 Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the Institute for International and European Affairs in Dublin. My name is Peter Gunning. I'm a member of the Institute. It's my pleasure to present today's webinar, which is part of the IEA's Global Europe project supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs. We're very honored to have as our speaker today Simon Kovni, Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence. Just before I introduce and hand over to the minister, usual housekeeping arrangements. You'll be able to join the discussion in what time we have after the minister's presentation using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on your screen. And please feel free to send in your questions throughout the session, mentioning any affiliation you may have. And we will come to them or at least to as many as possible in the time that you have once the minister has finished his presentation. Today's presentation and the question and answer are both on the record. And you can also join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IIEA. We're also live streaming the event on YouTube. So I welcome all who are tuning in via that platform. And Simon Kovni represents Cork North Central in Doyle-Aaron. He has been a member of the European Parliament where he took a very particular interest in human rights affairs. His ministerial experience is very wide, and he served as tarnish there from 2017 to 2020. He has been Minister for Foreign Affairs since 2017, and he is concurrently Minister for Defence. He has been deeply involved in Ireland's reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in numerous multilateral bodies, including the UN. We're fortunate and grateful to have him here today to update us on developments particularly in the EU and to put them in the broader context of the current state of the European Union. Minister Kovni, you're very welcome and it's a pleasure to hand the floor over to you. Thank you very much. And first of all, can I begin by thanking the IIEA for inviting me to speak today and to everyone who's joined our session in what are difficult and somber times. Like you, I have over the last number of weeks and days been watching with concern and anger, I have to say, the attack on Ukraine and its people. Like many people across the world, I've been trying to make sense of what is in many ways senseless and trying to understand what seems incomprehensible. Watching the plight of Ukrainians are European neighbors. It's hard to take in the reality of what's actually happening on the continent of Europe again. You would have thought that history would have taught us better. But amidst the fog of this new reality, some facts do emerge. An illegal and unjust war has been launched on Ukraine. This is an attack on a sovereign democratic country. It is an aggression on our friend and neighbor and an assault on our values too. Such acts of war are our cake, unacceptable and abhorrent. Ireland is a militarily neutral country, but the Irish people are neither ethically, morally or politically neutral. We stand unambiguously and unapologetically with Ukraine at this time. And from these facts, one single conclusion. The world has changed. Make no mistake, this is a historic moment. And in many ways, a historic test. It's a moment of principle. The principle to quote President Zelinsky is one that enshrines everybody's right to defend their own or to define their own future. And everyone's right to live without threat. It's a moment of law, the rules based international order in which Ireland's foreign policy is based and enshrined. But for many Irish people, this goes beyond politics and principle. The collective and cultural memory does understand concepts like independence, justice and peace. We have known in Ireland what it is to be forced to leave your home and to what the kindness of others and the welcome of a nation can offer. Many thousands of Ukrainians who are forced to leave their home may arrive here in Ireland. We have been given the adoption by the EU of the proposal to activate the temporary protection directive and we'll play our part in supporting its implementation to the best of our ability. There is no target on how many people we will support. We've lifted our visa regime and signed up to the EU wide protection initiative. We'll provide the humanitarian support that all Ukrainian people arriving at our borders require. Every minister in government and every government department is now working through what will be needed so that people get PPS numbers access to health care child benefits, education and so on. And we're committed to doing the right thing and to responding with speed to what is a growing and enormous humanitarian crisis. They are welcome here. And that is a message that we want to be very clear on. The families across Ireland alongside the state's efforts will open their homes to Ukrainians, just like they did to thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian children after the Chernobyl disaster a generation ago. And just like they did for hundreds of children fleeing mainland Europe in the aftermath of World War Two under Operation Shamrock. And as has been set out by the Taoiseach, we fully support Ukraine's application for EU membership to Ireland days and will continue to be a strong supporter of EU enlargement vocal in our support for the advancing of accession prospects in many western Balkan countries. And I think we are not alone in our frustration as to the lack of progress and momentum in recent years. Ukraine has made strong progress in aligning with EU standards and has shown extraordinary determination to uphold the values of the EU. While this will be a matter for the European Council, Ireland will not be found wanting with regard to an EU membership perspective for Ukraine. The Western Partnership Summit Declaration in December also acknowledged the European aspirations and European choice, not just of Ukraine, but also of Moldova and Georgia. We, and our European partners will continue to affirm the sovereign right of each partner to choose the level of ambition that they aspire to in their relations with the EU. An old Ukrainian proverb says, you don't really see the world if you only look through your own window. And the window that we look through, and therefore the world that we see is different from President Putin's. But we in the EU are also learning that the window we looked through in recent years also saw only a partial reality. It was a reality that declarations of our unity sometimes rang hollow and seemed idealistic. What we've learned in recent weeks is that these ideals stitch our European values to our way of life. They are the ideals that in Ukraine have life and death consequences today. While we cannot be naive to the challenges we face and the differences that continue and will continue to exist among us within the EU, even beyond the current crisis. What we understand now is that we are united despite those differences, because we know now that whatever your feelings about politics, nobody can feel anything but nausea when seeing wounded children and desperate people forced to flee their own homes. We know now that whatever your understanding of history, nobody misunderstands the finality of war. We now know that whatever side you sit on in the European Parliament, nobody was sitting after President Zelensky's speech last Tuesday. And we know that nobody can fail to be profoundly moved by Ukraine's courageous stand from its president to its women and children and men who continue to fight for their very existence. These are the values that unite us far beyond any differences we may have. The EU may in the past have been criticized for slow decision making, sometimes with justification I have to say, but that is not a criticism we hear today. We have never acted with such urgency. We've never acted with more resolve, and we've never been more united. And I've never been to be quite honest more proud to sit at the EU table. I've never been more proud to be European. In these most testing of times, I think we are showing our best selves. And while we always regret that the UK is no longer with us on our shared European journey, they too, along with partners across the world are today showing their best selves. Today the EU and UK are fully aligned against Russia's aggression and the protection of European values. I hope that spirit of partnership will now also be the pathway to find an agreed approach to the protocol on Northern Ireland and I urge the UK government to respond to the EU's focus on finding durable practical solutions to the issues of concern to the people of Northern Ireland. Our overarching priority here is simply to preserve lasting peace stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. That peace has been made possible through the most steadfast of support by our European neighbors. And I think what we're seeing in Ukraine today reminds us of just how precious that piece is. Of all the benefits we have gained from EU membership, peace is surely the most profound. That membership began almost 50 years ago when Ireland signed the Treaty of Accession to join the then European Economic Community. On the day he signed the treaty, Tishik Jack Lynch said, Ireland because of our historic those circumstances did not participate in the past in all the great moments of European experience. Throughout the last 50 years, we have engaged fully. Today we bring a respected principled and credible voice to the EU table, supporting European leadership and climate, COVID-19 recovery, vaccine sharing, migration, the rule of law and enlargement. If we rise to these challenges, and I believe we will. This will be Europe's next great moment. The main conclusion of these terrible of this terrible conflict so far is that the need for Europe has never been greater, and that in the face of external aggression. It is the bedrock of our values human dignity freedom democracy equality the rule of law and human rights that define us and define what the European Union is and why it's so important today. The response has been defined by unity of purpose. In response to the unprovoked unjustified and immoral military invasion of Ukraine. The EU has united in defensive international law and the rules based multilateral system. We've moved at speed to introduce the most wide ranging and strongest sanctions in the history of the EU. The building on measures first introduced in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. The EU has now sanctioned over 700 individuals and over 50 entities from President Putin down. We are we are targeting key decision makers members of the Duma who voted to support acts that are illegal under international law. There are acts close to Putin senior military officers in Russia and Belarus and propagandists involved in disinformation campaigns. In addition, EU has introduced hard hitting sanctions targeting the financial energy and transport sectors and restricting exports of dual use goods and other goods and technology contributing to the defense sector. The measures have been adopted in close cooperation with like minded partners, including the US, the UK, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and the Republic of Korea. They have increased the cost for Russia of its illegal interventions in Ukraine, reducing the funding available to Russia to wage war and over time will impose real constraints on its military capabilities. We know that it will face consequences for any substantial further aggression on Ukraine. More generally, I believe that these measures mark a watershed moment for the EU demonstrating the EU's credibility as a political actor with economic weight that can bring significant pressure to bear in a crisis. At the same time, we have committed nearly two billion euros to emergency macro financial assistance to foster stability in Ukraine and to deal with the humanitarian consequences of what's happening. We agreed a package of 500 million euros for the Ukrainian military through the new European peace facility. Ireland does not contribute to the provision of lethal equipment, but we certainly will pay our full share supporting non lethal supplies, funding fuel and essential protective and medical equipment, which will save Ukrainian lives. As an elected member of the Security Council, we co-sponsored a draft resolution condemning the offensive as a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. And when, inevitably, that was vetoed by Russia, we moved quickly with partners to call for an extraordinary session of the General Assembly. At the Human Rights Council last week, Ireland supported the establishment of a commission of inquiry. The International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan has stated that there is a reasonable basis to believe that both alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Ukraine. He will open an investigation. We are one of 39 states to support a referral of the matter to the ICC to help to expedite an investigation. In New York and Geneva, Brussels and The Hague, across every forum open to us, we continue to call on Russia to agree to a ceasefire to protect civilians and to allow unhindered humanitarian access. We will raise our voice at the Security Council and in all initiatives for peace. We'll continue to prioritize the agency and inclusion of women and girls, as well as the, as to ensure their protection from sexual violence and conflict. We'll work to ensure that the safeguarding of the most vulnerable is at the heart of our humanitarian response. And we will continue to engage with international partners to fight Russia's state-funded narratives, which seek to excuse Russia's aggression and so discord across Europe and beyond. This work should leave nobody in any doubt as to Ireland's place at the heart of the EU and the rules-based multilateral system. Nor should there be any doubt as to Ireland's position on this war. The unanimous cross-party dull motion adopted last week could not have made clearer Ireland's strong condemnation of Russia's unjustified and provoked and immoral war. It's a gross violation of international law and the UN Charter and Ireland's message will always be that there is a need for full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all of those in need. I'm deeply disappointed that there have been consistent reports of failure to honor commitments to provide safe passage for civilians out of Maripole, for example. The targeting by Russia of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the use of prohibited weapons and indiscriminate attacks are not acceptable. Russia has clear obligations to fully comply with international law and in particular international humanitarian law. Whatever is agreed or not agreed on humanitarian corridors or other measures. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected. This goes both for those who choose to leave and those who choose to remain in Ukrainian cities. This is a core obligation under the law. Addressing our doll in 1963, which seems like a long time ago now. John F. Kennedy observed that Ireland pursues an independent course in foreign policy, but it is not neutral between liberty and tyranny and never will be. This is exactly the stance we're taking today. Our policy of military neutrality is long standing and rooted in our struggle for sovereignty ourselves. As practiced by successive Irish governments, it's a policy characterized by non membership of military alliances and non participation in common or mutual defense arrangements. But it has never stopped us from participating in world events, nor being affected by them, nor has it made us passive in situations of injustice. We are not politically neutral when it comes to a crisis like Ukraine. We have a proud history of promoting peace and development through the UN, the EU, the OSCE and other bilateral initiatives. The European security architecture rooted in the principles of the UN Charter is under is under unprecedented strain right now. The Helsinki Final Act, the foundation of the OSCE of which 57 European states are members, including Ireland and including Russia is worth quoting at some length. Article 8 states that we reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating states to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance. As they evolve, each state also has the right to neutrality. Each participating states will respect the rights of all others in this regard. What we've seen from Russia's actions is an utter disregard for this commitment. In this new era, we need a new conversation, a mature, honest debate about the world as it is, and Ireland's place in it. As the thesis said last week, we will need to reflect on this and this reflection will need to encompass our policy of military neutrality, how it has evolved and what it means today. At a time when so many of our assumptions have been overturned, and in which the growth of hybrid and cyber warfare means that geography no longer dictates our security and defence capability. Remaining true to our principles, we must reflect on how well old approaches map to modern risks. We must decide how to position ourselves through our second century of independence to ensure security at home, as well as to contribute to security abroad. We do such conversations well actually in this country, as we do in Europe more generally. Over the past 10 months, we've seen citizens across Europe come together and debate the shared EU future that they want. The Conference on the Future of Europe is an EU-wide conversation on how to build a better Europe for us all. Most recently, Dublin Castle was host to one of the four citizens panels, and I want to thank our hosts today, the IAEA, for their valuable work on this. This debate couldn't come at a more important time. Hard though, as it is to remember, and while news feeds and Twitter threads are rightly filled with news from Ukraine, we cannot forget about the existential threat of climate change too. Just last week, a report by the IPCC concluded, with the clear and stark warning, any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a livable future. If that's not stark, I'm not sure what is, and it needs to ensure that we act. This country has undertaken a commitment for a 51% reduction in emissions by 2030. That's less than eight years away. Under a fit for 55, the EU has an even more ambitious plan, 55% by 2030. I'm heartened that the most endorsed idea by citizens in the conference in the future of Europe has consistently been that the EU's climate change strategy should include a just transition that protects workers and enables retraining and upskilling. This isn't going to be easy for Ireland or for many other countries either. We will need serious conversations and sacrifice to make it happen. Increasing inflation, higher energy costs and the pandemic will all make this even more difficult. One has to perhaps look hard to find any positive lessons from our recent experiences. But if there are any to be gained, it's this, when the reasons are understood. And when it's needed, we are capable of astonishing degrees of solidarity and self sacrifice. When asked to stay at home to protect each other, we did. When asked for solidarity in our response towards Russia, we delivered, even at our own economic cost. And that of course continues. The reverberations of war in Ukraine will be of a global and a historical scale. We have already been under tremendous pressure for the last two years. Our reserves of resilience feel almost threadbare, and the recovery that we have all been looking forward to is perhaps less certain today. But we will have, but we will have to dig deeper. And we're capable of that. We must steal ourselves to what will undoubtedly be disruptions that last for years, perhaps, rather than just months. We must sell ourselves for shocks that may cut across all aspects of society and drag against global growth. But in doing so, we must also remember why we are doing this, and who's responsible for it. In his speech, the day after the invasion began, President Zelensky told Russia that if it attacked, you will see our faces, not our backs. It must also see our faces and not our backs. Indeed, today, the world is speaking in a voice that is rarely heard. It is a voice of almost complete unity. There have been protests against President Putin's aggression in cities around the world from Dublin to Nairobi, from Milan to Tallinn to Tokyo to Munich to Manila, and so many more. There have been protests in more than 48 cities in Russia itself, despite the heavy consequences for such protests. I think the day before yesterday, there were 4600 people arrested alone in that day across Russia. In the UN General Assembly, 141 nations voted to quote, deplore Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Our actions and those of our EU partners are directed against those who have enabled President Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Our criticism is not directed at the Russian and Belarusian people. We know that many, many Russian people do not want this war, and many have been deeply courageous in protesting against military aggression. We know too that the people of Belarus are not represented by the aggressive actions of the Belarusian government. But it is above all the people of Ukraine whose history is being written today who are showing such extraordinary courage in their determination to define their own future, and they look to us to be part of that. We've all seen the pictures. People with lopsided, loose-fitting helmets, people who know nothing of war, people who don't want to fight, people in occupied towns and villages with little more than their own courage pushing against the occupier. Their extraordinary courage demands our courage too, even if it proves costly, even if our food and energy bills are higher next year. We will need courage to remember that Ukraine has paid a far higher price than we ever will. And at the European level, we need to retain our resolve, to continue doing the right thing and to continue to fight for a world which is more sustainable, more just, and more secure. Something that unfortunately many of us have taken for granted in recent years, but certainly no longer. That fight for the future starts at home, and we need to ensure that we will be fit for this new digital age and that our young people are supported and have the opportunities they need to flourish. We need to complete our single market across the EU and ensure it works for everybody. We also continue our cold recovery and improve our climate resilience, both within our borders and across the world. But if Ireland is to be credible, we must lead by example. All of this can only be achieved through the continued development of a strong and shared EU and through ever greater citizen engagement in our decision making and democratic institutions. On the 10th of May, Ireland will celebrate 50 years since the Irish people decided by a referendum to join the European Economic Community. Throughout this year and next, we will celebrate our 50 years of membership. There will be a time to debate our shared future in the EU, as is right and proper in a healthy democracy. But now is the time to stand and be proud to be part of this shared European Union. If anyone was in any doubt as to the value of our membership, I suggest they look east. Because when it comes down to it, our membership of the EU is not just about economics or trade or treaties for that matter. It's about ideas, it's about identity, it's about our place in the world, and it's about the world that we aspire to. It's about the values that ordinary people believe are worth fighting for, and unfortunately worth dying for in Ukraine today. So most of all, the future of the European Union for Ireland is about being part of not only a union, but a way of life. A way of life that we need to act together right now to protect, to ensure that those who want to join us and be part of those efforts in the future have the opportunity to do so. So thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much, Minister, and may I congratulate you if I may on a speech that really matches fully the gravity of the events that we have been watching, but it's also comprehensive and practical in its prescriptions. Yes, and we have a lot of questions. If I may, I'll go straight to them. I know your time is limited. The question I have is from the British Ambassador to Ireland, Paul Johnston. Russia's attack on a European country illustrates the salience of collective defence and the transatlantic link. How does the minister see the implications of the invasion for EU defence and for Ireland's own security and defence policy. Well, a very important question that it's hard to respond to with a short answer, but can I say as someone who's privileged to hold the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs as well as Minister for Defence, believe me, that's a question that is getting an extraordinary level of focus at the moment within both of my departments and increasingly within government more broadly. I think it's also a question that a lot of Irish people are asking themselves as well. I don't think we should rush to an answer though. I think that is important. I think it's important not to fundamentally change direction in terms of foreign policy or defence policy overnight. I really think that what we are experiencing today in Europe does need to result in quite a fundamental rethink of Ireland's approach to its own security and how we contribute to the collective security of the European Union that we are very much part of and invested in. And what I mean by that is that certainly there are some obvious things that we need to do and need to do in the immediate future. First of all, I think we need to recognise that we have capacity problems in terms of our own defence forces because of underinvestment for decades. I commissioned a commission on the future of the Defence Forces 13 months ago, a little more actually now, which is very much part of the problem for government. We have a template that can shape the approach that government takes towards our own defence in terms of defence capacity, which is going to involve spending a lot more money and allocating a lot more resources to the defence sector in the future. That is not an approach that is in any way pro-war or pro-conflict or pro-militarisation. It is a necessary and honest response to what it means to be a militarily non-aligned country at the moment that needs to protect its own system, citizens and systems, and also needs to be part of a more collective approach towards European defence and security. In essence, what this commission did was it looked at another seven or eight peer countries across Europe, primarily within the European Union, and it compared Ireland in terms of resourcing to those countries. We currently spend about a third of what those countries spend, and what the report is recommending or what the commissioner recommending is that we would at least move to spend about half of what they spend to get Ireland into a more credible space on core defence capacity. But I know that's not the extent of Paul's question. Of course, we then have to ask ourselves the question as to how do we approach collective EU questions around defence and security. Of course, we are already partnering with other EU countries in small groups and in larger ones, looking at how, for example, Ireland can protect itself, along with others, from cyber attacks, from disinformation, and from many other threats to our way of life, and our democracies. And I think increasingly you will see Ireland being part of collective debates in areas where there are vulnerabilities, where to be perfectly honest with you, we can't respond alone, and therefore we need the collective experience and depth of knowledge that comes with EU membership and partnership on some of these issues. I don't believe that Ireland is likely to join NATO anytime soon, but I certainly think that Irish people will be open to a more collective approach towards defending Irish interests and Irish citizens by increased partnership across the European Union and that doesn't mean European armies. It means interoperability. It means when Ireland chooses to be part of something we have partners to work with in those projects. And we have the infrastructure in the European Union to do that with PESCO and with other mechanisms. But I certainly think there will be an openness amongst the Irish public for us to do a lot more in that space of the future, given what we're experiencing today. Just following on from that question, a question from Jerry Arthur's who's at the elector in the Waterford Institute of Technology. He thanks you for your presentation, saying that Ireland, as you've been saying minister needs a mature and reflective discussion on neutrality and engagement in EU security policies going forward. Will there be a citizens assembly specifically for this purpose? Academics would be very supportive of it. Yeah, I mean, I'm certainly open to that. I know that the, you know, the the strategic has, has I think mentioned different approaches that will be considered by government. You know, I think certainly citizens assemblies have served us well in terms of changing societal perspectives on certain issues. Government leadership needs to be part of that too. You know, I don't think we should just necessarily hand this to a citizens assembly. I think, I think government ministers, I think politicians and all political parties need to be involved in a broad discussion that is evidence based, you know, and not only history based in terms of of the the threats that the government needs to respond to more comprehensively than we are currently doing today and into the future. So, so yeah, I'm certainly not saying no to citizens assembly, I think that might be a useful contribution. But there may be other ways as well in which we can broaden this debate. We can help to create a mandate effectively for a government to adapt our approaches towards security and common security and how Ireland interacts with the world. You know, from a peacekeeping perspective, from a humanitarian perspective, you know, Ireland is not a neutral country. There are many things that we are committed to, and will make interventions to protect and support and change. What we are is militarily not aligned. And in that sense, we are neutral. But but I think, you know, this, but many other circumstances have shown that Ireland is a very active country on the world stage. And anybody who thinks that neutrality means we just stay out of things and stay out of quarrels. I think misunderstands what what Ireland's place in the international community actually means. What about the situation in Russia have a question from member of the Institute Ray McGowan, thanking you for your moving if if somber speech. What would you say to the view of Gary Caspar of Russian x word chess champion that to a disconnected warmonger such as Putin continued restraint by the liberal democracies in support of Ukraine is viewed as simply more of the weakness and indecision, which led to his decision to invade. I don't think the response from the EU has been weak at all. In fact, it was interesting speaking to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. Dimitro. He's spoken to the EU foreign ministers a number of times, but one of the points that he made was that, you know, before this war, while many Ukrainians wanted EU membership for their country. They also saw the European Union is somewhat weak. In terms of this unity, the length of time it took to make decisions and so on. But actually, since this war began. The strength of the European Union has been so evident to people in Ukraine. And that coming from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister I think is in some some some ways quite a powerful message in terms of how they see us now in a much stronger light in terms of our ability to act and protect our ourselves our people our values and so on. So, I can understand the perspective of, you know, a very intelligent man who wants to see Russia challenged for the decisions that they're taking and the international law that they're breaking. But I think if what he's getting at is that there needs to be military intervention to scale this up to show the strength of the world to Russia. There would be consequences to that consequences that are difficult to predict, but but certainly potentially very very tragic in terms of extending the war beyond Ukraine. So, instead, what has happened is probably the most comprehensive package of sanctions that we have ever seen imposed on a country. And if you look at the predictions in terms of where the Russian economy is going now, you can see just how dramatic an impact those those political decisions are likely to have across Russia. One thing I would say though is that, you know, the, the limit of of political intervention here in response to this illegal war in Ukraine cannot be to respond with tougher and tougher and tougher measures alone in terms of creating a consequence and a deterrent for the continuation of war. There's no way to involve very proactive diplomacy, because ultimately we have to find a way of ending this war. I believe that this is a gross miscalculation or has been a gross miscalculation by Russia, and by the Kremlin, in terms of underestimating the capacity of the EU to respond to the US to respond. And the partnership of countries that have now really unified behind that response. I think they also underestimated the ability of Ukrainians to resist. So, on that basis, we do have to try to find a way through diplomacy and politics of offering Russia a change of course that can move away from military aggression and war towards negotiation and diplomacy, even though that will be difficult. And we know what the issues are, you know, we know what they are. So that's why I was in New York yesterday at the UN, trying to focus on on those diplomatic efforts to try to create an out here that where nobody is humiliated. And where we can, we can try to construct a basis for a change in direction in the Kremlin. But that being said, what's happened in Ukraine is not going to be forgotten or forgiven anytime soon. And the accountability that's necessary in terms of the, the war crimes that are likely to have been committed is is a very important aspect of the aftermath of this conflict as well. But, but you know, Ireland will continue to ask the hard questions in terms of what is being done, and who is doing it, and who is best placed to be impactful. And the diplomatic and political interventions that are necessary to end this war as soon as possible because, because that has to be the first priority. Everything else flows from that. Just picking up on the, the UN point I have a question here from Jerry Fitzgerald, who's a former member of our defense forces, thanking Minister Coveney, is the United Nations Security Council damaged in light of the war in Ukraine. What impact might this have on Ireland's triple lock. Well, two questions there. Yes, I think it is somewhat damaged. It's not the first time that's happened though. I mean anytime the veto is used by a P5 member. I think the credibility of the, of the Security Council is damaged. So, you know, we had 131 countries co-sponsor emotion that we brought to the Security Council, or resolution that we brought to the Security Council on climate and at the end of last year, Russia decided to veto it, despite the fact that 131 countries co-sponsored it from the from the General Assembly. You know that damaged the credibility of the Security Council, which was clearly not in tune with what the vast majority of the of UN member states want. But even more damaging blow to the credibility of the Security Council. Don't forget Russia was in the chair of the Security Council. When they launched an invasion of their neighbor, and then vetoed a resolution that Ireland was involved with many other countries in putting together. And so, you know, if you look at what happened after that. It was in the Security Council out of frustration, but also determination to hold Russia to account moved quickly to bring a resolution to the floor of the UN General Assembly. And only four countries along with Russia voted against that resolution. They were Syria, Belarus, Eritrea and North Korea. And I think that says a lot. So, so I think yes is the answer to the question, is the Security Council's credibility damaged, but not for the first time. The answer that question is yes, you know, when there was a veto used in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, it was damaged too. So unfortunately, that use of the veto is a, you know, is a mechanism that in my view needs to change. But it's very hard to change it when the countries that hold that power, five countries, I think are very slow to to accept, or to support that change. The second question that Terry asked, sorry, what was the second question. He asked for its impact on the triple lock. Right. Sorry, yeah. So, yeah, the triple lock system, as people know is, you know, if, if Ireland are to send troops abroad into a potential conflict situation, we have to have government approval, doile approval and a UN mandate to do it. And so the argument against the triple lock is that Russia or China, or any other of the three, three other P five member states could essentially veto a UN mandate and therefore prevent Ireland sending troops to certain parts of the world and is that acceptable particularly in the context of what we're seeing in Ukraine right now. And those arguments, and from a political perspective. That's a very legitimate concern in practice actually, we've never wanted to send our troops to a part of the world where we've been prevented in doing so by a veto being used in the Security Council that I'm aware of anyway. And some of the humanitarian work we've done like for example sending a ship to the med for example, or even some of the training missions that we have like for example in Mali, don't require the triple lock, either. So, is this a, is this a flawed policy, theoretically yes potentially, has it prevented us sending troops to parts of the world where we feel we want an Irish input in practice. No it hasn't yet. But it's certainly something I think we should be willing and open to amend and change certainly I'm very open to that. I don't understand that changing the triple lock would all of a sudden dramatically change in practice where we decide to send peacekeepers, because it probably wouldn't. But is it appropriate to consider whether or not there is a political problem now with the triple lock mechanism. Yeah, I'm certainly open to that. So the question here, there's been, you know, minister at home debate about embassies and ambassadors and their role. Liam Roach, who's a member of the Institute asks, will Ireland review the role of autocratic state representatives in Ireland, and indeed not just the embassies, but also cultural such as the Confucius Institute. I think, I think in truth where we're reviewing all the time our relationships with other countries. I think it would be a mistake though to, to look to start cutting off diplomatic ties with countries that we have strong differences of opinion with. Because sometimes it's all the more reason to need diplomatic channels of communication. And if you disagree with somebody, it's important to communicate that as much as the, you know, the more comfortable and easier relationships with countries that we're in close partnership with, you know, and I think that is important. You know, I've always taken the approach, well, certainly since I became Foreign Minister, I've taken the approach that it's important to understand China as much as we can it's an enormous country. It's not a country that you can cut off or ignore, or at least in my view, it shouldn't be because of its size and scale and influence on the world. And from my experience, the more you talk to Chinese ministers, the more likely you are to build a relationship that can impact on trying to persuade a change of policy, or to have a, you know, fundamental disagreement on something or whatever. And ensure that that message is heard. You know, so, so you know, I do hear the concerns. I think the EU as a whole is having an ongoing debate as to how it develops its relationship with China in the future, economically, politically from the human rights perspective from a democratic perspective, from a regulatory point of view, and so on so forth. Ireland needs to be involved in that discussion. And we need, we need those channels of communication, just like even though we fundamentally disagree with what Russia are doing right now and we have been very critical in condemning their war in Ukraine. That that in my view doesn't mean that we should be cutting ties. You know, if anything, we need to make sure that that channel of communication remains open. But yes, I do think we need to look at the appropriateness of the size and scale of a presence here in terms of diplomatic footprint and beyond that too. But I think that's an ongoing discussion that that we'll have and just to reassure your, your question or sorry, I didn't get his name. Liam Roach. Sorry, just to reassure him that's that's something that's, you know, that's under, you know, active consideration all the time. A question from Alexander Conway who works at the Institute as a researcher. Would the minister agree with the assertion made in today's garden by Luke van middler that the challenge for the EU and Ireland is whether it can change its ethos and demeanour from an economic and political project to being a geopolitical actor capable of realistically coexisting with a rival like China or Russia. Oh, I mean that has to be done. So, you know, I mean, if, if the EU is to be a player in the world. If the EU is to protect and guarantee its own value system and way of life. Well then we have to influence other parts of the world to protect our own interests, but also to support and protect other countries that that share that value system and that ethos and that way of life in terms of democratic values. And that all that flows from that so you know I think there is a fair criticism of the EU that even though it's an economic powerhouse. And it guarantees a high quality of life for its own citizens or at least has managed to do so in recent decades that it needs to do more on a world stage to be a heavyweight if you like, in terms of influencing policy decisions, whether it's in Beijing or Moscow or Manila or Bangkok or wherever. And, you know, I think we see that now in a much more proactive policy towards Africa, for example. You know, in my view, the European Union has has been slow to to accept the level of ambition that's needed in our own neighborhood, particularly on the other side of the Mediterranean in North Africa and in sub Saharan Africa across the Sahel. And there in my view, the EU needs to be a partner in helping to provide peace and stability and democratic development. Likewise we've, you know, we have started been starting to focus on how the EU can can develop a more structured partner partnership with with Gulf States with the GCC. And we had a strategic meeting with GCC ministers on that recently. So, so yeah, you know, there, there is this view that the EU is a big economic and political union that is focused on its own well being and quality of life and standard of living, and it has been somewhat weak in terms of influencing global affairs, and it's left that to other large countries that see themselves as global superpowers, you know, one of the mindsets I think that partly drove Brexit and, you know, Britain's new global strategy and so on. But I think that is very much changing and when you look at what the European Union has done in response to war on Ukraine. I think you are reminded of what's possible when the EU acts together. And, and just how powerful that can be without military intervention, but, but with economic targeted interventions. I think, I think perhaps we are looking at a new formula being developed. As we speak driven by circumstances in terms of how the Western world if you like should be responding to conflict and to aggression in other parts of the world. Because it is, it is even for a country as powerful as Russia, which is a big military power but, but isn't a necessarily a superpower economically. Russia's economy is a similar size to Germany's. It's a big economy but, you know, in comparison to China or the US or the collective economic strength of the European Union it's not. So, so yeah, I think Europe is learning by forced circumstance if you like, just how powerful it can be when it acts together. And it can happen. Ironically, without military intervention, even though of course we're supporting militarily at the Ukrainian Armed Forces indirectly. But I think the pressure that Moscow is feeling today has surprised many people. You mentioned earlier the information and the cyber aspects of this of this conflict. And I just wonder to what extent that has been among the points discussed by EU Foreign Ministers whether the EU perhaps do more in that in that area and thinking about the distinction you've made Minister between the Russian people and the Kremlin, and the massive gap if I could put it that way between the understanding of what is going on in Ukraine in Russia on the one hand and in the rest of the world to put it to put it no less than that on the other. Is everything that the EU has in this area the various agencies that have been set up in recent years in response to disinformation. Are they all being mobilized and used to the greatest extent. As you know, so it's hard to know what's being deployed and what's not to be honest, cyber attacks misinformation, the dark web, the dark arts of, of information wars if you like on on state and non state owned platforms is is unfortunately one of the security considerations that every country needs to plan for and prepare for even a country as powerful as the United States weren't able to prevent cyber attacks shutting down large parts of their energy networks in terms of gas pipelines and so on. So we, we were subject to an attack on our health system in the middle of COVID, which cost us in and about 120 130 million euros to fix, and put many people's lives at risks in hospitals. So, you know, it's certainly Europe has significant capacity here as does Russia, as does China, as is the US. It's worth noting that President Zelensky, and the messages coming out of Ukraine have been consistent and powerful and accurate for most of the world, even though I'm sure Russia has put in a huge amount of resource into trying to shut that off, and they've been able to do it. What they have been able to do is to is to shut down social media platforms within Russia, and of course to, to create a huge deterrent for Russians who want to tell the truth I mean ironically they've passed a law to say that there's a 15 year term for people who are responsible for, for any acts of disinformation linked to the military exercises in Ukraine. I mean, ironically, what that actually means is there's a 15 year jail sentence for anyone who's telling the truth. It's interesting when you think about it, you know in a country the size of Russia. So, so yeah it's, it's an information war. And as a result, there are many Russian people who believe that what their president is doing is the right thing, and for the right reasons, and that there are, there are forces that need to be addressed in Ukraine and can only be addressed by Russian military to take on fascism and Nazism and so on I mean, it is just unbelievable that that we are seeing that kind of messaging in 2022. When we see, as I said earlier when I was speaking when we think about Europe's history in terms of misinformation coming from the top of government, justifying military invasion. As I say, I think most Europeans just cannot believe this is happening in the content of Europe again. And, and that's why we need to bring it to an end quickly and move beyond it in terms of holding people to account and rebuilding Ukraine as an independent sovereign country. I'm just going back probably the last question minister to the climate issue and sort of joining it to the the Ukrainian issue, Claire Woods who works at the European Parliament asked German Vice Chancellor Habeck recently said, we know and we have to admit that it has maneuvered ourselves into ever greater dependence on fossil fuels from Russia. This arguably led to ignoring signs of Russian aggression over the past 15 years. In the context of the existential threat from climate change arising from the purchase and burning of fossil fuels. Would you think that the Irish people are open to initiate a conversation about who it is that we as EU member states do business with in the energy sector. Oh yeah sure we're having that conversation that's what these sanctions are all about, you know. And by the way, I think, I think what's happening in Ukraine at the moment is not confined to Ukraine in terms of policy consequence and what I mean by that is, I had some really interesting conversations in the last few days with with senior business leaders around how they supply chains in the future. And where they source product in the context of what they've seen in Ukraine and the pace at which it has changed how they view the world in terms of security of supply and supply chain consistency and so on. So that won't be confined to Russia. As part of sanctions. And I think this, this actually could be detrimental to, to parts of the world that have built economic models on effectively building supply capacity and manufacturing capacity to supply into into parts of the world where consumers can afford to spend a lot more on products. But the knock on consequences of this war. In my view will be quite enormous in, not only in terms of gas prices all prices and cold prices steel prices and timber prices and many other products as well. And also actually how the private sector trades and trusts systems to be resilient to economic shocks political shocks military shocks and so on in the future. And also, you know the those cost of living increases while we're looking at how that impacts on Ireland, in terms of families being able to afford to put fuel in the car and to feed themselves and so on. So let's think about how this impacts on parts of the world that are almost entirely reliant on food imports. But who do not have the kind of income per capita that we have, you know, large parts of Asia and Africa, parts of the developing world, who simply can't afford the changes in supply costs that are now coming. So, in that context, having to deliver what we need to deliver on climate and emissions reductions is, is even more demanding now than it was before. If you listen to the European Commission, particularly commissioner timid, tournaments but also present Vanderlein and others. You know, I think the resolve and the commitment now within the Commission to really accelerate the green revolution across Europe is really going to happen now. I think you will look at regulations being being focused on to try to shorten timeframes around licensing and permitting and so on for renewables. But I also think you will, you will see the European Union, you know, it was stated yesterday will actively now move to move away from a reliance on Russia for for carbon based fuels. And, you know, if there's, like, there are two very clear lessons from from this war. Russia will clearly not hold a very high percentage of its financial reserves in the EU in the future, and the EU will certainly not rely on Russia, primarily for its fuel in the future either. And both I think have exposed vulnerabilities in terms of supply shocks and so on. So, so yeah, I think in a strange way this will accelerate the, the move to renewables away from fossil based fuels, it'll probably provoke a new debate around nuclear as well, although not in Ireland, but in other parts of Europe. And the challenge of that though, is that if Europe collectively as well as other parts of the world are moving to renewables quickly. The, the inflation effect of everybody trying to move in the same direction faster, looking to, to access the same materials, the same companies for a, you know, a rapid uptick in, in, in delivery of offshore turbines for example. And to also make those projects more expensive, because, because countries will be competing for finite similar resources. So none of this is easy. And, and that's why, you know, as I said at the start, this war in Ukraine even when it ends and hopefully it'll end in days not in weeks or months with the ceasefire, but when it ends, it will have fundamentally changed a lot of things, which won't be reversed easily. So, is there time Minister for one or two questions to finish up. I think so yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, one from the Irish Times from Cormac McQuinn. I'll just read it out what is Ireland's position on the apparent attempt by Poland to provide fighter jets to Ukraine, using the US as an intermediary. Do we support fighter jets being provided to Ukraine. So Ireland's taken a position not to support the supply of lethal weapons into Ukraine financially, even though we are making a full contribution to the, to the peace facility financially but our focus has been on, you know, protective equipment helmets, protective vests, fuel medical supplies, and so on so forth, all of which are needed. We haven't really been involved in the debate on what kind of lethal weapons should be provided. For that reason, because I, you know, I think to input into that debate, we have to be credible on that. And, you know, Ireland's focus has been on humanitarian support and non lethal weapons. So I think, I think Ireland expressing a strong view that somebody else should do it, even if we're not willing to. I don't believe that's a credible approach. So that's why we haven't been vocal on that issue, and aren't going to be. Last question for myself. I know you've been very active minister in relation to the Iran nuclear file and the JC POA. And there were hints at least of some hope that something might be achieved a couple of weeks ago. Do you think that has been derailed or set back by the, by the Ukraine invasion or do you still hold out some some hope in relation to progress there. Yeah, I need to be a little bit careful with what I say on this because we're maybe too close to us. There's already enough pressures on, on trying to find a way to get a deal done without me adding to them in terms of public commentary but all I'd say to you on this is that, and just for, for those who are listening who might know. Ireland is the, the facilitator on the UN Security Council for the resolution that is the basis for the Iranian nuclear deal. So we have a sort of a formal role in terms of bringing this file to the Security Council for consideration. So that's why I've been in Tehran twice in the last 11 months. Some people might have been wondering why that's why the Iranian Foreign Minister has been to Dublin that's why I've met the Iran Foreign Minister in New York as well. You know, we've gone from not meeting an Iranian Foreign Minister for almost 20 years to meeting four times in 10 or 11 months in an effort to try to make a constructive contribution to getting a deal over the line. There's been a negotiation stroke dialogue in Vienna for nine months. There was a sort of a break in that negotiation when there was a change of government in Iran after the elections. And to be honest with you, we are really close to getting a deal done. When I say we the international community, you know, Ireland plays a small part in it, but this is really about Iran and the other key parties to the JCP away, who effectively are the P5 facilitated then by by the EU in terms of negotiations in Vienna. Undoubtedly the war in Ukraine has has made it more difficult to get an agreement. Because the scale of the sanctions on Russia now potentially impacts on the benefits to Russia over removal of sanctions in Iran. The fear that we've had for a number of weeks which is why we've been trying to push for a deal before Russia's war in Ukraine happened, because we knew that it would create a lot of complexity because actually Russia and the US and, and others, the UK France and Germany and the EU had been, you know, have been have been working towards trying to get a resolution in a very constructive way. As have Iran, to be fair, in terms of trying to make this happen. But obviously the tensions elsewhere now make that more difficult in terms of the parties to the JCP away so we are, we're working on that issue as our others to try and find a way through, because this really needs to be done very soon. For it to succeed. Otherwise, I think we'll simply have missed missed the sweet spot for agreement if you want to call it that. And that would be a tragedy really, because you know, guarantees that ensure that Iran are not pursuing a nuclear weapon are guarantees that we should be fighting very hard to put in place. And that's what this deal does. So as a country that is, that does a lot of work on nuclear non proliferation and disarmament more generally, which is also a context, in terms of common questions question, and my answer to it. You know, we do have credibility in this space. And that's why we, we volunteered to be part of the art to take on that facilitator role. And we've been very active in that facilitation role. Thank you Minister, and thank you for for coming to the idea of being at the IEA to make such an important speech. And thank you for the time you've given and the thought you've given to answering the questions or to think of given rise to a pretty interesting and discussion. It only remains on my own behalf and all the membership to wish you well to wish you success wish you stamina because you've you've advert it to the length of time it may take to hopefully ceasefire first soon as possible, but to find a resolution will take longer and that will take effort and stamina. We all wish you and your colleagues, all the very best in that very important task. Thank you again, Minister. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Thanks to everybody.