Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

The testimony from Dr. Devine is very clear. If the primary rationale being presented for the removal of the triple lock is that we are being limited in our capacity to engage in peacekeeping and being blocked at the UN in that UN peacekeeping is being hamstrung or limited, is there a danger that by removing the triple lock, we move to a point where Ireland is less engaged in UN peacekeeping, again as one of the real champions of that? In fact, we could contribute to a shift away from UN peacekeeping and towards other related activities which may be NATO-led or EU-led or may be other forms of intervention that are for peace or security purposes.

Second, Professor Murphy mentioned that it has happened. We are told it is rare, but what has not happened is Russia vetoing an Irish mission. What has happened has been successful UN General Assembly resolutions leading to mandates. Two years ago there was the Summit of the Future in the UN and the Pact for the Future. There is an active process right now which is seeking to renew the UN. I agree that the UN is literally the best thing that has happened to humanity. There are those who bemoan that the big powers have so much strength within the UN, but without the UN those large powers would be completely unfettered and we would have what we had for millennia, which is basically empire and large-power politics. The UN at least and the General Assembly is a space where small nations collectively can speak to what they believe is the best for our collective humanity and take action. Such nations have been shown to do so, in the Suez crisis and others. Does it diminish Ireland's capacity to be the kind of honest broker that contributes to that reform, following the Summit on the Future two years ago within the UN, and that can broker UN missions through a General Assembly mandate? Are we diminishing our capacity in that regard? Are we effectively taking from one of the routes which we could support in terms of UN missions as a bridge between Europe, for example, and other small nations?

As I am hearing it, for two different reasons, removing the triple lock could reduce the mechanisms or willingness in terms of UN peacekeeping. I am interested to hear comments on both of those.

It was mentioned that much of the reviewal of missions every year is because there is a review. There is a UN monitoring process for missions. Is there any equivalent? I do not see in this legislation any equivalent monitoring process in terms of the preparation. We know any UN-mandated mission has to meet many standards. I refer to Operation Sophia in that context. I think the then Minister of State, Paul Kehoe, at the time said we are moving from a humanitarian to a security function that required review. Is there any equivalent in respect of the kind of preparation that goes into UN-mandated missions and the monitoring of UN-mandated mission?

I had another question but I am out of time, so I will go to the witnesses.