Éamon Ó Cuív warns of nuclear risk, defends constitutional limits
Éamon Ó Cuív warned about rising global armaments and the unique danger of widespread nuclear weapons, urging diplomacy and adherence to the constitution as the guide for Ireland's foreign and military policy. He argued the constitution and an independent foreign military policy preclude joining a mutual-defence pact such as NATO or a EU common defence that would include the State.
Warnings on armaments and nuclear danger
He recalled the arms races that preceded the First and Second World Wars, citing the killing in Sarajevo as the spark for World War I, and warned that a repeat today would be far more catastrophic because nuclear weapons are now in many hands. He said the growing armaments industry and increasing militarisation worldwide risk a fatal outcome for humanity and could render the climate crisis insignificant if a nuclear weapon is ever used.
Constitutional limits on alliances
He set out constitutional provisions that affirm devotion to peace, the pacific settlement of disputes, and a prohibition on adopting a European Council decision to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on the European Union where that common defence would include the State. He emphasised that only the people can change the constitution and that only the Dáil can decide to engage in war, which, he said, currently prevents joining NATO or a similar mutual-defence pact.
Independent foreign military policy and neutrality
While avoiding repeated use of the word 'neutrality', he defended the principle of an independent foreign military policy compatible with EU and UN membership, stressing democracies must accept the rules they are obliged to and that Ireland should act within constitutional limits. He insisted an independent policy does not prevent cooperation but must respect the people's constitutional decisions.
Parliamentary sovereignty and citizens' assemblies
He criticised the sidelining of the Dáil in defence debates and the way citizens' assemblies and forums have sometimes undermined parliamentary sovereignty. He said debate on defence should properly be conducted through Dáil committees, with witnesses, experts and representative groups, rather than leaving elected representatives as the 'last cog in the wheel.'
Security, diplomacy and global perspective
On personal and national security he rejected civilian armament as a solution, arguing more guns would lead to more killings, and said negotiation and diplomacy must be the first response to threats. He spoke from a global viewpoint, noting injustices that drive displacement and referenced conflicts including Ukraine, Yemen, Palestine and Afghanistan, and said Ireland has traditionally 'budged above our weight' since the 1930s in opposing injustice internationally.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Cairle, Thaithaar, Gwyddeishe, Am Cwplafocle Mraán Cháinniu, Is Árbhár Fíir Trmchúsach, Agus ni dóilam, Da Láchea Blíon, Garháumwit Dynáit, Eireann Dáncha Cú Cunthurtach, Agus a Támwit Dú Lárna Huida. We know twice in the last century that military fever overtook many countries. They armed themselves, they threatened each other and they eventually went to war. The killing in Sarajevo ignited the First World War of one person. And I'd have to say that I worry that if we do the same thing that happened before the First World War and the Second World War, we seem to be heading in a direction worldwide of ever-growing armaments industries. But this time there are nuclear weapons in many hands. And this time it could be fatal to humanity. And things like the climate crisis will pale into significance if someday somebody believes that they have to press the nuclear button. I'm going to try not to mention the word neutrality again in what I have to say because I think it's a used and abused term that relates to a particular circumstance at a particular time. But what I do believe in is what's in our constitution and also the principle of an independent foreign military policy. Now you can be in the EU and have your own policy. You can be in the UN and have your own policy. But like any democracy then, you accept to the rules as far as you are obliged to do so and as far as the Irish people have agreed to do so. As we know in our situation, of course, we are governed by a constitution. And in our constitution the provisions are clear and we are all bound by these until somebody changes them and the only people who can change them are the people. The first one is that Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly cooperation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality. And the second one is that Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the Pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination. And they must and always must be our first part to call. And if we move away from those, we are acting in an unconstitutional manner. The third provision is that the State shall not adopt the decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on the European Union where that common defence would include the State. And again, the people can change it, but only the people can change it. Now, I believe that that is a very fundamental provision because the constitution clearly says in another provision that the only people who can get involved in a war is on the decision of Dáil Éireann here. And what that means is that as we stand here today, we cannot join NATO with its Mutual Defence Pact and we cannot join a common defence that would have a similar Mutual Defence Pact. And, of course, one of the reasons that Ireland has taken this view is that some war that might be started by past actors of colonial powers that are in the European Union might involve us in a war that would lead to our all-mutual destruction. To hand that power out of this chamber to anybody else, in my view, would be a betrayal of the people. Now, I have no problem with Forums and Citizens of Assembly, I do not particularly like them. But there is one thing I do not like, and that is the constant undermining of the role of this Citizens of Assembly, of the people, elected by the people, by Open Franchise. And it is demeaning that we are the last cog in the wheel many times. And I am glad this debate is taking place because, in many cases, everybody has had their say before this Dáil. But I do regret that we are not doing this through the Dáil Committee. We can bring any witnesses we want in. We can bring any experts we want in. We can bring in any representative group we want. But I believe that the sovereignty of this Parliament is constantly being undermined in our society. I have a view about security. I am going to walk out of here this evening as the rest of you are. I am going to travel home to Cormona. And I could be shot at. I could be mugged. I could do all sorts of things. I do not carry a firearm. I am not in the United States. I do not believe it would help me. I believe if everyone is carrying firearms, there will be a lot more people killed, as we see all the time. And therefore, as a personal individual, my greatest security is actually, as is yours, that nobody wants to get you. If people were out to get you, we could not do or live in the society we live. And if that applies to individuals, it applies to nations. That the greatest security any nation has is that it does not get involved in exploitation and misuse of other nations. And therefore, I think that thinking that we are going to arm ourselves against some major attack is fallacious. I think what we must always seek to do is by negotiation, by diplomacy to reduce the threat. Our first port of call always must be diplomacy. The second thing is that I do not agree with Deputy Bruton. I am a citizen of the world. I do not see my world in the narrow parameters of a very small Europe in a very, very large world. I recognise that there are more people south of the equator, and we always seem to think that they do not exist. There are many decent people in every country in the world, and there is not a country, including Russia, China or anywhere else, where there are millions of decent people. There are also many injustices in the world, and we see all the people fleeing from various continents because of injustice. We know of the injustices, for example, in the Ukraine. We know in Yemen, Palestine and Afghanistan. I think in our small way internationally, we have traditionally budged above our weight back to the 1930s, in trying to, all of the time, and going back to the invasion of Abyssinia, to work with other like-minded people, irrespective of where they were across the globe, who would fight injustice in various ways. I also think it is worth noting that probably in my lifetime the most unthinkable thing happened, and it happened in a peaceful way largely, and that was the fall of the Iron Curtain. One of the privileges of having lived a bit longer than others here is that you have seen more. Nobody would have believed when I was growing up that the Iron Curtain would fall, collapse, and that it would just disappear. And what we and I can remember is that that was the total unthinkable of the 60s. I also have to say that I have always been a great admirer of Gandhi and the methods he had employed. Because instead of killing people to achieve the independence of each country, he mobilised the people. In fact, he modelled himself on Daniel O'Connell, who mobilised the people against injustice. And therefore, I think we must, all of the time, be looking at different ways. Now, I have to say, in relation to Ukraine, we seem to think that there seems to be only one way forward, a proxy war on which each side keeps raising the ante. And if the war swings one way, the West ups the armaments and is giving armaments now that a year ago were unthinkable. And then Russia ups it. But I wonder, can anybody be absolutely sure, if it goes to the ultimate, that somebody somewhere, people here would say it would be Russia, won't get an itchy finger and press the button. And then, when people are totally destroyed, will somebody put up their hands and say, but we were right. It doesn't matter that everybody is dead. It is not the world, and it is as frightening as that, because it only takes one foolish, an insane person or a small group of people in the wrong place for that to happen. And I think it is worth noting that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have got killed in this war, and also have decent Russian people. Ordinary soldiers in the main are just doing a job. I don't go along with the jingoism that all Russians have suddenly turned bad. And I think that we need to stand back and be careful. We are told about cyber threats, and there are many, many cyber threats in the world. And I think we should cooperate with those who would oppose and work against and cooperate with those who would act on that issue, whether those are from black actors or private actors or from rogue states. But I think we must recognise that there are many states outside of the European Union that have as good values as we have, and that we shouldn't confine ourselves to working in cooperation with just European Union countries, and that we should work to bring as many people together who want to put forward a world in which we act together. In relation to the cables across the Atlantic, I am not a great technical guy, but it seems to me that outside our economic zone, somewhere between here and America, there is plenty of water that is in nobody's territorial waters. If they can get down to the Titanic with manned vehicles, I can't see why they can't get down if they really want to outside of the territorial waters. I don't know how we are going to defend against this, but to say that it is simply to keep them out of our waters and we are safe, I think, is foolish in the extreme. I would agree with Deputy Barry, we need a well-paid defence force. We need absolute clarity on the purpose of peacekeeping, drug interdiction, support for the civil power, protecting our coastal waters. All of those emergency, I don't have time to go into them here today, but I think the idea that we could ever defend ourselves against an all-out attack from any major power would be wrong. Finally, I am totally opposed to a common defence. I am totally opposed to handing that key sovereignty over that we, the people in this chamber, are the only ones that can involve us in any individual action. I also listened with great interest to what Deputy Barry had to say about the triple lock. If there are issues, and I haven't seen any difficulties using as many troops as we can give, and at the moment we virtually can give no troops. But if there are issues, I wouldn't be opposed to tweaking it, but I would be opposed to ripping it up, as seems to be the agenda. I asked the question that I, and I got the answer today, but all of the peacekeeping missions we have managed to keep involved in. So I would hope that we would be careful where we go, and move slowly and move honestly in this debate. So with that, unfortunately, my time is up, but I will get other opportunities in this debate.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
