Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)

Those of us concerned about the removal of the triple lock hold that concern because of our love and desire for the United Nations, in general, to be the only global multilateral organisation, albeit the UN Security Council is paralysed and is the only legal entity that can give assent to missions. The witnesses say the future for us looks like deploying peacekeeping through NATO or the European Union with maybe the African Union or other regional groups.

This would be a cause of huge concern because the guardrails and safeguards we have had traditionally and are used to regarding the United Nations would not be there. NATO, in particular, would be of huge concern to the majority of Irish people. They understand we are not politically neutral and we have alignments, and understand and support our being in the European Union but would have strong resonant reactions to NATO and NATO missions. I understand the difference between NATO training missions but NATO-led peacekeeping missions would be a different thing.

Those of us talking about the UN General Assembly resolution perfectly understand, and always have, that it is not legally binding but in this desperate situation where we are looking at having a triple lock or no triple lock, having some kind of guardrail would be good. Does Mr. Doyle agree an assent from a UN Security Council resolution is desirable in respect of keeping that link with the UN, even if the mission was composed of other states and not under the UN Security Council? For us, with our proud history in the United Nations, it would be important to at least have that to provide some kind of guardrail or safeguard. It would be something the government of the day could point to and say the UN General Assembly gives its assent to this mission in Chad or Bosnia or Ukraine or wherever.