importance of us being members of Partnership for Peace and I do not have a problem of any description with our military neutrality, but I will reiterate and repeat every time anyone asks me that I am not neutral when it comes to terrorism and people being blown apart. I am not neutral when it comes to cyber security issues and ensuring that people are protected against individuals who engage in cyber crime and seek to disrupt not just companies and individuals, but states. I regard our involvement in Partnership for Peace as of importance. Unfortunately, Sinn Féin, a body that had a great belief in military engagement until relatively recently, has a particular perspective on these issues.

Partnership for Peace was established in January 1994 as a means of outreach to the new democracies in central and eastern Europe and as a way to promote stability and strengthen relationships through the promotion of practical co-operation. It is a very important grouping. It has since been joined by states that wish to become NATO members and those that do not. Partnership for Peace includes the neutral and non-aligned states of Finland, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland. Russia is also a member, something of which some members of Sinn Féin in its earlier guise would have approved. They were never quite neutral over Russia. Some of them thought what Russia did in most parts of the world was a reasonably good thing.

We have been a member of Partnership for Peace since December 1999, and in that time, Dáil Éireann has approved a presentation document setting out overall priorities for Ireland's participation, the foremost being co-operation in peacekeeping. I am pleased that our engagement in Partnership for Peace has ensured the Defence Forces operate at the highest level, allowing for interaction with other members of Partnership for Peace in UN peacekeeping missions. It is particularly in the interests of this State, using our expertise in peacekeeping, that we maintain that relationship.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good to see the Minister back in mischievous form again, that he has got his mischievous mojo back. We enjoy it when he is on form.

The Minister is well aware of the concerns about NATO. A substantial number of the more prominent NATO countries have a colonial history in North Africa and the Middle East. NATO was supposed to have been dismantled after the Cold War. It is a relic of that time and is no longer necessary. The United Nations and the EU are in place to deal with conflict resolution. I am not asking for the Minister's personal view, I am asking for the Government position. Does it stand over our long-held and proud tradition of active, participative neutrality, playing to our strengths, to protect human rights, help developing nations and, where necessary, to be involved in peacekeeping and conflict resolution?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should be reasonably clear by now that the answer is "yes". I become concerned when neutrality is used as a flag to suggest we should not engage in peacekeeping, or that we should be neutral when it comes to terrorism and people being blown apart. I will never be neutral about that. Neutrality can be a convenient flag on occasions to avoid making moral judgments that should be made in the international arena.

Do I support our not being formally part of some military alliance intent on invading some other state? Of course I do, but it is important that we do not regard NATO as irrelevant. Close co-operation between NATO and the UN and its agencies is an important element in the development of what is known as an international comprehensive approach to crisis management and to UN operations. In that context, the UN relies on regional groupings to facilitate putting together peacekeeping missions and operations. NATO in that context is a crucial element. UN Security Council resolutions have provided the mandate for NATO operations in the western Balkans and Afghanistan, and we participated in NATO-led operations in those areas. More recently, NATO operations to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack in Libya in 2011 were carried out under the remit of UN Security Council Resolution No. 1973. NATO also provided support to UN-sponsored operations, including logistical assistance to the African Union's UN-endorsed peacekeeping operations in Darfur, Sudan and Somalia, support for UN disaster relief operations in Pakistan following the dreadful earthquake in 2005, and escorted merchant ships carrying World Food Programme humanitarian supplies off the coast of Somalia.

NATO has reformulated itself into a very important body in dealing with peacekeeping and humanitarian relief across the world. Our link to that is through Partnership for Peace.