Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an ócáid seo agus an chaoi seo labhairt faoi pholasaithe gnóthaí eachtracha, polasaithe a bhaineann le cúrsaí cosanta agus na dúshláin atá ann agus atá le teacht ar an bhfód sna blianta atá romhainn. Tá seans againn an díospóireacht leathan sin a bheith againn, ní hamháin anois ach sa chomhdháil atá i gceist againn a bhunú. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the consultative forum on international security policy set to take place next month across four days and three venues in Cork, Galway and Dublin.

I am sharing time with the Minister of State, Deputy Burke.

As I stated previously, my aim in convening this forum is to build a deeper public and political understanding of the international security environment facing the State and the policy options available to us. This needs to be a national conversation, one that is inclusive and, as the name of the forum implies, consultative. We want to reach a broad audience and ensure meaningful public engagement. The forum will involve a wide range of stakeholders, analysts and practitioners. As I stated on several occasions, the discussion will not simply be a binary one on the issue of neutrality but, rather, will cover a breadth of areas relating to our foreign security and defence policy.

One of my key aims in convening the forum is to ensure the conversations we have in this country in respect of our security policy choices are well informed and based on fact and evidence. Members of this House, as well as the wider public, have differing views on how Ireland should address the international security policy challenges that face us. Those differences are entirely legitimate. It is precisely because there are many valid policy options to consider that I have initiated this national conversation. I have stated on multiple occasions, as has the Taoiseach, that the Government is not pre-judging the outcome of any of the discussions at the forum. There is no hidden agenda at play. Let us dispense early on with the notion that this is part of the latest secret plan by the Government to join NATO. What is important, though, is that the conversations are based on fact, not fiction. It is vital that the forum looks in an honest and serious way at the reality of the international security environment and how we, as a nation, should respond to this. In that context, I hope all parties and Deputies in this House will engage constructively in respect of the aims and ambitions of the forum. Ireland’s foreign, security and defence policy is simply too important to be reduced to politically expedient slogans. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle I believe that everyone in this House, notwithstanding political differences and individual or party political perspectives, shares the view that we, as a State and as a nation, have a fundamental duty to take our own security seriously. I also believe that all of us are aware that our security transcends national borders.

I will return to some of the practical aspects of what we envisage from the forum shortly. First, I will reflect more broadly on where we find ourselves today. Just under 15 months ago, the men, women and children of Ukraine were woken from their sleep by the brutal full-scale invasion of their country by Russia. This unprovoked and illegal act not only shattered the lives of millions of Ukrainian citizens, it also shattered the collective European security architecture, which had existed since before the end of the Cold War. It brought a hard reality home to many across Europe and beyond. First, that there are those in the world who are willing to use military aggression to invade and subjugate a democratic, peaceful, sovereign and militarily non-aligned neighbour. Second, that there are those in the world who, again through all possible means, including the use of force, are ready to challenge the rules-based international order and the universally accepted principle of respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This principle is the foundation of all of our security.

As I stated earlier this month in my speech to the annual international affairs conference of the Royal Irish Academy, the multilateral system, with the United Nations charter at its heart, remains our strongest protection and our most important global security asset. Our security in Ireland, indeed our very existence as a sovereign state, ultimately relies on the compliance by all states, however large and powerful, with this basic principle. None of us here has been under any illusion that the principles of the UN charter, and of the multilateral system more broadly, were held sacrosanct until 23 February last year. Millions of people globally have borne the brunt of brutal violations of international law and of human rights. Much of Ireland’s foreign policy efforts, through many decades, have been concerned with addressing those violations and trying to strengthen the international norms that protect civilians. Even in a fragile and contested global environment, however, few predicted that the European Continent would see a massive land-based territorial invasion of a sovereign country by its neighbour. Few imagined that apartment blocks, playgrounds and schools in cities a few kilometres from the borders of the European Union would be bombarded with hypersonic missiles.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I may interrupt the Tánaiste, would it be possible to get a copy of his speech?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on the way.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Army is bringing it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Few anticipated that the largest refugee movements in Europe since the Second World War would take place in a matter of weeks in the springtime of 2022.

Ireland's foreign policy has always been grounded in the principles of international law, human rights, equality, respect, dialogue and engagement. Article 29 of our Constitution sets out the principles that guide Ireland's conduct of its international relations: the ideals of peace and friendly co-operation among nations, founded on international justice and morality; adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination; and the principles of international law as our rule of conduct in our relations with other states. Our foreign policy is deeply anchored in these ideals. We have, correctly, sought to position ourselves as a voice for good in the world, a champion of international humanitarian law, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, disarmament and non-proliferation and a strong advocate and defender of a rules-based international order. We have prioritised sustainable development, the eradication of poverty and hunger, the empowerment of women and girls and the promotion of inclusive economic growth.

As a country, we should be proud of our record. These values will remain at the core of Irish foreign policy. The Irish people would expect nothing less from this Government or from any future Government. However, this record, this commitment, does not inure us from reality. Our starting point in addressing our security must be the world as it is, not the world as we wish it to be.

Earlier this year, I saw a clip of a television interview with two Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas about Ireland's foreign and security policy. The interviewer started the interview by asking whether Ireland should tap into the potential of our neutrality as a peacemaker or whether we were a staunch US ally that would not question US foreign policy. With all due respect to the interviewer, this is fundamentally not the question we need to ask ourselves about our foreign and security policy. The choice is not between being a vocal and convinced supporter of the UN Charter and the global multilateral system or unquestioningly taking on the mantle of another country's foreign and security policy. The choice is not one in which military neutrality is a talisman that allows us to do good in the world whereas any other security policy choice would mean abandoning our commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes and international humanitarian law and human rights. Our belief in a rules-based international order goes to the core of who we are as a people, but it is not a magic charm. It does not protect us from malign actors, from those who treat the UN Charter with disdain and who actively try to undermine the existing multilateral system rather than uphold and improve it.

In May 2021, in the middle of the Covid pandemic, a cyberattack using Conti ransomware was carried out against the Health Service Executive by a Russian-based criminal gang. The attack brought home to many of us the real-world devastation that the malicious use of technology can bring. Hundreds of thousands of patients were impacted. The work of hospitals and medical professionals was disrupted across the country. This is just one example of some of the security challenges and vulnerabilities facing Ireland.

We have long viewed our relative geographic isolation on the periphery of Europe as a source of security. For much of the State's history, that made sense. The perceived threat of conventional attack was low. The Ireland of 2023 is different. We are a highly globalised country. We can no longer rely either on our geographic isolation for our security nor believe that we can isolate ourselves from world events. Despite being a small country, we are a highly significant digital hub internationally. We are home to nine of the top ten global ICT companies. We have one of the highest concentrations of IP addresses per head of population anywhere in the world. We are reliant on digital architecture and networks for our economic well-being and our prosperity and, as the ransomware attack on the HSE demonstrated, for delivering vital services to our population. The Government has worked hard to increase the capacity of the State to defend ourselves from these risks, with significant additional resources and capabilities allocated to the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC, since 2021. However, no one country acting alone can respond effectively to cyber threats that can emanate from anywhere in the world, threats whose sophistication and complexity grow by the day.

We are also an island nation, and this brings its own specific risks and threats. Since the attacks on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in the Baltic Sea in September 2022, we cannot ignore the particular vulnerabilities posed to energy and communications infrastructure across Europe, most especially in the waters of the North Atlantic close to our shores. Indeed, some estimates suggest that undersea fibre optic cables now channel 97% of the world's global communications and Internet traffic, as well as $10 trillion in financial transactions every day. Many of these cables run close to the coast of Ireland, either through our territorial waters or our wider exclusive economic zone, EEZ. Ireland's geography ensures that we have been a fulcrum of such transatlantic infrastructure since the laying of the first telecommunications cable from Valentia Island in 1866. Simply put, disruption to these cables or the network of undersea energy infrastructure and pipelines could have devastating consequences, not only for Ireland, but also for our partners.

Our geography also makes it essential that we work in partnership with others. It is absolutely the case that part of the solution to managing these threats and risks more effectively is increased investment in the military and civilian capabilities needed to address them. The Government has already committed to increasing investment in the Defence Forces to €1.5 billion - in 2022 prices - by 2028. No one doubts that this is necessary and urgent. Taking the maritime domain alone, Ireland's EEZ covers hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, so when I hear that the answer to addressing our vulnerabilities is to build our autonomous capabilities, without any mention of our current partnerships and the future potential that they hold, it is difficult to take that as a serious proposition.

I have said previously that our policy of military neutrality can and must be an important part of the discussion at the forum but equally, that these questions must not be reduced to a simplistic binary choice. Staying as we are today or immediately seeking to join a military alliance such as NATO are not the only options. There is a more nuanced, informed and layered discussion to be had, unpacking and examining our long-standing policy of military neutrality while at the same time exploring the full spectrum of policy options that are available to us as a sovereign state and a committed member of the European Union. In this regard, I anticipate that the forum will provide a space to examine critically and unambiguously the choices that face Ireland, as well as our responsibilities towards our European and other like-minded international partners.

We need to examine the reality of our experience in recent years as a global actor, including our term on the United Nations Security Council in 2021 and 2022. The forum will look at our achievements on the Security Council but also at the obstacles we faced. These included multiple uses of the veto by Russia and significant challenges in ensuring that mandates for UN peacekeeping operations were agreed and fit for purpose. While Ireland has a proud and unbroken record of continual service in UN peacekeeping since 1958, no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. The increasing use of the veto is limiting the council's ability to fulfil its mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security. The forum needs to examine what this means for Ireland's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy, including the implications for the triple lock. With the experience of recent years, can we genuinely and honestly say that the triple lock remains fit for purpose?

In an EU context, we have long been an active participant in the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP. We have undoubtedly benefited from our engagement in the CSDP, as well as contributed to it, with 16 Irish Defence Forces personnel and 21 civilian experts serving as we speak in peace-building, conflict prevention and post-conflict stabilisation efforts throughout the world. This contribution will increase significantly next month with the deployment of a naval ship to the EU's Operation Irini. The forum provides an opportunity to discuss this in more detail and to examine the reality of what it means in practice. The forum will examine how Irish military and civilian deployees in EU missions are contributing on the ground to the EU's efforts to build and sustain peace; what the EU is doing through the European Peace Facility to support Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and sovereignty against attack; and Ireland's participation in permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, where member states come together in different project groups to develop new military and defence capabilities. I hope it will also allow us to put aside for good the fictional notion that Europe's Common Foreign and Security Policy is a stepping stone to a "European army", a concept that no country in Europe wants or is considering.

The consultative forum will provide an excellent opportunity to examine the experiences and policy choices of other European partners in responding to the new security environment. We need to learn lessons from what others are doing and consider how we can develop our existing partnerships. The forum will hear from experts and practitioners from Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland in particular. We have chosen these countries as useful comparative examples quite deliberately. Norway, with which we served on the UN Security Council, is a country that is active in peace-building and conflict prevention across the world, but is also a long-standing NATO member and a country that has taken its own security seriously since its experience under German occupation during the Second World War. Sweden and Finland, two fellow EU member states with whom we share many values and interests, have now chosen to seek NATO membership following Russia's latest invasion of Ukraine.

Switzerland, whose neutrality has existed for several centuries, has a unique perspective on what this means, both legally and politically, and how this links it to wider global engagement. None of this is to say that any of these countries offers the right model for Ireland. Rather, the discussion will allow us to outline the nuances and different possibilities of international engagement, and the ways in which others have responded to the changing international security context.

Another area to explore during the forum will be our engagement with NATO’s Partnership for Peace, which we have been a member of for almost a quarter of a century. To date, this partnership has principally focused on upgrading our military capabilities and standards, thereby ensuring the effectiveness and interoperability of our Defence Forces. More recently, at its Madrid summit in 2022, NATO outlined a range of existing and new areas for partners, such as Austria, Switzerland or Ireland, to work with it on. These include maritime security, cyber and hybrid, climate and security, and resilience and critical infrastructure. With Ireland currently negotiating an updated partnership framework with NATO, the forum offers a good opportunity to explore some of these potential areas of mutual interest and relevance to this State.

A further area of discussion at the forum will be the ongoing work to develop the capabilities of our Defence Forces. We have committed to multiannual funding increases, already commencing this year, to reach a defence budget of some €1.5 billion by 2028, index-linked to inflation. This will amount to a 50% increase in defence funding since the establishment of the independent commission in 2020. Moreover, we will incrementally increase personnel numbers by some 2,000 over and above the current establishment of 9,500. As has previously been said in this House, the Government does not underestimate the challenge in achieving this objective, but we are working hard to address issues around recruitment and retention. Against the backdrop of the threats that I identified, I anticipate the forum will assess which elements of the capability framework devised by the commission could be prioritised, and the policy choices to be made. Finally, but very importantly, we will seek to have an open and honest discussion on Ireland’s security policy options for the future. We will discuss what our current policy of military neutrality means, whether it is fit for purpose in the current global security environment and whether we need to define more clearly what we do and do not mean by military neutrality. In this context, I hope that the forum will provide a space to discuss what other security policy choices may exist for our island, as well as our responsibilities towards other partners.

I will now turn briefly to the format and structure of the forum. As I said, the consultative forum will be spread across four days in three different venues. We are delighted that University College Cork will host us for the first series of sessions on 22 June and that the University of Galway will host the forum on 23 June. I extend and put on record my warm thanks to both universities for facilitating and hosting the forum. I know that as academic centres of excellence, they will provide a very appropriate space for thoughtful and reflective discussion on the issues involved. Following the sessions in Cork and Galway, the forum will move to Dublin Castle for two further days of consultation and discussion on 26 and 27 June.

While I know that some in this House have expressed a preference for a citizens’ assembly, I was conscious that two other important citizens’ assemblies are already under way this year, the first on drugs policy and the second on the future of education policy. At the same time, against a backdrop of the increasingly complex and challenging security context across Europe, it was my view that discussions on our international security policy could not be delayed. Given that all parties have their particular perspective on this, this forum is more applicable and appropriate. As we envisage it, the consultative forum will involve a broad range of stakeholders, with participation from civilian and military experts and practitioners. The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence are currently consulting with academic, civil society, research and State agency partners to identify a wide range of speakers and participants, from Ireland and abroad, representing a breadth of experience and views. In total, we anticipate that up to 1,000 people will attend the forum. Moreover, discussions will be livestreamed, allowing members of the public access to the discussions. A consultation exercise will also be launched online at the end of May, through the gov.ieplatform.

As Deputies will be aware, Professor Louise Richardson, the highly respected former vice chancellor of the University of Oxford, has kindly agreed to take on the role of independent chair of the forum. I am confident that Professor Richardson, who is a distinguished political scientist with a strong expertise in security policy in her own right, will play a hugely positive role in chairing the discussions. I am grateful to her for taking on this important task. Professor Richardson will also be responsible for the production of a report of the consultative forum, to be delivered to me, following its conclusion. I will consider its findings and decide in due course whether to take recommendations to the Government.

Before I finish my remarks on the forum, I will briefly touch on some inaccurate media coverage over recent weeks regarding certain national security matters. There is a well-founded and long-standing practice by successive Irish Governments not to disclose specific details of national security arrangements, whether related to land, air or sea. The public disclosure of such details would only serve to undermine efforts to protect our people and co-operate with like-minded partners. I reassure the House that the policies conducted by the Government are conducted with full respect for Irish sovereign decision-making authority. To ensure the security of its sovereignty, territorial integrity and citizens, however, every state needs the ability to maintain as confidential certain information on how it manages its security and defence arrangements. Every state needs to ensure it is a reliable and responsible security partner when it works with others, whether that is in peacekeeping missions, joint training activities or collective efforts to protect critical infrastructure and defend against cyber and hybrid attacks. Suggesting otherwise is simply not serious.

That is not to say we do not need a more consistent and informed debate on national security issues: we do. That is precisely why I decided to convene this forum. I also recognise there is a debate to be had on improving the way the Oireachtas engages and oversees our international security policy. I would welcome such a debate, but let us ensure that it is honest and informed by the experiences of other partners, which have put in place appropriate parliamentary oversight procedures.

I hope that the consultative forum will provide a useful platform for a considered and realistic discussion of Ireland’s foreign international security and defence policy when set against the contemporary challenges and threats we face. The forum represents the start of a process of consideration of these issues and not an end point in itself. Ultimately, and as I said previously, we need a serious and honest conversation about the international security policy options available to the State, and the implications of each of these. The forum will make a positive contribution to this. I encourage all Members of this House and the wider Irish public to engage with it in this spirit.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Tánaiste outlined to the House, the consultative forum will be spread across four days and three different venues. University College Cork will host the forum on 22 June and University of Galway will host it on 23 June. I put on record the Government's thanks to both universities. As academic centres of excellence, they will provide the appropriate thoughtfulness on this reflective discussion on all the areas under their consideration. Following the sessions in Cork and Galway, Dublin Castle will host days on 26 and 27 June.

In taking this idea forward, the Government was very conscious of the two important citizens' assemblies, as the Tánaiste correctly outlined. Against the backdrop of the increasingly complex and challenging security context throughout Europe, it was clear that discussions of our internal security policy could not be delayed. As the Tánaiste said previously in the House, the forum will involve a broad range of stakeholders with participation from civilian and military experts and practitioners. The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence are currently consulting with academic, civil society, research and State agency partners to identify a wide range of speakers and participants, from Ireland and abroad, representing a breadth of experience and views.

In total, we anticipate that up to 1,000 people will attend the consultations and discussions across the four days of the forum. All the sessions will be livestreamed, allowing the broadest possible access to discussions, something that is not possible in a citizens' assembly. A consultation exercise will also be launched online at the end of May through the gov.ie platform. Full details of arrangements and submissions, as well as pre-registration to attend for livestreaming, will also be published on gov.ie. Anyone interested in engaging in this process should do so.

Deputies will be aware of the chairperson of the new forum and her breadth of experience. I am confident that Professor Richardson, a native of County Waterford and a distinguished political scientist with a strong expertise in security policy in her own right, will play a very positive role in chairing the discussions. The forum has adopted the same approach to her appointment and remuneration as that for the chair of the citizens' assemblies. Professor Richardson has been appointed with due consideration of the expertise and experience required to execute the main functions of the chair.

Professor Richardson will also be responsible for the production of a report of the consultative forum to be delivered to the Tánaiste in a timely manner following its conclusion. The Tánaiste will consider its findings and will decide in due course on the recommendations to be taken to the Government.

I will underline once again the Government’s view that this is the very time for respectful, honest, mature conversation about the international security environment and the relevant policy options available to the State. We look forward to all Members of the House engaging constructively in the forum.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin’s vision is for Ireland to play a constructive role in the wider world and to be committed to diplomacy, humanitarianism, peace building and co-operation with other states on global challenges including poverty, world hunger, climate change, conflict resolution and migration. An independent foreign policy and military neutrality are crucial to allow Ireland to play that important role in the wider world. We should be proud of our military neutrality and resist attempts by some in the Government to recast it as a weakness or a failing.

The legacy of Irish neutrality is our role in working for nuclear non-proliferation, our humanitarianism, our contribution to the drafting of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, our peacekeeping and the proud record of our UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, Congo, Chad, South Sudan and elsewhere. This has been our contribution to making the world a better and safer place.

Being proud of our neutrality means being proud of those who served on UN peacekeeping missions, including those who fought and died in the Niemba ambush, those who fought and whose bravery has long been recognised at the siege of Jadotville, and all of those who died on UN peacekeeping duty, including Private Seán Rooney who was killed in December of last year. Sinn Féin is proud of those who have served this country and we are proud of Ireland’s history in seeking peace rather than conflict. We, therefore, welcome any opportunity to participate in public discourse on foreign, security and defence policies. Such a debate has been sorely lacking over the past number of decades. Irish governments have made important and often crucial decisions with very little engagement with the Irish public and often, even, with minimal Oireachtas debate. Indeed governments have had to be taken to court in order to allow the Irish people to have their say on fundamental foreign policy shifts.

Sinn Féin welcomes debate because we believe that Ireland has a positive story to tell and still has an important impact to make. The starting point to any such discourse must be a recognition that military neutrality has served us well. It is for this reason we want to enshrine the principle of neutrality in the Irish Constitution and within the EU treaties.

Of course, it is easy to say that we support neutrality. Most members of this House would claim to do so, albeit an increasing number of Government Deputies are willing to acknowledge that it is not their position. It is less easy to define what neutrality actually means for a country like Ireland in the 21st century. That needs to change. Those of us on the left and others who value neutrality have over the past two decades been very good at articulating what we are opposed to and not so good at setting out the positive and constructive role which neutrality can help Ireland to play internationally into the future. It is indeed arguable that no government has clearly articulated what Irish neutrality means to them since the time of Frank Aiken.

Frank Aiken, of course, was a leading figure during the revolutionary period. His later work defined Irish foreign and defence policy for generations. The position of neutrality adopted by Frank Aiken and many others from that revolutionary era should not surprise us. They understood and appreciated the words of General Sherman, who said:

It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.

It is Ireland’s position as a neutral country, as well as our unique experience at a European level of colonialism, that has allowed Ireland to earn a reputation as one of the pre-eminent contributors to peacekeeping in the globe. Irish neutrality has never meant isolationism, disengagement or disinterest in the world. It has been a positive force for good and has allowed this small country to play a bigger role than many others with much greater wealth and much bigger military machines. That is the legacy of those who first defined our neutrality. Our objective must be to build on that legacy for generations to come.

That is why Sinn Féin welcomes increased public discussion on foreign, defence and security policies. It is why we are disappointed that the Government’s proposed forum is less about public discussion and more about an attempt to reshape public opinion. The Government does not intend to provide a role for the Opposition in the Tánaiste’s proposed so-called consultative forum. This is an important point because decisions on foreign policies are different from those on other areas. When one government signs up to international agreements, a successor government cannot always simply change position without damaging our international reputation. Therefore, the Government cannot simply exclude the Opposition from important information and discussions which could have an impact for generations to come.

In any public discussion, we will vociferously advocate for neutrality. In doing so, we will follow the long-standing position of republicans, trade unionists and other progressives over many generations. That is not to deny that the world and the international security context have changed. The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine has changed the world, and has changed it forever, arguably. In the midst of this world-defining moment, it is not only right but it is incumbent on all of us, in this House and beyond, to reflect upon our responsibility to safeguard our country and our citizens, to reflect upon how we uphold the principles of democracy and of the rule of law, and to reflect also on how we contribute positively to the world beyond our borders through humanitarian and development aid and through peacekeeping. This is also done through acting as agents and facilitators of peace where conflict does exist.

It is here that opinion diverges. For my part, upon reflection, I am as convinced in the imperative of Irish neutrality as I was prior to Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. I remain as committed as ever to Ireland’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions and in enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. I remain as proud as before of Ireland’s humanitarian record, a record reinforced by the non-lethal aid and wider support we have provided to the Ukrainian people. Others see the invasion of Ukraine as justification to take another course. Many of those have already conveyed almost a sense of embarrassment and shame in Irish neutrality.

The truth is that over the past two decades, at least, governments have undermined Irish neutrality. They have done this in three ways. First, governments have moved us away from having an independent foreign policy. So it is that the strong, and rightfully so, Government rhetoric and actions regarding Ukraine, being as they are in tune with larger western states, are not matched in areas where they are equally deserving to be heard, such as in Palestine. Independent foreign policy meant that this country led the way in the international pressure which brought about the downfall of apartheid South Africa. Independent foreign policy must mean that we do the same to end Israeli apartheid in Palestine.

Second, successive governments have overseen systemic underinvestment in our Defence Forces. We are unable to monitor, never mind defend, our own airspace - our skies - and we are unable to secure ourselves against modern threats. Numbers within the Defence Forces have reached critically low levels. The decades-long undermining of our Defence Forces is shameful.

Third, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments have used membership of NATO’s Partnership for Peace and PESCO as mechanisms to further undermine neutrality. These actions impact upon each other. When Irish Ministers sign up to international missions, even those with UN mandates, they often do so at the cost of Irish defence. When the Irish Naval Service rightly participates in the upcoming mission in the Mediterranean, there will be periods when there is just a single navy vessel operating in Irish waters.

The Government's responses, which are sometimes contradictory ones, to media reports of a secret deal with the British Government to have the RAF secure our airspace starkly points again to an ongoing policy of signing up to international military missions while ignoring the incapacity to address our own domestic defence needs.

Sinn Féin understands the obligations of the Government in respect of agreements made with international partners. That is why I have said that in government, we will not withdraw Irish troops from pre-committed operations and exercises. In respect of future decisions, however, we will take a different approach from that of the current Government. That approach will have the unequivocal starting point that we are a neutral and independent State, and will have the objective of building upon our proud tradition of participating in UN peacekeeping missions and supporting conflict resolution across the globe.

The alternative trajectory is one that would place Irish Defence Forces personnel under the command of an EU military structure, the deployment of which could occur without the approval of the Dáil, the Government or the UN mandate that is required by the triple lock.

That has been the stated ambition of many within the EU, long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is the natural outworking of the stated position of those within Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil who want to undo our traditional military neutrality. The ongoing failure of the Government parties to accept the premise that Irish neutrality has served us well has led to some cynicism about the proposed consultative forum on international security. Like many people, I feel that the forum is a blatant attempt to undermine that neutrality. Should the Government wish to establish a consultative mechanism for debate outside of a referendum, the appropriate forum would be a citizens' assembly. The proposed format of the consultative forum minimises the input of the public and Opposition parties. Those contributing will be appointed by the Government and their contributions will lead to a report authored solely by the forum's chair, who will also be appointed by the Government.

Sinn Féin will, of course, engage with the forum in any way we can. We will outline our clear positions on Irish and international security policy, for example by reiterating that the public should be consulted via the proven framework of a citizens' assembly, leading to a referendum to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution. The further entanglement of the Irish State or the Defence Forces in international security organisations or frameworks should be referred by the Dáil to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for considered and detailed scrutiny. The rebuilding of our Defence Forces must be a priority obligation on the Government. A prerequisite to doing so is addressing the current recruitment and retention crisis. That requires, as a first step, the immediate implementation of the working time directive.

There are always those who seek to misconstrue commitment to neutrality with isolationism. What they miss is that our neutrality and our independent foreign policy led President Biden, in this Chamber, to recognise Ireland's moral authority around the world. That moral authority is something worth cherishing because it is the legacy of people such as the former Minister, Mr. Seán MacBride, who bore witness to our own revolutionary period and was later the international chair of Amnesty International, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Those of that generation will have recalled the famous banner that hung from Liberty Hall saying "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland." It is with that ethos of Ireland as an independent State operating an independent foreign policy as endorsed and respected by the international community that we can advance the legacy of delivering humanitarian aid to countries under brutal and callous invasions, such as in Ukraine; build on the renowned reputation of our Defence Forces in UN peacekeeping missions; and make a stand for the Palestinian people and others who are suppressed through occupation and apartheid. That is the vision of neutrality that Sinn Féin will bring to this and every debate and it is a vision I am proud to champion.

Looking across this Chamber at those parties who have been in government for all of my life, I see no vision for Irish neutrality because none has been espoused since the time of Frank Aiken. I see no vision for a foreign policy or international security policy other than to follow the lead of others.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy set it out earlier in his speech.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We, on the other hand, want Ireland to lead the way. We want to rebuild our Defence Forces so we can protect our neutrality, defend and monitor our skies and seas, and protect ourselves from modern threats including cyberattacks and hybrid attacks. We want to give our Defence Forces the respect they deserve so they and our diplomatic corps can continue to be missionaries of a small nation that makes a big difference for the better all over the world. We want Ireland to be a voice against oppression, poverty and war. We want Ireland to be an international champion for peace, disarmament and multilateralism. We want Ireland to use our history to ensure this planet has a better future.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the proposed consultative forum on international security policy. We are addressing this in a week when Ireland and the world are marking the 75th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba. This week also marks the anniversary of the ratification of the Sykes-Picot agreement and all that this signalled for the Middle East, with European colonial powers drawing straight lines across lands that were not theirs. This still has an impact on the Middle East right to this day. All the while, Russia’s criminal war on Ukraine rages on the eastern border of our Union of peoples.

I am all in favour of consulting the public on our international security policy. I am all in favour of consulting as widely and as democratically as possible on something that is critical and essential to us as a State, internationally and here at home. I am, therefore, and must be, concerned at the decision to create and constitute a consultative body that is deliberately exclusive. It is exclusive in that it minimises input from the Opposition and the public and is, therefore, primarily a Government confection and reflection. Those contributing are to be appointed by the Government. Their contributions will become part of a report authored by the chair who is also to be appointed by the Government.

I believe that the State’s own security and its role in international security is, and must be, greater and higher than any one political view, any one particular Government or any one coalition of parties, their ambitions and their preferred appointees. Both the Opposition and the public should have critical roles in any security policy and its practice. I find this exclusiveness and minimising retrograde and regrettable, democratically and politically. There is a real risk that the work of this forum, despite being essential for our people, will be done over their heads and that it will be paternalistic in being conducted for their own good instead of with the citizens’ good and own proper involvement.

A citizens’ assembly approach would have been infinitely preferable, and we already know how successful they have been when they have been held. A citizens’ assembly approach would also have made the forum and its work more accessible to the people and more accountable to them. Across the State, everybody knows when a citizens’ assembly is taking place. There is a lot of media coverage before the event and as it meets. There is time for people to get involved, including people who are not always interested in politics but may just listen to the radio. There is time for them to get involved, make submissions and have their say. There is no chance here because the forum, as constituted, is very much of the current Government, by the current Government and for the current Government. For that reason, I worry that the work of the forum will become a topic for the media and for the usual talking heads, and not for the bright, creative, engaged, thinking heads of our people, in whose name it is supposed to exist and function. In all likelihood, any major debates will take place after the event. That is when the vast majority of people will hear about it, and it is a bit late for them to make submissions at that stage.

Nevertheless, in keeping with our own democratic, public and opposition responsibilities, Sinn Féin will engage with the forum, and will do so as closely as we are facilitated and allowed. Within that constructive engagement we will do four key things. First, we will outline our clear and differentiated position on neutrality, so that people know there is another way than that proposed and promoted by the Government. Second, we will advocate that the public should, and must, be consulted through the accepted democratic frameworks of a citizens’ assembly or a referendum to enshrine the principles of neutrality in the Constitution and in the EU treaties. Why did the Government not have a have a citizens' assembly consultation where not just a select few, but as wide as possible a section of society, would set the terms of reference and wording for a referendum on neutrality? Third, as my colleague an Teachta Carthy outlined, we will advocate that any involvement of the Irish State or Defence Forces in international security organisations and frameworks should and must be referred by the Dáil to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for its considered and detailed scrutiny. Fourth, we will use the forum to highlight the urgent need for the rebuilding of our Defence Forces and, within that, to address the ongoing crisis in getting recruits and keeping them, which means that the working time directive must be implemented without delay. The Tánaiste made promises at the PDFORRA conference some weeks ago around the working time directive. Sinn Féin will keep the Tánaiste to those commitments. If he does not, we certainly will do so if the people decide we should be in government. Neglect by successive governments has depleted our Defence Forces to the degree that they cannot provide the services they are tasked with, trained for, and expected to provide.

I still believe, despite my questions being refused by the Ceann Comhairle, that the Government has questions to answer on the badly kept secret of the arrangements with the RAF in protecting our skies and seas. Ireland, as a neutral State, should be able to patrol and protect its own territories and protect us from new and emerging cyberthreats. It should also be a source of concern to the Tánaiste that when we deploy the MV W.B. Yeatsto the Mediterranean Sea this summer for Operation Irini, we will be left with a pitiful vessel capacity to protect our own waters.

It is precisely because these four issues are of such importance that we believe the forum should be more open and representative than simply a forum of Government appointees. We welcome public discussion on our neutrality, something that the majority want to keep in every poll, no matter how the question is posed, despite the clamour and apparent desire of Government to relinquish it.

Sinn Féin believes our neutrality is of intrinsic quality and value to us as a people, and therefore it should not be traded or swapped for approval from other countries, governments or international organisations. We believe there is an inherent strength and integrity and a difference in Ireland's position on neutrality. We are a small State, but we have a huge heart, a huge reach and a huge reputation across the world. Sinn Féin is ambitious for us internationally - ambitious for us as peace brokers, peacemakers and, more importantly, peacekeepers, and in providing all the humanitarian assistance, comfort and expertise we can offer internationally. We can do this as a strong, honourable, neutral country. There is already too much war in our world. There is too much death right at the edges of our European border. I see Ireland as a voice for diplomacy, possibility and peace. I disagree strongly that war anywhere should be used, not least by our own Government, to get us to relinquish our neutrality. Democratic consultation on our international security policy must, by its nature, be with all the people through proper, wide and representative engagement, not with the select few, however august they are in your own mind. It is something that I regret to say is not to be found in the form of the forum that the Tánaiste seems to have chosen.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I think it is a well overdue debate. We, certainly, are delighted as a party that there will be an in-depth consultative process with the people of Ireland, with all views on Ireland's security policy and our place in the world. We would have preferred a citizens' assembly. It was the construct that was devised by former Deputy Eamon Gilmore so successfully on major issues of contention that divided our peoples in the past. I think it has been a marvellous forum to allow all the facts to be heard by people and people to come to a conclusion. However, the Government has decided on a consultative forum. We will certainly fully support that, but we hope that it will not only inform debate, as the Tánaiste has said, around Ireland's security needs and the fast-changing international environment in which we as a nation must live and thrive too, but that it will also start a much-needed citizens' debate about how we view matters such as Irish defence and our security and what we as the Irish people want of our Government and of all those to whom we give responsibility to keep us safe. The Tánaiste has said that the report from this consultative forum will be received by him and he may bring its recommendations to Government. I ask that that not be the process. I ask that when the consultative forum finalises its deliberations and presents its report, it is presented to the Oireachtas first so that it is not mediated through Government, but is actually determined in open debate here, perhaps by a special sitting or a special committee of the House. It is the democratic forum of the people that will give legitimacy to any decisions made, rather than a forum that goes to Government, is determined by the Government and then presented finally to us to accept or reject.

In the discussion in this House on the report of the Commission on Defence Forces, I said that successive Governments - I was part of some of them - were content in raising the flag of neutrality as a pretext of spending very little in relation to defence. That is a truth. We have reached a point now when we need to set out our clear national stall unambiguously and define what we mean by our neutral status. Are we proud of it? Do we understand it? It seems to be a vehicle that can be whatever we wish it to be. I hope that our discussions that we are now embarking upon will unambiguously present Irish neutrality in all its understanding in a way that the people of Ireland fully grasp and support, but also that our position in the world is fully understood. Second, once we have that clear and unambiguous definition, we must do what we need to do to give that meaning.

I want to begin the process by setting out Labour's viewpoint. First, we regard positive neutrality as a valuable and internationally precious strategic position, one that has been at the core of our international position from the establishment of our State. Our history as a colonised people, not a coloniser, and our reputation in peace-building and peace enforcement gives us potential well beyond our economic might and military strength to make a difference in the world. We have utilised that in the past. Anybody who travels internationally knows that is a fact. This is not Pollyanna fiction; there is a place for honest brokers who are anchored in the rules of international law, human rights and democratic norms, to be a strong and persuasive voice in the world. Second, as I said previously, being neutral does not mean being impotent, which has often been our position in the past. Ultimately, we must take responsibility for our own security and our own safety. As we deliver more offshore facilities for wind generation, upon which we will be increasingly reliant for our energy, as we become more a high-tech base dependent on fibreoptic cables and develop our health, social welfare and public administration systems on digital platforms that will be increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks, we have in parallel to those developments step by step to make them secure. Even the short period since our initial discussions on the Commission on Defence Forces report, things have moved on. Fundamentally, things have altered and the requirement for greater ambition, out of necessity, has grown.

The current state of our defence infrastructure is, quite frankly, dire. There is no other word for it. We have four usable ships currently, which, by the way, were all provided during our last period in government when we had to precious little money. If we had not expended that, we would probably have no sea-going ships at all at this stage. The two second-hand ex-New Zealand vessels arrived this week and they will be deployed for close inshore patrolling. The expectation is that they will be operational next year. Even having regard to that meagre flotilla, we do not have the personnel to put them all to sea. We have two overaged CASA maritime patrol aircraft that are about to be replaced - finally - with updated C-295 aircraft, which were ordered in 2019, four years ago. A third C-295 with troop transport capability was ordered by the Tánaiste towards the end of last year. So, we have four ships that we do not have enough personnel to crew, and two maritime aircraft. That is what our Defence Forces have to patrol the largest maritime area of any EU State. We still have no primary radar, so if aircraft enter our airspace and do not identify themselves through their own transponders, we will have no idea of either their presence there or their whereabouts. A most urgent requirement is to keep the people we have in our Defence Forces and to recruit many more.

Despite all the commitments, that is still not being done. We are still losing personnel. The joint cyber defence command with an additional 100 specialists is needed to manage cyber defences, but we do not have that yet. The new joint military intelligence service with its own intelligence school was one of the recommendations that has yet to be put in place. We will have time to debate all that needs to be done.

Ireland has been good at producing defence documents, strategies, plans and White Papers. We now need a clear vision that preserves the best of our traditions and history but for the first time since independence, gives us the ability, too, to defend our own waters, skies, infrastructure and well-being.

Sovereignty is a cherished word in this country. Successive generations shed their blood so that the Irish people could determine their own destiny and have their sovereignty in their own hands, yet we franchise out its protection to others. That is an embarrassment, but a fact. Our hope is that all perspectives are heard and valued at this forum and that there will be significant input from the people of Ireland where all their opinions are heard, and they find themselves in the report that will finally come back to us and not directly to Government to be determined by Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and give us that commitment. We need to explore a pathway for Ireland that is not simply to follow the path set out by others. We must recognise that the issues now under discussion at this forum and subsequently are fundamental to our country's identity.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the establishment by the Minister of the consultative forum on international security policy. The brutal invasion by Russia of Ukraine has significantly altered the international security environment. War has broken out in Europe again. The rules-based international order is under threat and like-minded democracies need to show solidarity with each other at this time.

Countries in Europe are reassessing their security and defence policies. Sweden and Finland responded immediately by applying to join NATO. New and emerging threats are all too apparent to us in Ireland. Cyberattacks, hybrid warfare, disinformation, election interference and threats to critical infrastructure have become a reality in the world of today. It is not that long since our health service was crippled by a cyberattack on the HSE. Russian navy and merchant ships continue to be observed off the south and west coasts in our exclusive economic zone in the vicinity of the underseas cables connecting the US and Europe. It would be negligent and irresponsible if our Government did not assess these new threats and bring forward policy responses in respect of our security and defence position. As we heard, the forum will consider these matters in June in counties Cork, Galway and Dublin. We need a respectful, honest and mature debate on these matters. There should be maximum engagement and all points of view should be considered. I welcome the fact that there will be no predetermined or preconceived outcomes from the discussion at the forum, according to the Minister.

Since the Second World War, Ireland has pursued a policy of military neutrality and that policy continues to serve us well. We do not participate in military alliances or mutual defence arrangements, and I do not see the need to change this fundamental policy. We are not politically neutral, however, and we co-operate with other states both in the UN and EU in respect of security and defence matters. When we joined the UN in 1955 and the European Economic Community, EEC, in 1973, we accepted that we could not act alone as regards our foreign policy. In my view, the forum needs to pay attention to how the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy is evolving and how Ireland is responding to these changes. We have been active participants in the CSDP. We have been involved in PESCO missions. We have agreed to the concept of EU battle groups. We pay into the European Defence Fund. We have signed up to the EU training mission for Ukraine that is under way in Cyprus. We provided non-lethal support for Ukraine under the European Peace Facility. We have also signed up to the strategic compass, which commits member states to spend more on defence to develop their military and security capacity and co-operate with NATO. Under the strategic compass, a rapid reaction force will also be established. At the end of the day, however, it should be remembered that defence remains a national competence within the EU and similar to other member states, we can opt in or out of missions having regard to our unique history, traditions and circumstances.

Central to Irish foreign policy should be peacekeeping, conflict prevention, peacebuilding, arms control and nuclear disarmament. We have a proud tradition as regards UN and EU peacekeeping, crisis management and conflict resolution. We need to continue to advocate for disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear arms. It should also be noted that our signing of the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is incompatible with NATO membership anyway. Fighting global hunger and food insecurity must also be key objectives for Ireland and we should continue with our special interest in the welfare and development of the global south, in particular.

This brings me to the issue of grey zone warfare, that is, cyberattacks, hybrid warfare and threats to our critical infrastructure, which includes natural gas, electric subsea interconnectors and subsea cables that make up our telecommunications infrastructure, many of which are critical to global communications. We have seen interference with the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. There have also been warnings of potential cyberattacks on our energy grid. The forum needs to examine the implications of the EU directive on network and information security, NIS2, and how this will be transposed into Irish law. It also needs to examine the role of the Naval Service and Air Corp in protecting our critical infrastructure and consider whether it has the necessary capacity to do this. We also need to hear more about reports that Ireland is likely to join a NATO Partnership for Peace project to protect undersea cables from a possible Russian sabotage attack. The Dáil needs to be kept informed about this initiative as it evolves.

The forum also needs to take a long, hard look at the so-called triple lock whereby the Government and Dáil must give approval for deployment of our Defence Forces overseas and any decision in this regard must be backed up by a UN Security Council resolution. It is not acceptable that Russia or China, for example, can veto a mission in which Ireland would like to participate.

It has also become very clear that Ireland must be able to defend its neutrality. We need an armed neutrality, if you like. That is why the establishment of the Commission on the Defence Forces was timely, as was the subsequent decision to increase defence spending on the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service. As the Minister just said, Ireland has now committed to multi-annual funding increases to reach a defence budget of €1.5 billion by 2028 linked to inflation, which I welcome.

We also need to hear more about the secret arrangement dating back to 1952 that allows RAF aircraft to intercept hostile aircraft in Irish airspace and to use lethal force, if necessary. We are told that this involves a memorandum of understanding and not a legal treaty. I acknowledge what the Minister had to say about this. I appreciate that he believes secrecy is needed to some extent in this regard. It has been widely reported in the media in recent days, however, and the UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr. James Heappey MP, has confirmed that the arrangement is, in fact, in place. I believe the Dáil needs to be given some information about this arrangement at this stage given the comments of Mr. Heappey in the House of Commons.

I welcome the Minister's remarks on concerns that the CSDP is a stepping stone to a European army. I agree with him about that. It is a fact that no EU nation state is contemplating the creation of a European army or wishing for one to be established. At the end of the day, the EU is first and foremost a peace project created out of the ruins of the First World War and the Second World War and is founded on liberal democratic values. This is something that should not be forgotten as the CSDP evolves in the years ahead.

I have listened to the debate as to why a citizens' assembly has not been set up to examine this issue and I appreciate what the Minister said, that the matter is urgent and that there are already two citizens' assemblies under way in respect of drugs and education. I accept what he has to say in that regard. The matter is becoming urgent and I agree, therefore, that the forum is the way to proceed at this stage.

In respect of military neutrality from a legal point of view, we need to first consult with the EU treaties, specifically the Lisbon treaty, but also the Irish Constitution. A protocol to the Lisbon treaty states that it "does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality". Article 29.4.9° of Bunreacht na hÉieann, which was added following the defeat of the first Lisbon referendum, states, "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty of the European Union where that common defence would include the State." It is interesting to note that the word "neutrality" does not appear in the Constitution. Article 42 of the Lisbon treaty makes provision for a national assistance clause. That is the legal position as I see it and I do not think there is any need to revisit that legal position at this stage.

We are having a constructive and mature debate and listening to all points of view. I hope the forum will also adopt a similar position. Times are changing and, as I have said, the brutal invasion by Russia of Ukraine has certainly forced a reassessment of security and defence policies by the EU member states and countries in the vicinity of Europe. I thank the Minister for this initiative. The matter is becoming more and more urgent by the day. We see developments with Russian ships off the west and couth coasts of Ireland, as well as all sorts of other developments. The debate is timely, if not overdue. I look forward to engaging with the forum as it sets about its task next month.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Irish people have not moved. They are utterly committed to what we might call military neutrality or non-alignment. They are committed to that position. We are shown respect across the international scene as a fair player and a moral authority on the basis of our neutrality and non-alignment. It is also on the basis of our history of being the colonised rather than the coloniser.

It is also fair to say that during the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, when others started talking about weapons and all the rest of it, the Minister said there was no requirement for Ireland to be a military superpower. I would like to think that is a situation that will continue. Not only do people respect our position and the work we have done as regards peacekeeping, we have a strong message as a result of the Irish peace process and all that has brought us and all that it can bring us into the future. That is respected throughout the world and is almost a template for best practice to move us to a better place than we are in now.

On peacekeeping, the people in my own home town of Dundalk and of County Donegal felt both pride and pain at the loss of Private Sean Rooney. We have earned that respect for peacekeeping. We have paid an enormous toll. I would not like us to move to a place where some of the commentary has been coming from in the past while. There has not been sufficient over and back in this House or anywhere else about moves that have been made over many years. I have heard some reassuring commentary today to the effect there will not be movement towards NATO but I cannot say that every position that has been taken and that every comment we have heard from some Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael commentators is as positive as that. It would be fair to say the Irish people could not stand over a huge number of the positions that have been taken by NATO and NATO powers, particularly the US, over many years.

Like colleagues, I would much prefer that we were dealing with a citizens' assembly as a means of having a proper over and back and real engagement with the Irish people. I have worries about the consultative forum. We have to look at enshrining neutrality and military non-alignment in our Constitution. There will, therefore, have to be talk of a referendum.

We can think of the humanitarian nightmare we dealt with in Sudan. We have the not-so-secret deal with the RAF and an absolute absence of any real commentary in that respect. It has shown that we have a huge issue as regards resourcing and capacity, particularly at sea and in the air. We all know about the issues around the work conditions and retention in the Irish Defence Forces. These are enormous issues with which we need to deal.

When we are speaking about capacity, we all accept we live in a changed world. We all accept we are dealing with hybrid and cyber dangers. The problem is we have not sufficiently invested in the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC. We have not had that conversation where defence meets critical infrastructure as regards reviewing what dangers there are with communication cables and all the rest of it. The Minister earlier engaged with Deputy Doherty on issues relating to social media. We have had organised and non-organised malign online actors. The social media companies have not played their parts. Particular cases are being brought against Facebook and the manner in which it has been weaponised by state players in the likes of Burma. We need to be a straight player across the board. We need to be a straight player on the international scene, and that extends not only to showing solidarity with Ukraine, which is absolutely necessary. I would like to see the Government making moves on the divestment Bill. It is not particularly sound for the State to be a shareholder in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.

There is no shortage of issues with which we have to deal. I would like to think we will look at the Irish national liberation struggle, which was about freedom, sovereignty and fair and just internationalism. I do not think the Irish people have moved and I would like to think we will remember that.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The liberation struggle? Some 1,700 civilians were murdered.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The defence and security challenges facing Ireland have never been more diverse and Ireland has perhaps never been so ill-equipped to handle them. Current geopolitical tensions across the world are being fuelled and intensified in the first instance by Russia's grotesque invasion of Ukraine. Before that was the rise of populism. The threats posed by accelerated climate change, energy and food insecurity, current and likely future pandemics and bad governance have increased instability around the world. Such security threats not only directly challenge a state's ability to maintain and improve living standards for its people, but also become threat multipliers by interacting and converging with other existing risks and pressures, thus increasing the risk of violent conflict, terrorism, human trafficking, refugee crises, poverty and the threat of drug cartels, to name but a few.

Adding to these challenges are hybrid threats, a combination of low-risk activities, including the use of third parties to conduct cyberattacks, data breaches and information disruption that, when combined with geopolitical influence, can have devastating effects on a country's economy and security. These hybrid challenges generally take place in a space regarded as the grey zone where the end goal is strategic disruption rather than all-out war. This ambiguous space is of extreme concern to the State's defence and security. Rather than all-out war, a state can find itself in the dark after a cyberattack on its electricity grid or a disruption of its energy supply reserves. Let us consider what happened when the HSE infrastructure was brought to a standstill over the course of days.

In addition, countries must also potentially deal with many of the traditional security concerns centred around belligerent actors, including states with all the security repercussions that direct armed conflict entails. Since the foundation of the modern Irish State in 1922, the Defence Forces augmented by civilian support staff have put themselves between the people of Ireland and danger to defend and secure Ireland's political, economic and social freedoms. Overseas, they put themselves in harm's way in the name of peace. It is an incredibly proud tradition we have, and one that must be maintained. Their sacrifices have allowed democracies to flourish and economic growth to take root.

Since joining the UN in 1955, Ireland's diplomats, humanitarian workers, police and military personnel have brought stability and peace to unstable areas of the world and have been among the world leaders in maintaining peace in some of the most insecure regions around the globe. However, the recent geopolitical tensions, Covid-19, the effects of climate change and the HSE cyberattack of 2021 all have highlighted Ireland's vulnerabilities and inability to monitor and forecast threats, while the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces called attention to the deficiencies in those forces and other agencies regarding their capability to support the State in those area. A whole-of-government, and, my party would add, whole-of-local authority, approach would ensure a comprehensive holistic capability is developed which will create a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities per scenario, and pool budgets and resources.

The Departments tasked with Ireland's defence must be adequately resourced. The Defence Forces must be free from a fear of disbandment, respected across the government and respected within the workplace, must feel safe, and must be given the funding necessary to accommodate and pay its personnel, train its units and meet the challenges of the day, the future and whenever they are deployed. It is with those in mind that my party welcomes to a degree the consultation process. We feel it would be better suited to a citizens' assembly, like others. However, the conversation has started now, and that is fine. In terms of the contribution the Social Democrats would make to it should we be permitted to be involved, it would include discussion of such issues as support to the maintenance of Ireland's position of military neutrality, and potentially define what military neutrality looks like. Neutrality is never indifferent. We see active neutrality in our support for Ukraine. That is worthy and we should continue that. However, we also cannot be hypocritical. We cannot have one approach to Ukraine and a second approach to Palestine, for example. We had an opportunity this week in the Chamber to demonstrate leadership on an international stage. If we had enacted the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill 2023, that would have had the world sit up and take note. Ireland, once again, could have been a leader in challenging apartheid regimes. It is lamentable that we have not done that. I encourage the Government, if we are thinking that way, to increase divestment. The people of Palestine cannot wait.

The contribution the Social Democrats would make also includes: to invest in the Defence Forces with the goal of bringing funding to a sustainable level that will allow it to fulfil its duties; to reconfigure the Department of Defence as the Department of Defence, Security and Emergency Planning; to appoint a separate Minister of State with responsibility for national defence, security and emergency planning within the Department of the Taoiseach; to create, within the Department, an office of national defence, security monitoring and threat assessment; develop a national defence and security framework; to create an office of national information, cyber and data defence and security to co-ordinate many of the functions of various bodies currently responsible for Ireland's data information and cybersecurity; to begin to rebuild sonar capability and infrastructure for the Naval Service so that we can see what is above our skies and below our seas; to develop the rank, pay and promotional system within the Defence Forces and ensure this system evolves within the new practices, new technologies and new skill sets; and to create a civil protection rapid-response corps that can be deployed overseas, if necessary, to assist in natural disasters as these may intensive with climate change.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I commend the Minister and the Government on the decision to establish a consultative forum on international security and defence policy. Given what has happened in the world over the past 18 months and the technological advancements that have taken place over the past ten years or so, it is appropriate that Ireland gives consideration to how we will deal with security and defence in the years ahead.

Some Members are concerned about the establishment of a forum; I have to say I am not. I do not know the individuals who will be called before the forum, but I know that any decisions that are ultimately made on defence and security by this country will be made by its elected representatives, by its Government and by the people in this House.

It is important to point out, however, that military neutrality has served this country well. When it comes to a recognition of the role that military neutrality has played, however, we all must have an understanding that the basis for that policy is primarily what is in the self-interest of this country.

Some people have looked back to the role of neutrality in Irish history. Something that is fairly consistent throughout is that it has always reflected what was believed to be in the self-interest of Ireland at the time that policy was made. Earlier a colleague mentioned the famous photograph from 1914 when James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army had a sign up saying, "We serve neither King nor Kaiser ...". That was correct in 1914 but, in 1916, that was not necessarily the case. In 1916, James Connolly and the other leaders of the Irish Rebellion were referring to our "gallant allies in Europe," because at that stage it suited the national interest to be purportedly in favour of our "gallant allies" in the efforts to get away and to establish our own sovereignty and independence. That was also part of the reason, if we look at our policy of neutrality in the Second World War, Éamon de Valera insisted upon Ireland having a position of neutrality. It was primarily out of self-interest. De Valera did it because he believed that the best way of continuing and enforcing Irish sovereignty was by having a policy of military neutrality when it came to the Second World War.

Some people look at the Irish position of neutrality during the Second World War and regard it as inappropriate. Some even regard it as being shameful. I thoroughly disagree. When you look at other countries at that time, America did not join the Second World War until Pearl Harbour was attacked. Even after that, they did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on them.

We need to recognise that the policies of Ireland and, indeed, political parties, on neutrality change on the basis of what is in our self-interest. I noted, Sinn Féin, during the Second World War, was not supportive of Irish neutrality, but the position that we adopted at the time, in the 1940s, was an appropriate and correct position. In fact, many Irish people's lives were saved as a result.

When we look at neutrality, we need to recognise that what it means in an Irish context is that we will not participate in exclusively military alliances. Article 28 of the Constitution states that we can go to war, if we so wish. If the Government wishes to go to war with another country, it can. All it requires is the approval of Dáil Éireann and, therefore, we are not a pacifist country but we are a country that, through policy, has decided that it will not enter into exclusively military alliances. In practical terms, what that means for this country is we need to ask: do we wish to join NATO or not? My opinion is that we should stay out of NATO because, I believe, that is in Ireland's self-interest. It may be the case if we were in the Finnish Parliament, and we were discussing Finland's joinder of NATO, we probably would have a different position today than what we would have had two years ago. It is a decision that we should not be embarrassed about stating should be made on the basis of what is in this country's self-interest.

It is important that we distinguish between defence and security policy, on the one hand, and foreign policy, on the other. When it comes to foreign policy, I absolutely believe that Ireland should have at the centre of its foreign policy a position based on morality and what we believe is correct. However, when it comes to the defence and security of this country, primarily what should be driving us is self-interest. That, in fairness, I believe, is what the Government has done to date and what we intend to do in the future.

Of course, we are participating in certain military manoeuvres with our membership of the EU.

We are members of Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, the EU common defence arrangement and participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace project. It is fair to say that all the Government parties and the vast majority of Opposition parties support that position. I do not think that contradicts our position of military neutrality.

When we look at the concept of Irish neutrality and question whether to join NATO, we must look at that question away from the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia that took place last year. Not all military conflicts will be as straightforward as that one with respect to brutality, illegality and the wholesale opposition to it we have seen throughout Europe and around the world. In this century, I suspect military disputes will not be as clear-cut as was the case with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Let us also be aware that article 29 of the Constitution states that the pacific settlement of international disputes is our objective. That is how we should approach international disputes. In fairness to the Government, that is how it has approached the dispute in Ukraine and others throughout the world. We seek to resolve them through pacific settlement but recognise that when there is brutality, as is the case with the Russian invasion, that is not always possible.

One of the other factors we need to take into account when we look at the core issue of whether Ireland should join NATO is that if we were to do so we would have to contribute 2% of our GDP to be spent on military warfare, military installations and military equipment. I do not believe the Irish people would wish to see their money invested in that. It would be a huge amount of money and is not something we wish to see. I suspect everyone recognises that Ireland is not, and will not be in the near future, in any way a strong military power.

However, as other speakers have stated, and as the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence has recognised, we need to spend more money on our defence infrastructure. We must ensure we have basic capacity in place to do basic defence procedures, whether that is radar or protecting our seas and navigating those waters. That is why I welcome that, with the new policy being put in place, we will see further moneys invested in our defence and in our armed forces.

I listened carefully to what the Tánaiste said about the triple lock. The world is now in an unusual position where the architecture of the UN Security Council was put in place in the aftermath of the Second World War. The five permanent members of the Security Council all have a veto. It seems impossible to change that. To change any provision of the United Nations Charter, the support of a permanent member of the United Nations is needed. The possibility of removing that veto or the permanent members is gone. That will not happen in the real world of politics. Will we find ourselves in a situation where the triple lock is still in effect, meaning that Russia can veto decisions made by the people of Ireland to become involved in certain peacekeeping measures? There is an issue. We are just denying reality if we say there is not an issue.

I presume the consultative forum will invite experts and persons who have knowledge of defence capacity to give appraisals of Ireland's position. I regret to say that I suspect that, if it is a thorough job, it will show there are many deficiencies in Ireland's security and defence. I think back to many years ago. Ireland always had the protection of being an offshore island behind an offshore island in the west of Europe. However, as military prowess has increased and the world has become smaller, our geographical advantage will become less significant as time progresses. The world is becoming a much more uncertain place.

We must ensure we have a stronger defence and security policy in place. That does not mean that we should give up our military neutrality or join NATO. We are one of the few European Union countries that is not a member of NATO. Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and Austria are not members. Not being with the majority does not mean that we are occupying a position that is unpopular or that we should abandon it. Protections were expressly put in place in the protocol to the Lisbon Treaty by our colleagues in the EU to recognise Ireland's neutrality. That position is respected throughout Europe and the world. We are probably in a stronger position diplomatically because we come to disputes from a militarily neutral point of view. As has been repeatedly stated, however, being militarily neutral does not mean we are politically neutral. That is clearly the case in our Constitution. We are clearly not politically neutral with respect to our international involvement over the years. That does not mean we need to get involved or align ourselves in military alliances.

We need to invest more than €1.5 billion a year in our Defence Forces. A huge amount of work needs to be done. We must ensure the equipment is in place and that there is a recognition that people working in the Defence Forces should be respected and honoured by elected representatives and by the people. That is why I commend the work being done by the Tánaiste and Government on the consultative forum. I wish the consultative forum well. I know persons have said in this House that they would have welcomed a citizens' assembly. Every entity that is set up, whether it is a citizens' assembly or a consultative forum, will come to the topic it has been asked to discuss and debate with its own preferences, prejudices and points of view. People should not be deterred by or fearful of that. We know that any decision in respect of defence and security will be made by the elected representatives of the Irish people. Let us not be fearful of hearing what a consultative forum has to say about this issue. Those who believe in Ireland's neutrality should be able to stand and defend it, debate it and discuss it. We should not treat it in the same way we treat many contentious political issues, that is, not to talk about it because to talk about it is to threaten it. That is not the case. I welcome the consultative forum and look forward to seeing its outcome.

Chris Andrews (Dublin Bay South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I feel very strongly about neutrality so I welcome the opportunity to speak about it here. Neutrality has served us well. There is clearly a drift away from our current neutral status. The Government appears to be pushing us away from it. I know the Tánaiste is nodding his head but that is the strong impression that people have. Internationally, we are held in high regard for our commitment to peace and stability. The high regard our peacekeepers are held in is a clear testimony to this. While I welcome every opportunity to speak about the importance of upholding and strengthening Irish neutrality, I do not feel the consultative forum the Tánaiste has put in place is a fitting process for what is such an important issue for the Irish public. The public clearly supports our neutral position. The consultative forum will minimise the voice of ordinary people who overwhelmingly support neutrality. This forum will be made up of Government appointees. They say that if you want a particular point of view you should hire a planner. The planner will give you that point of view. In some ways that is what this feels like. The Government is getting the consultant to tell it what it wants. It will then be brought back and we will be told this was democracy in action. The reality is that the concluding report will be authored by another Government appointee and the fair and just process would have been to let the voices of ordinary people be heard through a citizens' assembly.

Elements within the Government are pushing the narrative that neutrality leaves Ireland weak and exposed. What they fail to highlight is that successive Governments have failed our Defence Forces. Through cut after cut, they have stripped the Defence Forces down to the bare minimum. A neutral state has a responsibility to secure its land, air, and seas but successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments have underinvested in and have run down our Defence Forces. We need to see effective and meaningful investment in our Defence Forces. We need to see the value and respect being shown by the Government to the men and women who carry out the task of securing this State. For decades, Ireland's voice, as a neutral state with a deep commitment for peace, was heard and respected globally. We were clearly known for our determination to build peace between conflicting groups. A previous speaker mentioned Eamon de Valera and the major contribution made and when you look back at the impact made by Frank Aiken during his time as Minister, he was a strong voice against European colonialism in Africa, spoke out against apartheid in South Africa, was deeply committed to peace in the Middle East and, of course, was a champion of nuclear non-proliferation. Where is that commitment to global peace gone?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is still there.

Chris Andrews (Dublin Bay South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not. There is a push to get away from it. There is a determination by some in government who want to end our neutrality. Ireland needs to return to the global stage as a voice for peace. We are living in a time where the European Union is losing sight of its global aims and objectives, namely, building peace and mutual respect among people, respect for human rights and the strict observance of international law. We are not doing that.

The military-industry complex in the EU has silently developed into one of the world's largest and profits by EU states have clearly taken precedent over the aims of the EU worldwide. The EU policy on arms trade clearly states "member states are determined to prevent the export of military technology and equipment which might be used for internal repression or international aggression or contribute to regional instability", yet Saudi Arabia is one of the largest buyers of EU-made weapons. It has used weapons made in the EU to rain down untold damage, suffering and death on the people of Yemen. Billions of euro in arms have been exported from the EU to apartheid Israel to be used in the oppression of the Palestinian people. Fighter jets used to bomb Gaza and kill civilians were made in northern Italy. Despite countless international human rights groups documenting these war crimes and acts of apartheid, these EU states clearly continue to violate the EU policy on arms trade and face absolutely no consequences. The EU stays silent while EU member states make large profits selling weapons to those rogue states and fuelling global instability. Ireland is part of that. How can the Tánaiste deny that is not happening? That is happening. We are engaging with military sales to countries that are breaking international laws and that is part of Ireland's role.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I honestly believe that this security and neutrality forum the Tánaiste is setting up is part of a sustained campaign by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to dismantle Irish neutrality and that this agenda of undermining, eroding and dismantling Ireland's neutrality is a long-standing objective of the two major parties in government.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We created it, for God's sake. We developed it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are cynically using the utterly horrendous situation in Ukraine and the barbaric invasion by Russia of Ukraine to advance a project within NATO and the European Union of ratcheting up the militarisation of the European Union, developing a European army and moving closer to United States foreign policy in a way that is probably the greatest threat to Ireland's security. Of course, the Tánaiste will shake his head and say that this is not true but we have to look, not simply at people's assertions, but at certain facts. This week, NATO naval chiefs are in Cork with Irish naval chiefs. At the end of last year, we had a NATO assessment of Irish forces in Cork by a NATO general, Sam Mason. Of course it is true. The Tánaiste can reads the reports in his own newspapers and the comments from Irish military chiefs about NATO presence there.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It happens every-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt the Tánaiste.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the Deputy off.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are clearly co-operating, as we are through PESCO, the battle groups, interoperability with NATO, structured co-operation and, of course, in the context of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, it was confirmed by the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, that we have attended three meetings at NATO military bases to discuss the situation in Ukraine. It was very interesting to see the sort of attendees who were present at some of these meetings. As well as the usual suspects of all the major NATO and European powers, Israel, for example, was also participating in these meetings. To me, that gives the game away. No one doubts the barbarism of what Putin has done in Ukraine or for that matter the barbarism of what the Russians did in Chechnya, previously in Afghanistan or what they did in Syria. Nobody could possibly doubt that. However, the Tánaiste's narrative is to say that this has fundamentally changed the security situation in a way that we should enhance our relationship with NATO and the project of EU militarisation and effectively, although he will not admit this, further undermine Irish neutrality.

If Putin's illegal, barbaric murderous invasion of Ukraine is criminal and if we need to stand up against this breach of the international rules-based order and against war crimes and crimes against humanity, then surely it would follow that the Tánaiste would take the same attitude towards other states that are guilty of egregious, brutal breaches of territorial integrity, egregious commissions of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Surely he would do that, if he was being honest about his commitment to neutrality and things like the international rules-based order. Neither he nor the European Union nor the United States is, however. He has no problem at all with US arms exports in the billions being sent to the Saudi regime. He is not crying foul about that even though we know and every international human rights organisation is saying that the biggest humanitarian disaster in the world at present is in Yemen. That is a result of Saudi military intervention in a neighbour's country and bombing with weapons provided by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other major EU military exporting countries such as Spain, Italy and so on, which are also ratcheting up their arms sales and their arms exports. However, the Tánaiste says nothing about that or about Israel. Billions worth of European and United States military support in arms sales go to Israel, even though it has been involved since its very foundation, and on an ever-worsening basis, in breaches of the Palestinian territorial integrity, in crimes against humanity, war crimes, the siege of Gaza and in administrative detentions. Even its leaders are publicly saying they want to get rid of the Palestinians. They have publicly said this; they are not even hiding it. They are ethnically cleansing Jerusalem in Palestinian territory, where they have no intention of vindicating the rights of Palestinians under international law, such as the right to return. They are absolutely stating they will never do that, even though Palestinians have those rights under international law.

What does the European Union do? Does it impose the sort of sanctions it imposed on Putin? It does not. It gives favoured trading status to Israel.

It attends NATO meetings with Israel. European countries sends billions worth of arms to Israel and do not even consider sanctions; in fact, they actively resist them. Then the Tánaiste says we must do something about the triple lock, that is, undermine Irish neutrality, because it is completely wrong that Russia can veto UN security resolutions. I agree it is wrong that one of the biggest military powers in the world can veto UN resolutions but why does the Tánaiste not say that about the United States vetoing those resolutions, as it has done time and time again with any resolution that seeks to sanction Israel or any of its allies? Nobody screamed for reform of the UN when the United States did that on multiple occasions. The Tánaiste is not being consistent or balanced in his apparent horror of war, abuses of human rights or war crimes.

Everybody says Putin should be held accountable to the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, as he should be. However, when the same point is put to Joe Biden about war crimes and crimes against humanity that Israel is committing against the Palestinians, he says that Israel is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court and, by the way, neither is the United States, so it is not accountable to the International Criminal Court. They think Putin should be accountable to that court but Israel and the United States should not be and the Tánaiste says nothing about that.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I do.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You want us to join a military alliance headed up by the United States. We co-operate with them daily. That is what PESCO is about-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but you do not draw the distinction.

What is Irish neutrality? It is not clearly defined but it is apparent from our history what it was and from the people who set up the Irish Neutrality League, namely, Connolly and Pearse. The First World War was key in motivating the leaders of the 1916 rebellion to instigate that rebellion. They wanted Irish independence and freedom long before that but they believed the outbreak of the First World War made it imperative that there be a rebellion in Dublin against that war because thousands and thousands of Irish people were going out to be slaughtered in an inter-imperialist conflict. They were clear we would not take sides between brutal military powers.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not how it started.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the truth about neutrality. The Tánaiste talks of security threats but my strongly held view is the best protection Irish troops and this country have is our reputation for being a former colonial country that has opposed war and imperialism and is not part of any of the big imperialist blocs. If we become associated with US, UK or European foreign policy, it will seriously threaten the safety of our troops around the world. I honestly believe that. It will undermine a precious reputation we have built up as a country opposed to colonialism, discrimination and oppression by big powers in particular. We will become associated with war crimes of the sort the United States committed in Iraq and that Israel commits against Palestinians. That would be a disaster for this country’s security and it would be and is a trashing of Irish neutrality.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Tánaiste's initiative to have a consultative forum on international security. His selection of Louise Richardson as chairperson for that is a good one. Her biography demonstrates she is a committed reformer, decisive in action and not easily browbeaten by those who would seek to divert her. She will be a good chair. It is time we had a serious conversation on all dimensions of international security, foreign policy, security policy and defence policy.

Ireland comes to the debate as the most open economy in the world. The last figures showed trade represents 232% of our GDP. This is an enormously open country, which is highly dependent on those with whom we trade. We have a massive interdependence. In the last decade, we have seen seismic disruption to our position four times, namely, the financial crisis, Brexit, Covid-19 and, most recently, the Ukraine war. There is no doubt that in each of those serious situations which have threatened our security and society, our partnerships in Europe have allowed us to steer through, whether it be in respect of a lender of last resort when we found it impossible to raise money, the solidarity we found with our EU partners to avoid a hard border on this island, getting access to vaccine or securing energy supplies. We are a country which is dependent on our European neighbours. We have been effective over a long period at managing those relationships to help citizens of this country and contribute to world stability and peace.

In the 1990s, the West was extraordinarily overconfident in talking of the end of history and the victory of the free world and the liberal democratic approach. That overconfidence has been proven to be dramatically misplaced and now democracies are under severe pressure. All over the world, there is a sharp polarisation between autocratic regimes and democracies. Even within democracies, we have seen the erosion of some of the pillars our democracies have been built upon, namely, the rule of law and free speech, even in quarters where we would have hoped a much stronger position could have been upheld by the citizens of those countries. Powerful forces are driving the way in which opinion is formed, which democracies have not done anything like enough to check. It is timely that we look at our vulnerabilities and how we protect them.

We are slowly groping to some form of oversight and regulation of social media and the citizen profiling that goes with it, which has a profound potential impact on elections and on security. We are only groping our way towards dealing with that and finding a way for citizens to have a legitimate correction of the excesses that creates. It is not like that in the autocratic countries arrayed against us, where there is iron-fisted control of social media and of citizen profiling. Democracies have to wake up to the challenges this represents to us. Artificial intelligence will put those forces on speed, as we see the threats to our traditional way of democratic management.

War in Europe has dramatically shifted the context. Listening to Deputy Boyd Barrett, you would say conflict in Europe makes no difference and conflict anywhere in the world is the same. I think conflict in Europe represents a significant threat to what we have sought to create in Europe from the ashes of the Second World War. War back in Europe is an existential threat to the communities we have sought to create and been part of the creation of over a long period. That war in Europe has come with economic hardship, which we hear about every day in the House and know from our constituents. It has created challenges in the management of migration. It has put cyberwarfare centre stage. It has created private armies which are fighting on European territory. Europe has significant vulnerabilities that have been exposed by this conflict. The energy security exposure has been clearly underlined. Our defence autonomy is a challenge for the entirety of Europe. The supply chains that support our lifestyle are under threat.

It is timely against that background, when there are significant changes to the framework we are trying to cast on international security policy, to have the sort of conversation that the Tánaiste has initiated.

We have never been politically neutral, as Members here will recognise. We are deeply aligned members of the European Union and it is vital that we remain so, in my view. In the EU's strategic compass, Josep Borrell says that the EU favours dialogue over confrontation, diplomacy over force and multilateralism over unilateralism. He says that if you want them to succeed, you need to put power behind them. That is a challenge to us as well. We need to have power behind the policies we seek to pursue. We have been very effective, as many have said, in exercising soft power to make sure we put that behind our ambitions. We must also, as other European countries are doing, look at the vulnerabilities we have at this time. We need to prepare for acting in crises. We need to anticipate the sorts of threats that are out there, such as cyberthreats. We need to build technological capabilities. It is absolutely clear that Ireland, acting alone, cannot build those elements that will make us secure into the future to deal with cyberthreats, threats to our elections and the threats of artificial intelligence. That is simply not open to us, so we have to partner with others.

In this case, we are partnering with the European Union, which is the most effective alliance of countries that have a common faith in the rule of law, freedom of speech and following multilateral approaches. It is the one institution anywhere in the world that has created a system whereby countries can collaborate, make decisions and be effective. We are uniquely fortunate to be in that position. We must be acutely conscious of the danger that Europe will become a pawn in the battle between the US and China, which seek to paint the world in primary colours. This simply does not stand up to scrutiny, in my view. The world is a place of many different types of countries that are struggling to reach progress on behalf of their people. They are dogged by many problems, as we know. However, as a Union of countries we are committed to dealing with the issues in the way I described, namely, dialogue without confrontation, diplomacy over force and multilateralism over unilaterism. We must stand out there as a beacon seeking to deliver on that promise. When you consider the challenge of climate, you realise just how damaging polarisation could be to the most existential threat to our security of all: climate change. That will have an impact on economic livelihoods, migration and, indeed, on politics, as we have already seen. It is timely to look at that broad-based debate.

There is, of course, a focus on our military neutrality. The first issue is the triple lock. I, for one, do not see the triple lock as a wise approach. I say this because we are depending on the UN, which has veto powers for individual countries which are members of the UN Security Council, to make a decision for us. That is not a read we can lean upon. It is not a strategy at all. It is a denial of an active strategy. However, I do not automatically assume that there is consensus on an alternative strategy. Unlike Deputy Boyd Barrett, I do not see a whole lot of people who are aligned on these benches and wish to join some arrangement of NATO mutual defence. I do not see that whatsoever. That is not to say that an unarmed, ineffective defence policy is a policy for a country that wishes to exercise power and influence in a situation where we are one of the vulnerable countries. We need to think through the position that Ireland needs to adopt for the coming century. It most assuredly will not be the one we have always adopted. The one we have always adopted has seen our defence capability collapse. It has seen great demoralisation. The Commission on the Defence Forces has been a welcome wake-up call to all of us, because we need to decide what our ambition is. Do we want to protect our sovereignty effectively? Do we want to be able to intervene in higher intensity peace support? Do we want to be involved at a higher level in humanitarian relief? I think the answer to all those questions is, "Yes, we do". We want to step up in this area but without making significant decisions, we will not be able to do that.

I welcome this forum. Unlike Deputies who are not Members of my party, or indeed other Government parties, I think the presumption that we know how different people will react to different debates is misplaced. We need to have a serious debate and be willing to make changes. I am willing to hear the evidence of those who are going to contribute to this convention. As always, it comes back to this House. At the end of the day, this is the sovereign House that will make these decisions. We should welcome having citizens and experts participate and give us some guidance at a time of unique vulnerability in Europe and at a time when we have to recognise the challenges we face as a Continent.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá an díospóireacht seo tábhachtach inti féin. Is trua é gurb é seo an bealach atáimid ag déileáil léi agus go bhfuilimid ag díriú isteach ar rud nár chóir dúinn díriú isteach air. Ba chóir tionól saoránach nó coinbhinsiún bunreachtúil a bheith ann - d'fhéadfadh coiste an Tí déileáil leis seo, fiú - seachas an tslí a bhfuil sé curtha faoinár mbráid anseo. Níor chóir go mbeimis riamh faiteach faoi éisteacht a thabhairt don phobal i gcoitinne agus an tuairim a mhealladh. Thar na blianta, áfach, níor ghlac an Stát seo riamh lena raibh an pobal ag rá maidir leis seo. Ní gá ach féachaint ar na pobalbhreitheanna difriúla thar na blianta a léirigh go raibh an pobal i gcoitinne go huile is go hiomlán i bhfabhar an stádais neodraigh atá agus a bhí againn agus gur chóir dúinn a chinntiú go leanfaidh sé sin ar aghaidh. Tá tuiscint ag an bpobal i gcoitinne agus tuiscint ag a lán tíortha an domhain ar an seasamh atá againn. Cad as ar tháinig an seasamh sin? Cén chuid dár stair ar tháinig sé as?

Táimid difriúil óna lán tíortha eile atá i NATO nó ag atá lorg cogaidh anois. Beagnach na tíortha sin ar fad, is tíortha iad a raibh coilíneacht nó impireacht acu roimhe seo agus a rinne slad ar a lán de na tíortha agus treibheanna san Afraic agus a ghoid na hacmhainní astu. Táimid tar éis seasamh a ghlacadh, áfach, ach go háirithe ó 1955 ar aghaidh nuair a chuamar isteach sna Náisiúin Aontaithe agus tháinig meas as an seasamh a ghlacamar sna Náisiúin Aontaithe. Tháinig meas as ach go háirithe toisc crógacht na saighdiúirí agus iad thar lear ar mhisean ar son na Náisiún Aontaithe agus iad ag iarraidh síocháin a chothú, ag iarraidh a chinntiú nach raibh troid ann, nó ag iarraidh cosaint a dhéanamh ar phobal a bhí faoi léigear ag dreamanna a bhí armtha. Is minic go raibh na dreamanna sin atá ag déanamh léachtóireachta orainn, is é sin, ag rá gur chóir go mbeimis ag caitheamh i bhfad oiread níos mó ó thaobh airm míleata de, nó dul isteach i NATO nó in aon adventure nó eachtra míleata thar lear. Ní thuigeann siad an meas atá ag pobal na hÉireann orthu siúd a sheas an fód i Jadotville nó orthu siúd a fuair bás thar na blianta ar duty leis na Náisiúin Aontaithe. Tá an tuiscint sin ag pobal na hÉireann agus ag tíortha eile chomh maith.

Is é an fáth go bhfuil an seasamh nó stádas chomh mór sin againne thar lear ná toisc go bhfuil an meas sin ann. Má thosaímid ag déanamh creimeadh ar an neodracht nó má fhaighimid réidh leis an neodracht, nó má théimid isteach mar bhaill de NATO, déanfar damáiste de sin. Tá creimeadh tar éis tarlú le tamall de bhlianta anuas ón uair a thosaigh Rialtais an Stáit seo ag dul isteach i leithéidí the Partnership for Peace, EU Rapid Deployment Capacity, an EU battle group, European Defence Agency, nó PESCO. Déanann gach seasamh mar sin a ghlacaimid damáiste den stádas atá againn. Níl a fhios agam cén fáth go bhfuil an fuadar ann le rá gur chóir dúinn fáil réidh leis an neodrachas mar tá sé tábhachtach don todhchaí agus ó thaobh an seasaimh atá ag an tír. Tá breall ar an Teachta O’Callaghan nuair a deireann sé gur ghlac pobal na hÉireann, nó na Rialtais, an stádas neodrach sin de thairbhe féinmheas agus go rabhamar ag breathnú orainn féin. Ní raibh, agus níor chóir go mbeadh, aon pholasaí eachtrannach mar seo dírithe ar na buntáistí don tír seo amháin. Is buntáiste den domhan é má tá níos mó agus níos mó tíortha neodrach agus go bhfuil siad sásta seasamh suas don síocháin. Is buntáiste é don domhan má tá siad sásta seasamh i gcoinne iad siúd atá ag iarraidh slad a dhéanamh nó tíortha, acmhainní, nó tailte daoine eile a ghoid, nó ionsaithe a dhéanamh mar a fheicimid faoi láthair agus an Rúis ag déanamh ruathar ar an Úcráin. Is é sin an fáth gur chóir dúinn seasamh i gcoinne an chreimthe seo. Ní hé sin le rá nár chóir dúinn breis airgid nó acmhainní a chur i dtreo na bhfórsaí cosanta atá againn. Tá sé sin tuillte acu agus ba chóir do sin tarlú láithreach.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to contribute to this important debate on Ireland’s defence and security posture. I welcome the fact that a conversation is finally, belatedly, taking place. For too long Ireland’s defence and security have been treated like kryptonite. We could not even discuss it or look at it in case, as Deputy O’Callaghan pointed out, even to discuss it would mean we would probably threaten it. I welcome the fact it is happening. It does not bother me whether it is a citizens’ assembly, a consultative forum, a Dáil debate or a conversation on RTÉ, provided a conversation is actually, finally, happening.

The Minister might recall in 1999 there was a movie called “Fight Club” and the first rule of fight club was, "You do not talk about fight club". That has shrouded Ireland’s defence policy or lack thereof for 100 years. Where it comes from, I am not sure. I presume one factor was that there is a fair amount of evidence that at the early Dáil meetings some of the Deputies coming into the Chamber were actually armed. They had fought each other, killed each other’s brothers, fathers or friends and defence was such a contentious issue that it could not even be discussed. That continued for several generations until we lost the language needed to hold a conversation on it. I welcome the fact it has happened.

If we consider what this nation has been through over the past 25 years, we have not shied away from contentious topics. We have tackled the issues of divorce, reproductive rights, marriage equality and, to be fair, we are a better country as a result. We can move things forward and have a better policy at the end of this initiative and consultative process. I recognise it is not just logic and reason that will cause this policy to evolve. There is an emotive component to it as well. I was heartened by what I have heard this afternoon. It was a constructive, civil and courteous debate. We are off to a good start. I look forward to this process, however long it lasts.

Before the Minister came in, the Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed the triple lock. It is an issue for sure. There are many unknowns about the triple lock. I wish to focus on that. It came in around 1960 as a result of our troops going to the Congo. We had approximately 1,000 troops over there - two battalions - at one stage. It was a major deployment with a large number of fatalities and casualties. It is completely appropriate that the triple lock is there for a UN, blue helmeted, blue braid mission. That should continue because there cannot be a UN mission without UN authorisation, whether by the General Assembly or the Security Council. That is completely appropriate. The difficulties with the triple lock happened in 2002 when it was extended not only to UN missions but to all Irish deployments overseas. That caused a major issue because not only can we not deploy troops overseas without a UN mandate, we could not send the rugby team to France with our Defence Forces, nor could we send a ceremonial platoon as we did in 1963 to John F. Kennedy’s funeral in Arlington. In 2006, a Defence (Amendment) Act was passed and it listed a number of exemptions. Unfortunately, those exemptions were not sufficient. If someone looked to tweak or improve the triple lock, it should go back to how it was in 1960, where for a UN mission, the triple lock needed to be invoked and satisfied. We could look at increasing the number of exemptions. There is, for instance, no exemption for close protection bodyguard duties, humanitarian operations relating to evacuation operations or hostage rescue.

Another option is to increase the threshold from 12, which is the current ceiling, to 30, 50 or 100 to give more latitude. I recognise that all the votes here in the Chamber are simple majorities. We need 50% plus one to pass legislation. We could consider the option of a supermajority, if wished, to regain Ireland’s sovereign control over its sovereign troops. We can, therefore, leave the triple lock in place for UN missions but for all other deployments it should be a national competence made by the national Parliament as it is in every other country. I do not know of any country that has ceded authority and sovereignty to authoritarian states in how it deploys its troops overseas. There are a few options for the Minister.

People have different views on neutrality, which is completely appropriate because different countries have different views as well. There is conscription in Switzerland. It is a heavily armed country with a massive arms industry that exports all over the world. It actually sends troops to protect the Vatican. It enters into defence clauses. That works for Switzerland. On our version of neutrality, my view, which is, I believe, shared by most, not all, people in Ireland, is that Ireland’s neutrality means we do not join any formal alliances such as NATO and that we do not sign up to any common defence clauses such as the European security situation at the moment, but that we absolutely co-operate with our partners, colleagues and neighbours around the world but particularly in our neighbourhood in the EU. That is what we have done successfully for the past 100 years. It has worked out quite well for us. I do not detect any attempt to undermine our neutrality or opportunities to resource our neutrality. We claim to have a policy of neutrality but we have not resourced it at all. I do not see us joining NATO or EU security policy. I do not detect any such vibes in the Chamber. What I detect is our desire to be self-sufficient in respect of our military security and defence capacity so that we do not have to rely on external actors to help us out. I welcome the fact that we joined the Hybrid CoE, centre of excellence, in Helsinki recently. One of the Minister’s party members was there signing us in. The Cybersecurity CoE in Estonia is also a positive development.

There is another point about this issue. Even if Ireland asked to join NATO, which I do not believe we will, I doubt that NATO would accept us. It would look at us militarily and say, “Fellas, you are a basket case, come back to us in 20 years’ time when your home situation is sorted out.” That is exactly what we should be doing. To be fair to nearly all the contributors to the debate, there is an understanding that we need to improve our own independent capability first.

With regard to the state of our Defence Forces, they are in a bad way. Only a decade ago, there were 10,500 people in the Defence Forces; now there are only 7,800. We have dropped our strength by 25%. If the number of nurses, doctors, teachers or Ministers at the Cabinet table was reduced over a ten-year period by 25%, there would be mayhem. That is the mayhem and chaos in our Defence Forces at the moment. There has been some improvement in pay for people with less than three years’ service. I totally accept that. However, other commitments have yet to be delivered regarding long-service increments, patrol duty allowance for the Naval Service and lance corporal appointments. There is a good deal of work to be done from a pay perspective. There has been some improvement on premises, in particular. The Minister for Foreign Affairs' best intervention so far since he took up office five months ago was to overturn the rulings on family accommodation on base for military families.

That is the most positive thing he has done so far. It has been announced but it has not yet been implemented. There is ample space on the Curragh, in Baldonnel or even at St. Bricin's Hospital for military families to be accommodated on military land. I know the Minister, Deputy Ryan, who is present, is a fan of modern methods of construction. The military should be looking after their own people in the defence community to take the pressure off local authorities in respect of social housing. That should be explored. St. Bricin's Hospital is owned by the Defence Forces or the Department of Defence. Many hospitals are now considering building accommodation for their nurses and doctors. The Defence Forces should be doing something similar in the context of defence.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was given the list of modules detailing what will be discussed during the four days. Although I accept they are only draft modules and they are comprehensive, there is no module to deal with the possible unification of the island in the next five, ten or 20 years or however long it takes. Approximately one hour's drive from here, the Six Counties are in NATO and a large proportion of the population up there is quite happy with that. They are happy to be in the UK from a defence perspective. If they were to join up with this jurisdiction, there would be a major diminution in their defence and security. It would be worth holding a module on how this entire island can defend and protect itself. The Minister has been a champion of the shared island approach and there have been seminars on sport, healthcare, tourism and infrastructure but there has not been a shared island seminar on defence and security. Such a seminar would be useful. It would highlight many issues relating to reunification, if the people were to decide that should happen.

In summary, I welcome the fact that these discussions are taking place. I very much look forward to contributing to all three of the consultation forums that will come thereafter. I am glad we have discussed neutrality and NATO. They are the two extremes but we are now actually discussing normality and having a normal conversation in respect of defence and security. This is a good initiative and I look forward to participating fully in it.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an deis agam cúpla focal a rá inniu. Is ábhar fíorthromchúiseach é agus ní dóigh liom, le 50 bliain, go rabhamar in áit ar an domhan seo chomh contúirteach agus atáimid i láthair na huaire.

Twice in the past century, military fever overtook many countries. They armed themselves, threatened each other and eventually went to war. The killing of one person in Sarajevo ignited the First World War. I worry that, worldwide, we could be heading in the same direction as was the case before the First World War and the Second World War, with ever-growing armaments industries, but this time there are nuclear weapons in many hands and that could be fatal to humanity. Issues such as the climate crisis will pale into insignificance if, someday, somebody believes they have to press the nuclear button.

I will try not to mention the word "neutrality" again in my remarks. It is a used and abused term that relates to particular circumstances at a particular time. I believe in is what is in the Constitution, as well as the principle of an independent foreign and military policy. A country can be in the EU or the UN and have its own policy but, like any democracy, it accepts the rules as far as it is obliged and, in the case of Ireland, as far as the Irish people have agreed. We in Ireland are governed by the Constitution, the provisions of which are clear. We are all bound by those provisions until they are changed, and they can only be changed by the people. The first provision to which I will refer states: "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." The second states: "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." They must always be our first port of call. If we move away from them, we will be acting in an unconstitutional manner. The third provision states: "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State." Again, it is the people, and only the people, who can change that. It is a fundamental provision because the Constitution clearly states in another provision that the only way Ireland can get involved in a war is on the decision of Dáil Éireann. That means we cannot join NATO, with its mutual defence pact, or a common defence that has a similar mutual defence pact. Of course, one of the reasons Ireland has taken that view is that past actors or colonial powers that are in the European Union might involve us in a war that would lead to our mutual destruction. To hand that power from this Chamber to anybody else would be a betrayal of the people.

I have no problems with forums and citizens' assemblies, although I do not particularly like them. I do not like the constant undermining of the role of this citizens' assembly elected by the people by open franchise. It is demeaning that on many occasions this House is the last rung on the ladder or cog in the wheel. I am glad the debate is taking place because, in many cases, everybody else has their say before this Dáil gets to do so. I regret, however, that this is not being done through an Oireachtas committee, which can bring in any experts, representative groups or other witnesses it wants. The sovereignty of this Parliament is constantly being undermined in our society.

I have a view in respect of security. I will walk out of here this evening, just like everybody else present. I will travel home to Cornamona. I could be shot at or mugged on the way. All sorts of things could happen. I do not carry a firearm. I am not in the United States and I do not believe carrying a firearm would help me. If everyone in Ireland carried a firearm, there would be far more people killed. We see the evidence of that all the time in other countries. As an individual, my greatest security is that nobody wants to get me. If people are out to get you, you cannot live in the society we have. If that applies to individuals, it applies to nations. The greatest security any nation has is not to get involved in the exploitation and misuse of other nations. Thinking that we are going to arm ourselves against some major attack is fallacious. We must always seek to use negotiation and diplomacy to reduce the threat. Diplomacy must always be our first port of call. I do not agree with Deputy Bruton. I am a citizen of the world. I do not see my world in the narrow parameters of a very small Europe in a very large world. I recognise that there are more people south of the equator. Many people seem to think those south of the equator do not exist.

There are many decent people in every country of the world. There is not a country, including Russia and China, where there are not millions of decent people.

There are also many injustices in the world. We see all the people fleeing from various continents because of them. We know of the injustices in Ukraine, Yemen, Palestine and Afghanistan. In our small way internationally, we have traditionally - back to the 1930s and the invasion of Abyssinia - punched above our weight in trying to work with other like-minded people, irrespective of where they were across the globe, who would fight injustice in various ways.

It is worth noting that the most unthinkable thing in my lifetime happened, and it largely happened in a peaceful way, that being, the fall of the Iron Curtain. One of the privileges of having lived a bit longer than the others present is that I have seen more. When I was growing up, no one would have believed that the Iron Curtain would collapse - actually, Deputy Durkan can remember - and disappear. He and I can remember how that was totally unthinkable in the 1960s.

I have always been a great admirer of Gandhi and the methods he employed. Instead of killing people to achieve the independence of his country, he mobilised the people. He modelled himself on Daniel O'Connell, who mobilised the people against injustice. Therefore, we must always consider different ways.

Regarding Ukraine, we seem to think that there is only one way forward, that being, a proxy war in which each side keeps raising the ante. If the war swings one way, the West ups its supply of armaments. It is supplying armaments now that were unthinkable a year ago. Then Russia ups its armaments. I wonder whether anyone can be sure that, if it goes to the ultimate, someone somewhere - people here would say it would be Russia - will not get an itchy finger and press the button. When people are destroyed, will someone then raise a hand and say, "It does not matter that everyone is dead, because we were right"? It is as frightening as that, because it only takes one foolish and insane person or a small group of people in the wrong place for that to happen.

It is worth noting that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and also decent Russian people, have been killed in this war. In the main, ordinary soldiers are just doing a job. I do not go along with the jingoism that all Russians have suddenly turned bad. We need to stand back and be careful.

We are told about cyber threats. There are many such threats in the world, and we should co-operate with those who would oppose and work against such threats, be the threats from black or private actors or from rogue states. We must recognise that there are many states outside the EU that have values as good as ours and we should not confine ourselves to working in co-operation with EU countries. We should work to bring as many people together who want to have a world in which we act together.

Regarding cables across the Atlantic, I am not a great technical guy, but it seems to me that, outside our EEZ and somewhere between here and America, there is plenty of space that is in no one's territorial waters. If people could get down to the Titanic in a manned vehicle, I do not see why they could not get down to those cables outside our territorial waters if they wanted to. I do not know how we will defend against this, but to say that we will be safe if we simply keep them out of our waters is foolish in the extreme.

I agree with Deputy Berry, in that we need well-paid Defence Forces and clarity about their purpose - peacekeeping, drug interdiction, support for the civil power, protecting our coastal waters, emergencies, etc. I do not have time to go into all of those purposes today. The idea that we could ever defend ourselves against an all-out attack from any major power would be wrong.

I am opposed to a common defence and to handing over that key sovereignty whereby we, the people in this Chamber, are the only ones who can involve Ireland in any individual action. I listened with great interest to what Deputy Berry had to say about the triple lock.

I have not seen any, but if there are difficulties with supplying as many troops as we need to - at the moment, we can supply virtually none - I would not be opposed to tweaking the triple lock. However, I would be opposed to ripping it up, as seems to be the agenda. I asked a parliamentary question, and received the answer today, about all of the peacekeeping missions in which we had managed to remain involved. I hope that we will be careful in where we go, move slowly and move honestly in this debate.

Unfortunately, my time is up, but I will get other opportunities in this debate.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but the Government spot was taken.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Lawless.

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute on this important issue, which is growing more important as time goes by. I compliment the Tánaiste on bringing the matter before the House and setting up this review of our defence and security, of which there are many aspects. As every day goes by, new threats arise that we may have to contend with in future, for example, cyber threats, the threat of induced viruses, which we constantly hear about on television, and how, from time to time, there are people who view it as being within their rights to impose on others their will.

I am a supporter of security in terms of what the country needs to do to defend itself in the first instance. Of course we are not going to get into a major war, but we can make a contribution - and we will be expected to do so - at a particular time in the event of such an emergency occurring.

The Opposition will say that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael's idea is to get rid of our neutrality and replace it with something else. Incidentally, the tradition of neutrality that we are talking about does not count for much. After all, we as a country fought in every battle on the Continent of Europe for 500 years. We then fought on the continent of America just for the fun of it, sometimes on both sides to show we were even-minded about it. Our neutrality did not go too far. The tradition of neutrality did not exist, and could not exist. We fought in all the major battles across Europe - Austerlitz, Landen, Fontenoy and Borodino, and later in the second battle at Borodino. As a neutral people, we had a funny way of expressing it.

During the Second World War, neutrality did not well serve the peaceful people of many states across Europe who were committed to it. That is a stark fact. They were just pushed aside as if they did not exist. I am not saying that we could hold up a legion of armies, but we could make a contribution to the protection of our vital infrastructure in the event of something happening.

It may well be that we can only delay and cannot stop intruders indefinitely, but we can hold them up. We can contest, at different levels, the threat as it may be presented. We have a lot to look at in that regard. For instance, basic domestic water supply will be a vulnerable area at some time in the future. Water is more and more sought after around the globe. That is something we have to include in our ability to protect that asset of ours, which is a vital piece of infrastructure and a daily and hourly requirement. We have to talk about defending against cyberattacks, which are becoming more and more evident and serious as time goes by. We need to have the competence to slow down, detect and, in some way, arrest the speed of a cyberattack and prevent it where possible. We have to recognise that security of the food production sector may also become an issue in future, and could come very quickly, even overnight. People in various countries and of various traditions, as we stand now, are subject to a threat in that particular area. Threats are coming, let us say it, from all quarters. I strongly support the concept being pursued by the Tánaiste in order to address these issues. Likewise, I agree with my Kildare South colleague on the need for a well-paid army. We need a reliable army, one with a certain basic strength that is sufficient to give an account of itself in the event of being called upon. That is the way security works.

On the issue of neutrality in the past, I agree with Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. It may well have been for selfish purposes that we declared our neutrality in 1939 to suit that particular situation, but I agree with it. I would have done the same thing for the simple reason that I could not have trusted our next-door neighbours not to find some reason to impinge upon our territory, such as it was, at that time, in addition to our economy. We would have been very weak in the order of comparison when it came to that, but it was the right thing to do. However, times have changed, as have the threats and potential threats. It is now time to look again at what we have to face, how we have to face it, and what we can do to prevent the threats that may present themselves to us in the very near future. It will also be a deterrent, to those who might be aggressors, to know that there would be some small response we could make. Not to diminish it, but various other smaller countries all over the world have managed to present a reasonable defence in the event of an emergency.

We have a duty to make the preparations the Tánaiste talked about. We have a responsibility to do so. If we do not accept this responsibility, make these changes now and re-evaluate the situation as it presents itself to us, we will be found wanting when history comes to be written. I do not normally share things with constituency colleagues but, on this occasion and in view of the neutrality that pervades the entire debate, I hand over to my colleague.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Durkan. Our other constituency colleague, Deputy Cronin, is also in the Chamber and I expect is about to speak. We have already heard from Deputy Berry so County Kildare is well represented in this debate, as it should be, as the home of the Defence Forces in many ways.

I commend the Tánaiste on his work to date on leading this conversation. It is a conversation and not a foregone conclusion on any side of the House, certainly not to my mind. We need to review our defence and security policies. The establishment of this commission on the future of our international policy and obligations is well-timed, makes perfect sense, and is a good way to do it. We have an obligation to change as the world changes. As I said, that outcome or destination is not preordained but we have an obligation to consider and constantly review where we stand on different issues. We have an obligation to our citizens who we represent in this State, and to the international community, to challenge and critically assess where we are, with shifting sands around the world.

Deputy Bruton referenced - he stole my lines a little - Francis Fukuyama and the end of history, and where we expected to be perhaps 20 or 25 years ago, when we thought a unipolar rules-based world order was emerging with liberal democracy as its key tenet. That appeared to be a sort of utopian outcome, for some schools of political thought anyway, but it was short-lived, as we saw with the Balkans following the demise of the Soviet Union and the conflicts that emerged around the world in other ways. That utopia did not last, which puts the pressure back on us to reconsider and defend our model of governance and democracy. Democracy itself is under threat around the world. According to the Democracy Index, the number of countries running parliamentary liberal democracies as their primary mode of government is in decline and has actually slipped back in the past decade, as opposed to where it was at one stage. Any idea that the liberal order or democracy has succeeded is incorrect. They are actually under threat. That is even before we come to the conventional trench warfare being waged on the Continent, which is something none of us expected to see. That compounds matters further.

The historical position deserves some consideration. It is often said during these debates, and seems to have become some sort of truism or sacred cow, that our founding fathers would never have contemplated a yielding from neutrality. I do not accept that as historically or factually true. I accept that any good leader evolves as circumstances evolve. If we look back to Seán Lemass, he said when we entered the European Union that he considered some form of defence pact would inevitably emerge as a natural successor to the EU. He seemed to be at peace with that. I will look back a little further, to Wolfe Tone, who is often mentioned in these debates, and who I commemorate every year in Sallins, County Kildare, as I am sure many in this House do. Wolfe Tone welcomed and embraced the French fleet when General Humbert landed at Killala in the middle of 1798. He worked with "gallant allies abroad", as the 1916 Proclamation states. We have always worked with others, identified common-minded groupings or nations abroad, and collaborated and worked with those towards our independence movement and assisting other states. The idea that we have always stood alone at the edge of Europe, unhindered, unaided and not aiding others, is not the position. We have always embraced the support of others and, indeed, supported others when it was needed.

There was a moment in time, as referenced by Deputy Durkan, perhaps coming towards World War Two, when we were still in our early nation stage emerging from independence and still finding our feet. The reign of Queen Victoria was coming to an end when we got our independence and there was a fear we would be dragged into British imperial wars, in which we rightly wanted to play no part. We would have been very much on the back foot in those wars, perhaps as cannon fodder for an imperial army. We did not want that and, very sensibly, did not do it, but that is a different position from where we are now. We now stand as a sovereign state and an independent member of the European Union. We are unlike our neighbours in Britain at this stage, and have surpassed them in many ways, but that is another day's work. We stand with allies in Europe and elsewhere in defence of common goals and values.

The consultation is very broad and deep. It covers myriad areas, including everything from hybrid warfare to subsea cables, cyberattacks, conventional warfare, which is in there as well, radar, and system scanning. It is important we consider where we stand in every sense. We are a small island nation on the edge of Europe but we are strategically important. We are the interface for data, cyber, submarine cables and telecoms from Europe to North America. I yield to my colleague, Deputy Ó Cuív, on many things because he is a very knowledgeable and wise man, but I take issue with his remark on the subsea cable. There is a spaghetti junction just off the south-west coast of Ireland where many of those cables converge and are carried across under the sea as part of a larger super-cable, as it were. It is certainly easier to mine, track, detect and intercept cables closer to shore than it is once they go into a common duct to go across the ocean. There may be technical points, but if an entity wanted to intercept those cables, it would do so closer to shore rather than offshore. We have seen activity, including Russian ships among others, circling those cables continuously, which is not a new phenomenon that occurred this year and last year. Three years ago, Russian aircraft circled those cables. It is a common feature. Whether the ultimate goal is to spook us, track us, intercept us or all of the above, it is happening repeatedly.

All this is even before we get into the issue of disinformation and cyber campaigns. Some 40% of the EU's data are housed in Ireland. Many multinationals operate their European, Middle East and African bases out of Ireland. It is part of our economic offering, part of the employment granted to so many of our citizens, part of our economic success, and part of the reason we have €64 billion in the surplus account for next year to fund and manage our citizens and State.

It is an economic asset. Our sovereignty depends on us defending it, at the very least. This is not a closed conversation but an open one. I have set out some of my views and I look forward to hearing the views of others.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. I thank him for the opportunity to speak on this very important topic, a topic about which I have been raising concerns for a while now. The establishment of a consultative forum on international security is, in my opinion, extremely duplicitous. I have been questioning the purpose of this forum since its announcement and have been calling on the Government to be open and transparent about its reasons for establishing such a forum.

The Tánaiste’s opening statement has given us a bit more of an insight into the real reasons for its establishment and although I am not surprised, I have grave concerns. After reassurances from the Tánaiste that the forum’s intention would not be to encourage a change in Ireland’s military neutrality policy, it is now clear that that is exactly what this Government is trying to do.

This Government is chipping away at our neutrality bit by bit and should it say any different, I would like to refer the Tánaiste to his own party’s 2020 manifesto which states:

Fianna Fáil is dedicated to Ireland’s policy of military neutrality ... Fianna Fáil reaffirms its commitment to the retention of the Triple Lock of UN mandate or authorisation, Government and Dáil approval.

It is amazing to watch the Tánaiste make such an incredible U-turn over the past three years. Not only is he chipping away at neutrality, but at Fianna Fáil policies and election promises.

In the Tánaiste’s speech, he criticised both neutrality and the triple lock, questioning whether it is fit for purpose. I know the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is due to wrap-up this debate and I am sure he will give us a great display of his party’s incredible U-turn as well. I would like to take this opportunity to remind him of his 2020 manifesto which emphasises the importance of protecting Irish neutrality. Not only will he be failing to protect Irish neutrality but he is actively eroding it with the road he is going down and it will be on his watch that that will happen.

I was absolutely horrified by the Tánaiste’s opening statement. Some of it was just pure scaremongering. I mean the idea that we should abandon our neutrality in order to protect our fibre optic cables is just ridiculous. The Tánaiste said that it is important "that the conversations are based on fact, not fiction". I would like to put that right back to him. Suggesting that there is a connection between the HSE cyberattack and Ireland’s neutrality is just absurd. It is clearly a scare tactic and is beneath him.

The Tánaiste suggested that we are withdrawing from international relations and becoming an insular country, but this is far from the truth. Why would the fact that we value neutrality mean we were withdrawing from international relations? It would, in fact, increase our credibility in international relations. If we were proactive, we could contribute immensely to peace talks and ceasefires across the world. If not, we will just become a minor cog in the EU war machine and will have no input on the international stage in respect of neutrality, or anything else.

The public is very proud of Irish peacekeeping activities and has no interest whatsoever in abandoning neutrality. The Government parties had no interest whatsoever in abandoning neutrality three years ago, so we have to ask, why are they so insistent on it now? The answer clearly lies with the European Union or, even more cynically, in the foreign direct investment, in the creation of jobs where the only growth industry left for now is in the military-industrial complex that we are not part of because of our neutral stance.

We cannot allow Europe to bully us into compromising our neutrality and Irish people need to remain vigilant against any moves to undermine Irish military neutrality. We will give away far more than we will gain if we continue on this road and do it in the unthinking and cavalier way that the Government is proceeding, by supporting everything that is happening in Europe, not questioning anything, and not allowing debate to take place here in the Chamber. We do not want to continue on the road that Europe is proceeding along in respect of trying to become some sort of world power. We should be using our role within the EU to raise the issues and concerns about Ukraine, Palestine, and issues like migration, with a strong voice instead of kowtowing, as we are, to Europe on the issues of neutrality.

Irish neutrality was manipulated during the Lisbon treaty process and we cannot allow it to be manipulated any further under the guise of maintaining peace in Ukraine. If we are maintaining peace there, then why are we constantly sending over ammunition and constantly crowing about it?

The Tánaiste gave a very weak reason as to why this conversation is being held through a public forum, rather than a citizens’ assembly, which I have been calling for. The idea that we cannot have a citizens' assembly because two have already been established this year is absolute rubbish. Even if this was a concern, then why the rush to have one? Again, pressure from Europe is probably the clear answer here. The reality is that the Government is afraid of the answer it would get from the people if it allowed the proposal for a citizens’ assembly or a referendum to be debated by them, because the public would back neutrality very strongly and forcefully. They have time and again, and they will continue to into the future.

I also want to raise my concerns about the chair of the forum, Louise Richardson, who has in the past made questionable justifications for US involvement in Chile and Cuba, as well as questionable justifications for involvement in Iraq. Is this really someone we can trust to chair a forum that will debate our long-standing policy on neutrality?

The Tánaiste mentioned in his speech today that Russia has vetoed the Security Council many times, which it has. There is no doubt about that. What the Tánaiste forgot to mention was that since 1975 the US has used the UN veto more than 110 times. There was no mention of that and we have nothing to say about that at all. If one looks back over the record, since 1975 Russia and China have probably vetoed the UN Security Council about 20 times and America is way out and beyond anybody else. America, of course, are the good guys, the ones we support, so that is okay.

The Government is underestimating the importance of our neutrality to the Irish people and Irish citizens will not appreciate being blindsided by the Government in this way. We will not allow it to erode our neutrality.

I am concerned about the vagueness of the Tánaiste when discussing the outcome of this forum and the recommendations it will make and so, in his closing statement, I would ask the Minister to answer the following question. Will he ensure that the forum’s recommendations are published publicly and that we will be able to discuss the recommendations in this Chamber? This is an issue of national importance and I urge the Minister to ensure the public has a say on it. I am urging him now to do what is right. That is vitally important. The public should have a say rather than just having this railroaded through this House which seems to be what has been set up to be done. It will be interesting to see if the Members on the Minister’s side of the House, who spoke very eloquently in support neutrality, support what he is doing when it comes down to business.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin by answering Deputy Pringle. I absolutely believe we should publish the recommendations and bring them back for debate in this Chamber. I agree with what Deputy Ó Cuív said earlier, which is that this Chamber is the pre-eminent citizens' assembly for our country, democratically elected and constitutionally mandated. We should and will be centre stage in discussing any policy in regard to our country’s future military or other foreign policy initiatives. I look forward to our party’s proud participation in that. We come from a long tradition of democratic peaceful politics and it is in that tradition over recent years that we have been working through our policy council, made up of representatives of our party from all over of the country, and have been looking at this critical issue.

We, as a party, say that Ireland is committed, as is our party, to retaining Ireland’s commitment to active military neutrality. We are completely committed to the continuing involvement in the EU’s common security and defence policy but subject to our special status, including participation in the Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, in the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence, and in the Partnership for Peace, but we are opposed and will continue to resist any activities not compatible with the State's non-aligned and peacekeeping defence tradition. The Green Party and I reaffirm our opposition to joining NATO. We go back to that Nice referendum, which the Irish people endorsed back in 2002, where with the first Article on that issue in the Seville Declaration of the Nice treaty, states that:

Ireland reaffirms its attachment to the aims and principles of Charter of the United Nations, which confers primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security upon the United Nations Security Council.

As Deputy Ó Cuív put eloquently, those international judicial peacekeeping mechanisms are in our tradition and go right back to the foundation of this State, so we completely support it.

The Seville Declaration also states, in Article 5, "that any decision by the Union to move to a common defence would have to be taken by unanimous decision of the Member States and adopted in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." This means that we would have to have a referendum in this country for any such decision to join a common defence which we do not want to do. Our party would argue in opposition to that in any such referendum.

The Nice treaty declaration also states that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European security and defence policy, requires the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, the agreement of the Irish Government and the approval of Dáil Éireann.

As Deputy Pringle said himself, that first condition, the requirement for a UN mandate, is not legally binding but it does have real drawbacks. The figures I have show that since 1946 there have been 251 public vetoes since the Security Council's inception, with 238 of them between 1946 and 1990. As the Deputy said, the United States of America and the USSR or Russia account for 185 of those. France, by contrast, only used its veto 18 times. It is a real issue here now. We do have an issue within our United Nations peacekeeping institutional structures-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has an issue with Russia but not with the United States of America.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do have an issue with the undemocratic structures that the UN Security Council is based on.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is that happening only now?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go through the Chair. To my mind, we have a fundamental problem in the institutional structures. There have been mechanisms to try to resolve that. In the 1950s, the United States of America pushed through UN General Assembly Resolution 377, the uniting for peace resolution, as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes. The measure states that in the event that the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, the matter can be taken up by the General Assembly. The procedure requires a two thirds majority by member states, regardless of population represented. That UN Resolution 377 has been used a dozen times, probably most famously initially in 1956 to solve the Suez crisis when the United States and others organised a two thirds majority of the UN General Assembly, calling for the withdrawal of British and French troops, which did happen. That mechanism, however, is not in truth effective. Its most recent use was immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and there was such a Russian veto on the Security Council. While it passed by a two thirds majority of the General Assembly, it had no effect.

One thing we are looking at is something we would suggest should be considered as an element. Everything here must be based on the UN Charter. There is a specific section of the UN Charter, under chapter VIII, consisting of Articles 52 to 54, inclusive, that may give us a mechanism to meet our tradition of UN involvement but which gets over some of these veto difficulties. Article 52.1 of chapter VIII states, "Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." Article 52.3 of chapter VIII states "The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council." As for those regional arrangements or organisations, typically the European Union or the African Union would be examples and there are several within the UN process. We believe that may give us a mechanism to overcome what is an undemocratic problem we have within our UN institutional structures. It is in that tradition we would also recognise that the work we are doing, as I said earlier, such as in the Common Security and Defence Policy is, in effect, an agreement among EU states to improve their defences. It is not yielding our military neutrality. It is looking to co-ordinate in order that our troops, our sailors and our aviators have access to the best equipment and the best training and could share their expertise in peacekeeping, which we have in real depth.

One thing on which there is common agreement, and which I hear, regardless of one's view on how we approach this UN peacekeeping issue, is that we need to enhance the resources, strengths,and capabilities of our Defence Forces. The Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces report published last year provided a really clear clarion call that we need to invest in our radar, our shipping, our special operations and in a whole range, including our aviation sector. That absolutely should be our first priority. What Deputy Berry said is absolutely valid and correct. We do not stand in any position of strength if our Defence Forces have reduced by 25% in size in the past ten years, as the Deputy said, and if they are not equipped with the very best of technology, including to deal with cyber threats and the range of new threats that exist. I am confident that our Defence Forces, in the finest tradition in which they serve the State, will do so. It absolutely behoves us and it is correct to establish this consultative forum and in doing so, the Tánaiste is doing them and the State a favour. It is better for us to discuss this in an open and democratic constitutional way as we do, in here as well as within the forum that is to be established. We look forward to taking part. I look forward to the debate that returns to this House and, I presume, to the Seanad to consider what is heard from the forum. That would be a very important and useful exercise at this time, in a world of war and in a world where there are threats that range, as said by Deputy Bruton, from the ultimate climate threat to the more local and specific threats, as well as threats in unconventional warfare and disinformation. Deputy Lawless and I have been going back over this and we are aware that the defence from such threats and how we counter these threats require a much broader vision now than one that perhaps existed in the past. This forum and this debate is a very useful part of that process.