Joe O'Toole (Independent)

We have learned from the last three speakers that no politics are international. I welcome the Minister who has outlined the objectives of the Bill. While I fully support what is included in it and have no difficulty with it, it raises wider issues. In that regard, I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by Senator Doherty. I have long wanted a debate on neutrality, something I have never seen. We need to challenge ourselves by asking questions. I have been on the side of neutrality all my life, although I have never been comfortable with it and have often felt conflicted. Every year I celebrated the actions and history of the 15th International Brigade which fought against Franco. I saw no conflict between attending such an event and supporting a policy of neutrality which forbade involvement with any other country. I wish to ask the Minister a serious and fundamental question. Nobody could disagree that it was pragmatic and sensible for us to be neutral during the Second World War. However, can anyone explain the morality of our decision to be neutral when Hitler was killing millions of people for all the wrong reasons, if there ever was a right one, in concentration camps and other places? Is it a policy to be proud of? Is it one to be sustained or which can be explained or defended? In more modern times when Pol Pot did the same, what questions did we ask? Where are the role models for democracy?

A fair question on Irish neutrality was asked by Senator Doherty which I ask the Minister not to attempt to answer today but to come back another day. I do not know what "neutrality" means. As I walked into the Chamber a Senator made reference to Sweden and Switzerland. I do not know in what context that comment was made, but if I were to choose two countries which would not under any circumstances be role models for neutrality as I understand it, I would begin with Sweden and Switzerland. Sweden which has blithely and openly declared a policy of neutrality has seen nothing wrong with selling arms to both sides in every war in the last century. Switzerland which has an attitude of "I am alright, Jack" and has been at the centre of Europe for the past five centuries has seen nothing wrong with laundering the ill-gotten gains of every corrupt regime for the past 100 years. I know what "neutrality" is not, but I am not certain what it is. I am certain, however, that it is not the taking of a passive position. Rather, it is an active state.

I hear people speak of the Irish people being committed and attached to a policy of neutrality, the majority among which I find myself. Having said that, the people have a great sense of the need to right a perceived wrong, defend the defenceless and protect the persecuted. I remember some years ago when we watched the killings in the Balkans and saw what was happening in Srebrenica, Sarajevo, Kosovo and other places, people cried for the European Union to intervene and do something about it. I do now know what the answer is, but I do have ideas, to which I will come.

I do not profess to be a Christian or support any religion, but how can a practising Christian have a policy of neutrality? How can one be neutral in the face of a wrong or something which is completely unfair? Surely, there must be a demand to act in an honest fashion and if we see something wrong, there is a need to say it is wrong. Views such as those of the Christian good samaritan or the "I am alright, Jack" approach have to be considered in a debate on neutrality. An article of the Constitution which states we should take our lead from and work under the generally recognised principles of international law as our mode of conduct with other nations is very interesting and fits neatly with the Bill before us.

In the same way that a country needs to be policed, the world also needs to be policed. There is only one way that can be done and it cannot be done via the one-sided approach of NATO, the European Union or others. The obvious way it can be done is through the United Nations.