Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Tuesday, 1 July 2025
Committee on Defence and National Security
General Scheme of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025: Discussion (Resumed)
2:00 am
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No apologies have been received.
The joint committee is continuing its pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of defence (amendment) Bill 2025. I welcome on behalf of the committee Ms Maureen O'Brien, retired major general, DSM; Mr. Kieran Brennan, retired major general; Mr. Colm Doyle, retired colonel; and Dr. Cathal Berry. The format of the meeting is that I will invite each witness to make an opening statement, which is to be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has a seven-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 to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams to confirm formally prior to making a contribution to the meeting that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.
Both members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if statements are potentially defamatory regarding an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that any such direction be complied with.
I wish to explain to witnesses some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references they may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses participating in this committee session from a jurisdiction outside the State will already have been advised that they should also be mindful of their domestic law and how it may apply to the evidence they give. Their decision as to whether to take legal advice in relation to the evidence they propose to give should also have been informed by this. One of this morning's witnesses is giving evidence remotely from a place outside the parliamentary precincts and the State and as such may not benefit from immunity from legal proceedings at the same level as a witness physically present. The witness has been advised that they may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.
Finally, as the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting.
I invite Ms O'Brien to make her opening statement, which will be followed by statements by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Doyle and, finally, Dr. Cathal Berry.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the joint committee for the invitation to speak at this very important pre-legislative scrutiny of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025. Although I am currently the president of the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers, I speak today as a private citizen not representing that association.
In October 2023, I retired from the Defence Forces having proudly served my country for 42 years. It might have been longer, had the Defence Forces been open to women when I left school. I later joined the Óglaigh na hÉireann in 1981 having completed a BSc and HDip in education from UCG, now the University of Galway.
At home in the Defence Forces I served as a platoon commander, which is a commander in charge of approximately 30 people, a unit commander who was in charge of a small unit of 100 or 120 people, and a battalion commander which could mean being in charge of a group of up to 600 people which would include Reserve personnel. I have also worked as a staff officer in planning, operations and training.
I deployed overseas a total of nine times, eight with the United Nations and once with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I served in UNIFIL Lebanon three times, in Western Sahara as a military observer, in East Timor in the operations cell, in Chad as the deputy battalion commander, UN Disengagement Force, UNDOF, in Syria's Golan area as the acting force commander, and finally in the UN headquarters in New York as the deputy military adviser to the USG Peace Operations.
I will concentrate my comments on the my final two deployments. That is the acting force commander with , UNDOF, and my appointment as deputy military adviser to the UN.
As acting force commander, I lead a multinational force of 1,100 troops, under UN Security Council Resolution 350, which mandated us to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria, observe the disengagement of Syrian and Israeli forces, and supervise the areas of separation and limitation in accordance with the May 1974 agreement on disengagement. We did this by staffing camps from which our personnel could observe their area of responsibility through patrolling, mine clearance and engagement with the local population. As commander, I liaised with my Syrian and Israeli counterparts, protested any violations of the agreement to the relevant party and reported these violations to UN headquarters, subsequently. In all my dealings with the parties impartiality was essential. This impartiality was tested at times but, ultimately, my role as commander and the role of my personnel was well respected because of this open and healthy relationship that I had built.
In 2021, having been nominated by Ireland, I successfully competed for the appointment of deputy military adviser to the Under-Secretary-General, USG, for Peace Operations in the UN headquarters in New York. The Office of Military Affairs, which is where I was situated, with fewer than 90 staff from 41 different nations, is responsible for the following: the force generation tor all missions; the military planning for new missions and changes to the configuration of existing missions; monitoring the current operations; assessing the military performance of troop contributing countries; and policy and doctrine. There were 65,000 military personnel deployed at that time in 12 peacekeeping missions. After Covid restrictions were downgraded, I visited every UN mission, not only the headquarters but also the observation posts many hundreds of miles away from the headquarters, where some of personnel lived in difficult conditions. However, wherever I went it was clear that the local civilians valued the safety and security provided by the personnel in our UN observation posts, even setting up their own camps beside them.
In the context of this committee's discussions, there is one point I want to bring to its attention. When a troop-contributing country, TCC, is selected to deploy to a mission, it must sign what we call a statement of unit requirements. This is a contractual agreement for the finances involved but also lays out the conditions of their deployment, for example, the detail of their physical deployment, the types of equipment that they must bring and so on. It is also an opportunity to declare caveats, if any, that that TCC may have regarding its operations, based on its national military doctrine, for example.
In the case of Ireland, we are very clear that military command and control of an Irish unit remains with the Irish commander at all times. This caveat is notified to the force commander so that she or he is fully aware of the restrictions involved, which may limit her or his operational flexibility. Declared national caveats are not uncommon. However, it is the undeclared caveats which arise in the mission at critical times which are of more concern to the force commander and the office of military affairs. The requirement for Irish military personnel to be under the command and control of an Irish commander is enshrined in the Defence Act and therefore is applicable to any military deployment, not just UN missions. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. I am happy to answer any questions that may help members in their subsequent deliberations.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for their invitation to attend here this morning, and I hope the experiences that I have and share with them will be of interest to them as they deliberate on this very important issue as it impacts the Defence Forces and indeed the wider country. Since my retirement from the Defence Forces, I have become involved in a number of different organisations and I am particularly proud of the fact that I am currently the honorary president of the United Nations Veterans Association. Today in the committee's presence, I wish to acknowledge the outstanding service these veterans have given the State, both at home and abroad. I am delighted to be joined by two distinguished veterans here, to my right and my left. Like Maureen, I want to emphasise that I am here in a private capacity and not representing any organisation.
I joined the Defence Forces on 10 November 1975 and retired on 19 June 2019 after completing close to 44 years of service to the State, both at home and abroad. During that period, the Defence Forces changed considerably. For example, in 1975, the Defence Forces had no armed peacekeepers overseas, mainly due to the ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland, nor had we many of the safeguards currently in place in the Defence Forces to ensure compliance with best human resource management, HRM, practice. In the intervening years I have been witness to the many reviews, reorganisations, downsizing and so on of the Defence Forces. In 2012, the Government directed a further major reorganisation of the Defence Forces. The implementation process impacted many personnel within the organisation, which is still dealing with the many challenges, both from a Reserve and permanent perspective, that that downsizing and Government decision created.
As a serving officer, I had the privilege of commanding at all levels of the Defence Forces from platoon to brigade level, the latter for a nine-month period as general officer commanding 1 Brigade, when we had a total strength of approximately 2,500 personnel. I also accumulated significant experience in the HRM arena during my service at battalion and brigade level and as director of J1 Branch, which is effectively the HRM branch of Defence Forces Headquarters, DFHQ, particularly at a time of huge change for the Defence Forces in 2012 to 2014. All these experiences, coupled with my overseas service, helped greatly when I was appointed deputy chief of staff for operations on 15 June 2015.
During my service in the Defence Forces I always endeavoured to put the best interests of the soldiers, sailors and aircrew, whom I commanded and had responsibility for, at the centre of all my decision-making. These decisions were always grounded in the Defence Act and Defence Forces regulations, any changes to which are the preserve of the Department of Defence and Minister for Defence. It is unfortunate that the public, including decision-makers, politicians, media, NGOs, and so on, do not understand that the actions of decision-makers in the Defence Forces are constrained by the contents of the aforementioned documents and in that context the proposed amendments contained in Part 4 of the Bill are to be welcomed.
Overseas deployments are a key component of military service. The current debate in regard to the triple lock has significant implications for the provision of Irish peacekeepers. Overseas, I have the unique experience of commanding troops under UN command in Lebanon, NATO Partnership for Peace command in Kosovo and EU command in Chad. I also had the experience of working with OSCE in a political-military role in Vienna. All these troop deployments had one thing in common: the lives, safety and well-being of the local people, international aid workers and NGO workers in the area of operations was significantly enhanced by the presence of Irish peacekeepers.
I would like to reflect on my experiences of commanding, in 2008-09, a multinational battalion in Chad consisting of Irish, Dutch and French troops, amounting to about 500 in total. During this deployment, we had to deal with a very difficult security situation and significant environmental and logistical challenges given our location was 800 km from the capital, N'Djamena, where all our supplies came from. Owing to large-scale conflict in neighbouring Darfur, which is in north-west Sudan, a significant number of Sudanese refugees had entered Chad and were living in very difficult circumstance within my area of operation. In addition, many thousands of Chadians had been displaced from border regions because of the conflict. We were deployed under a UN mandate to, among other things, enhance the security environment for the local population and all key actors in the area. This we did faithfully, allowing the 18,000 refugees in Djabal refugee camp, adjacent to Goz Beida, the nearest town to our camp, to live securely and safely. It gave the local population, particularly women who had faced many challenges, particularly sexual exploitation, the opportunity to live as normal a life as was possible under the circumstances. Our presence prevented local militia and criminal gangs from kidnapping young boys and inducting them into their ranks as boy soldiers. With a Kalashnikov in hand, they would have become a serious threat to our peacekeepers. Suffice it to say I could continue to list the benefits of our presence there but time does not permit it. I have no doubt our presence and that of our follow-on colleagues both saved and enhanced people's lives.
If no UN Security Council resolution had been adopted for this deployment, Irish troops would not have been deployed to Chad and the many benefits outlined above would have been lost to all stakeholders. Therein for me sits the moral dilemma facing this State, and indeed the committee in its deliberations: do we stand on principle and say "No" to overseas deployments unless there is an UN Security Council resolution, because of its supposed impacts on our neutral status, or do we adopt a position whereby the saving and enhancement of people's lives trump all else? For Chad in 2008, today we can substitute Gaza, Ukraine and the Congo, which are all crying out desperately for international intervention. With a dysfunctional UN Security Council, are we destined to remain on the sidelines expecting others to intervene on our behalf? Accordingly, I support the proposals in this Bill. I thank the members for their time and look forward to their questions.
Mr. Colm Doyle:
I thank the committee members for inviting me to address them today on issues contained in the Bill. Having served with our Defence Forces for 43 years, I have witnessed some dramatic changes over the period, both at home and on overseas peacekeeping operations.
On the home front, I have been a platoon, company and battalion commander, the director of public relations for the Defence Forces, the director of Reserve forces and commandant of the Military College. Abroad, I served in Cyprus and was a military observer in the Middle East for two years. In 1978, I served with the first Irish unit in Lebanon, where I returned as a battalion commander in 1997. The latter was memorable because of the visit of the then Uachtarán, Dr. Mary McAleese. I served with the European Union in Bosnia as the head of mission in 1991 and 1992. I was then selected as the special representative to Lord Peter Carrington, chairman of the international peace conference on Yugoslavia. My final overseas appointment was as chief of staff of the military division at UN headquarters in New York from 2004 to 2006.
I testified as a prosecution witness at the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague between 1995 and 2013, including at the trials of Serbian president Slobodan Miloševi; the leader of the Bosnia Serbs, Radovan Karadži; and General Ratko Mladi. My Bosnian experience was the subject of a memoir I wrote entitled Witness to War Crimes, which was published in 2018.
Overseas service is the strongest incentive for our young people joining the Defence Forces. Without the opportunity of serving abroad, the challenge of recruitment is all the more difficult. We have been serving overseas for a long time and are pretty good at it. As chief of staff of the military division at UN headquarters in New York, I received so many compliments from ambassadors and diplomats on the professionalism and humanity of Irish UN peacekeepers.
Irish participation in UN operations represents the longest unbroken record of any nation in the world. The building and maintenance of a strong and effective UN has formed a key objective of Irish foreign policy within which peacekeeping operations have come to play a central role. Ireland’s tradition of active membership of the United Nations and its willingness to contribute professional troops, assisted in establishing a peacekeeping tradition of which the nation can be justifiably proud. For a country of its size and resources, Ireland’s contribution to peacekeeping has been both substantial and quite remarkable. Each year when the Taoiseach addresses the UN General Assembly, the words spoken are reinforced by the knowledge that somewhere across the globe Irish troops are contributing to the work of peace, which is a noble attribute for such a small country.
On the subject of the triple lock and its retention or amendment, which has become politically emotive, I find myself very surprised. That this is in some way being described as a threat to our military neutrality is greatly misjudged and I do not support those opposing the measure. The UN veto system reflects the realities of global power dynamics but it also leads to deadlock in situations where the interests of the permanent five members conflict. As a result, the Security Council is often unable to act decisively in conflicts where one or more permanent members have geopolitical interests at stake. This illustrates one of the main flaws of the Security Council, which is that Ireland’s involvement in international peacekeeping can effectively be held hostage by the use of, or the threat of the use of, a veto by any one of the permanent five members. This requires a more flexible approach to overseas deployments. Surely we have the confidence, maturity and political experience to make our own decisions for Ireland’s overseas policy to evolve in response.
As to the argument that the General Assembly might be an alternative to the Security Council on sanctioning peacekeeping operations, only the Security Council has the power to pass binding resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which members are legally obligated to implement. As such, it holds a unique position as the only body with the legal authority to enforce its decisions on all UN member states. The General Assembly’s resolutions are non-binding, meaning that they serve as recommendations only, rather than obligations. This limitation means that while the General Assembly can influence global opinion, it does not have the legal authority to enforce its decisions as does the Security Council. Go raibh míle maith agaibh. I thank the committee members for their attention.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I invite Dr. Berry to make his contribution.
There is a problem. He can hear us okay I take it, but we cannot hear him at all. We will suspend for five minutes because it is very important we hear Dr. Berry's contribution. We need to sort out the technical difficulties.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
I thank committee members for their kind invitation to be part of the delegation of former Defence Forces personnel to discuss the operational implications of the Bill.
I welcome the emerging consensus to formally add three new Defence Forces taskings for national operations overseas, namely, evacuation operations, counter-narcotic operations and close protection duties for diplomatic missions. Furthermore, the increase in the threshold of troops that can be deployed by government decision from 12 to 50 is both important and timely. In the next six months, the Air Corps will receive two new aircraft that can accommodate 19 and 66 passengers, respectively. This legal clarity, combined with these new acquisitions, will facilitate the rapid deployment of high readiness Irish troops when appropriate. This is a routine military capability which has long been advocated for by Ireland’s defence community.
Turning to the triple lock, I recognise and respect the diverse views that have been articulated to date. As discussed at last week’s hearing, the original purpose of the triple lock was to give Dublin a veto over New York, not to give New York a veto over Dublin. Over time we have lost sight of this fact. We should also remember the Soviet Union vetoed Irish membership of the United Nations for a decade until 1955. This was a punishment for our neutrality in the Second World War. It reveals how the P5 veto can be abused for national self-interest or indeed, in this case, used as a tool for targeted retribution. Ireland should reassert the primacy of Dáil Eireann for the deployment of Irish troops overseas as per our Bunreacht. No other country, whether neutral or otherwise, uses our triple lock mechanism, and for very good reason. The deployment of troops overseas is a national competence and therefore the exclusive preserve of national parliaments. That said, many national parliaments have regard for the existence or absence of a UN Security Council resolution and this forms the basis of the national parliamentary debate prior to any proposed deployment.
It is international best practice that the appropriate checks and balances on the decision-making process for potential deployments exist at a national level. For instance, in Ireland’s case, coalition Governments have already added an additional layer of safeguarding to the first lock when compared with the single-party Government of 1960. Furthermore, this newly established cross-party committee could be tasked with forensically scrutinising the viability of any proposed new mission and report its findings prior to a formal Dáil debate. This would add additional safeguarding to the second lock, as would the potential publication of the Attorney General’s formal advice on the matter.
It is of particular note that the mandate for the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon expires on 31 August, which is only a few weeks from now. Its renewal is by no means assured due to a potential American veto. As Irish law currently stands, Irish troops would have to immediately depart the UNIFIL mission should the mandate not be renewed. Meanwhile, other troop-contributing nations may decide to remain in a different capacity, under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter for instance, with the consent of the host nation of Lebanon.
Turning to human resource matters, I welcome the Bill’s proposal to provide powers of suspension to the Chief of Staff under certain circumstances. While I agree with the principle of the proposal, my support is conditional on appropriate safeguarding being applied to ensure natural justice and the protection of the good name and well-being of those involved.
I very much look forward to members' questions.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Dr. Berry. I invite members to contribute. Each will have seven minutes. I have the speaking list and it starts with Senator Craughwell, followed by Deputy Ó Laoghaire.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Cathaoirleach. I welcome the witnesses. It is an honour to have people with such distinguished military backgrounds before us. I particularly welcome former Major General O'Brien, who was the highest-ranking female officer in the Defence Forces. She is from the west of Ireland as well, which is not too bad.
Mr. Doyle gave us a view of the triple lock. All four witnesses have served oversea. During that service, has the question of the triple lock ever occurred for any other force from any other country anywhere in the world?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Do any of the witnesses see it as in any way undermining the sovereignty of our nation?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I concur with what Colonel Doyle said. I never came across a situation where any civilian in Kosovo or Chad, or an NGO worker, asked what was our status in respect of our service in the country. Their only interest was being provided with the protection they so desperately needed. I never came across any situation where that became an issue for any of the local population.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
I would like to come in on that as well. Does it dilute our sovereignty? It absolutely does. We are a democratic country and we are taking some of the democratic power we have in Dublin and giving it to kings, queens, authoritarian rulers and wannabe dictators all over the world. It dilutes our sovereignty, but it also undermines the United Nations. The triple lock does not support the United Nations and actually undermines it. Chapter VIII of the UN Charter is very specific that under Article 52 it not only permits but encourages regional entities to conduct peacekeeping operations. Ireland is a signatory to the UN Charter and on that basis we are obligated to uphold its provisions, but the triple lock undermines Chapter VIII, so there is incongruity there. I hope that answers the Senator's question. It dilutes Irish sovereignty and also undermines the UN Charter and by extension the United Nations itself.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Dr. Berry. What does Ms O'Brien think?
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
I agree. When I was in New York and selecting from the 119 troop-contributing countries, whether they were neutral or needed, a triple lock was never a consideration. It is not something we were concerned about. That is a national issue. On increasing our sovereignty, the triple lock decreases it. We are dependent on five countries telling us whether we can deploy. That reduces our sovereignty and perhaps our neutrality as well.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms O'Brien. I have two questions on the points made by Dr. Berry about evacuation operations, counter-narcotic operations and diplomatic missions. Decisions in these areas are usually made at very notice. As an example, I am delighted our Naval Service captured €30 million worth of drugs today. All the witnesses have commanded. To make a decision to deploy for a drug interdiction or for that matter getting people out of Kabul and out of the way of serious harm quickly, if the triple lock applies and all we can send is 12 troops, what impediment does a commander experience when only being able to send that number?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
Can I add to that? Within the military framework we have a structure stretching from section to platoon to company. People are trained to operate within that structure. A figure of 12 seems to be pulled out of the air. In regard to the minimum figure we would need for any kind of operation, for example Kabul was a platoon-level operation with supporting elements. That is where I see the wisdom of inserting that particular stipulation of up to 50 people, at the discretion of the Government, to deal with issues, even a simple thing like a sporting fixture. A number of years ago we had to try to get a hurling team to play a hurling match in London and we had to go through hoops to get the team to London because of this figure of 12. It impacts not just on operational matters but on social and sporting matters.
Mr. Colm Doyle:
If you talk about figures, when we talk about a platoon it is the smallest military unit we normally have and consists of 34, 35 or 36. When we talk about a figure of 12 it has to be borne in mind that for those 12, a certain amount of back-up will be needed. What type of transport will be used? What security will be provided? Of the 12, only a fraction of those would be operational because the others would be in an administrative or support capacity. The figure of 50 is the figure that is reckoned. If we send a platoon some place the entire package has to be more than the strength of that platoon. It is reckoned that a platoon of 35 with a back-up of another to make up a total of 50 sounds very reasonable to me, as a soldier.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Because my time is limited I want to ask Dr. Berry about the other parts of the Bill because we will not get a chance to hear from him again. Dr. Berry adverted to suspensions and courts martial in his report. Will he expand on that a little?
Dr. Cathal Berry:
I am in favour of the principle of powers of suspension to be granted to the Chief of Staff, just like the Garda Commissioner but the safeguards have to be in place to ensure the principles of natural justice and looking after the well-being of anyone who is suspended apply. That is my answer to that question.
I will comment on the figure of 12. If there is a rescue operation to be launched, bear in mind the crew of an Air Corps aircraft could be four or five so realistically there might only be five or six of them to actually do the job so it is completely restricted. It would be like telling the fire brigade we can only send 12 firefighters to put out a fire.
The Senator's very first question was about whether the triple lock dilutes Ireland's sovereignty. The triple lock is a type of mechanism that a colony would have to request permission from an outside power to conduct an activity. It is not the type of mechanism that a sovereign, independent, democratic state would have.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go raibh maith agaibh. First, I thank the witnesses for their service over many years. While I do not agree with everything contained in their statements their contributions were very considerable and quite remarkable. They have clearly led very distinguished careers and the committee is very grateful.
There is a bit of a talking point, more generally, about whether the triple lock is or is not a threat to neutrality. Some people have tried to dismiss this entirely and say the triple lock is irrelevant to military neutrality. That is very clearly not the case. The triple lock is legislation that governs the deployment of troops into the future. It is a different statement to say that ultimately the triple lock is not a threat because that is a question of whether in the final estimation of the institutions, the decisions are taken and so on.
I do think it is valid to suggest that it is not the removal of the triple lock. If the triple lock was to be removed in the morning, Irish neutrality would occupy much the same place. The issue is the question of what missions could conceivably then be deployed and what implications would the deployment of such missions have for military neutrality. It is not the action itself, it is the door it opens. It was made very clear by officials from the Department of Defence that had there not been a triple lock and had not the Government of the time been so-minded - and they were not so-minded, obviously - to deploy troops to Iraq, for example, it would have been possible to do so. It is very clear that there is a very wide scope to this.
Even people who have supported the removal of the triple lock on this committee, such as Professor Ben Tonra and Dr. Edward Burke, have suggested that even with the removal of the triple lock, they would be concerned there are not adequate safeguards. For example, the figure of 50 is not subject to enough scrutiny. Professor Tonra made the point, which I think is interesting, that missions can change in scope and nature. Consequently, if there is no potential for review of the permission further down the line, once given, the nature of the mission could potentially change. Even though I accept the witnesses all support removing the triple lock, do they have any reservations about the lack of safeguards? For example, some people suggested legal review and different forms of scrutiny in the absence of the triple lock protection.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I thank the Deputy for his comments at the start of his contribution. I will reflect on what he is saying. I understand his point of view and that there are different views in respect of this issue. Yesterday, I googled conflicts since 1958 since Ireland first deployed troops overseas. There have been approximately 120 conflicts in the world between 1958 and 2002 and during that time the Irish Government exercised its authority in a number of cases and sent troops overseas. Following the introduction of the triple lock, there have been a number of other conflicts. I sincerely believe a mature government will continue to exercise good decision-making with regard to the deployment of troops overseas. I will also make a point about the actual-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious of my time. We are not guaranteed to always have a mature government. I make that point and we have to think of that when we make legislation. Does Mr. Brennan have any reservations, even if he favours the removal of the triple lock? Some people have expressed concerns about the lack of safeguards.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
No because I see in the Bill itself that:
the International Force will be mandated to operate for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and/or strengthening international security, in accordance with international law and consistent with the principles of the United Nations...
It is written in the Bill, so it is in black and white. To answer the Deputy's question, no, I have no reservations.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will come to Ms O'Brien in a second. I would also say the people who would be the arbiters of that are the self-same people who will be proposing to deploy troops.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
The Government decides whether we will go or not. Having the triple lock actually allows other people to open and close that door. We decide. I have absolutely no fear the Government will decide, in accordance with what Mr. Brennan has just said, that is, the checks and balances we have there.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms O'Brien.
Mr. Colm Doyle:
I think there is no reason the Government cannot arrange a review of any existing peacekeeping mission to ensure it aligns with the UN Charter and international law. That was mentioned by Professor Tonra and I would be in agreement with him. I could not see any great objection to checks and balances being put in place. Maybe the Attorney General could be brought into this. If it safeguards what we have, I see no reason there would be an objection to it.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could that be considered fruitfully by this committee in the context of legislation?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Doyle. It is great to see our former colleague, Cathal Berry. Does he have anything to add?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Berry is having technical difficulties again so we will leave that answer for the moment. I do not think he can hear us.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not sure what I will do for the 40 seconds. I have a question for Ms O'Brien. Heads 6 and 7 of the Bill are quite different. It is interesting in that head 6 relates to deployment as part of an international force but it is actually head 7 that relates to some of the issues that have caused the most frustration and they are ones that I am very sympathetic to. There is probably consensus on that in this committee in relation to issues of drug interdiction and missions such as the aforementioned hurling situation.
Others have already commented in the past that perhaps there was an overly legalistic interpretation of the legislation heretofore. We will take, for example, drug interdiction. In what respect, in Ms O'Brien's experience, has the legislation constrained Irish troops? It seems from the draft legislation that it is not the triple lock per sebut perhaps other issues in the Defence Acts that have prevented participation in missions.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I remind the Deputy of the time.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Am I correct though that the 12 does not apply if it is not part of an international force? The 12 applies to the deployment in the context of international forces. Head 7 refers to deployments other than in international forces. That would apply in humanitarian evacuation and drug interdiction so the number of 12 should not apply in these instances.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I remind the Deputy of his time but it is a very important question because it-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apologies. I had not been expecting to get another opportunity. I wonder are we conflating two different parts of the proposed legislation and that in the past, perhaps because of issues with drafting of legislation, missions have been prevented by reasons other than by triple lock.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
Back in 2015, we mounted a rescue mission to the Mediterranean initiated by the then Government to rescue migrants who were crossing across. This was a bilateral agreement with the Italian Government and the Maltese for logistical support. That was an example where the Irish Government took an initiative in saving human lives - thousands of people. My recollection is that the Naval Service, at that juncture, under Operation Pontus saved about 80. That is an example where the Government made a decision to use the Naval Service in a humanitarian role and the figure of 12 did not come into the equation. That is it, sorry.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will have to cut off with that but ask for one clarification. Were there no restrictions on the number that could go there?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
There was no UN Security restrictions. Very briefly, as DCOS, I was not terribly happy about that. We eventually morphed into Operation Sophia, which gave it a more legalistic framework to operate in that environment, although the humanitarian part of the mission was taken out of it.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Brennan. I call Senator Robbie Gallagher followed by Deputy Duncan Smith.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome all the witnesses. I thank them all sincerely for long and distinguished service on behalf of the State. It is good to see our former colleague, Dr. Cathal Berry, on the call as well.
I have a question in general terms to all the witnesses. Regarding this current debate on the triple lock, has there been a build up to the point where we are now having this conversation? Have they, during their active service, highlighted the problem as regards deployment of personnel abroad? The first deployment was 1958. Has there been many instances when, in an ideal world, we should have been deploying personnel but because we could not get the five security members to sign off on it, it did not happen?
Mr. Colm Doyle:
I have been making out some notes. The UN Security Council has not authorised a new peacekeeping operation in over a decade. Fifty-six draft resolutions have also been vetoed by the council since 2001. All of those were not necessarily on peacekeeping operations but it does show that the permanent members are a very emotive issue. To get a change in the permanent membership of the United Nations, you have to get the agreement of those permanent members to come off the permanent member list, and none of the five are going to do that. If we see what has happened with Russia and what happens with America, there is great concern within the Defence Forces currently over the mandate for Lebanon. There is no guarantee the Americans will not move on the current permanent mission authority it has, particularly given that - whether we like it or not - it is a supporter of Israel.
There is a slight dilemma there. I do not want to go into specifics or name names but it is an issue of concern. I am sure as we sit here that there are a lot of members of the Defence Forces who are very nervous that they may not get a chance to serve in the largest operation we have, which is Lebanon, because some country that has the veto will use it for internal, selfish political motives. That is a threat and a concern for the Defence Forces.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
To add to that, the framework for choosing to participate is a Government or policy decision and the military's role in all of this is to operationalise that policy decision. The missions the Defence Forces have undertaken since 1958 have been Government-directed and then operated by the Defence Forces. There was one mission to Macedonia early in the noughties in which Ireland were interesting in participating and it was vetoed by the Chinese Government. That was the only one that I know we were interested in going to but because of that veto we could not go.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
To answer the Senator's question, for all missions between 1946 and 1955, Ireland's involvement was vetoed due to the Russian veto. The Russian, or the Soviet veto I should say more accurately, did not just prevent Ireland participating in missions; it prevented Ireland from even being a member of the United Nations. Any mission that occurred between 1946 and 1955 was vetoed from Ireland's perspective and we could not participate.
I thank Deputy Ó Laoghaire for his very thoughtful contributions over the past few weeks. They have been excellent. To answer his questions about safeguarding, one layer of safeguarding that has yet to be mentioned is the quality of our military commanders. Military commanders in Ireland will only obey lawful orders. If an order is given by the government of the day that it is illegal, then the military will not obey it. Their loyalty is to the Constitution and the law, not to the government of the day.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On the issue some of the witnesses mentioned regarding the attractiveness of serving abroad to the members of the Defence Forces, I assume the percentage of those who would wish to serve abroad is quite high. I do not know how they feel about the Security Council. Has it gone past its sell-by date basically? Has it gone beyond repair at this point? People are trying to envisage what a new situation might look like. Are there concerns or fears regarding the welfare of troops going abroad to a particular situation because we would not have that UN Security Council five members signing off on it? Is that of concern?
Mr. Colm Doyle:
One of the great advantages Ireland has is that we are highly regarded internationally for our peacekeeping operations. When I mentioned at the outset that Ireland has the longest unbroken service with the United Nations of any country of the world, that is an incredible record. The great incentive for a soldier is a change to serve abroad because it gives them an opportunity to carry the weapon all the time, to work with fellow soldiers from other nations and it improves the lot of the particular soldier that he has this opportunity. Up to now, with the situation in Northern Ireland, we have already had this huge mission of support for the civil authority. That does not happen in most other countries. However, if you take most of the countries that have been involved in service in part of their commonwealth or whatever you want to call it, that gives them their incentive. We have not had that, so our only experience abroad has been in peacekeeping operations and that is one of the reason we have been pretty good at it. The reputation we have among the world community that is familiar with it means people are envious of the record of the Irish Defence Forces. When I was in New York for two and a half years, anytime I wore the Irish uniform I had a shiver up my back because I was so proud of the reputation and the remarks we were getting for our peacekeeping.
The first thing a young soldier wants when he is trained is the chance to serve abroad.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
It is also hugely important, from an overseas perspective, for identifying gaps in our military capability and developing those capabilities to bring forward for future missions. It also benchmarks our capability in the area of training and education for leadership and develops junior leaders to become senior commanders.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Duncan Smith is next, followed by Senator Seán Kyne.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Chair and warmly welcome all the witnesses. Their depth of experience is not only their service to the State, which is unbelievable, but also in peacekeeping and within United Nations. It gives a very different flavour to this particular group of witnesses which is much needed in this committee.
There is a deep sense of pride, as Mr. Doyle said with regard to the shiver up the spine and that unbroken tradition with UN peacekeeping missions. We are at this point because there is a belief that the UN Security Council is paralysed and the ability to deploy a UN mandated mission in the future is now in great jeopardy. In fact, it is the case. If Ireland is to continue peacekeeping, what mandate do the witnesses envisage future Irish peacekeeping missions taking place? Is it through the European Union or a so-called coalition of the willing? What does the next 20, 30, 40 years of Irish peacekeeping look like if the UN remains paralysed at Security Council level?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I have experience of working under NATO command in NATO Partnership for Peace in Kosovo which was a really fulfilling experience not just for myself and my troop but also for the people of Kosovo. I also operated under European Union command in Chad, as did Dr. Berry, as a distinguished member of the Army ranger wing.
To answer the Deputy's question, those two regional organisations meet the benchmark laid down in this legislation in respect of all the requirements. We would participate in missions under the auspices of those two organisations and possibly one or two others, such as the African Union. I am basing my answer in the context of there being no Security Council resolution. That is where I see our future lies but again, I am conscious people have reservations about this and there would be safeguards put in place in respect of that deployment.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
I agree with that. We have a history of operating in those areas. We train in war fighting but we do peacekeeping. It is important to understand that sometimes our peacekeeping missions can be very kinetic and difficult and, therefore, it is awfully important we retain that training and understand we can switch between both. It is more difficult to be war fighting and then step down to peacekeeping.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Berry wanted to come in.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
I thank the Deputy for his great question. It is very important to note a UN Security Council resolution is desirable - that is absolutely the case - but we must also live in reality. I will give a specific example. As I said in my opening statement, in eight weeks there may not be a UN mandate for the consent of the mission in Lebanon. Ireland will be the only country as part of the two contributing countries in that mission that would have to legally withdraw. For all the other countries it will be a political decision but for Ireland alone it will be a legal requirement. The other countries could stay under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter but unfortunately, because of the triple lock, Ireland cannot. That would be a catastrophic event in the history of Irish peacekeeping. We would have no contingent overseas and the only reason this would occur is because of the triple lock.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Those of us concerned about the removal of the triple lock hold that concern because of our love and desire for the United Nations, in general, to be the only global multilateral organisation, albeit the UN Security Council is paralysed and is the only legal entity that can give assent to missions. The witnesses say the future for us looks like deploying peacekeeping through NATO or the European Union with maybe the African Union or other regional groups.
This would be a cause of huge concern because the guardrails and safeguards we have had traditionally and are used to regarding the United Nations would not be there. NATO, in particular, would be of huge concern to the majority of Irish people. They understand we are not politically neutral and we have alignments, and understand and support our being in the European Union but would have strong resonant reactions to NATO and NATO missions. I understand the difference between NATO training missions but NATO-led peacekeeping missions would be a different thing.
Those of us talking about the UN General Assembly resolution perfectly understand, and always have, that it is not legally binding but in this desperate situation where we are looking at having a triple lock or no triple lock, having some kind of guardrail would be good. Does Mr. Doyle agree an assent from a UN Security Council resolution is desirable in respect of keeping that link with the UN, even if the mission was composed of other states and not under the UN Security Council? For us, with our proud history in the United Nations, it would be important to at least have that to provide some kind of guardrail or safeguard. It would be something the government of the day could point to and say the UN General Assembly gives its assent to this mission in Chad or Bosnia or Ukraine or wherever.
Mr. Colm Doyle:
We are, however, talking about a situation where that is under threat and we must be mature and independent enough to be able to make our own decisions with as much support as we can. If the General Assembly was given the authority to sanction a peacekeeping mission without going to the Security Council, that would be fine.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The assembly will not have the authority. It is not about being mature or immature. Everyone on this committee, whether they are for or against the triple lock, understands the changing nature of international security. My concern is the United Nations is very weak at present. This panel has huge experience, more than anyone here, in dealing with the United Nations, both operationally and also at HQ level. I am concerned if we turn our back on the UN, what we are offering here is still pretty weak and it is not desirable when we wish for a Security Council resolution but we are not going get that. Would a motion to the General Assembly give us something that would not impact too much operationally? Would it at least give us something to maintain that link to the UN?
Mr. Colm Doyle:
All the recommendations of solutions coming out of the General Assembly look for support. There is currently nothing binding about a resolution passed by the General Assembly as it stands. The only resolution that is currently legally binding is the UN Security Council and until that is changed, we are never sure who will vote "Yes" and who will vote "No". It is a reality we must face and I am not too sure there is an alternative. If there was an alternative within the General Assembly that we could latch onto that would solve the problem, fine, but if there is not one there, we have a dilemma.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would Ireland bring a motion forward saying we want to support, let us say, the EU-led peacekeeping mission to Ukraine? If we brought a motion to the General Assembly and it is passed there, at least that would give us an assent. We could pass it in the General Assembly-----
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It would not be legally binding but just for us in this building, it is something for us to latch on to. It would be a triple lock.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will move on to Senator Kyne. Mr. Berry might address that point in one of the other questions. I call Senator Kyne, followed by Deputy Eamon Scanlon.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Chair and all the witnesses for presenting here this morning. I thank them for their service both here and abroad as well as the UN.
I have a similar line of questioning to the previous speaker and others. Going back to the heading level of the Bill, which refers to an international force, this would still include UN-led or organised missions and missions led or organised by, for example, the OSCE, EU and all the regional arrangements, once they operate in a manner consistent with the United Nations Charter and international law.
In the absence of a UN vote of any type, how do we decide this? It goes back to the issue of the safeguards. Dr. Berry mentioned this committee having a role. Professor Tonra mentioned the Attorney General's advice or even legal independent advice. There are also the Dáil and Government as the main safeguards. Are there any other safeguards or methods that could provide comfort that a mission is within the UN Charter?
Dr. Cathal Berry:
The Attorney General's advice to the Government is an important layer. As I mentioned previously, the ultimate safeguard is the judgement of our military commanders who will only operate within the law. Deputy Smith asked if there was anything we could point to and I would say Article 52 of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. It is as though the authors of the charter almost predicted this deadlock in the Security Council. Article 52 authorises regional entities such as the EU and the OSCE to conduct peacekeeping operations without UN authorisation. The UN has preauthorised regional entities to conduct peacekeeping operations, provided the two Ps are aligned, that is, that they are in keeping with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. Preauthorisation is there and we have internal State safeguards at political and senior military level to make sure the operation is in keeping with international law.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
The process in that decision-making by Government is predicated on getting military advice from the general staff. In my case, as a deputy chief officer, I would be providing that military advice to the Minister and hence to the Governments. I will give two quick examples. When it came to the military deployment to Chad, the military did an assessment and advised the Government that the mission was practical, feasible and could be done, which it was. If we fast forward a number of years later when I was in situ, there was an attempt to put us into the UN mission to Mali. We sent a delegation out there to assess the situation and the military advice to the Government was that it was not appropriate to go into this mission for a variety reasons, which I will not go into. That military advice was accepted. On the one hand, we went to Chad based on the military advice and, on the other, we did not go to the UN training mission in Mali based on the advice. The safeguards that Dr. Berry refers to are there from a military perspective.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It has been suggested that the General Assembly could have a role. Based on her experience in the UN and knowledge of the machinations of the General Assembly, what is Ms O'Brien's view of the practicalities of this being legislated for?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Berry and others mentioned missions they have been on, such as the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon. If there had been political interference from a P5 member and the mandate was ended and that happened on a Monday morning, practically, what happens next?
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
From a UN perspective, they would plan to leave. UN headquarters, as my office, would make a plan in conjunction with the Irish Government and military for their repatriation immediately. There would be a phased withdrawal. It is also important that someone takes over. There would be a gap in UNIFIL at the time so the roles that Ireland would have played in their area of operations would have to be shared with other nations and that would take some time to settle into.
Withdrawal from a mission is one of the most dangerous times for a military.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When Ms O'Brien refers to a phased withdrawal, what sort of timescale-----
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I can give the Senator an example of a decision by an Irish Government. Back in 1973, the Government decided to move troops from Cyprus to the Sinai following the Yom Kippur War. They were there for a number of months. However, following the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the Government made a decision to withdraw troops from the UN Emergency Force, UNEF, in the Sinai. This is an example where the Government made a decision based on national security interests to withdraw troops back to Ireland to support the security apparatus.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
The consequences were we had no armed peacekeepers deployed overseas for approximately four years until we returned to Lebanon. Mr. Doyle was in the first battalion, the 43rd infantry battalion. That was a consequence of the withdrawal. Of course, those resources were required at that particular time in our history because there were significant challenges within the security environment of the State.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
What will happen immediately if a decision is made to withdraw is that Irish troops will not be able to operate in the environment they are in. The rules of engagement no longer apply. They have no role whatsoever in the United Nations. Anything they do would be contrary to the force commander's rights and obligations.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When Ms O'Brien refers to a phased withdrawal, presumably no one would want to leave a lacuna where a mission is uncovered.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
The difference here is if we withdraw from Lebanon, we have no legal reason or right to be there unless we have a UN Security Council resolution. On a pragmatic level, there would have to be a phased withdrawal but it would be immediate. Whether or not they can apply the rules of engagement and do the work they are supposed to do in the operational area depends on whether they still have a UN resolution. That is what happened in Syria. The withdrawal was more phased and more organised.
Mr. Colm Doyle:
I was in Lebanon with the first Irish battalion in 1978. The Shah of Iran had been overthrown. The Iranian battalion, which was serving with UNIFIL, broke up in disarray. The officers were physically chased across the border by their soldiers. One of the features when I was every time I went into an Iranian position the first thing I saw was a big portrait of the Shah. That was taken down overnight. France sent warships into the area to evacuate the Iranian battalion because everybody was concerned that the weapons belonging to them were being abandoned. A vacuum was created in their area of operations. Each battalion has an area of operations. If there are no spare battalions, then there is a problem.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are out of time. Perhaps Dr. Berry can come again and address some of Senator Kyne's questions. Deputy Eamon Scanlon is next followed by Senator Tom Clonan.
Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for their presentations. There is no doubt they have served the military with distinction over many years. My question relates to the UN. When we saw what happened in Bosnia 30 years ago, people hoped and prayed we would never see the like again. Unfortunately, it is happening today in another country. It is sad to think that the UN's hands are tied and that it cannot get involved and stop the slaughter of nearly 80,000 people. Starving people are having to queue for food. Twenty people were shot dead yesterday while waiting to collect food and the UN's hands are tied. As people who served in the UN, the witnesses must feel frustrated that this has been allowed to happen again.
It is sad to think that four or five countries can allow this to happen to what until recently was a very successful organisation. People feel that there should be a greater involvement. I know the issues regarding the people who block whatever the UN tries to do but, in the witnesses' experience, is there any other way that some of this can be dealt with? People are sad to see what is happening and I know the witnesses are, as is every right-thinking person in the world. It is also sad, however, that the hands of the UN are tied so badly that it cannot get involved to try to resolve this.
Mr. Colm Doyle:
Despite its faults, the United Nations is the only global organisation that has universal support across the globe. That includes the superpowers. Many of the regional organisations simply do not have that. It is very frustrating for people like us here, who have a lot of experience, as the Deputy pointed out, at UN headquarters or out on the mission field, to see what is going on at the moment. Players in the Security Council who are solely looking after their self-interests. I will not name the countries because everyone knows them from the news in the past few months. Of course it is frustrating, but it is what it is unless it can be changed. The question is who will be strong enough and capable enough to effect a change in the Security Council.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
There are many places around the world where atrocities are taking place. One area that needs more media coverage and attention from decision-makers is the tragedy that is Sudan. There is a massive humanitarian crisis there, which I would love to see get more coverage on our national media, but that is a side story. The Deputy spoke about the UN involvement. For the UN to be effective in any mission, there are two key ingredients, namely, host nation consent and freedom of movement. Unless those two boxes are ticked, a UN force will not be effective. To answer the Deputy's question about the area he referred to, there is no sign, at the moment, of those two criteria ever being met.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
The Deputy mentioned that four or five countries can allow what is happening in Gaza. We are all allowing this to happen. The UN is not the only organisation that can do something about it. Europe could do something about it. Although the UN is tied up with itself at present, Europe is not supporting any solution there, or doing anything. It is not just the UN and by the way, the UN is everybody, not just the Security Council. We are the UN.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
Not only has the UN Security Council not found the means to intervene in this situation, but it has not even found the courage to summon a consensus to condemn the activity. There has not even been a motion of condemnation and that tells us how deadlocked and paralysed the Security Council is at the moment.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Next is Senator Tom Clonan, followed by Deputy Catherine Callaghan.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome our esteemed witnesses. I have served with all of them, at the Chief of Staff's branch and overseas. I learned so much under Colonel Doyle's command. It was on his watch that we had the first ever visit by a Taoiseach to Irish troops overseas, following an initiative and direction from the colonel. I commend him. It is great to see him looking so well. We are driving the Department of Defence mad about our pensions, but the less said about that, the better.
We all accept that the UN Security Council at the moment is dysfunctional and that trying to seek a unanimous decision from it on any peacekeeping mission is nigh impossible.
If we move away from that to some other mechanism by which we participate in international missions, is it not the case that in all likelihood, without the consent of all the belligerent parties and without sanction of all the members of the P5, such missions would, for the most part, be peace enforcement and not peacekeeping?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
As the Senator knows, the history of peace enforcement goes back to 1993 with the UNOSOM mission to Somalia. That was a massive change in Government policy. Effectively, the policing aspect of peacekeeping has evolved into peace enforcement. My missions to Kosovo and Chad were peace enforcement. It meant that our rules of engagement were such that they allowed us to bring a degree of force to any situation. The critical thing is that peace enforcement brings the possibility of protecting civilians. It is incorporated into our mandate, as it was in Chad. Peace enforcement is the way we have gone and we are trained for peace enforcement. It is the way we will be going into the future, as far as I can see, in relation to future deployments of the Defence Forces.
Mr. Colm Doyle:
When I served in Bosnia, one of the parties, the Bosnian Serbs, used to take United Nations personnel hostage. They would manacle them to their defensive positions and then dare personnel from NATO or the United Nations to come to try to rescue them. This was the first time that I had seen United Nations soldiers being purposely kidnapped and used as an invitation to target them. Shortly after that, the UN decided that an attack on a UN soldier is an attack against humanity. It has been evolving as we have gone along. As was pointed out, most United Nations missions now are peace enforcement missions, because of necessity. If we look at the percentage of casualties, in the First World War, a certain number were civilians, but in modern conflicts they make up the largest number of casualties, at about 85%.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To explain to the witnesses, how committee members use their time and to whom they direct their questions is up to them.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
Judging by the Senator's question, he is probably thinking that there is an increased risk with warfighting. In the UN missions as they are, there are increased risks. We used to be called the Blue Berets and we are now called the Blue Helmets. This is an indication of the dangers into which troops from Ireland, and those from each of the 119 troop-contributing nations, are sent.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The unanimous response would appear to be that the majority of, if not all, potential future missions, outside of a triple lock or a UN Security Council resolution, will be warfighting.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As defence intellectuals, however, we know that peace enforcement and warfighting are the same thing.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With respect, the literature shows that they are one and the same thing, because of the use of force. I will come back to Dr. Berry later. What is the maximum formation that Ireland can meaningfully deploy overseas at the moment? Is it a platoon, a company or a brigade? We are very short on time so a one-sentence reply will suffice.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So a battalion is four hundred and-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My question is very specific. What is the maximum formation that we can deploy meaningfully without support from other nations? Is it a company?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. If it is a company-plus or a battalion-minus, is it not the case that in a peace enforcement or war-fighting context such a unit would inexorably and organically be under the command of another nation? It could not operate independently.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I will share with the Senator my experience in Chad. My force commander was Brigadier-General Jean-Philippe Ganascia, of the French Armed Forces. Operations were directed from his headquarters but I had autonomy in respect of how those missions were carried out. He provided us with the logistical support and direction in relation to what needed to be done. We carried them out in accordance with our standard operating procedures and our practices.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Understood. My final question is in relation to this issue of the 12. The Department of Defence confirmed to us a number of weeks ago that this upper limit of 12 does not apply to situations of force majeure where, for example, we have to evacuate Irish citizens from abroad, or if we were to provide aid to the civil authority of our neighbours in the UK or in Northern Ireland if it had major fires or humanitarian or man-made disasters. That upper limit of 12 does not apply in any of those scenarios. It only applies in the case of a mandated international mission. Would the witnesses agree with that?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask the witnesses to provide short answers to that.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
If that is what they say is the case, I would not have further comment on that. As I have said, I am retired six years. That position may have changed in the meantime but if that is what the committee has been advised, all I can say is if that is the situation, that is the situation.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The triple lock, therefore, does not place any inhibition on us and our sovereign decision to assist a neighbour when they are in extremis.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what the Department of Defence clarified. It said that if we need to get citizens out of Sudan, Kabul, Tehran or wherever, the upper limit of 12 does not apply and the triple lock actually has nothing to do with that.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That was very clear from the Department so we will move on.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am just saying that because to invoke it as a reason to dispense with the triple lock is actually a red herring. I did not hear all of the contributions because, unfortunately, I had a constituent who was in crisis. I did catch the end of some remarks where there was a suggestion that the upper limit of 12 would have an impact on the number of people we could put in an aircraft or the number of air crew that could be deployed to assist Irish people. That is simply not the case and we have to be very careful as a committee that we are factually correct.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am going to cut it off there. Does anybody disagree with what the Department has set out in relation to that?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
All I can say is that the legislation the committee is discussing here today has the Department's footprints on it, so I am wondering why it has put the figure of 50 down in this legislation if what Senator Clonan has said is the case. I am surprised by the disconnect between the requirement to put 50 into the Bill and Senator Clonan's assertion that he has been told otherwise.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am equally surprised by it. In fact, I would have raised it to 120. The number of 50 seems quite arbitrary.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am going to have to cut it here-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is very important so that Irish people understand our international service as peacekeeping, whether that be with the UN, the EU or Partnership for Peace. It is becoming clear to me that in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution the vast majority of future operations will be peace enforcement, which is quite a different thing-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am cutting it off here-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----and under international command. That is a very significant-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But if they are in location and part of a broader formation they are de facto under a higher command. They cannot operate in-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On that word "task", it is the function of command to task. That is the operational environment.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have allowed more than enough time. Deputy Callaghan is next.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A huge thank you to Major General O'Brien, Major General Brennan, Colonel Doyle and Dr. Berry for their time here today. It is incredible to think that, making a quick calculation, we have close on 150 years of military experience on the other side of the room today. It is wonderful to have that depth of experience to help inform us and to help us understand what is being put before us as part of the proposed defence (amendment) Bill 2025.
I would like to talk about professionalism. Professionalism in the Irish Defence Forces is mentioned in several places in the witnesses' statements. In particular, Colonel Doyle spoke of the many compliments he received from ambassadors and diplomats when he was in the United Nations HQ in New York on the professionalism and humanity of Irish UN peacekeepers. Professionalism is not something that just occurs naturally, it is something that has to be within the system of the Defence Forces. I would like to look at the level of safeguarding and the level of checks and balances within the Defence Forces and why we are calling for more scrutiny in that regard if we are getting rid of the triple lock, which is the requirement for the Irish State to ask permission from the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. Why do we have to ask them where to send our troops when we have the level of professionalism which no doubt we have within the Defence Forces?
People listening to this debate at home and the people I meet on the street are concerned about our young people. They are concerned that if we get rid of the UN mandate, the third part of our triple lock, we would be sending our young men and women soldiers abroad to fight. There is mention of war fighting. Is there a difference between a professional military peacekeeper or peace enforcer and a professional soldier?
Mr. Colm Doyle:
Let us consider the larger countries that have large armies. We have often said that if some of those go abroad, they have to unlearn combat and they have to learn about peace. The only time Irish troops have gone abroad is for peace and that is why we have been doing it continuously since 1948 when we went to Lebanon. It is why we are continuing to do it. We have a very good reputation. We are very well trained. Part of my job as Chief of Staff was to look at the standards of armies that were sending battalions to various peacekeeping missions. We would send a team of United Nations officers from New York to that country to have a look at the standard of their armies. Were they well equipped? Were they well trained? Were they aware of what peacekeeping was about? In many circumstances the United Nations would have preferred to have gone with another country that was better trained, better equipped and better able to do the job. When the Security Council or the United Nations looks for 10,000 troops, for example, they go to the member states - General O'Brien has talked about the 190-plus countries that are members - and they look for a contribution for military forces to go out on the ground. For the period I was in New York we never got the requisite number of professional, qualified troops to fulfil the mission. If the Security Council said it wanted 10,000 troops, it never got the full 10,000. That is because some of the standards of various armies differ but we in Ireland have the advantage that we only know about peacekeeping and we are good at it.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I will add to that. I will share my experience of Kosovo. I was a company commander in a battle group commanded by a Finnish colonel. We were professional soldiers and the Finnish and Swedish contingent were reservists.
I found the workload for my troops increased steadily month by month because the battlegroup commander was more confident in the ability of the Irish troops, who were professional soldiers, to deliver the objectives he required, while the Finnish troops, although good people, did not have the professional training our people had. Our workload increased accordingly.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
To echo some of my colleagues' views, professionalism is about standards. As I said before, the ultimate safeguard that had not been mentioned until today is the standard of professionalism in the Defence Forces. That is a layer of safeguarding. We have a judge advocate general branch, which advises the Chief of Staff. As my colleagues also mentioned, military advice is an excellent safeguard.
As for whether, if we move away and interact with other organisations, we will be conducting warfighting, I would say absolutely not. The OSCE, for instance, is an unarmed monitor force. That is even below the threshold of the UN. The UN generally deploys with weapons, whereas the OCSE does not. There is also a complete difference between peace enforcement and warfighting. One is about separation of parties, using minimum force if necessary, and the other is about defeating an enemy and seizing its capital city. Any kind of comparison between those two things is completely misinformed.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Dr. Berry. We are talking about the military advice and the quality of that military advice was mentioned previously. While I know it has not happened to date, I wish to talk about a hypothetical situation, because such situations are often discussed here. Hypothetically, we could have gone to Iraq. Hypothetically, if we did not have the triple lock and a mission was proposed, but if the military advice was against taking part in it because it was not right for us at that moment and the Minister or the Department chose not to listen to that advice, could the military commanders be vocal about that?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I was in that space for four years, providing military advice to the Minister. Our job is a conductive operation for the Defence Forces. In doing that role, my job was to provide military advice. It was up to the Minister to decide whether the military advice was acceptable.
For example, when we redeployed to the Golan Heights after having had to leave due to the 2013 civil war, military advice was provided. Supplementary advice had to be provided to the Minister before he could make a final decision on approximately four or five different occasions. There can be to-ing and fro-ing. While advice is given to the Minister and the Department, it is ultimately the decision of the Minister and the Government at the end of the day.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
In New York, when we gave military advice, they never went against it. If they went against the advice, we would have identified risks and explained the reasons we did not want them to go to a certain place or do a certain thing or whatever. We would then, after discussions, mitigate those risks.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank all of the witnesses for their contributions and presentations this morning. It is clear a significant amount of military experience is present in the room. While we have heard previously from academics, the practitioners of a field are probably more important than the academics. A lot of weight should be given to what the witnesses have said and the evidence they have given to the committee this morning.
I have a number of questions, which are broadly framed. Professor Tonra mentioned a legal review being part of an additional safeguard against the deployment of troops. One of the questions I have in this regard relates to emergency situations where Irish citizens need to be removed, such as in Kabul. Would a legal review be a practical proposition in such circumstances where there is an urgency to get citizens rescued, for example?
Dr. Cathal Berry:
I can come in on that. The legal review Professor Tonra is proposing relates only to peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions. It has nothing to do with sovereign, national operations. Even as the law stands, there are eight exemptions to the triple lock. This legislation proposes three additional exemptions, namely, evacuation operations, counter-narcotic operations and security operations and close protection for our embassies overseas. The legal review Professor Tonra is proposing relates only to international peacekeeping operations. It does not concern sovereign, national Defence Forces operations. It would not apply, if that answers the Deputy's question.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Some of the narrative in respect of what is proposed claims our neutrality and triple lock will be removed and that, accordingly, young Irish women and men will be engaged in imperialist combat around the world. What do the witnesses have to say about that?
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Dr. Brennan has a lot of experience interacting with both the UN and the Government. Does he trust that no Irish Government would run headlong into such a scenario?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
While I know the other Deputy did not agree with me, I gave the example that since 1958, there have been more than 120 conflicts and the Government has been very careful about where it deployed. I am talking about the period between 1958 and 2002, when the triple lock came into force. There were approximately 120 conflicts, both interstate and intrastate. The Government never made any kneejerk reaction during that time in getting involved in any kind of conflict. The conflict in the Balkans in the nineties is one such example. I still make the point that a mature Government would continue to exercise constraint in this regard.
This comes back to the military advice and the maturity of the military commanders who bring that advice to the Government. It is always based on risk and the danger to the troops involved, as well as the environment they are going into and whether we have the capability to deliver the outcomes that may be required. These are all considerations. The Deputy’s fears are not well founded. That is my opinion.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They are not my fears.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes. Neutrality has been part of our core. It is one of those things that gives us international appeal for our peacekeeping troops. This is something that has been said. If we found some kind of legal wording to amend the Constitution to add in a wording that prevented us from becoming aligned to military alliances other than the UN, such as NATO – there seems to be a lot of hostility from the pro-neutrality side in respect of NATO in particular - would that hamper our international ability to deploy peacekeeping troops?
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
I hang out with different people but no one I know is concerned about neutrality being disrupted because of potentially taking away the triple lock. Everyone who has listened to the debates in recent weeks will be reassured of that. To inform the committee, in UN headquarters no one is aware or cares that Ireland is neutral. How Ireland operates and whether it will go on a mission is Ireland's decision. In fact, it is not solely Ireland's decision, but it is of no consequence.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Like my colleagues, I welcome the four witnesses. I thank them for their insightful contributions. As Deputy Callaghan has pointed out, we have 150 years of military experience in this room. I thank the witnesses most sincerely.
I hope I can be forgiven for welcoming especially former Deputy, Dr. Cathal Berry. He was an excellent Member of the Dáil and I had the honour of serving with him for five years on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I do not know if a better representative of the armed forces exists and it is good to see him. We are not going to keep him much longer from opening the patio doors and jumping into the sea I can see behind him.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The UNIFIL mission in Lebanon is due to expire on 31 August of this year. As has been pointed out, if that mandate is not renewed then we will have no option but to leave that mission. I believe that a phased withdrawal would be terribly regrettable. I agree with the witnesses that it is an incentive for the majority of young people who join the Defence Forces an opportunity to serve overseas. Not alone is it the experience that the incentive is about, it is an opportunity for young men and women to make an extra few pounds to progress themselves in life and we should not take our eye off that ball either.
On the mandate, 345 Irish troops serve in Lebanon at the moment out of a force of approximately 10,500 troops. Is that correct?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the total number of troops for the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No. What is the total combined number of troops who come from dozens of countries?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, that was my understanding. So Ireland's contribution to that at present is 345 troops and, as has been said, there would have to be a phased withdrawal of those troops from the mission.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That would be terribly regrettable. All four witnesses have been commanding officers. Have they ever felt hampered by the absence of any policy on suspension to date? All four can comment on that.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Suspension as provided for in the Bill. As Dr. Berry said in his opening statement, "Turning to human resource matters, I welcome the Bill’s proposal to provide powers of suspension to the Chief of Staff under certain circumstances." Has there been any direct policy on suspension to date and what were the guidelines?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I have some experience on this and I have been a practitioner of human resource management, HRM, in the Defence Forces, strictly in my role. Very briefly, all members of the Defence Forces are governed by the Defence Act and the Defence Forces regulations. That is our gospel. That is what commanders use. Obviously people thought that the Chief of Staff had the power of suspension a number of months ago. The Chief of Staff does not have that. It is a positive step that the provision will now be introduced because it will put the Chief of Staff on a par with the Garda Commissioner and he can suspend people from duty. There are various reasons I will not go into that but the provision is a positive step.
To answer the Senator's question, this is not in vogue at the moment. Until such time as the Bill is passed, the Chief of Staff does not have the power to suspend people as of now.
Ms Maureen O'Brien:
I can talk about my experience of one person who was found to have failed a random drug test. All I could do was make sure that that person did not carry a weapon for the year that it took me to discharge him because of the lengths of appeals lodged by that person. He got every opportunity and due process took a year.
While we found work that he could do - there is always work for unarmed people - he also put a burden on the people who were there to do his work as well.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms O'Brien felt hampered by the fact that she could not take things further.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
To answer the specific question, the Defence Forces have an excellent culture and value system. Like any human organisation, there are isolated cases and there is a very small number of people who think those values and culture does not apply to them. It is very important, as the major general said, that the same powers given to the Garda Commissioner are also given to the Chief of Staff so that if we come across an isolated case, the legislation is very specific. This must be for very serious cases that would involve imprisonment of up to five years. We are talking about very serious cases where it is in the national interest, the public interest and the interest of the Defence Forces that this person be suspended on full pay pending the outcome of any trial. I think that is the appropriate way of doing business. The key word I would use here is "balance". The regulations have yet to be produced and will be once the primary legislation is signed off on. The regulations have to be very careful from well-being and proportionality points of view. I welcome the principle and look forward to seeing the regulations in due course.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
All members who have been present in the room have spoken and I thank them for their contributions. I will now give five minutes to our non-member, Senator Higgins.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it possible for me to make a brief comment before the non-members, even for two minutes?
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The non-member has been here a long time.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes. Can Senator Clonan do five minutes?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important that we follow the format.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am taking a list for short questions. On that list I have Senator Craughwell and Senator Clonan.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Like others, I thank the witnesses. I want to pick up on a couple of the points that have come in. The first one is an apples and oranges scenario as the issue is mixed up a little bit. On Deputy Smith's point, the key point is that it is not a question of whether a General Assembly resolution is binding. The question is whether a General Assembly resolution allows us, in terms of our 2006 Act, which sets out that we can act in relation to it. It is a question of whether it is permissive for us under our legislation, not whether it is binding. Of course a NATO or EU mission would not have a Security Council imprimatur either. If we remove the triple lock, we will be operating without the Security Council in any case on any mission. We have had strong overpowering UN resolutions on issues such as Gaza. Should we aim to have a UN resolution as a collective interpretation of international law and the UN Charter as a guidance point for a mission that might be operating outside a UN Security Council mandate?
The standard of Irish command has been emphasised and Ms O'Brien mentioned the caveats that were attached to Irish participation. Some of that has changed. The 2021 Act allows the Minister to delegate the power of command and control to the head of an international force in a way that previously was not possible. Is that not the case? Does not that bring a slightly different question in terms of how we ensure that particular Irish experience and expertise of command that we may have had before?
Specifically, the focus has been on peacekeeping. I know that is where the expertise of the witnesses and that of Ireland lies.
However, the legislation also provides for strengthening international security. What do the witnesses understand “strengthening international security” to mean that is different from peacekeeping or peace enforcement and different from the eight exemptions? What kinds of missions do they see under “strengthening international security”? Is there anything that excludes?
Mr. Colm Doyle:
One of the most critical distinctions between the two bodies – the General Assembly and the Security Council – is the Security Council’s exclusive right to authorise the use of force under Chapter 7. The Security Council has the power to determine when the use of force is necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. This authority allows the council to authorise military interventions, no-fly zones and other coercive measures that require the deployment of military assets.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Because of time, I was really looking for the General Assembly powers, but we might come back on that.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will come back to it, but the 2006 Act allows Ireland to act on the basis of the General Assembly.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to come in on the other questions if I can.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am speaking to the General Assembly now.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
Yes, and it is not that. A second tier would be the General Assembly, and that does meet the threshold for Irish law, as the Senator quite rightly said. That is the desirable one.
Second, on delegation of command, what the legislation says is that the Minister can delegate operational control to an international commander but not command. There are no Irish troops under command of any non-Irish officer anywhere in the world. They have operational control over Irish troops but not command. Operational control is a level below that of command.
Finally, the Senator asked a question on maintaining national security. My interpretation of that is very similar to Article 52 of Chapter 8, which are activities that are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I hope that answered the Senator’s three questions - as succinctly as I could.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
I wish to elaborate on one aspect of the second question with my personal experience of it. I have a document with me. It is a directive signed by the then Minister for Defence, dated December 2008. It states that the first commander is operationally responsible for the performance of all functions assigned to the force. This was handed to me by the Chief of Staff. It lists exactly what the force commander is responsible for and what I am responsible for. I will not go into details because it is quite an expansive document. Critically, the first commander I was operating under in Chad had operational command. We had to obey all lawful orders issued by him and his subordinates. We had to carry out any instructions in relation to training operations. It is contained in the document. There were caveats that we have spoken about already. Dr. Berry is right. It is operationally responsible. They do not have operational command. I had command of the unit.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to go to Ms O'Brien. It did change somewhat in 2021.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A core question was about strengthening international security. What is that if it is not peacekeeping or peace enforcement?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am cutting it off. I ask the witnesses to just answer that specifically.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But as a separate function, separate from peacekeeping.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have to leave it now. I have allowed way over the time.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is provided for separately from peacekeeping in the legislation.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have allowed way over the time.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apologies. I would be happy if there is any written piece or anything on that because it is a core question.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Maybe for the last question, if there is something-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the legislation, it mentions strengthening international security as a purpose for deployment separately from peacekeeping or peace enforcement and the eight or extended list of exemptions. What does that cover that was not covered by peacekeeping or peace enforcement?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the question. What does it cover? Maybe the witnesses could submit to the committee what it covers in response.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I cannot allow any more time on it.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, this has gone way over.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Impartiality was mentioned. Does it include, for example, conflicts on the basis of interests, including the security of interests?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have to cut it at that, sorry. Senator Craughwell can ask one short, sharp question.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to raise three short, sharp issues. I need three things cleared up. The first is directed to Major General O’Brien. On the issue of defence attachés, which covers the expansion of roles, it was suggested by the Department of Defence that a defence attaché could be a civilian. Is she aware of any civilian anywhere who is acting as a defence attaché?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Major General Brennan, in his submission, referred to Defence Forces regulations and Defence Forces legislation. Is it the case that the Defence Forces are ultimately subordinate to the Department of Defence? Regarding things like suspensions, we had a very high-profile case of a soldier who had to be put on gardening leave, or whatever you want to call it. The commander on the ground had no choice because the regulations did not provide for it. Am I correct?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
Yes, but I will clarify the Senator’s first position. The Defence Forces are responsible operationally. They are not subordinate to the Department operationally. They are for all other matters in relation to policy. To answer his question, that is correct. I know the case in question. They did not have the authority to suspend any individual, notwithstanding the furore that was created in the media and so on about that.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I appreciate that. Senator Tom Clonan is next, and he will be followed by Deputy Ó Laoghaire.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senator Higgins for deferring to me earlier.
Disagreement is the most powerful engine for arriving at the truth, so please do not construct disagreement as any kind of hostility or disrespect. I am saying this with absolute respect.
First, to Dr. Berry’s assertion that peace enforcement and war fighting are different things, he said war fighting is about seizing cities, invading and so on. I put it to the witnesses that that is what the United Nations did in Korea. We have to be very careful. Something approximate to that happened with both Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. That evolved into a war fighting, full spectrum combat operation. Therefore, I am concerned about mission creep. Would the witnesses share those concerns in an environment where future missions outside of the UN Security Council and triple lock will more likely be peace enforcement?
My second question is in regard to military advice and successive Governments taking military advice. We see the Defence Forces, through no fault of their own, on their knees in our lifetime and on our watch. We can only put one ship to sea, we have no maritime or ground capabilities and we have nothing in the air domain. Would the witnesses trust that community of decision-makers to send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world at any time in the future to any conflict?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
On the Senator’s last question, as has been emphasised on numerous occasions, the process is governed by military advice given to the Minister and the Government, and that military advice is founded on the risk associated with what is involved. I am quite confident going forward that military advice by successive general staffs to the Minister and to the Government will continue to be sound.
On the Senator’s first question-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sorry. I know the advice is sound, but would Mr. Brennan be confident that the Government would follow it, given what has happened-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Notwithstanding what has happened-----
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
Why do I say that? In my four years as deputy chief of staff (operations), there was a 100% track record of Government taking our advice, notwithstanding on a couple occasions we had to elaborate on the advice.
On the second thing, when we deploy overseas, as the Senator well knows, we deploy with a certain capability. Within those capabilities, we deliver operational outputs. If a war situation developed very quickly, in many instances, we would not have the emergency capability to actually deal with that situation. If it became a Korea, which the Senator referenced, or a Ukraine situation, we are not deployed to deal with that situation.
Peace enforcement brings with it a certain amount of military hardware and rules of engagement that allow us to complete our mission successfully. Chad was a perfect example of that and Kosovo continues to be a perfect example.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank our witnesses. They have been insightful. I would like to clarify something. There was an exchange between Senator Clonan and Mr. Brennan about the 50-member limit and why it exists at all. The legislation as it is framed has two different categories to be conscious of. There were always two different categories-----
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----in legal terms under the Defence Act. I forget the phrase, but the legislation referred to international forces.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There were deployments on international missions and deployments other than those. That is what is anticipated in this legislation. For that first category, there was a limit of 12 that will now be increased to 50. For the second category, which has now been clarified, and that is welcome, in respect of drug interdiction, humanitarian evacuation and so on, the limit of 12 did not exist and the limit of 50 did not exist.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy needs to ask a question.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am coming to the question. There did still seem to be some difficulty and I do not understand what it was. The Department of Defence officials told us that the triple lock did not prevent those deployments. What did, other than resources? What legal obstacles existed? The Department of Defence is saying that the triple lock was not the issue.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
The Deputy asks an excellent question. An ultraconservative interpretation of the law is what limited the deployment to Kabul to 12 personnel. Legally, there is absolutely no impediment. We could have sent 100 if we wanted to but it was limited to 12 because that was the interpretation of whoever interpreted the law as it stood. The Deputy is 100% right in his assertion, as was Senator Clonan. For those eight exemptions and the additional three, there is no ceiling. The only limit that exists is logistical and the numerical strength of the Defence Forces.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to go back to our professionalism. My question is for all of the witnesses. With deployment restricted to 12 members, in their experience or knowledge, have there been cases where a team of 12 professionally trained Irish soldiers have gone abroad and had to request help, support and equipment from other forces to carry out their work?
Dr. Cathal Berry:
Three and a half years ago at the Kabul evacuation, we deployed approximately 12 personnel but could not deploy aircraft because we did not have the aircraft. Even if we did, the five or six aircrew required would have pushed us over the threshold of 12. While there was no legal requirement for a maximum of 12 people, the ubersafe interpretation of the law as it stood meant that the deployment was capped at 12. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses. From a safety and security point of view, or even a welfare point of view, for our soldiers, would it be better for more than 12 people to go abroad on any mission? I imagine there will not be time for rest periods if there are just 12 members.
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
Operationally, I know from my experience that when we speak about sending that number of people abroad, if we are sending 12 people to Kosovo, they are headquarters appointments. They are not operationally active in the field. The same is true of our military observers in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, UNTSO, in which Mr. Doyle served. They operate individually as distinct from as a unit. The minimum number of people we would ever deploy overseas is a platoon. For example, we deployed a platoon of rangers to Liberia. I ask Dr. Berry to correct me if I am wrong, but we also deployed a platoon of rangers to East Timor.
That is the minimum number. It provides a command and control structure along with supporting assets for that particular sub-unit to deliver whatever operational outputs are demanded of it by the force commander.
Dr. Cathal Berry:
For Deputies Callaghan and Ó Laoghaire and Senator Clonan, I will say something about the 50-member cap. I have an understanding of why there is going to be an increase from 12 to 50 for international forces. I was put on standby approximately 20 years ago to go to Baghdad. I was put on standby at 7 p.m., or 19:00 hours, during the summer for deployment at 07:00 hours in the morning. It would be impossible for a quorum of the Dáil to be assembled in that limited time before deployment. When it comes to a peacekeeping operation, if a small initial entry force can be deployed, it can stop a major catastrophe from developing. It is about the speed of deployment and not requiring a Dáil resolution for a small group of people, bearing in mind that it may not be possible to assemble the Dáil in such a short period. I hope that helps the committee's deliberations.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It did prevent us from being involved in things that we could have been involved in or would have been professionally able to be involved in.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Perhaps I will put a question myself. I thank the witnesses for their contributions. We at this committee are trying to make the best decisions but have severe time constraints in respect of the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. Mr. Brennan said he was surprised by the public reaction and how the public has misinterpreted what the removal of the triple lock is all about. Does that not lend itself to the possibility of having a referendum or a wider forum where all of that could be discussed so that people fully understand what this legislation is all about?
Mr. Kieran Brennan:
That is a decision for politicians and the Government. I defer to them to make a proper judgment in that regard.
Irish people have a great fondness for Irish peacekeepers but sometimes do not fully understand the role we play overseas. They see us in our blue berets, blue flak jackets and white vehicles. When I was in Kosovo, we had none of that gear. We were in our national uniforms and were doing our jobs as if we were at home in Ireland. The same was true in Chad. Working with the UN and working with the European Union force, from the particular point of view of the people who are there, is no different.
If I could have one moment, I will share a comment with the committee. I visited a refugee camp on Christmas Day 2008 and on that occasion, I met a number of the refugees who had come out of Sudan. The Janjaweed militia had killed hundreds of people and destroyed families. I met one of the women who had survived that particular incident. I will always remember what she said to me through an interpreter. Talking about the Irish soldiers, she said that their presence restored her faith in men in uniform. I will leave it at that.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does this not present an opportunity for that to be communicated to people so they reach a better understanding and are fully behind whatever legislation is decided at the end of the day? There is a forum there. Does Dr. Berry want to comment on that?
Dr. Cathal Berry:
That is an excellent point. If anything has been achieved over the past five years, it is that we have normalised the discussion of the topic of defence. If you brought up the subject five years ago, you were labelled as a warmonger. These hearings before the committee are very important. More informed commentary in the Dáil is also important. The reason that many of the public are misinformed is because we have not had the discussion. While the committee is time constrained at the moment in respect of this legislation, there is no difficulty later in the year or next year having a more broad discussion with testimony from various witnesses, if that would help the public's understanding.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Dr. Berry.
On behalf of the committee I once again thank the witnesses for their time and for the material they circulated to the committee in advance of the meeting. I also thank them for their service to the country. It is very evident from their statements and the contributions they made today that they have a thorough knowledge and have made huge contributions. I thank them on behalf of the committee for that. It is great to see a woman from the west as well.
The select committee will meet tomorrow to consider the 2025 Revised Estimates for the defence Vote group.