I call Deputy Ó Fearghaíl who has 30 minutes.
International Peace Missions Deployment Bill 2003: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
On a point of order, given that we have eaten into Private Members' time, is the Government supportive of extending the time accordingly to allow all who wish to speak to contribute?
There is no order before the House.
Is the Government willing to extend the time accordingly?
No.
My party would be in favour of extending the order if such a proposal was made.
It is not agreeable.
It is not acceptable to the Government.
I wish to share time with Deputies Nolan, Devins, and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is interesting to see that the recent outbreak of unity on the Opposition benches has completely dissipated with this Bill put forward by the Fine Gael Party. We have been led to believe in recent weeks that a realistic alternative comprising the proponents of tonight's Bill aligned with the Labour Party and the Green Party was available to give the electorate a real choice. There can be little doubt that as in so many other policy areas, there is little common ground on this issue among the disparate groups across the House.
The Labour Party position is that it welcomes this debate.
I welcome this debate and I congratulate Deputies Gay Mitchell and McGinley on their constructive approach. It is refreshing to see an Opposition party using Private Members' time to propose alternatives rather than simply indulging in the usual politics of empty condemnation. As the Taoiseach said at the National Forum on Europe, we encourage an open and healthy debate on security and defence issues, and I see the Fine Gael proposals in that context.
Ireland has a proud record of peacekeeping and a strong commitment to collective security. The vehicle for both has for long been the United Nations. The United Nations has the primary role to play in the maintenance of international peace and security. As the United Nations has no standing military forces of its own, it is obliged to depend on the provision of such resources by willing members. We have always supported co-operative multilateral arrangements for collective security through the development of international organisations, notably the UN. Since joining the United Nations in 1955 Governments of every stripe have confirmed Ireland's position regarding the UN as the international authority for co-operative arrangements for collective security. Complementary to this we have acknowleged and defended the primary role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security on the basis of the UN Charter.
Sovereignty is a fundamental underlying principle of participation in the European Security and Defence Policy. 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 Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, as amended by the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993, outlines the provisions relating to participation of members of the Defence Forces in overseas missions. These provide 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. Our 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 when we are experiencing a high degree of geopolitical instability and change, it is imperative that the international community continues to support the United Nations in building and promoting peace and stability. I support the previously stated position of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, that he would not wish that our laws 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.
Fine Gael often refers to the situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In this regard, the circumstances which arose in relation to the participation of the Defence Forces in the first EU peace support operation are unlikely to recur. It will be recalled that these circumstances related to the fact that while United Nations Resolution 1371 welcomed international efforts, including the efforts of the EU, to support the implementation of the Ohrid Peace Agreement in Macedonia, it did not authorise an international United Nations force as required by the Defence Acts. This was a unique situation and it is likely that future EU 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. This is not just the position of the Government. The EU high representative for the common foreign and security policy, Mr. Javier Solana, pointed out to Deputy Gay Mitchell at the National Forum on Europe that Macedonia was the only such example he could bring to mind. He pointed out that it is a very untypical example.
There are two fundamental principles, the first of which is the democratic position under which we have the Defence Acts which set limits we must observe. 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. We must avoid undermining the authority of the United Nations. The UN may have its critics but no one can say we would be better off if we did not have an organisation like it.
I welcome the Government's aim to protect and uphold the authority of the UN. The Macedonian situation may well be a one-off and it is right to give wholehearted support to the possibility of the UN maintaining its authority on the international front. It is just 18 months since we finally ratified the Treaty of Nice. Successive referenda have seen the issue of Irish neutrality and participation in military ventures become a major issue.
In an Adjournment debate on the Seville declaration on neutrality on 19 June 2002, the Government made it clear that there was no plan to change the basis on which Irish troops participate in peacekeeping and conflict prevention operations. This declaration reaffirmed that we will take our own sovereign decision on whether Irish troops should participate in humanitarian or crisis management tasks mounted by the EU, based on the triple lock of UN endorsement, Government decision and Dáil approval. The Seville declaration was a central plank in the Government's campaign for ratification of the Nice treaty.
Notwithstanding the problems the United Nations has experienced in the past few years, there remains little doubt that there is strong support nationally and internationally for its function as the international body to uphold peace and security. Its stamp of approval confers a legitimacy on operations and I have no doubt the vast majority of Irish people would be very reluctant to see our Defence Forces engage in activities not sanctioned by the Security Council, even if the operation was compatible with the Charter of the United Nations, as suggested by Deputy Gay Mitchell.
We must acknowledge that at times the UN is less than satisfactory — its Secretary General has said as much. However, I do not believe we should turn our backs on its decisions and processes. We must work to support the UN in its endeavours. The end of the Cold War and the bipolarisation it represented has naturally resulted in a more fluid and unstable situation. While we may be a neutral country, ours is an active not a passive neutrality. We work for peace and we seek international collective action to achieve it.
We should also bear in mind that the European Union is a union of liberal democracies. While liberal democracy may seem a normal state of affairs to us, it is still a club that is viewed with suspicion in some quarters of the globe. The United Nations and the Security Council recognise the reality of the world as it is. At times that may be unsatisfactory but we need consistency of approach. We would ignore the wishes of the United Nations at our peril and possibly at the peril of our Defence Forces. I oppose the Bill but, in doing so, I again compliment the Fine Gael Party for its constructive proposal.
I am pleased to speak on the Bill. It is well intentioned and I compliment the Opposition on putting it before the House. However, implied in the Bill is severe criticism of the United Nations, which is not the way we should go about our business. We all accept that the United Nations as constituted is anything but perfect. Most UN members agree and are trying to improve it. If we were to approve this legislation, it would be more of a reflection on the members of the United Nations than on the organisation itself.
Ireland currently participates in 19 overseas missions. We have been an active and full member of the United Nations since joining in 1955 and our first overseas mission in the early 1960s. The Defence Forces have brought great honour to Ireland through their participation in peace support operations. Their commitment and dedicated service in overseas missions reflects not alone on the Defence Forces but on the nation as a whole, and contributes to the excellent reputation which Ireland holds among peacekeepers throughout the world.
However, participation in peacekeeping operations is not without risk. It is important to recall that over 84 members of the Defence Forces have lost their lives in peacekeeping operations. Before sending forces overseas, it must always be to the forefront of the thinking of the Defence Forces, the Department of Defence and the Government that the safety and security of our personnel is paramount.
I compliment the Minister for Defence, his Department and the Government on their investment in the Defence Forces over the past five years, particularly on new equipment. Two new ships have been acquired for the Naval Service, 40 new APCs at a cost of €1 million each have been acquired for the Army and the Air Corps will begin receiving new aircraft this summer. Morale is improving in the Defence Forces, training is up to international standards and there is a well-educated, professional officer corps. The Defence Forces are respected internationally and the experience of overseas service is to the benefit of our Army personnel. We are currently involved in over 19 overseas missions, which provides experience that cannot be taught to soldiers, NCOs or officers in courses at the Curragh.
While the Bill is well intentioned, it is not the correct way to undertake our business and would send the wrong message to the United Nations and to our international partners, the members of the UN. The Bill is as much a comment on the failure of members as it is a comment on the organisation of the United Nations. There are limitations and deficiencies to the existing system, which everyone recognises. The Bill as proposed implies there are serious flaws within the United Nations, although nobody is trying to suggest that the organisation is perfect. Nonetheless, the Minister is correct to oppose the Bill as there are other ways in which we can do our business in a better and more efficient manner.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on this important motion proposed by the Fine Gael Party. It is timely that such an important issue is discussed in the House. Ireland is a small country yet we have had an influence on world affairs disproportionate to our size. The Defence Forces have played an important role in representing the country abroad. It is generally recognised that they are trained and equipped to the highest level and have acquitted themselves with distinction while on overseas duty.
This country became a member of the UN in 1955 and it was only three years later that we were called upon to make our first contribution to a peace support mission when we sent personnel to the Lebanon as observers. The first deployment of our troops was to the Congo in 1960 and, since then, the Defence Forces have served all over the world. This service represents nearly 25,000 man and woman years of effort on the part of the Defence Forces and all of it has been with UN-led or UN-authorised missions. The basis for Ireland's participation is firmly grounded in the UN. The UN has been recognised by successive Governments as the international authority for collective security, and the role of the Security Council is as the prime driver in the maintenance of international peace and security, which is in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
At all times, the role of any United Nations force and, by extension, Irish forces serving under the umbrella of the UN, has been that of peacekeepers. In more recent times, however, this task has become more complex and involves a full range of responses to crisis situations.
Peacekeeping is now a much more holistic function and involves responses which are based on respect for international law and human rights. In all that time our Defence Forces have acted in a fully professional manner and at times they have unfortunately paid the ultimate price with their lives. As speakers said last night, since 1960 82 members of our Defence Forces have lost their lives on these missions. I knew some of those brave soldiers personally, and their courage and dedication to the ideals of our country will never and must never be forgotten. They made the ultimate sacrifice while working on our behalf.
As we speak, members of our Defence Forces are serving in Liberia on a very dangerous mission and many soldiers from Sligo and Leitrim are involved. I know they are proud of their important role in bringing peace to that war-torn country. Before their departure many issues, such as the conditions they would encounter, were raised with me and I congratulate the Minister who responded to all my queries on their behalf in a straightforward and commendable way. Those Irish soldiers are equipped in the best possible way to meet whatever challenges they may encounter in Liberia. Their families are all looking forward to their safe return and it is only natural that there is a degree of apprehension until they come back. The dedication of those brave men and women will help allay their families' concerns.
Previous speakers pointed out that our soldiers cannot be sent abroad unless the triple lock is in place — approval by the Dáil, the Government and the UN. In light of the dangers our Defence Forces face on peacekeeping duties, at times the UN seems somewhat unwieldy, cumbersome or slow in action, but if the forces are to have legitimacy they must work under the umbrella of the UN. It is better that Ireland works within the UN structure to help remove road blocks to justifiable action rather than ignoring the UN and taking action unilaterally. There are rumblings among some people that the EU or bodies such as NATO may substitute for the UN as an external guarantor of overseas action by our Defence Forces. I do not subscribe to that view. No other body in existence has the moral or legal standing of the UN, which represents nearly all the countries of the world. Since our Defence Forces first joined UN missions they have served all over the world and I hope they will continue to do so. The only legitimate body which can authorise such action is the UN, with the prior approval of the Dáil and Government.
Given what Ireland stands for on the international stage, ignoring the need for a UN mandate would remove an essential component of the balancing mechanism and might expose our soldiers and, by extension, this country to dangers which might have horrific consequences.
The triple lock mechanism should remain in place. Let us try to improve the internal workings of the UN rather than abandoning that which has worked so well to date.
I welcome the chance to speak on this topic as we rarely get the opportunity to speak on matters of defence and our international peace missions. I thank Fine Gael for tabling this as its Private Members' Business. It is always opportune to discuss something we are proud of, like Ireland's participation in world events. Our history of involvement in UN mission goes back to the 1960 Congo mission. Our Defence Forces have participated in missions all over the world, in Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, Africa and South America, and the Irish people are very proud of them. There have been 50,000 different tours of duty on UN-led or UN-authorised missions, which make up a tremendous contribution by the Irish people.
That contribution is based on our approach to international relations, which is based on maintaining international peace and security, and which is founded on the principle of international co-operative multilateralism. We give effect to our policy through our participation, commitment and support for international organisations and in particular the United Nations and the European Union. In that regard Ireland fully recognises that global security can only be achieved through collective action by the international community as a whole.
The UN is founded on this principle, bringing together the nations of the world in a co-operative organisation which has at its core the prevention and resolution of conflict. The UN Charter gives to the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. For the international community, the United Nations, despite all its recognised flaws — and at times its failures — provides the chief source of legitimacy in the conduct of international relations. The legitimacy of the actions of member states and regional organisations in responding to conflicts is grounded in the UN Charter and in particular in the resolutions of the Security Council. Support for such a rules-based international order has long been a fundamental element of Ireland's foreign policy.
Ireland's policy on the deployment of its troops in peace support operations requires that an effective UN authorisation be in place. This requirement is grounded in the fact that Ireland accepts the legitimacy and the primary role of the Security Council in the maintenance of peace and security. That policy has found favour and resonance among successive Irish Governments and more particularly among the Irish people in their adoption of the Nice treaty.
Despite assertions to the contrary, Ireland's commitment to the UN system has not in practice impeded Ireland's participation in and support for the new developments in the area of peacekeeping, peace enforcement, conflict prevention and the increasing use of regional organisations. The reality is that the demand for peacekeepers of the high calibre of the Irish Defence Forces for service on UN-authorised peace support operations is significantly in excess of what we can reasonably support within our available resources. Our current contribution to UN-authorised peace support operations is at its highest level since our withdrawal from UNIFIL in 2001.
It has been asserted that the use of regional organisations for enforcement action in the event of threat to international peace and security is fully envisaged in Article 53 of the UN Charter. However, it should be noted that any enforcement action taken by such organisations is still subject to the approval of the Security Council. In that context Ireland continues to participate in missions in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Afghanistan, which have either been under the leadership of a lead nation or a regional organisation. Ireland also participated in the EU-led mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Operation Artemis.
Ireland's support for the UN is fully in line with EU policy and with the developing ESDP. In its recently adopted security strategy, the EU makes it clear that the UN is the crucial organisation in relation to international collective action in response to international crises. In addition, the primary responsibility of the UN Security Council for international peace and security is clearly endorsed by the EU. The EU supports the principal of multilateralism and works closely with the UN on crisis management issues.
At a time when the EU is endeavouring to enhance its relations with the UN, as I outlined, it is vital, as a member of the UN, as a member of the EU and as holder of the Presidency, that our decision-making process continues to reflect fullsome support for the UN.
This Bill does not do that. If anything it undermines and represents a turning away from the UN and from the primacy of the Security Council. Section 3 of the Bill provides that, subject only to a resolution of Dáil Éireann, a contingent of the Defence Forces can be deployed on peacekeeping or enforcement duties on a mission which accords with the purposes and the principles of the UN Charter. Deputies will recall that in proposing the war on Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom used this argument, stating that their actions were not alone in accordance with the purposes and the principles of the UN Charter but were for the purpose of enforcing specific standing UN Security Council resolutions.
The Minister of State supported them.
This Bill does not require that there be any UN authorisation, good, bad or indifferent. Leaving aside the major change which this would communicate in relation to Ireland's support for the UN and its institutions, it would also remove from any such missions the legitimacy and protection of the UN and would inherently change the nature of our approach to peacekeeping.
The Bill proposes that we cast aside multilateralism and pursue our own actions solely on the basis of sovereign decisions and our interpretation of the UN Charter. At a time when the EU and the international community are promoting and arguing the case for greater collective responsibility, more effective collective decision-making and for multilateralism, this Bill is promoting a form of unilateralism. It ignores the increasing international recognition that it is the UN which provides the widest legitimacy to action by the international community.
The Bill is out of step with what is happening at international level. It serves to erode rather than bolster the primacy of the United Nations in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. It also puts at risk the legitimacy and protection which UN authorisation conveys on overseas peace support operations and the people who serve on them.
In May of this year, I look forward to going to Kosovo to visit our troops there. I am especially interested in seeing the contribution female members of the Defence Forces are making, not only here but in our peacekeeping missions of which we have begun to see more over the years. Having the triple lock system gives them and Ireland a security we should not undermine. By opposing the Bill, I would not like the Opposition to think we did not appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue but, unfortunately, as I said, we feel it is out of step with what is happening at international level.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. Unfortunately for Deputy Gay Mitchell and Fine Gael, I will oppose it. My party is committed to neutrality, the UN and international law. Unfortunately, it appears this legislation would undermine that commitment. The Government operates the triple lock system, something the Green Partyhas always supported. Unfortunately, the Government has also overseen the dismantling of Irish neutrality. However, if we were to accept this legislation, we would undo it in its entirety and give away what is left of it.
The Fine Gael Party is perhaps correct in assessing the thinking in the European Union. It is a member of the European People's Party and I think it understands current thinking in the European Union. There are many people there — I have worked on the defence working group on the Convention on the Future of Europe — who believe neutrality is simply not compatible with membership of the European Union. The Minister of State referred to the EU's commitment to peacekeeping, etc. One can read the various treaties but one will not see the words "neutrality" or "UN mandate" mentioned. Over various treaties, we will find ourselves going down the road towards militarisation.
Deputy Ó Feargháil is no longer present and I wanted to talk to him about this idea of active neutrality. We saw in the Amsterdam treaty, the commitment to the Petersberg Tasks and in the Nice treaty the incorporation of the Western European Union into the EU. We are moving towards further militarisation, so Deputy Ó Feargháil's concept of active neutrality is out the window. It was not applied when it came to Iraq. One hundred thousand people marched on the streets of Dublin but I did not see much active neutrality in the Fianna Fáil stance at that stage because it ignored those people. I did not see much active neutrality when Hans Blix was not allowed to do his job and when the inspectors were not allowed to complete inspections. We know now that no weapons of mass destruction existed. I did not see active neutrality when Fianna Fáil allowed the US to use Shannon Airport to carry out the war in Iraq. That is not active neutrality; it is a strange type of neutrality. It is not the type of neutrality practised in other countries. In fact, this was the only so-called neutral state that allowed its facilities to be used for this war. That is incompatible with any international concept of neutrality.
I pay a great compliment to our service men and women who have performed well under the UN flag. They have a proud record and, as has been said by previous speakers, some have paid the ultimate price. The Green Party has given its full support to the Defence Forces. We recently spoke about sending troops to Liberia and East Timor. We know they are capable of doing a superb job and we wish them well. However, it is not helpful for us to remove the need for a UN mandate. That UN mandate serves as a means of protecting our troops. If we are really serious about the UN, we should support the idea of SHIRBRIG, a rapid reaction force for the UN. That is where we should emphasise our military capabilities and the area into which I would like us to move. This legislation does not merit support.
Sinn Féin's support for a constitutional underpinning for military neutrality and its policy of positive neutrality in action are well known. Approximately one year ago, we introduced a Bill in this House that would have brought this issue to the people in a referendum, and I again thank those parties and Independent Deputies who supported the Sinn Féin proposal. It will, therefore, come as no surprise that Sinn Féin opposes this Fine Gael Bill which seeks to involve Ireland even more deeply in the EU's evolving role as a military superpower and as a militarised alliance acting as a NATO surrogate with the result of further undermining the beleaguered United Nations.
The EU does not have a valid role in international security. The United Nations, as the only fully inclusive multilateral forum, is the only legitimate body to control and direct international peacekeeping efforts and to enforce international law. The fact the UN lacks the capacity to fulfil this role effectively is not in dispute and is the reason UN reform is urgent and must go to the top of the international agenda. However, this need for UN reform is not reflected anywhere in the Fine Gael Bill nor is it a priority for the Government which has wasted the opportunity provided by the EU Presidency to show leadership on this issue.
The Fine Gael Bill cannot be supported because it is based on a number of fundamentally flawed premises and I only have time to deal with two of them. The first false premise is that building EU military capacity is supportive of the UN and good for UN peacekeeping missions. The opposite is true. The drive to increase the EU's military capacity and involvement in international security is having a detrimental effect on the United Nations. Three years ago, before the major push to enhance the EU's role in international security operations really began, the report of the panel on United Nations peace operations found that European developments had depleted UN peacekeeping capacity. One must remember that the UN is an organisation that has been financially strangled and starved of billions in member states' dues over the past two decades and its peacekeeping capacity has been deliberately diminished accordingly. That is the context for its recent failures. Effectively, the UN has been held to political ransom, and this is what needs to be addressed urgently.
This Bill has the potential to do enormous damage to UN peacekeeping. Ireland is consistently one of the highest UN peacekeeping contributors. What will happen once Irish UN peacekeepers are siphoned off for EU rapid reaction force missions? Far from enhancing capacity, the outsourcing of peacekeeping missions to regional military alliances could eventually spell the end of UN-led missions by making them redundant. If passed, this Bill would mean that Ireland would contribute to this scenario. This is not what we want.
The second fallacy is that there is no problem allowing a third organisation, state or alliance of states, such as the EU, to decide what is in keeping with the UN Charter and to proceed without express UN authorisation. This is the rationale that allowed the United States and Britain to circumvent the United Nations when they could not get their way on Iraq.
That brings me to another Fine Gael fallacy, that is, the pathetic and laughable notion that a deeper involvement in EU defence and lesser involvement at the UN level will somehow enhance independence in Irish foreign policy. To take but one example of EU developments that prove the opposite is true, the effect on the State's military spending decisions of the evolving EU common armaments policy includes a military harmonisation deadline of 2010 and the EU security doctrine's imperative that member states spend more on armies.
The Bill imposes hidden costs to the State because it implies greater participation in EU-led missions and a reduction in participation in UN-led missions. Whereas UN-SAS missions are partially reimbursed to the contributing state, rapid reaction force commitments must be absorbed by its members, so this may also contribute to rising net defence costs.
I am happy to have a few minutes during which to express my opposition to the Bill. We are all rightly proud of the work our peacekeepers continue to do throughout the world, and have done since the first peacekeeping force left for the Congo in 1960. I remember it well, coming as I do from a town with a military barracks. It was a big event in the life of the town and more recently we have seen parades of peacekeeping forces leaving the country under UN mandates. We should commend and thank the men and women who have taken part in those peacekeeping forces, some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice in laying down their lives.
The Bill is very dangerous. It is vitally important to have in place all elements of the triple lock mechanism, involving the approval of the House and the Government, in addition to the authorisation of a UN mandate, before any of our troops can be sent abroad on peacekeeping missions. Peacekeeping is the operative word because the term "peace-enforcing" is really a pseudonym for aggression. The Bill before us undermines totally the UN, which is the only such organisation with an international moral and legal standing, albeit that it suffers from deficiencies, mainly through lack of funding from some of its largest member nations, including the United States.
If the Bill had been enacted prior to the invasion of Iraq a year ago, it is perfectly possible and even probable that Irish peacekeepers could have ended up there, fighting side by side with US and British troops. The fact that no UN mandate was forthcoming for that mission was vitally important for this country. Under the terms of this Bill, it would be open — as happened both in the US and in Britain — for the case to be made that weapons of mass destruction were in place in Iraq and were available to be used, as someone said, in 45 minutes. Hype was used to push ahead with the invasion of Iraq. We could have had a similar situation here in that the belief that weapons of mass destruction were available in Iraq could have been used to send Irish forces there. We certainly would not want to have seen that happening.
A number of interventions from the Government side of the House, including the notion of active neutrality, suggest that in future the Government might wish to have a Bill like this one in place. It is, however, probably not opportune for the Government to introduce such a measure now.
I welcome the debate on peacekeeping and neutrality and I am grateful for an opportunity to speak on the Bill. As soon as I saw the legislation, a red light went on in my head. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Defence Acts to allow Ireland to send troops to participate in peace missions, including ones that have not received the formal sanction of a UN resolution. That is my core concern about the Bill.
The legislation is a direct result of the Fine Gael document entitled Beyond Neutrality. Since the word "neutrality" is abused on a regular basis, I welcome this opportunity to clarify my views on it. Some people try to imply that neutrality means sitting on the fence in dealing with international issues, or turning our backs on conflict but this is a total misrepresentation of the reality and our history of peacekeeping in terrible conflicts throughout the world. Many of our troops have died in conflicts on peacekeeping missions, saving lives in difficult circumstances. There is no valid reason to change that situation unless the Bill's sponsors want us to drift towards NATO or further undermine the United Nations. That is why I will vote against the Bill. Ireland is not for sale as regards its foreign policy and I urge all Deputies to be on their guard against this legislation.
I have no problem with Ireland assisting United Nations-mandated humanitarian missions or going in as peacekeepers. However, I have a major problem with the so-called Rapid Reaction Force and the sly words "crisis management". One only has to look at the negative result of these forces around the world. Parties in the House, as well as securocrats in our own security forces and their cheerleaders in the media, constantly seek to erode our neutrality. They want to develop the arms industry in the EU.
Nonsense.
The nuclear club in the EU should be challenged constantly and I intend to do so in this debate. Many of our citizens, and many more throughout Europe, are concerned by the attempts by certain members of the EU to put military issues at the top of the political agenda. The Bill is part of that strategy. It is also an attempt to broaden the brief of our own security forces. What happened during the war in Iraq, where 15,000 innocent civilians were killed, will be only the tip of the iceberg if we go down that military road. I urge all Deputies to reflect on this.
I totally oppose the use of Shannon by US troops during the war in Iraq. It is bit rich for senior Ministers to lecture people about violence when they supported the slaughter in Iraq. Some 15,000 innocent civilians were killed, their homes were bombed to bits and thousands of people were maimed, yet Ministers supported the use of Shannon as a base for weapons of mass destruction. May I also remind Members of the House that gombeenism is alive and well here?
Hear, hear.
The Government and some of the Opposition parties seem to be obsessed with the big boys and girls in the EU and the US. They should put Ireland first and take a broader internationalist view, rather than a narrow US or EU position.
Hear, hear.
Our people deserve that kind of real openness and a vision for the future. I have major reservations about the misleading title of the International Peace Missions Deployment Bill 2003. Our troops have been on peace missions for years, but always under a UN mandate and long may that continue. I urge all Deputies to reject the Bill.
The United Nations has deployed peacekeeping forces on 56 occasions since 1948. Ireland has participated with great distinction in a large number of theatres since 1960 when our first troops were deployed to the Congo. Peacekeeping has long been an important component of our heritage and a reflection of our fundamental beliefs. It is a dynamic concept that responds to changes in the international environment to develop security for people affected by war. Ireland's established peacekeeping tradition has enabled it to make strong and imaginative contributions to international peace and security. Peacekeeping is also a significant component of our foreign policy and our contribution to multilateral security systems. More than 40 years experience in peacekeeping and participation in the vast majority of peacekeeping missions mandated by the UN Security Council has established and enhanced an international reputation for Irish peacekeepers.
Each mission has faced a variety of challenges and as a result of these different experiences,the concept of peacekeeping has evolved. Peacekeeping operations are temporary, multinational measures designed to maintain international peace and security. They normally monitor implementation of agreements between hostile parties, observe conflicts and report to the Secretary General. They also provide emergency medical services, assist in resettlement of refugees, enforce embargoes, monitor elections and supervise troop withdrawals. Their primary purpose, however, is to serve as a buffer force between two or more warring parties.
In 1998 the then UN Secretary General, Perez de Cuellar, stated that peacekeepers had "to remain calm in the face of provocation and to maintain composure when under attack." UN troops comprising officers and soldiers alike must show a special courage, one that is more difficult to come by than ordinary courage. Our UN soldiers have been put to the test in such circumstances and have emerged with their reputations enhanced.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the tearing down of the Iron Curtain, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, numerous national, ethnic and localised armed conflicts have become the main threat to stability and security, global and regional alike. The experience of the intra-state conflict settlement amassed by the UN and other international regional organisations may serve as the foundation for peacekeeping policies. Irish participation in such operations is dependent on a so-called triple lock — UN authorisation, Dáil ratification and Government approval. The triple lock mechanism is reasonable and should be left as it is.
I wish to share time with Deputy Gay Mitchell, who will conclude the debate.
The central issue in the debate is whether Ireland wants China or other permanent members of the Security Council to control its foreign policy. This issue has not been properly debated. The Macedonian conflict is the example that was highlighted when the Bill was presented. Ireland wanted to participate in the mission to Macedonia but because Taiwan recognised Macedonia, the Chinese would not agree to the authorisation of the force. Ireland was prevented from taking part in that mission on that basis. Is that what we want? Do other Members believe, as I do, that Ireland should be truly independent, free and sovereign in making decisions on foreign policy?
I am amazed at the collective view that has emerged in the debate whereby Members do not want Ireland to make independent sovereign decisions on foreign policy. It is incomprehensible. There was UN support for the mission to Macedonia and Resolution 1371 was passed but, technically, the force was not authorised because China did not approve of Taiwan's recognition of Macedonia and vice versa. We allowed that to stop us, yet Members say that Ireland will go to the wall for the triple lock. Have we a sense of dignity or independence regarding the way our foreign policy is managed? I never want to see that happen again. The Minister stated it was a rare occurrence and it probably will not happen again. Why should we leave our independence and sovereign entitlement to conduct our own foreign policy in doubt? It happened in the case of Macedonia and it is the springboard for this legislation. Parties should strike a blow for independence and stand with Fine Gael on this one.
I like the Minister considerably on a personal level but I have never heard such sanctimonious humbug as that contained in the 20 page speech he used in his contribution. It was an effort on the part of the poor, unfortunate civil servants who were straining to find a basis for opposing the Bill. They did not believe a word of it because most of them are sensible. However, it reached the heights of the ridiculous when the Minister stated: "The changes proposed in this Bill would represent a vote of no confidence by Ireland in the UN system." He knows well 27 members — independent, sovereign nations — sent troops to Macedonia. That was not a vote of no confidence in the UN. They supported the principle established by the UN that the international community should support the peace agreement in Macedonia.
The Chinese had nothing to do with the situation.
The Chinese stopped the mission as far as Ireland was concerned. Will another member of the Security Council stop us the next time? Perhaps it will be the British. Sinn Féin would love that. All permanent members can veto a resolution.
Our Bill clarifies that Ireland does not want to be involved in such missions unless the Dáil, the supreme body, passes a resolution and is satisfied the peace mission accords with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. We should make our own decisions and show our independence. I am worried about the craven sleveen attitude of people who bang their breasts saying the UN is a wonderful body.
Everyone else is wrong and the Deputy is right. That is an arrogant stance.
The UN has achieved a good deal but it has dreadful defects and needs significant reform. It is highly unlikely the necessary reforms will be made in our lifetime because countries that can block the reforms have vested interests. The UN is not perfect and we should be honest about it.
We never said that.
It is all we have and we must work towards those reforms, and the suggestion that those who support the Bill oppose the reforms is absolutely and utterly ludicrous.
Many contributions referred to the wonderful effort of our troops abroad, in which everybody takes enormous pride. I recall as a young fellow worrying about our troops in the Congo. We have always marvelled at and recognised their contribution. The Defence Forces, not political parties, should claim credit for that marvellous contribution. The supreme sacrifice made by more than 80 soldiers abroad in the interest of peacekeeping should also be recognised. The suggestion has been made that they would be safer if there was UN authorisation for all missions. How far will be the debate be pushed? We should have an honest debate. Are we prepared to adopt an independent foreign policy?
We should also have an honest debate on neutrality, the hoary old chestnut, which is dragged on to the stage whenever a foreign policy issue is raised. I believe in neutrality to the extent that Ireland should not be a member of NATO. Ireland also should not be a member of organisations with a mutual defence arrangement without seeking the approval of the people. That is thin, bare military neutrality, which I support. However, the notion that Ireland was ever fully neutral in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1907 is ludicrous. Ireland never was and never will be, thanks be to God.
Ireland was not neutral when the west opposed totalitarian forces in the Soviet Union and elsewhere and I am glad it was not because, politically, Ireland gave every support until the Berlin Wall came down. Let us not fool ourselves on that issue and let us have an honest debate. I am glad my party has had the guts to put this issue on the table. I hope we will have many more opportunities to debate these issues and I will hand over to my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, to conclude the debate.
I thank those Deputies who made constructive, thoughtful contributions to this debate, including those with which I do not agree. I am very disappointed, given the public comments by Senator Minihan, that not one Progressive Democrats Member contributed on this important issue.
The Bill before the House proves one thing, namely, that all politicians are not the same. Some have put forward ideas and are prepared to stand up and challenge what in my view is an appeasement of the majority public opinion. I believe what we are proposing in the Bill will come to pass, just as I believed when I introduced the policy document and the Bill on Partnership for Peace. Inside and outside Government I held that view and we were told by the then Opposition that such an important step would require a referendum. We joined the Partnership for Peace without a referendum and we have still not joined NATO, despite the claims that joining it would bring that about.
It is time we debated issues where there is a difference of opinion, where people put forward their ideas and suggestions and not simply appeal to selfish self-interest. The lack of debate of ideas, public spirit, leadership, courage, selflessness and honesty on almost every issue which comes before Dáil Éireann is the reason people have lost respect for this institution. Some of cringing contribution this evening show all that is wrong with this House. Members are not prepared to come in and say this is the truth and it is not denigrating the United Nations but upholding the right of this sovereign House to fulfil its constitutional role and not abdicate it to a Chinese, American or any other government.
I thank Deputy Michael D. Higgins for his very thoughtful contribution to the debate. He made the point that it will not be politicians' children who die in wars but the general public and for that reason he supports neutrality. I respect his view. Who died as a result of the neutrality of the Second World War? Who were the 60 million people who died in Europe during the First and Second World Wars? They were not politicians' children but people in the prime of life. They were working class people in the main because there was nobody to stand up to the tyrant, controlled by sovereign parliaments and governments.
It is appalling that a member of Sinn Féin would have the audacity to come into this House and speak about the Defence Forces when outside the House they refer to "the army" and they certainly do not mean the Defence Forces of the State. I reject out of hand any comments made or the right of anybody from Sinn Féin to come into this House and tell Members or anybody else about the Defence Force who have served our democratic way of life so generously.
I did not mention them at all.
At home and abroad.
It was described by Deputy Healy as a dangerous Bill. The greatest danger in this Bill is that this House would have to make a decision and Members could not sit on the fence. When I listened to the Minister for Defence last night, I listened to a Minister for the fence, a Minister sitting on the fence on an issue of grave public importance. In his speech, the Minister stated that the Bill, "undermines and represents a turning away from the UN and from the primacy of the Security Council." Did the 27 other European states that served in Macedonia undermine the United Nations? Article 52, Chapter 8 of the UN Charter states that nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
The Bill seeks to do nothing other than to allow this House to fulfil what is provided for in the UN Charter. The Minister further stated, "There has been some suggestion that the Defence Forces have been precluded from participation in missions because of the current requirements underpinning our participation in peace support operations." There has been no such suggestion, it is an outright statement of fact that we have been precluded. Some 27 European states are engaged in peacekeeping in Macedonia on the doorstep of the European Union, but Irish troops are not there because China blocked our participation because of its selfish interest in the UN Security Council. Our domestic legislation has allowed it to make that decision for us and that is the deplorable state of our domestic legislation.
The Minister further stated that our commitment to the UN in the area of peacekeeping, peace enforcement, conflict prevention and the increasing use of regional organisations has not been inhibited by the UN system. The Fine Gael Bill does not claim that the UN system inhibits our capacity to participate, but that this Government and poor domestic legislation is doing so. It is a sad reality that Government indecision and lack of leadership has resulted in Irish troops being sent to a dangerous theatre in Liberia, while they are not available for service in a relatively safer Macedonia. The Minister continued, "I believe the circumstances which arose in relation to the participation of the Defence Forces in this mission are unlikely to recur."
The EU is likely to be asked to participate in Bosnia as the Minister knows. If some other permanent member state decides it does not like something that Bosnia has done and decides to block the UN mandate, we will not be able to participate. This is nonsense of the first order. The Minister stated that Resolution 1371 did not authorise an international United Nations force as required by the Defence Acts as regards Macedonia. The key phrase is, "as required by the Defence Acts." In other words we have tied our own hands while certain members of the Security Council pick our pockets — so much for sovereign Government and a sovereign Parliament.
The Minister further stated, "The fact that a mission has been authorised by the UN conveys a legitimacy on the operation which is recognised throughout the world, by governments and by the protagonists of conflicts". Is the Minister implying that Macedonia is not legitimate in the eyes of Government? If so, why did 27 governments in Europe send their forces with the blessing of the United Nations?
Nonsense gave way to hypocrisy when the Minister stated, "In the context of the EU Presidency I would like to expand on the importance which the EU attaches to its relationship with the UN, not least in developing European security and defence policy." What balderdash, what shameful duplicity. He further stated, "The EU is perhaps one of the best examples of effective multilateralism in practice. It is natural that the EU would support this principle and work closely with the UN on crisis management issues." This is further nonsense. We the holders of the Presidency of the European Union are not in Macedonia with our 27 neighbours, including 13 fellow members of the EU. How then can the Minister go on to describe, "the synergy between what the UN and the EU are doing", and at the same time to criticise Fine Gael for seeking such a synergy with full participation, including by Ireland. The Minister did violence to the truth when he said that what is proposed in the Bill is that we should cast aside multilateralism. This is clearly untrue. We want to be part of operations like the one in Macedonia which is participated in by 27 European states acting under the UN Charter. It is an outmoded provision of domestic law which has put us in the ridiculous position of being unable to participate.
The Minister said in summary that he considers the Bill before the House to be ill-timed, ill-considered and out of step with developments at international level. In his opinion, it serves to erode rather than bolster the primacy of the UN. Is it out of step with the member states participating in the Macedonian operation? If this House stopped playing politics and politicking and instead provided leadership, our troops would not be in what the Minister has himself described as the dangerous theatre of Liberia. They could be a great deal closer to home and in a much safer theatre. It is indicative of a lack of adequate debate and consideration that a serious issue like this could be discussed by a Minister in a lethargic, ill-thought out, amateur and self-serving manner.
Question put and declared lost.