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 The problems that are emerging reflect out-of-date mandates and other issues.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.