Brian Stanley TD Interview on Irish Neutrality

Ahead of Tuesday’s Public Meeting on Neutrality in Portlaoise

John Hayes: Brian, thanks for taking the time this morning to chat to us here on Laois People. You have organised a public meeting this coming Tuesday in the Portlaoise Parish Centre at eight o’clock with Senator Tom Clonan on the subject of Irish neutrality.

Why that subject and why a public meeting, Brian? What’s the thinking behind that?

Brian Stanley TD: OK, well, the policy of neutrality has been a very important part of our foreign affairs …. as a state. It has been there since, you know, for the last over 70 years. The majority of people in successive opinion polls have clearly shown that they support it, despite the fact that there’s been a lot of information and some misinformation put out as to why we need to abandon it.

The other thing that’s happened in the present matter at the moment is that as a member of the National Security and Defence Committee, we’ve been dealing with a bill that the government (is) bringing forward called the Defence Amendment Bill 2025. And the government is in the process of being ready to bring this before the Dáil and obviously to have the majority to get it through. And it’s important that the public is aware of what’s happening because the central part of that bill is that it will remove the need for UN approval for deployment of more than 12 troops overseas.

Up to now, we’ve abided by that. And to put it in simple terms, that up to the present day and since 1960, the 1960’s Defence Act, in fact the Fianna Fáil government enshrined it in that, that to deploy Irish troops overseas, that it requires a UN mandate, it requires approval from the government and approval by the Dáil. What the government are proposing to do is to remove the need for the UN mandate and are falling back on the argument, which (is that it’s) all OK once it (is) approved by the elected members of the Parliament and the government.

But the issue there is that the government in the Dáil have the majority. While the opposition may, while the government may only represent 45 or 46 percent of the electorate, (but in the) way the seats fall, they have the majority obviously at Cabinet to push it through, in that the 14 senior ministers are either Fianna Fáil or Fianna Gael and on the floor of the Dáil, they obviously have the majority there. So basically what comes down to this is that, you know, 14 people would decide on the deployment.

And the other really crucial issue here is, is that what has held the world, I suppose, in terms of after the Second World War, a decision was taken to ensure that there wasn’t a repeat of it. And, you know, we are living in a situation at the moment where, where there’s a lot of conflict. We had it again in the noughties with the illegal invasion of Iraq by America and backed up by Britain and others on the basis of false information that we now know to be the case.

But the, what’s important is, is that, that we’ve abided by, by and large, you know, most of the 195 or so countries that are part of the United Nations have abided by the rule that things are decided by diplomacy, disputes are resolved by diplomacy, by negotiations and by discussions in forums such as the UN. And the term used is multilateralism. What the, what’s being shaped up to at the moment is, is to move away from that community of nations decisions under that, under the UN and under the multilateral system.

And so as we would become more regionalised. And in other words, that removal of the triple lock, removal of the need for UN approval would allow Irish troops to be deployed as part of regional forces. The difficulty there is, is that.

John Hayes: Brian, sorry to stop you there for a second. When you say regional forces, do you, are you saying NATO down the line or are you saying a European Union armed unit down the line?

Brian Stanley TD: That’s a very good question. I mean, we’ve already signed up to certain commitments in Europe.

And let me just be clear about this. This is not an argument against neutral states hav(ing) a sensible level of cooperation on the case by case basis. The problem here is, is that there is a big move to move towards a more militaristic situation.

There’s a move towards spending more money on military matters at EU level and agriculture, environment, social needs, such as housing, housing, health, and all those important matters. And that’s also, that will also percolate down to each state, to our local level here within this state. And there’s serious discussions have taken place, some of it fairly public at the moment, at European, at EU level.

That’s one of the issues. The second thing is, is, is that the problem is that the conflicts at the moment, if you look at it, it’s, (are) regional based. It’s, if you take, for example, the whole situation in Iran, you know, you have America and Israelis with some help from Israelis in the, in the West, you know, against a state in the Middle East.

You have Russia, you have Russia and you have Ukraine with some involvement, with a large level of involvement from the other countries as well. And you have that kind of polarisation. The last thing you need to do, the one thing that was learned after the Second World War was that, that’s when, you know, when there’s a fire, when there’s a fire going, you don’t pour petrol onto it.

And by, by involving more military, more, more of the military solutions, what you’re doing is you’re actually adding to conflicts. And the difficulty there is, is that you’re moving away from the system of multilateralism. You’re moving away, you’re further undermining the UN.

What we should be doing, and I value it strongly, I got a two-hour debate. I sponsored a two-hour debate yesterday in the Dail on this matter, or the what’s called private members business, which I get about twice every year as an independent member. And I used it, I used it, the first one this year that I’ve had, sorry, the second one I had this year on the matter of defence and neutrality and the triple lock.

But the, the system that we need to maintain is the, is the UN. The UN needs reform. It’s been undermined.

That will pass, some of that will pass. Obviously, if Trump’s not, Trump won’t be here the next time in America. He’s been one of the worst influences in terms of the damage that’s been done, been done to the UN and the disregard for UN rules.

Israel has, Israel has operated with, with total immunity. The argument, definitely the argument, the counter argument is that basically President Trump and Netanyahu in Israel, they’re just symptoms of a problem. The problem is, the problem is the illegal occupation of Palestine since the 1940s.

That’s the problem here. The problem is, is the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the ongoing ethnic cleansing on a day-by-day basis of, of the West Bank, which has been, I mean, Minister McEntee went to visit and saw for her own eyes and was shocked by what she saw. As you recall, she wasn’t even allowed into Gaza.

And people, you know, what we do know from people who have been in Gaza, what’s going on there is horrific. The point there is, is that the primacy of the UN has to be re-established. We are stuck in a situation with the administration in the United States and the malign influence of that.

We’re stuck with the situation in Russia at the moment in relation to the authoritarian regime there. But what we have to do and, you know, China and some European countries are, you know, Spain, for example, is a good example of that, are taking a more robust position now in terms of trying to get back to the position of multilateralism. And that’s where it has to go.

But obviously if you do away with the need for UN approval, that ends the Triple Lock. It doesn’t exist then, you know, it’s just, just government approval. So it’s no longer a Triple Lock.

But their argument basically is that, oh sure, the Russians, the Russians or whoever, may veto, you know, any further peace missions. And we have a very honourable role as a state in terms of peacekeeping. Since 1958, Irish troops have been deployed on peacekeeping missions in Cyprus, the Middle East and Africa.

John Hayes: And have given their lives, Deputy. And have given their lives.

Brian Stanley TD: exactly. Including one young officer in recent years who was killed in an ambush in Lebanon.

And what I would say to you is, and as we speak, Irish troops, peacekeeping troops in southern Lebanon have, you know, have come under fire from Israeli forces. Including the use of cluster bombs nearby their bases, which, you know, members have spoken about. So what I would say to you is, is that the issue there is, is that, is to, the real problem, I mean, to win, you don’t solve the problem by going in and carrying out genocide.

And the slaughter of 70,000 plus civilians in a tiny area, four and a half miles wide and something like 20 miles long. Flatten and destroy the infrastructure, I mean, there’s countless numbers of bodies that are being pulled out from under the rubble.

As you know, and we have a situation where on a daily basis that, I mean, and this is all documented where in the West Bank, what’s happened there. But that’s, that’s one problem. I mean, there’s also situation in other states as well.

And what I would say to you is, is that, you know, we need to, the only, the only defence we have in terms of, you know, trying to steer away from war is to use the mechanism of multilateralism. To use the UN, to use the community of nations in terms of coming together. And, you know, the League of Nations, the UN, that all came out with the Second World War.

Because, you know, countries came to the conclusion never again can we allow this to happen. Where tens of millions of people lose their lives in, in a ridiculous war. And that’s where we need to get back to.

And you don’t get back to that by fuelling, you know, by becoming part of regional forces. But just on the veto, I wanted to deal with that because it’s a good question that comes up all the time. And government will say in relation to that veto, that the, to be used by the, to be used by the Russians to block peacekeeping missions.

There’s only been, there’s 14 active peacekeeping missions at the moment as we are speaking in the world. UN ones, under the UN mandate. There’s only one (that’s ever been) blocked.

That was blocked by China over the dispute with Taiwan. They blocked one a number of years ago because of that. The, there’s been 264 resolutions out of the 184 passed by the Security Council.

There’s five permanent members on that, including China, Russia and America. Russia hasn’t blocked any peacekeeping mission to date. That’s a fact.

But that’s never said. Also, the other fact that’s never explained is that along with the five permanent members of the Security Council, there’s what’s called the UN General Assembly, which is the full membership representative from each state. And they have approved a peacekeeping mission in the past.

There is precedent there for that. And under international law, if the Security Council refused to authorise or sanction a UN peacekeeping mission, the General Assembly can do it. And as I said, there’s precedent for that there.

And yes, I would argue strongly, I would argue strongly as a Democrat and as a Republican, as somebody who believes in neutrality, active neutrality, is that the Security Council does need to be reformed. You know, but there is the blocks, the blocks in relation to the continuation of the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. You’re really talking about America and Israel’s objections.

John Hayes: But Deputy, let’s take the really pessimistic view in the post-Trump era.

And it will happen one day, the post-Trump era, that the United Nations never gets back to the power and the prestige and the efficiency and efficacy it had in the pre-Trump era. And then there is a scenario where we have our European partners telling us directly or indirectly, that we’re not doing our fair share and we can’t even patrol our territorial waters and our airspace. And I think …. it’s a distinct possibility going down the line.

Brian Stanley: A very good question. The first thing is that being neutral. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is that we’re one of a number of neutral states in Europe. The third thing I would say to you is this, is being neutral does not stop us in any way, or inhibits us, or prevent us, and I said this yesterday, as did several other speakers who spoke in favour of my proposals, doesn’t inhibit us from enhancing the capabilities and capacity of our defence forces. What’s inhibited and what’s restricted to that is, and I’m being blunt about it, and the record is there, is the lack of government investment, poor pay, poor conditions, and the lack of any investment in modernising equipment such as sonar, radar, etc., which are needed to protect undersea cables.

John Hayes: On that, Deputy Russia, if you believe, and I do, the reports from various Western intelligence agencies, they’re saying Russia is a malevolent agent when it comes to the undersea cables that run through our territorial waters.

Brian Stanley: And there is nothing stopping us, as we currently speak, the government, because this is a matter we have discussed nearly on a weekly basis at the Defence and Security, National Security and Defence Committee, the whole level of modernising in terms of the equipment of the Navy and the Air Force, and as we speak, the Minister for Defence and the top brass of the Army have been assuring us that they are getting on top of this, that they are acquiring and have acquired modern equipment, radar equipment to monitor airspace, radar equipment to monitor undersea cables, that the number of ships at sea by the Navy has been increased, that the number of recruits, and we’ve got figures.

Look, we’re getting fortnightly reports nearly on this at this stage, the number of recruits coming into the Navy has improved, the number of recruits coming into the Army has improved slightly, not enough, but they’re making, there’s a substantial effort being made now, pay and conditions have improved for ordinary rank and file.

I would argue they probably need to go a bit more with that, but certainly they’re attracting more recruits, money is being spent on upskilling, so being neutral does not stop any state from doing that, and I would argue strongly that we need to have a level of capacity, and we do need to have a level, of course we don’t live in splendid isolation, we do need to have a level of cooperation, wider northern European countries in particular, a level of cooperation, but not as part of an alliance, and that’s a common practise across the world,

The second thing I’d say to you is this, is that there’s no evidence at this stage, and I’ll tell you why, there’s no evidence, so far, that Russia has tried to damage infrastructure, that’s not to say they won’t, but let me just give you an example, when President Zelensky visited Dublin recently, there was heavy security put on, including cooperation with other countries, and one of the major incidents that happened, the only significant incident, (were) the four drones flying over Dublin Bay, under the flight path between, as you fly into Dublin airport, serious matter, and straight away the militarists and the people who are advocating that we dump neutrality and shred it, were advocating that we tool up, that we needed to do this, that and the other, this is Russia, right?

The Minister for Defence came in, and this is on the Dail record, came in to the European Committee on Security and Defence, a good time later, I think it was two months later, and I questioned her about that very matter, and I said to her, you know, can you confirm, you know, in relation to the investigation into this, I don’t want you to go into minute detail or give away any state secrets in public, but can I ask you, has it been determined, because obviously drones have to be launched from a ship, if they belong to a foreign power, unless they come from a neighbour very close by.

I mean realistically they have to come from a sea vessel, so I asked her, was there any ships or sea vessels detected, sorry, was there any Russian sea vessels, either civilian or military, detected in the Irish Sea, anywhere in the Irish Sea at that point, and she talked around it, and I brought her back to it, and she said no, right? Were there any vessels, were there any sea vessels belonging to any other power, any other foreign power, detected in the Irish Sea at that point, you know, during that 24-hour period? No, right?

Is there any evidence at this point to show that there’s been Russian involvement here, and again, the Minister will go around it obviously, but when I pursued it, no, there wasn’t, right? So there’s no evidence, I’m not saying there wasn’t, I don’t know, what I’m saying is there’s absolutely no evidence, right?

In fact there’s strong arguments put forward by some people as to why those drones were not Russian, because it wouldn’t have been in Russia’s interest to do it, it’s exactly what would go against Russian interests.

Senator Tom Clonin, which is due to speak there, he kept a check there over a period of a number of months, in terms of the number of articles in the media that was calling for the abandonment of the Triple Lock, and the implication (for) neutrality, and there were over 50 articles, according to him, that appeared in the media, calling for it to be abolished. There were only two articles arguing the counterpoint.

John Hayes: In the same period? In the media, in the Irish media. In the corresponding period? In the corresponding period. (Yes) Okay.

Brian Stanley: No, I mean, to choose tonight is one of the points that somebody might ask him, but, you know, the point I’m making is this, is that, you know, there’s a well-funded lobby out there, a very well-funded lobby, in terms of arguing for this, and the counter-argument has not been put forward. Despite that, the last opinion poll you may have noticed, right, said the vast majority, two out of three Irish people, want to maintain neutrality, you know, people in this state, and that’s significant, what I’m saying is, you know, and I would say as well is that we, in terms of, you know, people say, oh, how do we defend ourselves? You know, we have to have a level of defence, but as a small state, there’s only a level of defence we can have, you know, and we do need to have better equipment, and I’d argue strongly for that, more people in our defence forces, we need to get the defence forces up to the strength they should be at, 11,500, and we do need more modern equipment, and that’s it. Some of that’s in train, we do need to push that on, and the likes of myself in the Dáil need to do that, but what I would say to you is, the best defence we have is being a neutral state, because we don’t pose a threat, we don’t pose a threat, that’s been our defence.

The other thing I would say to you is that, you know, and make no mistake about it, a lot of this is about keeping the American administration, and the top brass in Europe, Ursula von der Leyen, etc happy.

The current American administration has shown itself to be a bully, you don’t get any respect by kowtowing to a bully, you get respect from a bully by being assertive, not being aggressive, but being assertive and saying, hang on, this is our position here, and as a democracy, and as a sovereign state, this is our position.

Yes, we will cooperate with you, but we’re not going to roll over and do your dirty work for you. I mean, and I just, let me pose this to you, that the illegal invasion of Iraq, back in the noughties, you know, people were terrified, I mean, oh, these weapons of mass destruction, if one of these is Ireland or England, you know, we had to, you know, just going to wipe the two islands off the map, blah, blah, blah, and, you know, and on that basis, you know, had we been part of a regional force with America and Britain at that time, you know, would there have been Irish combat troops on the ground, on the basis, in a country where millions of people lost their lives in a war that was based on lies, that there were weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

All they could find was AK-47s, machine guns, apparently, and very little else. If you went to aircraft guns or something, that’s all, that’s all the Iraqis had, when they went in and slaughtered, and at the end of the day, that’s all was there, there was no weapons of mass destruction, it was all load of bull.

John Hayes: It was, that’s a fact, you can stand over that, and I can stand over that.

Brian Stanley: You know, because it’s important that people, the important thing here is that people need to make decisions on the basis of, you know, as I said, and I don’t mean in any bad way, you know, by and large, and the local media tends to do a really good job in terms of balance, but there has been a lot of, it’s been a heavy load of loud calls for abolition of the Triple Lock, of the need to abolish it and to move further away from the UN and further undermine it, right, and to weaken and dilute and actually destroy our neutrality. And, you know, it’s important that there are counter cases

It’s important to hear both sides of it, and to, but not to accept it blindly, because at the end of the day, you know, if Irish troops, you know, did wind up in a situation where they were involved as part of a regional force under the control of more powerful states like Germany, for example, and found themselves in an engagement with hostile forces, after the first engagement, no one knows what’s going to happen, and it’s the sons and daughters of, and, you know, I said this in the Dail yesterday, it’s, you know, it’s the sons and daughters of the ordinary people, ordinary working people that are, that wind up in the front line, that’s been shown throughout history, and you can see it, you can see the unfortunate number of people being killed, soldiers being killed, Ukrainians, Ukrainian soldiers, and Russian soldiers being killed in a senseless, illegal war in Ukraine at the moment, you know, and that’s, that’s, that’s awful, and we need to move away from that in the 21st century, you know.

John Hayes: Well, I’m sure there’ll be no children of any billionaires on the front line anywhere.

Brian Stanley: They’ve never been known to be. They’re always well back at command post, any of the top brass that’s there, that’s always the case, if they’re there at all.

John Hayes: Brian, thanks for taking the time to chat to us this morning. Great to talk to you, and thanks for the interview.