Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The joint committee is meeting today in public session to continue with its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025. On behalf of the committee I welcome Professor Ben Tonra from University College Dublin, Mr. Joe Noonan, solicitor, and Mr. Ciarán Murphy, former assistant secretary of the Department of Defence. The witnesses are with us today to discuss the general scheme of the Bill. I will invite each witness to make an opening statement to be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has a five minute slot to ask questions and for witnesses to respond.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Any member who attempts to participate from outside of the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via Microsoft Teams to formally confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to contributing to the meeting. Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity either 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. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting. I now invite Professor Tonra to make his opening statement, to be followed by Mr. Noonan and then Mr. Murphy.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to its deliberations on the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025. This legislation needs to be understood in the context of a profoundly altered European security landscape. European states are scrambling to strengthen national defence and security in the face of new and immediate threats, sometimes reversing decades, even centuries-long national defence traditions and postures. Significantly, the credibility of the NATO alliance has been undermined, perhaps fatally, by the current US administration which places little or no value on allies, partners or indeed on international law. The European Union, like Ireland, is itself struggling to determine how best to defend the values of peace, sovereignty, and multilateralism in a world where brute force is increasingly a defining feature of international affairs.

In this light, the Bill’s proposal to remove the requirement for UN Security Council authorisation, the so-called triple lock, marks a significant evolution in Irish policy. It reflects new circumstances in which the UN system is effectively paralysed by great power rivalry, arguably to an even greater extent than during the Cold War itself. More broadly, the Bill proposes granting the Executive greater latitude in the deployment of Irish military forces overseas and does so in several ways. First, it raises the threshold for Dáil authorisation of overseas deployments from 12 to 50 personnel. Second, it specifies a broadened range of potential deployment scenarios to include counter-narcotics, embassy security, hostage rescue, close protection, training, or even sports events. Third, it removes the precondition for UN Security Council authorisation and finally, it specifies the kind of multilateral forces with which such deployments might serve to include UN, EU, OSCE, or “any other regional body” which operates in a manner consistent with the United Nations Charter and international law.

However, with greater flexibility comes greater responsibility. If we are no longer to rely on the Security Council as the gatekeeper of legitimacy, if we are finally to remove the veto given to the five permanent members of the Security Council over Ireland’s overseas military deployment, we must establish robust mechanisms of our own. The suggestion that I make in my formal submission to the committee is that first, a formal legal review should be undertaken as part of each proposed overseas deployment, perhaps conducted by the Attorney General or alternatively by independent counsel, which would attest that the proposed mission does in fact align with the UN Charter and international law. Such a review might then be presented to the Oireachtas alongside any motion for deployment and appropriate hearings undertaken with that evidence presented. Second, it should be considered whether democratic oversight ends with any initial approval. For most states which require parliamentary authorisation of overseas military deployment, parliament retains rights and responsibilities of oversight. An annual review mechanism could empower the Dáil to monitor ongoing missions so as to ensure that our engagement remains within the scope of peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and support for international security.

This Bill is evidence of the fact that Ireland’s defence policy cannot stand still in a world that has changed so dramatically and so very dangerously. This evolution must also occur with constitutional care, legal clarity, and democratic accountability, ensuring that our actions abroad continue to reflect the core values and interests that have long defined Irish foreign policy.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members very much for the invitation to speak. The process the committee members are collectively involved in and contributing to is probably the most important and certainly one of the most important processes they could participate in as legislators. It is important that I begin by acknowledging that and by wishing the committee well in its task. There are not many legislative or policy matters more grave or profound for any state than those that may put young people in harm's way or in a position overseas where they may feel threatening another person with violence in that person's homeland is appropriate in the pursuit of a military objective. That is my sense of the context within which this discussion is taking place and I am very honoured to have the opportunity to contribute a little bit to it.

The committee has received my presentation. I am looking at this from the point of view of a legal practitioner because it is legislation that is before the committee. As far as I can see from the list, I may be the only legal practitioner to speak as a witness. I take that responsibility very seriously. I have been practising as a lawyer for a scary number of years now, beyond four decades. It has been a particular interest of mine to look at this topic of how we stand in the world, how we look out to the world and how we engage with the world.

This proposed legislation is alarming to me as a lawyer because of what it does not say. As a lawyer, it is the absence at its heart that strikes me. Lawyers love absences because we can dance through them and bring people to unexpected destinations. I will refer back to something Professor Ray Murphy of the University of Galway, a former Irish Army captain, said when he spoke to the committee. He said:

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.

I will move quickly to a profoundly important statement made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Harris, yesterday. It was reported widely and I believe it will be the subject of consideration by this committee. The Tánaiste said he did not believe the European Union had brought itself into compliance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice issued in July of last year in respect of the occupied Palestinian territories. That is a profoundly important statement especially in the light of the repeated assurances officials gave the committee in the early part of its deliberations that the European Union always abides by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. For the reasons I set out in my main presentation, that is simply not the case. Frankly, I am relieved to have had the backing of the Tánaiste yesterday with regard to that fundamental point.

Where does that leave us in this process? Where does it leave the members, as legislators, when they are being asked to take away the one protection we have? It may be a crock of a protection and it may be stupid to allow the Russians a say - I agree that all of those things are very superficially attractive - but the fundamental change the committee is being asked to engineer or facilitate does not end with this Bill. I respectfully submit that the task of the members is to be very satisfied in their own hearts that they know where exactly the destination of this will be. I submit that, because of the absence of clarity in the Bill, members cannot be sure of that.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

By way of an opening statement, I will introduce myself and my background. I will then offer some comments and context regarding the legislation. I served as assistant secretary and defence policy director in the Department of Defence for about 15 years from 2007 to 2022. In that role, I was responsible for all aspects of defence policy on Ireland’s engagement with the UN, the EU Common Security and Defence Policy, the OSCE and NATO PfP, including policy on all defence operations overseas and related legislation. My work on the EU CSDP included the defence aspects of Lisbon treaty protocols. It also included Ireland’s policy engagement with the European Defence Agency, PESCO, the European Defence Fund and the European Peace Facility and negotiations on their founding statutes.

I was responsible for the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, which the current Bill updates. It is a common feature of public administration that nothing can remain static. Legislation across all aspects of public policy and administration changes and evolves. The Defence Acts are no different. They have been amended in respect of overseas service on a number of occasions to reflect changes in UN missions and Ireland’s policy on international security, conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

The original 1960 Act limited peacekeeping activities to the “performance of duties of a police character”, which has been mentioned a number of times during these committee hearings. However, this limitation was deleted from the legislation through the 1993 Act as UN missions were increasingly being authorised as peace enforcement missions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The missions in which we were involved in Ethiopia, Eritrea, the Balkans, Liberia and Chad were all Chapter VII or peace enforcement missions.

Over the 1990s, the wording of UN Security Council resolutions expanded substantively from the UN establishing what are referred to as "blue hat" peacekeeping forces to the UN supporting members states “acting together or through regional organisations” - a phrase I have taken from UN Security Council resolutions - to deploy forces to maintain international peace and security. For Ireland, this raised legal interpretation issues as regards the 1960 Act, even as it was amended in 1993. The wording no longer reflected the evolution of UN mandates. The scope of the term "International United Nations Force" was expanded again in the 2006 Act to better reflect the fact that many UN missions were not blue hat missions. The Act also contained provisions relating to the rapid deployment of forces as part of an EU battle group, a development which was welcomed by successive UN Secretaries General.

As we have seen, defence legislation has been amended several times to reflect changes in the UN, changes in the international security environment and the need for rapid response capabilities in the face of emerging conflicts to maintain Ireland's capacity to provide forces for these missions. In my opinion, the current Bill reflects further changes within the UN system and Ireland's ongoing commitment to peacekeeping.

Gridlock within the Security Council can preclude Ireland from acting to support international peace and security through the provision of forces for international peacekeeping. The current triple lock has enforced both mission non-participation, as with the mission in Macedonia from which we were excluded, and planned and actual mission exit, not least Ireland's enforced withdrawal from the UN mission in Chad. We did not want to leave but had to because of uncertainties around the UN mandate. The Bill also expands on section 3 of the 2006 Act to recognise that there will be circumstances where we wish to deploy the Defence Forces where there will never be a UN mandate. For example, the UN Security Council is not going to get involved with security issues or the evacuation of civilians. Without a resolution, even if we want to deploy to protect our citizens, we will not have a UN mandate to do so.

The main element of the current Bill is to revise the exclusive requirement for a UN Security Council mandate for Defence Forces operations overseas and to include additional potential mandates for deployment to international forces that will, to quote the general scheme, "operate for the purposes of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter." This language is consistent with the assurance that was given to the people in Article 3 of the Lisbon treaty protocol and which was approved by the Irish people in the second Lisbon treaty referendum. The language in the Act is actually taken directly from the Lisbon treaty protocols.

There has been significant discourse to the effect that Ireland’s UN membership and the triple lock are inextricably linked to our policy on military neutrality. That discourse also suggests that Ireland’s UN membership and the subsequent triple lock represented a fundamental affirmation and reinforcement of Ireland’s neutrality policy. However, as shown in a recent paper I have circulated to the committee, the Oireachtas record of the debates on both UN membership and the 1960 Act demonstrates the polar opposite. At that time, membership of the UN was seen as substantively undermining and obviating Ireland’s neutrality.

It was considered that Ireland would be forced to exit the UN to maintain its policy of neutrality in the face of a UN Security Council resolution that required it to go to war with another state. That 1946 debate also included discussion on the constitutional provisions in Bunreacht na hÉireann regarding a declaration of war, where the State may have had to go to war pursuant to a UN mandate, and the role of Dail Éireann in that regard, as provided for in the Bunreacht. The view of the then Government, and the Opposition, was that membership of the UN would substantively undermine this constitutional provision, that is, the precedence of Dáil Éireann on such matters would be moot by virtue of UN Charter obligations.

In 1946 and again in 1960 when the initial Act was introduced, the obligations of UN membership were seen as a threat to Ireland's foreign, security and neutrality policy and its sovereignty in this regard. To address that, the third element of the triple lock was to cement, in legislation, the primacy of Dáil Éireann in protecting Ireland’s policy on neutrality, Ireland’s independence and sovereignty on foreign policy. The key element of the 1960 triple lock is not the UN Security Council resolution. That was a given, by virtue of our obligations of membership of the UN. This had already been accepted by Ireland as such an obligation. They key objective of that was to protect and enshrine in law the requirement for Dáil approval for any such decision to deploy forces. Dáil Éireann, not the UN, was the bulwark to protect Ireland’s neutrality, independence in foreign policy and sovereignty.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will try to keep my questions direct. I do not want to be abrupt with the witnesses but it would be good if the answers could be kept short because time is very short. Professor Tonra set out the four changes this will bring about in a very clear way. On the last one, he said the Bill specifies "the kind of multilateral force with which such deployments might serve, including the UN, EU, OSCE or "any other regional body", does that include NATO? "Yes" or "No"?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Yes.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the first paragraph of his statement, he says "Significantly, the credibility of the NATO alliance has been - perhaps fatally - undermined". Does he stand by that statement?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Absolutely. The principle-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To clarify, he sets out here that NATO could be one of those regional bodies and he clearly sets out the credibility of it is possibly fatally undermined.

Professor Ben Tonra:

As a collective security organisation, certainly.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Professor Tonra. I am in favour of military neutrality. I do not have a big issue with the change from 12 soldiers to 50. I understand the logic of that, whether it is 12 to 30 or 40 or whatever for rescue missions and the other areas set out. It seems like a practical measure. On page four of the document Professor Tonra submitted, he states peacekeeping needs have changed further, legislation was again amended in the 2006 Act and what that provided for, such as an international force or body approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or General Assembly. He then refers to the triple lock. That is a phrase devised during the 2001 Nice treaty referendum campaign, which I remember and was involved in. A national declaration was made. As he set out, it was appended to the Lisbon treaty. People will admit that it is what got the Lisbon and Nice treaties over the line. My problem with it as a politician is that here is a solemn commitment and national declaration appended to treaties and all of a sudden, it will be changed without a referendum. Does Professor Tonra think there should be a referendum to give people a say in this fundamental change?

Professor Ben Tonra:

No, I do not-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why?

Professor Ben Tonra:

-----because I do not think it is that fundamental a change.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He does not think it is a fundamental change.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I think it is a major change but it is not a fundamental change. It is not a constitutional level change at all.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Irish people who took that at face value, twice, which took the referendums from one third in favour to two thirds in favour and actually flipped over twice on it and got them through. Does Professor Tonra think it is okay to disregard that from a democratic point of view?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Frankly, when situations change-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not fundamental; it is a major change.

Professor Ben Tonra:

When situations change, it requires governments to change and legislation to change. I recall the triple lock was introduced by a Fianna Fáil-led coalition Government that said it was a cast iron guarantee on neutrality. Many people who opposed the Nice treaty said the triple lock was nonsense, an empty formula and smoke and mirrors. People change their positions in terms of the circumstances.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On circumstances, when I was growing up, there was the threat from the Cold War. It was not long after the Cuban missile crisis. There were a whole lot of very dangerous things happening. I know there are a lot of nutters in positions of power at the moment but there has never been a time in my lifetime when there has not been danger. Whether it was the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal bombing of Iran or the slaughter of children, women and men in Palestine, etc., there has always been conflict. Does Professor Tonra agree?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Yes but we are in a much more dangerous situation now. This is an argument we can have about the stability of the Cold War versus the instability of the post-Cold War era but it is a very different world.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like a yes-no answer. Does Professor Tonra agree the trust of the people would be broken if we do this without giving them a say? Would the trust of every citizen of this State, me included, be broken after those two treaties if this major change, to use his term, is pushed through without a referendum?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I genuinely do not, no.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome all three gentlemen here this morning and thank them for taking time out to be here with us. I will start with Mr. Noonan. Some people are of the opinion that the current UN mandate system is broken. There has not been an agreed deployment since 2014. Does he feel that it is worth persevering with or has time moved on, have events moved on and has it gone beyond the beyond for future missions to be rubber-stamped by the UN?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

That is the core question. It was of its time. At the time, it was known it had in-built imperfections. The current debate gets two different things tangled up. It would be maybe helpful to ask the committee to disentangle the two things. The two things are what we have at the moment, with all its imperfections plain with, as it is accurately said, the idea that Russia, China, the US, Britain and France can veto the mandate, which seems bizarre now. That is one thing.

The other thing is the bigger question in a way of how Ireland makes decisions about and sets guardrails around the deployment of members of the Permanent Defence Force. It may be helpful to separate those two things. If someone comes to the view that the first arrangement from 1960 is no longer suitable, that is fine, and it is a perfectly respectable position to hold.

However, that does not predetermine the decision as to how to respond to that. It seems to me this Bill has in it a core belief that that day is over and so we will get rid of it. I look for safeguards in the Bill and candidly, beyond what I will call soft language, which is not reliable, I do not find any guardrails. For example, we shudder involuntarily when we think about what is happening in Gaza. Every one of us in this room does. That is fine by the European Union. The European Union has decided to stay hands-off and that Israel can do what it likes. That is the European Union of our common values, expressed repeatedly in solemn documents signed by people with fine titles. When it comes to Gaza, it does not want to know. How do we, as a small country, learn from that posture of a large assembly, dominated by big countries with very different histories from ours?

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not mean to cut across Mr. Noonan-----

Mr. Joe Noonan:

That is fine. I will leave that question there. It is answering the Senator's question with a question.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Noonan has outlined with great clarity and passion his belief on this. I am not trying to pit one witness against another, but how would Professor Tonra and Mr. Murphy respond to Mr. Noonan's comments now and earlier?

Professor Ben Tonra:

He is right in saying we are simply removing the UN Security Council requirement and not replacing it with anything else. That comes down, as Deputy Stanley referenced, to the issue of trust. Most governments will deploy military forces overseas on the decision of a government and parliament. If we do not deem that to be enough, then we have to think of other controls and other guardrails, as Mr. Noonan spoke about, that can be put in place. I make a couple of suggestions in that regard in my paper. That is a question the committee needs to grapple with. Again, most countries will deploy military personnel overseas because their government decides it and their parliament authorises it. If that is not enough for us, then we need to think of something in addition. I do not think, and this is where Mr. Noonan and I differ, that the UN Security Council fits that role any longer.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

I tend to agree with Professor Tonra. As I said in my opening statement, when the originators of the triple lock drafted the legislation and introduced it to the Oireachtas and it was debated and passed by the Oireachtas, the view was that it was the role of Dáil Éireann to protect Ireland's neutrality and make sure any overseas deployment was consistent with national foreign and security policy and Irish interests. The UN Security Council resolution was seen as a threat that could drag Ireland into wars it did not want to participate in by virtue of the obligations of membership. We need to put the trust back in this House. There is a significant role for this committee in interrogating defence officials, defence Ministers and defence policy. That has not been a role. In my 15 years as policy director, I appeared once before the defence committee on matters of defence policy. The Minister had been waiting three years to get an invite to the committee, despite lobbying the committee, which Ministers never do, to appear before it.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We would like to have him here.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has come full circle since that.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

He walked in and the first question was on Defence Forces pay and terms and conditions and that is what the whole debate was about. The paper he had presented to the committee was not discussed at all.

Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Professor Tonra, Mr. Noonan and Mr. Murphy for joining us and for the clarity of their presentations and interpretations of the issues. It has been very helpful for us all. I might come back to a contribution made by Mr. Noonan. He said that if we make this change and remove the requirement for the Security Council to give approval before we deploy, we will not know our direction of travel or what the outcomes could be. My question for all three witnesses is whether, if we do not make the change and we keep things the way they are, we know the direction of travel. We are effectively giving the power to Russia, China, France, the UK and the US to prevent us from deploying.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

That is a great question. The approach to it might be to look at what the EU's most senior people say about the direction of travel right now. Kaja Kallas, the High Representative for foreign affairs and a vice-president of the Commission, said this a couple of days ago:

And what I want to stress to all of those representatives coming from countries that are much further from Russia, look at the world map. Europe is a very small continent. Whatever happens in one part of Europe has an effect on us all, and we are only strong when we act together, when we act together in NATO, when we act together, in Europe, a stronger European Union is also stronger NATO.

I think that is the direction of travel. She said it and I am not going to disagree with her.

Sometimes we do not respect ourselves enough. We have devised over centuries a brilliant form of government and control. We have President Michael D. Higgins in the park. I have the privilege of going to a garden party after this. Uniquely from a lawyer's point of view, I will hit three Houses of the Oireachtas in one day. It is something I feel quietly proud about. At times there is a tension about views the President expresses, which some in the political sphere may feel uncomfortable about. I think that is great and you would not get it in many other places. We should respect the development of our worldview over centuries and be slow to listen to people with a very different agenda who suggest we change it. I agree with the Deputy that change has to be looked at but this involves people with strong feelings. Senator Gallagher used the word "passion". Ms Kallas is a passionate woman. There has been criticism of her comments about Ireland in the past and I am staying away from that, but I go by what she says about the future she sees. Is that the future we want?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Looking at where the United Nations is and is foreseeably going, the potential direction of travel is the end of Irish contributions to international peacekeeping.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Our major mission at the moment is in Lebanon. It is currently under threat. If that UN Security Council resolution does not go through, we will be withdrawing everybody. It is not the first time that has happened. When we were deployed to Chad, it was coming into the wet season and there was a question over the Security Council resolution. There were many engagements at Taoiseach level and ministerial level with the under-secretary general for UN peacekeeping to find out whether the resolution would go through. We could not get an assurance it would go through and we could not stay. If the resolution had not gone through, the forces would have had to leave but ew would not have been able to get the equipment out. All our armoured personnel carriers, kit, mortars, ammunition and so on would have been left in Chad when we withdrew. On many occasions, we have had to issue warning orders to forces on the ground that they may have to withdraw to the base and cease operations in Lebanon or Liberia because we did not have certainty around the Security Council resolution. Eventually, they came through but in the case of Chad we withdrew all our forces in advance of the resolution because we could not be there with all our kit at risk of being left behind.

Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Potentially, we will not be involved in peacekeeping activities in future.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

If the Lebanon resolution is not renewed, that is the end of Lebanon. It will be the end of UNIFIL, which has existed since 1978. It is catastrophic and it has been consistent over quite a long period.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe. I thank them for their presentations. Professor Tonra and I have spoken at conferences together.

I am a great admirer of his work. We agree on most things but there are some areas we disagree on. He framed his statement in the opening paragraph by stating that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has profoundly reshaped Europe’s strategic calculus. I agree this is the case and Mr. Noonan earlier quoted Kaja Kallas. There are a number of domain assumptions around that. This is being used to frame our decision to drop the triple lock. I have heard it repeatedly said that times have changed. Things are different now. We have to join the grown-ups and get with programme. We have to wake up and smell the coffee. This is the kind of sentiment around the threat posed by Vladamir Putin. Is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the threat that Putin’s criminal regime poses the primary lens through which Professor Tonra views European security?

Professor Ben Tonra:

No.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is great. I share that view because for me it certainly is not. It has been asserted repeatedly that Russia could successively mount a ground invasion of a NATO state by 2029. Does Professor Tonra share that view?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I am not an expert on Russia’s military development. I do know the kind of scenario that Russia employed with the respect to Crimea and Ukraine would be easily applied to many of the Baltic states.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Professor Tonra think that the Russians could mount a successful ground invasion of a NATO state by 2029?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I do not know,. They certainly might try.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Our friend and colleague Ed Burke wrote in The Irish Times last week that Russia can produce 1,500 main battle tanks every year. Does Professor Tonra share that view?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Again, that is not my area of specialisation. I am sorry.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For the record, the Russians certainly cannot. They can only produce a small fraction of that. Russia has a gross domestic product that is roughly similar to Spain’s. The European Union has a GDP 20 times that of Russia. Even without the US financial commitment to NATO in Europe, we dwarf Russia in terms of our military. I share Deputy Stanley’s view. I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s when we had Warsaw Pact forces in almost every capital in central and eastern Europe. We had nuclear missiles pointed at every European city and we did not panic. That ever-present threat, which was much more acute than the current appalling circumstances in Ukraine, which is a criminal invasion and violation of human rights, did not frame our concept of ourselves and our neutrality. Professor Tora mentioned the United States. I attended briefings in the Pentagon with the CIA recently. I attended briefings at NATO headquarters in Brussels and at the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe at Mons quite recently, which were hosted by the United States. Their permanent representation to NATO in Brussels is still there. Does Professor Tonra believe the United States would relinquish their domination of NATO in Europe and their control and influence there?

Professor Ben Tonra:

It is gone

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Professor Tonra not believe, bearing in mind the text Mark Rutte just sent to Trump, that the United States is the dominant partner or that it would easily relinquish its dominant control of NATO-----

Professor Ben Tonra:

There is no credibility of the US’s security guarantee to NATO in Europe; None.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Professor Tora is asserting that but what evidence does he have?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Everything that President Trump has said and done.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What President Trump says and what the United States does are two different things as we all know.

Professor Ben Tonra:

Both are in sync.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we look at the US's de facto commitment to NATO in terms of its permanent representation in Brussels and its constant participation in European collective security exercises in the Baltic states in the past couple of months; where is the evidence to suggest the US is going to leave and therefore, we somehow have to wake up and smell the coffee because things have changed?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Again, everything that Trump has said, and the US Administration is doing, up to and including relinquishing the post of Supreme Allied Commander in Europe post.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have they relinquished it?

Professor Ben Tonra:

They have put it on the table.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have they relinquished it?

Professor Ben Tonra:

They have put it on the table-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have they relinquished it?

Professor Ben Tonra:

-----which is an incredible volte-face and turnaround over 80 years of history.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have they relinquished it?

Professor Ben Tonra:

: Not yet, but they have put it on the table. It is up for discussion.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The answer is "No".

Professor Ben Tonra:

The answer is it is on the table for discussion.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to call-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just have a quick question for Mr. Noonan. He said, and this was confirmed by the officials from the Department, that the Bill does not modify the triple lock; it simply removes it. Based on what he is saying that we need to consider, and I thank Professor Tonra for the safeguards that he suggested on page 8 in his document, which is excellent-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Senator Cloonan-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does this mean that any future government can send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world to any conflict at any time in the future just by a simple government majority.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

"Yes" or "No"?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Yes,

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, which were excellent. Summarising Mr. Noonan’s contribution, he said this Bill is for us to make a decision on whether to put our young people in harm’s way. I assure him, I, like all of my colleagues, are taking this seriously. A member of my family is a member of the Defence Forces. I assure Mr. Noonan and his colleagues that any decision I make will be based on how I would like to see him or any other person involved in our Defence Forces to be deployed anywhere.

I have a number of questions on what Deputy Stanley said. The United Nations was formed to prevent future global conflicts and promote international co-operation. Is it still fit for purpose? NATO was established to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down, to paraphrase Baron Ismay. Should we ever consider joining NATO? Can we really be militarily neutral if we cannot defend ourselves? If we get rid of the triple lock, do the witnesses see a role for the Seanad and the President in ensuring the safety our armed forces into the future?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

Is the UN fit for purpose? No. Is it therefore to be sidelined completely? No, it has a value. There are things that happen there that need to happen and would not otherwise happen so well. That is a mixed answer. Should we ever contemplate joining NATO, a nuclear-armed treaty organisation that has declared it is willing to use nuclear weapons? For very good reasons Ireland has historically always been completely opposed to that philosophy and outlook. That informs my answer to the Senator’s question about NATO. That is why I highlighted the direction of travel from Kallas.

In relation to neutrality and defending ourselves, successive Governments should have had a far more professional approach to how we developed, managed, trained and remunerated the members of our Defence Forces and the Reserve. That has been terribly lacking. Everyone knows that. I am not quite sure how that has happened. That has to be addressed. That is hugely important. I will say no more. All the members knows the importance of that.

Do we have to defend ourselves to be neutral? That is a quasi-legal point that is bound in the historical rules around neutrality. Irish neutrality is a thing of its own. We have to sort out our Defence Forces and our view on how we engage with the world. We use the word "neutrality", but it has a different meaning when we use it as opposed to the conventions.

Is there a role for the Seanad and President? There certainly is. There is a role for the people. This, the Constitution of Ireland, is the little book that was composed a few hundred yards up the road in the Shelbourne Hotel.

It devotes itself to explaining where sovereignty comes from - it comes from the people. That is a radical statement. You will not find it in many other constitutions in our Continent. It has meaning.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Noonan. We are running out of time. Will Mr. Murphy respond?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

The change is not due to the Russian threat, it is due to the veto wielded by China, Russia and the US in relation to overseas UN peacekeeping operations. Let us park the Russian threat on that issue. In relation to whether the UN is fit for purpose, no, it is no longer fit for purpose because it has not made a decision on a UN mandate since 2014. On being militarily neutral and whether we should have forces to defend that neutrality, Irish neutrality has never been defined in that particular way. It has been defined on the basis that we are not a member of a mutual alliance and we do not enter into mutual defence alliances. They are the two elements. It has been stated in the defence White Paper and the foreign affairs White Paper over many years. On the role of the Seanad and the President, I am not a constitutional lawyer but understanding is that it would be repugnant to the Constitution. The Constitution imbues in Dáil Éireann alone the right to declare war. Therefore, anything else below that threshold would not require additional approval. On the comments of Ms Kallas, when I was policy director-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The time is up. I want to allow the other witnesses.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

It is just a quick point. Mr. Juncker regularly spoke about a European army. There is no provision in the European Union's legislation or treaties for a European army. Ms Kallas makes statements many times; it is just her opinion.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to allow Professor Tonra to briefly answer.

Professor Ben Tonra:

The UN is fit for purpose but not here in respect of neutrality and defence. That is a policy decision. We can defend ourselves independently, through an alliance or in co-operation with others. It is up to this body and others to decide where they go. In respect of joining NATO, Ireland has benefited from its geographical position over the past 80 years. It suffered for the previous 800 so I have no problem whatsoever in Ireland continuing to take full advantage of its geographic situation and not joining an alliance like NATO.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Professor Tonra. I call Deputy Duncan Smith, followed Deputy Ó Laoghaire. I remind witnesses that this is the members' time. How they allocate it and where they direct it is up to them, not the Chair.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach. There is no doubt the UN is in a weakened position and the UN Security Council is paralysed. For those of us who want to see the UN restrengthened, commit to it and value Ireland's history and tradition with the United Nations, I will posit a theory. I will direct the question to Mr. Murphy first. Setting aside operational practicalities, at least in theory, if UNIFIL in Lebanon is not renewed at the Security Council but each contributing country wants to continue a mission there, could a motion be brought to the UN General Assembly to be agreed by a majority? It would not have a legal basis as a UN mission but it could give assent to a country like Ireland and appease the triple lock provision in our foreign policy. If we are to make proposals to the Minister that could keep the triple lock or some kind of guardrail on our deployment, is it a potential option that a UN General Assembly resolution could at least give an assent to some composition of a peacekeeping mission?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Hypothetically, yes, but that requires getting 192 nations on board. What is the interregnum between the end of one mandate and the start of a new mandate? We cannot stay if we do not have mandate. The UN does not act quickly, and the certainly the General Assembly is not going to act within 24 hours to suddenly come up with a mandate for a renewed mission. The legality of the mission is open to question. Generally, the assembly makes recommendations to the Security Council. It is only the UN Security Council that can legally authorise a UN blue hat mission. It is effectively no longer a UN blue hat mission.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that. We are talking about the direction of travel in the EU, which I do not dispute, that Kaja Kallas and others want to bring EU nations towards. I have huge worries about that direction, the militarisation of Europe and Ireland being caught up in that. I have a massive concern about us simply removing the triple lock without at least examining other methods for a potential guardrail. The UN Security Council does not move particularly quickly. If we are going to give up to missions that are in line with the UN Charter, the United States and others would contest that the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in line with the UN Charter because the resolutions for the original Gulf War were violated. The UN Charter can be manipulated by whoever is promoting a particular action. I generally trust Irish politics and our political class to protect our peacekeepers and bring them to genuine peacekeeping missions. If the Security Council is paralysed, is there another channel? Mr. Murphy said hypothetically there could be through the UN General Assembly.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

I do not think the UN General Assembly is the route to go simply because it is unworkable and does not give the legal certainty. Going down that route would not be repeating a UN mission, to put it that way, in terms of the blue hat, etc. It is up to the House to determine the checks and balances it inserts in the legislation such as a more robust role for the committee or a free vote in the Dáil. A whole rake of criteria could be inserted. Twenty-seven members of the European Union do not decide overnight to go to war in Chad, for example, or to mount an operation. There are lots of discussions and negotiations running into the late hours of the night and early hours of the morning on the concept of operations, the strategic approach of the European Union to a particular issue - for example, Chad, an operation Ireland led - the strategic orientation, the operational concept and rules of engagement. All countries are concerned about sending their troops into harm's way and about the bona fides in terms of public perception of what they are doing. We have had situations in Ireland where we have not participated in missions, even when they were UN mandated, because we had concerns about whether it met our policy objectives and whether it was consistent with Ireland's national policy and foreign policy. We need to go back and put trust in the House which the originators of the 1960 Act put, which stated the role of Dáil Éireann is to protect Ireland's sovereignty and neutrality.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a question for Professor Tonra. Does the triple lock stop us investing in our Defence Forces' capacity, protecting our undersea cables, engaging with PESCO, Partnership for Peace and similar which we have already done? Does it generally stop us increasing our capacity for national security?

Professor Ben Tonra:

No.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Professor Tonra.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was a short answer. I call Deputy Ó Laoghaire followed by Deputy Brabazon.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chair. I thank our guests for their time and expertise. We have a serious issue in the neglect of our Defences Forces in personnel and equipment. That needs to be addressed. As answered by Professor Tonra, there is nothing to prevent that except political will. That has been an issue in recent times in the previous two or three governments. I direct my first question to Mr. Noonan. I think he is right in saying he is the only legal practitioner to come before us in relation to this matter. There were references in previous sessions and this session to the Lisbon and Nice treaties and the attached protocols. There is the issue of the confidence of the Irish people when they went to vote, and you can assess that morally. In legal and constitutional terms, do issues arise due to the fact that these were protocols attached to European treaties which were subject to referendums? I refer in particular the Nice treaty. The Seville declaration was perhaps more explicit than the commitments given regarding the Lisbon treaty. I am not a legal practitioner. Mr. Noonan can assess it better than me. It states very clearly that Ireland reiterates that the participation of the Irish Defence Forces, among other things, requires authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

It does. As I was in my office yesterday and going out the door, my eye fell on the bookshelf on exactly what the Deputy is talking about - I had not been looking for them - which is the guide given to everybody at the time of the Nice treaty and the White Paper, and they say exactly as the Deputy describes.

Professor Tonra is correct that there were different views taken about the strength of that at the time. I took the view that it was not as strong as it was being sold to the people as. Funnily enough, the people who were selling it then are now saying to the people that it is not strong. It is an interesting dynamic in Irish political life over 20 years. That is both amusing and serious. Simon Harris, when he was introducing the general scheme of the occupied territories Bill yesterday, was calling on everybody, including Opposition Members, to call their counterparts in other countries to try to get them to instigate something similar. He used a phrase that really registered with me. He said it is very lonely out there. That is what Simon Harris is saying now. Imagine how lonely he or his successors would feel if the bargaining counter of the triple lock is gone and they are in those Council of the European Union chambers-----

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise to Mr. Noonan but I am conscious of my time and I have another question. I will put it more directly. He does believe that potentially constitutional issues arise.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I have to be candid with the Deputy and I am saying the trust of the people is in jeopardy and in balance. They were told a certain thing. Now, the Attorney General's advice to the Government, as I understand it, is that this was only a political commitment. Candidly, I agree with the Attorney General. I cannot see that this triggers a mandatory constitutional referendum.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Noonan for clarifying that.

I was very interested in the points made by Professor Tonra. He has made the point regarding safeguards and that is quite interesting. Does he agree that Irish neutrality is desirable?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I do not put it as desirable or undesirable; it simply is, and it is a perfectly logical strategy. The only place we differ, perhaps, is that some people invest in neutrality as some sort of idea of being good, whereas I say neutrality is essentially a mé féin policy. That is perfectly reasonable and perfectly acceptable but I do not think it is either good or bad; it just is.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A previous speaker, a similarly eminent academic, made a point about it being questionable whether it did exist or not. Whether it is or it is not, does Professor Tonra believe, speaking frankly, that Irish neutrality is respected in the EU? Senior politicians come in here frequently and say Irish neutrality is respected. I would question that. I know Mr. Murphy said that High Representative Kallas said various things. I do not think High Representative Kallas can be categorised as a semi-detached backbencher. She is a very senior representative of the European Commission. Between herself and others-----

Professor Ben Tonra:

Speaking frankly, I am not dancing on the head of a pin but it depends on what we mean by respect. If respect means having knowledge of that reality, yes it is respected. If respect means it is something that other people think is a really good thing, I would say "No". It is seen as incredibly selfish.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is my sense of it as well. It comes back to what Mr. Noonan said regarding lawyers moving into absences. We are potentially removing the guardrails and entering into a very wide sphere using narrow exceptions to justify legislation that already the Department of Defence has told us that-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Deputy Ó Laoghaire of his time. Does he have a question?

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will finish on that but I am minded to say that a very clear trend is that people right across the spectrum hold the view that the legislation does not currently contain enough safeguards. Does Professor Tonra think that is fair to say?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Yes.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I may try to get in again.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for coming in and giving up their time. I have a number of short questions. First, to Mr. Noonan, if somehow we could cobble together some kind of constitutional wording to enshrine our neutrality and that amendment was passed by the people, would he be as concerned as he is now regarding the triple lock?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

With respect, there is a false premise in the question. In a sense, neutrality is in the Constitution already and that was clarified back in 1987 in the Supreme Court in the Crotty case where it said the people had given certain limited powers to the Oireachtas and the Oireachtas could not give those powers away to other bodies. For example, if one defines neutrality as joining a military alliance, we cannot join NATO without a constitutional referendum under the provisions of the Crotty judgment. The answer to the question, therefore, is "No".

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Based on Mr. Noonan's logic, we cannot become aligned with a military alliance.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

Alignment and membership are two different things.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We cannot join as a member either.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

As I have watched this over the years, that gap has got narrower and narrower. We are now in at least three, if not four, NATO-organised endeavours to do with cybersecurity and other matters. We are not a member. We are now saying neutrality is simply not being a member. NATO is quite happy to have people who are not members as long as it is doing what it wants.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had a previous witness before the committee who painted a vista, albeit a stateable case, that in the light of the representations made by the then Government at the time of the Lisbon treaty, she could foresee the Lisbon treaty potentially unravelling before the European courts. What would Professor Tonra say to that?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I do not understand the question at all.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the Lisbon treaty was being put before the Irish people, certain representations were made by the then Government about our neutrality. Based on that, the witness felt that if we changed the triple lock, that would undermine those representations and therefore undermine the validity of the decision made by the Irish people and could in theory, or at least on a stateable basis, be brought before the European courts and potentially unravel the treaties.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I see no credibility in that at all, no.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Professor Tonra for that.

This is a question on practicality. Professor Tonra mentioned that one of things that could be done or suggested is that a formal legal review be undertaken as part of each proposed overseas deployment. I was thinking about that from a practical point of view. Let us say the Minister for Defence gets a phone call at 2 o'clock in the morning and the legal advisers are not available. From a practical point of view, how would that be dealt with?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Mr. Murphy can correct me but that is not how it works. That is not how these things happen. Troops are never deployed in that kind of manner in the UN.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us say there are Irish citizens on a runway in Kabul and the Army Ranger Wing is anxious to be deployed to rescue them but it cannot deploy because there is no legal review.

Professor Ben Tonra:

Under this legislation, up to 50 troops could be sent without that necessity.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under this legislation?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Yes.

Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What would happen if you wanted to send 51 troops?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Then you would require the Government decision and you would have to have the Dáil approve it. The Dáil would still have to approve anything over 50.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Deputy Brabazon on keeping within the time.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their submissions and statements. Mr. Murphy spoke about the enforced exit from Chad and the uncertainty at that time. That is where the rubber hits the road in all of this - the practicalities arising from decisions and waiting. He described the situation in graphic detail. He also expressed his concerns about what could happen in Lebanon if there were to be a decision made or issues raised as part of it. I wanted to put that on record.

A lot of people have spoken about guardrails. I absolutely agree with guardrails but is it not the case that one such guardrail we have under the present legislation is the consent or abstention of the five permanent members?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

Absolutely.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the crux of the matter. Professor Tonra has given suggestions, which I welcome because we have had a number of witnesses over the course of the meetings and he is the first to have put in suggestions.

There is general acceptance that the P5 is the crux of the issue. There is general acceptance, as Mr. Noonan has stated, that the UN is not fit for purpose. Professor Tonra has also stated that there are issues with the veto. As that is clearly the crux of the matter as far as I am concerned, what kinds of guardrails are practical? Mr. Murphy has stated there are issues with the General Assembly in terms of the length of time it may take to make decisions with regard to the threshold. Are there practical guardrails that could be put in place in the absence of the P5? Mr. Noonan might also comment on Professor Tonra's suggestions.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

First, I remind the members that I have made suggestions at the end of my paper. Maybe I did not expand on them, and I direct members’ attention to that. Part of my paper was identifying threats, how threats are identified, who identifies them and why. One of the issues in this discussion is the ever-present lobby. There are powerful interests promoting certain points of view and certain decisions to be taken. They are not always necessarily transparent about their presence in the room. If we are talking about the UN, yes, there are difficulties. If we are looking at guardrails, we have to recognise there is a second crux. There is not just one crux, there are two. The second is the pressure this country can be susceptible to from other countries. We have already seen that and, as I said, it has been voiced by the Tánaiste. The difficulty over the occupied territories Bill is an example of that, as he said eloquently as recently as yesterday that it is lonely out there. That is something you cannot simply glide past. These guys are ruthless. People in charge of big, former imperial powers can be ruthless. When their own interests are challenged, they do what is necessary to pursue those interests. We are not used to that in the same way. We are good at getting on with people. We have a genius expressed in culture, music, language and in other ways. We need to realise the terrain we are inviting our Government into. If we take away this and do not have-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What are the alternatives? What are the suggestions?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

More work needs to be done on the alternatives, but I will give the Senator some ideas immediately. The provisions in the Constitution that were decided by the High Court in the Horgan case in 2003 to be merely aspirational, could be written into the legislation and thereby made operative. That would be a good, concrete, constitutional and legislative thing to look at. We can do that sort of thing and cast a cold eye on the decision-making process we are already subject to within the EU, where the scope of the Union is expanding into military territory. It is interesting to hear the criticism of Kallas here that she is speaking in some way as an outlier when she is really just echoing what President von der Leyen says in different ways and at different times. We have to be careful about all of these factors that are sitting back waiting for us to remove that barrier, which is an impediment in their view. We look to our own Constitution and our own internal way of making decisions to find the guardrails the Senator is talking about. It is at the end of my document as well.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How does Mr. Noonan feel about Professor Tonra's suggestions?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

They have to be taken into consideration. That is a fair way to deal with them.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses. I put on the record that my view of the function of this committee is to listen with an open mind and draw conclusions. We are not here to protect either neutrality or the triple lock. It was accepted by Ray Murphy that we do not qualify under customary international law as a neutral country. Professor Tonra has said that neutrality is Irish neutrality, whatever that is. Ireland is a sovereign state. That is my understanding. As a sovereign state, the argument against removing the triple lock is that we cannot be trusted to make decisions with our own troops. Is there any other state in the world that has a similar restriction placed on the government of that country with respect to the deployment of its troops? I ask that of all three witnesses.

Professor Ben Tonra:

To the best of my knowledge, in terms of legislation, no. A number of member states would see a UN resolution as a political precondition and we have seen it in a number of other European states, but legislatively, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I agree with that.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

The same. There is no other that I am aware of. There are countries that, for political purposes and for public presentation in their own states, would like to be able to say the UN Security Council has approved this.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would granting the yea or nay with respect to the deployment of troops by Ireland to a third party be repugnant to sovereignty?

Professor Ben Tonra:

To my belief, it always has been, yes.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

Sovereignty is shifting under our feet. There is a global context within which that 1960 legislation was passed and that global context in some sense changes and in some sense stays the same. Sovereignty has already been diluted significantly through our membership of the EU, which people voted for and have voted for further amendments. It is something that is not fixed and immutable. There are two impingements on sovereignty and on the right to say yes or no. One is a visible one like the P5 veto. The other is the invisible one, the hidden power. You will remember when Mr. Trichet told Brian Lenihan that he did not want a bomb to go off in Dublin. There are different ways of exerting pressure, which are not always visible. They may only become visible afterwards. We have to be alive to all of those.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

The Senator is correct. It does involve a surrender of sovereignty. In fact, de Valera mentioned it in the debates in 1946. When people were pushing back against him, he said that membership of any international organisation always involves a loss of sovereignty. The reference here is made to the European Union. He also lamented the fact that the P5 were setting up the rules, which everybody else would be bound by but by which they would not. That said, there is a fundamental flaw in the United Nations in that those who make the rules will not bind themselves by the rules.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We find ourselves in a situation where Mr. Noonan said that all power comes from the people under the Constitution. As the people voted to join the European Union, how does that in any way diminish our sovereignty? It was the people who made that decision. Add to that, the question has been raised by one or two of my colleagues with respect to putting neutrality into our Constitution. If we place neutrality in the Constitution, are we not tying the hands of future governments in what is a dynamic world that is changing all the time? We at no stage know when we are going to need to deploy troops. Kabul was a classic example of where we needed people on the ground urgently. We were not able to put them there ourselves because we did not have the transport, and when we did send people out, we sent a paltry 12.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

On the first point, the example I give is the inability of the Government to do anything with regard to the situation in Gaza without the permission of the European Union. The Senator says we are still sovereign because we decided to join the EU. Respectfully, that is a slight misunderstanding of the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is where the power rests to say yes or no. We voluntarily undertook an arrangement where that power would no longer be exclusively with the Irish people. We now see the outworkings of that, in that respect.

As for deployment, this is touched on in another paper but perhaps not sufficiently. I may ask for permission to submit something further on this to the committee. The question is what the best use is of the Irish Permanent Defence Force. There are good reasons not to send soldiers into foreign wars. We all understand that. What, subject to that, can members of the Defence Forces do constructively? There is a huge need for informed, western-educated, military-trained people to work in support of the international institutions like the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court on confronting the evil of impunity. Irish people, including members of the Defence Forces, have huge potential skills untapped to assist those court bodies in investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators who currently enjoy impunity and who operate with impunity. That is unexplored territory that would be something hugely constructive. We have the skills, people and soft power to work within that territory and nobody else is doing it. That would be my last comment.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for their time this morning and for the genuinely informative submissions they have made. I will begin with Professor Tonra and the four points he set out, point No. 2 in particular - the "broadened range of potential deployment scenarios to include counter-narcotics, embassy security, hostage rescue" and so on. If the triple lock were to be retained, would we be able to do those as a country?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Not without an authorisation of all five of the permanent Security Council members.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Professor Tonra. I have a question for Mr. Murphy. A couple of times he mentioned the phrase, "to put trust back in this House". I think that was the phrase he used. This is a question I asked a couple of sessions ago of others who were before the committee. For me, the argument for retaining the triple lock at the moment is that we would rather trust the likes of warmongers like Vladimir Putin, or individuals of current international standing or morals such as Donald Trump to veto where we send peacekeepers rather than trust the people who were elected to this House to stand up for our neutrality, as we always have. Would Mr. Murphy follow that line of logic in his statement, that we need to put trust back into these Houses?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

I cannot go along with the Deputy's initial comments about warmongers, but in relation to the decisions around the deployment of forces overseas, that is the primary role and function of this House. It is not the role of anybody else. As I have said on numerous occasions, that the UN is the protector of our neutrality is a fallacy and it was never seen as the protector. This House was seen as the protector.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely. It was these Houses that established our neutrality and these Houses that, I believe, still firmly stand by it today. I will turn to Mr. Noonan about the points in his paper about Palestine and, essentially, the EU's failings in regard to that. I have said that in the Chamber myself and history will judge that, regardless of the fact that Ireland has been at the forefront of the issue. The issue of Palestine is extremely important to the Irish people, but under the triple lock, if we were to retain it, would we be able to send peacekeepers to Palestine, which I think Irish people would really like to see, in the event of a ceasefire there?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

Clearly not, but we need to look a bit wider. Going back to the point about under what circumstances a country should send its troops to another country, that has to be very restricted. If it is the case that the international community, through the UN, has currently got itself into a logjam about taking that decision, then so be it. Maybe we should just recognise that as the reality of the world we now live in and not cast around or have it put in our way that this is an alternative because we are exchanging one set of masters, arguably, for another. If we are talking about dealing with people like, as the Deputy described, the EU with regard to its conduct, such as facilitating sending bullets - 335 of which went into a car being driven with a six-year-old, Hind Rajab, inside, who was killed along with her family members - which bullets were supplied from Czechia, and you will see pictures online of President von der Leyen receiving a bunch of flowers from the Czech arms industry lobby group, we have to not go for the easy solution because there is not one. This committee has within it the ability, skills and blend of experience to go deeper into this issue and that is what we need to do.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some of the recommendations made by both witnesses and by Professor Tonra, in particular, are very welcome in regard to what else could be done. Following from Deputy Brabazon's questions about joining NATO, I guess the triple lock is seen as a safeguard. Is it Mr. Noonan's point about not being able to join NATO because of the constitutional requirements around that not a safeguard in itself, that if the triple lock were removed we have another safeguard in that Ireland could not join NATO without a referendum?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

At the risk of saying things again, which I do not want to do, we have drifted very close to the NATO orbit that now we are seen as troublemakers if we do not go along with whatever Kallas or von der Leyen want, and that is dangerous. That is a drift that has happened.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ireland could not join NATO without a referendum.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

No, but Deputy Brabazon's question was what difference that makes at this point. I am not saying there is no difference but it has got to be a cigarette paper at this point.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From Senator Craughwell's point about sovereignty, it was mentioned that Ireland perhaps lost some sovereignty or diminished our sovereignty when we joined the European Union but that was through a vote of the people. Is there not an argument that the creation of the triple lock to begin with should have been by a vote of the people also if that was going to diminish our sovereignty?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

The triple lock was certainly approved explicitly by the people when they were asked to vote on the Nice treaty.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, it was not a direct question in a referendum to the people.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I am not sure about that. First, the triple lock was put into the legislation in 1960, was well understood and we had experience of living with it. When it came under question during the development of the EU to take on a greater military identity, which was being promoted by big powers, which was in conflict with the Irish position and which conflict had to be resolved initially, through the Crotty case and then the referendum amendments, and we could always see further language being stitched into the treaties continuing to bring the Union in that direction, it was against that backdrop that the solemn assurances were given in the Seville Declaration and the Nice treaty at the time upon which people relied when they cast their votes. The importance of that has to be underlined, understood and candidly accepted. We cannot just turn our eyes away from that. That was the basis on which people cast their votes, and similarly in the Lisbon treaty. Now we are being told, I think correctly, by the Attorney General that that does not carry weight but it carries political weight.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will now go to the non-members of the committee who will have three minutes each. I will take a supplementary list for the permanent members of the committee to have another round and they will also have three minutes.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for coming and for their submissions. My first question is for Mr. Noonan. We spoke about the pressure that politicians and the media refer to from Europe to step up Ireland's defence. What are Mr. Noonan's thoughts on how that pressure interacts with the declarations of the Nice and Lisbon treaties that acknowledge the neutrality of member states in the context of the Common Defence and Security Policy.

Second, the committee heard from another witness a few weeks ago about concerns that this legislation could potentially undermine the Nice and Lisbon treaties themselves and the validity of them and that they could face a legal test. What are Mr. Noonan's thoughts on both these points, please?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I will answer the second question first because I do not agree, candidly. I have been at the European Court in Luxembourg and seen how the structure works in the formal sense and I do not see that happening.

In regard to the relationship between the assurances given in the declarations and the pressure, I am also indirectly aware of the pressures. I have seen them in a semi-detached way and those pressures are unrelenting and never sleep. They are ruthless and they are 24-7. Those of us in the privileged position of seeking to preserve and maybe develop and present some constructive suggestions as to how this country might maintain its rather unusual perspective on these matters have, if we are lucky, busy lives and are doing other things. We are here on our own dime. Against that, we have the Lockheed Martins and big corporations that, speaking as a lawyer, are bound by law to chase profit. They have no empathy, no compassion and do not feel pain Those are simply statements of fact. This is the contest we are facing, and if we are talking about the interrelationship between the pressures and the assurances, the assurances are always under pressure.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Noonan. I have a quick question for Mr. Murphy. He mentioned the Chad withdrawal of forces. I was under the impression that was a unanimous decision of the UN Security Council on the basis of an expressed wish of the Chadian Government but he referenced a veto. Will he clarify which it was?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

We were coming into the rainy season-----

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Was it a UN Security Council veto or not? I have one question for Professor Tonra after this one.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

There was a question over whether or not the mandate would be renewed. We got to a stage where we had a window to get out, and if we did not hit that window-----

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So, it was not a veto then. I have one question for Professor Tonra. Does he now or has he ever lobbied on behalf of arms manufacturers or any associations that include arms manufacturers?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I am secretary and director of the Irish Defence and Security Association, an organisation that promotes Irish security and defence and has arms, dual-use and small and medium-sized enterprises and other international enterprises as members.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have you lobbied?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I have not personally, no.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The other two non-members present are Senator Alice-Mary Higgins and Deputy Catherine Connolly. They have three minutes.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Murphy has acknowledged that a force can be authorised on the basis of a resolution of the General Assembly under the 2006 Act, although he has said these would not be blue hat missions. However, the additional missions that might take place should this legislation remove the triple lock would not be blue hat missions either. Missions can be authorised through the General Assembly although they would not be blue hat missions. The language in the 2006 Act is quite wide. It says "established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned" so there is quite a wide set of ways that a-----

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

That is only with a UN Security Council resolution. To put it in context, the question put to me was whether a General Assembly resolution would effectively be the same as a UN Security Council resolution, to which my answer was "No".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The definition under the 2006 Act does say "or the General Assembly of the United Nations". It is an "or" not an "and".

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

The "or" arose from a decision made in the late forties or early fifties when a particular mission was approved by the UN General Assembly but that has never happened since. It is not considered legal.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a possibility, however.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

It is hypothetically a possibility.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a possibility that has occurred in the past.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

On one occasion 60, 70 or 80 years ago.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Going on to the language of the Bill, we have spoken a lot about peacekeeping, peacekeepers and peace missions, but the Bill is quite wide, not just as to how missions are authorised but also as to their purposes. It also refers to the purpose of "strengthening international security". That is also a phrase that is used. What does strengthening international security not include? Can it include the security of interests, including economic interests? I have a third question so I ask Mr. Noonan to keep his answer short.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

That goes to the heart of the problem. The language in this is utterly permissive. It appears to be otherwise but that is, in fact, its legal effect. There is nothing really excluded by the language in respect of the terms the Senator has particularly highlighted.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is anything excluded?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

If I may clarify, that language is lifted directly from Article 3 of the Lisbon treaty protocols.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Murphy is referring to the term "strengthening international security".

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Yes.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I direct this question to Professor Tonra. Does "strengthening international security" potentially include the security of interests, including economic interests?

Professor Ben Tonra:

It would be what the government of the day proposed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For example, would the recent decision by the EU to deploy troops to protect commercial shipping from the Houthis fall under that-----

Professor Ben Tonra:

That was counter-piracy. It would probably be encompassed in that definition.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From Professor Tonra's perspective, it can, therefore, include economic interests. I have one last point. It is just a point of clarification. I did not actually plan to raise this. It relates to lobbying. For clarification, I understand that Professor Tonra is listed as a lobbyist on the register.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I volunteer to give my time to the IDSA.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The IDSA's members include Lockheed Martin. I had not planned to raise that but I mention it for clarity.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I have never lobbied on behalf of a particular company or group of companies.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, from an organisational------

Professor Ben Tonra:

Yes, absolutely. That is in my biography.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just wanted to clarify the issue of lobbying.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I need to move on to Deputy Catherine Connolly.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to go to the conflicts of interest. Is there a protocol here that, when witnesses come before the committee, they should declare any conflicts of interest? Has that happened with any of the witnesses so far?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it has not happened.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Professor Tonra believe he has a conflict of interest?

Professor Ben Tonra:

No.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, the witnesses have been invited here and given their presentations. For people to question whether they have conflicts of interest is irrelevant. If, in the opinion of a member of this committee, there is a conflict of interest, they should have raised that before the witnesses were brought before the committee. I will put on record that every witness who has appeared here has been approved by the members of this committee. If people coming in here want to go down the road of conflicts of interest, that diverts from the purpose of this meeting.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I think people's interests have been established anyway so let us move on from that.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has just diverted my attention from the question. I am perfectly entitled to come in.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am a Senator, by the way.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator has just diverted attention.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Deputy Connolly that she is using up her time.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not using the time. The Senator has used my time deliberately. It is a very legitimate-----

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry. Excuse me but-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I may continue-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have heard what Senator Wilson has to say.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Honestly, we are entitled to ask questions and witnesses are entitled to respond. We are talking about strengthening security in the world through this legislation. That is so broad that it could include anything. We are therefore entitled to tease things out and that includes conflicts of interest. Professor Tonra has clearly said that he does lobby and does represent his association. What was the title of it?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I am sorry-----

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That has been established.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just missed it because of the interruptions.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has already been established.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The wide nature of this, which will allow anything, has already been mentioned. We have been repeatedly told that the use of the veto - according to the Government, it is mostly Russia that has used it in the past, although it has ignored America - would stop a peacekeeping force. We have seen America use the veto lately. Is that not right? I am talking about stopping the conflict in the Middle East. Is that not correct? It used its veto. As I understand it, the logic is that we should still send a peacekeeping force to that area. Is that not the logic if Russia's veto stops us sending such a force but we want to send one regardless? We want a different system and want to remove the triple lock. That will do away with the misuse of the veto so that we can still send peacekeeping or peace enforcement forces. Is that not correct? I address that to any of the witnesses. Perhaps Professor Tonra or Mr. Murphy would like to answer.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

I am not sure I got the question.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The logic of the narrative we are given all the time is that this is about the misuse of the veto, predominantly by Russia. However, we have lately seen an acute example of American misuse of the veto. We want to stop the misuse of the veto by introducing a different system and pulling out of the triple lock. Is that not right? The idea is that we will use a regional organisation to send peacekeeping forces. Is that not the logic?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

When I answered the question previously, I said that it is not just Russia that uses the veto. China and America use it. People also use the threat of the veto so that you never even see a Security Council resolution or the draft of one.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us stick to the practicalities. It has been said that the use of the veto stops peacekeeping or peace enforcement forces going abroad. Let us take the most recent example of America using the veto. Should we now just ignore that and send a peacekeeping or peace enforcement force over to the Middle East?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

The current legislation requires us to have a UN Security Council resolution to participate.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know that but let us say that we have removed the triple lock. Is the logic then that we would send-----

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

With the troops Ireland has, there is no way it is going to mount a peacekeeping operation on its own. You are going to have some international body or coalition engaged in the process. All sorts of headquarters are required.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who will do that? We have seen what side Europe has taken in Israel's war on Gaza. Who will determine whether a peacekeeping force is to be deployed? Will it be Germany, Europe or the UK?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Mr. Murphy just to answer that. I have allowed a bit of extra time.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach very much for that.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

In the normal course of events, it would be the European Union. It could also be the African Union or ASEAN. You need an international group to come together to say something is a problem. It is not for any one state to say "This is a problem. Everybody, come with me."

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You do see that. It has been exposed.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Over the long period of time I was policy director, my experience has been that international organisations come together and see a particular problem. There may be countries within those organisations that do not particularly see a problem but you need that international dimension to bring a sufficient number of states together.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the flexibility.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will move back to the permanent members, who will have three minutes each. I will just give the list. We will start with Deputy Stanley and then have Deputy O'Connell, Deputy O'Meara, Senator Craughwell and Senator Kyne. If anyone else wants to speak, I ask them to indicate.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have to respect the witnesses who come in. They have obviously come in from different positions and that is the reason we have them here. As a member of the committee, however, I was not aware until a half an hour ago

of Professor Tonra's involvement in lobbying. He is entitled to do so but I want to hear his point of view, even though I disagree with him on probably a lot of what he said. He made some good points but I disagree with some of what he is saying.

One point he made with which I disagree is point 18. He said that Ireland's traditional neutrality will similarly be unaffected by the proposed amendment. I am picturing the scenario, to pick up a little bit on what Deputy Connolly just referred to, where we are part of an alliance with Germany, Britain, France and those countries. They have not just sat on their hands with regard to Israel and Palestine. In some cases, they are actively supplying the weapons and materiel that are being used in the slaughter of civilians and have given other logistical and intelligence help to what I would call the terrorist State of Israel. I am picturing us being part of some ill-defined regional force with a mandate to protect international security - Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu use phrases like "international security"; I hear them at that regularly - but under what mandate would it operate? We know from previous conversations here that we would be subject to the command of one of those larger countries or the likes of NATO - we have clarified that it could be under NATO - on a mission to strengthen international security. Surely, that would affect our military neutrality. Can Professor Tonra not see the contradiction in that? It is left wide open.

Professor Ben Tonra:

Again, that paragraph was referencing the fact that there is a very different understanding of what neutrality is. Mr. Noonan, for example-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Professor Tonra made the statement very clearly. I read it twice last night. He said that Ireland's traditional neutrality will similarly be unaffected by the proposed amendment.

Professor Ben Tonra:

"Traditional" as defined by consecutive Governments, which, as Mr. Noonan said, is very narrowly defined as "non-membership of"-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is defined in our-----

Professor Ben Tonra:

-----and that does not change.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, it is as it is defined in our 1937 Constitution and copper-fastened and stated in a national declaration as part of the Nice treaty and Lisbon treaty. Would that not be correct?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I do not understand the question; I am sorry.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay, I will leave it at that.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Time is up.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will ask Mr. Noonan a question very quickly. We have been operating under multilateralism as part of the UN, as imperfect as that may be. I have one question for Mr. Noonan. We are being pressured, and there is a lot of pressure. We can see that building up in terms of the sense that we must move.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Stanley-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Mr. Noonan agree that by being, for want of a better word, a patsy and going along with what the bigger powers want, we will lose respect internationally instead of standing as a neutral state and maintaining the level of respect we have gained? It is a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Stanley, you have gone over your time. It is a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

That would be a "Yes". We will lose respect.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do the other witnesses wish to respond? It is just "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

No.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. We will move on to Deputy O'Connell followed by Deputy O'Meara.

Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There has been much talk from members and the witnesses about the importance of trust. I understand from Mr. Murphy's contribution that it really is the Dáil, the Oireachtas and the Government that are ultimately the protector of our neutrality as opposed to the UN Security Council, from his outlining of the history in that regard. If that is the case, the people we are trusting ultimately, as Mr. Noonan pointed out, are the people who get to elect the parliamentarians.

From that perspective, Mr. Noonan talked about the pressures we come under, particularly as a small country. We have done very well, especially recently, in terms of those pressures. We have been taking a leading role in highlighting the plight of Gaza against all the external pressures and have potentially suffered quite significantly politically by burning that political capital, yet we are still standing firm on it. We have demonstrated even in recent times our ability to withstand those external pressures.

I would also like to highlight that in our electoral system, nobody is entitled to a seat or handed a seat. Everybody got here by fighting fairly for it. All of our parliamentarians have the ability to fight and stand up to external pressure. The electoral system ensures that everybody here achieves that. My question for the three witnesses is whether they do not have trust in our parliamentarians to make the right decisions in these types of circumstances where there is an ask to deploy?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

The Constitution is what I go back to, and that entrusts parliamentarians with certain powers on behalf of the people. Articles 29.1, 29.2 and 29.3 set out the principles that were intended to guide the exercise of those powers with regard to war. In 2003, the High Court found that they were merely aspirational, so I would like to see them be given legislative force. In terms of Senator Kyne's request for suggestions, I would go back to that. The Deputy is quite right to highlight the fact that we have stood up very well under immense pressure. I will go back to the point I made earlier that if we have this here at the moment, it is oddly a protector against susceptibility to pressure of a certain kind, and if we take it away without being very clear of what we are putting in its place, we are making a mistake. The assurances that were given very categorically in the beginning of this process on behalf of the Department-----

Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry to interrupt Mr. Noonan. I am just watching the clock and I would like to hear a response from Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I will stop with these words. Those assurances cannot be relied on.

Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Mr. Murphy trust the people to elect the right parliamentarians and the parliamentarians then to withstand?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Yes, absolutely. That is the issue I have been pointing out. From the very beginning, it was seen that the Oireachtas and the Dáil were the protectors of the sovereignty, neutrality and the independent foreign policy that Ireland could assert and, in fact, that Dáil Éireann may have to decide to withdraw from the United Nations in the event that it made decisions that were not consistent with what we wanted. The UN was not seen as the harbinger and protector of our neutrality; it was actually the Dáil that was seen as the protector against the UN.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Professor Tonra might give a short answer.

Professor Ben Tonra:

The short answer is "Yes".

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. We have Deputy O'Meara followed by Senator Craughwell.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to come back to Professor Tonra for my next question. He made the point that some countries in recent times have reversed decades, if not centuries, of defence policy or points of neutrality. Finland and Sweden are two prime examples of this that were very dramatic in nature. Were Ireland to remove the triple lock, would our change in policy be any way compared to a move as dramatic as that which Finland and Sweden have made?

Professor Ben Tonra:

To my mind, no, not even close.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would probably have agreed with Professor Tonra before I asked that question, but particularly today with regard to Mr. Noonan's point that it seems we would need a referendum to join NATO, that makes that dramatic change even less severe.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I will defer to Mr. Noonan's legal knowledge. I could not comment on what the Constitution does and does not provide for in that respect.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In his opening statement, Mr. Murphy discussed the changes and amendments that have been made to legislation over the years and the number of times the Act has been amended. We are now looking at another amendment that is getting a lot of attention and controversy from some parts. At any point during discussion of those previous amendments, was there discussion of our neutrality and the losing or abandonment of it? Does Mr. Murphy think these current proposed amendments would threaten our neutrality?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Certainly, there was a discussion in this House about whether those changes affected our neutrality, particularly in the case of the 2006 Act because it broadened the definition and also gave circumstances where the Defence Forces could be deployed without the provision of a UN Security Council resolution. The reason for that was that those situations existed and the UN Security Council would not be concerned about them because they did not represent a threat to international peace and security. Certainly, yes, there was discussion around it, including in this House, but the conclusion was that it was not affecting us, even though we expanded quite significantly the definition of an international United Nations force over that period. As for how that definition came about, we went back through 55 years of UN Security Council resolutions and looked at every single provision that authorised or established a force.

They used all sorts of terms. There was a massive expansion in the definition of what constituted an international UN force at that time but what never changed was the requirement for, or the prerequisite of, a Security Council resolution in some form or other. The problem now is that we do not have those.

Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will we be less neutral if we remove the triple lock?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

No. There is no relationship between the two.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Noonan adverted to the constitutional position with respect to Ireland declaring war. I am quite agnostic on the triple lock because we do not have enough troops to send anywhere so, to my mind, it is a red herring. However, if we wanted to re-establish our sovereignty and re-establish the Oireachtas and the office of the President as the de facto authority to deploy troops, what would be wrong with a constitutional referendum on Article 28 that would give the Seanad and the President a say on the deployment of troops and get rid of the dysfunctional UN?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

There is probably a seminar in that on its own. The Senator will probably have several university departments busy for years answering that question and I say that with all due respect. We really are at the crux here on the question of where power resides. As parliamentarians, committee members understandably feel entrusted, as they are, by the people to make decisions on behalf of the people. I am, however, trying to look at this as a citizen, from a distance. I am as guilty as anybody of thinking we know best and that even if we listen, more or less, to others, we should be able to make the decision for others, but that is not what the constitutional scheme actually provides for in certain respects. That was seen dramatically in the Supreme Court judgment in Crotty, where the Government felt it was entitled to join an increasingly powerful European Union, albeit not called that at the time, in the Single European Act. Crotty went to court and the court agreed with him that the Government was giving away the power to say "Yes" or "No" and that it could not do that without the people's permission. There is always a tension. I am not going beyond saying there is a tension between the popular sovereignty as expressed in the Constitution and what parliamentarians decide to do. It is understandable that Oireachtas Members feel they are entrusted and that, therefore, they are trustworthy, but those things have their limits.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to cut Mr. Noonan off because time is against me. I do not feel I am entrusted. I was elected to my seat in Seanad Éireann and that brought trust with it, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

Yes, I agree.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With respect, Mr. Noonan adverted to us getting closer to NATO. I visited CCDCOE in Tallin and am damned glad that we are close to CCDCOE because cyber recognises no borders. Does Mr. Noonan have a difficulty with us co-operating at that level?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I have not made any comment that would suggest that I have a difficulty in co-operating at that level. We have to dance carefully and box clever. We have to do what we see as being in our own best interests. What concerns me is external people putting constraints on our ability to exercise that power.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I might ask our other two guests to comment on co-operating with CCDCOE and the like.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Obviously, we lack expertise in terms of the volume, and that comes together in these NATO centres of excellence. I was there when those decisions were made. Nobody brought any pressure on Ireland to join any of these things. Ireland decided of itself. In fact, NATO would be at pains to point out that it is a matter for Ireland to choose what it does and does not get involved in.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to go back to the guardrail issue. Mr. Murphy mentioned the General Assembly and the practicalities and constraints on that. How would Professor Tonra and Mr. Noonan view the General Assembly as a safeguard to the five permanent members?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I just do not see it as practicable because, as has been said, the General Assembly cannot create a legal entity of a UN force. The laundry list the Senator gave was exactly that; it was deliberately designed to be a laundry list to encompass as much as possible. What the Senator is suggesting is that 190 countries in the UN General Assembly would devote precious time and political energy to satisfy us to send our troops overseas. I just do not see it as a practicable alternative, to be honest.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

It seems to have merit, be grounded in law and be deserving of attention. I would just add that regarding the care we have to take, for very good historical reasons, in deciding to send soldiers overseas, if nobody did that, the world would probably be a safer place. We have that dilemma. We have a tradition, so it is imprinted in our approach to this, of being able to do that under the Blue Helmets. That has now run up against a roadblock so we are casting around for something else that we can express that through. Unfortunately, the indicators are that the available channels being proposed are fraught with difficulty and so we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To take up Professor Tonra's point, is it practicable?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

Yes, it is. It is practicable in the sense that clearly, as we have seen over Gaza, huge numbers of members of the General Assembly can agree on resolutions and trivial numbers disagree. When we are coming to a decision to send troops overseas, we have to have that level, practically, of global consensus before we do it. That makes sense to me and it is grounded, as I said, in the legislation.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would Mr. Murphy like to comment?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

It may be grounded in legislation but operationally it is not feasible because we do not get control of the UN system by virtue of a resolution of the General Assembly. The UN system involves military headquarters, strategic headquarters, logistics, lift and so on. The General Assembly can vote for something but if the Security Council has not approved it, the General Assembly cannot invoke the institutions of the UN to support a military operation overseas. In practical, military terms, it just does not work.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious of time and that Deputy Callaghan is here now. If she wants to take my time, she may do so.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Clonan for that. I was chairing another meeting, which is why I missed the contributions of our guests. Professor Tonra said in his opening remarks that if we are no longer to rely on the Security Council as the gatekeeper of legitimacy and are finally to remove the veto given to the five permanent members, we must establish robust mechanisms of our own. Does he not think that the Government and the Dáil are robust enough in that context? Does he not think we have robust measures already?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I do but if we are looking for additional guardrails, I have put two ideas on the table.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does he think we need additional guardrails?

Professor Ben Tonra:

No, other countries do not have them. Once the government decides and the parliament authorises, they will send their troops overseas on a particular mission. There is nothing that requires them, but Mr. Noonan has talked about the pressures and the need for guardrails. I am just saying that if we feel we need additional guardrails, those are a couple of options to consider.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They would not be essential.

Professor Ben Tonra:

No, not at all

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There were references to an annual review mechanism that could empower the Dáil to monitor ongoing missions. It is my understanding that there is currently an annual review for UNIFIL. It might not go before the Dáil but certainly the Minister and Department of Defence currently conduct a review.

Professor Ben Tonra:

That is the kind of mechanism that we could expand, for example, to cover all potential missions.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To follow on from Senator Kyne's point about the General Assembly, which was well addressed by Mr. Murphy. Can the General Assembly compel any country to act?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

No.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to go back to the point about our neutrality. I asked this question at the committee last week. If we were to remove the triple lock in its entirety, would we be any less neutral than we currently are?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

The short answer is "No". The two issues are entirely unrelated. They have been conflated but they are entirely unrelated.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would our neutral status change at all?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

Absolutely not.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Mr. Noonan have a comment on that?

Mr. Joe Noonan:

I disagree with that. The position we took in 1960 only to send our troops overseas under the blue helmet reflected a particular world view at the time. To change that now by removing it means that we are changing our world view, changing our relationship and doing it against the backdrop of a proposed scheme which envisages taking the EU lead. We are doing that against the backdrop of assurances officially given that the EU always obeys international law. That is a change to our world view from the times past. In that sense, when we are using this difficult word "neutrality" and when the question is posed as to whether that brings about a change to our neutrality, I would say that it does.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The world we are looking at is changing and I do not necessarily agree that the point Mr. Noonan made does impact on our neutrality.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

We can say that we differ.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It might be said to be a contested space.

I call Senator Clonan for one minute sharp and after that Senator Higgins if everyone is satisfied.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Murphy cited possible concerns over the renewal of the UN Security Council mandate that would have led to a rapid withdrawal from Chad. He talked about having to leave all our bullets, weapons and things behind because of the rainy season and so on. I was on a mission where a rapid evacuation almost happened because we came under sustained attack from the Israelis. Is it not more usual to seek to withdraw our troops for operational reasons? The cancellation of a UN Security Council resolution would be so rare as to be a red herring.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

In the 15 years I was in the job, on a significant number of occasions we were on the cusp of making a decision to withdraw because of a UN Security Council resolution. I never had to consider a situation where we were under attack or as a result of kinetic activity in the area. Therefore, the Senator is not correct.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Mr. Murphy suggesting that my experience did not happen?

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

I am not saying his experience did not happen. In fact, his experience probably predated my arrival in the Department of Defence, as it was then. All I am saying is that in the time when I was policy director, the decision to exit a mission never arose from the operational situation. It always arose in terms of warning orders and whatever, from worries about-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I differ with Mr. Murphy on that. I am concerned about it being mobilised or cited as a reason for dispensing with the triple lock. I also dispute his assertion that there is no link between neutrality and the triple lock and that that is a conflation. In fact, we know that if any future Government can deploy any number of troops anywhere in the world at any time in the future, that absolutely impacts on our neutral status. That is an actual fact. It is not possible assert otherwise without any evidence.

I must also say that the witnesses here today have presented some of the most interesting evidence to the committee and I thank them all. Professor Tonra said that our neutral status is not respected in Europe.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I did not say that.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was asked the question as to whether it was respected or not.

Professor Ben Tonra:

I said it was.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He said that in one sense it was but, in another sense it was not and that people kind of dislike it. I have been on the interparliamentary mission of the OSCE. I am a member of many different academic and military groups in Europe. As a journalist for the last 25 years, I have met many key decision-makers in Europe and in our community. I have never encountered any criticism or disapproval of our neutral status. From time to time I have encountered curiosity. The only thing I have encountered is that people are sometimes surprised at how poorly funded our Defence Forces are and the state they have been allowed to get into through no fault of the personnel. Where is Professor Tonra's evidence for suggesting that our partners in Europe or internationally dislike or disapprove of our neutral status?

Professor Ben Tonra:

I did not use either of the words "dislike" or "disapprove".

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot quite recall the formula of words he used. Where is the evidence for that?

Professor Ben Tonra:

Across the literature, looking at comparative neutrality in the European context, there are many conversations about what neutrality entails and the reasons for that kind of neutrality. The Senator is as familiar with the literature as I am. Particularly when countries look at Ireland, they see Ireland's highly beneficial geostrategic situation, allowing it not to have had to participate in many of the big and tough decisions on European security and defence. That is a privilege we have enjoyed by virtue of our geography. The attitude that one does come across occasionally is that people look at Ireland's position and say it is very easy for us to take that position when others have to make much more difficult choices. Consequently, to stand on a pedestal claiming that neutrality makes Ireland a better country than other countries gives rise to a certain degree of - let us call it - dissatisfaction.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Professor Tonra.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will allow Senator Higgins in for one minute.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Determining international law is one of the core questions and Professor Tonra suggests the Attorney General, for example, or other legal opinion. How important is it to have transparency and make publicly available the international law basis or UN Charter interpretation on which an action is to be taken? While there does not seem to be any recourse in the Bill, what recourse would any of the witnesses suggest there should be where the Oireachtas, a citizen or any other party believes that an action or a deployment is not consistent with international law? The language seems very loose here.

My final point is for Mr. Noonan. Again and again we have been hearing whether the UN protects Irish neutrality. Does Irish neutrality contribute to the protection of the UN and international law and to credibility? I note that Mr. Noonan has very concrete ways in which he believes we can have a particular credible role when it comes to international law and the UN. For me, that is the core of neutrality.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will just allow that to be answered.

Mr. Joe Noonan:

As I mentioned earlier, we sometimes underestimate the quality and potential of Ireland's role. The world as it is is looking for alternative models. I think the old ways are going. They are seen as destructive and self-destructive. We need to build on what we have. In my paper I quote Michèle Griffin from a conference in Dublin Castle a few years ago. In answer to the question as to what the real threats were, she shocked everybody by saying that to billions of people the real threats are climate change and gender-based violence. How do we shape the entirety of our society, not just our military, to counter those threats? We really need to question the in-built assumptions and silo-based thinking that we bring to bear on too many problems.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do any of the other witnesses want to address anything else?

Professor Ben Tonra:

That is a genuine issue, which is why I suggest using either the Attorney General or independent counsel. I know there is an issue in terms of the Oireachtas having independent legal advice. I would encourage the committee members to investigate that. It would be a useful to their considerations in looking at a mission.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would need to be publicly available.

Professor Ben Tonra:

Absolutely.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will give the last word to Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Ciarán Murphy:

The criteria are set down in the Bill. Obviously, anybody can challenge whether the mission meets those criteria. Governments have previously published legal advice and offered legal advice to Members of the Oireachtas. In this case that is potentially available to do again, but it would be a matter for the government of the day.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the committee, I again thank the Professor Tonra, Mr. Noonan and Mr. Murphy for giving their time this morning. I also thank them for the material which was circulated to the committee members in advance of today's meeting.