Nordic Battle Group: Motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves Ireland's accession to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Principles for the Establishment and Operation of a Multinational Battle Group to be made available to the European Union and to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Principles for the Cooperation Regarding the OHQ-Function for the Nordic Battle Group.

As Deputies will recall, we have previously discussed the issue of Ireland's participation in EU battle groups, in particular when we debated the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 last summer. The issue now before the House relates to the terms of agreement for Ireland's participation in the Nordic battle group. Before going through the specifics of the memoranda of understanding, MoUs, I would like to just set out some of the background to our proposed participation.

The ambition of the EU to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has been, and continues to be, a key objective in the development of European security and defence policy. In the Headline Goal 2010, the EU set itself the objective of being able "to respond with rapid and decisive action, applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the Treaty on the European Union". A key element of the headline goal is the capability to deploy forces at high readiness, broadly based on the battle groups concept. The purpose of the EU battle groups is to undertake operations known as the Petersberg Tasks, which include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. These tasks are consistent with our national traditions in peacekeeping and peace support operations.

As I have done on many previous occasions, I would once again emphasise that the creation of battle groups does not alter the scope or purpose of European security and defence policy or the Petersberg Tasks. These are firmly rooted in the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, both of which the people approved by referendum. Nor are battle groups linked to the concept of a possible EU common defence. The purpose of battle groups is, very simply, to enable the European Union to be more effective in contributing to international peace and security in support of the United Nations by putting in place a rapid response capability. In this regard, I again recall the strong support of the United Nations for the EU's efforts in this direction.

In January of this year, the EU achieved full battle group operational capability, which means that two battle groups are on standby for periods of six months at a time. In an informal decision, taken at its meeting in January 2006, the Government agreed that I could enter into discussions with Sweden and other like-minded nations on Ireland's contribution to EU battle groups.

Representatives from the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces have met their Swedish counterparts on a number of occasions to discuss possible participation by the Defence Forces in the Nordic battle group. Following these discussions, Sweden, as the framework nation for the Nordic battle group, advised that it would welcome a contribution from Ireland to the Nordic battle group, subject to Ireland's agreement to sign the memorandum of understanding, MoU, for the Nordic battle group and the memorandum of understanding regarding the use of Northwood in the UK as the operational headquarters for the Nordic battle group.

In July last year, the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 was enacted by the Oireachtas. The Act provided for, among other things, participation by the Defence Forces in overseas training and field manoeuvres, participation by the Defence Forces in humanitarian operations and for early pre-assembly and dispatch of contingents. While not solely related to our possible participation in EU battle groups, these were important provisions in facilitating and furthering our engagement with the participants in the Nordic battle group. Following enactment of the legislation, discussions with Sweden continued in earnest and the detailed provisions of Ireland's participation in the Nordic battle group were agreed, subject to Government and Dáil approval.

At its meeting of 14 November 2006, the Government formally approved the arrangements for Ireland's participation in the Nordic battle group, agreeing to provide a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force to participate in the battle group and to sign the memorandum of understanding for the Nordic battle group, subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann.

I would now like to outline to the House the detailed elements of Ireland's contribution to the Nordic battle group. The Defence Forces will contribute an explosive ordnance disposal and improvised explosive device disposal, EOD-IEDD, contingent with its own security detail, together with staff posts at the operational and force headquarters. EOD relates to normal type munitions whereas IEDD generally refers to devices devised by terrorist groups, such as car bombs.

It is expected that between 80 and 100 Defence Forces personnel will be involved. This level of commitment will only arise should the battle group be called upon to undertake an operation. The number of personnel involved operationally during the stand-by period, where the battle group has not been mobilised to undertake an operation, will be approximately 15.

Any contribution to a battle group will be met within the context of the overall ceiling set in the White Paper on Defence of 850 personnel serving overseas at one time and will have no adverse impact on our existing peace support operations. It goes without saying that any deployment of the Irish element of the battle group on an operational mission will, as always, be subject to the requirements of the triple lock.

To address the issue at hand, the Nordic battle group memorandum of understanding is an agreement between the participants comprising the Nordic battle group, namely, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia, which sets out principles in respect of the operation, deployment and management of the Nordic battle group. The memorandum of understanding, MoU, has been signed by the existing participants in the battle group. Ireland will join to the MoU through an exchange of letters with each of the existing participants in the form of the letter of accession included in the documents laid before Dáil Éireann on 22 March 2007.

I propose to outline each of the provisions of the memoranda of understanding. Sections 1 and 2 deal with the definitions and reference documents, respectively. Section 3 outlines the purpose of the memorandum of understanding as a framework document, which sets out principles in respect of the operation, deployment and management of the Nordic battle group. Section 4 deals with the scope of the memorandum of understanding.

I draw the attention of Deputies to the fact that the memorandum of understanding specifically recognises the sovereignty of each participant in terms of any decision to deploy its forces being in accordance with its own national law. This principle is reiterated in section 6 of the memorandum of understanding. In Ireland's case this means that any decision to participate in a battle group operation, irrespective of our joining the memorandum of understanding, would be subject to a further decision in accordance with the provisions of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006.

Section 5 sets out the purpose of the Nordic battle group as a means to support the development of European Security and Defence Policy through its participation in European Union led crisis management operations. This reflects the aim of the EU to react quickly across the spectrum of crisis management tasks, as outlined in the Headline Goal 2010.

Sections 6 and 7 set out the principles for deploying and withdrawing the Nordic battle group. The battle group will only be deployed following the appropriate EU decision-making process. Each participant retains the right to deploy or not deploy its forces, irrespective of an EU decision to launch a battle group operation. Equally, each participant retains the sovereign right to withdraw its contingent at any time. With regard to the general withdrawal of the battle group or elements of it, the memorandum of understanding provides that such decisions will be made on the basis of consensus following EU decisions.

Section 8 outlines the political-military consultation process. It envisages that regular consultation between participants will be required before and during the stand-by period. Sweden, as the framework nation, will lead the consultations and all decisions will be made on the basis of consensus.

Section 9 deals with the establishment phase. During this phase, co-ordination of the policy and military issues relating to the battle group will take place in the framework of NORDCAPS. This is a co-operation arrangement between the Nordic countries for co-ordination and planning of peace support operations. Ireland and Estonia are not members of NORDCAPS but will participate in its meetings when battle group issues are discussed.

Section 10 details the arrangements for force contribution, generation and tailoring. Participants make their offers to the battle group at co-ordination conferences and each contribution is laid out in a technical arrangement. The force commander may alter the overall make-up of the force for a specific battle group deployment depending on the nature of the operation and the forces offered.

Section 11 discusses command and control arrangements. Sweden, as a framework nation, will lead the force headquarters, with all participants able to hold positions in headquarters. The command of each contingent remains under national control, with operational control delegated to the operational commander. This is in accordance with EU crisis management concepts and standard operating procedure in a multinational force. The same arrangement applies where Ireland is engaged in UN "blue hat" operations.

Training is discussed in section 12. It will be necessary for the various participants of the battle group to train together in accordance with EU standards. Most battle group training will take place in the contributing member states, which means Irish troops will mainly be trained in Ireland. That said, some level of joint training with other battle group elements will be required. It is planned that joint training of the Nordic battle group elements, including field manoeuvres, will take place in Sweden in September and October 2007 for a period of approximately three to four weeks. The full operational capability of the Nordic battle group will then be assessed and the battle group will be on stand-by from January 2008 for a period of six months. There will be no joint field training or exercises held in Ireland.

Section 13 notes that the battle group will be certified in accordance with agreed EU procedures. Section 14 deals with the status of forces in terms of jurisdiction and discipline, while section 15 deals with claims and liabilities. When a battle group participant is within the territory of another participant, the issues of jurisdiction and discipline and claims and liabilities of forces will be dealt with in accordance with the NATO Partnership for Peace status of forces agreement, SOFA.

A SOFA is an agreement on the status of personnel engaged on overseas training and operations, whereby the host country agrees to extend certain rights and privileges to such personnel. These include arrangements regarding jurisdiction in respect of certain crimes, powers of military police, enforcement of discipline by the superiors of the relevant personnel and determination of liability for damage to the property of third parties.

In the case of the Nordic battle group, the NATO PfP SOFA is the one being used. The application of this status of forces agreement is a common requirement for participation in all European Union and NATO PfP led peace support operations. It applies in the case of our participation in KFOR in Kosovo, ISAF in Afghanistan, EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and EUFOR in the Democratic Republic of Congo. While all the other Nordic battle group participants have signed the NATO PfP SOFA, Ireland has not done so. We have previously acceded to the relevant provisions of the agreement, generally through an exchange of letters with the European Union, NATO or lead framework nation for any operation in which we are engaged. The Attorney General has considered this matter in detail and has advised that there is no impediment to Ireland agreeing to be bound by the relevant provisions of the SOFA, as provided for in this memorandum of understanding. As a result, Defence Forces personnel will be subject to the terms of such agreements in terms of jurisdiction and discipline and claims and liabilities when in the territory of another participant. As no battle group activities involving forces from other participants can take place here, Ireland will not be required to extend the relevant provisions of the status of forces agreements to foreign forces. This has been agreed with Sweden as framework nation for the Nordic battle group.

Section 16 outlines the arrangements in terms of financing. Individual costs, other than those deemed to be common costs, will be the responsibility of each participant. Section 17 notes that regulations in terms of logistics are to be dealt with in technical arrangements.

Security regulations are outlined in section 18. All exchange of classified information will be handled in accordance with EU security regulations. Each participant will appoint a designated security authority to deal with any security issues that arise. Section 19 notes that third parties can be invited to participate in the battle group based on consensus among participants. Section 20 notes that the memorandum of understanding will take effect from the date of the last signature. Participants may withdraw from the memorandum of understanding with six months written notice.

Section 21 deals with modifications, amendments and disputes. The memorandum of understanding may be modified with written consent of all participants and any dispute will be handled through negotiation between participants. In addition to the Nordic battle group memorandum of understanding, Ireland is required to enter into an MoU with the United Kingdom on the use of Northwood and the staff to be based there.

The operational headquarters for the Nordic battle group will be located at Northwood in the UK. An operational headquarters is a complex facility, providing strategic direction and advice to the force on the ground. There are only a small number of such facilities in Europe, mainly in the larger member states. Northwood has the necessary infrastructure, communications systems, facilities and support, which are not otherwise available within the member states contributing to the Nordic battle group. The operational commander and headquarters staff for the Nordic battle group, which will be drawn from the participating member states, will be based in Northwood for the duration of the standby period.

The memorandum of understanding for the operational headquarters broadly follows the same structure as the main battle group MoU and conforms to all EU agreed guidelines on battle groups. Its purpose is to define the aim, principles and responsibilities for co-operation with regard to the establishment and operation of the EU operational headquarters in Northwood for the command and control of the Nordic battle group. It details the right of access to the operational headquarters for appointed staff of the Nordic battle group during the establishment, pre-activation, activation and redeployment phases.

Section 9 outlines the command and control arrangements. As in the memorandum of understanding for the Nordic battle group, the operation commander will be appointed by the council but all personnel contributed by individual participants remain under full command of the sending participant.

It is vitally important at this stage that our participation in the Nordic battle group is formalised in order that we can fully participate. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Timmins

Fine Gael supports the motion. The European Union battle group concept has been strongly supported by Fine Gael and I am happy to reiterate our support again today. From the outset, Fine Gael has recognised the value that battle groups could bring to our response to humanitarian disaster or the threat to human life from political upheaval or even genocide. In responding to matters as grave as these, we believe every day can count for thousands of lives and that there is a special responsibility on the international community to put in place the best system so we can respond to crises effectively, efficiently and, above all, quickly.

I welcome Ireland's membership of this EU battle group. This has been a long time coming. When this concept was first mooted, there were frequent public contradictions of Government policy between the Ministers with responsibility for foreign affairs and defence, with even the Taoiseach making suggestions that Ireland might not be able to take part on constitutional grounds. Through all this time, Fine Gael rightly rejected the idea that there might be a constitutional difficulty with Ireland's participation and we advocated that Ireland press forward on this matter with all other European Union countries.

I support the memorandum of understanding agreed between Ireland and the countries of the Nordic battle group, namely, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia, and the memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom regarding the use of facilities at Northwood as the operational headquarters for the military grouping.

We should remember that the development of these battle groups has been strongly supported by, among others, the former Secretary General of the United Nations. The United Nations has recognised that regional groupings, such as the EU battle groups, will play an ever-increasing role in promoting stability and tackling large-scale human rights abuses. Importantly, Kofi Annan has also commented that sometimes it is necessary to show force in order not to use it. This is vital. The international community must have the capacity, agreement, organisation and will to stand firm against those who would promote death and destruction, genocide and vile abuses of human rights.

Ireland cannot forget, and the European Union has a duty to remember, that in our recent history genocide and the large-scale loss of human life took place within our midst and we allowed ourselves to be largely powerless to stop it. This realisation should also inform our position with regard to the development of these necessary and welcome EU battle groups. However, I remain seriously concerned at the legislative response to Ireland's involvement in these groupings. Contingents of our Defence Forces can only be deployed under the triple lock system. This means, for Ireland, that any potential military action must be endorsed by a full United Nations mandate establishing or authorising such an international UN force, approved by Dáil Éireann and agreed within the Government itself.

The development of EU battle groups has been specifically designed to allow for a swift response to unfolding situations of concern. I understand that the EU battle group on call at any time will be in a position to deploy quickly to trouble-spots or in responding to a humanitarian crisis. However, as we all know, the provisions of the so-called triple lock have already impacted negatively on Ireland's involvement in certain peacekeeping missions. For example, Ireland could not participate in the EU peacekeeping force, Operation Concordia, sent to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia even though this force replaced NATO and had both EU and UN support, as set out in UN Resolution 1371.

The difficulty in getting a resolution establishing or authorising an international UN force can relate to the self-interests of members of the Security Council. In the case of Macedonia, such a resolution was not carried because it did not suit the interests of China. Macedonia had recognised Taiwan so China retaliated by blocking the UN peacekeeping force resolution. Therefore, by having a triple lock we have given self-serving members of the UN Security Council, who may be operating to a narrow national agenda, the right to pre-empt our free and democratic decision. This is neither healthy nor wise.

With specific regard to the development of EU battle groups, the mechanism of the UN Security Council can easily mitigate against quick decision-making. In the absence of a UN mandate for action, it is easy to foresee a situation whereby the Irish contingent of the EU battle group may not be in a position to respond alongside their colleagues due to the absence of formal UN backing, critically undermining the entire concept, not to mention the group that they will have trained alongside. Although Ireland will now enter into an arrangement where a contingent of our forces will be in position and waiting to move on humanitarian or peacekeeping duties, should an international emergency occur, the possibility is that we may have to stay in Northwood in Britain and allow our battle group counterparts to go it alone.

Our foreign policy should not and must not be a slave to the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Government cannot pretend it is in a battle group and then discover our troops cannot move when they are needed. It should face up to reality and amend the triple lock in line with legislation Fine Gael presented years ago. The vagaries of UN Security Council permanent members must be taken out of the picture. We cannot continue to allow the effectiveness of our troops to be blunted by this outdated mechanism.

Notwithstanding this, it is important to note that these battle groups are not a great change from the current position. However, following from difficulties the UN experienced with regard to the effectiveness of its forces, a report was commissioned, known as the Brahimi report, which recommended that the UN outsource some of its operations to various regional bodies, such as the European Union or the African Union. What we see here is a mechanism whereby units which are participating in an operation can train and work together and become more organised, which will ultimately lead to a more effective force that will be able to deal with many of the difficulties that exist.

We often talk of the concept of neutrality. Ireland is not neutral per se; it is simply unaligned. However, it is important to point out that this measure in no way impinges on our neutrality. Fine Gael is coming from the other end of the spectrum in that we believe the State is mature enough to take its own decisions, on the basis of Dáil and Government approval, on what we should and should not participate in.

Darfur is not a classic example because the Sudanese Government will not grant authority to the UN to intervene there. We talk of standing idly by with regard to genocides in the past. Tens of thousands of people are being massacred in Darfur but the international community is doing nothing. I cannot understand how Ireland, as a member of the international community, can justify this. We can issue all the pious condemnation we want but they will achieve nothing. To return to the point made by Kofi Annan, sometimes we must show force to prevent wrongdoing. This is what the battle group concept is about.

Some 80 to 100 Irish ordnance personnel will initially participate in the battle group. This will certainly benefit the development of the Defence Forces. As they have shown over a number of decades, the Defence Forces are capable of competing with any other force in the world, provided they have the necessary equipment. They are educated and very progressive. I wish them well.

I take this opportunity to wish all members of the Defence Forces well over the coming months. As this may be the last Question Time on defence matters in this Dáil, I wish the Minister and his staff well. I congratulate Major General Earley on his appointment as Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces. It will be a popular decision as he is highly respected across a wide spectrum of Irish public life, and the appointment will benefit the Defence Forces. I also congratulate his colleague, Brigadier General O'Sullivan, on his promotion and wish Lieutenant General Sreenan well in his retirement.

Mr. Costello

I wish to be associated with Deputy Timmins's good wishes. The appointments of Major General Dermot Earley and Brigadier General O'Sullivan are welcome. I wish them, and Lieutenant General Sreenan, who is retiring, well. Perhaps this is the last occasion the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, will grace this House in his current role. If that is the case, we wish him well also.

I have great respect for Deputy Timmins and for his and the Fine Gael position on these matters. However, I strongly believe the wider the scope of Defence Forces involvement in military operations abroad, the more important it is we have the triple lock mechanism in place to ensure we operate within parameters that are clearly defined by this House, the Government and the United Nations. This was a crucial issue in 2002 when we faced the first Nice treaty referendum, which was a watershed for Ireland. Two thirds of the electorate at the time, for the first time in the history of the State, said "No" to a European Union treaty. They rejected the advice of all the major political parties, the trade union movement, the churches and the farmers' organisation. They snubbed all the traditional pillars of society and said "No" to all the sacred cows. This was a very sobering experience for the Irish establishment.

One of the central concerns over Nice was the European Foreign and Security Policy. In order to allay those fears and prepare for Nice II, the Seville declaration was promulgated by the European Union in June of 2002. Paragraph 6 of the Seville document included the national declaration by Ireland in which Ireland reiterated that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces on overseas operations, including those carried out under the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, required first, the authorisation of the military operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations; second, the agreement of the Irish Government; and third, the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law. Thus the Seville declaration copper-fastened the triple lock mechanism for all Irish Defence Forces' overseas operations, including ESDP operations — those under discussion now in the context of the memorandum on battle groups.

The European Council made a solemn declaration at the time, in paragraph 4 of the Seville declaration, in which it acknowledged: "that the Treaty on European Union does not impose any binding mutual defence commitments". Nor does the development of the Union's capacity to conduct humanitarian and crisis management tasks involve the establishment of a European army.

In paragraph 6 of the Seville declaration the European Council recognised that like all member states of the Union, Ireland would retain the right, following entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, to take its own sovereign decisions in accordance with its Constitution and its laws on whether to commit military personnel to participate in any operation carried out under the ESDP. In its national statement in the Seville declaration, Ireland clearly stated its position and the European Union clearly accepted that position. That was the position of the triple lock. This was one of the major reasons the Nice treaty was carried the second time round. Some other issues were also involved, including the scrutiny legislation and the National Forum on Europe. All overseas operations, including battle groups, come under these terms. Indeed, the memorandum of understanding on the Nordic battle group reiterates as much in section 4.

In 2006, the Oireachtas passed the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. This Act provided for participation by the Defence Forces in overseas training and manoeuvres and for preassembly of Irish troops. It also made provision for participation in battle groups. Thus, it seems to me that the arguments and suspicions surrounding battle groups somewhat miss the point. A battle group is a multinational force which is trained as a highly mobile rapid reaction force. The Irish Defence Forces require optimum training in the modern equivalent, up to the highest international standards. Whether some of that training takes place in Ireland or abroad is irrelevant. What is crucial are the circumstances and purpose for which that trained force gets involved in military operations.

Ireland is committed to engage in military operations abroad only under the mandate of the United Nations and with the approval of the Government and the Parliament. Once the triple lock is intact, Ireland can properly participate in a multinational battle group and be available to the European Union to undertake functions under the Petersberg Tasks.

A number of issues relating to the memorandum require clarification. First, will the Minister clarify the status of forces in terms of jurisdiction and discipline, in that we come under the NATO-PfP SOFA terms of reference? It is stated in the memorandum that certain crimes, powers of military police, enforcement of discipline by superiors of the relevant personnel and determination of liability for damage to the property of third parties will be dealt with under the status of forces agreement, SOFA.

I understand the law of the land would operate for any citizen of Ireland, whether in the Defence Forces or not, when in a participant state. However, does this memorandum imply that if there are grounds for a court martial, that court martial would take place under the auspices of that participant state? Could an Irish citizen be tried by a foreign court martial? Will the Minister clarify whether an Irish citizen can face a court martial in a foreign jurisdiction and face the rules, regulations and legislation that apply in that jurisdiction? This is a particular concern considering the recent legislation we have passed in terms of improving and human rights proofing our court martial structure.

It is proposed that the operational headquarters for the Nordic battle group will be in Northwood in the United Kingdom. It is unsatisfactory that a country that is not a member of the battle group would host the crucially important seat of operations. Britain will not sign up to the memoranda of understanding, yet the operational headquarters will be based there. I recognise that the commander will still be the commander of the framework country, Sweden, and that the Irish contingent will be led by the Irish commander.

If Ireland is to be involved in a Nordic battle group, will the Minister make it a priority that one of the Nordic countries is the home of the operational headquarters? Although only a few countries in the European Union have the capacity to deal with the complexity of operational headquarters, it seems a contradiction that we are entering a Nordic battle group, but the headquarters of the group are not in a Nordic state. I suggest this matter should be rectified at an early stage. The Minister should enter into discussion with the other Nordic countries with a view to ensuring the most suitable country, probably Sweden, the framework country, which is the largest country in the group, is the site of the operational headquarters for the future.

Will the Minister clarify how the Irish contingent will be led by an Irish commander and explain the proposed relationship between the Irish contingent control and command and the overall commander, who will be a Swedish commander? How will decisions be made and communicated in this regard?

Will the Minister clarify what extra resources are required in terms of Irish involvement in battle groups? There will be enhanced levels of training and I presume we will require enhanced levels of equipment to bring the group up to modern international standards. Considerable travel will also be involved with regard to training, pre-assembly, standby and operations. Some three to four weeks will be spent training in Sweden in the autumn.

It is envisaged the first battle group will be ready and on standby by January 2008 and that this group will be on standby for a six-month period. Will the Minister undertake a full assessment and examination of that operation? It may be a stand-by situation with no operation. They may not be called to engage in any of the Petersberg Tasks. Will the Minister commit himself and his successor to a review of the operation of the battle group, with a report presented to the House and a debate here to inform us of future commitments in this area?

Mr. Sargent

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Finian McGrath agus an Teachta Ó Snodaigh.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Sargent

This motion is important and it would be good to have more time to discuss the fundamental changes proposed in the way Ireland deals with the rest of the world, particularly from the point of view of military operations, international law and human rights. All parties would claim these as cornerstones of their approach to foreign relations. There are, however, differences between the parties in respect of the role of the United Nations, the need to reform it and its role as the custodian of international law.

Ireland has played a proud and honourable role in serving with the United Nations overseas. It is necessary, however, to examine our present and future positions. TASC, the think-tank for action on social change, held a seminar yesterday at which the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, said that the Dáil is becoming a rubber stamp for Government decisions. This motion is an example of that point. The memorandum of understanding was presented in committee for 40 minutes, most of which time was devoted to the Minister's presentation, and we are having a 60 minute debate today.

The Defence (Amendment) Bill which was discussed for three hours on 4 July 2006, with a vote at midnight, was not as fully debated as it could have been. That in turn diluted the definition of a United Nations mandate and allowed Irish forces to assemble before having one. That may be what some parties want but not the Green Party. We want better accountability and a stronger role for the United Nations with the reforms that it needs. We should be putting our efforts into making that happen. A grey area is emerging in which our forces are to be in place without a UN mandate. If they are attacked another grey area will emerge. I hope that does not happen but no provision has been made for it in this motion.

The legacy of the Government is not a proud one in respect of partnership for peace. A referendum was promised but it did not take place. The Amsterdam and Nice treaties resulted in further militarisation and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, wants a European army. Ireland has joined the European arms agency with no debate in the Dáil. Most disgracefully, we continue to facilitate more than 1 million US troops that have passed through Shannon Airport on the way to what started as an illegal and immoral war. It remains immoral, whatever about the retrospective sanction from the United Nations. It was a war of invasion which we should not have supported and which did not initially have a UN mandate. We continue to turn a blind eye to that atrocity despite calls from the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, Amnesty International and other major human rights organisations that we search the CIA planes coming in here which have been implicated in extraordinary rendition flights. That is a crying shame.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the proposed European Union battle groups, although I dislike the term. It sends out the wrong message to citizens. Why were titles such as peacekeeping groups or conflict resolution groups not used? The public deserves answers about the language being used which sends a strong negative message and suggests militarisation of the European Union.

Every nation has a right to defend itself but the battle groups raise serious questions. Will they be the regiments of a new European army? As we approach the commemoration of the Easter Rising we should remind ourselves that the Proclamation, to which many Ministers will pay tribute over the next week or so, states:

We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.

The former President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, said on 13 February 2001, "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a worldpower . . .?" There is a contradiction between those two statements which we should examine.

As the Defence Forces are about to be integrated into the EU battle groups the Irish people are being offered a choice between a type of imperialism or independence. The Government's decision that 200 Irish soldiers should join the EU battle groups is another step in the destruction of Irish independence, democracy and neutrality. The integration of Ireland into an imperial, militarised, neo-liberal European superstate allied to the United States will ensure the full and active participation of all of Ireland in the resource wars of the 21st century. The defeat of the European-United States axis is the inevitable outcome of these wars, against which we should guard.

I advocate a different choice, a united independent Irish Republic as part of a democratic Europe, a partnership of independent democratic states, legal equals without a military dimension. Ireland should pursue its foreign policy and security concerns through a reformed United Nations. The choice for the people is clear and is the same as it has been for many generations, a republic or some form of political arrangements.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO, said in March 2005:

Battle Groups could be used to go to war. Why did the EU create the Battle Group? It is not just to help rebuild a country. The Battle Groups are not for building schools. We shouldn't think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power.

Our forces should be involved in peacekeeping practices in which they have done an excellent job over the past 30 or 40 years, particularly in the Middle East and other areas of conflict. The defence forces of other EU countries should be used to rebuild countries devastated by famine and war. We should not be afraid to consider other possibilities such as a protocol.

Denmark is not taking part in the battle groups because the movement for Danish democracy won a major victory which ensured that a number of legally binding protocols were added to the Amsterdam Treaty, including one that excluded Denmark from the process of militarisation of the EU.

Mr. Costello

Denmark is a member of NATO.

Mr. F. McGrath

If the Danes can put forward a protocol, why not Ireland? I have a number of different, constructive ideas to challenge the direction the Government is taking and I urge caution regarding these developments.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

These motions are a further signal of the demise of Irish neutrality. No one has done more to diminish the neutrality of this State than the current partnership of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. They helped the United States to attack and invade Iraq in an illegal action commencing in 2003 by using Shannon Airport as a military staging post. They colluded in the United State's illegal programme of extraordinary rendition, which involves the kidnap and torture of individuals, by aiding and abetting the escape of CIA agents, some of whom are the subject of arrest warrants in other jurisdictions, again through Shannon Airport. The Government parties also rushed through the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 in one night last July with the support of both Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

Ceanglaíonn an tAcht sin Éire páirt a ghlacadh i ngrúpaí cogaidh de chuid an AE. Lagaíonn sé an chosaint a chuireann an triple lock ar fáil trí ligint do na Fórsaí Cosanta páirt a ghlacadh i réimse gníomhaíochtaí míleata thar lear le cead ón Rialtas amháin. Ar an ócáid sin, ní dhearna ach Sinn Féin, An Comhaontas Glas agus roinnt de na Teachtaí Neamhspleácha seasamh ar son neodracht na hÉireann. Ó bhallraíocht i PFP, NATO, agus an fórsa frithghnímh mhear go dtí na grúpaí cogaidh atá á bplé againn, thug mise faoi deara ag gach uile chéim go raibh muid ag bogadh i dtreo airm Eorpaigh ar gach bealach. In ainneoin nach n-aontaíonn an tAire liom sa chás seo, aontaíonn ceannairí stát eile san AE liom.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who heads up the current Presidency, acknowledges that these developments are part and parcel of an attempt to introduce an EU army. On the eve of the EU's 50th anniversary she stated: "In the EU itself we have come closer to a European army." While our Government denies EU militarisation has ever been an objective, Belgium's Prime Minister must be delighted with the "progress" made in terms of militarisation. Speaking in London a year ago he said: "We need a European defence, a European army, not just on paper but a force genuinely capable of operating in the field, including beyond the European borders".

The second memo of understanding relates to the location of the battle group, which will be in the British Ministry of Defence's permanent joint headquarters in Northwood, which is also headquarters for NATO regional command. The location of the battle group at Northwood effectively means that any participating Irish troops will be under the operational command of British officers and NATO officers. It also means that there will be no distinction between the battle groups and NATO forces if they are engaged in a conflict. Northwood headquarters makes no secret of the fact that it is "... helping to expand and intensify ... military cooperation throughout Europe".

There is no way in those circumstances that an Irish Government can claim that the State is neutral. Could the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Foreign Affairs credibly maintain at this stage, as the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform attempted to do last week, that this State is neutral? Could either plausibly maintain that when the battle groups are established and if the current war in Iraq is still ongoing or those forces are involved in another adventure, Irish troops would not inevitably be drawn in? If the EU decides to commit to participation in such a conflict, this Parliament would have little or no influence on such a decision. It would be difficult for the Minister to deny that. If the Irish Army participates in the battle groups it will be clearly aligned with Britain, NATO and the United States, and fully committed to EU involvement in the sort of adventure that we are witnessing in Iraq currently.

We do not have sufficient time to discuss this major step in the demise of Irish neutrality. It is a scandal that we have come this far and this represents a breach of promises made by Fianna Fáil at various elections that the party would stand by neutrality. However, our neutrality has been diminished repeatedly. Rather than building up the capacity of the UN and encouraging other countries to do likewise, the Government has eroded our neutrality and engaged in a project of militarising the European Union and participating in military adventures overseas with countries that were imperialist powers in the past, which seem to be dreaming of setting up other empires and spheres of influence that they can dictate into the future.

Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea)

This is the first time in 25 years I have heard a Member complaining that he or she had nothing more to say and he or she would not use all his or her time.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I exceeded my time.

Mr. O’Dea

I thank Members who contributed to the debate and the members of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which discussed this issue last week, for their time and support for these memoranda. They made a number of interesting and useful comments and I trust I clarified issues that may have caused concern.

I reiterate a number of issues relating to the memoranda and the Nordic battle group. I appreciate the continued support voiced for the triple lock. Maintaining this requirement has been a consistent policy of the Government and Deputies can rest assured I do not intend to depart from it. The memorandum of understanding specifically recognises that a decision by a participant to commit to a mission is subject to national decision and in accordance with national constitutions, legislation and policy. For Ireland, this means a decision to deploy troops remains a national decision in each case and it is subject to the triple lock, notwithstanding any commitment to the battle group. Furthermore, concerns were rightly raised about participation in battle groups turning into an EU common defence. This is not, and never has been, the case. The Constitution clearly prevents Ireland from participating in a common defence. The purpose of battle groups is to improve the effectiveness of the EU in contributing to international peace and security and support of the UN by putting in place a rapid response capability.

Deputy Costello referred to the question of discipline and jurisdiction when Irish troops are on foreign soil and whether they would be the subject of a court martial by the military authorities of a foreign power. It is specifically provided for in the agreement that Irish troops will be subject to domestic military law and, therefore, they would be subject to an Irish court martial. The Northwood issue was also raised. Few buildings in Europe have the logistics, communications system, etc, to serve as operational headquarters for battle groups. There is one in Potsdam in Germany, which is being used as operational headquarters for the EU mission in the Congo.

Basing the operational headquarters for this battle group in the UK does not mean the UK will be involved in the chain of command. The UK authorities have given us a loan of the hall for the period of the battle group. Administrative staff at Northwood will provide assistance to those running the battle group but the commander will be a lieutenant general from Sweden and the operation will be commanded by the countries involved. I take Deputy Costello's point that a similar facility is not in place in the Nordic countries or in Ireland. On the other hand, the force headquarters will still be based in the framework nation, which is Sweden. If a battle group becomes operational, the headquarters will move to the theatre of operations.

Deputy Costello also asked about additional resources. I estimate that if the battle group is deployed for its maximum period of 120 days, it will cost €3 million. It will initially be deployed for 30 days and three extensions will need to be applied for to extend it to its maximum period. If the battle group remains on standby, the additional cost will be approximately €500,000. Deputy Costello asked me to undertake to carry out an assessment of how Ireland participates in the first battle group, whether it is on standby or deployed. If I can be Minister for Defence again when that happens I will be delighted to comply with that request.

Deputy Sargent said that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, had said she wanted there to be a European army. To put it bluntly, I do not give a damn what Angela Merkel said. She is the same person who wanted to see Fine Gael head the next Government but she will be wrong about that too.

Mr. Timmins

That is why the Minister does not care. She is an excellent person.

Mr. O’Dea

Angela Merkel is an excellent person in several ways but I treat her opinion on matters relating to Ireland with the contempt they deserve.

Nothing happens in Shannon that has not happened since Shannon Airport was established. It has always allowed refuelling facilities to troops, whether they are going on humanitarian missions or to fight wars, whether they are going from east to west or from west to east.

Acting Chairman

Will the Minister conclude?

Mr. O’Dea

I thought I had another couple of minutes.

Acting Chairman

The Minister has five minutes in total.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Minister has run out of time, as I did.

Mr. O’Dea

Deputy Ó Snodaigh said he was worried about the headquarters being based in Northwood but the operational headquarters for the Congo mission is based in Potsdam in Germany. Germany was the initiator of and the aggressor in two world wars but there was no word about that from Sinn Féin. However, because the operational headquarters are based in the UK it makes a song and dance about it, which is rank hypocrisy.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 13.

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.
Ardagh, Seán.
Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Johnny.
Brennan, Seamus.
Callanan, Joe.
Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Coughlan, Mary.
Cowen, Brian.
Cregan, John.
Curran, John.
de Valera, Síle.
English, Damien.
Fahey, Frank.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Fleming, Seán.
Fox, Mildred.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.
Jacob, Joe.
Kehoe, Paul.
Kelleher, Billy.
Killeen, Tony.
Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGuinness, John.
Mitchell, Olivia.
Mulcahy, Michael.
Murphy, Gerard.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.
O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Malley, Fiona.
Parlon, Tom.
Power, Peter.
Power, Seán.
Ring, Michael.
Roche, Dick.
Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.
Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.
Treacy, Noel.
Twomey, Liam.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Woods, Michael.
Wright, G.V.

Níl

Cowley, Jerry.
Crowe, Seán.
Ferris, Martin.
Gormley, John.
Gregory, Tony.
Healy, Seamus.
Higgins, Joe.
McGrath, Finian.
Morgan, Arthur.
Murphy, Catherine.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Sargent, Trevor.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Gormley.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 5 Apr 2007