Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. There is a great deal in this motion to recommend it and, in fact, I agree with the vast majority of it and I commend its proposers. I am incredibly proud of Ireland's record militarily, particularly as a militarily non-aligned country. The vast majority of our military record since the foundation of the State has been a positive one, preserving peace and security abroad, and going into areas where we have a record as being an honest broker and as people who can come at an issue in a fair and balanced way. That is why we have such a stellar reputation internationally and why our Army, Naval Service and Air Corps can stand with their heads held high in terms of their record internationally in peacekeeping and other matters.

I 100% support the neutrality of Ireland. I am totally opposed to the notion that we would ever join an organisation like NATO. One of the difficulties I have with this motion is the lack of definition of exactly what neutrality means. I know the Minister has said on a number of occasions that we are not a neutral country from the point of view that you cannot be neutral in respect of certain things. We are militarily neutral but I hope we will never be politically neutral. In this country, we stand for things like human rights, for the rule of law and for women's rights. The day we stand back and say that we have nothing to say about what happened in Iran recently, what happens in China in regard to the Uighur population, what is happening in Russia vis-à-visBelarus and its unwarranted, unjustified and illegal attack on its neighbour - the day we stand back and say that we are neutral, that we have nothing to say and that we have no view - is a day when I think we can roll over and die. The reality is that that is not what we are about. We do not believe that. We are not neutral on those issues. This is something the Government has said repeatedly: we are not neutral on these issues. However, we are not militarily involved either and we are militarily non-aligned in respect of them. There is that important distinction, therefore, between military neutrality and political neutrality.

I agree with much of what has been said by other Senators in regard to their attitudes to how we must stay above the fray of military involvement and I 100% agree with much of what is noted at the beginning of the motion about the status that being militarily non-aligned brings to this country. Diplomatically, I believe we have a much greater status globally than we would if we were getting involved in military spats around the world, at whatever level that might be. However righteous or defensible that might be, the reality is that by not getting involved as a military force, we retain a status that very few countries in the world have. I hope we will continue to have that. My understanding is very clear that that is the Government's policy and we will continue to preserve that.

Reference is made to international military alliances. That is not something that is clear from the motion. For example, on the cyber alliances that have been referred to, is it reasonable to become part of them to benefit from the intelligence, the experience and the cover that might come from that? Is that reasonable? Is it reasonable for us to be part of PESCO within a European context? I think it is. I think that is an entirely different thing from, for example, becoming part of a mutual defence pact with a group like NATO. They are distinguishable and distinct issues and I favour one over the other.

It is tremendously important for us to maintain our defence because being neutral does not mean that nobody will attack you. We have seen other neutral countries in Europe, for example, deciding to join NATO because they were afraid their neutrality will not protect them from rogue nations like Russia.

On the triple lock, reference has been made to the fact the triple lock is sacrosanct and all the rest. I do not agree with that. Neutrality may not be a new notion but the triple lock is a relatively new notion. It was only created in law in the 1960s in the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act and it was further refined in the 1990s. The difficulty I have with the triple lock is not to say we should not have it but that we should be looking at it in a more nuanced fashion. The reality is that the requirement of approval of the United Nations comes with a difficulty. We are a sovereign nation. We should be able to decide whether we want to get involved at whatever level in international peacekeeping or other international military activity. We should be able to decide that ourselves without recourse to the United Nations.

It has worked very well for us so far but the great difficulty that arises is that two rogue nations that I have mentioned already, China and Russia, have a veto in respect of the Security Council. I support calls for the suggestion that no permanent member, or any member, of the Security Council should have a veto. Unfortunately, believe it or not, that is above my pay grade and I do not get to make that decision. However, it is a perfectly sensible notion. The reality is that the UN, complex as it is, and balanced all the way as it is, means it is very difficult to remove that veto. That veto is there to continue to involve these super-states in the activities of the United Nations and, without it, I do not know what the consequences would be. I understand why it is there. However, I would also say that the veto power for those permanent members of the UN Security Council has massively stymied the ability of the United Nations to respond effectively to global crises, particularly in the context of security around the world, massively so. It is a stain on the ability of the UN to do the job we would all like to see it do. I do not think that we, as a country, should necessarily say that we will sit back and allow China and Russia to decide, for example, whether we can get involved in an international military activity, peacekeeping or otherwise. I do not know that we should be ceding that to them.

A double lock is arguably just as effective. It is not just the Government making a decision but also these Houses making a decision in regard to any activity. I think that would be a reasonable measure that would still maintain our neutrality and it would not interfere with the principles outlined in the motion. The only issue would be in regard to the second section of the motion, which acknowledges the protection of the triple lock. I am not sure the triple lock protects us quite as much as we think it does.