Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Tánaiste's initiative to have a consultative forum on international security. His selection of Louise Richardson as chairperson for that is a good one. Her biography demonstrates she is a committed reformer, decisive in action and not easily browbeaten by those who would seek to divert her. She will be a good chair. It is time we had a serious conversation on all dimensions of international security, foreign policy, security policy and defence policy.

Ireland comes to the debate as the most open economy in the world. The last figures showed trade represents 232% of our GDP. This is an enormously open country, which is highly dependent on those with whom we trade. We have a massive interdependence. In the last decade, we have seen seismic disruption to our position four times, namely, the financial crisis, Brexit, Covid-19 and, most recently, the Ukraine war. There is no doubt that in each of those serious situations which have threatened our security and society, our partnerships in Europe have allowed us to steer through, whether it be in respect of a lender of last resort when we found it impossible to raise money, the solidarity we found with our EU partners to avoid a hard border on this island, getting access to vaccine or securing energy supplies. We are a country which is dependent on our European neighbours. We have been effective over a long period at managing those relationships to help citizens of this country and contribute to world stability and peace.

In the 1990s, the West was extraordinarily overconfident in talking of the end of history and the victory of the free world and the liberal democratic approach. That overconfidence has been proven to be dramatically misplaced and now democracies are under severe pressure. All over the world, there is a sharp polarisation between autocratic regimes and democracies. Even within democracies, we have seen the erosion of some of the pillars our democracies have been built upon, namely, the rule of law and free speech, even in quarters where we would have hoped a much stronger position could have been upheld by the citizens of those countries. Powerful forces are driving the way in which opinion is formed, which democracies have not done anything like enough to check. It is timely that we look at our vulnerabilities and how we protect them.

We are slowly groping to some form of oversight and regulation of social media and the citizen profiling that goes with it, which has a profound potential impact on elections and on security. We are only groping our way towards dealing with that and finding a way for citizens to have a legitimate correction of the excesses that creates. It is not like that in the autocratic countries arrayed against us, where there is iron-fisted control of social media and of citizen profiling. Democracies have to wake up to the challenges this represents to us. Artificial intelligence will put those forces on speed, as we see the threats to our traditional way of democratic management.

War in Europe has dramatically shifted the context. Listening to Deputy Boyd Barrett, you would say conflict in Europe makes no difference and conflict anywhere in the world is the same. I think conflict in Europe represents a significant threat to what we have sought to create in Europe from the ashes of the Second World War. War back in Europe is an existential threat to the communities we have sought to create and been part of the creation of over a long period. That war in Europe has come with economic hardship, which we hear about every day in the House and know from our constituents. It has created challenges in the management of migration. It has put cyberwarfare centre stage. It has created private armies which are fighting on European territory. Europe has significant vulnerabilities that have been exposed by this conflict. The energy security exposure has been clearly underlined. Our defence autonomy is a challenge for the entirety of Europe. The supply chains that support our lifestyle are under threat.

It is timely against that background, when there are significant changes to the framework we are trying to cast on international security policy, to have the sort of conversation that the Tánaiste has initiated.

We have never been politically neutral, as Members here will recognise. We are deeply aligned members of the European Union and it is vital that we remain so, in my view. In the EU's strategic compass, Josep Borrell says that the EU favours dialogue over confrontation, diplomacy over force and multilateralism over unilateralism. He says that if you want them to succeed, you need to put power behind them. That is a challenge to us as well. We need to have power behind the policies we seek to pursue. We have been very effective, as many have said, in exercising soft power to make sure we put that behind our ambitions. We must also, as other European countries are doing, look at the vulnerabilities we have at this time. We need to prepare for acting in crises. We need to anticipate the sorts of threats that are out there, such as cyberthreats. We need to build technological capabilities. It is absolutely clear that Ireland, acting alone, cannot build those elements that will make us secure into the future to deal with cyberthreats, threats to our elections and the threats of artificial intelligence. That is simply not open to us, so we have to partner with others.

In this case, we are partnering with the European Union, which is the most effective alliance of countries that have a common faith in the rule of law, freedom of speech and following multilateral approaches. It is the one institution anywhere in the world that has created a system whereby countries can collaborate, make decisions and be effective. We are uniquely fortunate to be in that position. We must be acutely conscious of the danger that Europe will become a pawn in the battle between the US and China, which seek to paint the world in primary colours. This simply does not stand up to scrutiny, in my view. The world is a place of many different types of countries that are struggling to reach progress on behalf of their people. They are dogged by many problems, as we know. However, as a Union of countries we are committed to dealing with the issues in the way I described, namely, dialogue without confrontation, diplomacy over force and multilateralism over unilaterism. We must stand out there as a beacon seeking to deliver on that promise. When you consider the challenge of climate, you realise just how damaging polarisation could be to the most existential threat to our security of all: climate change. That will have an impact on economic livelihoods, migration and, indeed, on politics, as we have already seen. It is timely to look at that broad-based debate.

There is, of course, a focus on our military neutrality. The first issue is the triple lock. I, for one, do not see the triple lock as a wise approach. I say this because we are depending on the UN, which has veto powers for individual countries which are members of the UN Security Council, to make a decision for us. That is not a read we can lean upon. It is not a strategy at all. It is a denial of an active strategy. However, I do not automatically assume that there is consensus on an alternative strategy. Unlike Deputy Boyd Barrett, I do not see a whole lot of people who are aligned on these benches and wish to join some arrangement of NATO mutual defence. I do not see that whatsoever. That is not to say that an unarmed, ineffective defence policy is a policy for a country that wishes to exercise power and influence in a situation where we are one of the vulnerable countries. We need to think through the position that Ireland needs to adopt for the coming century. It most assuredly will not be the one we have always adopted. The one we have always adopted has seen our defence capability collapse. It has seen great demoralisation. The Commission on the Defence Forces has been a welcome wake-up call to all of us, because we need to decide what our ambition is. Do we want to protect our sovereignty effectively? Do we want to be able to intervene in higher intensity peace support? Do we want to be involved at a higher level in humanitarian relief? I think the answer to all those questions is, "Yes, we do". We want to step up in this area but without making significant decisions, we will not be able to do that.

I welcome this forum. Unlike Deputies who are not Members of my party, or indeed other Government parties, I think the presumption that we know how different people will react to different debates is misplaced. We need to have a serious debate and be willing to make changes. I am willing to hear the evidence of those who are going to contribute to this convention. As always, it comes back to this House. At the end of the day, this is the sovereign House that will make these decisions. We should welcome having citizens and experts participate and give us some guidance at a time of unique vulnerability in Europe and at a time when we have to recognise the challenges we face as a Continent.

See this speech in context