Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 12 June 2025
Committee on Defence and National Security
General Scheme of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025: Discussion (Resumed)
2:00 am
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
At the outset, I acknowledge the Cathaoirleach could not be here due to the passing of her mother. The committee extends its sympathies to Deputy Conway-Walsh.
Apologies have been received from Senator Diarmuid Wilson, the Leas-Chathaoirleach, and Deputy Eamon Scanlon. The joint committee is meeting today to continue its pre-legislative scrutiny of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025. I now invite the guests into the meeting.
Cuirim fáilte roimh na cainteoirí atá anseo. I welcome Dr. Karen Devine from the school of law and government at Dublin City University, DCU; Professor Emeritus John Maguire of University College Cork, UCC; and Professor Ray Murphy of the school of law at the University of Galway.
Tá na cainteoirí anseo chun an Bille seo a phlé linn. The witnesses are here to discuss the general scheme of the Bill. The format of the meeting is that I will invite each witness to make an opening statement, to be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has a seven-minute slot to ask questions and receive a response from the witnesses. Members should allow time for witnesses' responses within the seven-minute slot.
I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings remotely. I will not permit members to participate if they are not adhering to that constitutional requirement. A member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask members partaking via MS Teams to confirm, prior to contributing, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If a member's remarks are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, that member will be directed to discontinue his or her remarks. It is imperative that members comply with such a direction.
I advise the witnesses that the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such a direction.
I invite Dr. Devine to make her opening statement.
Dr. Karen Devine:
As I have only three minutes, I will omit introductions and get straight into my presentation, if that is okay. This is my fourth appearance before an Oireachtas committee as an expert witness. I begin with my usual disclaimer that most of the members will not like what I have to say, particularly, perhaps, members of the Government parties, but I will say it anyway because I am an academic and it is my job to tell the truth and present the facts based on primary and secondary sources of empirical evidence.
My opening statement can only really be understood in the context of the submission document I provided to the committee last Friday. In summary, I said in that submission that public support for active neutrality, and, within that, the triple lock, is consistent over five decades of opinion polls, constituting four out of five people in Ireland. In the paper, I outlined what academics call a two-level game, which refers to the two sides involved in the struggle regarding Irish neutrality and the triple lock. What I call the militarists, who comprise the EU, NATO and the military-industrial complex, as well as think tanks, seek to militarise the EU and project power through military force. The other side includes the majority of the people in this country, the President of Ireland, NGOs and some Independent politicians, all of whom support active, positive neutrality.
I talked in the paper about elite silences on the mutual defence clause in the Treaty on European Union. I discussed why people in neutral states do not wish to join NATO and shed the triple lock. I talked about how protagonists at the EU level have been involved in the biggest arms corruption scandals of their time. I stated that the EU form of militarism is not subject to transparency or oversight. I talked about how the media are a vital bridge for the militarists' side and how trust in news sources has fallen. I discussed the EU's use of opinion polls to prop up its propaganda strategy. I outlined the categories of tactics used by militarists, including word play, disinformation, propaganda, fearmongering and unfounded threats. I spoke about how NGOs in Ireland and the President of Ireland are shedding light on those tactics. I put forward hypotheses on why Irish Government leaders are intent on shedding the triple lock and how the Government has, in effect, broken the social contract.
I have three main points to make today. First, there is no public, democratic mandate to destroy the triple lock, which is part of active neutrality and is supported by four out of five people in Ireland. That was acknowledged in a Government-commissioned report published in October 2022. My second point is that, arguably, the Government's proposed changes to the triple lock require a referendum. Under Article 6 of the Constitution, the people are sovereign and they are the final decision makers in all matters of national policy. The triple lock is a matter of national policy. I am saying that the President of Ireland and members of his Council of State should consider the legal implications before the triple lock abolishment legislation is signed off. Third, I argue, using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that if the triple lock is abandoned by the Government, Ireland's ratification of the Nice and Lisbon treaties will be invalidated. If the ratification of the Lisbon treaty is invalidated, then that treaty cannot be in force and, therefore, secondary legislation created based on the treaty will also be invalidated. In attempting to abolish the triple lock, the Government will pull on a thread that could lead to the legal unravelling of the EU.
My great-grandparents, Mary Moran and Micheál F. Crowe, made sacrifices for Ireland's independence and sovereignty. Micheál was a member of the GAA Central Council and refereed ten all-Ireland senior football and hurling finals. He was also a member of the IRB and an active member of the Gaelic League. The sacrifices of my great-grandparents and of the generations before and after them are the reason we are allowed to sit in this Parliament today to discuss this matter. I do not believe the Government has any ancestral right to destroy the triple lock. It has no moral right to destroy the triple lock. It has no democratic right to destroy the triple lock. Arguably, it has no legal right to destroy the triple lock.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Dr. Devine. Tugaim cuireadh don Ollamh Maguire labhairt.
Professor John Maguire:
I will formally thank the committee for the invitation to present at the end of my statement. I have it down to three minutes and will try to get through it, if that is acceptable.
Dismantling the triple lock would further unhinge Irish defence policy from Article 29's positive provisions, from our obligations under the UN Charter and from the people's commitment to UN-directed peacekeeping. I will draw on the words of our Nobel Peace laureate Mairead Maguire, first signatory of the Downpatrick Declaration; Erskine Childers III, who was consulted but then ignored by official Ireland; Louie Bennett, with her warnings about militarism at the inception of our State; former Irish ambassador to Russia Philip McDonagh's plea for democracy; Lelia Doolan's electrifying intervention as "a specialist in being an Irish citizen" at a session of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy in Galway; and former Commandant Edward Horgan's superb recent interview.
I focus on the perception that access to foreign investment and the EEC-EU required furtive military undertakings. We did not formally join NATO but our informal co-optation with the EU-NATO strategic partnership forged links of power concealed from public scrutiny. The deep consensus under Frank Aiken on decolonisation, nuclear disarmament and UN-directed peacekeeping has been taken for granted and almost hollowed out. A celestial military neutrality has camouflaged developments, bringing us to the threshold of hell on earth. It is a case of "people talking without speaking".
Is war the answer or the problem? Where has it been shown to work? The military policies proposed would in one sense be well funded, but are they well founded? If so, why was the groundwork laid down so furtively? Neither the Commission report nor the watered-down security forum answers those crucial questions. We are doing our job as Irish citizens as well as possible in our response to the forum and the excellent neutrality roadshow. Will the current deliberations reflect Bunreacht na hÉireann's careful post-imperial articulation of voice, authority and power? Sa bhliain 1996, dúirt Dick Spring le muintir na hÉireann, "gur leo féin a bhaineann polasaí eachtrach na hÉireann". An fíor fós an méid sin? Does Irish foreign policy still belong to the Irish people? Can the solemn guarantees given with the second referendums on the Nice and Lisbon treaties now be shredded?
The US poet Walt Whitman asks: "What living and buried speech is always vibrating here, what howls restrain’d by decorum"?
"Our world is becoming unhinged", the UN Secretary General tells us, and "we seem incapable of coming together to respond". Are we hearing without listening? Will his words, like silent raindrops, teardrops, echo in the deadly well of silence?
In 2022, An Taoiseach said:
We have – in this General Assembly, and in the other bodies, institutions and agencies that make up the United Nations – the spaces to discuss, to negotiate, to share experiences, to craft solutions.
Let us reclaim them and use them.
Professor Ray Murphy:
We have recently marked the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the founding of the UN. The lessons from both seem to have been wasted as the world becomes increasingly fragmented and unstable. In such circumstances, our military neutrality and non-alignment are more critical than ever. According to the 2015 White Paper on Defence, a feature of Ireland's policy response to security challenges is continued strong support for the multilateral system of collective security represented by the UN and of the primary role of the Security Council.
The 2015 Green Paper on Defence acknowledged that there is substantial public support for the triple lock and that, on balance, the advantages of retaining the mechanism can be seen as outweighing the disadvantages. It is submitted that if the triple lock is removed as now proposed, it would constitute a betrayal of the commitment made by the Irish Government to its citizens and change a policy that has been in place since 1960. It would also grant any Irish Government excessive authority in relation to international deployments of Irish forces.
According to the UN Capstone principles on peacekeeping, international legitimacy is one of the most important assets of a peacekeeping operation. This legitimacy is derived from the fact that it is established after obtaining a UN mandate. Although the practice of UN peacekeeping has evolved significantly over the past six decades, three basic principles have traditionally governed such operations: consent of the parties, impartiality, and the non-use of force, except in self-defence. Without the safeguard of UN legitimacy and oversight, Ireland has no means of ensuring these principles will be adhered to while part of an international force with no UN approval.
The Defence (Amendment) Act 1993 made provision for Irish participation in operations with peace enforcement powers – sometimes referred to as "robust peacekeeping" or "stabilisation" operations – permitting the use of force to impose a peace on parties to a conflict. This is something that only the Security Council can authorise under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It is also important to note that regional arrangements and organisations, such as the EU, the African Union and NATO, are permitted under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter to engage in peacekeeping with host-state consent but can participate in peace enforcement operations only with Security Council authorisation.
The removal of the triple lock will effectively allow any Government to decide whether to deploy Irish forces to conflict zones around the world to participate in operations that do not have UN approval. This could range from peace enforcement to combat roles as part of a coalition of the willing, such as recently discussed in the context of the Ukraine–Russia conflict. Removing the requirement for UN approval gives a Government almost unfettered discretion when it already has a Dáil majority. What is now being proposed is not an amendment to the triple lock; it is its removal.
The most significant proposed change to the general legal framework can be found under head 6 of the general scheme of the proposed defence (amendment) Bill 2025. The proposed definition of an international force outlines the normal types of forces we are familiar with, but the final element is "any other regional arrangement or body that operates in a manner consistent with the United Nations Charter and international law". The parliamentary draftsperson was smart and did not list NATO as a potential organisation we would participate with, but "any other regional arrangement or body" comes within that definition and we have no real means of ensuring it abides by the UN Charter and international law. Who is to determine if a regional organisation or body operates in a manner consistent with the UN Charter, especially when there is no Security Council or General Assembly oversight? Furthermore, who will decide what the mandate will be for peacekeeping, conflict prevention or strengthening international security, all of which terms I am taking from the provisions in the proposed legislation? The terms in the proposed legislation are very broad and could cover almost any international military operation abroad.
Ireland has played a significant role as a member of the UN since 1955, especially when elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. Our success is attributable to our policy of military neutrality and perceived independence, especially on a range of issues that include disarmament, human rights, nuclear non-proliferation, and support for peoples seeking self-determination. Such policies have helped to create an identity that should be valued and strengthened.
We can make little difference in terms of a military contribution to the defence of Europe, but adopting an independent policy on issues such as Gaza and Ukraine may actually be more beneficial for resolving such conflicts. This may help to facilitate Ireland in playing a role as an honest broker when it comes to resolving international disputes. Our real strength lies in our soft power and this is what we should focus on and seek to protect.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go raibh míle maith agat. I will now open the floor to members. I have an indication from one member and if any others wish to indicate, they may do so. We will begin with Deputy Brian Stanley, who has seven minutes, including the responses.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses - Dr. Devine, Professor Maguire and Professor Murphy - for their presentations and the papers they submitted, which we received and read.
I want to focus on the speech given yesterday by the Minister of State for European affairs and defence, Deputy Thomas Byrne. He was speaking at an event hosted by the Institute of International and European Affairs. At the meeting, he referred to Article 29 of the Constitution, which does not permit Ireland to join an EU mutual defence pact. He then went on to say "I believe that we must approach our security and defence from a policy of principles-based pragmatism" and "We need to champion legislative reform governing the deployment of our defence forces, such as amending the triple-lock". When you amend the triple lock, it stops being a triple lock; it is abolished. The Minister of State called in his speech for a policy of "principles-based pragmatism" in how we approach Ireland's future security and defence. He stated that the upcoming June meeting of the European Council will follow the NATO summit in The Hague. He added, "The timing of the NATO meeting will underscore the fact that coherence and complementarity with NATO, will be part of the picture". He finished by saying that "in taking a principles-based pragmatic approach to our security and defence, I believe that we should continue to partner with NATO in line with our existing principles, within frameworks such as Partnership for Peace".
At the same meeting, a Mr. Guillaume de la Brosse, who works in the European Commission's defence industry and space department, outlined that the thrust of matters at the moment is to boost the defence industries within the EU so they can increase the manufacturing of military equipment and weapons. Along with other speakers at the event, he stressed that the need for defence capability investment must run in tandem with a major expansion of Europe's military industrial base. I am referring to this just for context.
I want to focus in particular on the issue of whether a referendum is required. In Dr. Devine's paper, she argued it is. She quoted the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, who stated on 8 May, when questioned about this, that a national public plebiscite was not required. He stated there have been a number of calls for a public plebiscite on the proposed changes to the triple lock. Dr. Devine made the argument that the proposed changes to the triple lock do require a referendum because it exists beyond national legislation. Making the key point indicating where the Government is coming from on this, she stated the Government rather simplistically believes that because it was "clever" enough not to put the triple lock in the protocol attached to the Lisbon treaty in 2013, and because the triple lock is not in the Constitution, it is not required to hold a referendum. An article in The Journal states the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, coined the phrase "principles-based pragmatism". This is going to be the buzzword. I do not say this to be confrontational in any way; I am just quoting directly what the Minister of State said.
The solemn declaration made in Seville in June 2002 stated that the Government of Ireland made a "firm commitment to the people of Ireland, solemnized in this Declaration, that a referendum will be held in Ireland on the adoption of any such decision and on any future Treaty which would involve Ireland departing from its traditional policy of military neutrality." It went on to state, "Ireland reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European security and defence policy, requires ... the authorisation of the [triple lock]."
Will Dr. Devine comment on that? Clearly, Ireland is not joining NATO. We are now partners with NATO and have been for some time. Statements from the Government and from security sources outline how we have been partners for a considerable period. Everything now is based on principle-based pragmatism. The problem is that the case being put forward is that Ireland is not abandoning military neutrality. I apologise for reading out all of that but I thought it was necessary to set the context of where we are at as of this week.
Dr. Karen Devine:
Yes. The term "principle-based pragmatism", iterated by the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, and cited by the Deputy, is a great use of the Government's codewords and wordplay. In fact, states, and the EU, have to adhere to law. The other kind of phrase is "rules-based international system". Rather, international law is what the EU, Ireland and the Government have to adhere to. Principle-based pragmatism is just a code word for "we don't want to adhere to international law".
The Deputy pointed out that the Minister of State said that NATO is part of the picture. He stated that at an event at the Institute of International and European Affairs, which is an EU-funded think-tank. At that same location, a Swedish official said that Sweden is a member of NATO in all but Article 5 and has been for the past 20 years. The reason the Government wants to get rid of the triple lock is because, effectively, Ireland is in a similar position to Sweden prior to Sweden officially joining NATO, whereby unofficially, through the back door, it is a member. The Government cannot officially join NATO because it knows that only 13% to 14% of people in Ireland are in favour of that. The Government will mention the PFP, but that is essentially the reason to abolish the triple lock because the triple lock stands in the way of NATO and EU missions that will not have a UN Security Council or UN General Assembly mandate.
The Deputy mentioned the military industrial complex and the EU's plans on spending up to €800 billion to support it. He also asked me to speak about the requirement for a referendum. Because the triple lock is part of national policy, it is a matter of acute national importance to the people. We know this because it exists under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It has an agreement in the international system.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I appreciate that was a long question.
Dr. Karen Devine:
As I said in my opening statement, the triple lock has legal standing, arguably. What the Government is trying to do in abolishing the triple lock through amending national legislation is use a legal parliamentary procedure to commit an illegal act. That national declaration must be put to a referendum. The way the EU works is by a fait accompli, the accomplished fact. The EU has already put in place everything it needs. It has been done and in a way this discussion is moot, but we do require a referendum. As I stated in the last paragraph of my opening remarks, the President of Ireland and his Council of State would need to seriously look at the legal implications.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are short on time.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can Dr. Devine see this being challenged in court?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is that in the Supreme Court or High Court? Is it similar to the Crotty case in 1987? Can Dr. Devine see it being challenged?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will have to call it there because it will be tight for time to fit anyone else in. I thank Deputy Stanley and Dr. Devine. Does anyone else wish to indicate?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to put my questions in context. I do not believe Ireland is a neutral country within the internationally accepted meaning of the word. Neither is Ireland a non-aligned country, as it has never joined or associated itself with the Non-Aligned Movement, which comprises 120 member countries. My personal wish is for Ireland to become for the first time since Independence, a truthful, honourable and militarily resourced neutral state similarly to the only two remaining true European neutral states, Austria and Switzerland, and the former neutral states Finland and Sweden, which left neutrality in 2023 and 2024, respectively.
The Hague Convention V, respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers, was signed on 18 October 1907. The convention codifies the obligations of countries declaring themselves to be neutral. Ireland was not a contracting power as the convention pre-dated Independence, but neither has a post-Independence Ireland ratified the convention or imported it to domestic laws, as confirmed in the High Court judgment by Mr. Justice Kearns in the case of Horgan in 2003. Hague 1907 forms part of that body of law called "customary international law". In essence, it is states' practice over time. I am sure Professor Murphy will agree with that one.
Article 22 of the said convention states:
Non-signatory powers may adhere to the present Convention. The Power which desires to adhere notifies its intention in writing to the Netherlands Government, forwarding to it the act of adhesion, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.
At the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, there was a government in the Netherlands. Ireland could have submitted its neutrality intent. It did not and to my knowledge it has not at any stage, ever, declared its neutrality.
Is Ireland a neutral country in the context of customary international law? If the witnesses believe it is, what are the tangible elements leading to any assertion of Ireland's being a neutral country other than the Government stating it was without such an assertion being contested with empirical evidence? If Ireland is a neutral state, why is it that currently Austria and Switzerland, and until recently Finland and Sweden, pursued their neutrality in a polar opposite way to the way Ireland has pursued its alleged neutrality?
Article 2 of the Hague Convention 1907 states, "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power." Ireland's borders are land, sea and air. In light of recent and ongoing opposition and political and media outcry about US military and US-contracted aircraft passing through Irish airspace and carrying munitions of war, how could Ireland, if it were to be actually a proper neutral state, comply with the requirements of international law on such issues with the historical and current dysfunctional state of the Defence Forces?
Does any neutral country have a triple lock and where does this leave sovereignty? I would be interested in the witnesses' thoughts on increasing the ceiling from 12 to 50 troops before the triple lock applies? What are their thoughts on adding new permitted activities abroad by our troops or Defence Forces? I am specifically speaking about counter-narcotics, evacuation operations and the protection of our embassies and diplomats overseas. I believe there is a lot of common ground in what has been submitted by the witnesses and I am not arguing the Government's case regarding the triple lock. However, I do not see a relationship between the triple lock and neutrality of any sort. The witnesses adverted repeatedly to the UN Security Council. Where does that leave us with regard to Article 52 of the UN Charter? With Article 52, as they will be aware, regional organisations can set up on their own arrangements.
Ireland has decided, as the witnesses pointed out in their submissions, to opt out of any European military arrangement.
Should the European Union decide to opt out of any protection of Ireland? It is only fair that one side does exactly what the other side does. I am sorry. There are a lot of questions but I have seven minutes and I needed to get them in.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That leaves two minutes. Can the witnesses do a miracle of the loaves and fishes with those questions? Is there any particular speaker the questions are addressed to?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am happy for any of the witnesses to reply to any or all of the questions.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I first call Professor Murphy.
Professor Ray Murphy:
I thank the Senator for the series of questions. It might surprise him that I agree with him that, in terms of international law, we do not fulfil the obligations of a formally neutral state. At the same time, I would argue it has been Government policy that we are militarily neutral or militarily non-aligned. It is the prerogative of every sovereign state to decide on its own policies. They do not have to meet some kind of international definition.
I consider that we have compromised our military neutrality by very close arrangements with NATO, the Partnership for Peace and so on. I think the removal of the triple lock is very significant because, essentially, it will remove something that has been in place for decades, from the very beginning. This was discussed in great detail in the Dáil back in the 1950s and 1960s. We are removing the requirement for the UN to approve and give legitimacy to Ireland's participation in an international force abroad. By doing so, we are joining all of those states that we are critical of, and that are rendering the United Nations dysfunctional, because we are agreeing to do something which bypasses the UN instead of working to make the UN more effective, and trying to bring the parties - the major powers and others - to use the UN as the forum it was intended to be.
A lot of the Senator's other questions follow on from whether Ireland is neutral or not. If we look at the voting record of Ireland over many years at the United Nations, especially in the early years, it was very much in favour of the so-called West. I do not believe we are neutral in that sense. Our joining the European Union clearly established a pro-European position. I understood the European Union to have been, in the early days, based on economic prosperity and co-operation, but also on something that was motivated after the Second World War as a peace project. I am afraid the European Union is betraying its early values. I am slightly wandering now but the Senator’s question was a very broad one and I am trying to answer some of the issues. If we look at the preamble in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union, most recently updated by the Lisbon treaty, it talks about certain values, such as human rights, the rule of law, the peaceful resolution of disputes and a whole range of things. If we permit our forces to be part of a European Union stand-alone force, I do not have confidence in our European partners to adhere to the values that are set out in that treaty.
I would cite two simple examples, although I do not want to get distracted by Gaza.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We might allow a small bit of time for the other two speakers to make a contribution. Thank you.
Professor Ray Murphy:
Last week, the German Foreign Minister met the Israeli Foreign Minister and reassured him that the support of Germany is steadfast, that it will continue to give Israel armaments as it needs them and that the provision of armaments to the Israeli Government was never in doubt. To me, that totally flouts the values the European Union has set out for itself in its own treaties. The Senator can understand how I am somewhat cynical about some of the international projects of the European Union.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I thank the Senator for his questions. First, the European Commission told neutral states that are applicants that they had to get rid of neutrality, and that is where the term “military neutrality” was born. That is cited in my paper regarding edicts from 1967 and several from 1992. I have also cited in my paper the explanation of how military neutrality bears no relation to active, positive neutrality as reflected in the Hague Conventions, and how public opinion supports active, positive neutrality. The Government is doing the exact opposite to that and the Senator is right in his observations in that respect. The third point is that a state does not have to ratify the Hague Conventions for them to apply if it declares its neutrality.
The use of Shannon is a violation of the Hague Conventions and a majority of people in surveys are against this because it violates neutrality. Sweden had a triple lock and always did and, along those lines, most independent middle powers, like Ireland is at the UN, have that. I presume Sweden has got rid of that since it joined NATO. The Senator asked about the protection of Ireland. The question is against what threat. On this idea of new, permitted activities abroad, I would say that they have to be UN-authorised.
To conclude, although Professor Murphy was saying the EU is a peace project, I am actually writing a paper about how the EU was not a peace project in its origins but was imperialist and colonialist. Jean Monnet himself said in his memoirs that the creation of an EU army would help Europe to realise its ultimate destiny, which is the development of the African continent. Federica Mogherini cited Jean Monnet when she launched PESCO, the European Permanent Structured Cooperation in defence, and said that we want to go beyond sub-Saharan Africa and want to go east towards Russia.
Professor John Maguire:
It is a pleasure to be in contact again with Senator Craughwell. I met him on the first day of the Cork forum and gave him a copy of this document. I really welcome and would love to be in dialogue in any way on these ideas.
I said in my submission that neutrality is very much demeaned, but neutrality is a politically contested concept in any society. This committee has recently had some concerns about the meaning of defence and security, and these are also concepts whose meaning and application are up for grabs. That is what we need to get back into. We were the first neutral and now we are being preached to about what other countries have done because we sat on our hands and closed our mouths when we joined the EU, as we too often have done on the Security Council as well.
Regarding operations abroad, in my submission I point out that they are frightening. The Commission casually mentions space. Are we actually going to have a space force?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will have to ask Professor Maguire to conclude.
Professor John Maguire:
I will add one final sentence. Lewis Mumford, the social critic, in 1946 wrote an article in The Saturday Evening Post, where he said: “Gentlemen: You are Mad!” I do not mean that you here are mad. He was writing to the leaders. He then said that we are mad for not confronting this.
On a very final point, I am concerned about armed neutrality. It must not be escalatory or feed into the military-industrial complex, but I have no difficulty with a country genuinely defending itself.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Thank you. I ask members to bear in mind that I would much rather police the Deputies and Senators than have to police our very kind guests. It puts me in an invidious position, given that people have given their time and are keen to contribute. I ask members to please allow time for questions to be responded to. I call Deputy Gibney.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not intend to use my seven minutes to set the context because I believe the context is clear. I liked that Professor Maguire said it was gentlemen who are mad. That brings no objection from me. I thank the witnesses for their inspiring introductory statements and submissions and for being here this morning.
I will get straight into questions. My first is for Professor Murphy. What impact would this change in legislation and the resulting change in the nature of Irish military deployments have on our place in the world and the credibility and trust that we have built up over the years in peace-building and peacekeeping? I know this has been a feature of Professor Murphy's career.
Professor Ray Murphy:
I thank the Deputy. Let me look at the proposed legislation because, to some extent, I am going to answer Senator Craughwell on an issue he raised. Within the legislation, for example, it proposes to allow the Government to deploy up to 50 Defence Forces personnel essentially without going to the Dáil for approval.
The same legislation expands the circumstances whereby soldiers can be sent abroad, in certain circumstances, for humanitarian work or protection of embassies, etc. It lists a range of non-traditional military functions where the Defence Forces can be applied. It seems very odd to list circumstances, which are outside of international forces in the traditional sense, where our Defence Forces can be sent abroad while keeping this provision that allows 50 soldiers to be sent abroad without any need to go to the Dáil or have any formal approval and specify what they might do in those circumstances.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have other questions on the cap, but what about our role and global reputation in that sphere?
Professor Ray Murphy:
We have established, over many decades, a reputation as a country that has a different history from that of most other European states, including our past as a British colony. We have managed to develop significant relationships with other states, especially those on the African continent but also in the Americas and Asia. That reflects our history, our tradition of military neutrality, our non-membership of NATO and our support for UN multilateralism and the United Nations framework for the resolution of all forms of disputes. On a personal note, through my career, I have travelled extensively and worked in Africa and the Middle East. It has always surprised me how familiar and knowledgeable people are about our foreign policy and role. That is something that is very hard to create but very easy to destroy.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Professor Murphy believe this legislation-----
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Professor Murphy. I have a lot of questions but I will get through as many as I can.
In my exchanges with the Government on this proposed legislation and its policies around the triple lock, it has stated that the General Assembly is unworkable. We know it is a failsafe that was outlined in both the Nice and Lisbon treaties. We heard from the Department of Defence just two weeks ago that the legislation does satisfy the triple lock. It has now said that formally. Will Professor Murphy tell us a little about how he sees it working? We get a lot of what-ifs and hypotheticals from the Government about what happens if there is a veto. I heard one from the Tánaiste in the Chamber this morning when he asked what would happen if the Security Council vetoed the renewal of the latest mandate on the Golan Heights. How might it play out if that veto were to happen and it were sent to the General Assembly? That question goes to anyone who is willing.
Professor Ray Murphy:
There is a General Assembly resolution, the uniting for peace resolution, which was invoked in 1956 and was successful. To my knowledge, the General Assembly, although not through the uniting for peace resolution, also approved an operation in Western New Guinea in 1964. Unfortunately, it is a little more complex than commentators sometimes say. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly are both quite complex procedurally, so it has to be assumed there are challenges in that regard. The most significant challenge is to get the two-thirds majority, but it is not impossible. A country such as Ireland has that capacity as an interlocutor between the major powers and the so-called global south. We should be trying to affirm and strengthen that role, along with working closely with our European Union colleagues.
If we think about this, we can understand why states from the global south are cynical about the United Nations, and especially the practices of the major powers. All of them - China, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and France - often use the mechanism for their own self-interest and there are double standards in applying the principles of the UN Charter, international law and human rights principles. There is a great deal of cynicism. Nonetheless, multilateralism in the UN is the best thing that has ever happened to humanity and the global group of states. It is something we must work hard to retain, reinforce and strengthen. We have a real role in that.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will throw out one more question for Dr. Devine and Professor Maguire. What happens to the guarantees in the Lisbon and Nice treaties if this legislation is passed? They referenced that in their opening comments.
Professor John Maguire:
There is a big problem in that regard. I wrote this in Defending Peace in 1999, when we joined the partnership for peace without a referendum. It was updated for Nice II, where I went into the whole question in the chapter "We Don't Heed no Declaration: We Demand A Protocol!". It is interesting that after that, Irish Governments learned the difference between a protocol and a declaration during Brexit. All I can say is that I and so many others have sat in debates with government people who say a declaration is fine. Dr. Devine pointed out that the declaration is registered as an international treaty, which is important. Either Governments realised they were leaving a loophole or they were incompetent. In either case, our Constitution and the jurisdiction of Article 29 is in deep crisis.
I will outline something I stated in my submission. It is very difficult in the current climate for a citizen to talk about Article 6, but we are the citizens, as is each of the members. It is a post-imperial Constitution that states the final appeal rests with the people on matters of national policy. We were promised - I was personally promised - that this was safe and that the triple lock would not be touched unless the Government came back to us. This is a dagger to the Constitution and the democratic order we claim to be promoting around the world.
I will make one more tiny point. The Deputy asked about our image. Ireland's special operations force, IRL-SOF, is being talked about. Have we learned nothing on this island in a hundred years? I am in favour of IRL-USP, Ireland's unique selling point, which is our ability to fulfil the UN Charter based on our Constitution. I feel passionate about that. Sorry, I get a bit hot under the collar. You can hose me down now and then.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask Dr. Devine for a very brief contribution.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I can only build on what Professor Murphy said. Ireland used to top what is called the Good Country Index, partly because in our foreign policy we do not kill people. We do not have a body count in that respect.
On one occasion when I appeared before an Oireachtas committee, a deputy ambassador from the Netherlands approached me and asked me to speak to 30 other deputy ambassadors at a later date, which I did. When I explained what was in my paper, several people from those states, which were non-EU, middle-power states in South America and Asia, said to me that nobody wanted the EU to be a global actor and military force and nobody wanted Ireland to get rid of its neutrality. They said it was too valuable to them and urged us to keep it.
As Professor Murphy pointed out, the Government has stated that the fact the General Assembly has authorised missions is somehow irrelevant, yet there has been no Russian veto on any Irish peacekeeping mission. What the Government is trying to create is based on something that has never happened and will not happen, but what has happened at the UN General Assembly is being ignored. My paper has shown how larger states, including NATO states America, Britain and France, have traditionally underfunded UN peacekeeping.
The Government and the EU considered themselves very clever because they did not put what will happen to the guarantees in a protocol. In the appendix to my opening statement, I referenced the literature of the Referendum Commission that indicated to people that those guarantees would be included in a protocol. However, as I said, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is referenced in the appendix to the opening statement, there are so many aspects where that triple lock meets the requirements for an international agreement. Therefore, the Government, in pulling on that thread, could unravel the legitimacy of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. That treaty would not remain in force and all the secondary legislation passed under it would be defunct. The reputation of the Government and the EU would be under serious question if this were to happen.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Dr. Devine.
To clarify, Standing Orders require that members of the committee receive priority in terms of asking questions. That was my error and I apologise. There was no fault on the part of Deputy Gibney but in terms of future rotation, I will have to come to committee members first. Apologies for that and no fault is ascribed. That was my error. Senator Gallagher is next, followed by Senator Clonan.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome our guests this morning and thank them for their very detailed and passionate outline of their views. On the triple lock itself, would our guests accept that the current system we have is working adequately or do they feel that it needs reform? That is my first question which is directed at all three witnesses, if they wish to comment.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will start with Professor Murphy.
Professor Ray Murphy:
I thank the Senator for the question. The simple answer is that the triple lock has been in place since 1960, although the term itself is relatively recent. I do not think the legislation which formed the foundation for our participation in UN peacekeeping needs to change. Doing away with the requirement for a UN mandate is so fundamental that it will have a really dramatic impact on our participation in UN activities in the future and the perception of Ireland abroad. It has worked. The narrative sometimes is that the Russians and Chinese are vetoing Irish participation. They are not vetoing Irish participation but they are vetoing a UN security resolution for a potential force in a part of the world. Take for example the 11 or 12 UN peacekeeping forces operating at present. They have to be constantly renewed, so the Security Council is actually functioning, although not as I would wish it to. It is certainly not efficient and is not the way it was planned to be but it is not a complete write-off. We are going through a particularly bad period. It is said that there has not been a new peacekeeping force since 2014. I discussed this with a former army colleague of mine the other night who was in favour of changing the triple lock. He spoke about wanting to stop the fighting and conflict in Gaza and asked about Ireland being part of an EU battle group going to Gaza. My answer was that unless the Americans and the Israelis permit it, and the other major powers, it is not going to happen anyway.
The forum within which to sort these problems out, at a political level in particular, is the United Nations, not anything else. The problem is much broader. There still is consensus within the Security Council in relation to most peacekeeping operations. The problems that are emerging reflect out-of-date mandates and other issues. We have forces in Lebanon right now. Each time the resolution comes up for renewal, there are doubts about aspects of it but they are actually sincere doubts. They are well-founded reservations about aspects of the role of the UN peacekeepers, what they are expected to do and how a UN resolution reflecting the policies of the Security Council is very far removed from what is actually happening on the ground. Sometimes what the Security Council wishes for a UN force on the ground is completely divorced from the realities of what a UN force is confronting. It is complex. The UN is not an efficient system but it is the only system. The only way we will resolve the major international conflicts like Gaza and Ukraine is by finding some degree of consensus within the major powers and the forum for that is the Security Council and the United Nations. Allowing Irish forces to go to non-UN-approved forces is opening a carte blanche for major operations of a nature which we cannot predict. If we send forces on the ground, as part of an EU or NATO force, we cannot be sure what will happen or how the situation will evolve. Will we become embroiled in an actual armed conflict and be a party to a conflict? So much, then, for our policy of military neutrality and all of the other principles that we have stood for over many decades.
Professor John Maguire:
In my written statement I include a link to an extraordinary interview by Philip McDonagh, former Irish ambassador to Russia, calling for diplomacy. What he does is similar to what Erskine Childers did in the 1990s. I have a hard copy of the Childers work which I can leave with the committee or I can provide the reference. These were people who came along and said the world is in a sorry state but this is how we can mend it. Philip McDonagh not only talks about how the UN can work but also talks about the OSCE, which was central in the White Paper on foreign policy. The Irish Government said that it was the only body that can deal with European problems because everyone is in it but now we bypass it. From that point of view, what is so sad in all of this is that we do not have anyone in the Government saying, "We would love to do this or that with the UN but we cannot." There is no agenda of hope. Philip McDonagh and Erskine Childers give us the agenda of hope. That is why the notion of the triple lock holding us back is akin to crocodile tears. It is a bit like saying, "Hold my coat and hold me back." There is no agenda for the UN and we must have one. I agree with Professor Murphy that we are going on a bear hunt. We cannot go over it or under it; we have got to go through it. We have got to get back into the UN and we may end up with something beyond it but standing aside from it and demeaning it cannot address these problems.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I thank Senator Gallagher. He asked if the triple lock is fit for purpose and the answer is "Yes". The public concept of neutrality limits the military activity of the State to UN peacekeeping only and that is what the triple lock does. From the point of view of democracy, it absolutely works. I co-authored a paper with Daniel Farrelly on the deployment of the Irish Defence Forces based on parliamentary questions from 1991 to last year. One can see there, under the triple lock, the contribution Irish troops have made to international peace and security and, as I said earlier, that is deeply appreciated by all of the other middle powers and small states in the international system. The majority of states at the UN are small, post-colonial states like Ireland and they need and want Ireland to retain the triple lock and to act through positive neutrality.
In 2017 Ireland was a signatory to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. That is also implicated in the triple lock because if we get rid of the triple lock we are feeding into the EU military ambitions for a military industrial complex, with €800 billion to be spent on armaments. NATO has told its members that they cannot sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This is part of the path that the Government wants Ireland to go on but the triple lock is a bulwark and stops that.
When conflicts end, they end with a ceasefire and that ceasefire generally needs to be minded and that is when UN peacekeeping comes in. We are not going to see the end of conflict on this planet. Therefore, we need Irish peacekeepers and UN peacekeepers under a mandate. As Professor Murphy said, the UN is the only global organisation that has the authority to mandate missions. In the aforementioned paper with Daniel Farrelly which I presented last September, I quoted the wife of a deceased member of the Irish Defence Forces who died on UN peacekeeping. She said that he was a UN peacekeeper because he wanted to do some good in the world. Contrast that with a Fine Gael member's recent claim that Irish troops want to do "soldiering". They do not. They want to keep peace and they want to do some good for the world. From the point of view of the Defence Forces, the triple lock is valid and should stay.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. It has been my experience, as an academic, that when we speak to issues like the triple lock and neutrality, it invites a very vitriolic and abusive response, not just from unnamed people online but from our academic colleagues, people who should know better. Some very high profile academics engage in ad hominem attacks on anyone who speaks to the calm calculus of reason and, as Dr. Devine said, evidence-based research in this area.
I want to thank Dr. Devine for coming in because she is exposing herself to a level of hostile scrutiny by simply interrogating these very important questions. I characterise that debate as being very paternalistic, patronising and misogynist. I am conscious of this because I follow my colleagues' online and social commentary on this matter. I have seen the most appalling misogynistic abuse directed at Deputy Gibney from that same community, including some of these people who really ought to know better. I want to thank the witnesses for coming in here.
In relation to space, I have been at briefings in NATO headquarters and at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Mons. There are exoatmospheric weapons systems already. Some of them are controlled from European control systems. The plan is to use artificial intelligence to make them autonomous exoatmospheric weapons systems. Not only is that an appalling prospect but it is also one that is very lucrative in terms of research and development and investment, which comes to my first question. Since the beginning of the year, I have seen up to 50 opinion and analysis pieces in our broadsheets alone - I have said it previously here - proposing that we dispense with the triple lock. Many of those are again penned by some of our colleagues in academia who, I repeat, ought to know better. From where is the motivation coming? Why is the Government in such a hurry to dispense with the triple lock and de factoerode our neutral status? That is my first question.
My second question is this: do the witnesses accept that if the triple lock is removed - because it will not be amended or replaced with anything, it will be scrapped and removed and that was clarified by contributions from the Department of Defence two weeks ago - does that mean any future government can send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world to any conflict by a simple, whipped majority? As was established by Senator Higgins, that would include any ad hocglobal coalition of the willing, whether they be deployed to some place like Ukraine or wherever. In the absence of a triple lock, what would be proposed as a workable alternative? I will submit amendments to the legislation along the lines that any vote in the Dáil and deployment of troops overseas should be subject to a free vote and there should be no whip applied or sanction applied to anybody who votes against it. Two weeks ago, Senator Wilson suggested that perhaps we could have some sort of a mechanism within the Seanad to oversee or backstop it. I was thinking about things like qualified majority voting for these decisions but I am told that is not constitutionally possible. Have the witnesses any thoughts on what might work as a credible replacement for the triple lock? My final question is one I feel very strongly about given the direction of travel. Do we need a referendum to put an explicit expression of neutrality into our Constitution? As lawyers, do our witnesses feel there a mechanism by which that could be triggered by way of public petition, apart from the fact that the Government that currently does not seem to be committed in that way? I thank the witnesses.
Professor John Maguire:
On the motivation and to bring in an academic concept, I am shocked by what the Senator says about my colleagues. I am not in that online world but it is appalling that it is happening. In my submission, I talk about the idea of informal co-optation and that is really important. It is very clear that there was a perception from the 1960s onwards that we had to get into the EEC, particularly if Britain did not get in. It would have been a disaster not to get in. T.K. Whitaker was quite explicit, not publicly but within the Government and with others, that even if we were told we had to join NATO, we ought not to refuse. That is important because that sets the ground perception. I see that from governments from then on, and they said it to us at every referendum, if you do not pass this or pass this, we will be thrown out or we will lose various goodies.
There has been a process whereby lines of power have been laid down without public scrutiny, which is much more insidious. I have never been worried about Ireland joining NATO. It does not need to and it will not try but it has effectively established this partnership. In 2013, the Green Paper on Defence suggested that "NATO has become in effect the ISO [the industrial standard] of the military world".
What is planned for the Arctic, by the way, is as frightening as what the Senator talks about with the exoatmospheric weapons. Everyone's reaction to a melting North Pole is how can we fight battles there over rare earths rather than how do we stop trashing the one planet on which we live.
On the referendum one, I have always been iffy on that. Why? Where will it come from and how will it be crafted? Would it genuinely come from a commitment to neutrality? I am all for having it but I do not want to be in a situation where finally, something is held and is passed by the people and we are then told "now you have what you wanted, what are you complaining about?". I am not opposed to the idea in principle; I am very worried about how it might work out.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I thank Senator Clonan, in particular for explaining what it is like to speak to this topic. I am an academic and I have been in DCU for nearly 20 years. I have been studying neutrality for 30 years. I am not on social media due to the abuse that is there and coming from those quarters. In my paper, I outlined some of the things I face. My course on Irish foreign policy is constantly being axed. There is no need to go into it here but social media is just the tip of the iceberg of what you experience when you try to speak to neutrality as an academic.
The Senator mentioned 50 op-eds. The EU funds think-tanks. In my paper, I explained that since the conflict in Ukraine in 2022 escalated, within 18 months 800 EU think-tank reports were published. This shows the level of propaganda and funding of that propaganda. In some of the quarters the Senator cited, many of those involved are what are called Jean Monnet lecturers. A lot of people in Ireland do not know what a Jean Monnet lecturer is. It is somebody in a university who occupies the position of an academic but actually is not an academic, according to the Jean Monnet lecturers themselves, because they are not dispassionate. They do not carry out critical inquiry. When the EU is criticised, they jump to its defence. They are called Jean Monnet lecturers because the EU directly pays their salary or a good portion of their salary. They are paid to promote the agenda of the EU and that is perhaps part of the reason they are so abusive to people who stand in their way, as they see it.
Albert Bandura had a theory of moral disengagement and some of that can explain what the Government and those agents the Senator talked about are doing and the way they are doing it. There is another academic theory of elite socialisation which posits that the elite in Ireland have actually transferred their allegiance and identity to the EU level, they do not identify with Ireland and the Irish people and they do not see themselves as representing our interests. That is why they are not talking about the mutual defence clause because they see Ireland as a subregion of the EU and they do not feel the need to talk about it in that respect.
In terms of illegal operations, in my paper I went through illegal operations launched against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya - the list is there - and there was one instance where NATO bombed the equivalent of RTÉ, the state national broadcaster in Belgrade, Serbia. The relatives of the dead and injured took NATO to court. France's defence said that "well, we may have carried out this illegal bombing but we did not do it as France. We did it as NATO and NATO has no legal personality so you cannot prosecute us.". That is so dangerous. However, the EU does have legal personality because it wanted to be a global actor and in that way, it has actually left itself open to prosecution.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Professor Murphy have any thoughts on an alternative to the triple lock that might be workable?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could Professor Murphy be relatively brief? Thank you.
Professor Ray Murphy:
I thank the Senator. That is actually an impossible question to answer for me. I do not have alternatives and I am not being smart. The triple lock has worked.
I am not actually opposed to participating in a NATO-led peacekeeping operation so long as it has the mandate from the Security Council or the General Assembly and so long as it has the legitimacy of the United Nations behind it. My biggest fear is that without this legitimacy we will end up participating in operations that are inconsistent with the foreign policy, objectives and principles we have adhered to over many decades. I emphasise we should not change the triple lock and we should not get rid of the requirement for UN approval. That would be a grave mistake. I cannot think of something that would work and that would salvage the legitimacy because the EU and regional organisations throughout the world do not have that legitimacy, credibility and global authority that the UN has.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Professor Murphy. We will come now to Deputy Smith. I do not have any further indications. In the second round I have Senator Kyne. Do Deputies Brabazon and O'Meara or Senator Higgins wish to contribute?
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will wait until after the permanent members.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
After Deputy Brabazon and Senator Kyne, all of the full members will have spoken. Does Senator Higgins wish to speak after that?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So it will be Deputy Smith, Senator Kyne, Deputy Brabazon and then Senator Higgins. I will briefly take the opportunity to say that I was not aware of the online abuse experienced by Deputy Gibney. That was absolutely unacceptable. This applies right across the debate. It should be entirely possible for people who are for or against the triple lock to have this debate in a considered, reasonable and non-personalised way. This committee will operate in that way but I would ask people outside the committee to operate in that way too.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise for being delayed. I was asking defence questions in the Dáil before coming to the committee. I have a couple of questions I will put first to Dr. Devine. She finished her opening statement by saying that arguably the Government has no legal right to destroy the triple lock. If the Government Bill goes through more or less unamended or in its presented form, how likely is it to be challenged in the courts? How strong a case would that be?
To the wider panel, do the witnesses believe it is possible to decouple a debate about investing in Ireland's Defence Forces, encompassing everything from pay and accommodation up to our national security in terms of undersea cables, from a debate about triple lock? To me everything seems to be conflated at the moment.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are the questions directed to any witness in particular?
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The first is to Dr. Devine and then to the panel for the last question. Actually, I have one more for Dr. Devine. I ask her to expand on the relationship between the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the removal of the triple lock. I am interested in that point and I did not quite get what the relationship was.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I thank Deputy Smith for his questions. On how likely it is to be challenged, it depends on resources but certainly at the national level it could be challenged. I believe that the President and the Council of State will have to take a serious look at the legitimacy of the abolishment of the triple lock. I believe it is a stateable case at national level and a stateable case at international level and even at EU level. The European Court of Justice has used and recognised the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in its own judgments. One can knit together the national legislation here on the triple lock and the national declaration that is associated with the instrument of ratification of the Lisbon treaty by Ireland. The European Council in issuing in its Presidency conclusions to the Council of Ministers - I quoted this in the written statement I provided - basically takes cognisance of the fact that the national declaration containing the triple lock is associated with the instrument of ratification by Ireland of the Lisbon treaty. There are three levels where cases could be taken. It depends on resources but at each level the case is stateable. I do not know if this answers the Deputy's question.
Dr. Karen Devine:
On sea cables, again I referred to this in my submission. The Department of Defence White Paper that was quoted by Professor Murphy earlier, which was published in 2015, actually says that sea cables and any kind of transnational terrorism are completely outside the remit of what it called military neutrality, so I just have to use the Government's own words on that. The sea cables argument is illogical and holds no merit.
The Deputy asked about the prohibition on nuclear weapons and the links to the triple lock. It comes through the fact that the reason the Government wants to abolish the triple lock is so that Ireland and the Irish Defence Forces can participate in NATO as a de facto member in military operations or through EU operations, which it regards itself as the European pillar of NATO. There is a lot of evidence on that.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How does that relate to the prohibition of nuclear weapons?
Dr. Karen Devine:
Essentially, NATO has told its members that they cannot sign that treaty. I published a paper, "A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?", on this in 2020. It is available online. NATO and militarism and breaches of international law are incompatible with something like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ireland in a way echoed Frank Aiken, which Professor Maguire talked about earlier and in the book A Force for Good? Ireland's diplomacy was echoing all of that good work during Ireland's golden era of the UN in creating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Now we have Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The other thing that a lot of people do not talk about is that Emmanuel Macron has been pushing for the EU to adopt what he calls the euro bomb. He wants to Europeanise French nuclear weapons. In that scenario, Ireland would be considered, as part of the EU, to be a nuclear power. This is against the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It is about what we have done in our history in terms of contributions to peace and security. If we get rid of the triple lock, we are saying that UN rules do not apply. If UN rules do not apply, what does it say about those UN treaties that we have put so much effort into creating to try to prevent the spread of weapons?
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not believe that is very helpful for this debate. Like Dr. Devine and the other panellists, I vehemently want to keep the triple lock. In the context of conflating something like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, I cannot see any circumstance where we would resile from our commitment to abolish nuclear weapons or abolish them from the planet. It is almost stronger than our commitment to the triple lock in terms of how Irish people feel. We are in the teeth of this now. We have the heads of the Bill. We are going to have to try to defeat this in these Chambers over the next few weeks. I want to have as much proper evidence as possible in order that we can take on the Government and the Tánaiste and keep this triple lock. I do not think conflating the nuclear weapons convention and issues like that is helpful, to be honest.
Dr. Karen Devine:
On that point, I am not conflating them. I totally appreciate and accept Deputy Smith's points and his argument. I see where he is coming from. In a way I am building on what Professor Ray Murphy is saying regarding what it says about Ireland if we abolish the triple lock which recognises the legitimacy of international law at the UN level. I agree with the Deputy that it should not be conflated. I am not conflating it but I am saying it has implications for everything in Ireland's foreign policy.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Professor Maguire has indicated. We are over time so I ask that he be brief.
Professor John Maguire:
I have two points. One is on the previous discussion. Yes, I am totally happy about Irish troops being involved in operations if they have the UN mandate, but in defending peace. I have gone into a systematic process of sidelining and scapegoating the UN which has totally altered the balance between NATO and the UN. We could walk back into a situation where NATO says the UN has to do something and the UN almost has to put its name to it. We need a reclaimed UN to give a real living mandate.
On the question relating to investment in Ireland's Defence Forces, I made the explicit point in my submission that there are very real issues of pay, conditions, promotion, retention and so on in the Defence Forces.
We, as a democratic republic, should pay our soldiers for doing the job. I submit, and would come back and argue this because it is an extraordinary thing to say, that the Commission on the Defence Forces has done a very bad job on what the job of the Defence Forces is. Insofar as it says things, it talks about the worrying operations that Senator Craughwell mentioned previously and in one sentence, it states everybody knows the point of military action. I do not and I am not sure the commission does. That is up for grabs. We need to reread this report. It is there; it is a placeholder. Everyone says "There is a report. That is great". I will make one final point as the Chair is quite properly giving me the hard stare. I would love to see a constitutional lawyer have a go at whether NATO is a regional organisation under the UN. As the placid waters of the North Atlantic lap the rugged coast line of Afghanistan, I think we have lost the track of what the UN Charter means.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I had not intended to look so menacing.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will move on to Senator Kyne.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses here this morning. I ask one clarification from Dr. Devine. She mentioned comments from a Fine Gael member. Is she talking about a Member of these Houses?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Was it Deputy Callaghan, who is a member of this committee?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
She is an elected Member and a former peacekeeper herself but Dr. Devine chose not to clarify that.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Devine chose not to mention that Deputy Callaghan is a peacekeeper herself so she might have real-life experience of these things.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Devine could have clarified in her comments that Deputy Callaghan was a Fine Gael member.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is Dr. Devine suggesting Deputy Callaghan is using code words?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will intervene here briefly. We need to be careful in referencing people who are not present. There is scope, if political representatives make comments, it is legitimate to assess them and what that means in terms of the position of particular political parties. I ask all speakers to be careful in commenting on people who are not here. The Senator has made his point that he feels it may not have been a fair intervention. If we can give Dr. Devine a couple of seconds to respond, will he then move on to the next question?
Dr. Karen Devine:
Thank you. My point was that the term "soldiering" means, in this paradigm of abolishing the triple lock, war fighting. Just as I cited a wife of a deceased Irish peacekeeper saying, I think a majority of the Irish Defence Forces want to peacekeep and do some good. I cannot go into the history and the experience of all the Members of the Oireachtas who comment publicly. That is not my job.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
However Dr. Devine did comment and she did not reference that Deputy Callaghan was a soldier and a peacekeeper.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Devine stated in her opening commentary that it was her job to tell the truth. I should hope so. Is it not all our jobs to tell the truth? I have been in these Houses since 2011 in some form or another and I have never seen anyone state in an opening statement that it was his or her job to tell the truth.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is Dr. Devine assuming that the rest of us do not tell the truth?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is she suggesting the rest of us do not tell the truth?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What was the point of putting that in her opening statement?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, do please.
Dr. Karen Devine:
The context of that is that I am the only lecturer, I think, in Ireland who is teaching European Union politics who is not a Jean Monnet lecturer. I cited Professor Weiler who wrote a paper in 2014 explaining that Jean Monnet lecturers do not carry out dispassionate, critical inquiry as academics and that is the reason I put that in my paper.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Was that a slight directed at other academics-----
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not. Dr. Devine has written them down and she has stated them.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the Senator wait one second? I understand this is potentially a heated debate but I do not think we need to assume bad faith regarding statements that are entered into the committee.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is entitled to but-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----in a plain English reading there is nothing there that infers bad faith on the part of-----
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Well, that is the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach's view.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----other academics or members of the committee so I do not think we need to infer bad faith.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not think there was a need to put in it in an opening statement. On point No. 7: "Twelve reasons why people in neutral states do not wish to join NATO", I do not wish to join NATO. I have not heard anyone say he or she wishes to join NATO. There is nothing in this Bill that infers we join NATO. Dr. Devine follows this by "with or without a UN mandate". Even if within the triple lock, if a decision was made for a peacekeeping force, obviously, therefore with a UN mandate, and if the EU and NATO were supportive of it, she would be against it. Is she not contradicting herself in that regard?
Dr. Karen Devine:
May I finish without being interrupted please? In public opinion, the concept of neutrality is UN peacekeeping only; in other words, it is through blue berets and the United Nations peacekeeping forces. Ireland has participated in KFOR and SFOR, which are NATO missions with a UN mandate. It is important to make one point about the context of those missions in that I mentioned earlier that many of the large states and NATO member states traditionally fail to pay their dues on time and in full to the UN which has an impact on UN peacekeeping. I also cited in my submission how NATO member states do not tend to participate in UN peacekeeping missions to the same degree as non-NATO member states and that is the context in which I made those points. I trust that answers the Senator's question.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay, I thank Dr. Devine.
Professor Murphy is welcome. He writes about the UN legitimacy. I have made this point at the last committee meeting. He writes about the Security Council having vetoed peacekeeping missions. Would he accept that by virtue of the necessity for the existence of the P5, any peacekeeping mission has the tacit support of Russia, the United States and the other P5 members and that they cannot take place without that support?
Professor Ray Murphy:
Correct, yes. On occasion, for example when a member of the Security Council does not fully support a particular peacekeeping operation, it will just abstain. It will not exercise the veto to prevent the operation being approved. Therefore, you need all five members to either positively vote in favour, or at least abstain, if they have particular objections to a precedent being set, which China sometimes cites.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regarding the General Assembly - and I am interesting in this point and made it at the last meeting - how the UN is structured makes it difficult. Professor Murphy has stated this. Is there anything we can do or how would we engage the UN to allow for the aforementioned two thirds of the General Assembly or even a supermajority or whatever? What would we have to do to suggest those changes or to get that agreement?
Professor Ray Murphy:
In the first instance, it would be good to reform the Security Council but in reality that is not going to happen and any amendments made have to be approved by all five permanent members. It is a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Within the General Assembly, Ireland has a very good reputation. We have been elected on a number of occasions to non-permanent membership of the Security Council reflecting the support for Ireland and its particular role and the history in various other areas, especially on decolonisation, disarmament and our support for self-determination, not just of Palestinians but of various other groups.
That is where Ireland's non-membership of NATO and espoused policy of military neutrality and non-alignment could be helpful in getting support within the assembly for something like the approval of a particular mission where the Security Council was unable to reach a decision. It is only when the Security Council is unable to reach a decision that the General Assembly can step in.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is there a precedent for that in any other fashion?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Have there been any more recent such resolutions?
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
May I make raise a point of order arising from what Senator Kyne has said? It is important for this and future discussions. The Senator said he is not aware of anyone who is in favour of Ireland joining NATO. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, has stated publicly his personal opinion that he would be in favour of joining NATO. That is important because he is a senior member of the Government and a junior Minister in the Department of foreign affairs. He is entitled to that view and he put it out straight, which is fine, but we need to acknowledge those views are within the Oireachtas and at senior levels of the Government.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not wish to open up the discussion.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No. I just think that is important.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it a point of order?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----and I mean to be constructive, a number of Fine Gael MEPs published a position paper advocating Ireland's membership of NATO. That is not a criticism because it was a well-articulated, well-argued and cogent argument.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are straying from a point of order.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They were intellectually honest in doing so. They were saying this was their desired trajectory.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Senator.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Public positions have been taken on the matter.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With respect, I am not totally sure that is a point of order. I understand the point the Senator made in the context of clarification. We can have political discussions. We will move on.
I will briefly make the point that it is a standard part of debate in these Houses to quote opposing political views. I am not sure that any bad faith was ascribed. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, I will say that Deputy Callaghan is a member of this committee and is held in the greatest of esteem, particularly in the context of serving her country, which is something that we, as a committee, and I am sure all its members, value greatly. She is held in the highest of esteem and no aspersions were cast on any comment she has made. She is entitled to hold any position on this issue.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for their valuable and erudite contributions. In riposte to Senator Kyne's point about the truth and so forth, it would be my experience, as a legal practitioner, that witnesses who come before the courts regularly espouse the fact that they have a duty to tell the truth before the courts. It would not find it at all unusual in that regard.
I ask Professor Murphy whether the phrase "triple lock" is a misnomer. He said that if we take away the UN mandate for deployment, the triple lock is gone. That was based on the presumption that each government holds a majority. Is it in effect a double lock and not a triple lock?
Professor Ray Murphy:
I am not quite sure I understand the question. The phrase "triple lock" is a little misleading. In 1960, we enacted the foundational legislation governing participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Until 1993, there was no substantial change to that. It always provided for a UN Security Council or General Assembly mandate or approval. You need that particular approval to legitimise and permit the Government to send troops abroad. It would be a serious mistake to get rid of that, which is what this legislation is proposing. You could easily call it the "double lock". The Deputy is right. Dáil and Government approval are required but the Government operates under a Whip system and has a majority in the Dáil, so unless the circumstances are extraordinary, if the Government puts forward a proposal, it will get the approval of the Dáil. In a sense, you could call it the "double lock" if you wish.
In the end, I do not especially like the term "triple lock" but it seems to have captured the public and political imagination. The legislative basis is that if we send troops abroad in a peacekeeping capacity, they should have UN approval. This legislation proposes doing away with that. That is the essence of it.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The presumption there is that the Government has a majority. We have already seen in this term, and we are only six or seven months in, one, two or three Government TDs going overboard for different votes. On something extraordinary and controversial, such as the deployment of troops, a Government majority could be lost.
Dr. Devine mentioned in her presentation that she could see circumstances whereby EU treaties could unravel. That is concerning. In what circumstances might that happen? Would it be through a court challenge or some other mechanisms that it might happen?
Dr. Karen Devine:
I thank the Deputy for his comment. I appreciate it. I do not know if it is possible, but on a point of information, I cited Senator Clonan on, for example, page 25 of my submission. He has a long and distinguished record as a UN peacekeeper. I did not go into that background when I cited him and have not gone into the background of anyone I have cited.
I will explain the logic of my comments about an unravelling. There could be a stateable case relating to the ratification of the Lisbon treaty by Ireland, which was done by the people under Article 6 of our Constitution and not by the Government per se. The members of the Government are our representatives but we are sovereign and the final decision-makers in matters of national policy. I argue that the triple lock is part of that ratification and if it is destroyed, the corollary is that the ratification of the treaty is under question. Ireland's ratification of the Lisbon treaty may be unravelled through a court case, for example, and the treaty can only come into existence when every member state has ratified it. If Ireland has not ratified it, or it has been de-ratified, the treaty has not come into force because there is a member state of that EU that has not ratified it. As a result, all of the legislation that has been passed - and, by the way, the Lisbon treaty was nicknamed in the European Parliament "the security and defence treaty" - does not have a legal basis because the Treaty of Lisbon, which is the primary legislation, enables this secondary legislation. That is the logic for what would happen legally. It would depend on the successful outcome of a court case but, as I say, there is a stateable case on many levels.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When Dr. Devine says "a stateable case", it is not by any means a slam dunk?
Dr. Karen Devine:
No, not at all. There never is a slam dunk in any court. I teach courses in EU politics and have looked at a number of court cases. The Pringle case is a classic example of where the European Court of Justice, and I am quoting textbooks in this regard, is an activist and politically motivated court. It is unusual in that respect because it has the job of promoting European integration and has stated that itself. There have been cases, and the Pringle case is an example, whereby the Court of Justice decided that monetary policy was not a part of the economic and monetary union, EMU. On that basis, it stated that Thomas Pringle's case would fall. It is not tenable or logical. No court case is ever a slam dunk, but particularly at EU level.
On the Vienna Convention, many states have taken cases. It relates to coercion. There are three main types of cases, some of which have been successful. As I said, the President of Ireland and his Council of State might need to look at the nuts and bolts of finalising any legislation to abolish the triple lock that is put through on a Government majority. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Deputy Brabazon. Top marks for timekeeping. We will go the second round now as I think all indicating members have spoken. I call Senators Higgins and then Craughwell. Other members may indicate if they wish. We have approximately 40 minutes. Deputy Stanley has indicated.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. I want to go back into the text of the Bill before us. There are a number of aspects of how it is framed that are quite concerning and I would like to unpick some of them. I might begin with Professor Murphy who is also a former peacekeeper of some standing, since we are mentioning that.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Professor Murphy mentioned the ambiguous language around the kind of force to which we might be deployed. We heard terms like not just EU-led and NATO-led but coalition of the willing from the Department of Defence in its testimony last week. Will he comment on the concerns about the kind of force and the lack of any clear guardrails about what kind of force or who we may partner with? Many countries have very different military mandates from Ireland. I ask him to comment on that in connection with the 2021 Act, which uses similar language such as "any force" in the context of delegation of command. This Act provided for a Minister to delegate command of a force - an Irish overseas contingent - to the commander of an overseas force we are part of. I ask for those to be put together. What kind of force would that be, what would the command structure be and what might the accountability structures be? There are question marks around that.
Peacekeeping was mentioned. The term was expanded. There is peacekeeping and peace enforcement, with the latter involving active conflict, but in the Bill we also see new language introduced, namely, "strengthening international security". This is not peacekeeping nor even peace enforcement after conflict, but "strengthening international security". This is again a very ambiguous phrase. Others on the panel may wish to comment on concerns. Could that for example mean military action for the purposes of securing interests, such as access to resources? I think the EU navy was deployed to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea, as another example. I ask Professor Murphy to comment on the "strengthening international security" phrase. It is proactive, so it allows for changing from the situation we have now to one where there is a different set of security arrangements. I am interested in those two phrases.
Something Professor Murphy said that was interesting, which I was not aware of, though perhaps I misheard, was that it is already the case that if there is consent other bodies can engage in peacekeeping. This means that if, for example, a number of regional actors want to engage in peacekeeping and have the consent of the parties involved they can do so and they do not have a Security Council bind in that regard. I ask him to elaborate on those three points.
I have one other point to come back to him on afterwards given he is a former peacekeeper. I might go to Dr. Devine on this as well. I am interested in the research on the people's understanding of neutrality because it is core. That understanding is core, as well as peacekeepers' understanding, that is, former soldiers' understanding of peacekeeping and of their mandate and how important that is.
Professor Ray Murphy:
I thank the Senator for those questions. I will take them backwards to some extent. Regional organisations have the right and the authority within those regions to establish peacekeeping forces once they have the consent of the neighbouring state where they are going to deploy their forces. They do not technically need UN approval. However - and this is really important and relevant to Ireland - if they are proposing to do peace enforcement, which as the Senator said and I pointed out in my submission, is something quite different from traditional peacekeeping and involves the right to use force against parties to the conflict, then a Security Council mandate is needed to give that legitimacy and make it legal under international law. The legislation refers to the fact the UN Charter recognises in chapter VIII regional organisations and their capacity to do peacekeeping. The UN is quite happy in many instances when regional organisations take that responsibility but the UN wants to have a role and that role is the provision of a mandate. However, it seems to suggest, though I do not think deliberately, that what is being proposed in the legislation is already permissible, but it is not. This legislation is open-ended. It is going to permit Ireland to participate in peacekeeping in the more traditional sense, peace enforcement and other types of potential combat operations and coalitions of the willing without any UN mandate. That is clearly not permissible in terms of the UN Charter and therefore it is quite a dangerous potential precedent to set. That is one of my most serious reservations when we are doing just a black letter analysis of what the legislation proposed.
The Senator is right the legislation refers to "peace-keeping, conflict prevention". Conflict prevention is a noble aspiration, but what exactly does that entail? If forces are deployed to Ukraine now in the event of what I am not even going to call a "ceasefire" because the more common term nowadays is "cessation of hostilities", what role does that specifically imply they will do and if the parties to conflict do not co-operate, to what extent do Irish forces along with whatever other nationalities they are working with use force to ensure the mandate is carried out? We do not know. The legislation does not know, and it is open-ended. It is likewise with "strengthening international security". There is no legal definition of that and could not be, but that essentially could be anything, anywhere and by anybody and that is very dangerous, permissive legislation and therefore I oppose it.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Dr. Devine want to reply?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Briefly.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask Professor Murphy to do so as briefly as he can.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are probably okay. They could give us a minute each.
Professor Ray Murphy:
Unity of command is essential to international forces and because of certain constitutional provisions and provisions in the Defence Act with regard to the exercise of command by permanent members of the Defence Forces, it was necessary to clarify we delegated operational command to non-Irish nationals in the field. We retain national command. In the space of a minute there is no way I can explain exactly what that means but it is important that if forces are being sent abroad - and I support this - that they have to be part of a unified command structure because otherwise they are being invited to participate in something that can be quite chaotic.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Professor Murphy. We will have a brief contribution from Dr. Devine.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I thank the Senator for her question. She asked about the importance of public opinion on neutrality. I wrote my PhD thesis on it and that is available online. The people's understanding of neutrality is very consistent over time and five decades of opinion polling. It means not being involved in other people's wars, being independent and retaining our independence, especially in the context of big power pressure to get involved in conflict, and being impartial and not taking sides in a war. That is consistent. Senator Craughwell referred to the Hague Conventions. It coheres with the obligations in the Hague Conventions, which are the international customary law on neutrality.
I also showed that public opinion is rational and structured. What that means is, I looked at what predicts support for Irish neutrality from a sample of 2,500 people in Ireland. The fieldwork was conducted by the ESRI. To be proud to be Irish was the predictor. Neutrality is a projection of Irish national identity for the Irish people to the world. The second thing was independence, particularly in the context of European integration. When we look at Eurobarometer polls we can see the Irish public are the least supportive of security and defence integration, but they are most supportive of the EU as an organisation as a whole. That is a very rational position to hold because when we joined in 1973 the EEC, was sold as a trade organisation, not as a security and defence organisation or as a global military power.
It is important because of democracy. I have said one of the three operating procedures of the European Union is the fait accompli. I am citing Giandomenico Majone, a recently retired Italian academic. One of the other three operating principals he cited in his book, Europe as the Would-be World Power: The EU at Fifty, is that integration has priority over everything, including democracy. We have had to re-run two referendums because we did not vote the right way. Democracy is fundamental. It is why we are here. It is fundamental to show democracy does matter and the Irish public policy preferences are going to be followed because, if the Government abolishes the triple lock, they have abolished the social contract upon which this polity is based, so it is extremely important.
Professor John Maguire:
Senator Alice-Mary Higgins raised the question of the kind of operations involved. We can look at the Commission on the Defence Forces, forgetting the forum where people went off on the wildest views as to what might happen, but at the strict black-letter contents of the commission. They mentioned capabilities across each domain, which includes more fighting capability; deeper engagement; higher intensity; more demanding; challenging situations; higher risks and harsher conditions; tougher environments. We cannot say we have not been told what is envisaged. That relates to Professor Murphy's point about open-ended involvements, which I have argued in Defending Peace: Ireland's Role in a Changing Europe, began with the Petersberg Tasks. I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentarian, but we signed up to Petersberg Tasks which say "shall include". That does not say what it excludes. That is very relevant to the Department of Defence's response to criticism that the arms training in Kilworth Camp seemed to be a huge level of allegedly non-lethal involvement in the Ukraine war. The answer was the list given was indicative, not exhaustive. We are opening the doors here, and we do not know how they can be closed if we let it through.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will put my position on the table. This conversation around the triple lock is a red herring and a waste of time within this Oireachtas at the moment. I know of nobody who is interested in it outside of this House. If it was put on a survey it would come in somewhere around 50th or 55th of the areas of priority for the public. Perhaps we should introduce a triple lock for Ministers going abroad on Saint Patrick's Day and restrict that to numbers. It is a ridiculous piece to come before this House but we are stuck with it and we have to deal with it. My only reason for removing the triple lock is there are areas which are currently limited by it, namely, counter-narcotic operations, protection of embassy operations and evacuation operations. For example, if a Ryanair plane is hijacked in a country that does not have special forces and a request is sent to Ireland to send out special forces to relieve the aircraft, we may find ourselves unable to do that because of the triple lock. It is my view that we are a sovereign State. There are two Houses of the Oireachtas. There is a Government. It should be possible to write legislation that would force the Government to have a significant majority. I appreciate what Professor Maguire said about a whipped Government always winning a vote. We saw that in the last 24 hours. They can win any vote they want to, at the end of the day. Professor Murphy has served overseas. I have served in the military. I know of nobody who says Ireland is great because they are neutral. We serve with the Polish, the Finnish, with all sorts of people overseas. My key question is, while keeping the triple lock, how do we mount counter-narcotic operations, evacuation operations, and protection of embassies abroad? My final point, which I have written a paper on that is available on my LinkedIn site, regards the protection of the Atlantic resources. The point is the Atlantic resources are European resources and with one ship we can hardly protect them. We certainly cannot protect anything up there.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We should be talking about the real issues in defence, not the triple lock. I have no interest in whether it is removed or whether it stays.
Professor Ray Murphy:
I must apologise. I assumed the Senator was in favour of the legislation proposing its abolition. The triple lock does not prevent Ireland from sending forces abroad to evacuate personnel. I think that is permissible under the current legislative framework. It has nothing to do with seeking UN mandate or UN approval. It is completely separate. I see nothing wrong. They are set out here: undertaking military close protection, military security and humanitarian tasks. My interpretation of the legislation is that is already permissible. It is just a matter of expressly incorporating it here. For clarity purposes, that is welcome. Undertaking the illicit drug trafficking by sea and air and international operations: that is potentially problematic. For example, we have run into difficulties with the humanitarian mission in the Mediterranean, when the Irish navy was participating in rescuing refugees and those fleeing from countries where there are hostilities, etc., taking place. They found a way of circumventing that by entering into bilateral arrangements. It is not actually threatened. There are ways and means of doing so.
The Senator said that nobody really cares about the triple lock. I just had a casual conversation with some people in a tent outside Leinster House as I entered here this morning and they care very deeply about it. They represent a lot of people. I am here as an individual. I am not representing any group and I am not part of any group. I state, for the purposes of clarity, for every European treaty that has come before us I have voted in favour. Not only that, but I have, on occasion, advocated with a political party advocating for a 'yes' vote. I have never really been a strong Eurosceptic but I have come to have to review some of those positions in recent years. To go back to the basics, Irish forces have a long history, which I hope will continue, of participating in UN peacekeeping operations. To make that legitimate and really important in terms of the maintenance of international peace and security, to follow with our long tradition of out foreign policy on disarmament and peaceful resolution of disputes, we should not embark on something that circumvents and avoids the United Nations. The United Nations is our best option for international peace, security, and for humanity in general. Therefore, it is the forum where we should engage and seek to be as constructive as possible. During the 1960s there were grave disputes taking place, as serious as now, within the Security Council, particularly over the UN peacekeeping operation in the Congo. We overcame those difficulties. Life is cyclical. This period of terrible tension, disruption and conflict will ultimately come to an end.
I hope when that happens that the consequences will not have been terrible for humanity in general. It is really up to middle power states like Ireland to find common ground and fight for the values of the UN.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are a sovereign nation. We stand proudly among the nations of the world. No other nation has the triple lock. Surely to God we can rely on and trust the Parliament of the State to decide. I fully accept UN mandates but we do not need the UN to tell us where we can move our troops. If Professor Murphy interprets this as me being pro-removal of the triple lock, I am agnostic about it. I see it as a red herring. I am really concerned that the Parliament of the State is being overseen by other entities outside the State when it comes to our troops. We should be able to draft legislation that would set the bar significantly high enough to protect the State.
Professor Ray Murphy:
That is a reasonable position to adopt. I do not agree. It is not that I do not trust parliamentarians but it involves the very fact that we are having this discussion about the triple lock, when not that long ago, the Government gave us an undertaking that it would retain it and if it was to dispense with it, it would be by means of a referendum. I rest my case.
Professor John Maguire:
As I said earlier, I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentarian. I cannot see that the UN is wrong in telling us that the UN Charter is an instrument of international law. If that instrument wants to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and says there shall be no threat of force issued by any state without the authorisation of the Security Council, I am quite prepared to see any sense of Irish sovereignty not being subservient to that but being pooled in the one body that can save succeeding generations. I am proud of our identity and our independence but they are in no way endangered by joining the UN, as de Valera said when he spoke about it. A lawyer may tell the UN is not an instrument of international law but the UN says it is.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the UN had any value, we would not have the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. The UN is a dysfunctional organisation that is dominated by superpowers and that is a sad reflection on the organisation.
Professor John Maguire:
There is scéil eile, which I have tried to argue in defending peace. There has been a process of undermining and scapegoating the UN. The UN has been sadly defeated. Do not take my answer. Erskine Childers III really tells us how the UN can be rescued and transformed. There has been a process of-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The US is engaging with the Israelis with a view to reviewing the UNIFIL operation. If the US, which pays 26% of the cost of all peacekeeping operations, decides that it will remove the mandate for UNIFIL, the Irish troops will be home the following day, that will be the end of the UNIFIL operation and they can then do whatever the hell they want in Gaza or anywhere else. Our troops will finish up having nowhere to go. I go back to Article 52, to which Professor Murphy referred. Article 52 allows people to engage in peacekeeping on a regional basis at regional request providing the principles and policies of the UN are observed. Again, I am agnostic on the triple lock.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As an internationalist, I am certainly not Eurosceptic. I have had to listen to many comments down the years. I have been accused of being isolationist. What is happening in Gaza or any other part of the world is of much concern to me as what is happening in Portlaoise, Kerry or anywhere else. I see a significant need to improve our defence capabilities. There is a sense that because we are neutral, we shy away from participating in war. People have stood up and fought against an empire. The peacekeepers we sent to Lebanon and other parts of the world have shown how brave they are and have put their necks on the line. Some of them have even lost their lives in service to the UN. We need to improve our military capabilities and defend the cables in our waters. That is a separate argument that is being conflated with the issue surrounding the triple lock. It is a nonsense argument. My next door neighbour joined the Naval Service recently and we are all very proud of him. A load of other young people passed out recently as members of the Naval Service, which is brilliant.
Regarding the triple lock and the deployment of 12 troops or more, my concern involves the limit of 12. I am a supporter of the UN mandate, which has been there since 1961. In the case of an attack on an embassy, narcotics or rescuing Irish citizens, is there a reasonable argument that we should increase that number to 50 or 100? Is it a pragmatic thing to do? I would be open to the argument in favour of that while retaining the triple lock and recognising the UN mandate. Could Professor Murphy address those questions?
I thought Senator Kyne was on all-party group that put Ireland's case for a place as a non-permanent member on the Security Council to other European governments but it was another Fine Gael Member. We are all on the same page. We were all there to lobby political parties in Europe along with some African countries that were attending the conference in Geneva to support Ireland's place as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. Could the witnesses explain what happened in 1956 and 1964? The General Assembly gave the mandate.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was about the episodes in 1956 and 1964 when the UN General Assembly gave the mandate. What was this about? Did it come into effect? The General Assembly gave the mandate. What was the mandate for and was it put into operation?
Professor Ray Murphy:
First, I will address the issue of the 50 personnel. My reservation about that is that head 7 of the Bill, which involves the dispatch of a contingent of members of the Defence Forces for external service for purposes other than an international force, outlines a range of activities in which Irish personnel can participate, including evacuation and protection of embassies.
I have no problem with that. It is completely separate from the issue of participation in the UN or an international force. The reason given for the 50 personnel in the explanatory memorandum does not seem clear enough. It provides a legislative framework for the Government to send 50 personnel on any mission without going to the Dáil. That is what it seems to permit.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understand that. In our job, in seeking to amend the legislation, if there is a limit, I can see a logical argument as to why 12 is too restrictive, as somebody who passionately supports military neutrality.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the professor see a reasonable argument for increasing it to 50 or 100 to deal with the issue of narcotics operations?
Professor Ray Murphy:
There are some but it would require amendments that would restrict the roles the Defence Forces would play if that provision was invoked. If the Government decided to send 50 personnel, the legislation needs to restrict the circumstances in which it can send those personnel. As I read it now, the Government can send 50 personnel but it does not say for what particular purpose. That is not clear enough.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Dr. Devine comment on 1956 and 1964? What was that about?
Professor Ray Murphy:
In 1956, there was the Suez crisis involving major powers but especially the French. There was no way the Security Council was going to be able to approve any UN operation involving deploying in that area because of the direct French involvement in the conflict on the ground. Therefore, there was an initiative to go to the General Assembly to seek its approval under the charter. As I said, the General Assembly will only have jurisdiction when the Security Council is unable to act. This was tested before the International Court of Justice to be in conformity with international law and the UN charter. There is a precedent for the General Assembly taking a role in the maintenance of international peace and security.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Was that mandate put into operation?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about 1964? There are a lot of songs about that year.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the Professor please come back to us?
Dr. Karen Devine:
I was going to respond to Senator Craughwell. I appreciate his position that he is agnostic about the triple lock. I recall he said people outside the Oireachtas perhaps do not really care about it. I am an academic and I look at evidence. What we call a neutrality and triple lock roadshow is being conducted around the country, and the response has been quite significant in public opinion and support for the triple lock. That evidence is there. Donegal County Council passed a resolution in the wake of the roadshow saying it wants to retain the triple lock, as did Cavan County Council.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Language is extremely important. "Triple lock", "neutrality" and "military non-alignment" are being used in the same sentence. Military non-alignment is the polar opposite of neutrality and the triple lock is not governed by either of them. They are three separate issues. It is important that when the public appraise these things, the language they hear is clear and distinct. We sorted this morning that we are not a neutral country under international law in the exact sense of the word. We might think we are-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not think we sorted anything like that. The Senator made that assertion, which he is entitled to do, but I do not think that is the settled view of the committee. It would be news if that was the case.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I think Professor Murphy agreed with me.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will allow Dr. Devine and Professor Maguire a brief response. We were in Deputy Stanley's time. We will then move on to Deputy Gibney.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I published an article with a co-author, Christine Agius, on the differences between the terms "non-alignment", "neutralism", "neutrality", "military neutrality" and "active positive neutrality". To complete my point about evidence of the importance of the triple lock, it was so important that it was put into a national declaration and exists, in a way, as an international agreement. It was used to persuade the electorate in Ireland to vote for the Nice treaty and used again to persuade the electorate to vote for the Lisbon treaty. It is extremely important for all other small states in the international system that look at Ireland as neutral and a good mediator on the side of the small state, as a small post-colonial state itself, and the triple lock is a symbol of that. Given that evidence, it is important to a lot of people outside the Oireachtas.
Professor John Maguire:
On the same point, I do not think there is knee-jerk impression management going on. People are concerned about the triple lock. I agree that they are, as Dr. Devine said. There have been 22 sessions of the neutrality roadshow. It has gone down really well. People are concerned about the triple lock because there is a sense that if it goes, it brings us into a field where the kinds of things people associate with what Dr. Devine studied, our sense of neutrality, will be damaged. I am not saying they are the same issue but they are closely related.
I have a clarification for Deputy Stanley. One can argue for 12, 50 or any number, which is one thing, and whether the Dáil should have a vote on it. Which is the Deputy raising?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The issue I raise is what the number should be. I am in favour of retaining the triple lock. I am in favour of multilateralism and the UN mandate. Professor Murphy set out that under existing law, we can deploy more than 12 in certain circumstances, in rescue missions but not in the case of narcotics. I can see an argument, as somebody in favour of neutrality, for increasing that number from 12, on a pragmatic basis, to 50 or 60 for rescue missions or in the case of narcotics. That is simply what I am saying.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is my point. That is the very reason I put it to the witnesses, because I think that.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We can return to that matter. I call on Deputy Gibney.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree about the interest in this outside Leinster House. I have been part of some of the roadshow. Senator Higgins and I were in the Gresham on one of the first sunny days of the year and it was packed on a Saturday afternoon. I could not believe it. There was a full panel and huge interest. I encourage Senator Craughwell to attend the peace rally at the Garden of Remembrance at 2 p.m. on Saturday. I hope he will see the number represented. I thank members of the committee for expressing their concern at some of the hate directed at women in particular in this area.
I was on "Prime Time" with Deputy Callaghan two weeks ago. The phrase she used at least three times, I think, was "soldiers want to soldier". The reason it jarred me was that it could be interpreted in different ways. Framing it in the context of codewords is helpful, so I thank Dr. Devine.
I have a few questions about the legislation but I also wish to speak about the Defence Forces.
I appreciate that we will have current and former members and, as we have said, we have former members here among our own numbers. However, there is something about the fundamental change in the activities of the Defence Forces which would be brought about by the passage of this legislation. What do the witnesses think that will mean? Of course, I appreciate we need to ask members of the Defence Forces themselves, but what do the witnesses think it will mean for people who have signed up at various stages in the legislative development of the mandate? Perhaps the witnesses could share their thoughts on that. It is quite an open question.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am just conscious of the time. I have one more indication and I would like to make a brief contribution myself. Will I direct that question to the three-----
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes. I have other specifics but it does not matter. I appreciate you have not had any time. That is the one I am most concerned or most curious about.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will ask the three speakers to make a contribution then in answer to that question. I will start with you, Professor Murphy.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Always important.
Professor Ray Murphy:
It was military action by the French and the British that precipitated the crisis.
Back to the Defence Forces, I think the average soldier joins for a variety of reasons, with many just looking for a job, but some looking for a job that provides some degree of adventure and something quite different. When they go on peacekeeping missions, many do not have the primary purpose to save humanity and to save the world. I am being very unprofessional in the way I say this, but many of them are just ordinary decent people who reflect the values of Irish society and the values that are embedded in the Defence Forces and which recent Chiefs of Staff and other members of the senior command have put great emphasis on because of weaknesses and deficiencies that have emerged. As an individual, I would hate to see Irish forces deployed to missions where they were embarking on any type of combat mission outside of a framework that was not restricted by the United Nations mandate and the United Nations Charter. Soldiers want to soldier, yes, but they do not want to be part of some major international conflict. They want to do something which is valuable for both Ireland and the world and they want an ordinary life in the simplest terms.
I have some personal interest in this regard. I actually have a son in the Defence Forces. He will really hate that I said this, but he and many of his colleagues just want to do a professional job and want to participate in UN peacekeeping because it is what the Irish Defence Forces have always done. It is an integral part of the identity of the Defence Forces and was critical to achieve success in terms of promotion. It was regarded as one of the criteria you would have to satisfy. It gives the personnel real-life experience working with the Poles or other nationalities and they come back in many cases quite transformed in terms of their political awareness of a situation. That was my personal experience as a very young officer when I went to the Middle East. It totally changed my political perspective on the conflict and the parties to the conflict. I think I would speak for most members of the Defence Forces when I say they want to stay within the realm of international law and they want to participate constructively in the defence of the State where and when that is necessary but also to be international actors bringing something positive to the world and to the United Nations, but not participating in combat-type operations.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would the other witnesses like to add to that?
Dr. Karen Devine:
I mentioned a paper co-authored with Daniel Farrelly where we looked at the results of parliamentary questions about the deployment of Irish Defence Forces overseas. I should be able to put it up on my website, drkarendevine.com, so people can have access to it. I think it is floating around there somewhere as part of the Desmond Greaves summer school. I noticed something about the period around April 2008. This is from memory, so do not hold me over the coals if I am slightly off on the timing, but the timing sticks in my mind because we were going to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. There is a graph in which the blue line plots the number of Irish Defence Forces deployed overseas on UN missions, the red line plots Irish Defence Forces in an EU-mandated mission and the black line is for NATO. Normally, the blue line is higher than the black and red lines, but there was a moment in 2008 when there was a scissors movement whereby there were no Irish Defence Forces deployed on UN peacekeeping missions for the first time and there were maintained deployments. I mentioned KFOR to Senator Kyne. There were Irish Defence Forces maintained in terms of EU and NATO missions. As regards Deputy Gibney's question as to what it will look like if the triple lock goes, I think that scissors movement will be a permanent switch and I think that is why the Government is seeking to abolish the triple lock. I will not say anything more because Professor Ray Murphy has already articulated what he believes in terms of the Defence Forces' perspectives. I used to lecture the Defence Forces for many years through Maynooth University as an adjunct and I concur with his perspective on what the Defence Forces feel about UN peacekeeping and being involved in operations that are not UN peacekeeping.
Professor John Maguire:
I should not add a word to the combination of peacekeeping expertise and academic legal clarity there. There is nothing I could add to that. I will just take a moment. I was so concerned to keep within three minutes that I never thanked the committee for inviting us. It truly is a tremendous honour. I have a feeling that a genuine conversation can begin now and I thank the committee for that.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Professor Ray Murphy:
To answer one of the first issues Senator Higgins raised, recently Ireland ceased to participate in the UN peacekeeping mission on the Golan Heights, UNDOF. We did that, as I understand it, specifically because of the low numbers in the Defence Forces and the commitment we made to the EU battlegroup. There is a prime example of where we were taking troops from a UN-mandated mission fulfilling a key role in a very volatile part of the world, to commit to something that has actually never been deployed and is quite problematic in its own right. We gave precedent to a non-UN concept. I think that was a mistake and I think it is wrong. This legislation will probably only make such situations more likely in the future. We agree that there is the prospect of utilising soft power and Irish diplomacy along with other states. For example, within the Security Council as a non-permanent member, the non-permanent members kind of form a coalition to try to work constructively together to balance the power between the non-permanent members and the permanent members and try to achieve a constructive outcome for the work of the Security Council. We can expand that within the General Assembly because we have that reputation that we both agree exists and there is the prospect, and it should be part of Government policy to prioritise this for our UN engagement.
What was the next question?
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was on monitoring. There is a monitoring structure within the UN.
Professor Ray Murphy:
Yes. The Security Council reviews every year and gets reports. The Secretary General has regular reports. They are quite comprehensive. There is a standing UN committee on peacekeeping as well. It would depend on the regional organisation and coalition of the willing that would be established. The EU has quite a big bureaucratic structure – a peace and security committee, etc. I assume it would play a similar role in monitoring what is happening. But what if it is a NATO mission? I am not sure.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a related question. In that section of that Bill, head 6, there is reference to the principles of the UN Charter and the principles of justice and international law but there does not seem to be a mechanism as to who will interpret them, how they will be interpreted or applied, and even for a member of the public, recourse in relation to those matters. That seems to be a very woolly-----
Professor Ray Murphy:
It is. It would be one of my gravest reservations on embarking on a non-UN-approved military operation as part of an international force. How do you monitor and control what is happening and what other contingents are doing as a situation evolves? The reality in many instances, including with our European partners, is that they are driving a national agenda. They are not actually interested in the broad concept of peace and security. They often have particular national interests to protect. When we indirectly become party to a conflict, we certainly will jeopardise our so-called non-alignment and military neutrality. There is a real prospect of being embroiled, as a situation unfolds, in something much more serious than we anticipated in the first instance. There is an old military adage that goes something like a plan at battle only survives first contact with the enemy. You do not control the situation; you may think you do.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A related piece, which comes back to the disarmament piece, is that Ireland negotiated the global ban on cluster munitions. We have seen now that Lithuania has exited it. Two EU countries are planning on leave the convention related to the use of landmines. We are looking at situations where, potentially, we could be involved. Am I correct? There is nothing in the legislation that seeks to safeguard against us engaging in action with countries that may be deploying, for example, the weapon for which Ireland has led the call for their non-use in conflict.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I also echo that given I only had the three minutes, I left my acknowledgements and thank-yous to afterwards, so I thank the committee for this opportunity as well. It is a real honour to be here.
Regarding Senator Higgins’s question on whether we will be less engaged in UN peacekeeping if the triple lock is removed, Professor Murphy cited UNDOF. That came up in the paper I just talked about, co-authored with Daniel Farrelly, about the deployments of Irish Defence Forces overseas. There is a quote in the PowerPoint - do not hold me over the coals on this but I believe it was Deputy Micheál Martin - I do not know in what capacity, whether he was Minister for Foreign Affairs or Taoiseach when he was speaking in the Dáil - who said it was to participate in the German battlegroup. One can see a direct replacement of UN peacekeeping being moved into the EU battlegroups, which the EU said it was not going to look for a UN mandate to deploy in relation to what it wants to do in operations. I state in my paper that UN peacekeeping amounts to significantly less than half of 1% of annual global military expenditure and is much cheaper than unilateral western and-or NATO or EU deployments. I am citing somebody there.
One very important point is that climate change emissions by militaries around the world are not counted as part of national emissions with regard to the panel on climate change and trying to reduce emissions. That is very important when the EU is going to be reducing Cohesion Fund and European Social Fund spending to put it into the €800 billion for armaments and militarisation. We need to be aware of that.
My final point in a way speaks to Senator Craughwell’s points, and Professor Murphy and Professor Maguire have already said this in different ways.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to clarify something quickly-----
Dr. Karen Devine:
The UN and the law is there. It is imperfect and the law can be broken, but we know the law is broken because the law exists. The law is not responsible for the actions of member states that break the law. If we did not have the law and the UN, we would not be able to say that what is happening is unsanctioned and against the common good.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I just did a fact-check. Regarding emissions, Dr. Devine is right and it is 5.5% of carbon emissions internationally, at a minimum.
She said that the EU said it will not seek a UN mandate.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It does not need to seek a UN mandate for battlegroup deployment.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There might not even be a sense of wanting to use this in situations where we are being blocked and, since the legislation allows, deployment not simply in situations where a UN veto is an issue but in any situation without concern about whether or not a UN mandate is sought.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will leave the last word to Professor Maguire.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have been trying to come in. I have been here the whole meeting.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I did not see you.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I put my hand up a number of times, with respect.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I genuinely did not see you, Seán.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is not much time left. Notwithstanding the spirited debate, it was a good engagement and I thank the witnesses for coming in.
I just cannot reconcile this. We have had motions in these Houses condemning Russia and supporting Ukraine in respect of Russia's illegal invasion and yet any peacekeeping mission has to have either tacit support or abstention from that same country. That is what I cannot reconcile. If a method involving the General Assembly could be assimilated into this legislation, I would agree with that but we have not seen how that could happen. The years 1956 and 1964 are not recent. The whole structure of the UN is the issue. I agree with Senator Alice-Mary Higgins on the importance and role of the UN. How it is structured is the issue.
Professor John Maguire:
I do not own shares in Mr. Philip McDonagh but his interview on this is extraordinary. He was the Irish ambassador to Russia and he says that we really need to step back from the way we have cancelled Russia. He spent five years working on the Irish peace process. He is not talking about picking out the good guys and the bad guys. He is saying we really need to develop an understanding of the situations affecting the countries involved, similar to what we did in the Irish peace process. He talks about the cancelling of all Russian culture and the breaking of the OSCE Helsinki guidelines on trade through the sanctions. He is not justifying Russia or saying he is in favour of it. He is saying these actions are shredding possibilities as regards the task of diplomacy. He puts it beautifully. He says it is the task of diplomacy to craft a possible situation the various parties can see a future in. That is what the peace process did. He is not an apologist for Russia. If you want to see someone saying there really is a way around this, it is Mr. Philip McDonagh in that interview on Cassandra Voices.
Dr. Karen Devine:
I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for his interventions. I also thank all the members of the committee for this opportunity. I have been researching and working on Irish neutrality my whole professional life. It is a great opportunity to disseminate my research. It is a public good. My salary is paid by the State and the public is entitled to my work. This has been a great opportunity to disseminate it. I appreciate all the differing perspectives that have been put forward, so I thank the members.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Professor Murphy have any thoughts he wishes to share?
Professor Ray Murphy:
I thank the members. I will reply to Senator Kyne. The scenario he has presented about Russia and Ukraine is very interesting because one actually cannot deploy a peacekeeping force without Russian consent. If one deploys a force without that consent, it is not peacekeeping. One is potentially sending people into a combat role. That really captures the dilemma. Does the Senator understand? That is why I oppose changing this triple lock. To get UN approval and a UN mandate, the Russians have to get on board but the Russians have to get on board for the deployment of any interposition force that is not going to have a combat role. We are not going to resolve this conflict in Ukraine without Ukraine and Russia finding some terms of resolution.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would such a force have to be in Russia's interests or at least not to the detriment of Russia for that country to be onside?
Professor Ray Murphy:
The force would have to be there in the interests of international peace and security rather than to serve the interests of Russia or Ukraine. For example, there is no way the Russians would ever agree to the deployment of some kind of NATO force. I completely understand why they would not. It will be quite complex. As for Ireland participating in something like that, in fairness to the Taoiseach, I have listened to some of his comments on this and he clearly says there is a limit and that, if we do end up engaging in some kind of deployment in that sphere, we are not going to be there to enforce anything. We might be there as observers post the cessation of hostilities.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To be clear, I am not advocating for-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This might be answered in writing afterwards but, on Senator Kyne's other point regarding the UN General Assembly, the 2006 Act is quite widely worded in how it allows Ireland to act in response to a UN General Assembly resolution. It uses about seven adjectives. It mentions forces supported or encouraged by the assembly. We are out of time but I would be interested in a response in writing on the 2006 Act and what it allows Ireland to do because we keep getting told that the General Assembly cannot compel action but, under our 2006 legislation, it would seem we are allowed to act on General Assembly resolutions. It is almost that the problem has already been solved to a degree.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are allowed to act on General Assembly resolutions, however.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will leave it at that. I like hurling referees who let the ball run but I have possibly let the ball run a small bit too much. I thank our guests very much. We are very grateful for their time, their interest and the considerable work that went into preparing their presentations and statements. Gabhaim míle buíochas leo. I also thank the members.