The security forum has been hailed as “very beneficial” and a “unique” exercise in forming policy on its final day of discussions at Dublin Castle.
Forum chair Professor Louise Richardson said she could think of no other country that has had “such an open and transparent discussion around foreign security policy”.
Environment minister Eamon Ryan said the event had been “very beneficial”.
Speaking to the media afterwards, Prof Richardson said most countries make these decisions among a small group of senior officials instead of an “open airing of wide-ranging opinions”.
This policy does strengthen, in my mind, our military neutrality— Environment minister Eamon Ryan
She said she would now read the 300 submissions made to date, copies of the transcripts from the forum, refer to her “extensive notes” from the discussions, aiming to “synthesise and analyse the past four days”.
When asked had she been given direction on how to compile the report, she replied: “I’m an academic, I don’t take direction – and I’m an independent chair – so, no, there’s been no effort to give me direction.”
In his closing speech, Tanaiste Micheal Martin made reference to those who “care passionately” about the subject of security and neutrality – referring to those who protested inside and outside the forum.
He said the four days of discussions between academics and experts in Cork, Galway and Dublin had just “scratched the surface” of the global issues.
“As a militarily-neutral country, our security, indeed our very existence as a sovereign state, relies on the compliance by all nations, however large and powerful, with the rules-based international order,” he said.
“We cannot ignore the reality that Russia’s actions have emboldened those who would like to see a world where might is right, and that size and military power, rather than international law, governs how the world functions.”
His thanks to Prof Richardson for chairing proceedings “with authority and with grace” drew applause from the audience as proceedings came to a close.
Prof Richardson told reporters afterwards that though it would be “disingenuous to suggest that everybody in Ireland is suddenly sitting around talking about the triple lock”, she believed “far more people” would be aware of it now than before the forum began.
“Given that it was about raising awareness and launching a conversation, I think that is success,” she said.
Addressing the forum about the triple lock, Green Party leader Mr Ryan said a more flexible version of it would ensure that Irish troops could take part in peacekeeping missions abroad while also protecting Ireland’s neutral stance.
This would involve requiring that a peacekeeping mission be approved by the Dail, the Seanad and the UN Security Council – or a regional organisation such as the African Union or the European Union.
As he concluded, former Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna criticised the party’s proposal.
Speaking to reporters afterwards, Mr Ryan said he had listened to criticism of the proposal to change the triple lock, but that he disagreed.
“This policy does strengthen, in my mind, our military neutrality. It has to be a functional one,” he said.
“It’s for peacekeeping, where we’ve had real strength as a country, and to make sure we can do that in an effective way, if we decide to do so, with a triple lock that’s relevant to the world today.
“Because I don’t think anyone would argue that the UN Security Council is a functioning system.”
He said more resources were needed across Ireland’s security forces.
“One thing we do need to do – and this is going across our security forces – we need resources,” he said.
“We do need to resource the Defence Forces at sea with radar and in the air. We need to have capability where we can get people out – not meeting every eventuality, but more than we have at the present.
“We don’t have sufficient resources in our Defence Forces to sometimes carry out those critical, immediate, emergency responses that we do need to be able to do.”
He also defended the approach of the forum.
He said that Prof Richardson had said it had been “a very unique exercise, very (few) other governments would hold open public forums in terms of how they develop their security policy”.
“So, I think it has been very beneficial, it’s not over, there is up until July 7 for people to make their submissions,” he said.
“The more people who follow through on that, I think, the better.”
Speaking to reporters after bringing the forum to a close, Prof Richardson described the four days as “extraordinary” and brought new issues to the fore such as the implications of Northern Ireland being in Nato in the context of a “new Ireland”.
She said: “I would hope that those who were critical, who came and attended the sessions, actually felt reassured that this was actually an open process.
“I wouldn’t anticipate that their strongly-held views have been radically altered, I would certainly hope that they had a lot more faith in this process than they had at the beginning.
“I would hope that they heard some things that caused them to at least to revisit their views.”
