Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1989

Vol. 122 No. 6

Policy on Neutrality: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann urges the Government (i) to reject calls for Irish involvement in a so-called European defence commitment, and (ii) to reaffirm unequivocally the national policy of non-participation in military alliances.

This is an important motion. I am glad to have the support of not only my Independent colleagues but, indeed, the Labour Senators as well and some of the Taoiseach's distinguished nominees, so that it is an across-the-board motion, commanding already a substantial section of support in the House.

The background to the motion is what is now without any doubt an increasing clamour from a section of our politicians, both here at home and in the European Parliament, for closer involvement with what they term the political and military aspects of European integration. These calls come not from politicians alone, of course — the latest contributor has been Dr. Edward Walsh, President of Limerick University — designate — but from a wide and growing list of politicians. A politician from another jurisdiction, Mr. Seamus Mallon, who is a British Member of Parliament, made an attack on our neutrality some time ago, although I must say I regard it as verging on the impertinent for a member from another jurisdiction to criticise a long-established national policy. Mr. Peter Sutherland, of course, has carried the gush of his European enthusiasm into his retirement and is also arguing for, effectively, an end to neutrality as we know it. The Progressive Democrats have also proclaimed themselves to be in favour of a revision of neutrality but above all it is members of the Fine Gael Party who, one after the other, in recent months have plugged the anti-neutrality line.

There is no need to cite the day and date for the contribution of individuals, but some of them have returned again and again to the campaign. Deputies Garret FitzGerald, Peter Barry, Bernard Allen, Gay Mitchell, John Kelly with his inimitable caustic debunking of what he sees as a soft and ambiguous target, and, in the European Assembly, people like Mr. Chris O'Malley and Mr. McCartan have contributed to that. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that specifically the Fine Gael Party now are targeting our neutrality and want to change it.

The peculiar thing is that we are taunted on the one hand with defending a sacred cow, with not wanting to debate the issue, yet when I and other people in public life have thrown down the gauntlet they have, in effect, refused to debate it. They keep on this softening-up process, this chronic sniping at our neutrality.

Therefore, I submit that it is very timely that we find out what the Fine Gael Party as a whole think of our present policy and whether they are prepared to make a definite stance against it on foot of the motion here in my name and that of others.

They talk about our defence obligations. What is difficult to pin down here is what exactly they mean by defence. They are talking about an unknown and an unmandated future, but what is quite certain is that they are discontented with, and probably ashamed of, the policy which has become part of our tradition as an independent State.

On a point of order, I missed part of the Senator's opening speech. Could he say who "they" are that he is talking about?

It is a pity that Senator Manning was not here to listen to the litany. At the expense of boring the House, I will begin again. I mentioned, among others, Deputies John Bruton, Garret FitzGerald, Peter Barry, Bernard Allen, Gay Mitchell, John Kelly, Chris O'Malley et al, as well as Mr. Peter Sutherland, who I believe has some rapport with the Fine Gael Party as well.

The intention in the motion is to find out whether the party in this House as led by Senator Manning support this attitude and whether also the Government still stand by their commitment to our traditional neutrality policy. I am flinging down here the gauntlet. I do not regard neutrality as a sacred cow. I am inviting the Seanad and, indeed, the public at large to commence this debate in the period leading up to the European elections where, undoubtedly, it will become an issue. The young voters particularly whose future, after all, it is that we are debating when we are talking about impending European integration with its political and military connotations, are entitled to know beyond equivocation where the party politicians stand on this issue. I hope the question will be well and truly put and well and truly debated in the next few months.

Let me comment on the motion. It has been phrased fairly carefully. The word "so-called" is very deliberately used there, because one of the things which confuse people is the notion of European defence. The Europe we are talking about, of course, is only a part of western Europe, which is why I have dubbed it "so-called" European. It is so-called also because the question immediately arises, defence against whom? Who is going to attack western Europe? What is the evidence that the European Community is now, or will be as far as the foreseeable future, under attack? The whole concept is a very vague one, indeed, which is why, leading on to the second part of the motion. I think the Government should then reaffirm unequivocally the national policy of non-participation in military alliances. It is a national policy. Some doubt is being continually cast on this. People have said neutrality is not really a policy, it is not a principle, it is only an expedient which arose out of a historical set of circumstances and it has also become customary for the attackers to bring into question our whole policy of neutrality during World War II. In other words, by attacking the morality and the propriety of our wartime neutrality they hope to cast doubts on its contemporary wisdom as well.

It is true that in its origins neutrality was in part at least an expedient. No historian can put his hand on his heart and say that neutrality is an integral part of Irish national philosophy. Neutrality in its origins meant staying out of England's wars. That is what the Irish Neutrality League meant in 1914 and that great demonstration of neutrality, the anti-conscription campaign of 1918, was also a refusal to commit itself to England's wars. Nonetheless, in part at least, any student of Eamon de Valera's political philosophy must realise that for him, though he never articulated neutrality's high principle, it was far more — and became far more than an expedient.

An historian would have to conclude that by 1945 Irish neutrality, however much it acted as a national cohesive at that time, in world terms was isolationist. It was anti-partitionist in origin and it was even to some extent perhaps anti-British. It could be regarded as escapist but let us remember that it developed into something else in the late fifties and sixties, so that neutrality has now come to mean-especially for young people who are involved in various peace movements — a role in the world which may be pretentious at times, we may be, in Skibbereen Eagle fashion, over-estimating our importance but our neutrality in its modern form has tried to be outgoing, positive, internationalist, anti-nuclear and pacifist. In fact, it has become something quite different from what it was during World War II. The only link is one in name, a certain continuity. In other words, our non-military stance today in international affairs is based on a feeling that we have a special rapport with the wide world, not just with the European Community, that we have a special standing in areas of the world partly because of our colonial past and partly because since Independence, we have not participated for whatever reasons in military alliances.

In short, what we have is something very valuable in terms of our personality as a nation, in terms of our psychology, and even commercially the perception of Ireland as a neutral country is good for our trade and our commercial prospects in areas like the Middle East and in the states of Africa where, for example, Aer Lingus have a very profitable arrangement with various African states on the grounds that they see Ireland and the national airline as part of this image.

I am suggesting that neutrality, which is a very unfortunate word, a very unattractive word and a very inadequate word — that is part of the reason its opponents can snipe at us — is a national policy, is a traditional policy and that we must not abandon it as we move forward to the new Community in 1992 and after. Our European partners have no right to demand that we abandon it if they are honest and serious in their assertion that the new Europe will cherish a rich diversity of cultures, attitudes and philosophies.

Without wanting to prolong the history lesson, I would like to remind the House that the new neutrality, the contemporary neutrality, is something we can be proud of in the international way. It has evolved like a butterfly, it has struggled out of the chrysalis of the old neutrality. It is a complete misconception to think that our neutrality now is anti-British, that our neutrality now is because of Partition. It began like that but for anyone to think that that is the rationale of it now is a complete misconception.

I was astonished to read very recently that the Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr. Leo Tindemans, said Ireland was not neutral in any active way and that Irish neutrality is more an anti-British attitude. I cannot give you a precise date for that but it was sometime in November last year. If Mr. Leo Tindemans has a totally wrong idea of Irish neutrality — and he is one of the great persons of the new Community of Europe — then it seems to me that the same misconception must be shared by a great number of mainland European statesmen. If it is so shared, is it not the fault of our Irish politicians in Europe who have not bothered informing the Europeans about the proper philosophy of Irish neutrality and the reason we cherish it so much, not as a begrudging negative anti-British attitude? Is it that they are not concerned to explain or that they do not know themselves the present position of our policy?

During the referendum on the Single European Act which took place nearly two years ago, many of us were very concerned that the Act would mean a further erosion of our neutrality policy, especially Title III, which seemed to many of us incongruously lumped with the economic part of the Act. We were reassured again and again during that campaign that there was no danger to our neutrality and no question of a defence commitment. I do not recall during that campaign the Fine Gael politicians, who have since then been so vocal in their opposition to neutrality, being so explicit in their condemnation of it. The European Commission issued a booklet at that time explaining the Single European Act in which it gave assurances in reply to a question. I quote from a booklet called The Facts — The Single European Act published by the Commission of the European Community in Dublin. The question was if the Act would affect Ireland's neutrality? The answer which follows in effect says no. It said:

Successive Irish Governments have found the formula devised to accommodate Ireland's special position perfectly acceptable and there is nothing new in the Act that would change the situation.

That is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of Irish neutrality from the Commission but, nonetheless, a fairly clear statement that the Act was not any threat to Irish neutrality. More important, the Government issued other reassurances. I quote from two publications. A fairly lengthy quotation is warranted because of the importance of the issue. One is The Single European Act — An Explanatory Guide which assures us in section 4 (6) that the Single European Act poses no threat to Ireland's neutrality. Even more positively, in another Government information booklet in May 1987 —The Single European Act, a different one from the blue covered one, perhaps a development of it, we are assured that Title III does not affect Ireland's long established policy of military neutrality. This document goes on to state that “there is no conflict between our policy of military neutrality and our full and active membership of the European Community. Statements and fears to the contrary have no basis in reality and serve only to obscure and detract from our national interests and objectives as a full and committed member of the European Community.”

What I am asking the Government is whether the statements I have read constitute Government policy at present? Is it still unequivocal Government policy that there is no threat and no intention of altering the policy of military neutrality? What do the repeated assertions of Fianna Fáil Government Ministers over the decades — from Seán Lemass on through Dr. Hillery, on through Mr. Lynch — mean when they said that although we are going to be neutral, somehow in the far distant future our neutrality will be gently converted into participation? That is the suggestion.

To be fair to Fine Gael Deputies, they at least are straightforward in their attacks on neutrality. What worries me is that the Government have this long term vision in their heads; that not now perhaps, but sometime in the not so distant future, when European Union becomes more realisable, we will think again. Where do the Government stand on that one?

One of the things that appals me in the statements which are made from time to time by various anti-neutrality politicians is that they suggest that not only do we owe it to our partners to sing for our supper, as it were putting it crudely, but it will be profitable for us to turn from being a peace-keeping nation without any military or defence structures and to go in for wholesale investment in defence structures. The job creation prospects of military development have been mentioned by, among others, Deputy Bernard Allen and the other day by Dr. Edward Walsh, President of the University of Limerick — designate. It seems to indicate an appalling bankruptcy of economic thought to suggest that this is the way to job creation — through the manufacture of lethal weapons and the exploitation of the threat of mass destruction. That is what it means. That is what offering the prospect of employment based on NATO plants or new European defence plants means. It is very sad, if not an almost obscene, bankruptcy of thought on the employment question.

We are also being told, that since we are the only non-military pact member of the Community that we do not belong to the fast track nations. Dr. Walsh upbraided us for not being as forward looking as France and Germany in this regard. What I am suggesting is that all this thinking, or what passes for thinking, and this new attack on our traditional policy is outmoded, misguided, half-baked and dates from the fifties. It is old Cold War thinking, not readjusted, and I am surprised that such a lively and vigorous mind as that of Deputy Garret FitzGerald is still stuck in the ice of the Cold War of the fifties.

When we are told that we should contribute to European defence what we are actually being told is that we should get ready to defend part of western Europe against another part of Europe, which is not even threatening it, that we must be ready to spill European blood of one variety or another. That is what is meant by saying we should take our part in the defence structures of a new Europe. It is particularly inappropriate during a period of remarkable European and world détente with the Soviet bloc being liberalised before our eyes, disintegrating in its monolithic tradition before our eyes. What we need surely is more disengagement and more peace, not contributing our little mite to a Europe already bristling with death-dealing weapons.

Our new cold warriors seem to have got it all wrong. Is it possible that they are motivated by a revamped colonial desire to please our new masters, tugging the forelock to the goodies-dispensing gentry in Europe? Is that part of the new psychology? Instead, it seems to me we should be enlightening our European partners about our neutrality, telling them it is a good thing for Europe that we should have a non-military tradition, that it will enrich the image of Europe in the world at large, that it has to do with the image of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals rather than any sectional and capitalist vision of a part of Europe.

Since we can all talk freely about the future Europe, about which we know nothing as yet, let me now say that the only Europe which will get my allegiance is all of Europe, and no politician should set bounds to the march of Europe — to adapt a famous phrase. These attackers of our neutrality ignore the fact that our foreign policy is part of our ethos, is part of our very being as an independent State. Whatever imperfections and whatever disappointments we have had as an independent State I suggest that the vision of neutrality I have outlined is one of our fulfilments, and we should not abandon it. We should bring it with us to Europe and give it to Europe. We should also remember — indeed the topicality of this motion is further underlined by what I am going to say — that Austria is now knocking on the European Community door and is, in effect saying "we are neutral, we have to be neutral by international obligations but we want to be part of Europe as well". We are not alone, we are not the eccentric, maverick, irresponsible member state that some of the opponents of our neutrality would like us to be.

Let the Government reassure us that peace and disarmament will continue to be the marks of our distinctive foreign policy. Let us take it further. I see no reason we should not engage fully in the Councils of the European Community instead of absenting ourselves from dinner from time to time when difficult matters are being discussed. Why not stay there and say to the Germans that their dream of a unification is a grandiose one which is not in the best interests of Europe or tell the French — and the British if it comes to that — that their post imperial arrogance with their independent nuclear strikes is not in the best interests of Europe. We should be in there exercising the voice of a small country.

On this motion I ask the Government not to be in the slightest apologetic about a national policy which conforms to our best tradition. After all, Fianna Fáil claim to be the particular custodian of neutrality. Let them give a confident answer, loud and clear, to the new cold warriors among us, the new gaiscígh, an Irish word which I might translate as bellicose yuppies. Let the Government tell them, as their predecessors told people in the thirties and forties, that neutrality is no more for sale now than it was 40 or 50 years ago. I am confident, in proposing this timely motion, of full Government support.

I wish formally to second the motion and reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and to state, as I read it, that the spirit of the motion represents in effect Government policy. I do not intend to be specific in regard to what individual speakers either of the Fine Gael Party or any other party have said in the recent past in advocating a change in our stance on neutrality. I would merely say that I am rather surprised by the stance adopted by Deputy Peter Barry. I understand that in a debate on this topic in the Seanad when Mr. Barry was Minister for Foreign Affairs he advocated the stance of neutrality and was very firm when stating it was Government policy. I am surprised at this stage that that view should be changed.

Before we continue, it is Deputy Barry. When people are not here to defend themselves, we try to avoid making reference to Members of the other House.

I agree it is important that we remind ourselves exactly what is our policy on neutrality. For that reason, I welcome this motion this evening.

There are various interpretations of what exactly neutrality means. There is what is called active neutrality, positive neutrality and so on. As Senator Murphy said, it is open to people to make different views on what exactly is meant by neutrality. Whatever interpretation one puts on neutrality, it is one of the hallmarks of this country's history particularly in relation to the stance we took at the time of the Second World War. As Senator Murphy said, we do not have to be apologetic for our stance on neutrality. It has been recognised as playing a very positive role in trying to bring about peace throughout the world. In current circumstances the most beneficial thing we can do is to refuse to act, by that I mean to refuse to join any defensive pact or defensive military arrangement because those sorts of arrangements have a habit of converting themselves into offensive arrangements.

Other people have stated we cannot but have a neutrality stance because of Northern Ireland. I contend that if partition were ended this minute there should be no change in that stance. I hope neither this Government, nor any future Governments, will change that policy. I take this policy of neutrality as being permanent. It may not save us from the effects of a nuclear war but it is amazing how effective our voice is as that of a very small nation in the overall scheme of things. Even in the event of a war, this country will have made its contribution to peace by refusing to take part in any military pact or conspiracy.

Our neutrality can never be over-emphasised. We should promote it on every international occasion and make our people, especially our young people, aware of the importance we place on it. It should be a standard part of our civics and our education for life programmes in our schools. We do not place enough emphasis on the importance and beneficial effects of Ireland's neutrality on our young people and in our schools. We should try to promote it at every opportunity at that level.

When one speaks of neutrality and war one immediately thinks of the Super Powers, particularly the US and Russia. Here I would like to put on record my admiration of the efforts made by Mr. Gorbachev, the present Russian Premier, to bring about a reduction in nuclear armaments. I say that recognising that when agreements have been made, there will be still vast amounts of arms available to both those countries and others. It is fair to acknowledge that Mr. Gorbachev has tried to revolutionise Russian thinking and attitudes in a very short time. I am hopeful some good will come out of that.

There are numerous conflicts throughout the world in places such as the Lebanon. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate our peace keeping forces who on numerous occasions have served the cause well. Because we are a neutral country and have no axe to grind our troops are respected when they go on these peace keeping missions. There are conflicts in other areas, such as Central America, Afghanistan and South Africa, to name but a few, and they show that man's inhumanity to man continues unabated. If we put those conflicts and their huge costs in terms of financial resources against the background that more than one billion people live in hunger, poverty, sickness and suffer from malnutrition, we can see clearly the futility of the arms race. All the marvellous efforts being made to help the starving peoples of the world are severely hampered by the lack of funds while billions of pounds are spent each day stocking up arms. Much of the world's suffering and starvation is man made. Natural disasters can easily be overcome if the will to do so is strong enough in those in a position to help. However, their priorities always seem to be cast in a different direction. This is where Ireland as a neutral country has a very important role to play, and should continue to play that role in trying to persuade these other countries that the way forward is through discussion, conciliation and respect for each other's point of view.

The fact that we have not been part of any military alliance gives us more credence in proposing measures aimed at curbing and eliminating nuclear weapons. Ireland played an important role in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1968. While the main protagonists at that time were the US, Britain and the Soviet Union, we put forward ideas that those principally involved found acceptable. As Senator Murphy said, our neutrality should never be negotiable no matter with whom we are dealing.

We are all very much aware of the problems regarding the ozone layer the use of CFCs are causing and the damage they are doing to the earth's stratosphere. It is a very live topic in our schools at the moment and very few young people are not conversant with it. It would be a marvellous idea at this time of our development if we could, in tandem with tackling the ozone problem, renew and rekindle our zeal to strive towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. We must do that as a duty to the human race and to the generations to come.

I support Senator Murphy when I say we as a country need not apologise to any country or individual for our stand on neutrality. We should boast about it, we should be proud of it. It is a clear message to all other countries who put so much emphasis on trying to be stronger and having more arms than other countries, that you do not have to have all those arms; you do not have to be part of any military alliance; you do not have to say, "I am stronger than you" to be in a position to deal effectively with the human race. I would be more than surprised if this or any other Government changed their stance on neutrality. It is one of the greatest assets we have as a nation. I fully support the motion.

I was somewhat taken aback by Senator Murphy's contribution this evening, but I will try to respond to some of the questions he raised as fully as I can. At the outset let me say that Fine Gael are committed to our present policy of neutrality; Fine Gael in Government operated that policy scrupulously; within the EC, Fine Gael operated within European political co-operation; Fine Gael in Government avoided any involvement whatsoever in military matters, even if that meant missing the dinners at which these issues were discussed; Fine Gael did not feel they were in a position to lecture West Germany that it should not strive for the ideal of the reunification of Germany — I think it would have been rather remiss coming from a country which has put reunification at the top of our agenda, for us to feel we were in a position to lecture the Germans that they should not pursue such a policy.

Fine Gael in Government recognised, and our policy recognises very fully at present that our policy of neutrality is in our national interest, that its operation allows us to maximise whatever small influence we have as a sovereign nation. All that is a matter of fact and record and nothing has changed. While in Government and in Opposition and within the European Community we have always sought disarmament and peace and we have fully supported the peace-keeping operations of the Irish troops, which were possible largely because of our policy of neutrality. All of this are matters of fact.

The Senators raised the matter of different people raising questions about the future of this policy. I would think it is a normal part of political dialogue and development that questions on major issues of policy should be raised and debated and that is not just a monopoly of the Fine Gael Party. As long ago as the sixties the late Michéal Ó Moráin raised the question of Ireland's membership of NATO. The present Tánaiste when in Opposition speculated on a few occasions from time to time on the possibility of closer links. Various Fianna Fáil Taoisigh over the years have, in the context of the evolution of the European Community and future developments, discussed the possibility of changes in our position at some future date, but change taken with the full consent of the Irish people in a sovereign Irish Parliament. All of that is part of the discussion within normal political development and I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of in that.

I can assure the Senator that there is no conspiracy in the Fine Gael Party to foist a policy of abandoning neutrality on the Irish people, that the very strong majority view in the Fine Gael Party is in favour of the policy as I have enunciated it and that this is the policy of the party leadership. We are not afraid to engage in discussions and indeed we would be in dereliction of our duties if we did not point out that, as the Senator knows well, as members of the European Community we are part of an evolving community and evolving and growing relationships between the different countries. He mentioned the possibility of Austria becoming a member. It is our duty, if nothing more, to point out to people here that this is an evolving relationship, that we will be faced with questions in the future as to what our stance is on this matter.

In pointing this out it is also very important to bear in mind that we always have the option of sovereignty, the option to say no, that we prefer our present position of neutrality. We are not under pressure from anybody to change that policy. It is the policy to which the majority of the Irish people, I think, give strong support at present and, as the Senator pointed out, regard with a great deal of affection. It is perfectly normal that a political party can raise questions — indeed it is wrong if it does not raise questions — and it can do so within the context of the clearly stated principles which I hope I have enunciated here this evening.

Such was the tone, and regrettably so, of Senator Murphy's contribution that there were many sweeping misrepresentations of the Fine Gael position. There was some crude abuse and some snide jeering at the party, such that I am struck by the timing of this motion. Maybe I am being somewhat unworthy in thinking that the new political movement of which the Senator is a supporter may well be seeking to invent an issue for the upcoming European elections. If they are, I think they will find it very unsuccessful and a very fruitless line of argument, because there is no concern about neutrality in this country. There is no concern for a very good reason. No party wants to change the present policy. All parties are committed to it; all parties see the policy as being in the best interest of this country at present. For that reason ordinary people outside do not feel threatened, do not feel that there is some conspiracy going on behind closed doors to bring them into some military relationship which will result in the spilling of European blood.

You must not be reading the papers, so.

The timing of this motion reminds me of a very old, now long dead, ex-RIC man whom I knew when growing up in Bagenalstown. That part of the country had had a fairly quiet record during the War of Independence, but there were a number of people afterwards who traded on their alleged exploits in that war and gloried in having been on the run. I remember this old ex-RIC man saying to me one day as a young child, "They were on the run, but there was nobody after them". I have a feeling that in raising this issue at the moment the Senator is trying to create a scare, a scare which has no basis in fact. If we examine the stated position of all the parties, there is no reason why there should be any cause for scare or worry of any sort.

On the broader question of neutrality, it is a subject that is best stripped of humbug. I am sorry that Senator Murphy, who has in the past so skilfully and so consistently stripped many of our myths of the hoary growth of years seems in this particular instance to be almost in the myth-making business himself. I believe very firmly that there is only one principle to be taken into consideration in opting for a policy of neutrality or otherwise, that is the question of national interest properly decided in the sovereign Parliament.

Neutrality is not a value or an end in itself. It does not confer any sense of superiority, moral or otherwise, on those who practise it. If we look at the countries in Europe who are neutral, I do not think they are countries that we look to for any sort of moral leadership. Switzerland is a country which has thrived, prospered and grown fat on its isolation, but it is not a country to which anybody else looks for leadership or inspiration. Austria has not exactly distinguished itself recently in the Waldheim affair. It is not a country which provides great moral authority in Europe. Sweden, a country which does practise an active policy of neutrality, often very honorably, is also a country which has grown rich, often quite shamefully, as one of the great arms dealers and arms manufacturers of the world.

I do not think that we should see neutrality as such as a virtue which confers any sense of moral superiority on those who adopt it. To be neutral is to exercise a tactic, to take up an option. It is a choice and the right to use it is itself an essential element of sovereignty. Neutrality is not an immutable fixed principle. It is not there for all time and it never was. It is something which we can change if we wish after deliberation, if we think it is in our national interest to do so.

If we are talking about neutrality we have to take other realities into account. Countries which are neutral are usually prepared to spend a great deal of money and involve a great deal of the energies of their people in building up defences. They are prepared to spend a much higher proportion of their GNP on defence than we are. That is a right we have chosen not to exercise. We have chosen not to defend ourselves in a way in which other neutral countries have. We all hope that this issue may well become somewhat academic because the past number of years have seen the spread of perestroika, glasnost, the good and cordial relations which have grown up so surprisingly and so strongly between east and west in such a way that maybe we can all hope that the type of cold war rhetoric of Senator Murphy will not be sufficiently real for us to need to talk in the way we have talked about defence pacts and so on.

Nonetheless, we must state, and state unequivocally, that the right to be neutral or not to be neutral, to enter a defence pact or not to enter a defence pact, is one of the most important aspects of our sovereignty. It is our right as a people to decide in the proper way after proper consultation. We have opted to go one particular way and in so doing we have created a policy which has the support of all potential parties and of the overwhelming majority of the people.

Since Senator Murphy did talk about the historical evolution of our policy of neutrality, it is important to be fairly clear as to what exactly we are talking about. We opted to remain neutral in the Second World War because we would not fight side by side with the country which occupied six counties of this land. That was the policy over and over again. There is a new book on the market on the evolution of NATO. I have not got the title of it. I picked it up in Waterstone's this afternoon. I went through the references to Ireland. I was told to look under Éire. Of the small number of references under Éire there was one conclusive reference which said that when in 1947 the NATO countries invited this country to join they were told the reason we would not join was because of the partition of the country.

We did not opt for neutrality because we were neutral between fascism and parliamentary democracy; we opted initially for neutrality because of the situation in the Six Counties. The policy grew and developed from that. Of course it was a policy which was a comfortable policy, it kept us out of the war. It also, perhaps, in some ways created a sense of isolation, a sense of insulation and smugness over the years. It cuts us off from other parts of the world but it was a policy which people — and I would be one of them — approved of and it allowed us to develop our own independent influence in different ways. We did not do that very well, we did not do that in any very individual way, we did not do it particularly constructively but what we did we did and it was at least one aspect of our sovereignty.

Senator Murphy knows well that the late Mr. Seán MacBride, as Minister for External Affairs — this is a matter of historical record — was quite prepared in the 1940 period to talk to the US about the possibility of a bilateral arrangement in defence between this country and the US, that he was quite interested in talking about some possibility of membership of NATO. At the end of the day the option was not exercised, but at least then neutrality was again seen as a tactic, as something which could or might not be exercised.

Again, Senator Murphy quite rightly pointed out the contributions of Seán Lemass as Taoiseach when he applied for membership of the European Community and the possibility of some way ten decades down the line of this question being reopened. He put it on the agenda. It was put on the agenda by Mr. Lynch. It was put on the agenda by the present Taoiseach when in 1980 with Mrs. Thatcher he talked about the possibility of some sort of possible defence arrangement with Britain, if there was some form of Irish unity, that Irish unity might well have been worth ceding some element on this particular question.

Basically, politicians have a duty to talk about this. Serious politicians have never been afraid to talk about it. We have a responsibility to point out to people that if we want to go in a certain direction within the European Community then certain options are open to us. It may also be open to us not to exercise them, but it is part of the duty of politicians that we should at least raise these issues so that there is full, serious, mature political debate on them.

I believe very strongly from my own experiences, reading and talking to politicians in other countries in Europe that there is nobody out there trying to force us into a defence alliance. There is nobody trying to force us against our wishes to become part of NATO. It may very well be that certain people here, soldiers, sailors and airmen may very well feel that they would like to be part of the greater NATO capability. There is nobody, as far as I know, in Europe saying to us, or to those in any part of this country that we must become members of NATO or of the Western Defence Union or that we are any less European by choosing not to join in a military alliance. I do not think that people out there particularly care very much whether we join in a defence alliance or not. I honestly believe it features rarely, if at all, on the political agenda of our European partners. In many ways, from my own discussions, I believe that many of them see us as being far more useful within the European context as a fully neutral country because we are capable then of intervening and making points at the UN which they could not do. It is a distinctive aspect of a European presence.

I want to say to Senator Murphy that there is no conspiracy; there is nobody trying to force us into any sort of alliance. The decision, if and when, if ever it is made, will be ours and ours alone. I am glad that Senator Murphy, in spite of my reservations earlier, has raised this subject. I believe it is important that we have a full debate on this. I would be happier if he had raised it without bringing in all sorts of spectres of conspiracy theories, of backdoor diplomacy, of a decision being forced upon us. My last word on this matter is that our neutrality is probably the single most visible element of our sovereignty but sovereignty also means the right to change our minds and if at some stage, after proper consultation, we change our minds then we are nonetheless sovereign for that.

As no other Senator is offering, will the House agree to adjourn this debate? Agreed.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 7.25 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.
Top
Share