Vol. 573 No. 3
123 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the status of Defence Forces commitments to UNSAS, the rapid reaction force and NATO's Partnership for Peace, respectively; and if and the way in which such commitments continue to be in compliance with the stated Government policies of military neutrality and UN primacy. [25600/03]
Ireland's commitment to collective security is pursued through the United Nations which has the primary role to play in the maintenance of international peace and security. Ireland has a long record of participation in UN and international peacekeeping, monitoring and observer missions and it is the Government's intention that the Defence Forces will continue with involvement in appropriate international missions of this nature.
In October 1998 Ireland signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations on the UN standby arrangements system, UNSAS. Through UNSAS, Ireland offered to provide up to 850 military personnel for overseas service at any one time to meet peace support and humanitarian commitments under UN or NATO led missions. A similar commitment was made in a European Union context in 2000. The figure of 850 equates to some 10% of the Army and is not an inconsiderable commitment in this regard.
Ireland's commitment under UNSAS does not entail an obligation to participate in any particular mission. Requests for Defence Forces personnel to serve on overseas missions are considered on a case-by-case basis in the prevailing circumstances within the context of UNSAS. Any decision to dispatch a contingent of 12 or more members of the Defence Forces to a specific mission must have a UN mandate, a Government decision and Dáil approval.
Irish troops are participating in 19 missions, with 365 personnel serving overseas. If approved by Dáil Éireann, approximately 430 further personnel will be deployed for service with the United Nations Mission in Liberia, UNMIL. The proposed Irish contingent will comprise a motorised infantry battalion of some 430 personnel and the deployment of a small number of personnel at force headquarters and military observers. It is also proposed to deploy personnel from the Army Ranger wing for a three month period at the request of the United Nations. This would bring our overall contribution to peace support operations to about 800 personnel, Ireland's highest level of participation in peace support operations since our withdrawal from UNIFIL in 2001.
The decision to participate in UNSAS is a tangible expression of Ireland's continuing commitment to involvement in peacekeeping operations. This participation includes the ongoing NATO led, UN authorised SFOR and KFOR operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, respectively. In addition, five staff officers were appointed to the headquarters in Paris and Entebbe during the recently concluded UN mandated, EU led operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
National sovereignty is a fundamental underlying principle of participation in any specific operation which is decided on a case-by-case basis. There are no implications for Irish neutrality in service by members of the Defence Forces with UN mandated or authorised humanitarian or crisis management operations. Ireland continues to recognise the centrality of the United Nations, including the primary role of the UN Security Council, in matters of peace and security. Participation in an overseas operation requires UN endorsement, a specific Government decision and, where the level of participation is to exceed 12, the approval of Dáil Éireann. Our commitment of 850 troops to UNSAS is the same commitment as might be deployed on EU or NATO led, UN authorised operations.
The context of my question was a joint policy paper on the Defence Forces and UN peacekeeping operations prepared by the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and presented to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on 14 October. On the issue of UN primacy, does the Minister envisage that amendments to the Defence Acts will be required as a result of Ireland's commitments to the European Union's rapid reaction force or NATO's Partnership for Peace in the lifetime of this Dáil?
The reason I ask this question is that according to the policy paper there is a discrepancy between the definition of an international United Nations force in the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993 and the interpretation of that term provided by the Department of Defence in its policy and White Paper. Given the extent of this discrepancy, one could argue that the Department's interpretation extends well beyond that provided for in law.
The Defence (Amendment) Act 1993 defines an international United Nations force as an international force or body established by the Security Council or General Assembly of the United Nations, whereas the policy paper extends the definition to missions under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the United Nations. By definition, therefore, the two types of mission are not identical or interchangeable. Thus, it appears the Government is stretch ing its policy. Does the Minister plan to address this discrepancy by tabling amendments to the Defence Acts?
There are no proposals to amend the Defence Acts, nor is the Government considering such amendments. It will be clear from the debate we had on the Nice treaty that the general public, by and large, accepts and endorses the consistent approach of the Government in these matters through enforcing the triple lock mechanism. We have never deviated from this approach. In the case of FYROM, where the circumstances to which the Deputy refers arose, that is, it was not a UN mandated mission but an authorised UN mission, we could not participate due to the Defence Acts.
In its definition of international United Nations force the document produced by the Minister's Department refers to UN mandates, including regional security missions authorised by the United Nations. There is a discrepancy in the Defence Acts and the Minister will be open to accusations in the future that he is operating outside the law if it is not dealt with.
Each case will be decided on its merits but I am obliged, and I have no difficulty with this, to adhere to strict interpretation of our Defence Acts. I do not contemplate operating outside them.
