I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, to Seanad Éireann to discuss Ireland's military neutrality, a topic that is much in discussion at the moment and has always been in discussion. I thank the Senators who brought forward the motion for debate. I call Senator Clonan.
Ireland's Military Neutrality: Motion [Private Members]
I move:
That Seanad Éireann:
notes:
- that Ireland's military neutrality:
- - 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;
- underpins our international status as an independent and impartial voice for peace and the de-escalation of armed conflict and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world;
- - in tandem with our incredible global diaspora - contributes to Ireland's unique voice for peace and reconciliation throughout the world;
- and our leadership in peacekeeping and peace enforcement gives great moral authority and legitimacy to our voice for the international rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of conflict and oppression;
recognises that:
- Ireland's military neutrality is highly valued and cherished by the citizens of Ireland;
- Ireland's membership of any military alliance would immediately diminish and undermine our international reputation as an independent and impartial nation state, whose sovereign mission has been exclusively to pursue peace and reconciliation throughout the world;
acknowledges that:
- Ireland has been an active participant in UN sanctioned peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions on the continents of Europe, Africa and Asia, without compromising our military neutrality;
- Ireland retains the political discretion to support any member of the international community in crisis, on a case-by-case basis, with the protection of the triple lock mechanism, without the necessity to join a military alliance;
- in a time of increased political and military instability in Europe, with the invasion of Ukraine, and in a time of global de-stabilisation and accelerating climate change, our military neutrality is more important than ever;
and calls on the Government to:
- properly fund Ireland's Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and Cyber Capability:
- in order that we can vindicate our sovereign, neutral status and properly secure our land, air, maritime and cyber domains;
- to pay our soldiers, aircrew and sailors a living wage in order that Ireland can meaningfully respond to man-made and natural disasters;
- to appoint a Minister for Defence, with an exclusive portfolio, in all future administrations, to properly lead and advocate for Ireland's defence, security and sovereign neutral status;
- guarantee Ireland's status as a militarily neutral state and commit to preserving that neutral status by way of a constitutional guarantee.
I propose to share time with Senator McDowell.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
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 Grün or 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 Policy magazine, 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.
I endorse the remarks made by Senator Clonan and I support and second the moving of this motion. The question of Ireland's neutrality is an important one and we cannot hide behind weakness in protecting our neutrality and upholding the authority of the State any longer. The Minister has come forward with proposals to strengthen the funding of the Defence Forces over the next five years and that is all very well.
The simple fact is we should acknowledge that the Air Corps is wholly under strength in its equipment and manpower and capacity. A big mistake was made, as has been pointed out, in search and rescue. That duty should have been given to the Defence Forces to carry out. It is important that the Defence Forces should have the helicopters, training and personnel to do that work as well. That is a mistake. We need to have our Naval Service up to strength. It is sad to think that some of the ships we have invested in are effectively mothballed for want of personnel. The Army is under strength and it is difficult to recruit and retain soldiers. We will have to have at least 12,000 members of our Defence Forces properly equipped. I accept what Senator Clonan has said about the question of our neutrality; that we are depending on other people to defend our airspace. Our armed forces do not have any drones and they are not up to par in what they are required to do now.
Senator Clonan mentioned things that may happen in the future in Northern Ireland. We see the recrudescence of, not merely loyalists but also so called republican, threats of violence. Our Defence Forces stand between the Irish State and that threat. We cannot ask them and we cannot presume on their capacity to deal with these matters if we underfund them. On Friday I will speak at an event in Glasnevin to commemorate the dead of our National Army in the Civil War who have never been properly commemorated. Apart from commemorating the dead I want to do something to support the present members of our Defence Forces, who deserve better. They deserve to live up to their functional purpose, which is to be able to defend this country and to uphold the authority of the Irish State.
I commend Senators Clonan and McDowell and my colleagues on putting forward this important motion. It is timely, given the war situation we are in. I would like to say a few words on behalf of Fianna Fáil and then to make a few comments on what Senators Clonan and McDowell have said in their contributions.
Neutrality means different things to many people. As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Ireland as a country is beginning to question our neutrality policy and to ask what it means to be neutral. Fianna Fáil is dedicated to Ireland's policy of military neutrality. It is a policy we have pursued both in and out of Government and its key and defining characteristic is non-membership of military alliances. This policy of military neutrality has gone hand-in-hand with strong support for international co-operation to ensure peace and stability, as manifested in Ireland's participation in United Nations-mandated peacekeeping operations. Various Defence Acts passed by the Oireachtas mean that Ireland only takes part in missions which are unambiguously authorised by the United Nations and on the basis of a sovereign decision made by the Government, subject to the approval of the Dáil. Furthermore, Article 29 of the Constitution confirms Ireland's dedication "to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." Article 29 also upholds our observance of the principles of peaceful resolution of international disputes.
The second Nice treaty referendum introduced a provision in the Constitution affirming that Ireland could not take part in common defence without further amendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann. This gave solemn effect to the solemn commitment in the national declaration by Ireland in Seville that a referendum would be held in Ireland on the adoption of a decision taken by the European Union to move to a common defence. The Seville Declaration clarified that there was nothing in the Nice treaty or previous treaties that posed a threat to Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. In order for Ireland to join a common defence, the people would first have to vote to delete or amend this constitutional provision. While no decision to create a common defence can be taken at the European Council without Ireland's agreement, it has never been Ireland's position that we would attempt to block the desire of other member states to establish common defence arrangements among themselves in circumstances where Ireland would not participate, as long as those arrangements would not prejudice its national interests. With this in mind, Fianna Fáil does not see a case to amend the Constitution at this time.
I want to address a number of the points Senators Clonan and McDowell raised. I refer first to the Defence Forces. Since 1958, as we are all aware, Ireland has had an unbroken and distinguished involvement in United Nations peacekeeping, and Senator Clonan himself was involved with that. Thousands of members of the Defence Forces, of various ranks, have served abroad, and on at least 12 occasions to date, have provided the head of mission. We had a comprehensive debate here a number of months ago on the Commission on the Defence Forces. On that occasion, Members from all sides welcomed the report, the commitment to increase funding for the Defence Forces and a number of other amendments that were going to take place. I welcomed the fact that the Government has committed a substantial budget, that is ring-fenced and index-linked, for the next five years for the Defence Forces.
However, as Senators Clonan and McDowell referred to, can we truly be a neutral State if we cannot defend ourselves? If we are honest with each other the answer to that question is that we cannot.
In welcoming the increase in funding that has been ring-fenced, we need to go further with that given the circumstances we find ourselves in as an island nation on the periphery of Europe.
The main power we have had as a member of the United Nations and as an honest broker throughout the world has been what they call and term “soft power”. I have witnessed this on a number of occasions, most recently on a visit to the United Nations with Deputies Flanagan and Brady. The influence that Ireland has in the United Nations because of that soft power is immense. However, that cannot be taken for granted and, unfortunately, we are in a changing world. We are vulnerable in a number of areas, as has been outlined, such as the air force and the navy, but increasingly in cybersecurity.
I look forward very much to the remainder of this debate. Perhaps the Minister could address the fact that, under the triple lock, Russia and China will have a veto on what missions this country takes part in if we do not change something in that regard.
I would like to provide some historical context as to Ireland’s neutrality. I provide that by quoting from the Viscount Cranborne, who was the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and wrote to the British War Cabinet on 21 February 1945. He outlined 13 examples of how the Irish Republic was assisting with the Allied war effort. Some of those 14 examples were:
3. They have arranged for the immediate transmission ... of [all] reports of submarine activity received from their coastal watching service.
4. They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory ...
5. They [have] arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
6. They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
7. They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
8. They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
9. They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of [the South of] Ireland ...
10. They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand ... Allied service personnel are ... allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering [all Allied] damaged aircraft.
11. Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to [the South].
12. They have.. offered no objection to the departure of Southern Ireland persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces ...
13. They have continued to exchange [all] information with our security authorities regarding [all German people living in the South of] Ireland.
14. They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a Radar station in Southern Ireland for the use against the latest form of submarine activity.
That is what we were doing in the Second World War when it comes to neutrality. Fast forward to the 1960s, it was American aircraft that were flying Irish troops to the Congo. It was German aircraft that were flying Irish troops to Mali. It was an agreement that existed, although not officially confirmed, between the Royal Air Force, RAF, and the Irish Government that after 9/11, if any rogue aeroplanes were to enter Irish airspace, they would be shot down by the RAF. The American air force has used Shannon a base for the past 20 years. Are those the actions of a neutral country? I do not believe they are. That is a fact. That is not an opinion of John McGahon. Anyone who thinks Ireland is a neutral country is deluding themselves. It is a particular brand of neutrality that has been allowed to develop over the past 50 or 60 years because of complete and total inaction of policy.
Deputy Berry outlined the three types of security forces that exist on the European Continent at the minute that can be put into three categories. The first category is the actual neutral countries, such as Finland, Austria and Sweden, that can protect themselves because they put proper funding into their military. The second group is Iceland, which is a traditionally pacifist country but joined NATO in 1949. If it ever gets into trouble, it will have the support of larger nations. The third group is the most common, where every country maintains a particular level of sovereign military capability, but they are also involved in a joint defence arrangement, whether that is NATO or something else.
Ireland is unique because it is the only European continental country – not EU – that does not fall into any of those three sections. That is because, over the past 50, 60 or 70 years, we have allowed this concept of neutrality, which was never a quasi-political position, to develop. We have never actually been neutral because of all of the co-operation we have done. Let us become a properly neutral country. Let us have a properly funded military capability and we can then be a proper neutral country, like those in the first section I talked about, which is Finland, Austria and Sweden.
What does our neutrality mean? It means so many things to so many different people because it has been such a loosely defined term in recent years. To me, it means we stay out of conflict, we stand up for international law and there is no automatic obligation for us to join any sort of a conflict, the same way there is no automatic obligation for any other country to come to our aid. That is what neutrality means to me. However, at the same time, it means we co-operate extensively with our friends, neighbours, allies and partners, we stand up for international law on a case-by-case basis and we are not part of any common defence arrangements. That is what I believe it is. We should stay as what a neutral country is, but we operate on a case-by-case basis and continue an in-depth co-operation with other European defence forces and militaries to make sure our Irish Army is getting the absolute best training.
Let us have a debate about it. I thank the Senator for tabling this. The whole issue about Irish neutrality and the concept of it is that it is not a sacred cow or sacrosanct but rather something that should be up for debate in a modern Irish society. We have had some very big issues we have discussed and debated over the past ten years. I am looking to have the type of neutrality we have had in this country for the past 50 or 60 years, but at least let us be honest about it. That honesty is that while we have a pious view of neutrality - “Oh, sorry. We are neutral. We don't get involved.” - at the same time, we have all of this collaboration and co-operation with other countries but we are kind of not kosher about it.
We need to be honest about it. We need to say we are a neutral country and that means we have a proper, funded military so we are not relying on the co-operation of other countries to come to our aid. It also means we keep it as business as usual and maintain the status quo. I really believe this. We are not a neutral country going by the facts I have from over the past 80 years and the examples of where we have engaged with other countries. We should absolutely keep and continue to do what we are doing, but let us be honest about it and say what we are. Let us properly fund our military and be like a proper neutral country, such as Finland or Sweden, that is not relying on other countries and is not part of defence agreements. That is the way forward for Irish neutrality in the modern era.
Before I call on the next Senator, it would be remiss of me not to mention, related to the list of the things the Senator pointed out, Maureen Flavin Sweeney, a Kerrywoman, who was in Blacksod Bay in the coastguard station that took the weather forecast for D-Day that was so instrumental in that historic decision which turned the tide of the Second World War.
I commend Senator Clonan and the Independent Group Members on tabling this important motion on what we in the Green Party regard as a crucial issue of Ireland and a much-valued neutrality. We have a proud history of neutrality of Ireland, given our Defence Forces have the longest unbroken record of overseas service with the UN of any country. This has always centred on humanitarianism and peacekeeping. Earlier this year, the Government approved the decision to move to level of ambition 2 over a six-year period to 2028. This will result in an additional 2,000 civil and military personnel to the current 9,500.
There are many actions in the Government’s response to the high level action plan arising from the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces that will greatly improve the operation of the Defence Forces. In particular, the appointment of a gender adviser reporting directly to the Chief of Staff will be an improvement and must have a strong role in preventing previous abuses from being repeated.
In a debate concerning neutrality, it is vitally important we think about where we want our resources going and what lines there are between neutrality and breaking that line of neutrality. It is difficult to appear as a neutral country when we cannot adequately protect ourselves from air, sea and cyberattacks.
The increased focus on cyberdefence is very welcome and is encouraging to see the funding and focus on this aspect increasing. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Ossian Smyth, has done a lot of work to strengthen the National Cyber Security Centre, which has greatly expanded its staffing over the past year and will be given a dedicated headquarters. The need for more resourcing for cybersecurity has been evident since the cyberattack on the HSE and instances across the world where this is becoming more common. The Minister of State is working with other countries in similar positions to learn lessons from them and apply them back home. I commend him on his work.
In respect of climate change, the Defence Forces have a huge role to play at home as well, in responding to the worst effects of global warming. Whenever there is widespread flooding in Ireland, it is the Defence Forces that step up to help. These events will only get more frequent and more severe. The programme for Government identifies climate change as an increasing security threat across the world and a significant factor in the instances of war, famine, forced migration and disaster management and commits this Government to support the Defence Forces in addressing these challenges. We need to further consider the necessary and crucial role the Defence Forces will play in responding to much more regular adverse weather events in Ireland.
I want to discuss and highlight a number of issues that are not contained in the wording of this motion but which I believe would help ensure safeguarding and neutrality, proactively using a soft power for peace and securing a more appropriate, modern, maximum democratic consensus for sending properly-resourced Irish Defence Forces personnel into potential conflict zones. A UN that has been increasingly polarised in recent times is still part of our triple lock. This has prevented Ireland in the past from supporting a neighbour state's peacekeeping missing in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to name but one example, because of a veto at that time at the Security Council. While I support the motion's modifications to wrest back control of the decisions to send Irish peacekeepers abroad, I respectfully suggest a consideration be given to the following suggestion, namely, in the interest of widening the democratic consensus and still maintaining a link to the UN founding principles, the movers of the motion - perhaps they will respond with the Minister - might consider an amendment with a view to enhancing the State's independence and latitude in the deployment of the Irish Defence Forces personnel abroad. I support the concept of a triple lock, however, I suggest an amendment to this that would require the decision of the Government; approval by Dáil Éireann; review by Seanad Éireann, which is so often left out and forgotten about, and finally, and this is the change, permit the State discretion to act on its interpretation of proposed actions being compliant with the UN Charter. That no longer ties our hand to the UN Security Council and takes a lead rather than looking into the room for Russia and China to tell us what to do. Given the increasingly non-representative nature of the Security Council, I suggest peacekeepers be deployed based on compliance with the relevant chapters of the UN Charter and potentially involving the opinion of the Attorney General, thus maintaining the principle without being blocked by the politics of the United Nations.
In regard to properly funding staff and a reform of the Defence Forces, which was the basis of the recent Defence Forces review, I suggest consideration be given to the following more specific definition of what "properly funded" means. To properly fund Ireland's Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and cyber capability, we need to move to at least level of ambition 2, as described in the Defence Forces review in order to vindicate our sovereign neutral status and properly secure our land, air, maritime and cyber domains. Irish ambassadors often observe that most UN member states are small states; many of them former colonies. These states identify with Ireland's size and history, with our commitment to the rule of law, equality, justice and multilateralism, and with the country's interventions in voting positions on decolonisation and disarmament at the United Nations. I will conclude by saying Ireland has used its position on the UN Security Council to advance consideration of how to transition from peacekeeping to peace-building and that is so important. Ireland's exercise of soft power is also very important. Finally, I ask the Government to give consideration to appointing a Minister of State for defence and proactive military security with an exclusive portfolio within the Department of Defence in all future Administrations to properly lead and advocate for Ireland's defence, security and sovereign neutral status through active military security.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire anseo anocht don díospóireacht ar an rún iontach tábhachtach seo. I begin by welcoming the Minister and commend Senator Clonan on bringing this important, thoughtful, considered and, as others have acknowledged, timely motion for debate in the Chamber tonight. I also acknowledge Government colleagues for their decision, as I understand it, not to oppose tonight's motion. It is important for the people of this State, and indeed the people of all of Ireland, to see this Chamber united on the issue of Irish neutrality. Understandably, there are concerns going back many years that successive Governments have taken decisions which have eroded our neutrality. We recently heard comments from the Minister advocating a move away from the triple lock mechanism that protects our neutrality and that caused much concern for many. In that regard, it was also welcome to hear the Taoiseach say that changing the triple lock mechanism is not in the programme for Government. It certainly should not be but that debate is for another time.
Irish neutrality is not a recent position. It is part of the long honourable republican tradition stretching back to Wolfe Tone and is reflected in the famous banner erected by James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army when Connolly was president of the Irish Neutrality League at the outset of the First World War. The banner declared, "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland!" Neutrality has earned this State significant goodwill abroad and is essential to our ongoing positive relationships with other countries. Pursuing its neutrality policy, this State has built up an international reputation as peacekeeper, peace builder and peacemaker. This State is uniquely placed in a strong position to advance a policy of positive neutrality and indeed, active neutrality as well. This State's long-standing policy of neutrality, our role in peacekeeping missions and the global record of our NGOs in delivering humanitarian aid and development, has contributed to the emergence of a powerful level of soft power internationally. Arguably, it was this soft power which this Government was able to employ to secure a coveted position on the UN Security Council and it is quite significant that it was primarily the non-aligned, smaller nations of the world which voted for this State to be represented on the Security Council. Our neutrality is something we can be proud of and, as this motion states, this is reflected by our participation in many UN-sanctioned peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions on the continents of Europe, Africa and Asia without compromising our military neutrality. It gives us, dare I say, a moral standing on the international stage as well, which we would lose were we to join a military alliance.
I acknowledge that these are very dangerous times in the world. As we can see from the Russian occupation of Ukraine, smaller nations are indeed vulnerable but I do not believe this is a credible argument to join a bigger military alliance. However, it is an argument for the Government and the Irish Defence Forces to assess the readiness of the State to defend itself against aggression; not only to assess its state of readiness but also to equip and resource the Defence Forces to be able to respond to and repel any acts of aggression while maintaining our own neutrality. Earlier this year, the report from the commission on the future of the Defence Forces was published. The report called for a significant increase on the current level of funding of the Defence Forces and for an increase in pay to make it an attractive career for young men and women. We must be prepared to pay the price necessary to defend this State. The Government has many responsibilities in its response to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and one of its key priorities is to ensure the Defence Forces , the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service, are highly resourced, trained and motivated to protect our people and to protect Ireland's neutrality.
As Sinn Féin spokesperson on defence in the Seanad, I have raised my own concern at a creeping erosion of our neutrality with the Minister and indeed, his predecessors on numerous occasions in this Chamber. My colleague, Senator Gavan, has been relentless - and I am sure he will be again tonight - in highlighting the apparent very regular and seemingly flagrant breaches of our neutrality witnessed at Shannon Airport. Like so many, I deeply value and hold dear our military neutrality and believe it is a huge asset in our global role; a role Ireland takes very seriously in building peace, dialogue and crucially, solidarity.
Unfortunately, as conflicts continue to rage around the world and as we see the continued devastation caused by the climate catastrophe, now is the time to strengthen our role as respected and trusted partners in peace, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.
I thank Senator Clonan for tabling this motion. In all sincerity, I hope we do not just have a reflective dialogue on the history and importance of neutrality. There is a place for that, but, as we go forward and accept the global realities that exist, we should have a greater understanding of and commitment to being active in our neutrality. We should not just reflect on and commend our global role internationally as peacebuilders but ask what more we can do in that regard, and what we can do to ensure we do not turn our backs on people from countries around the world who are fleeing devastation, whether that is conflict or man-made climate catastrophe. We should instead invest in ensuring our Defence Forces and humanitarian organisations around the world can support and assist those people in future. This is an important debate. I look forward to continued engagement on it.
I welcome the Minister. I thank him for making himself available once again to discuss our defence and neutrality. I also thank the Independent group, in particular Senator Clonan, for tabling what is a very important Private Members' motion that the Labour Party is very glad to support.
The illegal, unwarranted and unacceptable invasion of Ukraine by Russia has given some commentators and political parties a reason to raise the question of our neutrality at this time. This motion gives us all a chance to put on record our positions on neutrality. On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome that opportunity. As I stated during the debate on the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces that we had in this House with the Minister in October, our neutrality demands investment. I welcome, as have Members on all sides, that the motion acknowledges this. It is important to state once again that being militarily neutral should not be confused with military impotence. I again find myself agreeing with my colleague, Deputy Howlin, who, in a similar debate on the commission's report in the Lower House in February, stated: "Neutrality is a truly important principle that I believe commands the majority support of our people but we need to define what we mean by it and truly invest in it." That majority support would seem to be backed by The Irish Times poll in April, when two thirds of respondents indicated that they support the current model of neutrality.
There can be no doubt that our neutrality has, as the motion states, been a central and invaluable component of our foreign policy since the foundation of the State. It is true to say that same neutrality has underlined our State as an independent and impartial voice for peace, which has allowed our highly regarded diplomats and successive Government to be that voice for reason, a voice for the de-escalation of conflict, and a valued and trusted partner in conflict resolution. It is a voice that would be lost or severely diminished if we were ever to join some of the military alliances that have been mentioned in the past number of weeks and months. Our neutrality has allowed our renowned peacekeepers to partake in UN-sanctioned peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions on the continents of Europe, Africa and Asia. These missions have given us an international reputation as a peacekeeping force, which so many of us are rightly proud of. It is also important to acknowledge those who have served in those missions and it is always important to acknowledge those who have lost their lives serving in the name of this State on such missions.
The Labour Party supports the retention of the triple lock and has concerns about any attempts to undermine or change it. As a country, we have retained the political discretion to support international communities in crisis without needing to be part of any military alliance. We believe that is a position we must maintain. During our debate last month, I spoke about investment in the Defence Forces and the level of ambition, LOA, 2 outlined in the commission report, which we said we supported and continue to support. The motion proposes properly funding Ireland's Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and cyber capabilities in order to protect our neutral status and secure our land, sea, maritime, cyber, and air domains. It is an ambition the Labour Party also supports. In fairness, I acknowledge the Minister's contribution during that debate when he mentioned that we, as a State, could spend €2 billion on our Defence Forces by 2028. This is the level of ambition we must have to protect our neutrality in order for this State to know who or what may be using our airspace or territorial waters. We believe we can achieve that protection. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us during his response on where we are with the implementation report and the independent chair he spoke about previously. Unfortunately, we did not get to talk to him about that as time ran out on the previous occasion.
Several people have contacted me regarding the quality of the advertising campaign, which I also acknowledge, currently running for recruitment to our Defence Forces. I agree with those people. The campaign shows a professional career path that, I hope, many will follow. Indeed, we need many to follow it. However, there are still issues with retention and recruitment, as mentioned by other speakers. I mentioned some of those issues on the last occasion we spoke. I acknowledge the work the Defence Forces representative associations, PDFORRA and the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, have done and completed on working on these issues, including working with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, on achieving increases in pay and allowances in line with public service pay agreements, providing for a 6.5% increase over 2022 and 2023 for those in our Defence Forces.
There is work to be done on recruitment and retention. I again mention the need to look at army barracks to provide accommodation for new recruits, given the current housing crisis we are in. We can, should and could make a career in the Defence Forces more attractive by providing accommodation for those who need it most. Some of the people I deal with continually are young people who want to join the Defence Forces but are struggling with housing. I again raise the issue of the Curragh Army barracks, which has been raised by other colleagues, and the need to provide housing there. It would make a difference. I ask the Minister to look at that again.
We also need to look at the level of female participation in the Defence Forces. When will the report on that particular issue be made public? The ambition in the Commission on the Defence Forces report allows for many more women to partake in the Defence Forces so we need to look at that particular report. An update on that would be very welcome.
We are very happy to support-----
Sorry, what report is the Senator referring to? Is it the independent review?
Yes, the independent review. I thank the Minister.
We are very happy to support this motion. Ireland stands tall on the back of its proud tradition of international peacekeeping as a militarily neutral country. We believe we must invest in our Defence Forces to secure the futures of those who serve, and to protect and secure our territory. We welcome tonight's debate. We hope it will lead to further debate but, as a party, we believe now is not the time to change the triple lock as it currently stands or to compromise our neutrality in any way.
I welcome the motion. This is an important time to recommit to, and make it clear, how important neutrality is and how well it has served Ireland. I echo the belief that a strong constitutional mandate is already outlined in Article 29, including devotion to the ideal of peace, the recognised principles of international law and the peaceful settlement of international disputes by arbitration or judicial determination. Those were the very early signals. We have a history of constitutional determination in respect of the various treaties we have had, which has made it very clear that military neutrality and, in fact, neutrality, has consistently been a core understanding of the Irish public's identity of themselves. Indeed, there was a reason it was the area where the public sought, received and needed to receive reassurance regarding the various treaties we have had. Those principles are important.
We have heard a lot about where Ireland was during the Second World War and so forth, but let us look to just after that war and the UN Charter, which came not at a peaceful moment but following a history of war. It stated that its commitment was to free future generations from the scourge of war, to recognise war as a terrible and destructive force in the world and to commit to the idea of international human rights law and the equal rights of all nations, small and large.
These were radical ideas because they had come after centuries and, indeed, millennia of big powers, patronage of other nations and, in some cases, colonialism and the idea whereby might determines where power resides and all nations working in big-power politics. We moved to this idea of an international politics of principle. That was an incredible leap forward.
Ireland has been in the world of an international politics of principle where all nations, not just if they were a nation's neighbour or one with which they had a trading relationship, speak together in respect of the work of peace. That has been fundamental and Ireland has been within that space, because it is a neutral country trusted to act on those principles of international law and not on matters of interests, alliances or what our friends wish to achieve in order to serve other goals. When it comes to these crucial issues, Ireland has worked for peace and spoken about conflict from the principle of international law and, indeed, multilateralism.
That is why I am very strongly critical of any move away from the triple lock or any idea whereby we decide in parallel who we wish to support based on whether we think something should happen. We have to secure the triple lock. If we want reform, there is a case for the removal the veto from all Security Council members because they are nations to be set at a tier above with regard to the UN General Assembly being able to make decisions. However, we need to make that case in the multilateral international space and not undermine our credibility by trying to step outside of it. That is crucial.
One of the most crucial lines in this motion is that "Ireland’s membership of any military alliance would immediately diminish and undermine our international reputation as an independent and impartial nation state". We talked about our soft power. That power is not just from our being lovely to chat to. It is the credibility we have built up over years. One cannot have soft power on one side and then say one wishes to hang out with these defence ministers from NATO on the other. One undermines one's credibility by doing so. Our soft power is very effective in the world.
Frank Aiken signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on behalf of the first country to do so. Bear in mind we have heard a lot about building defence to build security and peace. Of course we need to resource the workers in our armed forces in particular in order that they have proper pay and conditions but one of the great defences we have is disarmament. Bear in mind Frank Aiken signed the treaty when the arms race was taking off and there was the idea every country needed a nuclear weapon in order to preserve itself. Signing the treaty was a move away from that and said disarmament is what builds peace. The Convention on Cluster Munitions was also a moment of real pride for Ireland which has saved lives.
With regard to the humanitarian access Ireland has had and recruitment and retention in the navy, I will highlight the highest point of membership of the navy was when Ireland was saving 8,000 people a year in the Mediterranean, which we sadly moved away from. The Minister for Defence at the time said we had moved from a humanitarian to a security focus. We have something special and precious and we cannot be complacent about it or think one can chip away at neutrality or de facto delete it and then still be able to hold that space. Let us be proud of our neutrality. I welcome the motion and I commend Senator Clonan on bringing it forward. Our being neutral makes Ireland strong.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I join in paying tribute to those who serve and have served in our Defence Forces and their families. This debate has very much been around whether Ireland should join particular organisations. That is not what this debate is about. It is about the question of the kind of world we wish to see; the values we as Irish people wish to articulate on a global level and what will inform those. We all wish to see a safer world. We all wish to see a world in which the values and principles we hold dear around human rights and, as Senator Higgins said, the international rule of law are upheld. The question is as to what our geopolitical security and defence policy should be and what our position on it should be.
We have always been a supporter of multilateral organisations. My party has a proud tradition of supporting multilateralism. We believe that narrow ethnonationalism, as advocated by other parties, is what contributes to global instability in many cases. Multilateral organisations have ensured that we have had co-operation at a global level and have been able to build trust. The EU is the greatest example of a peace-building organisation. Our contribution historically, from the League of Nations through to the United Nations and in the EU, has been very strong and we need to go further in those places.
The challenge we need to talk about now, however, is that many of the wars of the present and, indeed, the future will not be fought by boots on the ground. Increasingly what we will is hybrid warfare and engagement in cyberattacks. More and more of these cyberattacks will be state sponsored. I will refer to the Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2022, in which Microsoft measures where digital attacks are now happening. Microsoft has reported that cyberattacks have jumped this year from 20% being nation-state attacks to now being 40%. This includes Iranian actors and North Korea, which regularly tries to steal technology from aerospace and other companies. It also includes China, which is not just attacking the United States and Australia to gather information or technology but is also attacking countries in the global south including Namibia, Mauritius and Trinidad and Tobago, simply because those countries are standing up to China's economic imperialism.
Even today, the European Parliament's web servers are under a Russian-sponsored pro-Kremlin attack. We saw an attack on the HSE in the middle of a pandemic which emanated from Russia. I respect the Minister engaged with the Russian Embassy but if that was a democracy, we would be calling the ambassador in and demanding further inquiries and so on. However, we do not seem to apply the same standards in terms of what is happening with Russia.
We need to do a number of things on a global level. We need to campaign for a digital Geneva Convention, whereby critical infrastructure such as health services will not be subject to cyberattack and if we are to have such a convention, we need to have sanctions in place against the countries that will breach it. The problem we have is with regard to the neutrality we designed in the 1930s and 1940s and, actually, we were never neutral. Rather, we were non-aligned and having such a foreign policy is important. We have to look at the world we face in the 2020s and 2030s, which is increasingly divided between those who share our values, understand the principles of international law and the importance of human rights and increasingly authoritarian countries such as Russia, China and others.
I wish to talk about what China is doing. Its belt and road strategy includes what is essentially economic colonialism. It is making countries in the global south dependent to a far greater extent that what would have happened in colonial history and exploiting what is happening there. I agree with Senator Higgins about our standing up for international rule of law but how, at a global level, how do we deal with the countries that do not believe in respecting the international rule of law and engage in cyberespionage and cyberterrorism? We have to have mechanisms to address that. That is why an alliance of democracies has to be formed to defend those values at a global level.
That is what our defence and security policy needs to be about at a geopolitical level. If that means that down the line we consider joining or participating in particular organisations, and I certainly think we should be taking part in some of the cyber initiatives under PESCO, as well as exploring other areas, then we have to decide that if we are going to stand up for the values we hold dear at a global level, in those circumstances, we have to join the necessary alliances in order to protect those.
That does not necessarily mean joining NATO, which, by the way, we did not join due to principle but rather due to fear of too close an association with the UK in the late 1940s and concern around partition. We have to move away from this debate being about membership of organisations and have a real consideration around geopolitics and national security concerns.
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-vis Belarus 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.
I am very happy to support this motion tabled by my colleague, Senator Clonan, and seconded by Senator McDowell. It comes at a crucial time, with the debate around this issue growing all the time in the political and public realm. I spoke on Order of Business last month about how Fine Gael seems, as a party, to have abandoned support for this country's neutrality, and wants to sit with the big boys around the table in the war room. Senator Clonan spoke earlier today on the radio of the numbers of Irish men who went to die over the years in wars in Europe and the world over, shocking numbers when one thinks of the person behind the figure, someone's son, brother or husband. The proponents of abandoning our neutrality tend to frame it as the moral thing to do - that we must take up arms to right wrongs, and fight tooth and nail against injustice, no matter where it rears its head. The reality, of course, is less glamorous. It is our sons and daughters being sent to fight and die for foreign causes.
The vast majority of Irish people correctly hold our neutrality in high esteem and do not want to see it cynically undermined by concerted efforts in the service of super-national interests. Some proponents of a more hands-on approach to war may feel as if our neutrality has us sitting on the sidelines when we could be helping. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sustained neutrality of countries such as Ireland allows us to be highly trusted brokers of peace on the international stage and to lead by example in that regard. Our participation in peacekeeping missions is of enormous benefit to the countries where they take place, and our record in the area of humanitarian assistance is well recognised and well regarded on the international stage. No one is calling for less help to be given to those who need it, but we should not be drawn into wars which are not our own. Amhrán na bhFiann calls for us to man the bearna bhaoil in Erin's cause, not the causes of NATO, the US or the EU. There is no appetite in this country for Irish blood to be spilled on foreign soil, and I urge the Government to respect the will of the people rather than trying to swing it.
Senator Higgins spoke earlier about soft power and how we value our place on the world stage. This is the ninth week of protests in Iran. Iran's judiciary stated on Tuesday that 40 foreign nationals have been arrested for taking part in protests there. I wonder if any of those was Irish.
Of the 1,413 protests between 16 September and 18 November, 1,290 were led by women. We all know why these protests are taking place in Iran. The Minister and Ireland plan to reopen our embassy there in March. I am asking the Minister to use his soft power, our place on the world stage and the value we, as a nation, place on international law to pause the reopening of the Irish embassy in Tehran while this war is going on.
Like my colleague, Senator Ó Donnghaile, I welcome this debate and congratulate Senator Clonan and his colleagues on tabling the motion. It is great to have someone in the Chamber who has genuine military knowledge and experience that we can and should listen to.
Hear, hear.
Some of the Senator's contributions on the current war in Ukraine have been extremely valuable. Like others, I have been listening to his contributions on Eamon Dunphy's podcast, "The Stand". They give us all a really good insight.
This is a timely and welcome motion. The Senator is right that we should focus on light, not heat, and on what we all agree on. It is clear we all agree that there is a significant deficit in spending on our armed forces, particularly in the context of the pay and conditions of the members of those forces. I acknowledge that the Minister has taken action in this regard. To be frank, this is an issue that has been neglected for many years. Let us all get behind making those moves to ensure that military personnel, many of whom I have spoken to in Limerick, are paid what they deserve. The Senator put it correctly when he stated that a living wage is what is important.
I acknowledge the fact that the Minister is not opposing the motion. That is important, because it recognises that neutrality is something which, hopefully, we all value and that should value in the context of the contributions made. To put it in context, last year military spending globally reached $2.113 trillion. That is how much the nations of the world spent. All of the usual suspects were involved, including the US, China and Russia. That is absolutely horrendous, especially when there are millions of people starving in the Horn of Africa. To be clear, the idea that Ireland could potentially add to that sum significantly, beyond investing correctly in cybersecurity and in our Defence Forces in terms of living standards, is bizarre. How would that help the sum of humanity? As is stated in the motion, it is far better that we retain our status as an "impartial voice for peace and the de-escalation of armed conflict and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world".
The Minister attended a meeting of the Council of Europe some months ago. I pay tribute to the staff and the ambassador to the Council of Europe in particular because we have forged a very good reputation as an independent voice on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We have been able to do that because we are a country that does not have that imperial baggage, and because we have often been an independent voice for human rights. That is so important. I was lucky enough to be appointed to deal with a report on the humanitarian consequences of the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That would not have happened if I did not come from Ireland, where we have this reputation for independence and fairness.
There is a lot that we agree on. I welcome that the motion recognises the fact that we should guarantee Ireland's status as a militarily neutral state and commit to preserving that neutral status by way of a constitutional guarantee. That is important. Sinn Féin is very clear in supporting giving the people of Ireland a say in a constitutional referendum on neutrality. That is something we will do if we get into power, because it is important. The debate around neutrality is more timely than ever. Broadly speaking, we can either become more involved in the various military blocs or we can continue to be an independent and respected voice in the world.
I want to raise the issue of Shannon Airport. I am delighted that Senator McGahon also raised it. He was right to do so. The reason I am raising it is because it is a clear sign that we have not been militarily neutral. Some 3 million US troops have gone through the airport over the past 20 years. It is a matter of more than regret that, unfortunately, neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael have ever had a word to say about the matter. Earlier this year, there was a presentation in the audiovisual room at which we were told that the US advisers who help the Saudi dictatorship drop the bombs on Yemen, where 400,000 people have been murdered in another illegal war, all travelled through Shannon Airport. How on earth can we speak with credibility about neutrality if we ignore that particular elephant in the room? I agree with Senator Malcolm Byrne when he talks about shared values. The difficulty I have is when we are not consistent in our shared values. I will provide a concrete example of that. When we send a Cabinet Minister to Saudi Arabia to talk about and tout for business and, days after he leaves, the Saudis execute 81 civilians, where on earth are our shared values? They killed another 17 people in executions in the past few days. I got a statement from the Department earlier this year. To my shock and horror, it did not contain one word of condemnation of the Saudi dictatorship. If we are going to talk about values, let us be consistent.
I want to end on a positive note. This motion is very timely. It is good to hear a broad consensus that neutrality is the correct way forward. I commend Senator Clonan for his work on it. This is the time for a debate and those of us who believe passionately in neutrality are prepared to make our case. More importantly, we are prepared to let the people of Ireland have their say on this issue.
Speaking as a veteran of the Defence Forces, I welcome the Minister. I am confused sitting here today. I have heard Members talking about neutrality and military non-alignment all in the same breath. These are polar opposites. We have a huge problem when we start talking about neutrality. Let us take a definition of neutrality from the Department of Foreign Affairs. In paragraph 4.5 of chapter 4 of Challenges and Opportunities Abroad: White Paper on Foreign Policy, which was published in 1995, neutrality is defined as follows:
In the strict sense of international law and practice, neutrality and its attendant rights and duties do not exist in peacetime; they arise only during a state of war. Neutrality represents an attitude of impartiality adopted by a state towards the participants in a conflict and recognised as such by the belligerents. Such an attitude creates certain rights and duties between the neutral state and the belligerents which commence at the outbreak of war and end with its cessation.
The programme for Government states that Irish people take great pride in the Permanent Defence Force and the men and women who serve this country with pride and distinction. The public might, but few governments have ever rewarded the loyalty freely given by these excellent woman and men who serve in the Defence Forces. If we are to be a truly neutral State, we have certain obligations. I ask the Minister to explain to the public how the Government will ensure there is respect for our so-called neutrality. Can we meet the most basic requirement to underpin our so-called sovereignty? For example, if necessary, could we use force to repel any violation of our territory? The Minister has held the portfolio for defence for over five of the past ten years. He presides now over the lowest headcount in the Permanent Defence Force in 50 years. Does the fact that so many of our skilled personnel walking out in their droves keep the Minister awake at night? We are the only country in the EU without a full-time Minister for Defence. That is not the Minister's fault or that of the Cabinet. However, I think our Ministers are over-burdened in the number of portfolios they carry.
The Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces has done little to halt the exodus from the Defence Forces. The years of investment in our Naval Service have been lost as ships are decommissioned simply because we do not have crews for them.
The Air Corps is 50% deficient on technicians, and 26% below establishment. Our young pilots are being sent to the four corners of the world to be trained. Clearly, we are way beyond defending anything.
We have outsourced the search and rescue operation at enormous cost to the taxpayer. I wonder what the Air Corps could have achieved had it been tasked with search and rescue, SAR. What real support did the Minister give to the Air Corps with its bid? Its 415-page submission was critiqued by a three-page piece of rubbish without any empirical evidence. I sent the Minister a copy of that when I got it on freedom of information, FOI. I cannot believe that the Government in which the Minister sits has kicked out a proposal by the Air Corps on a piece of rubbish that was written with nothing to support it.
The Army is suffering. Our ordnance people are overworked completely. There are hundreds of non-commissioned officer, NCO, vacancies. Getting a decision recently, on which I commend the Minister because he fought hard for it, to retain sergeants took months.
The Government keeps lumping the Defence Forces into the public service when it comes to pay and conditions. Like it or lump it, jobs differ greatly across the public service. None can be truly benchmarked against the Defence Forces. Defence Forces personnel have no protections in the Workplace Relations Commission. They have no working time directive as we speak. They are not permitted overtime. They cannot take industrial action for better working conditions. They must pass medical and fitness, and drugs, tests on a regular basis. Moreover, they are subject to archaic and obscure military law processes and are forced to retire early. Even when there is an adjudication, as in the case of the Army Ranger Wing, now 30 years old, the Government simply chooses to ignore the income that those men, the ones who put themselves on the line, are entitled to.
If we scratch the surface of the Defence Forces, it is much worse. The numbers are artificially inflated by the inclusion of recruits, privates, cadets, second lieutenants and apprentices. Many of the apprentices are looking for a way out already. Indeed, we recently saw an entire class bought out by a private company. Many of the early post-2013 entrants into the Defence Forces are currently searching every opportunity to get out to good jobs.
The Minister and others from the Government proclaimed at the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war that Ireland was not neutral in this conflict. What authority did the Minister have to make that statement? The Minister and the Taoiseach have made this statement that we are not neutral in the case of the Ukrainian war. It never came before the House of the Oireachtas. Nobody in this House had a say.
Time, Senator.
By the way, I am fully supportive of us not being neutral-----
I hope so.
-----but it should have come to this House.
Time, Senator.
The Acting Chairman is asking me to shut up.
I am not asking Senator Craughwell to shut up. I am telling the Senator his time is up. It is the same thing, though, if the Senator could resume his seat.
Let me finish on this. I support the abolition of the triple lock because the United Nations Security Council is an organisation that is not fit for purpose. It is a waste of time, and totally and utterly toothless.
I regret I will not be here to hear the Minister's reply because I have got to leave the House but I will read it. I thank the Minister and the Acting Chairman.
Before I call the Minister, I welcome to the Visitors Gallery the leaving certificate class of Synge Street of 1974. One of the class is well known to many of us here, the former Captain of the Guard in these Houses, Mr. John Flaherty. I welcome back John and welcome all of his colleagues and friends from his class. I hope they have a nice evening here. I wish them all the best this evening and into the future.
I, too, welcome Mr. Flaherty back to this House. He is somebody who kept us safe and in order here for most of my political life in these Houses. It is great to see John with this colleagues here.
And the students of Trinity College.
And the students of Trinity College, absolutely.
I would have welcomed them, if I had known they were here. They are welcome also.
First of all, I am glad to be able to respond myself today to this debate and to have been here in person through the debate to listen to the various different arguments and perspectives.
As we all know, the security situation in Europe has changed fundamentally. Russia's illegal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, the decisions by Finland and Sweden to seek NATO membership, and the recommendations by the Commission on the Defence Forces have all brought security and defence issues to the fore in our national debate.
Last week's statement by the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, which purposely misrepresented Ireland's military neutrality, has further highlighted the need to robustly defend our security and defence policy. The unjustified travel ban on 52 Irish politicians has highlighted clearly the extent of Russia's determination to spread disinformation to unsettle and isolate countries internationally.
The Government has made clear that Ireland's position since the beginning of Russia's further invasion of Ukraine in February is focused on upholding international law and supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have been steadfast in our international response, which has been clearly situated within our existing policy of military neutrality.
That is why today’s debate is important. We need to be really clear on what Ireland's policy of military neutrality does, and does not, mean.
Every independent state has the right to choose its own foreign policy and to ensure the security and defence of its territory. In Ireland's case, our policy of military neutrality as practised by successive Governments over many decades means Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. The Government has no plans to alter this policy.
The Senators supporting the motion before us today will be aware that there are already several provisions in the Constitution that underpin Ireland's foreign and security policy. In particular, Article 29 establishes the framework within which Ireland conducts its international relations. For example, Article 29.1 reads, "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." Article 29.2 confirms that Ireland adheres to the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. An additional element was added in the context of ratification of the Lisbon treaty, as some in this House will recall. The amendment of Article 29 on that basis created a requirement to hold a referendum on participation in any potential future military alliance.
In addition to the constitutional provisions in place, successive Governments have reaffirmed their commitment to our policy of military neutrality. Importantly, today's motion does not call for a change in our approach to neutrality. Instead, it notes the many ways our policy of neutrality has informed our active approach towards peace support operations and crisis management, and our contributions to conflict resolution and peacebuilding. It is in this context that today's motion calls on the Government to properly fund Ireland's Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and cyber capacity in order that we can continue to make this significant contribution internationally. I can say with confidence that this is exactly what we are doing.
Following the publication of the report of the independent Commission on the Defence Forces earlier this year, the Government has approved a move, over a six-year period, to a level of Defence Forces' capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, as set out in the report, which is exactly what the commission recommends.
This will entail multi-annual funding increases commencing next year and is already provided for in the 2023 Estimates for my Department, to reach a defence budget equivalent to €1.5 billion in January 2022 value, index-linked up to 2028. That, effectively, means we will be spending approximately €2 billion by that time. This will amount to more than 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. In reality, as Senators will be aware, that means an addition of approximately 3,000 extra Permanent Defence Force personnel over a six-year period, as well as, by the way, a similar number of extra personnel within the Reserve in that period.
This is about 6,000 extra Defence Force personnel over a six-year period. It is not easily achieved, just in case anyone believes we are not ambitious in respect of resourcing and increasing capacity. I do not underestimate the challenge in achieving this objective, but I will shortly outline several concrete initiatives we have put in place to address issues around recruitment and retention. Given the criticism I have heard from some this evening, it is worth saying that other parties, in terms of the last budget, have proposed a fraction of the increase in funding the Government is delivering next year. I refer to the main Opposition party in particular. I heard what was said by the Senator, but the reality is that in Sinn Féin's alternative budget it was proposing to spend an extra €10 million on defence next year, plus an extra €15 million on top of that in terms of pay, compared to the extra €114 million we will spend in one year. Let us, therefore, have an honest discussion in terms of prioritisation and capacity delivery within the Defence Forces. Not only are we committing to increased spending of almost €115 million next year, but we are committing to spending multiples of this figure over the next six years.
Before addressing the particular issue at hand, it is worth recalling that in 2023 the total allocation for the Defence Vote group is €1.174 billion, which is an overall increase of €67 million on 2022. When we add the €47 million or so that is going to be attached to the cost of Building Momentum, this is where we get the figure I have quoted of about €114 million next year. This increase reflects a pattern of consistent increases in defence expenditure allocations over the last number of years, with the 2023 gross Vote 36 Defence allocation of €893 million, some €186 million, 26%, greater than the corresponding 2018 figure. In addition, and in line with this Government’s commitment to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces, the Defence capital allocation has also increased significantly, by €35 million in one year, to €176 million for 2023. This allocation not only represents the single biggest annual capital investment ever provided to Defence, but also represents an increase of €99 million, or 129%, on 2018.
As with any debate, it is important that it is informed by facts and these facts demonstrate the Government’s commitment to adequately fund our Defence Forces’ capabilities. Are we where we need to be? No, we are not. Are we, however, committed to getting there? We absolutely are, and we are putting our money where our policy dictates. Moreover, the increased resourcing over recent years has enabled the Defence Forces to make a significant contribution to domestic security, to provide a broad range of supports to the civil authorities and to undertake critically important emergency aeromedical support and fishery protection roles. The Defence Forces also contribute significantly to international peace and security efforts by providing support to the UN and the EU. I was very much involved in trying to explore the opportunity regarding whether the Air Corps could take over search and rescue operations in the years to come. It did not work out because we simply did not have the capacity to deliver what was needed in the timeframe we had available to us. This is the truth. I hope we will have the capacity to do this in future tenders in the context of this role. Let us not, though, talk about these important issues without having the facts available to us. I am proud to say that the record of our Defence Forces' continuous service, more than 60 years, is the longest of any UN member state.
I mentioned a moment ago that I would outline measures we have been putting in place to address issues around recruitment and retention. I take the point made in this context. As with the issue of capability, however, it is important that we deal in facts and not sound bites so we can plan policy on this basis. With its approval of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, the Government is committed to a range of actions, including a range of measures that will improve pay and conditions and bolster the attractiveness of a career in the Defence Forces. The implementation of two of the pay-related recommendations of the commission will result in the pay rates, to include the military service allowance, for a private three star or able seaman, in their first three years of service, starting at €36,418 in year 1, increasing to €37,788 in year 2 and reaching €39,050 in year 3. I regard these rates of pay as competitive. Even in a tight labour market, they compare favourably with other entry-level pay rates across the public service. This is simply a fact. This is important because the issues around recruitment and retention are far from confined to the Defence Forces, even within the public service. Let us consider the challenges we face in An Garda Síochána now. The personnel of the Defence Forces are paid increases in pay and allowances in line with public sector pay agreements. The recently agreed extension to Building Momentum provides for further increases in pay and allowances to all public servants, including members of the Defence Forces. This agreement provides for a 6.5% increase over 2022 and 2023.
While there is a continued perception that the personnel of the Defence Forces are among the lowest paid cohort in the public service, the reality is that jobs differ greatly across the public service, so it is difficult to make direct comparisons. I accept this point. The structure of the Permanent Defence Force differs significantly from that of other organisations with higher numbers, in relative terms, at entry-level ranks or in training. Where ranks and specialties are compared with comparable grades across the public sector, there is little difference in truth.
Turning now to the issue of the appointment of a Minister for Defence, there is little that I can say about the proposal to have a Minister for Defence appointed with no additional ministerial responsibilities. There is, as Senators will be aware, a constitutional limit on the number of Ministers that can be appointed and that currently there are more Departments of State than there are Ministers who can be appointed under the Constitution. It is, therefore, a matter for decision by a Taoiseach to allocate ministerial portfolios upon the formation of a Government.
Given the significant national interest in this conversation, it is clear that there is a need for fresh debate about our approach to security and defence. To an extent, part of this conversation has already begun through the work of the Commission on the Defence Forces. However, inserting provisions now into the Constitution on military neutrality, without allowing for considered, informed discussion, closes off that conversation before it can properly begin. The Government has recognised the need for further reflection and debate on security and defence issues in Ireland, potentially through a citizens’ assembly or some other framework that people will be happy with. While I appreciate the opportunity to debate these matters today, it is important that these conversations are allowed to take place in an open and evidence-based way and over an appropriate time.
Turning to the triple lock, what I have said in this regard, and I have been very upfront about it in committees and in the Dáil, as well as in conversations with other parties' spokespeople, etc., is that we should be open to ensuring we can make decisions consistent with our value system, with our foreign policy and with us continuing to play a role internationally in support of peace and post-conflict situations in many countries. It is simply a fact that if part of the decision-making process around whether we can send the personnel of the Defence Forces abroad is a UN Security mandate, then we could, potentially, be prevented from sending Irish peacekeepers to parts of the world that could benefit significantly from such intervention by a veto being used in the Security Council.
This is not about one member of the Security Council. In recent months, however, we have seen examples of where this might have been a frustration. Let us take, for example, the recent agreement in the Security Council to extend the mandate of Operation Althea operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is an EU-led mission but with a UN mandate. There was an expectation that this mandate would not be renewed. As it happens, Ireland was the penholder in that situation and managed to get agreement on it. If that proposal had not been agreed, however, are we seriously saying that our Parliament and Government could not make a decision to be a part of a hugely important mission like this, one charged with reinforcing stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because one member of the P5 member states of the UN does not like it and decides to veto the resolution?
Is that a sensible position for us to be in?
I accept the triple lock has served a useful purpose. It has provided a lot of reassurance that Irish neutrality is being protected in the context of decision making in respect of where and whether to send Irish troops abroad. The world has changed, however. Having been on the Security Council for the past two years, I know the tension within it is such that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that mandates around peacekeeping missions that we want to be part of may not be renewed, for whatever reason linked to tension and interest in the context of the relationship between the five permanent members of the Security Council. Should we restrict ourselves to that potential veto preventing Ireland making a decision that we believe to be the right one? What I am saying to the House is the same as what I have said to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I would like to explore with other political parties in government and in opposition how we could potentially evolve our triple lock system to ensure the Government and the Parliament - the Dáil and the Seanad - have a say, but also to explore other mechanisms that could ensure we are acting in a way that is consistent with the UN charter or that can give the public reassurance that we are acting and making interventions that are consistent with and appropriate to the value system that is at the centre of Irish foreign policy. Let us be open to real debate based on the facts and the political reality on the ground, rather than a historical attachment to the triple lock because we associate it with Irish neutrality. The reality is that it could prevent us making interventions we may wish to make in future and which this House may support.
We need to be careful about being too judgmental of other countries and their choices in respect of whether they wish to be part of NATO. I do not believe Ireland should join NATO but I can understand why Finland and Sweden would decide to join it or why Baltic states in the EU believe they have to be part of NATO for their self-protection. This is not about wanting to go to war to advance a NATO agenda; it is about self-defence and a fear in terms of their own security situation. That is why they are part of NATO. It is a defence alliance. It is often spoken of in this House and the Lower House as if it is some kind of expansive and aggressive agenda in the world today. I know many Swedish and Finnish politicians who had been making a case against NATO membership for many years but now believe they have no alternative in the context of protecting their countries. If Ireland was geographically located where Finland is, would we be having the same conversations in respect of NATO that we have here, given the privilege we have to be surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the United Kingdom on one side and the US on the other in terms of natural protections? We have designed our foreign policy on the basis of where we are geographically in the world and what works for us, which is a focus on disarmament, international law, human rights law.
I refer to what Ireland has achieved on the Security Council in the past two years. In recent days, we managed to get agreement to a declaration supported by 82 countries around the world to limit the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. That is the kind of thing Ireland does very effectively on the international stage, but we also need to have credibility in terms of our own security. We should not be afraid to speak about partnerships with other countries in the EU. We should be able to do so without being fearful of people questioning Irish neutrality, which is not what it is about. It is about a practical and sensible approach to ensuring Ireland can protect its sovereignty, make a contribution in other parts of the world in the context of peacekeeping and peace enforcement and make a credible contribution towards the security of the European Union, on the back of which we thrive. I do not wish to divide the House on the motion, and I am not going to do so, but it is important the Government has an opportunity to express its concerns in respect of elements of the motion.
I thank the Minister for his candour and his frank responses. All present would agree on his sincerity in respect of these matters. I appreciate the efforts he is making to reinvest in the Defence Forces. I will briefly address some of the contributions that were made.
If I may interrupt, I am in an awkward situation because there is a vote on the Finance Bill ongoing in the Dáil and the numbers are tight. What is the precedent for dealing with that?
How tight?
Lock the doors.
(Interruptions).
If the Senator wants to keep going, I will stay as long as I can.
I will not take long.
This is the Minister's own fault, by the way.
It is.
Senator Wilson referred to our track record in peacekeeping. We do not do just peacekeeping. In the late 1990s we did peacekeeping for the UN. Now we do peacekeeping and peace enforcement for the UN, NATO and the European Union when there is a UN Security Council mandate. We have participated in missions in places such as Afghanistan and Kosovo. I appreciate the moral offence that members of his party who have expressed a desire to join NATO take from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and their desire to be a part of the response to that, but I reassure them that we can do that without compromising our military neutrality or, as Senator Craughwell might say, our military alignment. That is just an observation; it is not a criticism of them.
As this issue has come up in our discussions, I wanted to propose this motion to offer the opportunity to debate the matter; that is all. I have stated previously to the Minister that disagreement is the most powerful engine for discovering the truth. To that end, I particularly welcome the contributions of Senators Martin and Malcolm Byrne - Senator McDowell and I had a brief discussion about this - in terms of exploring an alternative to the UN Security Council resolution component of the triple lock. I agree with the Minister. It restricts our discretion and our sovereign decision-making in respect of what we want to get involved in and what we do not. I wish to be clear, however. I echo the observation of Senator Higgins that, in whatever we consider, we must proactively future-proof our neutrality in that regard. We should have that discussion.
I loved the contribution of Senator McGahon. To be honest, it was like an introduction to a Netflix series. I would watch that series. It had everything, from the coastal weather-watching station to------
I will be told when the bells stop and we will have to let the Minister go at that stage. We are nearly there.
-----the repatriation of downed Royal Air Force pilots. Our neutrality is a complex thing. There is so much emotion invested in it but it is very important. Churchill and De Valera agreed a plan, namely, Plan W, which provided that in the event of a German invasion involving those two army groups, the British and Irish armies would unite and form a front west to east, from Galway to Dublin, and advance south to contact to push the Germans out. That would have had horrific consequences for the country and we are thankful it never happened. There are moments in our co-operation when we can agree to act collectively without compromising our military neutrality.
I do not believe that Óglaigh na hÉireann, or An Garda Síochána for that matter, will exist in 15 or 20 years time. Whether we like it or not, and whether we are ready or not, we are heading at considerable speed towards an all-island entity, whatever that might be. Whatever it is, the administration of justice, intelligence, defence and security has to be acceptable to all communities. For example, we have to tease out Northern Ireland's membership of NATO and consider what will be acceptable to an all-island entity, whatever that might be. A first step in that direction is the investment the Minister is making in the Defence Forces. We cannot rely on the British Army, the RUC or anybody else to deal with what lies ahead. This time, it will be us who will have to deal with it. We need to have a frank and open discussion about that and prepare for it.
With all the global destabilisation and the febrile nature of international relations at the moment, now is not the time to join any military alliance, whether for altruistic reasons or utilitarian reasons. One could do a cost-benefit analysis in that regard.
It would not benefit this country or our people. I thank the Minister for being here and for facilitating the debate. I also thank all those who contributed. It was a collegial enterprise and exchange of light. I welcome Sinn Féin's promise if and when in government, no pressure, to visit a constitutional-----
We now have the deputy Chief Whip here. I will now put the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 7.10 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 7.18 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.18 p.m.