Tom Clonan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber for this important debate. I hope it will involve an exchange of light rather then heat. Far too often, when we discuss Ireland's military neutrality, it can be quite polarising because it is an emotive and emotional issue. My position on the matter and that of the Minister probably are not that far removed from each another. I hope this debate can be the beginning of an important conversation that will benefit the Republic as we move forward.

We are in a very febrile moment globally. The first two decades of the 21st century have been the age of the pre-emptive strike, whether that be the invasion of Iraq or the invasion of Ukraine. Powerful nations have seen fit to use physical force as an instrument of foreign policy and power projection. This has had very destabilising impacts, including impacts those who engaged in the actions did not anticipate.

The motion notes that "not being members of an international military alliance ... has been and remains a central and invaluable component of our foreign policy since the foundation of the State". We can say things about the Emergency between 1939 and 1945, but the fact is the State was in its infancy at that time and in a very vulnerable position. Without doubt, our neutral status saved us from much of the destruction that was experienced throughout Europe. However, while we were militarily neutral, we were not politically neutral, and we know that our foreign policy was conducted in such a way that it favoured the Allies.I am aware, through documents that are in the Imperial War Museum, that the Germans had a plan called Unternehmen Grünor Operation Green to invade Ireland and had earmarked two units, the German Fourth and Seventh Army Corps. The concept of operations was to come to Ireland, go ashore around Tramore and the south-east coast, and move north and lay waste to the country. At the time, Admiral Raeder said that the German units assigned for Ireland would have to fend for themselves. These German units were in Army Group B in the invasion of France and in Army Group North in the invasion of Poland. Both units, which were under the command of Field Marshal Fedor von Bock who was known as General Death-Wish among the Germans, were noted for their brutality. Ireland managed to sidestep that destruction and benefited from our neutral status. Yes, our status, for all intents and purposes is an expression of self-interest. It is a very pragmatic component of our foreign policy but given our size it is a very useful and valuable instrument.

Our neutrality underpins our international status as an independent and impartial voice for peace. I noticed that in some of the media coverage today that this was disputed by many commentators on social media and they responded to media articles by asking where is the proof. Ireland has made significant contributions at the United Nations Security Council, for example, in the negotiation of nuclear non-proliferation. Our independent, impartial, non-colonial and non-imperial status has reinforced our moral legitimacy or standing and ethical probity in trying to push these things forward. Most recently, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin managed to broker an international convention that prohibits the use of cluster munitions, which was negotiated in Croke Park. So we are seen as independent and fair brokers.

In my own experience, as a peacekeeper in the Middle East and as an election supervisor in Bosnia at the end of that conflict, on the ground when one meets people and meet hostile parties, when they have established that one is Irish their attitude changes. When people are less hostile, one is a better position to negotiate and safe lives, and do positive social things. It is about the de-escalation of conflict and our neutral status helps us in that regard. I got funding from the Irish Government back in the noughties to conduct research among international foreign correspondents. They will all say that the most useful passport to have in an hostile environment is an Irish passport because, again, of our perceived moral standing, independence and impartiality. Even in a cynical way, we know that the intelligence services of foreign powers such as the United States, famously with Colonel Oliver North and his confederates travelling to Iran and Israeli Mossad agents travelling throughout the Gulf states, that their passport of choice has been an Irish passport. That reality resides in our neutral status and I would say that our neutrality is an invaluable component of our foreign policy.

We recognise that Ireland's military neutrality is highly valued and cherished by the citizens of Ireland. Polls conducted over the decades show that the Irish people do not want to be part of a military alliance. Irish people have fought in every conflict over the last 200 years. In 1775, the US Continental Army was 40% Irish and Irish people fought in the American War of Independence. As many as 150,000 Irish people fought in the US Civil War on the Union side and 20,000 Irish people on the Confederate side. Between 1775 and 1815, as many as 150,000 Irish people served in the British army fighting foreign imperial wars and they are buried all over Asia and Africa. In the First World War, 200,000 Irish people fought in British, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand or American uniforms. As many as 50,000 of them died, which is as many as America lost in Vietnam. To what benefit to this Republic? They were people who were part of a military alliance that was determined by a foreign power. Among those is my grandfather's brother, Lieutenant Joe Clonan, who was killed in 1917 in Ypres, France and buried in the Y Farm Military Cemetery. His life was cut short and buried next to him is a German soldier, and namesake, Josef Reichart. So as a Republic, we retain the right to choose what conflicts, crises or neighbours to assist in extremis. If we were to join a military alliance we would lose that discretion and sovereign control over our decisions whether or not to become involved in a conflict.

In order to vindicate our neutral status I ask the Government to do a number of things. First, and this is something that the Minister is committed to and more so than his predecessors in recent years, albeit because of financial restrictions, we need to properly fund. In order to say that we are a neutral State, we need to properly fund our Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. I know that the Minister has committed to invest €1.6 billion between now and 2028. That is just a starting point because at the moment, according to the Foreign Policymagazine, Ireland is "Europe’s weakest link" in terms of air, ground, maritime and cyberdefence. It is because of that we are de facto not neutral, because we depend on friendly powers and neighbours to defend us, and basically to tell us what is happening, when they choose to, within our waters, maritime area and controlled airspace and within the cyber domain.

As a starting point, we need to pay our soldiers, sailors and air crew a living wage. I note that in the briefing for this debate, which was sent out, there was a query about the fact that the Defence Forces are the lowest-paid public servants in the State. They are, because their representative associations have done extensive research. When one factors in 24-hour duties and the shortage of manpower, then soldiers very often do as many as two but sometimes three 24-hour duties in a week so, by definition, they earn less than the minimum wage. I acknowledge that is not an intentional policy on the part of the Government. I think that it is probably an outflow of the peace dividend from the Good Friday Agreement, the ceasefires and so on. We need to deal with the pay issue quite urgently.

Second, I ask for a Minister for Defence to be appointed. Yet again, the briefing note says that there is a limit to the number of Ministers we can appoint and that is why we do not have a dedicated Minister for Defence. I contend that we need to prioritise the appointment in order that we properly plan and ensure that we are prepared for whatever happens next on this island. I say that because on this island in the next ten or 15 years, whether we like it or not and whether we are ready or not, there is going to be some sort of an all-island entity. In that all-island entity there will be 1 million citizens who may or may not accept our Defence Forces and who may wish to remain in NATO. Therefore, I ask the following. Who is planning for this? Who are our defence intellectuals? Who are our defence planners? That is why I think that we need a dedicated Minister for Defence to begin to plan for the challenges that lie ahead on this island.

Finally, I ask for a constitutional guarantee of some sort of our military neutrality. My reason for doing so is that in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, we have had several Deputies and members of Government parties who have said quite openly that we should join NATO. I respect their view and would welcome that debate. I think that they are intellectually honest. I am thinking of Deputies like Deputy Richmond, who has been very upfront about his support for military support in Ukraine. I absolutely respect his view but that does not reflect the wishes of everybody on this island so we must have a debate. Others, and it is a very valuable and legitimate point, have questioned the triple-lock mechanism, particularly the UN Security Council resolution being required. Yes, it does give powers like Russia and China a veto over what Ireland can and cannot get involved in. I would say that in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution, we cannot rely on the Government, which would have a majority, to make a decision that will be always in the interest of the people.There has to be some other guarantee to replace the UN Security Council resolution and that is a debate we might have. What would that look like? Would it be something like a Council of State decision being referred to the President, who would then look at some element in our Constitution that guarantees our non-military alignment or membership of a military alliance? It is for all of these reasons and for all of these young people in the Gallery, who would be asked to fight, that we have moved this motion. Many of the people who have proposed some of these changes have never heard a shot fired in anger and are unlikely to do any of the fighting themselves. I want to start this debate and I am hoping it will be an exchange of light and not of heat.