Dail Éireann · 2023-03-23
Party shown is the one held on 2023-03-23, frozen at parse time — not the speaker's party today.
Neither the decision to withdraw the Defence Forces infantry group from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force nor the decision that the Defence Forces should participate in the next European Union battle group has any implications for Ireland's long-standing position of military neutrality. At the time of the recent Government decision that the Defence Forces should join the EU battle group of 2024-25, the Government was advised that a further assessment would be undertaken of the sustainability of the Defence Forces overseas commitments.
Notwithstanding the decision to withdraw the infantry group from UNDOF, the Defence Forces will continue to have a significant presence serving overseas in the pursuit of peace, notably with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, where over 340 Defence Forces personnel will continue to serve.
Built by scoring every sentence in the debate on how distinctive its language is, then quoting the highest-scoring ones back word for word and in the order spoken. Nothing is paraphrased or invented — if a sentence appears here, it was said in the chamber. Drawn from 517 words across 10 contributions by 2 speakers.
How often each word appears across the whole debate, ranked by how distinctive it is to this debate rather than common to all parliamentary language.
All 10 contributions, start to finish, in the order they were made. The one you came here for is highlighted.
My question is on the decision taken by the Government in January to withdraw Irish troops from the Golan Heights to participate in the European battle group. We believe this is a breach and an erosion of Irish neutrality. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Neither the decision to withdraw the Defence Forces infantry group from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force nor the decision that the Defence Forces should participate in the next European Union battle group has any implications for Ireland's long-standing position of military neutrality. I note the Deputy did not explain how he has come to the view that it does.
At the time of the recent Government decision that the Defence Forces should join the EU battle group of 2024-25, the Government was advised that a further assessment would be undertaken of the sustainability of the Defence Forces overseas commitments. Following the conclusion of this assessment and on the basis of the military advice available to me, as well as formal engagement with the United Nations, I have decided to withdraw the infantry group personnel from UNDOF with effect from April 2024.
Notwithstanding the decision to withdraw the infantry group from UNDOF, the Defence Forces will continue to have a significant presence serving overseas in the pursuit of peace, notably with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, where over 340 Defence Forces personnel will continue to serve.
In addition, my Department will engage with the United Nations with a view to maintaining some or all of the staff posts currently occupied by Defence Forces personnel in UNDOF headquarters and will explore the possibility of providing a modest increase in our troop contribution to UNIFIL. The decision to withdraw personnel from the UNDOF mission has been taken to allow the Defence Forces to undertake a process of consolidation with regard to its overseas commitments and to prepare for future peacekeeping missions, as well as to ensure the Defence Forces have the capacity available to fulfil their commitment to the EU battle group of 2024 and 2025.
Participation in a battle group has no effect on Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. A commitment to a battle group does not involve any commitment to common or mutual defence. Deployment of the Defence Forces contingent as part of the battle group in a peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation will continue to require a UN mandate and Government and Dáil approval, in accordance with the triple lock provisions of the Defence Acts.
I disagree on the basis that there have been soundings, even from the Minister, and from other Ministers, on Ireland's neutrality. Let us look at the evidence. Why would Ireland participate in an EU battle group in the first place? Permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, also comes into play, as does the use of Shannon Airport as a military base. Millions of American troops have gone through Shannon Airport and they participated in a number of wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East. The evidence points towards an erosion by stealth of our neutrality which is being undermined by this Government. This is not me being paranoid; the evidence is there. Surely our participation in battle groups and PESCO has to undermine our neutrality.
We have been involved in PESCO for years now and it has not impacted our military neutrality. Our military neutrality is defined by whether we are members of a military alliance and we are clearly not a member of a military alliance. We are not members of NATO and we do not participate in a European Union common defence pact; there is no such pact. I am at a loss to how the Deputy can suggest there is evidence that our military neutrality is being eroded. We have been part of the EU battle groups for quite some time and they are important for interoperability, for example, with other member states in Europe that could potentially, and do currently, participate with Irish troops in UN peacekeeping missions. For example, in UNIFIL we are working with Polish battalions. We are working in battle groups with fellow European member states, including other neutral states, which this battle group contains so the Deputy's argument does not hold up at all.
I disagree again. Prior to the Minister stepping down as Taoiseach before Christmas, he went to the Council of the European Union and one of the main issues there was strengthening security and defence. All the evidence points towards the development of a European army when it comes to Ireland's neutrality and its place in the world, which has deep respect across the international community. We have said many times that the evidence points to PESCO and participation in European battle groups eroding our neutrality and that is what is at stake. Soundings from the Minister and other Ministers in the Government have shown that. They have stated that the triple lock mechanism is also up for grabs. The evidence is there. Again, this is not me being paranoid. The evidence is there that our role as a neutral country is under threat.
Successive Secretaries General of the United Nations have endorsed the development of the EU battle group concept and Ireland's participation in it. As I said, participation in EU battle groups supports the development of rapid deployment skills and capabilities within the Defence Forces and would improve interoperability with like-minded states. It ultimately assists us in participating in UN peacekeeping missions. Also, we have been part of the evolution of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy for the past 20 years and that has not impacted our military neutrality. We have been able to do that. The EU needs to do crisis management and we need to debate the triple lock, not because of neutrality but because of a simple question. The Deputy might be comfortable with Russia deciding whether Ireland participates in a peacekeeping mission but I am increasingly not satisfied-----
I never said that.
That is the reality of the triple lock.
No. The Minister is making things up.
The triple lock is about a mandate from the UN Security Council. Putin is more interested in the Wagner Group being in Africa than a UN peacekeeping force being there. That is the reality so we need to discuss this issue without throwing around slogans and all of that.