Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 23 January 2024
49. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the timeframe in which he intends to bring forward proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when he expects the legislation to be enacted; and which missions he envisages the Defence Forces participating in from which they are currently preluded. [2988/24]
View answerWhat is the timeframe in which the Tánaiste intends to bring forward his regrettable proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection? When does he expect the legislation to be enacted? Will he outline on this occasion the missions in which he envisages the Defence Forces will participate from which they are currently precluded?
I thank the Deputy for raising the question. Any modification to the triple lock will continue to require Government and Dáil approval for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to take part in peacekeeping and similar missions. Second, it will do nothing to change Ireland’s traditional position of military neutrality, which is characterised by Ireland's non-participation in any military alliance.
The Deputy will be aware that last year’s consultative forum on international security policy featured a well-informed discussion on the issue of UN peacekeeping and the triple lock, contributed to by a wide and varied perspective of views on this matter. It was a very good discussion, well informed and not partisan in any way, and it was subsequently reflected in the chair’s report. This debate provided ample evidence of ways in which to continue Ireland’s long-standing record on peacekeeping while ensuring adherence to the highest standards of international law.
Clearly, we need a new process to replace the current system, which effectively allows UN Security Council members to bind Ireland’s hands in its international engagement. While not being prescriptive about what changes will be made, I have instructed officials in my Department to prepare legislative proposals without delay that would govern the future overseas deployments of our Defence Forces. Work on the preparation of those legislative proposals is progressing, with a view to bringing them to the Government in due course. Any proposals agreed by the Government will then have to be presented to, and debated and approved, by the Dáil and Seanad, thus providing the Oireachtas with ample opportunity to scrutinise any such proposals. Any legislative proposals will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN charter and international law.
The Government has no plans for the Defence Forces to participate in any further overseas missions at present. Indeed, and extremely regrettably, however, no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. Given the volatility in international security today, we need in the future to be able to deploy our Defence Forces to peacekeeping and crisis response missions speedily and with agility, irrespective of whether they are led by the UN, the EU or another regional organisation.
I still cannot get my head around how the Tánaiste can use the phrase "irrespective of whether" a mission is led by the UN or another body. We all know that under international law and the UN charter, it is UN-approved missions that have the status of peacekeeping missions. Otherwise, anybody could describe any military mission as a peacekeeping one.
That is not true.
In fact, some very aggressive military hostilities, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine, have been framed in the terms of peacemaking or peacekeeping, and there is a reason there is a UN framework in place to set that out.
The Tánaiste outlined that there will be Oireachtas approval. Will he assure us there will be no attempt at any stage to either guillotine or minimise any level of Oireachtas oversight? As I have said repeatedly and will reiterate, there is no democratic mandate for this. The Tánaiste's party's own manifesto set out clearly the protection of the triple lock as a core tenet of enshrining our neutrality, and the programme for Government did likewise. Will he give a commitment in respect of Dáil oversight that no guillotine will be applied and that there will be no attempt to subvert any stage of the legislation?
We were recently a member of the Security Council for two years. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which the Deputy mentioned, is a catalyst for change because Russia, at the moment, has a veto on whether we would ever participate in a peacekeeping mission sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting our hands should be tied, in terms of participation in peacekeeping, by Russia. I know that in 2014, his party had a different view and kind of acquiesced in Russia's invasion of Crimea, when it did not raise the issue anywhere, but it has opposed the current invasion. I do not understand how we could allow Russia to paralyse us.
To give an example, a possibility of a veto emerged in 2022 in respect of the renewal of UN authorisation for EUFOR, or Operation Althea, and Ireland was a member of the UN Security Council at the time. We were in a position to play a key role in securing the renewal of that UN mandate for that mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where five members of the Defence Forces were deployed. A similar case arose in 1999. There are a number of examples where the veto has been used to stop peacekeeping.
We should bear in mind that the UN has sanctioned the European Union as a peacekeeping entity, along with the African Union and regional bodies of that kind in the past.
I remind the Tánaiste the UN has sanctioned a peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights for which our Defence Forces have quite rightly earned widespread praise for the way and the manner in which they have conducted themselves, and I would argue that peacekeeping mission is more important now than ever. We are withdrawing from that peacekeeping mission, not at the behest of Vladimir Putin but at the behest of Micheál Martin. He is the man who is withdrawing our troops from that peacekeeping mission.
I will ask the Tánaiste one more time, because I am sure he is not suggesting we enter Ukraine, considering that no external forces are engaged in military or peacekeeping activity in that country at the moment. He has outlined on a number of occasions that he wants this legislative change to be made without delay. Where is it, therefore, that he wants to send members of the Defence Forces where they are currently precluded from going, given he has withdrawn them from the places where they were doing good work?
On military advice, I was asked to withdraw troops from the Golan Heights in the interests of consolidation, an issue we will deal with on a later question. We are participating in the EU battlegroup, as we have been doing for 20 years.
To give another example, a subsequent EU peacekeeping operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not have a Security Council mandate and Ireland was unable to participate in that mission. More recently, in 2015, the European Union established a security mission in the Mediterranean Sea known as Operation Sophia. That mission did not have a UN mandate until 2016 and Ireland could not consider contributing to it until that mandate was in place. In 2017, the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre Narcotics, an international maritime intelligence centre supported by the EU, requested a Naval Service ship to assist with maritime drug interdiction operations. Although we are a strong supporter of the centre and were, in fact, one of the founding members, a ship could not be sent given there would be no UN mandate for such an operation.
Those are the kinds of examples we could be excluded from. There could very well be a mission if there were an effective Middle Eastern peace plan, such as through the Arab peace initiative-----
I thank the Tánaiste.
Everybody has spoken generally about the need for an international force to guarantee security in Gaza, for example. We want the war to stop in Gaza and we have asked for a ceasefire. If it did stop, there would be a need-----
I thank the Tánaiste.
We would argue that it would be far better to have an international security presence there to keep the peace than it would be to have Israeli security in Gaza suppressing people.
On that point, while I am a great believer in and advocate for peace in the Middle East, I would not advocate sending our troops there without a UN mandate. That is a debate for another day perhaps.
