Mr. Colm Doyle:

I thank the committee members for inviting me to address them today on issues contained in the Bill. Having served with our Defence Forces for 43 years, I have witnessed some dramatic changes over the period, both at home and on overseas peacekeeping operations.

On the home front, I have been a platoon, company and battalion commander, the director of public relations for the Defence Forces, the director of Reserve forces and commandant of the Military College. Abroad, I served in Cyprus and was a military observer in the Middle East for two years. In 1978, I served with the first Irish unit in Lebanon, where I returned as a battalion commander in 1997. The latter was memorable because of the visit of the then Uachtarán, Dr. Mary McAleese. I served with the European Union in Bosnia as the head of mission in 1991 and 1992. I was then selected as the special representative to Lord Peter Carrington, chairman of the international peace conference on Yugoslavia. My final overseas appointment was as chief of staff of the military division at UN headquarters in New York from 2004 to 2006.

I testified as a prosecution witness at the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague between 1995 and 2013, including at the trials of Serbian president Slobodan Miloševi; the leader of the Bosnia Serbs, Radovan Karadži; and General Ratko Mladi. My Bosnian experience was the subject of a memoir I wrote entitled Witness to War Crimes, which was published in 2018.

Overseas service is the strongest incentive for our young people joining the Defence Forces. Without the opportunity of serving abroad, the challenge of recruitment is all the more difficult. We have been serving overseas for a long time and are pretty good at it. As chief of staff of the military division at UN headquarters in New York, I received so many compliments from ambassadors and diplomats on the professionalism and humanity of Irish UN peacekeepers.

Irish participation in UN operations represents the longest unbroken record of any nation in the world. The building and maintenance of a strong and effective UN has formed a key objective of Irish foreign policy within which peacekeeping operations have come to play a central role. Ireland’s tradition of active membership of the United Nations and its willingness to contribute professional troops, assisted in establishing a peacekeeping tradition of which the nation can be justifiably proud. For a country of its size and resources, Ireland’s contribution to peacekeeping has been both substantial and quite remarkable. Each year when the Taoiseach addresses the UN General Assembly, the words spoken are reinforced by the knowledge that somewhere across the globe Irish troops are contributing to the work of peace, which is a noble attribute for such a small country.

On the subject of the triple lock and its retention or amendment, which has become politically emotive, I find myself very surprised. That this is in some way being described as a threat to our military neutrality is greatly misjudged and I do not support those opposing the measure. The UN veto system reflects the realities of global power dynamics but it also leads to deadlock in situations where the interests of the permanent five members conflict. As a result, the Security Council is often unable to act decisively in conflicts where one or more permanent members have geopolitical interests at stake. This illustrates one of the main flaws of the Security Council, which is that Ireland’s involvement in international peacekeeping can effectively be held hostage by the use of, or the threat of the use of, a veto by any one of the permanent five members. This requires a more flexible approach to overseas deployments. Surely we have the confidence, maturity and political experience to make our own decisions for Ireland’s overseas policy to evolve in response.

As to the argument that the General Assembly might be an alternative to the Security Council on sanctioning peacekeeping operations, only the Security Council has the power to pass binding resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which members are legally obligated to implement. As such, it holds a unique position as the only body with the legal authority to enforce its decisions on all UN member states. The General Assembly’s resolutions are non-binding, meaning that they serve as recommendations only, rather than obligations. This limitation means that while the General Assembly can influence global opinion, it does not have the legal authority to enforce its decisions as does the Security Council. Go raibh míle maith agaibh. I thank the committee members for their attention.