I do not wish to push my luck with the Minister but my point relates to functions and duties of the Chief of Staff as defined in section 4. It states that he shall be directly responsible to the Minister for the performance of such duties as may from time to time be assigned to him or her under subsection (2). This is as it should be. I agree with the Minister that the Army must be subject to the control of the democratic State. Its purpose is to support the civil power. However, my point relates to the degree to which it would be possible to politically interfere with the Army. This would be entirely improper, although I do not suggest the Minister would do it.
Yesterday the Chief of Staff made a comment in respect of the Partnership for Peace. It was appropriate for the military adviser to the Government to speak out, but there appeared to be an inference on a radio programme yesterday evening that this was improper, that the Chief of Staff should not have a view on such matters and that if he did have a view, he should keep it to himself and not express it publicly. I am totally opposed to the idea that he should keep his mouth shut. It is proper for the Chief of Staff to have a view on matters which are relevant to the way the Army can operate and the degree to which it should be involved in overseas peacekeeping and peace enforcement duties. I welcome the statement reported in the press yesterday.
As the Minister is aware, there were a number of heated meetings around the country before the last general election where the representative associations made their views explicitly known. This is proper and healthy for democracy. However, I heard a statement at one meeting which appalled me. An individual stated that they would march on Leinster House and throw their medals through the railings. The suggestion that anybody in the Army, which supports the State, would march on the Parliament is dangerous. I hope we never see members of the Defence Forces marching on the Parliament of this State.
