Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Feb 2003

Vol. 561 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - An Bille um an Seachtú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht 2003: Dara Céim. Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2003: Second Stage.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I intend to share time with Deputies Seán Crowe, Paudge Connolly, Joe Higgins, Jerry Cowley and John Gormley. I have ten minutes. In April 2001, I moved a neutrality Bill in the Dáil, and I pledged that when we had sufficient strength in the House we would progress it to Second Stage. I am glad to do so now, and the very strength in numbers of those progressive parties and Independent Deputies here today who support Irish neutrality is itself a testament to the growing demand of the Irish people for truly independent Irish foreign policy.

The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2003 could not be more timely. Last weekend witnessed the largest political demonstrations in Ireland and around the world in our lifetimes. None of us will ever forget the sight of 100,000 people transforming the streets of our capital city and demanding that the Irish Government oppose the threatened US-British war on Iraq. These were not people marching for material gain or sectoral interests. This was a demonstration of selflessness and idealism and a declaration that the policy and actions of the Irish Government should be, in the words of Article 29.1 of the Constitution, "founded on international justice and morality".

This Government has strayed very far from the principles set out in Article 29. Throughout its two terms of office since 1997, it has steadily eroded Irish neutrality and independent foreign policy. This was done by joining NATO's so-called Partnership for Peace without the referendum promised by the Taoiseach, by signing the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice and, most recently and most shamefully, by the Government's conduct in the current international crisis. Irish neutrality is in tatters after the Government's mishandling of international affairs and this Bill is designed to re-establish our neutrality on a solid foundation.

In an effort to mollify public opinion when it entered NATO's PFP in 1999, the Department of Foreign Affairs issued an explanatory guide which makes interesting reading today. It stated that Ireland had never been "morally indifferent to the major international and security challenges of the day". Yet what can we call the attitude of this Government now but "morally indifferent"? There is no basis of principle for its policy and it acts not only as if it were already a member of NATO but a member of the US-British faction of that now divided camp.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has stated: "Irish military neutrality is a policy to which this Government is deeply attached. It is a policy espoused by successive Irish Governments and its core defining characteristic is non-membership of military alliances." Very well, then. If that is the case, let the Minister of State's Government support and, indeed, adopt this Bill. I would be happy to hand it to him.

I turn now to the Bill's provisions. Article 28 of the Constitution currently reads: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann." We seek to amend Article 28 to read: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war or other armed conflict, nor aid foreign powers in any way in preparation for war or other armed conflict, or conduct of war or other armed conflict, save with the assent of Dáil Éireann." It has been argued that the Government is already in breach of Article 28 as it stands by facilitating US troops and military material at Shannon. The Hague Convention in Chapter 1 on the rights and duties of neutral powers, Article 5, states that a neutral power must not allow belligerents to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across its territory. The Government is in clear breach of the Hague Convention. It may claim that war has not commenced, but the US and Britain are already carrying out bombing raids on Iraq. If a full-scale attack commences and the Government continues to allow the use of Shannon, it will definitely be in breach of the Hague Convention.

It is felt necessary to include the words "or other armed conflict" because the definition of war in international law may be too narrow. I cite the example of Vietnam, where the US was never technically at war with the north Vietnamese. This matter has been considered by the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution in discussions on its draft report on Government, which is covered by Article 28. It has been proposed that the words "other armed conflict" be added to 28.3.1º.

Our proposed amendment seeks to put the responsibility of Government beyond doubt. It would prevent a Government acting as this one has done without a vote of the Dáil. The kind of underhand and dishonest approach we have seen would be precluded because the Government would be accountable to this House. Taken together with our proposed amendment to Article 29, the new Article 28.1 would ensure that Governments in future adhere to neutrality in policy and in practice.

Article 29.1 of the Constitution 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 reads: "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principles of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." We seek to insert a new Article 29.3 as follows: "Ireland affirms that it is a neutral State. To this end the State shall, in particular, maintain a policy of non-membership of military alliances." This is the key provision of the Bill and would write neutrality into the Constitution for the first time. It is straightforward, as constitutional provisions should be. It is also in line with what the Government claims is its policy – non-membership of military alliances.

It is interesting that while the Government claims to follow a policy of non-membership of military alliances, it does not set out the case for non-membership. Why does it not join NATO? It is not sufficient simply to say that it will not join. It must give reasons, or else its failure to do so will be interpreted as preparation for eventual entry. NATO is a nuclear-armed military alliance of the wealthiest states in the world which are using economic and military might to maintain their dominance on this planet. It is an engine of injustice which produces poverty and inequality on a vast scale as military budgets devour the resources that should be used for a war on poverty and hunger. The military budget of the United States now stands at almost $400 billion dollars and Britain's is currently $38 billion dollars.

The end of the Cold War should also have marked the end of NATO and a renewal of the United Nations in its role of providing collective security. Instead, we have seen the authority of the UN further eroded as the dominant powers on the Security Council assert their privileged position, and never more so than in the present crisis. Ireland should lead the way in working for a reformed and strengthened United Nations. That would be positive neutrality and independent foreign policy in action. Some argue that what is needed is common defence among the EU states to counterbalance the US, and successive EU treaties have been bringing us in that direction. The last thing we need, however, is more military alliances and power blocs, and that is what the EU is sadly becoming.

This Bill provides a foundation stone for what could be a new Irish approach to international relations. So how do we build the new structure? We propose that neutrality should be written into the Constitution as provided for in this Bill. We should implement it with Government policy and legislation. The legislation would, for example, prevent the transport of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons through our territory and airspace and allow for inspection of aircraft and ships. We should withdraw from NATO's so-called Partnership for Peace and from the EU's Rapid Reaction Force. We should campaign for a reformed and strengthened United Nations as the real guarantor of collective security. The UN should be the site of our engagement on international security and peacekeeping.

Ba mhaith liom an Bille seo a mholadh don Dáil agus iarraim ar gach Teachta tacú leis. Is féidir linn, faoi dheireadh, an neodracht a chur sa Bhunreacht. Ba chóir dúinn é seo a dhéanamh le cinntiú nach mbeidh Rialtas in ann deireadh a chur leis an neodracht diaidh ar ndiaidh mar atá sé faoi láthair. Tá dualgas orainn mar Theachtaí an phobail toil an phobail a chur i bhfeidhm agus is léir, ní hamháin go bhfuil an pobal ar son na neodrachta, ach tá siad ag éileamh go neartódh an neodracht. Beidh an Bunreacht mar bunús do pholasaí an Rialtais amach anseo. Is féidir linn é sin a dhéanamh leis an mBille agus molaim é don Dáil.

Such is the importance of this issue that Sinn Féin has chosen its first opportunity of Private Members' time to promote and encourage all-party support for this proposal. I appeal to the Minister not to amend or challenge this Bill but to adopt it instead. We should stand together on this important issue.

Mr. Crowe:

This amendment to the Constitution we put before the House tonight will allow us to stop – indeed reverse – the trend towards the elimination of Irish neutrality. The concept of establishing a free, independent militarily neutral state long predates the Second World War and is deeply ingrained in Irish history, particularly, I am proud to say, in the republican socialist tradition. The father of Irish Republicanism, Wolfe Tone, called for Irish neutrality in the face of an impending war between Britain and Spain in the 1790s. The commitment to Irish neutrality and independence was maintained in the 19th century by the Young Irelanders and was built on by the Irish Republican Brotherhood.

Arthur Griffith, who went on to found Sinn Féin, co-founded the Irish Neutrality Association to make the case that the war between Britain and the Boers should not involve the use of Irish soldiers as cannon fodder. James Connolly argued against involvement in the First World War and did everything he could to keep Irish people out of it. The maxim of the Irish Citizen Army, "We serve neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland" summed up the feeling at the time. In August 1916 Roger Casement spoke of "These artificial and unnatural wars, prompted by greed of power, are the source of all misery now destroying mankind."

Neutrality continued after the war. It is only by looking back over the years that we can see how clearly our neutrality has deteriorated. Our neutrality has been taken away, not as a result of any one decision or following public debate, but bit by bit until we reached the stage where we were told by politicians and so-called intellectuals that our neutrality no longer makes sense. Politicians have stolen Irish neutrality from the people. Successive Governments have sold Irish neutrality piece by piece against the wishes of the people.

More than 100,000 men and women marched past Leinster House last Saturday and I congratulate everyone who took an active part in that demonstration and the organisers for making the day such a success. Was the Taoiseach listening? Were those others, who have long claimed our neutrality was an anachronism, watching the television reports that night? Men and women who have never taken part in a protest in their lives flocked to Dublin in the hope that the Government would finally listen to the people on neutrality. They know we are assisting in a war which can have nothing but disastrous consequences for the Iraqi people and others living in the region. The World Health Organisation has estimated there may be as many as 500,000 casualties. The Government tells us that playing our part in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people does not, and will not, affect Irish neutrality. The Government is, not for the first time, lying to the Irish people.

As if part-paying for America's build-up to war was not bad enough, we now have the surreal situation where Irish troops, whose first responsibility is supposed to be to protect the Irish people from foreign threats, are being deployed to protect foreign troops against the Irish people, more than 100,000 of whom marched in Dublin and Belfast last Saturday.

Oil is fuelling the drive to war on Iraq. It is a war of aggression and domination. It is in the purest sense what Jacques Delors referred to in 1991 as a 'resource war'. I ask Members on all sides of the House who are concerned about this matter to speak out on it. I know there are Members who would have gone on the March on Saturday if they were allowed. They have a responsibility to speak out and they will have an opportunity to do so tomorrow and to vote to accept this Bill.

Dr. Cowley:

It is obvious that things have changed since 11 September 2001. I welcome this debate because our neutrality has been taken for granted. In eight days last month 19 aircraft carrying weapons or munitions of war sought, and were granted, permission to land at Shannon Airport. In all of last year only 30 aircraft were given permission to carry weapons or munitions. It is known that 532 other military aircraft, mainly American, used Shannon Airport last year. I am concerned about this support in the build-up to war and the assistance offered by refuelling facilities at Shannon. Turning a blind eye to the transport of weapons and munitions is at odds with Ireland's neutrality. Is Ireland really neutral?

The people should have an opportunity to vote on this issue. Ireland is supposed to be neutral, yet all this is happening at Shannon Airport. We have had no say on this matter. Those at the peace camp are there because they believe this interferes with our neutrality. While I do not condone damaging an aeroplane, these people feel strongly opposed to the build-up to war. I know we have responsibilities arising from our membership of the international community but people feel we have gone further than we should. As elected representatives of the people, Members should have had a say in this matter but we have not had that.

The Hague Convention grounds our neutrality and neutrality is underlined in the Constitution. What is happening at Shannon demonstrates our neutrality is not straightforward. It is time for us to look at the issue of Irish neutrality. I hope that in the future Ireland will be known as a country that abhors war and does nothing to help in the build-up to it. I am not anti-American. The people who marched in Dublin at the weekend felt that what is happening at Shannon is wrong and wanted the Government to listen to them. Perhaps this debate will initiate a process that ensures our neutrality is maintained.

Mr. Connolly:

I welcome the Bill as an announcement of the will of the people to enshrine the policy of military neutrality in our Constitution as evidenced by the massive display of their distaste for war in the march in Dublin on Saturday, conservatively estimated to have been attended by 100,000 people.

During the Nice referendum campaign, speakers on the Government side went to extraordinary lengths to reassure us that our traditional neutrality was not at risk and that we were voting to copperfasten it. We now know how hollow that declaration was, given the continuous and surreptitious collusion by the Government in the massive United States war build-up in the past four months. It permitted the unfettered use of Shannon Airport by US airforce planes which continued to carry armed military personnel and munitions until the force of public opinion caused it to use long-established application procedures.

One of the earliest known advocates of the neutrality policy was a President of the USA. He signed a neutrality declaration stating that the USA would sincerely and with good faith adopt and pursue a strict code of conduct of being friendly and impartial towards belligerent powers. He cautioned all US citizens to avoid acts which contravened such a disposition and to observe their conduct towards the belligerent powers respectfully. He stated that penalties, punishment or forfeiture would follow breaches of his declaration and that such breaches included aiding and abetting hostilities or carrying contraband between the belligerent powers. The US President in question was no bible-thumping, hell-raising, draft-dodging oil man from Texas but was none other than General George Washington whose motives were the purest.

President Washington was so punch drunk from the American War of Independence that he resolved that armed conflict would be a thing of the past. He issued his neutrality declaration in 1793 when France was at war with the combined forces of Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Were his decree to be in force in Ireland, it would result in the Taoiseach appearing in the dock accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence, the Ministers of State at their Departments and a number of close advisers. No doubt the appropriate penalties would apply for aiding and abetting the belligerent power. Would that George Washington were around today to restore a modicum of sanity to a situation that could culminate in Armageddon, such is the massive build-up of US military might.

Our duty as a neutral nation is to refrain from participation in a war between other states and to maintain an impartial attitude towards the belligerents. Under international law, neutrality is not to be confused with non-alignment. When hostilities commence, a non-belligerent state issues a proclamation of neutrality. It is then the duty of the neutral nation to observe strict impartiality in its relations with the warring nations. That is not to say that neutrality can be switched on or off like an electric light bulb. One looks at Switzerland as an example of a perpetually neutral state.

At the Second Hague Conference on Neutrality in 1907, neutral rights and obligations were defined in two conventions. The general neutrality convention, after declaring neutral territory inviolable, laid down regulations for neutral states and listed acts that should not be regarded as favouring one of the belligerents. The second, fuller convention elaborated on the duties of neutrals in naval war. It is ironic that the United States, which was not a member of the League of Nations, asserted its intentions to remain aloof from all wars. In 1935, the US adopted the Neutrality Act.

I favour presenting to the mature judgment of the people the option of inserting neutrality in Bunreacht na hÉireann to enshrine in it the principle of non-partisanship and impartial mediation in military conflicts.

Mr. J. Higgins:

I welcome this discussion. I will vote for the Bill because I agree with the spirit of it, although in the case of the Socialist Party, I would require much stiffer tests than the assent of Dáil Éireann as to what might constitute a war that could be supported.

It is outrageous that the Government facilitates the build-up to a war on Iraq by assisting the United States war machine in Shannon Airport in conflict with the stated views of the people. We cannot, even in the case of the imminent war in Iraq, trust the majority in Dáil Éireann, held by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. I have no doubt that they would vote in favour of the United States launching a war on Iraq, especially if the United Nations Security Council gave it a rubber stamp, but even perhaps without it. The Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats Parties are ideologically aligned with the United States economic system and, therefore, the administrations that dominate it.

In the wake of the historic mobilisation of the people and similar protests worldwide on Saturday, strenuous efforts have been made by the main Government party to cover its tracks in the blatant violation of any concept of neutrality that a person could understand. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, was sent out a few days ago to go on radio to respond to the situation. He cooed like a turtle dove.

Mr. Kitt:

I was not sent, I went voluntarily.

Mr. J. Higgins:

I waited to hear the flutter of wings as he tried to identify himself with the masses who marched, while at the same time doing the impossible and defending Government policy. We cannot trust the majority comprising the two Government parties.

We have had the spectacle of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government making up the rules as it went along in the past six to seven months, or, more correctly, flagrantly flouting and breaking them with abandon as it allowed aeroplanes with armed US military personnel on board to go through Shannon Airport in contravention of the applicable regulations and countless other aeroplanes to go through with unknown cargoes, unknown because the Government did not send in a single inspector to see whether regulations were being breached. The policy of the Government is to actively facilitate the United States war machine in its build-up for an attack on Iraq. I hope we will hear a great deal more in the next few days about the issue revealed today of the overflights, for which the Government is paying the costs, and that taxpayers make their anger clearly known regarding that.

The Government employs all types of double standards in the present crisis, parrots the United States line and does not take an independent position, covers over the glaring anomalies in the situation, places the disarmament of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship as the priority because of his allegedly having weapons of mass destruction, turns a blind eye to the more heavily and dangerously armed Israeli state which routinely goes outside its borders to crush innocent people striving for their independence and so on.

Mar fhocal críoch, fáiltím go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo againn. Cinnte, ní cheart go mbéadh aon baint againn le cogadh gan díospóireacht i nDáil Éireann ach tá sé i bhfad níos leithne ná sin ar mo pháirt féin agus ar pháirt an Pháirtí Sóisialach. Caithfimid cur in aghaidh go tréan aon chogadh atá ina chogadh ar mhaithe le chumhacthaí impiriúlacht an domhain agus ar mhaithe le corparáidí ilnáisiúnta i dtreo agus gur féidir leo a láimhe a chur ar shaibhreas agus achmhainn nádúrtha daoine bochta go mórmhór mórthimpeall an domhain.

Beann cogadh dleathach ar cén fáth go bhfuil cogadh a chur agus aon chogadh atá a chur ar mhaithe le cumhacthaí impiriúlachta nó na coparáidí móra ilnaisiúnta, is cogadh mídhleathach é.

Mr. Gormley:

This debate on the issue of Irish neutrality could not be more timely, given the build-up to a full scale war on Iraq and the Government's assistance to the American war effort. This has led to increasing opposition to the war, which culminated last Saturday in the biggest peace demonstration this country has ever seen. The Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Government has managed in its own peculiar way to put a spin on this march. The Minister for State, Deputy Kitt, told us the march was in line with Government policy. Yesterday and again today the Taoiseach informed us that the march was for peace, he was for peace and the Government was for peace, therefore those on the march and the Government were all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Mr. Kitt:

Of course we are.

Mr. Gormley:

Is it not wonderful? Why therefore were Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats not officially represented at the march? I do not want to be too hard on the Taoiseach because I know he has difficulties sometimes telling the difference between fact and fiction. I did not get the impression that those on the march were supportive of the Government. Several speakers last Saturday demanded that the Government get off the fence. They demanded an end to the fudge and called on the Government to stop assisting the US war effort by offering the facilities at Shannon.

The 100,000 people who marched wanted Ireland to act like a neutral country. They know now, as do the many people who did not attend the march, that the promises made at the time of the Nice treaty referendum to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution were entirely bogus. The Seville declaration meant nothing. The constitutional amendment proposed by the Government does not protect Irish neutrality. It leaves the door open for us to join NATO. The Green Party repeated this many times during the campaign and, I am afraid, we have been proved right.

Since Christmas, Government rhetoric on neutrality has changed subtly but perceptibly. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has emphasised that we are not neutral but militarily neutral. This phrase is unique to this country and is the sort of Irish solution to an Irish problem that has typified Irish foreign policy for decades. To any impartial or objective observer, it means we are not yet members of a military alliance, but everything else goes. Our neutral and unaligned colleagues in the European Union can only look on with a sense of incredulity and a certain sense of bemusement as we bend over backwards to give every assistance to the United States. Austria, Sweden and Finland could not and would not facilitate the American war effort in this way.

In recent years these countries have conducted an open and honest debate on membership of NATO. Some of their conservative parties have even advocated joining NATO. No such debate has taken place here, nor is it likely to. Instead we will become part of a military alliance by stealth. We do not require a referendum to join NATO. This Bill will close this loophole. Neutrality is not defined in the Constitution or in law. The lack of definition has given the Government considerable latitude and allows it to conduct foreign policy in a way that seems entirely incompatible with any notion of neutrality.

How does our present stance comply, for instance, with the Hague convention on neutrality, which has been mentioned by certain speakers? Article 2 of that convention states: "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power." However, we see what is going on in Shannon. Article 11 states: "A neutral power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war." I look forward to our troops going to Shannon and arresting the American troops and bringing them to the Curragh. I will not hold my breath, but if we were complying with this convention, this would happen.

I ask the Government to stop the pretence and double speak. The Government should let us have clarity and come clean with the people. If it believes neutrality is an outdated concept, it should say so. Although I disagree with it profoundly, that is a view I can respect. The amendments to the Constitution as proposed in the Bill, and in a previous Green Party Bill, give us clarity and by doing so they flush out the secret militarists and warmongers from their burrows. They have been exposed as dissemblers whose duplicity has so annoyed the Irish people. This Bill gives the opportunity for Fianna Fáil or Progressive Democrats backbenchers to have the courage of their convictions. If any of them truly believe in neutrality, they will support the Bill. Are they happy to go along with the Government, which has done more than any other to dismantle Irish neutrality?

It signed up to the Amsterdam treaty and the creation of the European Rapid Reaction Force and the Petersberg Tasks. It signed up to NATO's Partnership for Peace, without the referendum it had promised. It signed up to the Nice treaty and I have no doubt it will sign up to the new constitution with its commitment to a European arms agency and the new solidarity clause. Is it not the case that the Government will not and cannot accept the Bill before us because it has made these commitments in the past and is likely to make commitments in the future?

No doubt the Government will vehemently deny this as it always does, but the present crisis has revealed a level of complicity, particularly with the US military, which even the most committed neutralist could not have foreseen. In answer to a parliamentary question on 26 November, the Minister for Foreign Affairs told me that no arms were being transported through Shannon. Later he was forced to concede that side arms were being carried. His admission only came after airport personnel had witnessed the weapons. The Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973 and the Defence Act 1954, section 3(1)(7), were only signed in January, despite the fact that troops and munitions had been going through Shannon for months in the build up for this war. This demonstrates a readiness to flout our laws and our constitutional commitment to the peaceful resolution of international disputes. It is an indication that our foreign policy is being dictated by the White House. It is proof once again – if it were ever required – that we are closer to Boston than Berlin.

Our response to Berlin and Paris has been mealy-mouthed. The Taoiseach even went as far as to state that he would have had no difficulty signing a letter by "new Europe", to quote Donald Rumsfeld, in support of the American position. The letter was divisive for Europe. The prime movers were the British who did not even have the courtesy to inform the Greek Presidency.

I have been greatly encouraged by the commitment to peace displayed by Germany and, in particular, by its Green Party Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Joschka Fischer. I have disagreed with him in the past on some issues, but in relation to the Iraqi crisis, he has been the embodiment of political courage and vision. He is the one statesman who has stood up to the small-minded and bullying Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. Where was neutral Ireland all this time? It was hiding. There was an opportunity for Ireland to be strong, display our neutral credentials and be an advocate for "old Europe", but it did not happen.

The split between "new Europe" and "old Europe" is not simply a split between pro or anti-war factions; it is more accurately a split between the NATOists, if I can call them that, and those who advocate an independent European common defence. From the most recent events it is clear that NATO is in the ascendancy despite what is perceived as the recalcitrance of France. More significantly the statement of Mr. Gustav Haglund, chairman of the EU military committee, that NATO and the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, would be merged within a decade shows that a common European defence will be under the auspices of NATO. The cost implications of either option are enormous.

There is an onus on those who support greater military spending to state clearly the areas in which they would cut expenditure. The 100,000 people who marched on Saturday are proud to be neutral and do not want money to be spent on weapons which will blow up Iraqi women and children. They are men and women who are committed to a better quality of life for their children and future generations. They are committed to neutrality and want the House and the Government to be so committed.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kitt):

I stand by the comments I made about those who marched on Saturday during a radio debate with Deputy Gormley and reiterate that the Government fully shares the wishes of the people to avoid war. This is an important debate and I thank Deputies for tabling this legislation as their first Private Members' Bill.

I will now turn to the reasons the Government opposes the legislation. I hope I will receive the same hearing I gave Deputies during this debate which has been very useful so far. Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality, as followed by successive Governments, is fully respected, protected and upheld by the amendment to the Constitution approved by the electorate only last autumn. This confirmed the central and defining characteristic of policy in this area, that is, our non-participation in military alliances. A commitment was made not to enter into a common defence arrangement in the European Union unless the people decide otherwise in a referendum.

Ireland's policy of military neutrality, embodied by non-membership of military alliances, remains viable in the post-Cold War environment in which the emerging defence and security challenges have moved away from traditional defence towards crisis management. That does not mean we need to give this policy constitutional backing. Such a step has not been considered since the 1937 Constitution came into effect. This has been for good reason and I see no basis to alter the approach taken in this regard by successive Governments through several decades.

Deputy Ó Caoláin and his party are well aware that the State's commitment to keep outside of military alliances has never been more secure. If this was in doubt – I do not believe it was – the position was reinforced by the constitutional amendment passed at the same time as the people approved the Nice treaty last October. I remind the Deputy that Ireland may not join an EU common defence and this will not change unless approved by the people. Why then has the Bill been introduced in this format at this stage? It is a blatant attempt to confuse the public, spread doubt and misinformation and portray the Government as somehow soft on the question of neutrality.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

The Government has succeeded in doing so of its own accord.

Mr. Kitt:

Such an effort should not be permitted to succeed for several reasons. To name but one, the Government has done more than any other to uphold our policy of military neutrality over the years.

Mr. Morgan:

What about Shannon?

Mr. Kitt:

In doing so, it has been conscious of the complexities in the international security environment stemming from the end of the Cold War and of the need to move on from static certainties which no longer hold true. No practical purpose is served by the proposals put forward by Deputy Ó Caoláin other than, as I will seek to explain, that they would see Ireland adopt an inward looking and narrow interpretation of our international responsibilities. This runs contrary to all that is positive in Ireland's outlook and engagement on international issues.

Post-independence neutrality originated as an important expression of our sovereignty. Neutrality became practically possible with the return by Britain of the treaty ports in 1938. It is notable, however, that in presenting this to the Dáil, Eamon de Valera emphasised sovereignty rather than neutrality. The history of Europe from 1935 to 1945 showed clearly that military neutrality on its own is not sufficient to maintain conditions of peace and security internationally. It is necessary to work actively for international peace and security, taking account of the prevailing circumstances. In advocating to the Dáil in 1946 that Ireland seek membership of the United Nations, for instance, Eamon de Valera emphasised this reality and stated that "small nations have a particular reason for wishing to have security maintained by combined or collective effort".

Since then, our commitment to collective security has been traditionally pursued though the United Nations. We regard the United Nations as the centre of this system of collective security. We attach particular importance to the role of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. In carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the council is acting on behalf of the entire membership of the United Nations. This is a clear obligation on all states.

Ireland's position in this regard has many points of reference with that of the other European neutral and non-aligned states. Like Ireland, Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances and its security policy is described as "non-aligned in peacetime, neutral in war". This makes it possible for Sweden to remain neutral in the event of conflicts in this vicinity. This is entirely an autonomous Swedish policy with no constitutional underpinning.

Nor does Finland rely on a constitutional basis for its approach in this area. The Finns describe themselves as non-aligned rather than neutral and maintain that a cornerstone of their security policy is a credible defence capability. Austria's position is somewhat different in that it became a neutralised state in 1955 upon Soviet withdrawal from the country. It was essentially for this reason and at the behest of the Soviet Union that Austria adopted a constitutional statute proclaiming its neutrality in return for which the withdrawal of Soviet troops was secured. Switzerland's neutrality, on the other hand, is entirely the result of Swiss sovereign decisions. It also has a constitutional base making the country, in effect, a permanent neutral.

Ireland is neither a permanent neutral nor a neutralised state, that is, Irish neutrality is not guaranteed by international treaty, nor has it a domestic constitutional or legal basis. Essentially, neutrality is a policy adopted by successive Governments. Its core defining characteristic is non-membership of military alliances. However, there is already a constitutional provision precluding the State from entering an EU common defence without a further referendum.

Mr. Gormley:

It does not apply to NATO.

Mr. Kitt:

Successive Governments have also made clear that Ireland is not ideologically neutral, nor was it politically or ideologically neutral between western democracy and Soviet communism during the Cold War. For example, in 1981 the then Fianna Fáil Government, in supporting military neutrality opposed a proposal to follow a sweeping policy of neutrality in international affairs, the effect of which would have been to distance Ireland from European and North American countries.

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 and that it is also desirable to be a constructive international citizen. Ireland, notably through the UN, 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.

It is reasonable to position our traditional policy of military neutrality in the context of the many changes which have taken place since the policy first evolved. It is possible to identify three such major developments. First, the Good Friday Agreement which provides an agreed framework for reconciling relations on the island of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain, which has been approved by the Irish people. Second, the Cold War has ended. The space which exists for neutral states to position themselves between two military power blocks has disappeared. Threats to international peace and security are increasingly random and varied events involving non-state actors such as al-Qaeda. In some instances – Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan spring to mind – the international community failed to intervene effectively at an early stage, resulting in considerable cost in terms of human life and political instability.

The third major change is the development of the European Union. The Union has become an increasingly coherent economic, financial and social entity based upon common values. Com mon citizenship has brought an increasing sense of shared identity and solidarity between the peoples of Europe.

What is the significance of all these changes? Do they represent a threat to our policy of military neutrality? The short and clear answer is they do not. Rather, they serve to reinforce the fact that our neutrality policy has also been informed by the view that military neutrality on its own is not enough to maintain conditions of peace and security internationally. It is not enough, especially in the context of the fundamental challenges to global peace and security the world currently faces.

Political neutrality in international affairs has never been part of Ireland's foreign policy tradition. Rather, we need to continue what we have been doing for decades and continue to play a proactive role in preventing and managing conflicts and keeping peace. I have found that our position as a militarily neutral nation has given us additional credibility in our promotion of human rights and in promoting the interests of the developing world.

This is even more the case with regard to the new threats we all now face. The asymmetric threats posed by international terrorism do not lend themselves to the more clear-cut postures and responses that have so often been adopted in the past. Instead, they require a much more imaginative and creative approach. In the EU context, thought is currently being given as to how the Union should organise itself to respond to the threat from terrorism and from non-state entities. The challenge here is not only a military one. It is a matter of finding an effective means to bring together the various instruments available to the Union, both civilian and military, and harnessing them to respond to new realities. This does not mean a step towards participation in a military alliance. It is simply a common sense reaction to a potential threat that is random and varied.

Moreover, our participation in the European security and defence policy is entirely consistent with this country's long record of contributing to UN peacekeeping missions. The challenges raised by the situation in the Balkans brought into sharp relief the outmoded Cold War approaches to security and defence. This was accompanied by a growing realisation that inclusive strategies of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management are a key to ensuring stability and security in Europe. Despite the best efforts of elements in the Deputy's party that would have the electorate believe otherwise, European security and defence policy has been recognised as the next logical step in the evolution of peacekeeping and crisis management operations.

Following the failures on the part of the international community during the 1990s and the resulting genocides of Srebrenica and Rwanda, the UN sought to review its operations and the manner in which it approaches such situations. A clear and ongoing outcome has been greater UN reliance upon the capabilities and resources, both civilian and military, of organisations like the EU. Should Ireland withdraw from involvement in such operations on grounds that the requests are made of us through the EU rather than the UN? We should clearly not do so. Neutrality has never meant that we sit on our hands and tell everybody else what to do. There is no merit in seeking a higher moral ground while at the same time absolving ourselves of responsibility to maintain peace and security in the world. That has never been the policy in Ireland and it should not be part of Ireland's approach.

Let us examine, however, some of the implications of putting the proposed 27th amendment into the Constitution. What would it mean in practice? Let us begin with the statement "Ireland is a neutral state." This immediately begs the question as to what is meant by the word "neutral", and in the context of the Constitution, a degree of precision is required in the context of a document that is subject to judicial interpretation in the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. A consultation with Chambers Dictionary quickly reveals some of the difficulties involved. The first reference illustrates the problem. A lengthy entry on the word "neutral" begins with the description "indifferent". Does this sum up the position that Ireland would like to adopt in international affairs? Are we indifferent to inequality and injustice in the Third World and elsewhere? Are we indifferent to the threat posed to the world by international terrorism? Were we ideologically indifferent during the Cold War? I hope the answer to these questions is clear. None of the responses to these questions demonstrates where we would wish to see ourselves in the world, yet as a dictionary definition of neutrality, this is a potential interpretation that could be taken and everyone in this House appreciates the importance of interpretations when it comes to legislation.

Reading further on, the entry includes references to "of not decided character", "having no decided colour" and "indistinct in sound". Is this the way we would wish to meet the challenges of the 20th century? If we go down the road suggested by Deputy Ó Caoláin, that is the perception and reality of the position with which we might have to cope.

The incorporation of a specific reference to neutrality in the Constitution could have a serious impact on the capacity of the Government to deal with foreign policy issues. Do we consider it more desirable to have foreign policy issues settled in the Supreme Court than by the duly elected Government which, under Article 29.4.1º of the Constitution, is charged with the conduct of the external relations of the State? Do we question the trust placed in successive Governments to chart the course of Ireland's international relations to the extent that we believe the discretion in these matters should be circumscribed by the courts? In essence, we would be taking the highly sensitive area of foreign policy into the purview of the courts. In regard to our obligations under the UN, for instance, how would a constitutional amendment relate to the enforcement provisions of the UN Charter and our obligations under the charter should these be invoked?

Our view has consistently been that the use of military force against another state, other than in self-defence, should be authorised by the UN Security Council. It is the entire membership of the United Nations, comprising almost 200 states, that has vested this authority in the council. However, it should not be forgotten that this entails acceptance of the coercive and far-reaching provisions contained in the UN Charter. If a state continues to defy the authority of the UN, there are provisions in the charter where, as a matter of last resort, military action can be authorised by the Security Council. It is with this support that the UN maintains its primacy in terms of international collective security.

Moreover, it is in the interests of small states that there is such a collective security concept based on international law. That is what the UN is all about. Indeed, while the common strand linking the four European Union neutral and non-aligned states is non-membership of military alliances, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria have opted for a proactive approach to solidarity and peace by joining the UN.

There is also the question of how a constitutional reference to neutrality, with all its implications of political neutrality, would square with our participation in the EU's common foreign and security policy. In parallel to the military capabilities for humanitarian and crisis management tasks which the EU is developing, the Union is also developing its capabilities for civilian crisis management and for conflict prevention. This presents an opportunity for Ireland to play a constructive role in international efforts for peace and security. If we have learned anything from the horrific events of 11 September, it is the critical importance of co-operating to enhance the prospects for peace and stability. This is a key challenge for all of us and I do not believe the Irish people would wish to shirk their responsibilities in this area. Participation does not entail any mutual defence commitments.

The Deputy and others would perhaps also point to the current Iraqi crisis and to the Government's decision to allow the use of facilities at Shannon by the US. The Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined the Government's position on the use of Shannon in a detailed statement to the House on 29 January.

Critics of the Government's approach have again sought to create confusion regarding the distinctions between war and provision for enforcement of international peace and stability as set out in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. As the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and other Government representatives have made clear, the UN is not a pacifist organisation. It is disingenuous that those who point to this fact should be branded as hawks and somehow supportive of war as the only option to resolve the continuing crisis.

The Government will continue to use all its influence in favour of a peaceful solution. While Ireland is no longer a member of the Security Council, we will continue our efforts through the UN, the EU and bilateral contacts with the US and others, including the countries of the region. We will draw attention to the risks involved in military action, the loss of life and material destruction, the danger of further destabilising an already volatile region, the deepening misunderstanding between the people of Islam and the rest of the world and the possible negative consequences for the struggle against terrorism.

It remains the view of the Government that military action against Iraq must be undertaken only as an absolutely last resort, to be contemplated only when all other means of pressure have been exhausted. If, however, the Iraqi authorities spurn this last opportunity to meet the demands of the international community, the Security Council must, in the words of Kofi Annan, face up to its responsibilities by deciding on whatever is necessary to secure compliance. We have not yet reached that point.

Yesterday's meeting of the European Council in Brussels demonstrated the broad range of agreement among our EU partners. This was reflected in the statement adopted at the end of the meeting, which Ireland made a significant contribution to shaping. Ireland's approach to the issue is very much in line with the overwhelming consensus in the Union on the issue. A united approach by the Security Council is most likely to succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with his obligations and therefore secure the peaceful resolution to the crisis which we all want to see. Moreover, the European Council took full account of the deep public concerns about the issue. Let me be clear that the Government fully shares the desire to avoid war.

We regard the use of force as a matter of last resort as provided for in the UN Charter. War can still be avoided. Already, Resolution 1441 and the credible threat of force which underpins it has resulted in progress through the return of UN inspectors to Iraq after four years. Saddam still has a chance to comply with the demands of the Security Council, and he should do so promptly and unequivocally.

It must be made clear to Saddam Hussein and to the Iraqi authorities that there is no room for further prevarication. The option to remove the threat against the ordinary Iraqi people lies with Saddam. The option to have sanctions lifted and the option for peace lies with them.

I would like to return to the specific question of neutrality. In the course of this statement I have reaffirmed, on behalf of the Government, our attachment to a policy of military neutrality. That is what we subscribe to and what we will continue to advocate. This does not mean, however, that we need to insert in the Constitution a nebulous reference to neutrality that will only be the subject of endless misinterpretation and confusion.

The Government sees no reason for a constitutional amendment as proposed by the Deputy, but I thank the Deputies for giving those of us on this side of the House the opportunity to outline our position as clearly as possible.

Mr. Gormley:

The Minister of State is the only one on that side of the House. He is very lonely.

Mr. Kitt:

I had intended asking to share my time at the outset of this contribution. Perhaps my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan, misinterpreted the time allocated to him. I will have to hand over to the Opposition.

Mr. Gormley:

The Minister of State is afraid of the 100,000 people.

Mr. McGinley:

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Durkan, nach bhfuil anseo go fóill, má tá sé sin ceadmhach.

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil deis againn páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht tábhachtach seo ag an am seo. Tá sé tráthúil go bhfuilimid ag déanamh díospóireachta ar neodracht ag an am áirithe seo. Béarfaidh an díospóireacht deis duinn ár seasamh a léiriú ar an ábhar seo ins an Dáil.

It is depressing that we debate this motion against the background of a total derogation of the Government's duty regarding Ireland's position on the world stage. In the face of a mass military build-up in the Middle East, 100,000 people marching on the streets of Dublin and everyone glued to their televisions to find out if war has broken out, the Government has said and done absolutely nothing. It has failed to articulate a policy because it has none and it has given the distinct impression that whatever America wants, America will get.

We also debate this motion against the background of an attempt by the Independent Deputies to jump on the neutrality bandwagon and portray themselves as the doves who would save Ireland's soul from the horrors of war. Fine Gael's line on neutrality, the possibility of war with Iraq and this Bill is perfectly clear. Our position is that times have changed. Threats have become more dangerous than ever and it is time to move on.

Traditionally Ireland has reacted to EU issues involving security rather than staking out a position proactively. Domestic political debate on these issues has rarely got beyond either accusations of betraying Irish neutrality or safeguarding it in an ever more integrated European Union. No attempt has been made to debate the basis of Irish neutrality, perhaps because it has been associated with so many different values. Even as other political taboos have been breached, neutrality has remained the one political issue we dare not discuss.

Three years ago, my party published its Beyond Neutrality document, calling for a full and frank debate on the issue of neutrality and defence. Since then we have had the events of 11 September and we in Europe have seen the Convention on Europe discuss moves towards a united approach to this issue by EU member states. Those were three wasted years, as Fianna Fáil acted as it always has on foreign policy – it waited for things to happen instead of shaping events. As the Taoiseach said, "Let's wait and see." Whether people favour it, the reality is that European defence co-operation is now up for discussion. The only question is whether Ireland chooses to help shape the nature of that co-operation or just waits for others to design the structure and then faces a take it or leave it decision. It is surely time to stop paying lip service to neutrality and to our military commitments as a member of the EU. We must get real.

Fine Gael has always been the party of Europe. We have always believed in Europe as a principle, whether it was popular, and Europe has been good for Ireland. We must now play our part in strengthening the European Union, particularly at this crucial time in world history. Ireland should participate fully in the development of a common EU defence and security policy.

At present Ireland is the least defended state in the European Union while we also have massive levels of American investment. Were Dublin, Shannon or anywhere else in Ireland to be the target of aI-Qaeda or any other terrorist organisation we could not hope to defend ourselves and we have no prospect of fighting off an invasion of our airspace from anybody. However, one can be sure the Government and the Deputies on this side of the House who support the motion would be the first to turn to Britain, France and our other European allies, crying "Help"– as it stands, that cry could fall on deaf ears.

Ireland's active participation in the development of a common EU defence and security policy gives the House and the Government a say in what Europe does on the world stage. We are all familiar with the concept of the pooling of sovereignty – EMU is the greatest example of this, and the greatest success. Common European defence means Ireland and other non-aligned countries being empowered to call the big guns of European politics to account.

The current crisis in Iraq has inevitably led to a great deal of speculation about the future of Europe's defence role and a common defence policy is firmly on the agenda. Yet listening to many contributions here it is as if that has never even been thought of. What would be the outcome of such a policy were it in place today? Germany and France, which have resolutely led the call against war in Iraq, could have called Tony Blair to account for his actions in blindly supporting George W Bush. Britain would have had to meet its European allies and I do not doubt that America's strongest supporter would have pulled back from its unilateral approach.

The Irish Government would have played a part in this, though not if it were the same one I face now. The people will have to wait some years more until they have a Government that leads. Fine Gael does not propose the signing of a blank cheque by Ireland – any common defence policy would see Ireland decide on a case by case basis whether we would offer members of our armed forces in a conflict. Of course, if a common defence policy were agreed that did not meet with the approval of the majority of Members of the Dáil and the people, we would not have to become members. However, we have a duty to play a part in forming the best common defence policy that we can. We are all members of the European Union. Our political opponents on both sides may like to portray our position differently but I am stating the facts of the case.

Regarding the current military build-up, we have for months outlined the core elements of what should be the Irish approach to this crisis: opposition to unilateral attacks against Iraq; only multilateral action supported by the UN to be considered; prior Dáil approval for Irish refuelling or overflight facilities to be sought if multilateral action is authorised by the UN; independent verification to be sought in relation to American and British reports, as distinct from inspectors' reports, on Iraqi weapon stocks; every proactive step possible to be taken to show that we stand with civilised, democratic states and against demagogues and dictators; Ireland's security and defence needs to be reassessed; the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the EU to be asked to consider what contribution the EU will make to stability and prosperity in Iraq post-Saddam Hussein; that the alarming concerns expressed by UN inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, be raised in relation to unanswered questions concerning the possession by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction; and that Ireland unequivocally condemns the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

In expressing this approach, we stand by the vast majority of Irish people, eager to see war averted but eager too to ensure Saddam Hussein is removed from the Middle East, if not for our sake, for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Regarding the Bill, the Green Party has clearly expressed support for neutrality and Fine Gael respects that position. However, when it comes to inserting a clause in the Constitution that would muzzle this House, tie the hands of the Minister and allow Ireland to stand idly by while innocent people suffer at the hands of despots and dictators, Fine Gael says "No". Both within the Dáil and outside, the Green Party and Sinn Féin preyed on the fears of people during last year's Nice referendum, saying a "Yes" vote would mean Irish men and women dying on battlefields. Look at what has happened – the Nice treaty was passed, enlargement has been approved and the dire predictions of the opponents of the treaty have amounted to nothing.

This Bill is the next step. It is meaningless and pointless, yet it tries to serve its main purpose, to portray its sponsors as committed to peace and its opponents as committed to war. Fine Gael cannot and will not allow such an untruth to be put to the Irish people. My party has always believed passionately in this House, the people of Ireland, the European Union and the United Nations. These provide a framework for defence, not short-sighted amendments to the Constitution that are bad in theory and unworkable in practice.

Tá lúcháir orm go raibh deis agam cúpla focal a rá ar an Bhille seo agus mo sheasamh féin agus seasamh mo pháirtí a chur ar chlár na Dála.

Mr. Durkan:

I wish to share my time with Deputy Finian McGrath. He might not espouse the same views as me and I assure the House that the sharing of my time is in no way a recognition that I am conceding to him.

This is possibly the worst time to have a debate of this nature. If a debate on neutrality is to take place, it should be along the lines suggested by Deputy McGinley, at a time when we can calmly and coolly assess the situation and recognise that we are making a decision for present and future generations. We should not do it against a backdrop of pressure, or the threat of war or violence, but in the clear knowledge that we are meeting the requirements as we see them at a particular time.

Deputy Gay Mitchell has done a tremendous amount of work to focus attention on neutrality and its meaning. I heard my colleagues mention Arthur Griffith, one of the founder members of the organisation now known as Fine Gael.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

Was there a split?

Mr. Durkan:

It would not be the only split.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

He was the founder of Sinn Féin.

Mr. McGinley:

Absolutely, in 1905.

Mr. F. McGrath:

Would he be a terrorist?

Mr. Durkan:

Griffith correctly assessed the situation as he saw it at that time. He did not want to see Irish people lose their lives in the Boer War when they would have been better off at home. My granduncle joined the Australian army in 1915 and landed in Gallipoli. He survived Gallipoli but unfortunately died in Ypres. My grandfather, on the other hand, was involved with the Irish Volunteers, a contradiction in terms. All of our history is a contradiction. There are circumstances where we should be able to sit down and calmly assess our situation in the knowledge that what we are doing is for the good of the people and the future of the State and not just to meet requirements as they arise.

Deputy Gay Mitchell has set out many times the vulnerability of this country. There are those who are suggesting that this Bill should be written into the Constitution. What would happen if we were under attack? Who is to say that a neutral country will not be attacked in the future? What happened in the run up to the last war? Were neutral countries not sacrificed on both sides with colossal loss of life? The fact they were neutral had no bearing on the outcome of the situation. The aggressors had no mercy for them because they were neutral – they walked right over them. There are countless examples of this.

We should not allow ourselves to end up in a situation like those unfortunate countries. We can say that we are on the periphery of Europe, not in its cockpit, and that we will not be caught in crossfire so readily. That was true in the past but it is not necessarily the case now. With modern technology a neutral country can quickly become a victim of terrorism. What should we do? Should we say that we are neutral and we cannot be touched? If a group hijacked a nuclear missile and dropped it on a neutral country, where would it select? It would not select a country that would strike back. Modern terrorism relies on selecting innocent targets that cannot retaliate. Terrorists believe in the legitimacy of such strikes to illustrate the legitimacy of their cause. That is a serious breach of international convention and we must be mindful of it.

What if the man who was going to hijack a plane in Sweden recently had decided to plunge it into the centre of this city? Under legislation arising from the Nice treaty restricting our ability to respond to a greater extent than before, we would have to have a referendum before we could call on other people to assist us in our defence. If we did not do that, we would be in breach of our Constitution.

Fine Gael has always advised against writing things into the Constitution. The Minister of State opposite knows why we have done that and knows the wisdom of our advice.

Mr. B. Lenihan:

The Dáil still has full powers.

Mr. Durkan:

The Dáil meeting to decide what would happen would be immaterial if the Constitution forbade action. The Minister of State knows that because he is a constitutional lawyer.

Neutrality meant one thing in the past but it means something different in the 21st century. We are a peaceful people, although our history would make one wonder. I have heard Wolfe Tone being quoted in recent days as a—

Aengus Ó Snodaigh:

A Fine Gael man.

Mr. Durkan:

He was an officer in the French army.

Mr. F. McGrath:

Would he be another terrorist?

Mr. Durkan:

That army was not neutral. Other Irish people have displayed their valour on battlefields far from their native shores, in places like Landen and Fontenoy, and not necessarily in the interest of their country but in a military interest. The definition of neutrality as developed around the Second World War is not a true reflection of the meaning of neutrality. We have brought upon ourselves a one size fits all neutrality, where we can be on both sides as the situation demands. Life is not like that and that will never work.

We have played a major and formative role in the emerging Europe. The degree to which we are committed to all aspects of European evolution will, in some way, determine the respect Europeans will have for us. If we wish to be like Tadhg an dá thaoibh, they will quickly recognise us as such. We must have some commitment to that European concept, which also means some involvement at some future stage in our responsibilities in relation to defence and security. It is comparable to a person who says: "Will you carry my umbrella as it is raining very heavily?" and the other person replies: "I am very sorry but, while it is raining, I cannot carry your umbrella." It is not much good to one at any other time. Similarly, we will be expected to carry some responsibility.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Nice treaty but it will be a requirement at some stage in future. If we decide to opt out on the basis that we are neutral or non-aligned, or stand aloof from defence and security in Europe, we will be vulnerable and open to attack from some quarter. That need not be from a major power. It can be from somebody with a brief case filled with lethal material – it is as simple as that. We had better recognise that situation.

Whatever happens in relation to neutrality, we should have a long and open debate on this matter at a time when we are not under pressure, without being press-ganged into any decision to meet a particular situation. We should conduct our business in a cool, calm, unpressurised manner. I believe that is the way to proceed, as Fine Gael has advocated over the past several years through our spokesman, Deputy Gay Mitchell, who is unavoidably absent tonight due to other parliamentary business. He has very adroitly focused public opinion on this issue.

Mr. F. McGrath:

I thank Deputy Durkan for sharing time with me and for accommodating a totally different view. I warmly welcome this Bill, which I strongly support. I call on Deputies from all sides of the House, from different parties and groups, to collectively support this Bill. This Bill concerns our country, our foreign policy and putting Ireland forward among the nations of the world as a broker for peace, equality and justice. Above all, this Bill is about taking an international stand on peace and world security. It shows a clear vision for the future and puts down a marker for the rest of the world. It is entirely appropriate to consider such legislation at this time in world history.

This debate also provides an opportunity to confront the knockers of Irish neutrality and the super powers' supporters within this House who have not the courage or honesty to tell the Irish people why they support the foreign policies of countries that dropped bombs on Hiroshima or place bombs in Dublin to force legislation through the Dáil. Phoney, two-faced legislators must be challenged. They got their answer in last Saturday's march in Dublin, with more than 100,000 people demonstrating against war, demanding an end to weapons of mass destruction in all countries and demanding that the present massive waste of public money should be spent, instead, on the starving millions in Africa, Iraq and other countries. Last Saturday's march was not about sitting on the fence. It was about equality and justice.

In this debate on the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2003, we should take on those who say that neutrality is sitting on the fence or looking the other way while somebody is being mugged. That angle, which is being presented lately in The Irish Times, is absolute nonsense. It is an insult to those who gave their lives in the course of UN peacekeeping missions and the thousands of Irish people who have risked their lives on Third World projects and famine relief missions. To take a recent example, people like Caoimhe Butterly are certainly not sitting on the fence in the context of peace and justice in Palestine.

Those who use the example of someone being mugged totally misrepresent the real situation. Instead of trying to stop the mugging, they appear to want to jump in to support the aggressor. Being neutral means being active in conflict prevention, retaining our independence and going out into the world as peace brokers. The NATO fan club in this country lacks the decency or honesty to admit openly that they wish to end our neutrality and support NATO. They should tell the Irish people where they stand and end their policy of fudge.

I will make it clear where I stand on the question of neutrality. It is within the OSCE and a reformed United Nations, not the European Union, that Ireland should pursue its security concerns. Ireland should pursue a positive neutrality and an independent foreign policy, not joining or forming an association with any military alliance such as the Western European Union or NATO. Ireland should seek to promote European and international security through a policy of disarmament and demilitarisation. We should, therefore, oppose the militarisation of the EU. Ireland should refuse to co-operate with or condone in any way policies or military groupings which maintain nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction.

Many powers in the EU already have weapons of mass destruction. Although there is constant emphasis on breach of UN resolutions by Iraq, another country in that region, Israel, has already breached 68 UN resolutions. In this regard, we need to be honest with the Irish people.

Irish troops should only serve abroad as peace keepers under the auspices of the United Nations. That is my position on Irish neutrality. It is not a policy of burying our heads in the sand. It is a positive view which is in the interests of the Irish people and the vast majority of people in the world. That view was represented by those who marched last Saturday.

This Bill is the way forward for our country. It is the policy expressed by 100,000 people last Saturday and it is up to all of us to deliver on their wishes. There is massive anger with regard to the use of Shannon Airport as a US military base. This Bill is also about spending on food programmes and health care projects the money now being spent on arms. It sets out to show the world that Ireland wishes to appear on the world stage as a peace broker and a country with a humanitarian vision, working towards a policy of accommodating difference with respect for human rights.

That is the type of new Ireland in which I wish to live. That is the type of country which will emerge if we support this progressive Bill. I urge all Members and all parties to unite in support of this Bill and to vote in favour of it, as I will do. It represents a "Yes" for peace, justice and equality and, above all, a vote for a new Ireland, looking to the future and respecting our past. When we speak of the future, we should also recognise those who gave their lives for independence and the right to have a foreign policy. Sadly, I believe that this Government, under whatever influence, is turning its back on the long, historic support for Irish neutrality and a principled stand on foreign policy which can command the respect of Third World countries.

In economic terms, this approach is also good for Ireland and its industries. If we open our hearts and go forward as a peace broker in the world, that will bring economic benefits. We should not ignore markets in the Middle East and throughout South America. Many countries do not wish to see Ireland "tipping its cap" to the USA or Britain. I urge all Members to support this progressive, top quality Bill which shows the way forward. It presents the view of young people in the Ireland which is now emerging. We have gone through 30 years of conflict in our own country. We have worked hard to get all sides to the conflict together under the Good Friday Agreement. Paragraph 4 of that Agreement talks about settling conflict peacefully and without the use of force. Therefore, I would urge people, in line with that progressive Agreement, to support the Bill.

Debate adjourned.