Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 16 May 2024
7. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will set out his proposals to alter the current triple lock mechanism governing the deployment of Irish Defence Forces overseas; when he proposes to introduce amending legislation on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21844/24]
View answer43. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the timeframe in which he intends to publish a draft scheme in relation to his proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; and if he intends to conduct both a public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. [22044/24]
View answer51. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the legislative and policy changes planned in order to proceed with his proposal to dismantle the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22039/24]
View answerWill the Tánaiste set out the specifics of the mechanism he is proposing to deploy Irish Defence Forces overseas when he removes the triple lock? When does he propose to introduce legislation to bring that about?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 43 and 51 together.
Last year's consultative forum on international security policy featured a well-informed discussion on the issue of UN peacekeeping and overseas deployments, which formed a central part of the publicly available chair's report. That report was presented to the Government on 17 October and a Dáil debate on the outcomes of the report was held on 22 November last.
Five contested areas were explored in the chair's report, which included the triple lock. The prevailing view, based on the discussions at the forum and the several hundred public submissions received, is that it should be reconsidered. As I set out in the Dáil on a number of occasions, a new process is clearly needed to replace the current system governing how we deploy our Defence Forces and we should no longer allow a system which effectively allows UN Security Council members to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement.
As the Deputy is aware, under the United Nations Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Extremely regrettably, however, no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. The five permanent members of the council can use their veto power to prevent the Security Council from taking decisions, including those related to the mandates of peacekeeping operations. It could be argued, as I said, that even the threat of the veto has impacted on new peacekeeping operations being proposed.
We are living in a new era in Europe and the world in which Ireland also faces significantly new security and defence challenges. We, too, must consider how best to respond. Given the changing nature of international conflict, it is appropriate and necessary at this time to amend existing legislation. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that our legislation is fully up to date and fit for purpose, which will thereby allow us to dispatch the Defence Forces overseas to respond to situations where UN Security Council members are preventing agreement on a vital peacekeeping operation or to support crisis management evacuation operations involving our citizens.
In addition to modifying the triple lock, it is also intended to amend provisions relating to the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas to provide for non-combatant evacuation operations to support Irish citizens. The changes proposed will allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility.
We are all agreed that Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains a very important strand of our independent foreign policy, informing our active approach to peace support or operations, crisis management, conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Let there be no doubt in this regard. The proposed amendments to this legislation remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law and in no way affect Ireland's policy of military neutrality. The proposed legislative changes are not about Ireland turning its back on UN peacekeeping. Ireland will remain fully committed to the United Nations. The purpose of these modifications is to reinforce Ireland's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy by removing the power of the UN Security Council's permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions.
With regard to a timeframe, on 30 April last, the Government approved a proposal to draft a general scheme of a Bill to govern overseas deployments into the future. Work on drafting those legislative proposals is under way and this will involve, where required, further consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and other key Government Departments and stakeholders. It is proposed to revert to the Government in June 2024 with the general scheme of the Bill seeking approval to publish the scheme.
I thank the Tánaiste for his response. I am still no wiser about the specifics of the proposal being drafted. Obviously, the Tánaiste has given instructions to his Department and the Office of the Attorney General on what exactly will replace the triple lock. Is it to be a double lock in simply removing the requirement a UN mandate? Is it to be an altered mechanism with some substitution for the third leg of the current stool, if you look? I would welcome clarity on that.
The long-standing triple lock principle has been given repeatedly by all of us, including me, as an assurance to the Irish people during debates on EU treaties in the past when there were concerns about a diminution of authority. It is also seen as a layer of security for our troops deployed abroad that they are not being deployed as part of a geopolitical group but, rather, with the overall mandate of United Nations. How are these matters to be addressed in the Minister's proposals?
Deputy Carthy and many others are seeking greater engagement with the Opposition. The record of the House will show that the Tánaiste has denied requests to refer matters to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for detailed scrutiny and that votes on related but distinct matters have been taken as a singular vote. Deputy Carthy and other members of that committee have learned of important and sensitive developments through the media, rather than through considered, informed engagement with the Minister's office.
There is no statement on where the Minister wants to deploy Defence Forces personnel. He will not acknowledge that this is a breach of the commitment his Government made to the Irish people in advance of the second Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums. Will the Tánaiste commit to following what have been the standard procedures for new legislative proposals, including holding a full and meaningful public consultation, and that pre-legislative scrutiny will be conducted on the proposed Bill? I also ask for clarity on what will replace the triple lock?
I will not be so polite in relation to this. If the Tánaiste thinks that getting rid of the triple lock will lead to a more peaceful world, he is deluded. It is disgraceful and disingenuous of him to tell us that getting rid of the triple lock will not interfere with our neutrality. Our questions are trying to elicit details on the mechanism by which the Tánaiste is going to do this. He referred to the consultative forum as giving the prevailing view. That is also not correct. The consultative forum was hand-picked. Its report states: "a large number of voices expressed the view that the Triple Lock ought to be changed." It does not tell us who those voices are or that it was the prevailing view. The Government set up a mechanism for a prearranged final outcome and this is now the next step. It is absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable. If the Tánaiste thinks my opinions are strong, I can tell him that the feeling on the ground is far more intense than what I am expressing.
Personal vitriol is not going to change my mind-----
It is not personal vitriol.
Stop now. Through the Chair.
Sorry. I apologise.
I behaved absolutely in accordance with parliamentary procedure and processes here. There is nothing abnormal about a Government proposing a legislative proposal, publishing a general scheme and bringing it before the House for debate for all Members of the House. The Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. To address Deputy Howlin's question and the point he made, we envisage Dáil approval and Government approval-----
It is a double lock.
The Deputy can call it a double lock. I have said publicly that the legislation will have to be within the framework of the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law and that the spirit, the esprit de corps, of the United Nations will inform any decision by the Government and the Dáil, which would legislatively reflect that.
The UN has endorsed the utilisation of regional groups, be it the European Union, the OSCE or the African Union, in peacekeeping missions. These are potential fora in any decision to participate in a peacekeeping mission.
There is a point that we have to deal with honestly in the House. I genuinely do not feel the issue of the paralysis at the Security Council has been addressed by Members. I am labelled disgraceful, yet it seems people are suggesting, by implication, that it is okay that Russia, given its current status and nature as an imperial power that has behaved disgracefully with its illegal invasion of Ukraine and the destruction of 85% of all energy infrastructure in Ukraine, should have a veto over whether we participate in peacekeeping. Russia deploys the Wagner Group all over the world, including in Africa. Are we seriously suggesting that, in this day and age, a power like Russia should be vetoing Ireland’s participation in peacekeeping? I can give examples. We had to fight very hard at the Security Council regarding Operation Althea, whereby we have five members in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There was a genuine challenge. We have five members; they would have had to pull out. It is really problematic. We see this in the Middle East. The Security Council is not fit for purpose anyway, given current global circumstances, in respect of which there should be far more representation and fewer vetoes.
I will not be adding to any vitriol but I do want clarity. We have a very proud record of deployment of UN peacekeepers, always under the umbrella of acting in the interest of the world community. A move away from the endorsement of the United Nations to simply domestic endorsement, or endorsement as part of a geopolitical group, would have two consequences. One, it would put our troops in much more danger because they would be seen not as acting as part of the world community but as acting for part of the world, a geopolitical grouping. Second, and as the Tánaiste is right in saying, there is the total undermining of the UN. We have been advocates of and defenders of the UN but this move will add to the autocratic view that we should pull it down. We have seen the attitude of Israel to the UN. Even when 143 nations vote, they are all to be decried. However, UN institutions are the post-Second World War best hope. Would it not be better for us to seek to reform the mechanisms of the UN rather than add to the cavalcade undermining it?
I agree that we have a great history of peacekeeping. I, like many others, have referred here many times to the Irish people’s belief in staying non-aligned. They do not want to see any move away from neutrality. The fact is that it is very difficult to see the removal of the triple lock as being anything but a step in a particular direction. It does put our troops in danger and takes away the protection we have through being seen as a safe pair of hands or being non-aligned.
We dealt many times with the death of Seán Rooney. It is being reported that the Tánaiste is demanding progress in the murder trial and raising concerns with the Lebanese authorities over how it is going. We have spoken about the need for justice and the engagement the Minister has with the family, but also about ensuring not only that justice is achieved but also that all lessons from the incident are learned. If the Minister could comment on this, I would appreciate it.
I have never been given to personal vitriol but I will repeat what I said: disgraceful, deluded, disingenuous. Sweet words of war have to be called out for what they are. A choreographed agenda to lose our neutrality has to be called out. In theory, the UN, while faulty and while it must be changed with our help and involvement, is the only safeguard we have. The Minister constantly calls out Russia. I am on record repeatedly as calling out the illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Minister has utterly failed to call out America, which has disgracefully used the veto over and over. He has utterly failed to call it out regarding the supply of arms to Israel and the slaughter on the streets of Palestine. How dare he stand here and ask us to remain patient or use pleasant parliamentary language. This is one of our last opportunities to call out what he is doing. What he is doing is not in our name.
In the Minister’s words, the role of the General Assembly has been utterly bypassed. It has a very strong role in offsetting the veto. The Minister failed to mention all the other states that use the veto or threaten to use it. Belatedly in the past while, he has raised America. I apologise for going over time but the Minister had extra time and has the power on his side and a narrative that we must challenge at every step and every minute of the way.
Deputy Howlin agreed that the UN needs reform. There is a problem here.
The fundamental problem is that there has not been a peacekeeping mission approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. We are on that council. The consultative forum was not prearranged. What was disgraceful was the attempt to stop it from convening and the attempts to undermine the legitimate debate and consultation to hear a wide variety of views, as we did hear over four days. It was a good exercise but people in this House, including Deputy Connolly, tried to demonise it before it started and as it happened. They are now trying to do it afterwards. That is very regrettable because we live in a democracy. I can never get around why people sought to undermine a legitimate exercise in informing. It was insightful and people found it impressive. Maybe Deputy Connolly did not. It is not about getting rid of neutrality. The Fianna Fáil Party, from the time of Eamon de Valera on, has been central regarding our military neutrality, so there is no agenda whatsoever. People do not seem to want to accept the realities of where we are. I respectfully suggest that it is deluded to think we should depend on the Security Council in respect of the sanctioning of any future peacekeeping missions. We want to participate in peacekeeping. That is our raison d’être, our contribution. We are not a military power and have never been.
I did actually refer to the use of the veto by the US. I made the point earlier that the US, China and Russia have their interests. Increasingly, this is militating against UN Security Council sanctioning. With regard to the General Assembly itself, we have been strong advocates and proactive participants. We cosponsored at the General Assembly the motion to admit Palestine to the UN, but the Security Council, through the US veto, stopped that. Genuine issues with the Security Council are being glided over by Opposition Members in respect of the core issue. Essentially, we are saying we will not be participating in any future peacekeeping missions at all if we allow the current situation-----
Referring to the hand-picked nature of the forum is not the same as demonising it.
The Deputy did demonise it.
