Paul Murphy: Government Wants to Scrap the Triple Lock

Thanks Chair and thanks a million to Brian Stanley for this excellent motion which I think is really important. I want to start with a quote from Robert Troy, Fianna Fáil Minister. Ireland's position on the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorization is well established and known. For fear that anyone is in any doubt, let me be clear, it is wrong and it is illegal. I don't know, does the Minister agree with Robert Troy on that? Do you agree that, I'll repeat it if you want, the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorization is well established and known, it is wrong and it is illegal. Do you agree with that? Is that a government position? I'll try it again. This is from the 5th of March. This is, I don't know, is this a government position or is it not? Ireland's position on the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorization is well established and known. For fear that anyone is in any doubt, let me be clear, it is wrong and it is illegal. He was speaking, he was summing up a debate in terms of the Middle East on the 5th of March. The problem with the government, if that's the government position, is that what does the triple lock do? The triple lock precisely means that we can't send troops except where there is a UN mandate or authorization. That's precisely what it does. Robert Troy is absolutely correct in what he is saying, that the deployment of forces outside the framework of UN mandate or authorization is against international law. That's the truth. The reason the Minister doesn't want to answer is because it reveals you want to get rid of the triple lock because you want to send troops abroad outside of the framework of international law. There's all this talk of veto this and veto that and veto the other. What the triple lock does is it says that we can only send troops within the framework of international law. That's all it does. You want to get rid of the triple lock because you want to send troops outside of the framework of international law. That's the reality. I'll quote another Fianna Fáil. For decades, Fianna Fáil was clear that the triple lock which makes military deployments contingent on a UN mandate plus Dáil in cabinet decisions was critical to our neutrality. That was the unambiguous position under every party leader since Sean Le Mas. Then suddenly and without discussion the triple lock was anathema. Former Defence Minister Willie O'Dea. Why is this happening now? Why is the government trying to get rid of the triple lock while pretending to the rest of us that this has nothing to do with neutrality? Really not telling the truth to people and redefining neutrality as is done again in a Minister's speeches today as simply being quote Ireland does not participate in military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. In other words, the government says we could have sent troops to participate in the invasion of Iraq that would have been possible if it wasn't for the triple lock but you could still say you're neutral as long as you don't actually join NATO. You can join the Joint Expeditionary Force. You can send weapons to Ukraine. You can train Ukrainian soldiers. You can participate in the Ukraine Contact Defence Group which meets in NATO headquarters. You can buy billions of euros of weapons from French arms manufacturers and you can say oh you're neutral, you're neutral, you're neutral because neutrality has been redefined by the government simply mean not signing the dotted line of being members of NATO. Why is this happening now? The government's answer is to point to Ukraine, Russia and more vaguely to other conflicts internationally and to say the triple lock for which read the UN system as a whole because the triple lock actually means UN approval by either the General Assembly or the Security Council is no longer fit for purpose and we know we look around the world and we know where that attitude leads. Look at Gaza and Lebanon. Look at attacks on UN peacekeeping troops by Israel including our own troops. Mass murder of UN and humanitarian workers on a scale unprecedented in history and genocide carried out openly and unpunished before the eyes of the entire world. The reason the government and large sections of the media want to get rid of Irish neutrality is not because people here are more unsafe as a small geographically isolated country that would never conceivably be able to defend itself militarily but which has no colonial past, no history of military aggression. Neutrality is our best defense. That argument makes no sense. What this is actually about is that the ruling classes have been fattened up by decades of US foreign direct investment, corporate tax haven bonanzas and they now think of themselves not as part of a post-colonial periphery but instead want to be part of the Western imperialist core. You want to get in on the act of the intervening in weaker countries and profiting from the military-industrial complex. You want to be big boys in the big boys club in the European Union and in NATO not down in the General Assembly with other post-colonial countries. It's why we do have the development of a military-industrial conflict in this country and it's why the minister repeatedly uses the phrase that referendum is neither necessary nor appropriate. Why isn't it necessary or appropriate? Of course it's not necessary for you. You just want to get rid of the triple lock. Why is it not appropriate? Because the people don't believe you. People don't agree with you. You know that. Allow people to decide. If you're so confident on this, allow people to have a plebiscite on your proposal to get rid of the triple lock.