Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jun 2016

Vol. 912 No. 2

Memorandum of Understanding regarding Ireland's Participation in UK Battle Group: Motion

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves Ireland's accession to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the principles for the establishment and operation of a Battlegroup to be made available to the European Union in the second half of the year 2016.

Ireland's participation in the UK-led EU battle group is set in the context of our long-standing national policy. The term "battle group" is an unfortunate title. It is a technical military term intended to describe the size of the force rather that its role. The term does not accurately portray the tasks which such groups, if deployed, can carry out. They are designed to react rapidly to crisis situations and the tasks that are carried out relate to peacekeeping, conflict prevention and assistance to humanitarian operations. When it comes to these tasks, our national policy recognises the primacy of the United Nations. This is recognised in our triple-lock mechanism.

In terms of EU policy, it is my view and that of the Government that the United Nations must continue to be the partner of choice for the EU. It is important, therefore, that we maintain a close engagement and collaborative relationship with the UN. Our traditional policy of military neutrality is unaffected by our involvement in EU battle groups. The establishment of EU battle groups is something the UN recognises and supports, as they facilitate rapid responses to emerging crisis situations. This is a key objective of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy.

The purpose of the EU battle groups is to undertake operations as outlined in the Amsterdam treaty. These operations, known as the Petersberg Tasks, include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. In the Lisbon treaty, these tasks were expanded to include joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks in supporting the reform and restructuring of security services and legal institutions in fragile states, conflict prevention, and post-conflict stabilisation.

A central plank of Irish foreign policy is support for the multilateral system of collective security represented by the United Nations. In this regard, Ireland has worked to uphold the primary role of the Security Council when it comes to international peace and security. This commitment has found expression in Ireland's long-standing tradition of participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Participation in EU battle groups is another means for Ireland to express our commitment to the UN and its principles.

The Defence Forces' contribution to this battle group will comprise five staff posts at both the operational and force headquarters located at Northwood and Catterick in the UK where they will be engaged in training and planning activities. The UK battle group memorandum of understanding is an agreement between the participants comprising the battle group, namely, the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Cyprus. It sets out principles relating to the operation, deployment and management of the UK battle group. Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, deal with the definitions and reference documents that are applicable to this memorandum of understanding. Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, deal with the consultation process, exercise, training, certification and the operation of the battle group. One important issue to note is that each participating country retains the right to deploy or not to deploy its forces, irrespective of an EU decision to launch a battle group operation. Equally, each participant retains the right to withdraw its contingent at any time. As such, any deployment of the Irish contribution as part of the UK battle group will still be subject to a UN mandate and Government approval and this will remain unaffected by Ireland signing the memorandum of understanding. While Dáil approval is only required in respect of deployments of 12 or more personnel, in the event that any decision might be required on an actual deployment, I will be happy to facilitate discussion in the House in such circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the number of Defence Forces personnel involved in this particular EU battle group is five. Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, outline the arrangements in terms of financing, logistics, classified information, the status of forces and the issue of claims and liabilities. Sections 14 to 16, inclusive, deal with the process of participation of additional states in the battle group, the timelines for coming into effect and termination of the memorandum of understanding and the process for dispute resolution.

The memorandum of understanding is similar to those Ireland has previously signed for the 2008, 2011 and 2015 Nordic battle groups, as well as the 2012 Austro-German battle group. While no battle group has deployed to date, the EU battle group concept has yielded many benefits in terms of developing improved inter-operability between the Defence Forces and the forces of other EU member states. It enables Irish personnel to take part in exercises and develop expertise which adds to our ability to work in partnership with other countries on UN peacekeeping missions.

The purpose of battle groups is, very simply, to enable the 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. Ireland's participation in battle groups supports the development of rapid deployment skills and capabilities within the Defence Forces. It also enhances Ireland's credibility as a provider of professional and effective military forces for crisis management operations. It reinforces our standing and capacity to influence the ongoing development of the Union's common security and defence policy in support of international peace and security and the UN. Our involvement continues Ireland's proud tradition of participation in international peace keeping operations.

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, on his new responsibilities and wish him all the best in this new role. Furthermore, I express my thanks to the Minister of State and his officials for the general defence briefing I received last week. It is clear that the Minister of State will be well served by his officials and I greatly appreciate the courtesy shown to me by him and his officials.

This is my first outing in this House as my party's spokesperson on defence and it is a great honour for me, especially in view of my own service in the Reserve Defence Force for many years. I want to say very clearly to all my friends, and now former colleagues, in the Defence Forces, regardless of whether they are Permanent or Reserve, that my party and I value their work and take enormous pride in their achievements at home and abroad. We are on their side. We firmly believe that our Defence Forces are of critical importance for both State and society and it is my view that we need greater appreciation of the social benefits for both the community and members of our Defence Forces.

In that light and on the basis of that belief, I want to give the following message to the Government and the Minister of State with responsibility for defence. I wish to make it clear to him that I mean him no disrespect whatsoever because the allocation of political responsibility for defence is not his decision. There is great disappointment in the Defence Forces at the absence of a Cabinet-level Minister for Defence. While the Taoiseach is nominally the Minister for Defence, he has effectively subcontracted out the Department to a Minister of State. It is not good enough and it clearly indicates that the Government does not properly value and respect the Defence Forces. I am sorry to have to say this but this is the reality and it would be remiss of me to let this opportunity pass without mentioning it.

Five years ago, the Taoiseach got it wrong when he gave the same Cabinet Minister responsibility for justice and defence, despite it being a norm in democratic countries to separate political responsibility for the military and the police. He rectified that mistake in 2014 and I hope he rectifies this latest mistake at the earliest opportunity.

Turning to the motion, Fianna Fáil is committed to strengthening the Defence Forces in terms of numbers and in capability. Part of this involves participation in battle groups, which we in Fianna Fáil support. We support this motion, just as we supported the motion last October. The participation of our forces in this battle group is far more modest than when Dáil approval was sought last year when 175 members were due to be involved. On this occasion, the Dáil is approving the involvement of five personnel.

Participation in battle groups presents a valuable opportunity for our soldiers to enhance their skills and for us to maintain modern defence forces. Every time we participate in such a group, there are the usual warnings about our neutrality being undermined. We obviously do not accept this position. Any actual Irish participation in a battle group action can only take place under the same auspices as any other overseas participation - that the triple lock comes into play, namely, the approval of the Government, the Dáil and the mission being endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. Support for and retention of the triple lock prior to the deployment of the Defence Forces is a fundamental element of Fianna Fáil defence policy and we hope it is fully endorsed by the Fine Gael party in government.

We have rightly given primacy to the UN since we joined more than 60 years ago. In that time, we have worked with other UN members to support international action in areas such as disarmament, peacekeeping, humanitarian actions and human rights implementation. We are strong and committed supporters of collective security through the United Nations. We have a long tradition of overseas service in support of UN or UN-mandated deployments in pursuit of international peace and security since the first Defence Forces deployment abroad in 1958 and the battle group continues this tradition. Thus far, of course, no EU battle group has deployed in a mandated mission.

As Fianna Fáil has pointed out previously, overseas service deployments by the Defence Forces are a pivotal element of both Irish foreign policy and for the attainment of Defence Forces operational capability across a wide spectrum of challenging military, geopolitical and geo-strategic environments. Our Defence Forces personnel of all ranks have shined, and continue to shine, in overseas deployments. We are internationally recognised for the high quality of our Defence Forces members. The sustained participation of Defence Forces members is indispensable for individual and unit professional development, unit operational viability and cohesion.

The nature of overseas deployments since 1958 has, of course, changed substantially over the decades and yet they have been perceived by the public as being mainly a form of "armed humanitarianism". There is, of course, far more to it than that. Military service, most particularly in the trouble spots of the world where the Defence Forces now deploy, is dangerous and challenging. We must always keep that in mind and that means that our military personnel need to be trained, armed, equipped, resourced, led and supported appropriately.

My party and I are happy to support this motion, just as we are happy to support our Defence Forces in their endeavours on our behalf.

Ba mhaith liom mo chomhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire Stáit as an bpost nua atá faighte aige. Bhí mé mar urlabhraí mo pháirtí ar cheisteanna cosanta ag amanna difriúla thar na blianta. The motion deals with Ireland's participation in the EU battle group, which is led by the UK and also comprises Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden. It permits the Government to agree to the deployment of soldiers to an EU battle group meaning a contingent of our military personnel will form part of a battalion-sized force of 1,500 soldiers complete with the combat supports required.

These are aptly named battle groups because they allow the EU to project its military might by retaining its capacity to rapidly deploy combat-ready troops to regions across the globe. Their primary purpose is to go into battle on behalf of the EU wherever post-colonial powers such as Britain decide such action is necessary. Can we imagine the EU going to war? Some people cannot, but there are warmongers in Europe and abroad who would be quick to embroil the EU and its countries in external wars. We only have to look at recent history to see occasions upon which similar warmongers wanted the EU to embroil itself in wars not of its making and not of major relevance to it. Recently, there were the disputes between Russia and Ukraine and Russian and Georgia. One should look at the history of some of the member states we would be joining in an EU battle group and the stance they took in Syria, Libya, Iraq and elsewhere in that region. They supposedly aligned themselves with democratic rebels, and we have seen the consequences of that in the world.

Ireland should have and has had quite an honourable tradition in the UN. We would be best placed to try to enhance our role in the UN and to work with it in peacekeeping, rather than enforcing peace or taking sides as the EU battle group would be doing in the future. We have a proud tradition and our soldiers have performed peacekeeping duties right around the world. All one has to do is look at the recent operations by our Naval Service and its contribution to the rescue missions in the Mediterranean to see the role our Defence Forces should have. They are aptly named the Defence Forces because their role is the defence of Ireland, not the defence of everywhere else in the world. We are a small nation and our Defence Forces have been starved of investment in many ways. In the rest of Europe there has been huge growth over the last number of decades, and spending on armaments has continued to grow. While we have seen famines and crises in terms of poverty throughout the world, those modernised countries that would have us invest money in a battle group are spending money that would save lives on increasing their armaments and their capabilities. That is the biggest disgrace of the concept of the EU battle groups. Rather than investing in the UN and its poverty eradication programmes or investing in the UN so it can become fully effective, we have aligned ourselves to those who would create another military institution similar to NATO and other Cold War institutions that should be gotten rid of. At this stage, the role of progressive states in the world should be to enhance the UN rather than undermine it by creating competing military complexes such as the EU battle groups concept.

At a time like this, when we are debating and presumably voting on the allocation of five Irish soldiers to participate in a British-led battle group, which I presume will include British paratroopers - the Minister may be able to clarify that - we should remind ourselves of every time we raised the nature of the European Union in discussions. In debates about the Lisbon treaty and the prospect of the militarisation of Europe, we were laughed at and ridiculed. Straw men were put up saying that we were saying that everyone was going to be conscripted into a European army when nobody was saying that. These are battle groups; they are not peace groups. They are the ability of the European Union to put 50,000 troops on the ground anywhere in the world within five days. To what purposes can they be put on the ground? I will read the relevant section of the Treaty on the European Union, which says:

The tasks ... in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks ... All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

That was added by the Lisbon treaty and it broadens the definition of what battle groups can do. The fight against terrorism is the pretext du jour for imperialist interventions, led by France in Mali and others in the Middle East. Nobody goes to war anymore for colonial interest; they always go to war to prevent terrorism.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a former secretary general of NATO said:

EU 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 should not think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power.

There it is in black and white. That is how the military, political and economic establishment in Europe and around the world view these battle groups and it is a disgrace that the Government would propose, and the Dáil presumably would agree to, Irish participation in yet another battle group that can be used against so-called terrorism. Unfortunately, the Government and previous Governments make a lie of the idea of Ireland's neutrality. That happens in many different ways in terms of the battle groups. It also happens through the use of Shannon Airport. It is against the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and we should reject the motion. We should not be participating in any battle groups whatsoever.

In a debate on EU battle groups last year, the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, stated:

Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality is unaffected by our participation ... We are not and will not become part of any military alliance or permanent military formation. We will not enter into any mutual defence arrangement.

How then do we explain Ireland's membership of the EU battle group or our partnership with NATO? Fine Gael, supported by Fianna Fáil, further ensured the Dáil that any deployment of an Irish contribution as part of the German battle group will be subject to the triple lock of the Government, the Dáil and a UN mandate before deployment occurs. How do we explain the fact that in May this year The Sunday Times reported that 300 soldiers from Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland and Sweden had taken part in 18 days of war games on Salisbury plain in England in an EU battle group led by the British army? If Dáil Éireann agreed in 2015 to the deployment of troops in an EU battle group led by Germany, how did we end up deploying troops in war games in a battle group led by the British army? If there is no Dáil oversight on decision making on deployment of troops to EU battle groups how can we trust in the ongoing commitment of the Government to provide the protection afforded by the triple lock? The ongoing alliance of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil with the military formations in the EU and NATO directly contradicts our neutrality, associates us with aggression abroad, particularly in the Middle East, and will endanger Irish troops who take part in genuine peacekeeping missions by undermining their claim to a genuine neutrality.

Ireland should withdraw from the EU battle groups, NATO partnerships including the use of Shannon by the US, and, as Denmark has done, from further participation in US militarisation.

The proposition before us is an affront to the concept of our neutrality. It is in line with other daily occurrences where we see the US military using our airport in Shannon in spite of our neutrality. We see other examples where Irish Defence Forces personnel are sent and kept in Afghanistan to support NATO led initiatives, its resolute support mission and so on. We are told that these initiatives are taken in countries like Afghanistan to ensure the security of the population and to support its Government. The reality is that our troops have been present in a country where the so-called Government has no mandate or say and which is divided between ISIS on the one hand and the Taliban on the other. We should have no hand, act or part in participating there, no more than we should have in the idea of participating in the EU battle groups.

Initially, these groups were established with 1,500 combat soldiers assigned to each one. The point has been made that to allow for back-up on rotation, there were another seven to nine soldiers for each combat soldier so, in effect, a battle group is a military force of 12,000 troops. The numbers have extended from their original concept and the size has increased to more than 3,000. Given that two are made ready approximately every six months, in effect, the European Union is developing an armed force of almost 50,000 troops ready to be sent anywhere in the world. That is happy days for those in the arms industry who are the main beneficiaries of this situation.

The record is well known that EU battle groups could be used to go to war. Why else would they have been established? Generally, they were initiated on the basis of being nationally based or made up of troops from adjoining countries, which would lead Britain to be the logical ally for Ireland in that context. However, Fianna Fáil was in power when this arose originally and it had a problem because the idea of Irish troops fighting alongside those from Great Britain was anathema at that time and could not be envisaged. Obviously, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael supported the Good Friday Agreement and believed that, eventually, the time would be right when this proposition could be considered. It is clear that the Government believes the time is right now.

I am not a nationalist; I have no interest in nationalism. I am an internationalist and someone who believes profoundly in our neutrality. It does not matter to me whether we join a UK battle group, the Russian forces or the American forces. They are all the same as far as I am concerned but there is a certain irony in the idea that in 2016, we would align ourselves with a UK battle group 100 years on from when the likes of John Redmond sent 50,000 young Irishmen to be slaughtered in the First World War, as part of the British army. As a pacifist, I find that reprehensible.

It is a fact that NATO and the EU battle groups are synonymous, one and the other. They are the new breed of enforcing imperial power and we, as a neutral country, should have no part in that whatsoever. We only have to read the words of the UK Minister of Defence in 2005, in a letter to the House of Commons, when he described the UK battle groups as being mutually reinforcing with the larger NATO Response Force, and having the potential to act as a stepping stone for countries that want to contribute to the NATO Response Force, by developing their high readiness forces to the required standard and integrating small countries' contribution to the multinational units. Wherever possible and applicable, standards, practical methods and procedures for battle groups are analogous to those defined in the NATO RF. Correctly managed, there is considerable potential for synergy between the two initiatives.

That is what we are talking about and that is the end game in terms of these battle groups. A link between NATO and EU military formations is confirmed. The battle groups allow small countries, such as Ireland, to become integrated in those structures in a manner in which they would not be otherwise. Other EU countries like Malta and Denmark have no part in these formations. We should have no part in them either. I strenuously oppose the initiative.

I understand Deputy Barrett wants to make a contribution. His name is not on the list of speakers but as one of the other groups has not turned up, I will allow the Deputy to make a contribution.

I thank the Acting Chairman. My contribution will be short because I was delighted to read the Minister's statement, which clarified some issues for me, but as a former Minister for Defence, I am deeply concerned that our image as peacekeepers should not be damaged by any titles or otherwise. It is very unfortunate that this group is termed a battle group. On reading the Minister's speech, it is clear that it is an extension of our peacekeeping missions. I wanted to intervene to ask the Minister to ask that the title given to these groups should not be "battle groups" as it immediately sends the wrong message and causes alarm bells to ring unnecessarily in terms of the role these people will be asked to perform.

We can argue here whether Ireland wants to be neutral or not. I believe strongly that Ireland should remain neutral. I strongly believe also that we can do more for peace in the world by upholding our great image and professionalism in peacekeeping. We have a peacekeeping college on the Curragh where people come from all parts of the world to learn about peacekeeping methods. That is vitally important for Ireland but it is very unfortunate that this group within the European Union should be entitled a battle group. If it is concerned with security and peacekeeping, that is different from a battle group. It rings alarm bells unnecessarily throughout the country, which is world renowned for its peacekeeping.

The purpose of my contribution is solely to ask the Minister to indicate, when replying, if efforts could be made to change the title of these groups which will, in fact, be engaged in peacekeeping exercises.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 95; Níl, 31.

  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Brassil, John.
  • Brophy, Colm.
  • Browne, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Peter.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Mary.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Cahill, Jackie.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Canney, Seán.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cassells, Shane.
  • Chambers, Jack.
  • Chambers, Lisa.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Curran, John.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harty, Michael.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lahart, John.
  • Lawless, James.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Madigan, Josepha.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moran, Kevin Boxer.
  • Moynihan, Aindrias.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Murphy, Eugene.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Neville, Tom.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Brien, Darragh.
  • O'Connell, Kate.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Kevin.
  • O'Loughlin, Fiona.
  • O'Rourke, Frank.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Anne.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Rock, Noel.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smyth, Niamh.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Zappone, Katherine.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Barry, Mick.
  • Brady, John.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Buckley, Pat.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Connolly, Catherine.
  • Coppinger, Ruth.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Funchion, Kathleen.
  • Kenny, Martin.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • Martin, Catherine.
  • Mitchell, Denise.
  • Munster, Imelda.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Nolan, Carol.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
  • Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Reilly, Louise.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Smith, Bríd.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Jim Daly and Regina Doherty; Níl, Deputies Paul Murphy and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share