Vol. 566 No. 5
1 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence if there are plans to amend the Defence Acts to enable the Defence Forces to participate in peacekeeping missions that are sanctioned and supported by the EU, though not by a UN resolution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13207/03]
Ireland's commitment to collective security is pursued through the United Nations which has the primary role to play in the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN possesses no standing military forces of its own and relies on the provision of such resources by willing members. National sovereignty is a fundamental underlying principle of participation in the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP. Participation in any specific operation by member states is decided on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with respective national decision making procedures.
The provisions relating to participation of members of the Defence Forces in overseas missions are set out in the Defence (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1960, as amended by the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993, which provides that a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be despatched for service outside the State as part of a particular international United Nations force. Participation in an overseas operation requires UN authorisation, a specific Government decision and, where the level of participation is to exceed 12 members of the Defence Forces, the approval of Dáil Éireann. At a time of geopolitical instability and change, it is important that the international community continues to support the United Nations in maintaining peace and stability.
While I would not wish that our legislative provisions would prevent the Defence Forces from participation in missions which support Ireland's underlying principles of providing support in the areas of international peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, or peace support operations, it is important at this time that our decision-making process continues to reflect our support for the United Nations. In this regard, the circumstances which arose in relation to the participation of the Defence Forces in the first EU peace support operation, currently under way in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM, are unlikely to recur.
These circumstances, it will be recalled, related to the fact that while a United Nations Resolution, 1371 welcomed international efforts, including the efforts of the EU, to support the implementation of the Ohrid Peace Agreement in FYROM, it did not authorise an international United Nations force as required by the Defence Acts. This was a unique situation and I expect that future EU Petersberg Task missions will have the required UN authorisation, thereby enabling the Government to consider Defence Forces participation on a case by case basis. Therefore, the question of legislative change in this regard does not arise.
While we all appreciate and recognise the massive contribution made by our peacekeeping troops in different parts of the world for the past 40 or 50 years, does the Minister not agree that, as things have developed in recent years, the so-called triple-lock mechanism may be an obstacle to further participation in peacekeeping missions abroad? In his reply, the Minister mentioned the recent difficulties we had in Macedonia. I also recall that last year we were almost obliged to withdraw our peacekeeping forces from Kosovo due to the fact that the United States intended to use its veto on the Security Council because it did not want its soldiers or personnel to be subject to the International Criminal Court. While we all agree it is important to have the approval of the Government and Dáil Éireann, as things are at present the triple-lock mechanism ties our hands so that we are no longer sole arbiters of whether we can participate. Some country or another on the UN Security Council might exercise a veto. The case of Macedonia had full EU and UN approval, except that the peacekeeping force was not established by the UN. It had UN approval and that kept us from participating. Does the Minister not agree that it is time to look at the mechanism, particularly the UN establishment? Would UN approval not even be sufficient?
As I said in my reply, I am anxious that the legislative situation would not prevent us from participating. There are two fundamental principles, the first of which is the democratic position, under which we have the Defence Acts, which make certain prescriptions to which we must adhere. Deputy McGinley agrees there is no problem with wanting to do that. The second question relates to the UN itself, in that the further one goes away from requiring a UN mandate, the less important the UN becomes. It is important for the international community that there is an independent, forceful and resourceful organisation, authorising mandates and getting involved.
Once we get away from that, we start the process of undermining the UN authority and, if we did not have an organisation like the United Nations, we would now have to establish it. I wish to protect it as far as I can. I am not saying this House or any Government should not, from time to time, review its position and create as much flexibility as it can. However, as I see it, the Macedonian situation is one that is not likely to recur. If there were a number of such occurrences, we could return and discuss what we might do in that situation. For the time being, I want to give wholehearted support to the possibility of the UN maintaining its authority on the international front.
Does the Minister not agree that there is a likelihood that the EU will initiate more peacekeeping forces which will repeat the Macedonian situation? As far as the UN is concerned, we have always been supportive. However, there seems to be some contradiction in the Government's attitude because the Iraqi campaign did not occur as a result of a UN resolution, even though the Government participated in an indirect way by providing the facilities at Shannon.
It has been made clear on a number of occasions by the Taoiseach and others what the true legal situation was regarding Iraq and the fact that we were not facilitating the war in any way.
Come on.
We want to make sure that the authority of the UN is not undermined and I am satisfied that there is no prospect of changing the legislative base for facilitating action by our troops in different parts of the world.
