Before we begin, I welcome viewers of Sky, eircom and UPC who are watching the proceedings live. I ask Members to be conscious of this fact when we are due to start at 9.30 a.m.
Priority Questions
UN Missions
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Question:1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his plans for Ireland's participation in the UNDOF mission on the Golan Heights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34810/14]
Pádraig MacLochlainn
Question:2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence his views that the UNDOF mission in the Golan Heights is still viable in its current format; his further views that the UN should review its mandate in this regard; and if Irish troops will be withdrawn from serving on this mission considering that the Golan Heights is now a conflict zone in Syria's civil war. [34812/14]
I hope Members will take note of the Ceann Comhairle's reminder about time keeping because we have lost valuable time this morning. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Department of Defence. I am not sure about the combination of agriculture and defence but, no doubt, we will have an opportunity to discuss that issue later.
This is the vital question of what is to happen in respect of Irish participation in the peacekeeping-peace observation mission on the Golan Heights. It is something about which everyone with an interest in the work of the Defence Forces is concerned. I know that since his appointment the Minister has given very considerable time to this issue.
I seek guidance from the Ceann Comhairle. The second priority question is also about the same issue and simply I do not want to repeat myself. Does the Ceann Comhairle want me to answer both questions at the same time?
If Deputies are agreeable, we can take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together but separately, if the Minister understands me.
I will answer detailed questions from both Deputies, but-----
We will take them as if they are separate.
I thank Deputy Séan Ó Fearghaíl for his good wishes and look forward to working with Opposition colleagues on this brief. As Deputies know, there has been a lot of media coverage of the changing circumstances on the Golan Heights in recent weeks. We decided, at the invitation of the United Nations, just over a year ago to participate in this mission when the Austrians decided that it was no longer for them. We have 133 peacekeeping troops there - men and women - as part of the UN peacekeeping and peace observation mission. The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission has been in place since 1974 and the United Nations considers it to be a hugely important and very successful mission, essentially keeping apart Syria and Israel, which were at war in the period prior to the putting in place of the mission.
In effect, since the 1970s, the mission has been about observing a demilitarised zone, a narrow strip of land about 75 km long on the Golan Heights, with Mount Hermon at the top. This strip has been respected by both the Syrians and Israelis and there has been little or no military activity or fighting there. The United Nations has supervised it and the mission has been very successful. However, in the past few months and, in particular, in the past few weeks, that has changed.
There has been fighting in the region in recent weeks between Syrian Government forces and rebel forces, primarily the al-Nusra Front. The position changed dramatically some weeks ago when Syrian rebel fighters attacked United Nations posts, resulting in 45 Fijian peacekeepers being overrun and captured at their post and effectively kidnapped. Two other posts manned by Filipino troops were surrounded and attacked. I am proud that the Irish element of the mission, a mobile armoured unit, acting in a highly professional manner secured the release of 36 Filipino troops whose post had been surrounded. This has been a tense and difficult number of weeks.
The UN commanding officer has since deemed it appropriate to redeploy troops from all UN posts south of Mount Hermon because it is no longer safe to have troops stationed in the area. They have been redeployed behind the Alpha line, which is the Israeli line. Almost all UN troops in the region are now deployed in the Israeli controlled area on the Israeli side of the Alpha line, with the exception of Nepalese troops on Mount Hermon, a strategically important location in terms of UN control.
Since this dramatic change in circumstances on the ground, I have been working to ensure the management of the mission responds appropriately in terms of managing risk and the exposure of our peacekeepers to the changing circumstances on the ground. This has been happening. Last week, at a meeting in Milan with the UN head of peacekeeping mission, I made clear that Ireland wanted a statement from the UN Security Council confirming the structural changes to the UNDOF mission if we were to continue to participate in it. We need an assurance that structural change is being made and while this change is taking place out of necessity, it must be confirmed by the UN Security Council. The Security Council met yesterday and I am pleased in principle with the draft statement that has been doing the rounds. Discussions are ongoing and amendments are being made to try to secure agreement on the text today. That is the updated position. If Deputies have questions, I will provide detailed replies.
I thank the Minister for his response and acknowledge again the work he has been doing on this matter. Many families are deeply concerned about their loved ones who are providing distinguished service on behalf of the country in this particularly difficult theatre. The families of troops who may participate in the next rotation are equally concerned.
Ireland committed to a Chapter VI mission to a demilitarised zone, which is clearly no longer relevant. The United Nations must make significant changes to address this issue. Has the Minister demanded that additional UN helicopters be positioned close to the area of separation to increase the lift and recovery capability of the UN force? Has consideration been given to strengthening the armed elements of other contingents in the region? I understand the Irish contingent is providing security for the 1,200 strong force. Should we not ensure the other contingents are armed to the same degree?
To respond generally to the Deputy, I have questioned the mandate, as has the Taoiseach. It is intended to maintain this mission as a Chapter VI mission. We will not move into the territory of peace enforcement and I will not, under any circumstances, send Irish troops on a peacekeeping mission to become involved in a civil war or trying to enforce peace in a civil war. That is not what we are doing. The purpose of the mission is to observe the 1974 armistice between Israel and Syria and it will continue to be to observe adherence to that armistice. The mission has been significantly complicated by the civil war in Syria. Most of the Golan Heights which was a demilitarised, supervised zone is now in the hands and under the control of rebel forces, which significantly complicates the position.
The Minister is over time.
We have asked for a review of weaponry.
I will allow the Minister to contribute again.
We have moved our troops west of the Alpha line to Camp Ziouani. The question that arises is whether it will be possible for them to fulfil any mandate from that location. This poses a serious problem because they will be dependent on the capacities of other forces to support them in any endeavour in which they may engage.
Another issue that arises is the extension of the deployment of the current contingent of men and women who are serving in the region. It has been suggested they will remain in place for another fortnight or thereabouts. Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that their stay in the region will not be extended beyond a fortnight? There is a desire to have them return home safe and sound as soon as possible. Can we continue to regard this as a Chapter VI mission in circumstances in which the area in question is heavily militarised?
To respond first to the Deputy's final question, I believe it can continue to be regarded as a Chapter VI mission. The medium to long-term goal will be for the troops to return to what was previously a demilitarised zone and observe the armistice, as was done in the past. There has been a temporary and significant setback arising from events in Syria.
Ireland has not yet made a definitive decision to proceed with the rotation. We are preparing, however, on the basis that it will proceed and the troops in question will continue their training. I visited Custume Barracks the other day and spoke to our troops. They are a fantastic group of people who have considerable experience. Of the 130 troops who will travel, only 33 are going on their first peacekeeping mission, with many about to participate on their second, third or fourth mission abroad. They are great people who are experienced, well trained, highly professional and up for the mission. I must ensure, however, that we are sending them on a mission that is being managed appropriately in terms of the risk levels to which they will be exposed.
We have extended the period of the current deployment by two weeks because significant structural change is taking place on the mission and it is deemed appropriate that the troops currently on the ground should make these structural changes as they are much more familiar with the area. This means that the new structure will be in place by the time the new troops arrive.
We are very proud of the role the Defence Forces have played across the world under the United Nations and owe them a debt of gratitude. The problem with the UNDOF mission is that we had a debacle in the UN Security Council in issuing a response to the Syrian conflict. Moreover, the European Union's decision to remove the arms embargo on Syria created a serious difficulty. For this reason, Sinn Féin opposed the decision to deploy Irish troops to the region in the first instance. Unfortunately, it has since transpired that they have been exposed to the civil war in Syria. A number of the countries contributing forces to the mission are part of a European Union structure that has not been neutral in the Syrian conflict. One also has the unravelling scenario in respect of Islamic State. The situation is a mess. Will the Minister ensure our soldiers are not placed in harm's way unnecessarily in a mission that has become highly complex?
The Deputy asks a fair question. My role is to ensure we get the structures right and the change that is appropriate to reflect the highly complex realities on the ground.
Even though our troops are highly trained, really professional and are able to manage very difficult circumstances, which they have proved over the past number of weeks, it is not responsible to send a new rotation of troops unless we are satisfied that the management of risk in this peacekeeping mission is being done appropriately, but I think it is. A significant effort is being made on the ground in Golan and in UN headquarters in New York to ensure this mission continues because it is the strong view of all stakeholders in the Middle East that keeping a UN presence in the Golan Heights significantly reduces the risk of a significant conflict developing there again. Ireland is a key part of that mission, given the role we have played over the past number of weeks. I am committed to the UNDOF mission but I want to see structural changes and the approval of those changes at UN Security Council level, if it is possible to get that.
A number of issues have arisen in the media reporting of this in recent times which I have to put to the Minister. It has been reported that in one of the operations, but for the intervention of the Israeli Defence Forces, our troops would have been in a very dangerous situation. Will the Minister clarify what happened in that regard? It has also been reported that it was a United Nations requirement that the Fijian troops surrender, and this has caused huge concern in their home country. Will the Minister clarify whether troops are expected to surrender in those circumstances?
I do not think it is appropriate for me to go into the detail of decisions taken by the force commander and the reasons behind those decisions. General Singha, the force commander, who is an Indian officer, has had to make very difficult judgments over the past number of weeks. His primary focus has been the safety of UN troops in the face of some very difficult situations which he has had to manage. In my view and in that of Irish officers who are there, he has made the right decisions. That is all I will say on that.
In terms of the involvement of Israeli troops in supporting, rescuing or coming to the aid of Irish troops, there was a misleading report in the Irish media that somehow Irish troops were rescued by Israeli forces. That is simply not true and I am glad to confirm that. The Irish forces' engagement here, which has got some accurate coverage, was that they were asked by General Singha to go in and, effectively, evacuate Filipino troops who were under huge pressure and were surrounded by rebel forces. They did that in a very professional way. They took some fire and returned some fire and they successfully helped their colleagues to get out of a very difficult situation.
Another UN post was surrounded, which had a different outcome, but it was also a solution that resulted in protection of the lives of peacekeepers. However, there was no incident in which Israeli troops had to rescue Irish troops.
There is a time limit of six minutes per question.
Defence Forces Contracts
Clare Daly
Question:3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he will ensure that the Defence Forces cease security contracts with Israeli companies. [34814/14]
I too congratulate the Minister on his extra brief. I do not know what the farmers were giving out about. I think he is one of a handful of people who could admirably handle the two posts and I wish him well.
The question relates to when the Minister will order the Defence Forces no longer to engage in contracts with companies which have been involved in, or profited from, illegal Israeli settlements and companies which have been involved in the violation of international law, particularly companies such as Elbit Systems Limited, from which the Defence Forces have purchased millions of euro worth of ground surveillance equipment.
I thank Deputy Daly for her good wishes, which I appreciate.
The primary purpose of the procurement of defensive equipment by the Department of Defence is to maintain the capability of the Irish Defence Forces on overseas support operations and to afford the greatest possible force protection to Irish troops when on such missions. The need for such equipment is self-evident given recent events.
Tender competitions for defence equipment for the Defence Forces are conducted by the Department of Defence in accordance with EU procurement guidelines and with the EU code of conduct on export controls. Accordingly, competitions are open to any individual or country in accordance with the terms of all UN, OSCE and EU arms embargoes or restrictions. There are no such restrictions or embargoes in place on Israeli companies.
In following these guidelines and codes, the Department of Defence must deal impartially with all companies that are entitled to enter its procurement competitions and must evaluate tenders on the basis of objective criteria.
The principle of competitive tendering for Government contracts is used by the Department of Defence for the acquisition of defence equipment for the Defence Forces. Central to those procedures is the requirement to allow fair competition between suppliers through the submission of tenders following advertising of the tender competition, usually on the eTenders website, in line with the EU directive on the procurement of defence and security equipment.
A small number of Israeli companies have won orders for defence equipment in recent years as a result of tender competitions. This is not a new development. In each case, the contract was awarded by tender competition on the basis that the company concerned had submitted the most economically advantageous tender. To bar Israeli companies from entering tender competitions for the provision of military goods would be akin to Ireland's unilaterally placing an embargo on such goods from Israel, and this would raise serious implications for Irish foreign policy which are outside my remit. As the Deputy is aware, trade policy and market access are largely EU competencies and any restrictions or bans on imports from any particular country would have to be a concerted decision at EU level.
The Government has consistently been opposed to proposals for trade, diplomatic, cultural, academic, sporting or other boycotts of Israel. In the absence of a general trade embargo of Israel, the Department of Defence cannot unilaterally preclude Israeli companies from participating in tender competitions for military or any other type of goods.
That really is not good enough. This demand is part of a Trócaire campaign. It is not exactly the most radical organisation making efforts to discourage countries from trading with or investing in those companies that have connections with illegal Israeli settlements. That campaign was initiated prior to the summer slaughter of the people of Gaza and the particular targeting of children and so on. While it is the case that EU procurement practices must be followed in such contracts, the reality is that the EU, the UN and the International Court of Justice have, on numerous occasions, condemned illegal Israeli settlements.
Other countries have provided positive examples of what could be done. The Norwegian ministry of finance excluded Elbit Systems Limited, with which our Defence Forces are currently trading, from its government pension funds on the grounds of serious violations of ethical norms in which the company had been involved, namely, the provision of hardware on the wall in Gaza and in the West Bank and supplying armoury to the Israeli Defence Forces.
The Minister can do more and I would advise him to look at the Trócaire campaign to see how he can play a proactive role in this very important human rights issue.
It would be helpful for the information of the House to give some details about the kind of equipment we have purchased through the tendering process from Israeli companies. The vast majority of it is not offensive weaponry. We are talking about X-ray equipment for explosive ordnance disposal duties, which is required to ensure we can dispose of landmines, bombs and so on, helmets for personal protection, unmanned aerial vehicles, which can allow us to improve our surveillance and protect our troops when they are in difficult situations, and ground surveillance radars. There is a small amount of spending on small arms ammunition, but the vast majority of spending over the past ten years or so has been on equipment that makes it safer for our troops to operate in very difficult circumstances. However, I accept the principle of what the Deputy said.
I remember having many conversations-----
I will let the Minister back in.
I believe the Minister deliberately did not answer the question which was not about the merits of what the Government was spending; rather, it was about the very fact that it was spending taxpayers' money with a company involved in illegal activity in Israel. Over the summer most Irish people were appalled at the slaughter of innocent people there. It is not just this military company that is involved, although it is involved in the case of the West Bank wall and in supplying the same unmanned aerial surveillance equipment to the Israeli defence forces that undoubtedly was used in recent combat against civilians. The issue that Trócaire and other organisations are putting, not simply in respect of defence issues but with regard to Cement Roadstone Holdings, Veolia, SodaStream and all of the companies that are profiting there, is that the only way to deal with them is to hit them in their pockets. If the Government is concerned about the slaughter that is ongoing, Ireland, as a neutral country, should take the lead and state it is not going to trade with these companies while they are engaged in such practices.
I believe I have answered that question. The manner in which the Department of Defence procures both services and products is consistent with international practice and European Union and United Nations decisions on trade embargoes and so on. That is the appropriate way in which to continue, rather than Ireland taking a unilateral decision to target individual companies or countries on their own. Like many others, I was left distraught by the images of death, destruction, misery and war in Gaza over the summer months. However, there are many ways in which Ireland can assist in trying to bring stability and peace to the region. The Government will certainly try to do this, but I am unsure that the approach the Deputy is suggesting would have any significant effect.
Defence Forces Deployment
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Question:4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his plans for the future of Custume Barracks, Athlone, County Westmeath; the number of Defence Forces personnel exclusively based there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34811/14]
This question is straightforward and seeks to establish the Minister's plans for the future of Custume Barracks. However, I put it against the background of the extraordinary decision taken by his predecessor as Minister for Defence, Deputy Alan Shatter, who, at the same time as announcing a Green Paper on the future of the Defence Forces, announced the disestablishment of the 4th Western Brigade and, effectively, the downgrading of Custume Barracks. This has come as a blow to the Defence Forces in general and, in particular, the many people throughout the midlands and west who have been associated with the Defence Forces and Custume Barracks.
Custume Barracks is and will continue to be an important operational military barracks. The military authorities have confirmed that the current strength of personnel in Custume Barracks, Athlone is 1,038. Incidentally, that is significantly greater than when the Government took office. It includes personnel attending training courses in Custume Barracks. I am advised that the establishment for units based in Custume Barracks is 995, that is, approximately 1,000 people.
While the number serving in the barracks will remain in the order of 1,000, it should be noted that numbers, obviously, will vary from time to time. As with any barracks, there is a constant through-flow of personnel in and out. This is because military service involves personnel moving into and out of particular postings as they serve at home and overseas, receive training and undergo educational and career development courses.
I was asked the question, when I visited it the other day, as to my commitment and that of the Government to the barracks. There are no plans for any downgrading of the barracks in Athlone. The Government perceives it to be a highly significant facility that operationally will remain a major part of the Defence Forces at home, as well as for preparing troops to go abroad. That is why the 46th Battalion which I hope will be replacing the 44th Battalion in the UNDOF mission in the next month or so will be leaving from that barracks.
I must disagree with the Minister a little on the figures. According to my briefing note, on 30 November 2012 there were 1,441 permanent positions at Custume Barracks. These included personnel who had relocated from Longford in 2009 and Cavan and Mullingar in 2012. The disestablishment of the Western Brigade and the downgrading of Custume Barracks have been a disaster for the Defence Forces and, in particular, the military Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve alike. It was a bad decision for military and strategic security reasons. The two remaining Army brigade headquarters, located in Dublin and Cork, are in two geographical extremities. From a Defence Forces operational standpoint, the entire border with Northern Ireland is now overseen from Rathmines, County Dublin. A regional Army brigade headquarters in Athlone makes essential military sense. Athlone is the geographical centre of the country, equidistant from east and west and within easy reach of the centre point of the Border.
We must agree to differ on this point. The advice I have from the Defence Forces is that the restructured brigade structure in Ireland is working very well and that there have not been more than 1,400 troops in this barracks since the 1990s. Therefore, the numbers there currently are stronger than has been the case in the recent past. I accept, of course, that the restructuring of the brigade structure, if one wishes to call it that, has resulted in certain people being unhappy. However, it came as a recommendation from the Defence Forces and has resulted in an improved structure and greater efficiency. Certainly, no one within the Defence Forces of whom I am aware seeks to reverse the clock in this regard. As for Custume Barracks, from what I have seen, the motivation and the standards being set there are better now than they have been in many years.
I do not doubt that very high standards are set in Custume Barracks. Moreover, I do not doubt the commitment of the personnel there. However, I have also visited counties Westmeath and Roscommon and spoken to people who have been affected by the particular changes made. This change was all the more extraordinary, in that the Minister's predecessor had launched a discussion paper on the future of the Defence Forces, yet at the time he was launching it, he made one of the most fundamental and radical changes that might be made to the entire structure of the Defence Forces. Far from it leading to greater efficiencies, my information is that vastly increased costs are involved in ferrying people around the country in buses that are carrying numbers of personnel in order that necessary duties can be fulfilled. When he speaks to people on the ground, as distinct from speaking to the military authorities who will be careful in what they say to a Minister for Defence, the Minister will find the response may be quite different.
I also speak to people on the ground. That is what one does as a public representative, as well as Minister for Defence. The change the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces have implemented in the past 15 years or so has been fundamental in respect of modernisation, performance and fitness improvement, changing the age profile, restructuring and reorganisation within barracks. It has been an extraordinarily successful change programme for which the Defence Forces should be commended. I can certainly understand the Deputy's point about a Green Paper and the preparation of a White Paper. However, when one is trying to finalise a White Paper on the back of a Green Paper, it takes time. This does not mean that in the interim, structures within the Defence Forces should not be modernised, changed and adapted to new realities, which is what has been happening.
Defence Forces Contracts
Pádraig MacLochlainn
Question:5. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence his plans to continue to buy military hardware from Israeli companies. [34813/14]
This is the same as a question the Minister dealt with earlier, but I want to develop it a little further. Undoubtedly, it is of considerable concern to the people of Ireland that we are involved in commerce with the arms business in Israel. I got the Minister's response to my letter. Regardless of the framework, we must make our own decisions in these matters.
It is important to qualify my answer by saying that I am the Minister for Defence, and much of what Deputy Mac Lochlainn is asking about, and what Deputy Clare Daly asked about earlier, is to do with foreign policy issues: whether we want to make decisions that will target Israeli companies and Israel in order to make a foreign policy statement. In my view, given my experience as a foreign policy spokesperson in the European Parliament for a number of years, and a human rights spokesperson at that, such a decision would not be the wisest course of action. In my view, engagement is what brings about change. However, as I said, those are foreign policy issues.
As regards the Department of Defence, we comply with all of the existing procurement rules of competitive tendering for services and equipment and we comply fully with decisions that have been made collectively by the EU and the UN in terms of arms embargoes or other restrictions on companies or countries that may be subject to such restrictions at an EU level. Generally, European countries act together in making decisions on embargoes because it is a much more effective way to achieve results, and it would be unusual for a country to take strong unilateral action against another country.
Normally I would not disagree, but I am thinking of Russia. Currently, we have sanctions against Russia and our agriculture sector is facing the same sanctions reciprocally. Another example is the sanctions against Iran. I am sure there are other countries that face sanctions now. There should be severe sanctions against Israel. The reason there are not any sanctions against Israel is that it is protected at the UN Security Council.
How can we, who are proud of our neutrality and our international contribution to human rights, stand over doing commerce with the military-industrial complex in the country that bolsters a defence force that slaughtered 1,500 Palestinians a number of years ago in Gaza, and recently more than 2,000, most of whom were women and children?
First, the examples given by Deputy Mac Lochlainn of Russia and Iran are decisions that were taken collectively by the European Union. The European Union decided that it needed to respond collectively to what was happening in Ukraine and to Russian involvement in that, and, of course, there have been consequences. One does not impose sanctions on a country as powerful and large, and which is as big a trading partner, as Russia and expect nothing in return. Russia has decided to target the agrifood sector, which, of course, we need to manage. It is difficult for a country such as Ireland which exports 80% of the food and drink that it produces, but we will manage. We will find alternative markets and we will work with our EU partners to try to bring about a non-military solution to what is happening in eastern Ukraine. That is the right thing to do. That is a classic example of the European Union acting together. If individual countries started acting unilaterally with regard to Russia, we would be significantly weaker. That is why I say we would be well advised to make decisions about the relationships between Europe and other countries collectively rather than taking unilateral actions.
With regard to what has happened over the summer, there are two sides in this conflict. It is not simply a case of talking about Israeli slaughter.
I will allow the Minister to speak again.
It is a much more complex-----
There are two sides to Ukraine.
There are.
There is a clock. It is over time.
This is a helpful discussion. It shows the conundrum we face around our neutrality and our partnership with European countries that are members of NATO. It is destroying our neutrality when we take collective decisions. For example, we abstained on the vote in the UN on the need for a report into what one, being gentle, would describe as human rights abuses that were taking place in the conflict in Palestine. How was it in the interests of the Irish people to abstain on that vote? We have coalesced with NATO countries which are often aggressors and we are undermining our own independence. We are also undermining our potential to use our neutrality in a positive way, to be involved in UN peacekeeping, to use our conflict resolution experience and to be one of the biggest per capita contributors to overseas development aid internationally. We can be leaders in conflict resolution and human rights, but we are losing our credibility because of our alliances with NATO countries in the European Union. That is not in our national interest. I ask the Minister to reflect on what we are losing here and the positive role we can play in these conflicts if we just do right by our own people.
Neutrality or military non-alignment allows us to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we decide to work in partnership with NATO, such as in Afghanistan and the Balkans, sometimes we work in partnership with EU member states, such as in a training mission in Mali with British colleagues, and sometimes we are involved with UN efforts such as UNIFIL in southern Lebanon and in UNDOF on the Golan Heights. All of those missions have UN support. We have a triple-lock system which is there to protect our neutrality in terms of decision-making and sending troops abroad.
I agree with Deputy Mac Lochlainn's aspirations for Ireland to be a world leader in conflict resolution and peacekeeping and in making independent decisions, but that does not mean we cannot work with other countries that have similar outlooks and objectives on a case-by-case basis in trying to achieve solutions for destabilised regions following conflict. Just because there is an association or partnership with NATO countries from time to time does not mean we have an aspiration to be a member of NATO, but we should be open to working in partnership for them when it can result in a positive outcome that is consistent with Irish foreign policy.