Vol. 442 No. 4
4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Defence the plans, if any, he has to amend the Defence Forces (Amendment) Act, 1933, to revert to the position operating prior to its enactment, that Irish troops could only participate in United Nations peace-keeping, as distinct from peace-enforcement operations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The amending legislation — Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993 — enacted last year was an essential prerequisite to sending Irish troops to Somalia. Without the amendment of the Act they could not have participated in the UN mission in Somalia. Neither peacekeeping nor peace-enforcement is referred to in the legislation. Irish troops in Somalia are serving there as a transport unit in a logistics role. This has been the position since they first went to Somalia.
My question to the Minister clearly asks if the Minister has any intention of amending the Defence Forces (Amendment) Act, 1993. Does he intend to amend that Act, particularly as his stated view is that it is wrong for Irish troops to be involved in peace enforcement duties? How can he reconcile that view with the fact that he brought amending legislation before this House specifically to enable Irish troops to become involved in such activities? Does he not see this as a breach of collective responsibility?
I do not see it as a breach of collective responsibility. I realise there are two persona — private and public — in a Minister and that the public person takes precedence. I will not be constrained, nor do I feel in danger of shifting responsibility for decisions taken by Government or running away from my responsibilities. On the other hand I have always, even before I became a Minister, expressed the view that the role of the United Nations and that of its members should primarily be peacekeeping. The Deputy asked a number of questions in relation to the legislation I introduced, first whether there is any intention of repealing the Defence Forces (Amendment) Act, 1993. The answer is "no". As stated in the reply neither peacekeeping nor peace enforcement is referred to in the legislation. Under the legislation as it stands no new armed overseas missions, involving more than 12 Irish troops, may be undertaken without the specific approval by way of a resolution of Dáil Éireann. My attitude to peace enforcement is well known. I regard it as counterproductive. It is too simplistic to link directly peace enforcement with the legislation enacted last year. That legislation was essential if Ireland was to send troops to Somalia. In that regard Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter specifically provides for peace enforcement. Under that Chapter legislation was brought in as a vehicle to allow our troops to go into Somalia. We responded to the request from the United Nations. Our troops are in Baidoa. The function of our 81 troops, men and women, is in a logistics context. They are serving in the name of peace, Ireland and the international community in Somalia doing an excellent job courageously in difficult circumstances, carrying supplies from Baidoa and Mogadishu in difficult terrain. I do not have too many excuses to offer the Deputy in relation to my stated public and private positions. If there is a conflict between my private and public position, the public position must take pre-eminence.
I disagree with the Minister in his assumption that I am asking him to make excuses for his actions; I am not. I am asking him to explain them because there is a very serious question at issue. The Minister for Defence brought legislation before the House which he admits today, and which was obvious at the time, specifically enabled Irish troops to engage in peace enforcement duties, albeit in a transport form on this occasion. I presume that was a compromise the Minister managed to extract because of his position on peace enforcement. The question is whether the Minister was right to bring forward legislation enabling Irish troops to become involved in a situation where clearly life was at risk and while he disagreed — and continues to disagree — with peace enforcement? If the Minister continues to be the Minister for Defence is he prepared to stand over further Government decisions to send Irish troops on peace enforcement duties when he clearly is opposed to that kind of role for our Defence Forces?
I am at the will of the Government and I will do my duty according to how the Taoiseach and the Government instruct me. That is my position and I have no problem with it.
The Minister is a free agent, he can resign.
Is that what the Deputy is coming to? It took him a long time to reach that point. Is he asking that I resign?
If the Minister will permit, as an honourable man, which I know he is——
I am sorry, Deputy. The Minister was replying and he should be allowed to do so. We have only dealt with four questions in over half an hour and from my standpoint that is most unsatisfactory. Let us try to expedite matters. A brief question, Deputy De Rossa, as we will be moving on promptly to the next question.
My point is that there is a question of responsibility. The Minister either accepts his responsibility as a member of Cabinet for the decisions made by Cabinet and puts up with the good as well as the bad — in other words keeps his mouth shut on differences he may have — or he makes a public stand against——
I expected a brief question. We cannot debate the matter.
Let me clarify that I am not asking the Minister to resign now but I would expect him to resign if he was obliged by Government to take actions which are contrary to his publicly stated views on peace enforcement. It is not acceptable that Irish troops be sent into dangerous situations when they know the Minister for Defence does not support it.
The Deputy comes from a different ideological background from me. It is rather a joyless response.
I have been 30 years in this House and I have never been accused of what the Deputy has thrown at me across the floor of this Chamber. As to the question of resignation, my answer is quite clearly no because I do not think the matter merits resignation.
I do not see how it merits anything else.
I call No. 5.
The Deputy went around the houses looking for the resignation of the Minister, he of all persons.
I asked a straight question.
Character assassination has never been my style.
Order, I insist on being listened to. I call No. 5.
