Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 11 December 2013
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence if he will dispel concerns that the proud tradition of positive neutrality of this State will not be undermined as part of the process of developing the White Paper on Defence. [52920/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraRecently a Red C poll revealed that eight of ten respondents favoured the retention of neutrality, which is a proud tradition. The Minister will be aware of concerns at the beginning of the receipt of submissions on the White Paper on Defence. I would like him to take the opportunity to allay those concerns and to reaffirm the principle of neutrality on behalf of the Irish people.
This is an issue the Deputy returns to obsessively. The Green Paper on Defence, which was published earlier this year, initiated a broad consultative process, as the Deputy will be aware, that will inform the development of the next White Paper on Defence. One of the questions posed in the Green Paper was: "How can our policy of military neutrality be dovetailed with increasing requirements for collective security co-operation?" Our policy of military neutrality was formed in an era when interstate conflict was the key issue of national security for most states. The State’s policy of remaining outside military alliances has remained in place ever since. Thankfully, the threat of intestate war in Europe is substantially diminished.
However, there are new and emerging threats in the defence and security environment. The reality is that the world has evolved to such an extent that no country alone can respond adequately to the threats in the defence and security environment. The range of threats set out in the assessment in the Green Paper is comprehensive. Inevitably, there will be threats and challenges that have not yet been anticipated. It is reasonable to assume that complex, interrelated and transnational security challenges will increase into the future. It is also reasonable to conclude that security challenges will require enhanced collective and comprehensive approach, and that there will be an increasing emphasis on security co-operation.
I believe that continued support for the United Nations will remain a central point of our foreign policy approach and objectives. This includes the protection of human rights and of our overall security policy, including non-membership of military alliances. Support for the UN will also remain central to our overall security policy.
Our Defence Forces are deployed as part of multinational and multi-agency responses for a broad range of security tasks, many of which contribute to the maintenance of international peace and stability. Our policy responses must realistically reflect current and future security challenges and should be able to accommodate the necessary responses, both national and collective, without prejudice to our policy of military neutrality.
First, Ireland is in a strong position to play a positive role in global conflicts through its neutrality. We are proud of the role our peacekeeping forces play in blue helmet operations on an ongoing basis. Second, with regard to conflict resolution, the lessons of our own peace process are being utilised across the world, most recently in Colombia. These lessons had a huge impact and people who came through the peace process assisted on an ongoing basis on the path to peace in that country. Third, we have a proud history in the provision of overseas development aid. We are one of the world leaders in that area. That is our role in the world and we do not need to be involved in military alliances to stake our claim and to do our bit for the world. What are the Minister's thoughts on those three pillars of positive neutrality? Are they sufficient or do we need more?
I welcome the fact that the Deputy's party, Fianna Fáil and others contributed to the Green Paper process by making a submission. I was interested in Sinn Féin's submission in the context of the issue the Deputy has raised. It states, "The Green Paper on Defence states that military neutrality is a policy which was formed in the context of interstate armed conflict". We are agreed on that. The submission further states the Green Paper "is ill-fitted to respond to threats emanating from non-state actors such as terrorists". I know the Deputy's party is soft on terrorism but I am not sure to what extent he can suggest that military neutrality has a role to play in regard to terrorism. Is he suggesting that if terrorists explode a bomb in London or Madrid, we should proclaim our neutrality from the rooftops as some sort of moral standpoint of a higher echelon than those who say, "This is a bad thing, we are opposed to terrorists and we should join together in preventing innocent people being killed by terrorists"?
I thank the Minister.
Sinn Féin in its submission referred to "the need for a human security-based approach", which seems to simply be that if we feed the world, there will be no terrorism.
The Minister is way over his time. I have to ask him to co-operate with the Chair. I will let him back in again.
The Minister is one of the greatest talents I have ever seen at answering a question he has not been asked. He has an incredible talent for going off on a different tangent.
I wanted to assure the Deputy that I had read his submission.
There are three positive pillars of neutrality of which we are deeply proud in this country. We do not need to open Shannon Airport for aircraft to refuel and restock on their way to operations that are not backed by the international community and we do not need to be involved in military alliances.
With regard to combatting the changed threat of terrorism, there is a range of exchanges of intelligence and co-operation through Europol and so on that everybody supports to tackle the threat. However, if Ireland can genuinely get itself back to a truly neutral position in the context of overseas development aid, conflict resolution and the lessons we have learned in our own country, we can play a much stronger role in combating the threat of terrorism than being involved in military alliances with countries that have fuelled it.
I am somewhat puzzled as to what military alliances the Deputy thinks we are engaged in. We are a party to the European Common Security and Defence Policy. That is of importance to this State, as it is to the rest of Europe. If there are issues relating to cybersecurity or terrorism, we have an interest in this State in ensuring difficulties do not arise and in co-operating with other states regarding how we counteract those issues. We are engaged in Partnership for Peace, PfP, with NATO. NATO is like a four-letter word to some Members. PfP is about a group of like-minded nations coming together to provide peackeeping supports and humanitarian relief in regions where there are major difficulties. That does not taint or contaminate our military neutrality. It is about engagement, not isolation. It is about doing what we can to assist people across the world in conflict zones where there are difficulties instead of sticking our heads in the sand and moralising. I go for engagement, not for sticking one's head in the sand, moralising and waving a neutrality flag as if we have a superior moral compass directing us. We should be proud of our engagements internationally and of what our Defence Forces do.
