Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 27 January 2022
10. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there are plans to increase European Union military spending following the recent discussions at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3929/22]
View answer35. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if proposals from NATO for increased European Union military spending were discussed at a recent meeting of European Union foreign ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3928/22]
View answerThe Minister is apparently very concerned about the Chief of Staff meeting with the Russian ambassador. I wonder would he be as concerned if he met with the US ambassador or the head of NATO. I say that because I am concerned that the Minister attended a conference - maybe he will confirm this - in Brest, France, this month with EU foreign ministers, where he discussed the further project of militarising Europe and integrating with NATO.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 35 together.
I recently attended an informal - what is called a Gymnich - meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brest on 13 and 14 January. On 14 January, we were joined by fellow EU defence ministers to discuss the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, and more specifically the strategic compass, which I addressed earlier when the Deputy was not in the Chamber, and on which I have given an update to the House today. The strategic compass provides for greater work in the area of capability development as well as further investment in innovative technologies. From the Irish perspective, we consider effective capabilities as key to an effective CSDP. In practical terms, the strengthening of our capabilities will help improve the EU’s ability to undertake peacekeeping and crisis management tasks as outlined in the Treaty on European Union.
Of course, different member states bring different perspectives to bear in discussions on security and defence. Ireland’s position continues to be recognised by our fellow member states and we remain clear that our active participation in CSDP does not prejudice the specific character of our security and defence policy or our obligations. Within the EU, defence and security are a national competence and this includes national spending on defence and security. This means that any decision, including any deepening of EU co-operation, any increase to national spending on defence and security or strengthening of the EU as a defence sector, will require unanimity. For us, any new proposals in this regard will also have to be in accordance with Ireland’s policy of military neutrality.
This country is supposed to be neutral. That is, frankly, laughable, when you consider we have allowed Shannon Airport to be used again and again by the US military to prosecute brutal, murderous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want to know what neutrality means when the Minister goes to a conference in Brest where we discuss the French project, which is a major European powers project to increase the militarisation of the European Union, including an absolutely open call for the establishment of a European army, and where NATO calls on the EU to increase military expenditure at the same time that NATO is expanding towards Russia. Do not get me wrong, the Russians should be condemned for massing troops in Ukraine and having exercises off our waters, but NATO is doing exactly the same thing. It is ratcheting it up and the EU is discussing more military expenditure. Where is the voice of neutrality in saying we should be stepping back from this? We should not be spending more on arms. Is the Minister saying that?
While we are militarily neutral as a country, we have always supported efforts to improve the effectiveness of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. Indeed, successive governments have not viewed Ireland's policy of neutrality as meaning that the country should stand aside and not get involved in peacekeeping or stability in other parts of the world, rather, they have considered that neutrality enhances Ireland’s reputation internationally and enables more effective engagement in efforts to promote peace and security. That is exactly the approach we are now bringing to these discussions on the strategic compass and the future of defence and security issues. We will continue to advocate on that. We are not the only militarily neutral country, by the way, in the European Union. There are others too, such as Malta, Austria, Sweden and Finland. We bring a perspective to these debates that I think Irish people expect me to bring, which is one that is focused on peacekeeping, co-operation with the UN and peace and security around the world.
It is a very strange definition of neutral. Yesterday, the Minister expressed concern because the Chief of Staff met the Russian ambassador. To me, neutral would mean that he would express similar concern if the Chief of Staff met the US ambassador or the head of NATO or at the fact that leading powers inside the European Union are looking for and, indeed, have achieved closer integration with NATO, which is a military and nuclear alliance. It is not some sort of benign body. It is the outworking of western, US-led expansion towards Russia, which is now provoking a dangerous escalation in Ukraine. Against that background, the voice of neutrality is to say that we do not pour petrol on a fire by arming up, spending more on weapons and expanding NATO, but by doing the opposite and saying that we do not need militarisation, which is not the solution to these sorts of situations.
I do not accept the Deputy's argument that NATO is provoking a Russian military build-up on the borders of Ukraine. I do not think that is an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
There has been an ongoing military conflict on the borders of Ukraine for some time. We have seen a dramatic increase in military presence on multiple elements of the Ukrainian border, coming from the Russian side. That is creating extraordinary tension. NATO has responded to that tension and we now need to focus on trying to defuse it as best we can. That is what Ireland has tried to bring to this debate.
On the separate issue of the strategic compass, which the Deputy raised earlier, we want to have as much co-ordination as is appropriate within the European Union to ensure that the EU can focus on its own security issues but also can be an actor to support peace and security internationally and that Ireland can be involved in that.
Who is the Minister kidding? NATO is not some sort of protective entity. Its rationale, if it ever had any, disappeared at the end of the Cold War. At that time, people like James Baker, Secretary of State of the US, said that there would not be an eastward expansion. I reiterate that I believe Mr. Putin is a thug. He is dangerous. He has done horrendous things in Chechnya and Kazakhstan. The western powers were far less concerned about those things. The idea that NATO is some sort of benign, innocent force in this instance is ridiculous. It is actively recruiting states in the area and it has expanded dramatically in that area. At the same time, it is urging the European Union to increase military expenditure, which the European Union is going along with, as part of a broader militarisation project and neutral Ireland is not speaking out against it when it should be. This State was born in opposition to empire building. Frankly, it is a betrayal of our tradition of opposition to imperialism and neutrality not to speak out loudly against both military political blocs and their militarist manoeuvrings.
Ireland is not a member of NATO. NATO can speak for itself on these issues, but if one speaks to colleagues in other parts of Europe that are members of NATO, they will give a very different perspective from that just given by Deputy Boyd Barrett in terms of their own protection and security into the future given their historical relationship with other countries that they still regard as a potential threat. Ireland is in the fortunate geographical position in the world where it does not feel threats externally from a conventional military attack. That has allowed us to be militarily neutral. That is the position we should sustain and maintain because it allows us to make interventions internationally that at times are helpful. We need to focus less on name calling and more on trying to use a language of defusing tension in the context of the pressure and tension that is building between Russia and Ukraine, and indeed Russia and Europe and NATO.
