Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Nov 2016

Vol. 929 No. 1

European Defence Agency: Motion

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Helen McEntee)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves Ireland's participation in two European Defence Agency Projects - (1) MARSUR Networking - Adaptive Phase (MARSUR II) and (2) Cooperation on Cyber Ranges in the European Union pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.

In commending the motion on behalf of the Minister of State with responsibility for defence, Deputy Paul Kehoe, I will briefly outline the function of the European Defence Agency and the background to the programmes in which Ireland wishes to participate.

The European Defence Agency was established by a joint action of the Council of the European Union in 2004 "to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future". On 6 July 2004, the Government approved Ireland's participation in the framework of the European Defence Agency. The EDA is an agency of the European Union and is composed of defence Ministers of the 27 participating member states and the European Commission.

Ireland participates in the framework of the agency and contributes in the region of €311,000 to the annual costs of running the agency, including its annual work programme. The European Defence Agency is focused on assisting member states in capability development, in obtaining better value for existing spending levels, improving competitiveness, securing greater efficiency, particularly in the area of research, technology, manufacturing and procurement, which have been notable for fragmentation and duplication.

The primary reason for Ireland's participation in the European Defence Agency is to support the development of Defence Forces capabilities for peacekeeping and international crisis management. The Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 regulates IreIand's participation in European Defence Agency ad hoc projects. It prescribes that participation in category A or B projects or programmes is subject to Government and Dáil approval. A category A project is one which all member states join unless they specifically opt out; a category B project is one in which two or more member states come together to pursue a particular initiative. The proposal put forward by the Minister of State with responsibility for defence today is to seek approval for Ireland to participate in two EDA projects, one in the area of maritime surveillance, the other in the area of cyber ranges.

This category B project, MARSUR Networking - Adaptive Maintenance, MARSUR II, is a follow-on to the category B project, Maritime Surveillance Networking, which ended in October 2015.

The objective of the initial project was to develop an automated information sharing environment through the development of software technologies and the formation of a network to enhance information sharing within the maritime surveillance community. This web-based system is now operational and information regarding the positions of ships, fisheries protection and maritime safety and security is engaged in a number of electronic forms between member states participating in this project. This has proven particularly useful for the Irish Naval Service, which is currently carrying out humanitarian operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Classified information is being exchanged between ships and the Italian authorities, who are involved in the rescue of migrants in this area. The main objective of the follow-on category B project is life cycle support of the existing maritime surveillance capability through provision of adaptive maintenance, system upgrades and enhancements and technical support. It will ensure the system is maintained, kept up to date and adapted to meet the ongoing needs of the Naval Service.

I will now provide some detail on the second European Defence Agency project. This category B project aims to maintain and improve cyber resilience, as well as the levels of awareness, insight and expertise of member states personnel. Cyber attacks pose a potential threat to the communications and command and control systems of the Defence Forces both at home and overseas. The requirement to be able to defend Defence Forces systems against cyber attacks has been identified as a specific capability requirement by the Defence Forces. Cyber ranges are a virtual environment used for cyber training, exercises and technology testing and evaluation. It also provides the means to help strengthen knowledge of cyber defence operators andperformance of the computer information systems. It can be remotely accessed in one country by personnel from another location or country. The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment has the lead role in the whole-of-government response to the cyber threat.

This project is about the Defence Forces having access to a secure cyber environment, as distinct from the ICT systems they use in the course of their activities, in which they can test their own ability to secure and defend the ICT systems on which they rely. Participation in the training and exercises available through this EDA category B project will enhance the capacity within the Defence Forces to secure, protect and defend their own systems against cyber attack and also to contribute to enhanced cyber security capacity at national level.

The total budget for the new maritime surveillance category B project is €675,000 and the cost of Ireland’s participation in this project is €15,000 per annum and €45,000 over the life of the project. With the second project, cyber ranges, there will be no financial contribution to this project.

In conclusion, lreland's participation in the EDA affords us the opportunity to keep abreast of best practice and new developments in the defence environment, particularly as it impacts on multinational crisis management operations. The Government’s White Paper on Defence, published in 2015, states that Ireland will identify opportunities to participate in multinational capability development projects within the framework of the EDA in support of the Defence Forces' operations, capacity and capability. The two projects discussed today are prime examples of how the Defence Forces can develop their capabilities in maritime surveillance and in cyber defence. On behalf of the Minister of State with responsibility for Defence, Deputy Paul Kehoe, I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Lisa Chambers

I welcome our participation in the European Defence Agency. We discussed this at length at committee level and at that stage I made it very clear that I very much supported our participation in both of these projects.

The European Defence Agency allows us the opportunity to pool resources, connect with other member states and benefit from economies of scale. We get to share knowledge and obtain information from other member states, perhaps on operations they do better than us. Perhaps we do some things better and we can share it with other member states. It is a very efficient way of doing business and ensuring our troops have the most up-to-date knowledge and experience.

Our participation in these training programmes ensures that our soldiers receive the best training and expertise that they can get to assist them in their overseas duties. We know our soldiers go on peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions but we should be clear that these are not holidays. They are extremely dangerous excursions for up to six months or even longer. It is very important that we ensure our troops have the most up-to-date training they can get. That means when they go abroad and interact with other armies in countries where it is not entirely safe, we can ensure that they are as best equipped as they can be to come home safely.

We have one of the lowest rates of spending of any EU member state. It is not that I advocate for large amounts to be spent on defence but it is worth noting that we are very modest in the amount of money we spend on our Defence Forces. Participating in these programmes allows us the opportunity, while spending some money, to get back in return something that represents significant value for money in terms of training, expertise and access to knowledge that we would not have otherwise.

Two programmes were described by the Minister of State. The MARSUR networking is a continuation of a previous project on which we have already embarked. We initially participated in this automated network, which allows members of the community to share knowledge on the position of ships and other fisheries protection issues. Most recently we have seen it being used where Irish authorities and the Irish Naval Service communicated with the Italian authorities on joint operations to save migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean. That demonstrates that having this capability and access to the most up-to-date information allows us to do our duties to the best of our abilities. We can all say we are very proud of the work that our Defence Forces have conducted in that regard in assisting migrants and as part of addressing the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean.

The cyber ranges are a fairly new technology and it demonstrates that we are thinking ahead, recognising and anticipating down the line what we as a country may face in terms of security. Cyber ranges allow us to pool expertise and knowledge while participating in these cyber ranges to test technology and conduct exercises in a virtual reality. It allows us to test our capabilities in terms of withstanding or dealing with a cyber attack in our own country. We hope we never have to deal with such an instance but we would be very foolish and naive to think we are totally immune from such an attack. Given it is such a complex area that is constantly progressing and changing, it is difficult to stay on top of it. Certainly, in terms of sharing knowledge and learning what other countries are doing to deal with the potential threat of cyber attacks, this can only be positive.

We may be a small country but we have always punched above our weight. Certainly, our Defence Forces have done no less than that. We have always operated to the very best of our abilities and at a very professional and modern level. It is because of our participation in these joint projects with other countries that we have been able to do that. We are a small country and we do not have the resources and capabilities to do all this training on our own. It is imperative that our troops are facilitated and encouraged to participate in these projects with other countries. They are similar to other projects in the past where we have done training related to nuclear and biological warfare. This involves the anticipation of potential threats that we could face in our country or that troops could face abroad while on duty representing our country. It is up to us when we send troops abroad that we know they are as safe as they can possibly be. I ask anybody suggesting that participation in this training is not good to think about sending troops overseas to participate in a mission where they do not have the same skill set as other soldiers from other countries. It is not a position with which I would be very comfortable.

I support the participation in both these projects and I look forward to the continued participation in joint defence projects with other countries.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Is trua nach bhfuil an tAire cuí anseo. Bhí mé ag labhairt leis ag an gcoiste faoi na gnéithe seo díreach coicís ó shin. Labhair mé ag an staid sin faoin fhadhb atá agam agus mé ag déileáil le ceisteanna mar seo, ach go háiritihe toisc go bhfuil bogadh leanúnach ag tarlú insan Eoraip. Is bogadh leanúnach é i dtreo breis míleatú san Eoraip. In ainneoin nach bhfuil mórán faidhbe ollmhóir agam leis an dá togra atá á phlé anseo, caithfimid i gcónaí comhthéacs a bheith againn ar an méid atá ag tarlú. Sa chás seo, is é an comhthéacs ina iomlán an fhadhb.

It is more the motions than the projects described in their contents with which I have a problem, as I stated at the committee meeting. It would be very difficult to oppose the efficiencies that would help our Defence Forces gain experience and knowledge. In this instance we are told the MARSUR II project will enhance the Naval Service's ability to fulfil the humanitarian task it is carrying out brilliantly in the Mediterranean. The second motion deals with virtual scenarios to deal with cyber security and attacks on military cyber security, etc. It relates to the experience that will be gained by those in the military dealing cyber security.

I raised some questions surrounding both projects at the select committee. The Minister of State answered some of those questions but I still have concerns about our ability to protect our interests in the cyber security area, even though it is a virtual project in itself.

The context in which we are dealing with the EDA and the militarisation of the EU has shifted greatly in the past two weeks in light of the election of Donald Trump as US President. Before and during the presidential debate, Donald Trump and others in the US demanded that the EU should take on a greater role in its own defence. He put it to the NATO countries and other countries that they had a role to play. As a result of this State signing up to the Lisbon treaty, we have agreed to enhance the capability of each of the individual EU armies. The other part of the context for this debate is the agreement at yesterday's meeting of EU foreign and defence Ministers to move quickly in reaction to the agenda set out by Donald Trump by trying to distance themselves from it. That was specifically why the meeting was held. The Ministers agreed to create a military headquarters, or "permanent operational planning and conduct capability", to command "non-executive military missions". They further agreed that the battle groups should be used more frequently.

Last week, I raised with the Minister the decision to use the EU budget for the first time to subsidise military research. I highlighted the preparatory action for defence research spending of €80 million on EU military research. If this goes ahead and there is not enough clamour about it, there is a proposal that they will move towards spending €3.5 billion of EU money on military research by 2020. That is a major shift, given that the EU won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. The EU, as a group of nations, is supposed to be advancing and enhancing peace in the world, but its recent actions are in total contradiction to that. This should not be a surprise given that many of these countries have an imperialist status and are members of NATO. The EDA is part of the EU military complex. For that reason, I oppose motions that come before the House with the intention of enhancing the agency.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I would like to share time with Deputy Paul Murphy.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

While the two particular aspects of the EDA we are talking about here are relatively innocuous, on the face of it, I have a problem with the agency itself for the reasons that have just been alluded to. I am against the arms industry. There is simply no justification for the disgusting arms industry. The EDA was previously known as the European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency, which was a more accurate title, before its name was softened and it became the EDA. It was set up explicitly to ramp up defence spending and the military-industrial complex and to produce more weapons for use and for sale. The EDA is about developing the European military-industrial complex. The consequences of that are disgusting, in my opinion. I do not use that word lightly.

EU countries have licensed arms exports valued at €39.9 billion. This includes €9.7 billion to the Middle East. The biggest recipient is Saudi Arabia. I really do not have to say any more. Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship which is involved in an absolutely savage assault on the people of Yemen. It has produced a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, including the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of people. It is an obnoxious regime at every level. The European military-industrial complex, which the EDA was set up specifically to support, is promoting this kind of stuff. That is what leads to the sorts of horrors we are seeing in the Middle East, including the displacement of millions of people in Syria. Ireland is being progressively dragged into this stuff because of our support for treaties that explicitly increase and ramp up our involvement in this area. There is simply no excuse for the sale of components of arms to countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Israel and the purchase of military equipment from places like Israel. We will not support any further involvement in the European military-industrial complex.

Deputy Paul Murphy

We do not want to be involved in any prettifying of the EDA, which is a peddler of death, or any presentation of the agency as it has been presented by the Government. The Government's statement in the White Paper on Defence that the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces are committed "to improving the potential for Irish enterprise to compete for Defence contracts" means that it wants a cut of this peddling of death. As Deputy Boyd Barrett has said, the agency exists to promote the military-industrial complex in Europe. That is what it is. We should have nothing to do with the EDA.

The context for this debate is very important. I remind the House that the idea that there was a process towards militarisation in the EU, leading to a European army, used to be ridiculed. The President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, who is the most powerful person in the EU, said last week following the election of Donald Trump that "we have to do this ourselves, which is why we need a new approach to building a European security union with the end goal of establishing a European army". That is what is happening here. EU Ministers agreed at yesterday's meeting to create a mini military headquarters, in effect, and to have joint rapid reaction forces. They said that battle groups could form the core of the new multifunctional civilian and military capabilities.

As I have said previously in the Dáil, there are divisions not between those who want war and those who want peace, but between those who want an independent European army and those who want to be linked to NATO. Those divisions among people who are in favour of further militarisation are going to come out in the context of Donald Trump and the idea of NATO being downgraded. For this precise reason, a number of groups have called for a protest at the US Embassy at 6 p.m. on Thursday. It will be a protest against Donald Trump and against the policies of war and racism, etc. These issues are relevant in America and here. Last weekend, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste represented the Government at events commemorating the lost generation of people who were victims of the First World War. Working-class people learned from that war that the danger of inter-imperialist rivalry is that they are the people who get butchered. However, the Government has not learned a thing.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

This motion seems quite benign on the face of it. The two projects outlined by the Minister of State seem simple and safe. It seems that we should not be too worried about this matter. Like other Members of the House, I am concerned about our continued involvement in the EDA. We seem to be on a drip-drip road towards the complete integration at a military level of the EU and the further expansion of the military capabilities of the EU. Deputies are often derided for saying this is not going to happen because of the triple lock system in this State. I suggest we will wake up very quickly when we are actually involved in this. Everybody is going to wonder how we arrived at this place. It is actually happening. The European Commission recently outlined its work programme for the coming year. It intends to make Europe a "stronger global actor" because "a Europe that protects also defends our interests beyond our borders".

That does not seem to have very good implications. They then go on to say that soft power is not enough in an increasingly conflictual world. The opposite to soft power is hard power. We saw how that played out in recent years in regard to the destruction of Libya by the British and the French military primarily, assisted by the Americans. Is that the kind of thing we want, as a state, to become more deeply involved in?

Yesterday we had the joint Council meeting between EU Foreign Affairs Ministers and Defence Ministers, where they agreed to set up this mini-military HQ, as they call it. The EU foreign service says it will have a permanent operational planning and conduct capability and will command non-executive military missions, such as training the Libyan or Iraqi military, but not combat. This is despite the fact we would have to ask who are the Libyan military at this stage, given the different militias that exist within Libya, yet we are quite happy to go along and participate in that. After yesterday's meeting, Italy's Foreign Minister said the mini-HQ was "not yet a European general staff" but "that was the premise". That is the road the EU is on. We are going to see very quickly in the next year a ramping up of military involvement and military activity. Federica Mogherini, speaking after the Council yesterday, said:

It also includes the way forward: strengthening rapid response and reinforcing the usability of the Battle Groups. Next year it will be ten years we have them; they were never used - maybe it is time to make use of the instruments we have.

To my mind, that is very dangerous talk. It implies the EU is itching to send out these battlegroups and to make use of them in the exercise of what can only be described as hard power. We have seen how the EU has behaved in recent years, not only in the destruction of Libya but also in regard to how it encouraged and facilitated a coup in Ukraine, which sparked a conflict with Russia in that country, and how it has effectively supported a fascist-type Government in Ukraine. We also see how many European member states have bombed Syria and participated quite happily in that, although it is illegal under international law. In particular, we saw how the French rolled out bombing there after the disgraceful attacks on their territory, a response that saw the bombing of innocent civilians.

This is something I do not believe we should be happy to participate in. While the projects encompassed by today's motion seem quite simple, it is a sign of deepening development within the EU and the European Defence Agency. I believe it is something we should be very worried about and we should oppose it tooth and nail.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am happy to speak on this motion regarding Ireland’s participation in European Defence Agency projects. There is no doubt that Europe and, indeed, this country are under increased threats from the rise of militant Islamic organisations and groups organising cyber-crime attacks. To that extent, we need to consider practical ways to increase co-operation among member states without creating an overly militarised culture. It is important we deal with such issues without getting sucked into the military machine. One of the things which many people in Europe are afraid of is that, in our haste to defend ourselves, we run the risk of creating something akin to a European state army. We can never emphasise this enough because we do not want it. We have been a neutral country and we respect our neutrality, despite what may be happening with different issues relating to the Middle East.

While the motion is quite technical, I would raise a matter of deep concern related to how we extend our involvement with European defence projects. I have concerns that this is one area where we must use the limited resources we have to strengthen the quality of life for the men and woman who serve in the Defence Forces on this island. In fact, questions about the Army were raised with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business today. We know that poverty rates in the Garda are real and the same applies to the Defence Forces, many of whose members are struggling to survive. Before we consider European supports, we must look after those at home. It should not be like the situation with the veterans in the United States who have been neglected. The members of the Defence Forces have served all over the world on peacekeeping missions. We had a wonderful establishment in Clonmel before the last Government closed that excellent barracks.

In 2015 the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces said there is no reason soldiers, sailors or air crew should be sleeping in cars. The problem is that they are, in many cases. The Minister and the Government need to smell the coffee. This is because of the remuneration they receive and the lack of subsistence. Lieutenant-General Conor O'Boyle was responding to a claim by PDFORRA at its annual conference that a small number of enlisted personnel were forced to do this because they could not afford to drive home after work. It is true. With the closure of barracks in places like Clonmel, they now have to go to Kilkenny, Cork or further afield. PDFORRA has said that accommodation costs €2,500 a year, money that those who stay in their cars simply do not have. PDFORRA has also claimed that more than 20% of enlisted personnel are receiving family income supplement payments, which is a staggering figure. These are the kinds of issues we need to think about before we overextend our Defence Forces, which are already stretched.

Those are my sentiments. While cyber crime is a huge threat and we must lend any support we can to try to deal with it and fend off those attacks, we need to have a modern, well supported and well resourced Defence Forces. For that, we need morale to be kept at a high level but it is clearly not at a high level. There are huge issues which I am dealing with every day of the week, such as transfers from barracks and family issues, and personnel find it very hard to get any understanding or appreciation of their family situations.

I suggest we make haste slowly before we get involved in any of these issues. We must remember how we have always maintained our neutral stance. We need to have more support and respect for ex-Army veterans and those currently serving in the Army.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I wish to raise some concerns the Green Party has with regard to both measures. While we very much support our Defence Forces in the work they are doing in the Mediterranean and in countering cyber-terrorism, we have real concerns about the nature of the strengthening of these common European defence operations.

With regard to the role of maritime surveillance, we have a general concern that the approach the EU has taken in recent years has not shown the proper regard for international refugee law. While we have ended up sending in our own naval vessels in order to save lives, the manner in which the EU has approached this through the Mare Nostrum programme that was first applied by the Italians, and wider involvement of the EU in the whole area, has not brought about a process of managing the refugee issue in a way which does credit either to the EU or anyone involved.

We have a concern that the deployment of this technology or the improvement in the surveillance mechanisms for vessels at sea will not necessarily lead to an improvement in the areas we would like to see improved, for example, surveillance against illegal fishing in Irish waters or other movements within Irish waters. In addition, we would love to see some sort of mechanism to track UK nuclear submarines coming out of the rivers in Scotland and their passage through Irish waters. As Brexit looms, it is that type of surveillance measure we would like to see greater certainty about. Our fear is that this will be used in the Mediterranean area, including the Aegean, to continue a policy that has not worked.

The dramatic increase in the budget for Frontex and the nature of the European military response to trying to protect our border is one we have real concerns about.

We are concerned about this budget allocation although it is very small. If it is a sign of approval of the way Europe has managed the refugee and migration crisis, particularly on our southern borders, we cannot agree with it.

While I very much welcome the possibility for us to increase our capability by training and upgrading of staff in the use of cyber ranges to improve our ability to defend ourselves from cyber attacks, I am concerned that the scale of our capability is not being sufficiently ramped up. Following the potential Brexit of our nearest neighbour, the UK, which already engages in widespread surveillance of everything that happens on the Internet in Ireland, it behoves us as it leaves the Union to look to increase our capabilities in this area and to be able to observe all ranges of cyber surveillance, including interstate cyber surveillance. That does not seem to be one of the issues we are highlighting or seeking to address here. As we head into a more dangerous world with the American and British Governments seeming to head into a more isolationist and less co-operative mode, we need to be careful to seek to maintain our security. I do not believe we will do that by an investment in a European security infrastructure which is designed according to a different mode of thinking from the Irish one. We have a better approach, based on neutrality, respect for the United Nations, supporting international refugee law and peacekeeping processes.

This mechanism might lead us to trying to cut off the problem at the ports of exit in Libya where we have caused a problem partly by European military intervention in the area, leaving it without any government. We might now look to do side deals where we would finance local groups or warlords or try to provide a refugee and border management system based not on the rule of international law but on the rules of the jungle which seem to have applied in recent years.

Question put.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell)

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 17 November 2016.