Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Military Neutrality. – Dáil Éireann (29th Dáil) – Wednesday, 9 Apr 2003

Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Military Neutrality.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

51 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether a comprehensive neutrality audit is warranted in the public interest to respond to the high level of public concern regarding the status of Irish neutrality that has been repeatedly expressed over the lifetime of the two Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition Governments, most recently by more than a hundred thousand demonstrators in the context of State support for the invasion of Iraq; and if he will consider empowering a neutrality commission to undertake such a public audit. [10297/03]

Mr. Cowen

I am satisfied that Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality, as followed by successive Governments, is fully protected. As recently as last October, it was upheld by the amendment to the Constitution approved by the electorate in the context of the referendum on the Treaty of Nice. This confirmed the central and defining characteristic of the Government's policy in this area, that is, non-participation in military alliances. A commitment was made not to enter into a common defence arrangement in the EU unless the people decide otherwise in a referendum.

Irish neutrality is a policy choice. It is not defined exclusively on the basis of international legal instruments, such as the Hague Convention of 1907; neither is it described in the Constitution, nor should it be. Arguments about whether an action was compatible with a policy of neutrality as referred to in the Constitution would give rise to endless legal challenges and take decisions out of the hands of the Government and the Oireachtas where the Constitution has placed them.

As the Deputy will be aware, successive Governments have also made clear that Ireland is not ideologically neutral. Neutrality policy has also been informed by the view that military neutrality on its own is not sufficient to maintain conditions of peace and security internationally. This is especially so in the context of the fundamental challenges to global peace and security which the world currently faces. Ireland, notably through the United Nations and now also through regional organisations such as the European Union, has sought to play a proactive role in preventing and managing conflicts and keeping peace.

With regard to the current conflict in Iraq to which the Deputy refers, I reiterate that the Government does not regard the provision of landing and overflight facilities to foreign aircraft at Shannon Airport as participation in the military conflict. The provision of facilities does not make Ireland a member of a military coalition.

Taking these considerations into account, a comprehensive neutrality audit, as suggested by the Deputy, is not appropriate, nor do I support the creation of what is described as a "neutrality commission" to undertake such a public audit.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I find the Minister's reply interesting as it is the first time I have heard a member of the Government state he or she does not accept the Hague Convention's definition of neutrality. If, when it was pursuing the second referendum on the Nice treaty, the Government had explained to the people that it did not accept the definition set out in the convention, but was, instead, preparing to sell off what remained of neutrality in this State, they would not have supported the treaty. Time and again, during the Nice treaty campaigns and beforehand, we were told the State is militarily neutral. I find odd the Minister's refusal to accept that there is an internationally accepted definition of neutrality, namely, that contained in the Hague Convention. Why is the Government not willing to accept this definition? What definition of neutrality does it accept?

I requested a neutrality audit as it would allow people to understand whether our neutrality was breached by allowing military aeroplanes to land at Shannon, Dublin and Baldonnel airports during the current war, the Vietnam war and the invasions of Grenada and Panama, all of which have been cited in the court case currently before the High Court. Does the Minister accept the Hague Convention's definition of neutrality? In light of his comment that the Government's definition differed from that of the convention, will he inform the House how they differ? What is the source or basis for the Government's definition?

Mr. Cowen

I am forced to reiterate my reply as the Deputy seeks to misrepresent what I said. I stated that Irish neutrality is a policy choice and is not defined exclusively on the basis of international legal instruments such as the Hague Convention of 1907. In other words, if the Deputy, in his efforts to understand our neutrality policy, restricts his understanding to the view that the Hague Convention encapsulates our policy, he is grievously wrong and all the empirical evidence on the exercise and conduct of our neutrality policy since its initiation and as pursued until now by successive Governments is against him. That is the basic failure of comprehension on the part of the Deputy as he seeks to redefine neutrality policy by defining it exclusively within the framework of a convention laid down in 1907. He may have heard of a number of international instruments, including the United Nations Charter, which have been passed since then.

With respect, the person who has a problem in this regard is the Deputy as he is seeking to define neutrality policy on the basis of the Hague Convention of 1907. The United Nations Charter, which was signed subsequent to the convention by the then Government, allows for enforcement action and support for military action in certain circumstances. This is one of the reasons one cannot define one's neutrality policy on the basis of the Hague Convention. If this is the first time the Deputy has heard these facts, I am glad he has joined the club.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have still not received a straight answer. If the Minister accepts that the Hague Convention is part of neutrality policy – I am not asking anybody to sign up to it – it specifically states that neutral countries must forbid belligerent troops moving across one's territory. What part of that does the Minister not understand? Which subsequent United Nations charter undid this section of the Hague Convention? Which part of the definition of neutrality, that is, that one does not take sides in a conflict in which one is not involved, does the Minister not accept? These are simple questions.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 2003