Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 3 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
Apologies have been received from Deputy Catherine Callaghan.
The joint committee is continuing its pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025. I welcome on behalf of the committee Mr. Stephen Kelly from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, and Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain from the Transnational Institute. They are very welcome. The witnesses are here to discuss the general scheme of the Bill. The format of the meeting is that I will invite each witness to make an opening statement, 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. As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting.
I invite Mr. Kelly to make his opening statement, which will be followed by statements by Ms Ní Bhriain.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I thank the committee very much for inviting me here. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance was established was established almost 30 years ago to advocate the right of the Irish people to their own independent foreign policy with positive neutrality as its key component. We advocate a constitutional amendment to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution and for a Danish-type protocol to exclude Ireland from further militarisation of the EU.
We have had both successes and defeats over those years. One of the key successes was both in 2002 and 2009 securing an agreement that the Lisbon and Nice referendums would only be passed if the triple lock remained in place. We strongly oppose the proposed removal of the triple lock, representing in our view a reneging on these solemn commitments. We argue that doing so without a further referendum would risk being unconstitutional.
We are gravely concerned that there is no meaningful limit on where Irish troops could be sent under the proposed new legislation. This is particularly worrying given the ever-more unpredictable and unstable nature of the world we find ourselves in. We completely reject that the Dáil or Government self-certifying its compliance with international law would be an adequate safeguard. The move to abolish the triple lock is based on a caricature of the UN Security Council.
In fact, far from being a deadlocked, veto-riven entity, between 2020 and 2024, 264 out of 284 resolutions voted on at the council were passed, with no permanent member casting a negative vote.
I will finish with a quote from Éamon De Valera when addressing the League of Nations in Geneva in 1936:
All the small States can do, if the statesmen of the greater States fail in their duty, is resolutely to determine that they will not become the tools of any great Power and that they will resist with whatever strength they may possess every attempt to force them into a war against their will.
I thank the committee very much and I am very happy to take questions.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go raibh maith agat. I call Ms Ní Bhriain.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak. This Bill would severely erode Irish neutrality, a policy that has characterised Ireland's engagement with the world since the foundation of the State and one that has kept Ireland safe and served it well through a world war, a Cold War and a so-called "global war on terror". If Ireland abandons the triple lock and begins deploying troops on EU-led and, potentially, NATO-led missions, it may embroil Ireland in foreign wars that have nothing to do with us and may expose Ireland to attack. Considering that Irish troops already participate in EU battle group training exercises, future deployment on EU-led and, potentially, NATO-led missions is not something that is unlikely but, rather, a foregone conclusion if the triple lock is abolished. Members should seriously think and question whether such deployments could ever be compatible with Irish neutrality and reflect on the grave and inherent risks that will stem from approving legislation that would permit those deployments to take place.
The EU, like the UN, was born out of the ashes of the Second World War, but it has clearly lost its way. There is mounting evidence that the EU does not uphold international law. Its approval of Israel throughout the commission of a genocide is a case in point. There are other examples. For Ireland to retreat from UN peacekeeping missions and participate in EU battle groups is hugely problematic. The EU’s training mission in Mali is a case in point in this regard. Numerous Defence Forces personnel participated in the training of the Malian armed forces. The Malian national security forces received training and finance from the EU, and later went on to participate in two coups and horrific human rights violations that saw hundreds of civilians killed. Irish troops were involved in training those Malian soldiers. This is characteristic of the EU training missions and not an isolated case.
I will finish by reflecting on some conversations I had that took place during a neutrality roadshow, a people-led initiative that saw 22 events take place over 30 days across 19 counties and which engaged hundreds of people. People across Ireland expressed deep concern and alarm at the wholesale erosion of Irish neutrality. Many did not realise that neutrality was not protected in the Constitution. The wilful obfuscation by the Government regarding the triple lock has left many people feeling blindsided and ill-equipped to challenge the Government's narrative, although they instinctively know - in the same way we did with the Nice and Lisbon treaties - that something fundamental is taking shape. I feel a particular responsibility to mothers, family members of Defence Forces personnel, teenagers and former peacekeepers, who shared their stories with me during the neutrality roadshow and expressed genuine fear at what may lie ahead if the triple lock is abolished.
We need to be very clear that this Bill is about putting people in harm’s way. I urge all members of the committee to scrutinise and vote on this legislation as though they were sending their own sons and daughters to be deployed with EU battle groups. Those members who do vote in favour of and enact this legislation should know that if Irish personnel are deployed to future wars from which they return maimed, traumatised or perhaps in body bags – no one returns from war unscathed – their cards will have been marked and voting in favour of this legislation will be their legacy. I thank the committee.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go raibh maith agat. I open the meeting now to questions from members. Each member will have seven minutes and it is up to individuals to use their time however they so wish. Non-members will have five minutes. I call Deputy Brian Stanley.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome Ms Ní Bhriain and Mr. Kelly. I also see Mr. Roger Cole in the Public Gallery. I have met Mr. Cole several times down through the years on various campaigns. It is good to see him here. Starting with the declarations, I was involved in the campaigns on the Lisbon and Nice treaties, the Single European Act and various other issues over the years. I can recall these declarations. I thank Mr. Kelly for providing the copies of them, which I read again this morning. I note these are national declarations and not made by a political party or a government. They were made on behalf of the Irish people and are attached to the Nice and Lisbon treaties. I recall that the late Raymond Crotty took a case to the Supreme Court in 1986, which he won. That ensured we would have referendums on all other subsequent major changes in terms of integration into the European Union. I am in favour of being part of the European Union, by the way. I might have some disagreements about what shape it takes, but I think it is a good thing that we are in a Common Market and a Union, whatever faults the latter may have. Do the witnesses envisage a constitutional challenge to this change being taken in the courts if it is passed in legislation?
Turning to the veto, the document submitted to the committee helpfully sets out the number of occasions when the veto was not used. It was stated that "264 out of 284 resolutions voted on at the Council were passed with no power exercising a veto." The witnesses might address this aspect in terms of reform of the Security Council. I recognise that things are not the way they should be in the context of the permanent members of the Security Council. I remember lobbying in Geneva for Ireland to have a place as a non-permanent member several years ago. People there from different political persuasions were very receptive to the case we were making because Ireland was an independent state that had been colonised. One part of the country is still somewhat colonised, but, thankfully, work is in progress there. The fact we were a neutral state meant that states that had been formed out of former colonies in the southern hemisphere, in particular, were very open to our case, as indeed were others. This helped Ireland to get a place as a non-permanent member on the Security Council. I see the need for non-permanent members to have an equal say at the UN Security Council as one of the reforms that must happen.
On the question around us abdicating our responsibilities - Ms Ní Bhriain might address this point - we are piggybacking on Uncle Sam and John Bull. The RAF and the Yanks look after us. I ask the witnesses to comment on that.
Mention was also made of self-certification. The Government has a majority in the Dáil and would be self-certifying. The argument is made that this is democracy and we have sovereignty. The Irish people have elected parties to the Dáil, a government is formed from those members and that government is democratically elected. We all accept that is the case. The point being made is that this is the ultimate sovereignty. I ask the witnesses to address that argument.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
There is a good chance of it. I do not know whether it would be successful but there is every chance there could be a constitutional challenge. Advocates of neutrality have won referendums previously. There was the Crotty case and there were the McKenna and Coughlan cases. They were technically on the issue of divorce but they constituted strategic litigation. I draw the committee's attention to the case of Tomás Heneghan v. The Minister for Housing, Planning & Local Government & Ors. In that case, Mr. Justice Murray in the Supreme Court said that when a referendum is held, the commitment given by the Government to the people in that context constitutes a type of pact between the people and their elected representatives. That was in a different context so the facts were not the same. It was in the context of the Senate referendum in 1979, which a lot of people would forget about so the facts are a bit more obscure. A possible argument could be made in this case that a commitment was similarly given. It was not part of the official legislation the same way in 1979. It was not part of what was exactly on the ballot paper but a commitment was given and it was embodied in the Referendum Commission literature, which was distributed to every house in the country and paid for by the taxpayer. That could allow for a referendum to succeed if this is passed by the Dáil without another referendum.
As regards the veto, taking it from a first principles perspective, nobody would have designed the UN as it is. It does not make any sense in principle or theory why certain members have a permanent position while others do not. We all know the history, which is that those five permanent members were the victors in the Second World War and insisted on that place in order to set up the United Nations. I am very keen to listen to any alternative anyone has in terms of reforming the UN and the Security Council provided it is not something that results in the collapse of the UN because that is a very real risk. We know what happened with the League of Nations. It did not have the buy-in from the big powers. This needs to be avoided. Until such time as there is a workable alternative, we have to stick with the United Nations because it is better than the law of the jungle.
I will deal briefly with abdicating responsibility. I do not accept that we have a responsibility to defend Europe. We have a responsibility first of all to protect ourselves. There were three neutral states during the Cold War - Yugoslavia, Finland and Austria - that were in Russia's back garden and were never invaded. They adhered scrupulously to their neutrality so the idea that Russia is going to invade us when it has not even invaded those neutral states in their back garden is not really credible so I do not think we have a security obligation in that way.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses, as well as Mr. Roger Cole. My first question has been partially answered. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance submission underlines very clearly its view that the legislation as currently framed - and we are dealing with the general scheme rather than the full legislation - could conceivably be unconstitutional. Could the witnesses expand on that?
There has been some discussion about the intentions of this Government. It is not necessarily about this Government. One has to consider future Governments when one frames legislation. Removing the triple lock potentially exposes a future Irish Government to significant pressure from other major countries in the EU or NATO regarding the deployment of troops. Does removing the triple lock expose Ireland to greater pressure diplomatically and politically?
The legislation very significantly hinges on the removal of triple lock. I do not believe it is about the amendment or adjustment of the triple lock. As far as I am concerned, it is about its removal. That removes the need for a UN mandate and, therefore, without a UN mandate, we are looking at more or less three things. They are a multilateral group of countries operating together, an EU mission or a NATO mission. Regarding NATO, could the witnesses give an outline of their sense of where NATO is deployed and the nature of the type of deployment? How do they see future EU missions being deployed? The majority of people here and the majority of people in the country support membership of the EU for a variety of reasons - social, economic and so on. However, they also have concerns about the direction of the EU regarding defence, security and potential militarisation. I do not know if there is always an awareness of the type of missions the EU has deployed on. Ireland has not always participated in them because of our neutrality, to the extent that we have neutrality, but I am not sure that there is always an awareness. The witnesses spoke about Mali. Are there other examples in terms of missions led by the EU that would cause concern that if Irish troops were to participate in, we could no longer categorise Ireland as being neutral in such circumstances?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
EU missions have been rolled out since 2003. Once the Nice treaty was enacted, the EU started deploying military missions across Africa. They started in the Balkans and there have also been deployments in Somalia in the Red Sea area. These have been hugely problematic. The Mali example is not an isolated case. Niger is another example where a mission was approved. The EU started sending in financial support to buy serious contingents of lethal military equipment. That started in February 2023 and by the summer of 2023, there was a coup using the very same funding that the EU had sent and the lethal equipment that had been purchased by the EU for Niger. Mali is an example where the EU is training soldiers. Two coups took place while the EU troops were there. Mozambique is another example where EU training missions are taking place and then there are horrific human rights violations. I set some of them out in the submission. There is ample evidence that the EU missions have nothing to do with peace. They do not bring peace. One can see a track record of where the missions go in and there is more and more instability instead of less. Mali is a case in point but there are various examples.
Regarding the pressure point and deployment, an EU battle group has never been deployed. They train constantly and the most recent training exercise was in Hungary in March and April 2025 when 139 Irish troops took part in that training exercise. It says in EU documents that they will deploy within five days. That is the idea. In those five days, without a triple lock and with the pressure coming from Brussels, that is the pressure the Government is going to be under to send Irish people. It is said very clearly that these are combat conflict missions to be deployed outside the EU under an EU mandate. That is the pressure the Government is going to be under and it will have five days to decide whether to send Irish troops. This is clearly not enough. We need a safeguard. This is Ireland becoming embroiled in a foreign war on behalf of the EU in an instance that has nothing to do with us.
As regards NATO, Ireland has had a Partnership for Peace agreement with NATO since 1999. NATO is a war alliance. Partnership for Peace is a stepping stone into being part of NATO. I do not think the Government has any intention of becoming a full member but we do not need to be a full member. We are already so closely aligned with NATO and the EU. In the words of Ursula von der Leyen, the EU is "one Union, one Alliance, united in purpose". That is a quotation from Ursula von der Leyen as regards the EU and NATO and that relationship. Often it is said we are not going to become a member of NATO. We do not need to be a member. We are already so closely aligned that if this legislation is enacted, we can be sent without any safeguard at all on any NATO mission. We have seen NATO participate in invasions in Libya, in the Balkans early on, in Serbia, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We are opening ourselves up to having Irish troops sent on those missions if we approve this legislation.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses. I will start off by stating once again that the triple lock is a red herring and that we should be spending our time on other things to do with the Defence Forces.
I will give the witnesses a definition of sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to the supreme authority and power of a state or governing body to rule itself without interference from outside sources. In politics, it is the backbone of national independence. A sovereign country controls its own laws, borders, economy and foreign relations. First, do the witnesses regard Ireland as a sovereign state when it is in some way subservient to the United Nations Security Council when it comes to the deployment of its own troops?
Second, I would like to see some empirical evidence of how the triple lock interacts with neutrality, given that Ray Murphy and Ben Tonra have both agreed that Ireland does not meet the criteria as set down in international law with respect to neutrality. Ms Ní Bhriain spoke about returning from missions with trauma. Our soldiers return from missions with trauma already. Jadotville is a case in point. The soldiers who came back from Jadotville are still suffering the trauma they went through.
As for the final point I would like the witnesses to address, Ms Ní Bhriain spoke about pressure from without. We are not a member of NATO, we are not a member of any military alliance, yet our Taoiseach yesterday was told by the Japanese Prime Minister that Japan is deeply concerned at the lack of defence in this country, particularly when it comes to Internet cables. Mr. Kelly said we are not under attack from Russia. Russia is just the common enemy, it seems, but we were attacked by Russia and it cost our Health Service Executive millions of euro to put that right.
It strikes me that the triple lock is a hamstring for the Government. Why is it that when the witnesses advocate for a referendum, they do not advocate for one to allow for all Houses of the Oireachtas to have a say on where our troops are deployed and, when deployed, or if a question arises to deploy them, they set the bar so high in that referendum that it makes it very difficult for a country to just send troops away wherever it wants? It is my view that the three Houses - the President, the Seanad and the Dáil - should be the people deciding where our troops are deployed.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Well, let us not waste time on that then. We will move on.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
Well, it is a very important point. Stating that Russia attacked our country is very serious. The most serious attack we have ever had was the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in 1974, and that was not perpetrated by Russia.
As regards sovereignty, we are a sovereign country. Article 25 of the UN Charter makes clear that member states have to agree to adhere to and implement decisions of the Security Council. Therefore, if the triple lock is an infringement of our sovereignty, so is Article 25 of the United Nations Charter.
As regards neutrality and the triple lock, they are not the same thing but they are related. The triple lock is a close cousin of neutrality rather than being exactly the same thing. Because we unfortunately do not have neutrality in the Constitution, the triple lock is one of the best things we have in the absence of that. It is really in the absence of clearer legal safeguards that we think the triple lock should be maintained. We did not advocate for Yes votes in the second Nice and Lisbon referendums because they did not go far enough, notwithstanding that they had the triple lock.
Regarding a referendum, is the Senator suggesting that we would have a referendum each time there is a decision to have a deployment as an alternative to the triple lock? It is-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Come on now. I specifically said, if the witnesses want a referendum, it should empower all three sections of the Oireachtas, namely, the President, the Seanad and the Dáil. Rather than looking to an outside agency, you would look inward.
Mr. Kelly quotes the United Nations. What about regional deployments? The triple lock prevents us from participating in regional deployments, which are a part of the United Nations Security Council Charter Mr. Kelly speaks of. He is happy enough to use one part of the charter and not that happy to use the other part.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
Regional deployments can be permitted under the UN Charter but not always. For example, in 1999, NATO's attack on Yugoslavia was not authorised by the United Nations, so it depends on the facts. We have no problem in principle with regional deployments taking place where they are approved by the UN.
I will hand over to Ms Ní Bhriain.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
To continue on that point, the idea that the Security Council has a say over where we send our troops is disingenuous. This is where the Government pins its argument but it is a flawed argument. What the Security Council does is mandate a peacekeeping mission in general. The way the Government frames it, it is as though the members all sit down around a table and say, "Can we approve Ireland's participation in this mission?" That is not what happens. The Government frames it as though they are sitting in New York and saying Ireland can or cannot go on this mission. No. They take a list of criteria on whether, as a Security Council, they can approve a mission and then they approve it, and then it has the backing of the world's most powerful nations.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In fairness, I think the Irish people are not that silly. It is very clear that once United Nations Security Council clearance is given for an operation, we can deploy troops if we so wish. Without that we cannot, and it is as simple as that.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
People simply do not understand the functioning of the United Nations Security Council. The way the Government frames it, it is as though they are sitting around a table deciding whether Ireland should be allowed to deploy, yes or no, when they are actually approving a mandate in general and then, once it is approved, we deploy. As Micheál Martin himself said on the Dáil floor in 2013, that is at the core of our neutrality. If we deploy on a mission that does not have UN mandate support, we are necessarily taking sides in a conflict. The discussion that took place around sending potentially a coalition of the willing that Keir Starmer mentioned into Ukraine is an example. If we were to join that coalition of the willing, that would be an example of Ireland joining a mission that would not-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have already provided military aid to Ukraine.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I said it on the floor of the Seanad.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
The triple lock is the bare minimum that we need to protect. Then we need to have a much bigger conversation about what kind of Ireland we want going forward as the world becomes more unstable, as we edge closer and closer to all-out war. What kind of Ireland do we want? Do we want to be part of a military alliance that exposes us to attack or do we want to preserve our neutrality? As a small state, we have never been a military power and we should never-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Ms Ní Bhriain honestly think that if there is all-out war, our little island will be left alone?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, it was not. We provided safe passage for the Allies right through the Second World War.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Thousands of our people died - thousands.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Time. I am sorry. I have allowed enough time for the witnesses to answer. I call Deputy Ryan O'Meara.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to start with the example Ms Ní Bhriain gave of the Mali case and the number of troops who were sent there. Was a triple lock required for them to be sent?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
There is a carve-out within the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 that permits us to participate in training exercises. For example, the reason we can go on the training exercises with the EU battle group in Hungary that I mentioned, and other training exercises, is because of that carve-out. In the case of Mali, I am not sure of the specifics of how the lawyers within the Defence Forces looked at it but it is a training exercise and there is a permission within the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 to participate in training exercises.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It does not need the mandate of the Security Council.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That one in particular did not receive the mandate.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I believe it was Mr. Kelly who mentioned Yugoslavia, Austria and Finland as three neutral countries, particularly with regard to the Soviet Union. How many of them had the triple lock that helped protect their neutrality at the time?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
None of them had the same legislation we have but they all had different legal protections. Austria's neutrality dates back to its state treaty when it got its independence. Its neutrality has a very clear legal and constitutional basis. Yugoslavia no longer exists. I do not know exactly what the legal basis was for its neutrality or for Finland's neutrality but while other neutral countries may not have the triple lock, they have different protections. In many cases, these are protections that go beyond the triple lock. Malta, for example, has neutrality in its constitution-----
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In a lot of cases, are their protections the democratic systems within their own countries?
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is also outside of it. We are relying on the UN Security Council.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
None of those many other neutral countries in the world is relying on the triple lock to protect their neutrality.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
None of them has the exact provisions we have in respect of the triple lock. There is disingenuousness on the part of people who want to be in the United Nations and simultaneously not comply with the UN Charter. The triple lock does no more or less than ensure we are doing what we already should be doing as members of the UN by ensuring the UN Security Council is protected. It codifies it in Irish law, and that is the way it should be.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have asked a number of witnesses about my next point. It is the one I really struggle to get my head around. It is from those who believe we need to keep the triple lock in order to protect our neutrality. It is, essentially, that we would rather trust the Security Council to protect our neutrality and have given over our sovereignty, or some part of our sovereignty, to the Security Council, particularly the likes of China, Russia and the US, rather than trust the people who elected us to these Houses to protect a neutrality we all stand for. That is a point I just cannot get my head around - anyone coming in here to present that we would genuinely rather maintain the triple lock and allow the veto to continue rather than taking a second look at a mechanism within these Houses that would continue to protect our neutrality while trusting the democratically elected people of these Houses more than we trust the veto.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I will take a minute on this. With greatest respect to all present, politicians need to have a certain sense of perspective about why they are elected. People do not elect politicians because they think they are fantastic or the best people that could possibly represent them. They often elect them on the basis of a Hobson's choice. They do not elect politicians because they want them to have unlimited control over everything. They elect them as part of a constitutional framework of checks and balances. The triple lock is not in the Constitution, but it is part of a framework of checks and balances. We can take this tabloidesque view of it being "Putin's veto" or whatever. It is a framework, we would argue, of checks and balances that is necessary. One can always drill down into specifics and ask why a particular country in certain circumstances has a veto power over Irish troops. It is a framing-----
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That brings me to my final point-----
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----because the Constitution allows for exactly that at Cabinet but does not demand the triple lock. My final point is on the argument for a referendum. I do not know of any referendum mandated in this country that does not explicitly change the Constitution. Therefore, if we are not explicitly changing the Constitution with the removal of the triple lock, why do the witnesses think their argument in regard to a referendum holds up?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I might come in on the previous point. The Deputy said he could not get his head around the narrative that was being rolled out. I cannot get my head around it either because it makes no sense. The logic, narrative and rationale being put forward by the Government that the Security Council somehow has a veto over Irish troops is simply not the case. It does not have a veto over Irish troops. I have explained that already; it is in my submission. It can veto missions, but once a mission gets the backing of the organisations tasked with and responsible for international peace and security, we can deploy on it. Why would we want to deploy on any mission that did not have the backing of the United Nations? The framing is completely disingenuous. The Deputy is right; many people cannot get their heads around it because it is absolute nonsense.
On the vetoes, I went through every single Russian veto - I have them here - since the beginning of the nineties to check if there had ever been an instance where Russia had vetoed a peacekeeping mission such that Ireland could not participate. There was not one instance ever where Russia vetoed a peacekeeping mission. This legislation is not necessary. The Government is laying out a case to do something that it does not need to do and it would be much better if the Government was honest about what its intentions actually are, which is to send troops on EU battle groups and potentially NATO-led missions, and not get lost and entangled in the inner workings of the UN Security Council.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will go to Senator Tom Clonan but are there any other permanent members who wish to indicate before I go to the non-permanent members? Now everyone puts a hand up. Senator Clonan can continue.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for attending. We are coming to the end of our pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. With specific reference to the triple lock and its impact on neutrality, I want to summarise and ask the witnesses questions about it.
On 1 July, we had a number of very experienced military officers, some with a combined total of over 150 years of military service. In our questioning of them, it was confirmed absolutely and categorically that any missions assigned to Irish troops outside of the UN Security Council mandate were likely to be peace enforcement or war-fighting missions. The days of peacekeeping in the old sense of having the consent of all the belligerent parties are over in this new reality of a multipolar world with accelerating threats and hybrid threats. Our troops will be engaged in peace enforcement almost exclusively, which is war fighting. We gave the example of the UN mission to Korea, which turned into a full war with a land invasion and, more recently, the UN intervention in Afghanistan, which evolved into full-spectrum combat operations.
We also learned from the Department of Defence back in May that if the triple lock was removed and the legislation was enacted as drafted, Irish troops could have been sent to invade Iraq back in 2003. The Department of Defence also confirmed that if this legislation was enacted as written, Irish troops could be sent to join any coalition of the willing of troops in a future environment. Finally, to frame my question, it was also confirmed here by my former colleagues and fellow veterans that such is the number of troops Ireland can deploy meaningfully - which is battalion-minus or, in fact, just north of a company - that Irish troops sent into these peace enforcement or war-fighting scenarios will inevitably come under direct command of foreign higher formations.
In light of those findings that have been made very clear to the committee, do the witnesses think that this - it is not an amendment of the triple lock, but its removal - will fundamentally change the nature of Ireland's military service overseas and how we are perceived in the world? Does that have an impact on our neutrality?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
Yes, it will fundamentally change it because it will mean that any mission we have been invited to take part in, that we have not taken part in to date because of the triple lock, we could take part in.
That was the case with the Iraq War, as Ms Bernie Maguire confirmed on the first day. In the case of Iraq, the UK self-certified that it complied with international law. The British Attorney General was pressured to provide legal advice saying that, which I have explained in our submission in some detail.
The real concern with any possible war-fighting force we could take part in is the possibility of direct confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. The European Commission's White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030 identified Russia as being the key threat. That is consistent with the rhetoric that has emanated from numerous EU figures and is the key factor behind this drive to accelerate EU militarisation. Everything in the EU's White Paper is consistent with that. Among other things, it calls for the acquisition of capabilities for high-intensity warfare. That is not a peacekeeping mission where one is simply playing a supervisory role. It is high-intensity warfare, like is seen in Ukraine. It is about having the capacity to make deep precision strikes in enemy territory, which is, again, clearly targeted at a country like Russia, with a vast landmass. That would be the biggest concern and it is a realistic concern because of, for example, EU leaders such as President Macron calling for direct deployment to Ukraine and Sir Keir Starmer's coalition of the willing.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I have a copy of the White Paper here. I do not know if everyone here has read it. I recommend that everyone do so. It is effectively a war plan. It sets out, step by step, the different stages that Europe will take between now and 2030 to engage in active war fighting. As the Senator says, this language is terrifying. As we sit in this room, we should be discussing strengthening legislation to ensure we do not become involved in a war. We are actually sitting here discussing how to remove legislation to permit that eventuality to happen. Have we lost our minds? We should be sitting here talking about how to strengthen our neutrality and keep ourselves out of war. Instead, we are thinking about how we can distort our understanding of the UN Security Council vetoes so that we can permit Ireland to participate.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry to cut across Ms Ní Bhriain. My time is brief. On 29 May, the Department of Defence confirmed explicitly that the upper limit of 12 troops did not apply when Ireland required to send our troops on a rescue mission, for example, to evacuate Irish citizens from a foreign airport. It does not apply when we send troops, if we wish to, to provide assistance to our neighbours or partners with man-made or natural disasters, secondary to climate change and so on. The Department of Defence set out quite clearly that the upper limit of 12 bears no relationship whatsoever to our ability to deploy troops in those situations. Does Ms Ní Bhriain agree that the triple lock has no bearing whatsoever on our agility or capacity to respond as we see fit, as crises arise, on a case-by-case basis, and that it only applies to formally mandated international missions, which is an entirely different matter?
My last question has two parts. All the evidence we have heard here from Professor Ray Murphy, the professor of law who appeared here on 12 June, and from Mr. Conway who was here last week is that any future Government can send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world by simple Dáil majority. Do the witnesses think that safeguards should be put in place to replace the triple lock in that context? Do the witnesses think that the Irish people - the citizens of this country - are ahead of the current Government with regard to how they feel about this and its implications for our perceived neutrality?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will allow the witnesses to answer briefly but the Senator's time is up.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
There is no limit, so we can participate in evacuation missions. That is allowed for in the 2006 Act. This or any future Government can send any number of troops anywhere with a simple Dáil majority vote, as the Senator said. That is why this is terrifying and why we need to be really serious about what we are talking about here.
Yes, the Irish people are ahead.
Regarding the 2030 readiness plan, when I participated in the neutrality roadshow, I spoke to hundreds of people. A mother came up to me. She had calculated the number of years as I was speaking, and she said, terrified, that she had just realised that her son would be 18 when this kicked off and the 2030 plan was ready to go. She asked would he be sent off to war. That is the reality and that is why people in Ireland are ahead. It is about sending Irish people off to war. We need to be very clear about it.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for attending. I have a number of questions for them. I commend them on having those roadshows about neutrality. It is useful to try to engage. They made a point that we should be having a discussion about what sort of future Ireland we want. That is important. My view on many of these discussions is that this is really the first stepping stone. Perhaps there could be a similar series of roadshows with a wider discussion. Neutrality is a limited focus. As an academic, I know that would result in a self-selected audience as opposed to the wider discussion of where we want Ireland to be and the explanation to people about how the world is changing. From talking to people, I find that they are terrified about how the world is changing. They are looking at what is happening in Gaza and Ukraine and at our close former allies and how their attitudes are changing, and they are wondering where the world is going. That is part of a wider discussion that we need to have. I see this debate as part of that. It is a step on the road to try to put us in a position where we are better able to engage in this changing this world.
Where UN Security Council approval may have been useful in the past, we are no longer finding it useful because of the reasons that have been articulated by many previous witnesses. The witnesses here talked about the vetoes. Many witnesses who have come before us have said that if it is thought that something will be turned down, it will not even be pressed to a vote. That is why votes are no longer being taken on these things. That has been restricting us as a country from participating. As another witness said, it has resulted in us being regarded as unreliable partners with the people who we regard as close allies and countries we want to work with on this.
The witnesses quoted Éamon de Valera, saying that he did not want us to be the tools of any great power. Is that not effectively where we are at the moment by having the triple lock? Are we not giving our power to the five permanent members of the Security Council to decide what we do as a country? It fundamentally goes against everything that Éamon de Valera would have stood for himself. In my view, it completely undermines our independence and sovereignty. Does any other neutral country require this or are we alone on this?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
This point has been made over and over again about the Security Council. It does not impose a veto on Ireland specifically. It mandates peacekeeping missions on the basis of the information that it has before it. Once the mandate is given, Ireland deploys on those missions. The Deputy said the Security Council was defunct, but at the moment, there are 11 active peacekeeping missions around the world. Ireland can participate in any and all of those missions, without any impediment, as we wish. We can continue to participate in peacekeeping with a UN mandate if we wish. This is not something that has fallen apart entirely and those mandates are regularly renewed, as was laid out clearly by Mr. Kelly.
On the idea that the world is changing, we are sitting here talking about defence readiness for 2030. Europe is heading into war. We are sitting here talking about that and the Deputy's conclusion is that that is where we would need to be, that the Security Council is not working as it should, so we should-----
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are not talking about that. We are talking about specific legislation here.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
Yes, but if that legislation is enacted, that is exactly where we will find ourselves. We are saying the world is changing. If the world is changing, why would we come to a conclusion that allows us to act outside of the United Nations?
There is nothing to be gained from Ireland acting outside of the United Nations. If, tomorrow, the United Nations shut down its peacekeeping and said peacekeeping was over and it would not do any more UN peacekeeping missions, I still would not advocate for Ireland to send troops on EU, NATO or any other missions. I would advocate for Ireland to do more of what we did on the cluster munitions legislation and the legacy of Frank Aiken on nuclear non-proliferation. Ireland has an incredible legacy on peace that goes beyond peacekeeping missions. They are just one part of it. If we look at the direction the world is going in, it is going in a very bad direction. If the conclusion we draw from that is to decide to deploy our troops on EU battle group missions, that just would not follow.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Ní Bhriain is making a huge leap there. We are talking about one specific thing and there are an awful lot of shoulds, woulds and coulds being mentioned.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I used the term "friends".
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Just to be very clear, we are not. We are very clear in our position on Gaza and we are alone in Europe on that.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but we get to decide that, not somebody else.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what I am saying. In our position on Gaza, we have made that decision. With the triple lock, we are allowing other people to make that decision for us. It is quite a significant difference. We are trying to take back our independence here and trying to decide what we want to do as a country and where we want to position ourselves. At the moment, we are hamstrung by this triple lock.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I do not agree because it is just a minimum requirement to have UN Security Council approval or approval from the UN General Assembly under the "uniting for peace" jurisdiction. There is no requirement for Ireland to deploy troops where the UN decides to authorise a deployment. A reference was made earlier to the disastrous Korean War which was UN-authorised. We do not envisage Irish troops should simply go wherever the UN wants it to go. It should be a decision of the Dáil and of the Government but the UN is a necessary safeguard.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Kelly agrees then that just because something is approved by the UN currently, we do not have to participate.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Thus, all this is really doing is ensuring we have that flexibility in every decision we make.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses. What are the witnesses' attitudes to the deployment of our troops in south Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL mandate?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
It is a very important mandate. It started in the late 1970s and it began because of Israel's invasion of Lebanon. It took place at a time when western countries were much more willing to stand up to Israel, I would say. It is a very important mandate. Irish soldiers have been killed by Israel and Israeli-backed forces down through the years. It is an extremely important mandate.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In relation to the current conflagration in the Middle East, we can see very clearly the US and UK are behind Israel. We can see Russia and China are behind Iran. If Russia or China decided to box clever to further destabilise the situation, either of them could veto the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate that is required in a number of weeks to further destabilise the area in aid of their friends in Tehran. What does Mr. Kelly say to that?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I do not agree with that framing of the situation, necessarily. The question is always "What is the alternative?" The fact there may be some missions vetoed, even if they are worthwhile, is, in my view, better than having a free-for-all where the Government can send troops wherever it wants, be that a possible war with Russia or an invasion such as Iraq. I hope the mandate is renewed. It is a very important mission and Ireland has an exemplary record of service. The reason Ireland has an exemplary record of service and is taken so seriously is our scrupulous adherence to only deploying in UN missions, I would argue. I hope the mandate is renewed.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are talking about UN missions here.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If the mandate is not renewed in August, for whatever reason, the committee was told by other witnesses to the committee we would have to withdraw our troops immediately. It would be an immediate withdrawal which would destabilise that part of south Lebanon, on the border with Israel.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important that the mandate is renewed but what happens if Russia or China decides to play games?
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The veto would have the same effect, whether it is vetoed by China, Russia, the UK, the US or France.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
The mandate could be vetoed by anyone but by the same logic, if it is vetoed and the UNIFIL mission is wound down, what business would Ireland have being in Lebanon if it does not have a UN mandate? The thing that gives us legitimacy in being there is having a UN mandate, blue helmets and blue berets. When Irish troops came under fire at the end of last year the thing that gave us legitimacy to be there was the UN mandate. If the mandate is vetoed, and I hope it is not and the mission continues, Ireland would have no mandate to be there.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The situation would potentially be destabilised further.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is grand, thanks. Mr. Kelly mentioned he would like to see a referendum to enshrine neutrality. If a wording were agreed, the people were agreeable to it and it was passed and became part of the Constitution, would Mr. Kelly be in any way worried about the triple lock legislation in that context?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
It would depend on exactly how the proposal was worded but I would be much less worried in that context because having neutrality, if it is properly worded in the Constitution, would mean necessarily that Ireland could not take sides in foreign wars, so we would not be able to deploy in a combat capacity. It would be implicit, really, whereas it is currently explicit.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Kelly uses the word "implicit". One of the witnesses at last week's meeting, Mr. Joe Noonan, who is a legal specialist in this area, confirmed to the committee that the courts have recognised, implicitly, our neutrality.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I am not sure they have. I think in the Horgan case it was held that neutrality, as defined in the Hague Conventions, is part of customary international law but, unfortunately, the courts were not able to enforce a ban on Shannon Airport being used by the US military, as was requested, because it has not been formally adopted. I wish that were true but, unfortunately, I do not think it is.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what Mr. Noonan says and he is the one who held himself to be an expert in this area, from a legal perspective. For argument's sake, and I know this is not the position either of the witnesses adopt, if the triple lock were to be gone in the morning, can they suggest alternative safeguards Ireland could put in place to protect our position as neutrals?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
Somebody else, or maybe it was the Deputy, put the same question to Mr. Ray Murphy. I cannot see any good reason for abandoning the triple lock, so I would not waste my time trying to come up with alternatives. Ireland has a triple lock that has served us really well and we would be very foolish and reckless and it would be playing with fire to decide to get rid of it. As a base minimum, I would keep the triple lock and build on that. Deputy Brabazon referenced Mr. Joe Noonan's interventions. In reference to the court, Mr. Noonan said he would look to have the aspirations mentioned in the Horgan case actually enshrined in law. That is the direction we should go in, in terms of strengthening our neutrality and not eroding it.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I am sorry I was late but I listened to them on the phone. Ms Ní Bhriain stated:
I feel a particular responsibility to mothers, family members of Defence Forces personnel, teenagers and former peacekeepers, who shared their stories with me ... [conveying] genuine fear at what may lie if [the Government abolish the] triple lock.
In her submission, she wrote: "I urge the members of the Committee to scrutinise this legislation as though it were your sons and daughters being deployed on EU battlegroup or NATO-led missions". I speak as a father of a member of the Defence Forces. As I have said to a number of people who have appeared before us as witnesses, we take every item of legislation seriously in these Houses and we take it as if we are dealing with the sons and daughters - or gender-neutral members - of any family, no matter what the legislation is. I assure Ms Ní Bhriain of that. That is what I will be doing and what my colleagues from all sides will be doing.
Mr. Kelly made comments about elected representatives. Has he ever stood for election?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. It is important then that Mr. Kelly realise the fact the people who stand for election put themselves forward. In every election, there are hundreds of people who put themselves forward, whether at local or national level. Some are successful and most are not, but at least they try. I suggest Mr. Kelly try it some time before he makes those comments about public representatives.
I will put my questions. Do the witnesses believe we as a country can be militarily neutral if we cannot defend ourselves? Do they believe the United Nations is a fully functioning organisation? In relation to what Deputy Brabazon asked them, if the triple lock is dispensed with, do they believe there is a function for the Seanad and, indeed, the President as a substitute?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I do not appreciate it at all. I am a citizen. I have come here. I was invited to come here. I did not have to. I was invited. I took the day off work. I do not like the implication you need to run for election to have an opinion on something. The TDs are there to serve the public.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry but you do not degrade Members of the Houses-----
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----or question them if you have not put yourself before the public.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I think it would be best to move to answering the questions.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
On the question of whether we can defend ourselves if we are militarily neutral, one has to ask oneself what it means to defend oneself. For example, let us say the Government is planning on buying fighter jets and having them stationed in Shannon. I am from County Clare and the idea we would have fighter jets on the runway in Shannon terrifies me, especially when we have no functioning hospital in Ennis and people from there have to go to Limerick to get the hospital treatments they need. When we are looking at what we need to defend ourselves, we need to ask what we need to make us feel secure. If we were to ask people in County Clare whether they would feel more secure having fighter jets on the runway in Shannon or having a functioning hospital, I think we would find they would all choose the functioning hospital. Going beyond that, what are we going to do with the fighter jets? If we send them out over the Atlantic and they see a suspicious ship, take aim and fire, what happens next? Imagine that is a Russian ship, for example, because we hear about Russian ships all the time. That means Ireland is in direct conflict with a nuclear power.
The concept of defence really needs to be interrogated. As a small island nation with very limited defence resources, our best and only defence is our neutrality because we could never go up against a nuclear power or any other military and we should never try because the results would be catastrophic. We should make sure we do not get attacked in the first place and that is about maintaining an active neutrality policy. With neutrality, military neutrality and all these concepts, we have to look at what we actually mean when we come to a situation where we are sending a fighter jet over the Atlantic and it ends up taking aim, potentially, at a Russian ship and then Ireland is in conflict with a nuclear power.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If tomorrow morning this island was invaded, who would defend us?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but I am talking about since we have had a 26-county Republic.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
That invasion came to an end for the majority of the island due to an asymmetric war that was fought with around 3,000 people, namely, the War of Independence. One way or another, we are never going to be able to compete with a major power on that power's own terms. Only making it hard enough for them to occupy us that they would not bother is the only, I suppose, defence policy that makes sense.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have to deal with reality here. In an ideal world, everybody would get on with everybody and there would be no war. We spend trillions of dollars as a world looking up into the sky to see if there is anybody else out there but we cannot get on with ourselves. I really appreciate the witnesses' presentations but in other words, they are saying we should not have a front door or a back door on our house because nobody is going to come near us.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
PANA has never opposed the existence of the Defence Forces. We acknowledge there is a necessity to have a relatively small army as a kind of first line of defence, but we have to maintain a sense of proportion. It is never going to be capable of inflicting an outright defeat on a major power. North Korea is the only small country in the world that could do that.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms NÍ Bhriain and Mr. Kelly for taking the time out to be here. Since we started this process, we have listened to a number of witnesses from both sides of the argument and I have found it very enlightening. We have got to a point where we need to have a conversation about neutrality and what exactly it means because having listened to the witnesses who have appeared to date, everybody has his or her own idea about what it means. In the world we live in today, that is a conversation we need to have.
Flowing from that, let us take what is going on in Gaza and Ukraine. Do the witnesses agree with this country's stance to date on both conflicts?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
"No" would be the short answer. We have been very strong in our rhetoric on Gaza and very weak in our actions. Francesca Albanese, the UN expert on the occupied Palestinian territories, has said as much. It is a disgrace we have allowed aeroplanes to transit Irish airspace, as has been extensively documented by The Ditch, carrying munitions of war, in many cases to Israel. We were correct to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine but I do not agree we were correct to provide training to Ukrainian troops. We should have confined any assistance to humanitarian assistance with organisations such as the Red Cross.
I do not agree with providing lethal training, which is what we have provided because we have provided rifle training to troops.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If I may cut across Mr. Kelly for a second, is this not a simple argument of right and wrong and what side of the fence you are on? Is what the Russians have done to the Ukrainians right? Is it right what is going on in-----
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Why then does Mr. Kelly have a problem, as I see it from listening to him, taking sides in that argument?
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is what is going on there right or wrong? That is my question. Does Mr. Kelly agree with it or does he not agree with it?
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not understand what he is saying to me. Is what the Russians are doing to the people of Ukraine right?
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Kelly disagrees with that, so he agrees with the Irish Government's stance that what is going on there is wrong.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Right, so how does that affect our neutrality? Mr. Kelly is now taking a side in a conflict. I am only asking the question. Is that not contrary to our neutrality?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
In my view, no, because we in PANA advocate positive neutrality, that is, remaining outside of other countries' wars but being robust in standing up for the United Nations and international law. The Russian invasion breached the UN Charter so there was no problem condemning it. We have to be clear that there is a contrived distinction made between so-called political and so-called military neutrality. We advocate neutrality under international law, and under international law there is just neutrality. That is how it is set out in the Hague Conventions and in customary international law. When people say you cannot be neutral because you condemn this, that or the other, it is a misunderstanding of what neutrality means. Neutrality has never meant that you have to maintain strict impartiality in every single view you take. Even in 1939, when the legislation providing for our neutrality was going through the Dáil, de Valera expressed the view that Irish people would naturally sympathise with Poles as they were fighting off the German invaders. That misunderstanding has never been what neutrality has meant.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
To add to that, the way Senator Gallagher has set it out, it would seem that neutrality and international law are almost incompatible, but they are not. I agree with what Mr. Kelly said. The Government has been extremely weak on Palestine. If you look at what the neutrality convention, the Hague Convention, says, it is very clear that we should not be allowing US military troops to use Shannon Airport as they are arming and backing a genocide. That is very clear under the neutrality convention. We have done absolutely nothing, with all the knowledge we have of what is going on in Shannon, about the Israeli overflights transporting weapons. We could rely on neutrality as a legal construct in that convention and enforce that and we would still be in line with our obligations under the Genocide Convention, under which we have an obligation to take steps to prevent as well as punish. We have done nothing to try to prevent the genocide. We continue to trade with Israel. There are a number of steps we could have taken that we have not taken. If we were to take an active neutrality stance and not allow Shannon Airport to be used, that would go a long way towards trying to stop the genocide, which is our obligation under international law.
On Ukraine, I also agree. Of course it was an illegal invasion, and what is happening in Ukraine is absolutely horrific. I do not agree that the Irish Government should be sending Irish troops to train Ukrainian soldiers because that is a violation. That could not possibly be compatible with our neutrality. We should be using-----
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Ní Bhriain is happy enough with her stance on neutrality and to let the people of Ukraine be pounded by the Russians. She is happy enough-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator, please keep your contribution to the legislation we are trying to scrutinise. I know the argument you are developing.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but both are connected, whether we like it or not.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
They have been pounded regardless of the training we have given them and they will continue to be pounded until some state actually steps up - and it is a real shame that Ireland has not done this - and says we need to negotiate peace. Why is Ireland not using its position within the European Union to say we need peace and we need to bring together the parties and have a negotiation? Ireland is a small-----
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With respect to Ms Ní Bhriain, it is Russia that started this. Surely the first thing the Russians have to do is to stop their illegal invasion.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Fair enough. We are not going to agree on that one.
Does Ms Ní Bhriain agree that we should increase our defence spending in this country to protect ourselves?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I think we need to guarantee that our soldiers have their employment and their accommodation and, if they are sent on foreign missions, that they are paid well. All those things need to be taken care of. Do I think we should be buying anti-tank missiles and fighter jets? No, absolutely not. As I said, I am from Clare. We have a hospital in Ennis that is not functional. People are going to Limerick and spending days on trolleys.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With respect, that is a health issue. That is a health committee job, not-----
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are those who would say we are happy to freeload on the backs of others. What would Ms Ní Bhriain say to that?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I would say that Ireland has had an unwavering commitment to peace throughout our membership of the United Nations. We are the only state that has an unbroken record of peacekeeping missions. I mentioned cluster munitions. There is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That is not freeloading; that is building peace. The idea that we are freeloading because we have decided to invest our time, energy and resources in building peace instead of joining a war just does not make sense. We are not freeloading on anyone. We are about building peace.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I call Senator Seán Kyne.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses. I seek one bit of clarity first from Ms Ní Bhriain. She said in her contribution of any politician who votes for this Bill, "their cards will have been marked". What does she mean by that?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It seemed like a threat. It is not a threat.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We do. We are all here. Look at the attendance.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We take our responsibilities very seriously.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is agreed - I think everyone here agrees - that Russia carried out an illegal invasion of Ukraine. Under the triple lock, the country that carried out that illegal invasion should decide where this country participates in peacekeeping. How do the witnesses rationalise that?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
Russia should not have carried out the illegal invasion. It is true that it has a veto. The UK and the US carried out the illegal invasion of Iraq. They have vetos. France carried out the illegal invasion of Egypt. It has a veto. China carried out the illegal invasion of Vietnam. It has a veto. That is the problem with big countries. They choose to ignore international law where it suits them, particularly when they have nuclear weapons. There is not a choice of having an organisation like the UN where the big countries adhere all the time to international law. It is a choice between having an organisation like that or not having it at all. The situation with permanent members defying international law is disgraceful. It is outrageous that they can simply disregard international law when they have a responsibility to uphold the UN Charter as permanent members. Unfortunately, however, I think that without the UN it would be even worse.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, absolutely, without the UN but the UN is not functioning in its make-up and, ultimately, any peacekeeping mission that Ireland was to participate in would have to be with the consent or the abstention of the P5 members. That is the whole point of the issue here.
Colonel Doyle last Tuesday stated that the UN veto system reflects the realities of global power dynamics but also leads to deadlocking situations where the P5 interests conflict. Touching on and following on from Deputy Brabazon's comments on the UNIFIL mission, that is a case in point. The witnesses both agree that that peacekeeping mission is worthy. I think the Irish people do. There is a proud record. Soldiers have lost their lives on those peacekeeping missions, and the military experts who were here last week indicated that soldiers, in many cases young recruits, join the Irish Defence Forces because of peacekeeping missions and to be part of them. Were geopolitics to interfere with that, and were Israel to encourage the United States to block that mandate, would the witnesses accept that as being fine or right or proper?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
We have both set out that we support the mission in Lebanon and we hope that it is extended. However, if it is not extended and it is wound down, we have no business being there. What are the chances of us being able to keep the peace if we are there without the backing of the United Nations? Under what mandate would we be there? If we do not have the backing of the United Nations, imagine we are there as an EU-backed mission-----
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But what if it was decided at the whim of, for example, Israel putting pressure on the United States?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
Yes, and that is the reality of the Security Council. I do not favour the veto system and, as we have already discussed, there needs to be reform within the United Nations. If they vote against the Lebanon mission tomorrow, it would be a real shame but that is the reality. In that case, Ireland would have no business being there, if we did not have a United Nations mandate.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Even though it is the right place to be?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In that case, all it would take is not having the backing of Israel encouraging the United States, for example.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Ní Bhriain is happy with the mission as it is and most people agree that there is a proud record of peacekeeping in Lebanon. What if the mission were not to be renewed because of political interference?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
Yes, it would be a real shame and it would be horrific but a mandate is not this kind of moral fiction that exists in the air. It is printed on a piece of paper and it is handed to the UN staff in Lebanon for them to implement. Who will print that mandate and give it to the personnel if the mandate is wound down?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What if other countries decided to stay, so that there was a presence?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is this Ms Ní Bhriain's position, even though one of the P5 members, as Ms Ní Bhriain agrees, has carried out an illegal invasion of another country or a number of them as Mr. Kelly stated? That is the whole point here. If it is deemed to be a proper mission today, and if one country decides it does not like it for whatever geopolitical reasons and decides not to continue on that, does Ms Ní Bhriain see the contradiction?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
The Senator has not said what the mandate would be. If we have a UN mandate, we can be in Lebanon. If there is no UN mandate and we talk about a moral mandate or a coalition of states that send another mission, I would not support that because it would mean Ireland was acting outside of the UN system. As a small, neutral country-----
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But would it be consistent with the UN Charter?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As there are no other permanent members indicating I will give five minutes to each of the non-permanent members, starting with Senator Alice- Mary Higgins. I will take indications for a second round of one short question each.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To pick up on the issue of the mandate, we focused a lot on Russia and Ukraine. I was very struck by the number of missions in Africa, including Mali, Niger, Mozambique and the Sahel region. This is a large number of military actions taken by Europe. We were told that the language in the proposed legislation is directly taken from the Lisbon treaty, which talks about conflict prevention and strengthening international security. This is not just peacekeeping but also strengthening international security. These are clearly some of the interpretations that have been made by the EU. When we talked about the solemn promise and commitment that was made, it was not simply about who gets to decide where we deploy, it was about a guarantee of how the UN Charter would be interpreted. Clearly, with these missions, the EU is interpreting that it is allowed to strengthen international security under the UN Charter. On the other hand, the Irish public looked for the guarantee that it would be a UN body, including the General Assembly that might interpret the UN Charter. That is where the interpretation of the international law comes back to the core point of who interprets international law.
Regarding the examples Ms Ní Bhriain gave, is it the case that EU interpretation of international law or how it has interpreted its actions in strengthening international security, could potentially include actions in terms of interests? I am looking, for example, at the protection of commercial shipping in the Red Sea. Does the EU interpretation seem to include action for the protection of interests, including economic or commercial ones?
Regarding the General Assembly, will Mr. Kelly clarify whether, with 190 countries and if UNIFIL is cancelled perhaps a motion could be achieved at the General Assembly? We know that there have been very striking majorities in relation to the 190 countries' interpretation of international law and the UN Charter. Under the 2006 Act this does not compel us to act but allows Ireland to act.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I will come in briefly on the interpretation of international security and conflict prevention and then the question of interests that the European Union sets out for its military missions. It has four pillars, including peace and security, which are very laudable aims, but the fourth aim is to protect European interests. It is stated directly and you do not have to read it between the lines. The EU sets out very clearly that these missions are very much driven by protecting European interests. On this, they do not align with international law. We have already mentioned the various ways in which the EU has been violating international law and these missions are hugely problematic. I have brought along one of the reports that we did on 20 years of EU military missions. Horrific human rights violations have been perpetrated by military personnel trained by the European Union - predominantly in Africa, because that is where most of the missions are - including military coups and horrific human rights violations. We are also financing their lethal equipment. In my opening remarks I gave the example of Mali. Tens of millions of euro was sent to Niger in the run-up to the coup.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I agree about international law. The European Court of Justice, ECJ, has held in the Kadi case, for example, that the Union does not have to follow legally binding decisions of the UN Security Council. I do not accept that the EU can be relied on to uphold international law. As regards the "uniting for peace" facility, people who do not think that this is something that can be relied upon need to clarify why this is in the legislation in the first place. Recently on Irish radio, the UN special rapporteur for food called for Ireland to use the "uniting for peace" facility to push for an international force in Gaza to distribute aid. I am convinced that this could command the requisite two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. It has not been activated for a long time but it still a possibility, not a remote-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would Ireland be better positioned to do that if we maintained our UN position? Do "interests" potentially include commercial and economic interests?
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know that much of this discussion is bound up in the changing context and the changing world we have today. The witnesses touched on the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and also mentioned France, China and the US in Iraq.
It sounds like what the witnesses are describing with the Security Council has been a long-existing issue and the global context has not really changed. Will they speak to that and whether there is a different context or has it remained the same? Are we couching this discussion in a new context which is not true because we have always had these challenges?
The veto has been cited as something that stopped us engaging in peacekeeping missions previously. Will the witnesses touch on the Golan Heights, the UN mission there and why that was prevented?
Given the emergency situations around things such as civil evacuation and drugs missions are not subject to the cap or Dáil approval under this Bill, what scenarios do they envisage for the 50 troops being sent without Dáil approval?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I will take the question on the changing world. Over the course of the research I have been doing on the European Union, it is changing in that it started out as a political and economic union and then legally it has evolved, with Nice and Lisbon, so that the European Union is now very much a fully fledged military union. This is a change that has come about during the duration of Ireland’s membership of the European Union. That militarisation has gone hand in hand with the European Union inviting in arms companies. As I wrote in my submission, it has been very much influenced by arms companies and arms lobbyists, which have set up shop in Brussels and are actively influencing the shape of policy in the European Union. We have seen that with the group of personalities that was rolled out in 2015. For the first time ever, we have funding going directly from the European Union to the research and development of military equipment and weaponry, which is highly contested under the European Union’s own law. Therefore there is a change in that sense because until the last two decades, the European Union was not so much a militarised union in the way it has become and that is where the pressure points are for Ireland as a member of the European Union.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I would absolutely agree that this has long been an issue. The attack on Egypt in 1956 took place just when Ireland had joined the United Nations. This has been an issue for a very long time but again, it is a question of what is the alternative. It is better to have the United Nations even though it is often ignored, unfortunately, than not to have it at all. It is a challenge that has long existed. I do not think the Russian invasion fundamentally changed it because it is not the first time that a permanent member has breached the UN Charter, unfortunately. Therefore I completely agree.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On the Golan Heights and also the scenarios for the 50 troops?
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
We did have a mission in the Golan Heights. I am not across the details of the latest developments. I know it was terminated but I understand the new regime in Syria is seeking to negotiate with Israel the possible surrender of the Golan Heights. I need to look at the details of that so someone else would be better placed to comment.
On evacuation, the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 allows for evacuations under the law as it stands so I think the law already caters for situations where there is an urgent need. The key distinction is that it is not a combat-type mission. For us the key issue is -----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Where would Mr. Kelly see those 50 troops being deployed under this legislation given that there are already those mechanisms for evacuation under the 2006 Act?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
That is what is so terrifying about it. It opens up the possibility to deploy Irish troops anywhere. We could really be sent anywhere. The legislation opens up the possibility we could be sending our Irish troops to any war or conflict coming down the line. The language used by Senator Clonan of “war fighting” is what we are opening ourselves up to. The Government needs to clarify where it plans to send these troops and we have not heard that.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Four permanent members have indicated. I will give two minutes to each person and ask them to try to stick within the time. I will start with Senator Craughwell, then Deputies Brabazon and Stanley and then Senator Clonan, so far.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Two minutes is a very short time. I must draw attention to the comments Mr. Kelly made about elected representatives. We live in a democracy and that democracy means every one of us sitting around this table was elected. We put ourselves forward for election and we take all the insults and social media that goes with that. To come in here and sit before us and undermine and diminish the role we play is frankly quite insulting. I do not believe you need to stand for election to understand what is involved in being an elected representative but it is the attitude he has betrayed in here that sets the public against politicians. The distrust of politicians is driven by people like him who make statements like those which he made today.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Senator Craughwell have a question?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes. The witnesses came in and made a statement about 264 of 284 resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council. When was the last time the United Nations Security Council authorised a peacekeeping mission?
They speak about the United Nations General Assembly. It has been established here by the academics and military that have been here prior to the witnesses that first, it has not made a recommendation since, I think, 1956 and second, even if it made a recommendation it does not cover and United Nations Security Council authorisation is required.
Finally, the witnesses spoke about our airspace -----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator needs to leave time for answers.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
----- and the transportation of weapons across our airspace. How do we know they are there? We cannot see them. It is a nonsense argument.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Maybe start with the last one but there is a very short time to answer this.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Kelly knows what is published.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is out of time. Can Mr. Kelly just address the questions the Senator has raised as quickly as he can, please?
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
On the missions, there are 11 active UN missions. Their mandates are renewed every year by the Security Council. That is in response to there being no new missions. Maybe there are no new missions but there are ongoing missions and their mandates are regularly renewed on a yearly basis.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My question has already been put and I am not going to put it a second time.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. Thank you Deputy. I call Deputy Stanley.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Before I ask the question may I say that as an elected representative I do not feel the witnesses' statements in any way undermine my role as an elected representative.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I think what Mr. Kelly and Ms Ní Bhriain are asking us to do is take our positions seriously in relation to this and he is expressing a view. People have come in here with a very different view. I was not offended by their view even though I disagree with them.
Ms Ní Bhriain mentioned that Russia has never vetoed a peacekeeping mission, if I heard that correctly. My hearing is not 100%. Will she just clarify that?
I am concerned about cables and cybersecurity. I feel we do have to protect the cables and having a functioning navy is very important and being equipped. On cybersecurity, the attack on the HSE was instanced. As someone who believes in neutrality, I do not have any problem with our increasing our capacity to deal with cyberattacks. The State is already in the process of doing that and I do not see anything in relation to neutrality that would stop us from doing that or even co-operating with other countries on that. Do the witnesses see a problem with protecting our cables or the risks of cyberattacks from hostile interests or criminal gangs?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can I clarify, in co-operating with Interpol, it would not be a breach of neutrality.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I would say that exactly, yes.
Regarding the cables, one has to remember that there is not a single cable that is exclusively based in Irish waters. All of these cables run either across the Atlantic or elsewhere. Any solution has to take that into account. There is nothing that any hostile power can do in Irish waters that they cannot do in other waters. It has to be an international solution and not just limited to NATO or EU members.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Russia has never vetoed a peacekeeping mission.
Ms Niamh Ní Bhriain:
I did up a document on vetoes which I am happy to share with members in my submission. It looks at every Russian veto that has taken place since the beginning of the 1990s. There were 39 vetoes. None of them vetoed a peacekeeping mission. There is one veto that is on a United Nations observation mission in Georgia. That was not a peacekeeping mission; it was an observation mission. It was vetoed after 16 years. There are three others, including one in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina and one in relation to Cyprus, but they are in relation to financing. They never ended the missions. The missions continued and they resolved the financing afterwards. I have laid that out in the document. There has never been a mission vetoed by Russia.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Ní Bhriain. If she could let us have the document, we will do our best to include in the report.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a hypothetical question. What would happen if the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was not renewed on Lebanon? That resolution allows the Israelis and Hezbollah to give consent for UN peacekeeping forces to be there. I was there when that consent was given. I do not want to say this; I was in command of Irish troops under fire. I had that privilege. We repeatedly and consistently came under direct fire over months. In that period of time, as the Israeli fire bracketed onto us, the ground and our vehicles were shaking, the 0.5 rounds were slapping off the armour. In thinking of the civilians in the houses in the villages around us, we provided the security when the Irish engineers dug into those houses with consaws and pulled out the bodies of small children and the elderly with their insides pulled-out of them; their little blue and pink intestines hanging out. That is what the Israelis did with the consent of the UN. I can tell you that if that mandate is not renewed, the Israelis will manoeuvre north and slaughter everybody in their path. In that context, if we did not abide by the triple lock and let our young men and women into that situation, do you think it would be worth it? Do you think we could prevent that when the world powers and leaders need to step up to the plate and do what they are mandated to do? I am sorry to use that sort of language here but what we are discussing is so important. For those of you who have never heard a shot fired in anger, who have never experienced it or seen it first at hand; what we are committing our young men and women to, our children and grandchildren, is something that I think is thankfully outside the experience of most people here.
Mr. Stephen Kelly:
I thank Senator Clonan for his service to this country by commanding Irish troops under fire. There are very few people who have done it. I thank him for what he did and the bravery he showed. Regarding what would happen if it is not renewed, I am sure Israel would move north and I would rather not think of the consequences. It is often not the case of what the solution is but what the solution is not. Ireland holding off nuclear armed Israel on its own would be impossible. There has to be some sort of UN force. We need to ensured it is renewed but I do not know how exactly that can be done.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The good we can do is done with the consent of the belligerents. Hezbollah has murdered our troops. They murdered Private Sean Rooney. The Israelis have murdered our troops. Approximately half of our casualties have been inflicted by the Israelis and their proxies and the other 50% is by Hezbollah and other Islamic resistance groups. We have to be realistic. If we abandon the triple lock and deploy troops, as was confirmed by my veteran colleagues, it will be in a war fighting capacity. That is the scenario we are committing our troops to. There may be a case where we would make that decision, but my fear is we cannot make that decision lightly. There must be a safeguard because we make mistakes.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a question for both witnesses. Do they have confidence in and do they trust the Members elected to both Houses of the Oireachtas to make the right decision on this legislation?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I think that sufficiently answers that question. Does he have another question?
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want Ms Ní Bhriain to answer the same question.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am asking Ms Ní Bhriain if she trusts the Government? It is a yes-no answer.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Do you trust the Irish people? Perhaps we should go to a referendum. It is subjective.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the 1950s when there was a deployment under the "uniting for peace" resolution, it did not require the Security Council to agree to it. The General Assembly can authorise an international force. Can we have that confirmed? For example, it has been mentioned in relation to a potential force for the delivery of humanitarian aid. It has a higher bar - but is a potential one because it would not require consent - is the question of UNIFIL, perhaps, in terms of the General Assembly. Can the witnesses confirm that the General Assembly can authorise a force without the consent of the Security Council?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am going to finish it at that. On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for their time and also for the material they circulated in advance of the meeting. We will now suspend for a short break.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The joint committee is continuing its pre-legislative scrutiny of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025. I welcome on behalf of the committee Mr. Barry Andrews, MEP, and Ms Lynn Boylan, MEP. The witnesses are here to discuss the general scheme of the Bill and I thank them for joining us in person. Their contribution to our scrutiny is very much appreciated.
The format of the meeting is that I will invite each witness to make an opening statement This will 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.
The committee will publish the opening statements on its website following the meeting. I invite Mr. Andrews to make his opening statement.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
I really appreciate the opportunity to give a European perspective on this very valuable discussion. I congratulate the Cathaoirleach on her election as Chair. It is always a pleasure to be back among former colleagues and friends from the political world.
In April 2022, I published a paper entitled "Irish Neutrality in a Changing Europe". It was two months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I was trying to take stock of developments that were taking place prior to the invasion of Ukraine and where Ireland was in these circumstances. Of course, the events of February 2022 hastened considerations along these lines. We could see very quickly that not only the EU but its individual member states took dramatically new security positions, including Denmark joining the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, for the first time and the famous Zeitenwende speech by former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz where for the first time, Germany would take a more proactive approach in defence globally. We all know that Finland and Sweden have joined NATO and this is repeated in neutral countries such as Austria and Switzerland, a non-EU country. We saw very dramatic changes in the way people were addressing the dramatic impact of Russia's new approach to European security. Russia now prefers ideas of spheres of influence. It caused many of the neighbouring countries, particularly the Baltic states, to introduce extraordinary increases in their defence spending as a percentage of their GNP.
We in Ireland have been moving forward a bit more slowly. We saw the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the consultative forum on international security. In my paper, I wrote that the triple lock system was no longer fit for purpose. I simply questioned as did many of the other witnesses today why control over where we deploy our peacekeepers was placed in the hands of autocratic leaders in Russia and China. We must bear in mind that one of those leaders is the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, ICC. It seemed absurd that we would outsource decisions about our foreign policy and more specifically the deployment of our troops overseas to people of that calibre. We also know that the other three members are members of NATO so whichever way one looked at these issues, it seemed that it was time for reform of this issue.
There have been reviews in Ireland and progress has been made towards level of ambition 2, which is welcome and not before time. The consultative forum provided the opportunity for stakeholders to have a much closer look at these issues and gather as much information as possible from people. The forum was not decisive about this issue, which is why it is important that we have these discussions at a parliamentary level.
Let me absolutely clear that I am a staunch supporter of international law and international courts such as the ICC and the ICJ. I have spent much of my time in the European Parliament dealing with issues like that, including last night, where we had an event defending the International Criminal Court against sanctions imposed by the US. I think it is correct to be sceptical of the UN system. For some time, the Security Council has not been effective, which, as members are aware, has had an impact on peacekeeping missions. There have been none since 2014. While there are 11 ongoing peacekeeping missions, it seems that there is a chilling effect. Even António Guterres has said that the Security Council is dysfunctional and paralysed. We know that the future of UNIFIL in Lebanon is under threat from the US potentially vetoing its renewal in August. I visited Camp Shamrock as part of my preparation for the paper I published in 2022. I saw the hardship of that posting. We have seen in more recent times the literal threats to the lives of the men and women in uniform representing Ireland in southern Lebanon. When one looks at the conflicts around the world today, it is clear that there are many areas where a UN Security Council resolution on a peacekeeping force is extremely unlikely to be adopted.
Finally, to address those concerns of those who do not have faith in the Government to make the correct decisions around deployment, I agree with Dr. Cathal Berry’s approach that this committee should be tasked with scrutiny powers ahead of any proposed new mission, especially regarding Ireland’s obligations under international law, as well as the publication of the Attorney General’s formal advice. I further agree with the idea that any Dáil approval could also be subject to a review mechanism, be that an annual one or in the case of the withdrawal of a deployment.
In conclusion, no other country in the world uses our triple lock mechanism. Instead of allowing Dáil Éireann and our democratically elected Government to take decisions, we have abdicated our foreign policy to two members of NATO, two authoritarian governments and a Donald Trump led-US. I look forward to members' questions and reiterate my appreciation of the invitation.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I invite Ms Boylan to make her opening statement.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to participate today. I will focus on the wider EU policy context and what the proposed abolition of the triple lock means in such a context.
Ireland is a small neutral state with a long proud record of peacekeeping. In fact, we are the only nation to have a continuous presence on UN and UN-mandated peace support operations since 1958. Within the EU, there is no doubt that there has been an increasing push for militarisation. Recently, we had the ReArm Europe-Readiness 2030 agenda, a White Paper on the future of European defence outlining the EU policy and legislative agenda for European defence.
However, predating this latest posturing by EU leaders, we had the European Defence Fund, EDF. This was established in 2017 with a budget of €7.3 billion for the period from 2021 to 2027. This fund is for the purpose of funding defence industry research, capability development and contributing to EU defence interests in line with the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP. It also is worth noting that a recent investigative journalism report found that a subsidiary of Israeli Aerospace Industries, which is an Israeli state-owned drone manufacturer, benefited from at least €15 million in public funding from the EDF. The adoption of the Act in Support of Ammunition Production, ASAP, in 2023 saw €500 million of public money going to arms companies to increase their production capability.
There has been much discussion about sovereignty in this debate but it has all focused on the UN. I agree that the UN needs reform but as the UN is also under incredible political pressure and is being undermined by various actors, now is not the time to weighing in and pulling away support for the UN. We must be very clear that while we are focused on the issue of sovereignty when it comes to the UN, the European Commission and its militarisation agenda are actively eroding the sovereignty of member states. The mechanisms used under the treaties for the adoption of ASAP and more recently the SAFE regulation, namely, Articles 122 and 173 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, are not compliant with the provisions of Article 41.2 of the Treaty on European Union, TEU.
Article 41.2 requires that expenditure from the European Union budget for the purposes of operations with a military or defence implication are prohibited without unanimity at the Council. The legal inconsistency has been highlighted in the case of ASAP by the previous Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, and more recently in the Bundestag. Moreover, even the President of the European Parliament has highlighted similar concerns in relation to the SAFE regulation and bypassing the scrutiny of the Parliament and Council.
I highlight this because in the context where we are giving any future government a huge amount of scope to deploy Irish soldiers in EU missions, we also have a European Commission that is not abiding by the treaties, is not abiding by international law in terms of Israel and is increasingly violating the principle of subsidiarity and sovereignty when it comes to the defence policy of member states. Recently, we have seen Spain publicly admonished for daring to say that it would not cut social welfare spending to reach a threshold of 5% of GDP military expenditure. While this was in the context of NATO, it is also important to note that the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, makes no distinction between NATO and the EU.
The triple lock, I believe, affords Ireland a firewall that protects from this ever-increasing EU shift to militarisation. Ireland will be taking up the European Presidency next year and will come under enormous pressure to play ball and, like the Spanish Government, to not resist this push for militarisation. The triple lock gives the Government a firewall to point to, that it has a mandate to represent Ireland as a neutral state.
There has been a growth in the deployment of EU military missions under the CSDP since they began over 20 years ago. These missions are in stark contrast to UN peacekeeping missions. They often take place in the former colonies of European countries, such as in the Sahel region, and are not subject to the scrutiny of the European Parliament, national parliaments, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Auditors or to the European Convention on Human Rights.
UN missions, on the other hand, will have had a huge amount of preparatory work through a technical field assessment of the overall security, political, military, humanitarian and human rights situation on the ground. The General Assembly then plays a key role in monitoring the ongoing missions and making sure they are fulfilling their objectives. There has been no explanation of how this work will be replaced by either the EU or the Irish Government. This is particularly relevant to head 6 of the Bill, which uses the phrase “strengthening international security ... consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter” and “maintenance of international peace and security in conformity with the principles of justice and international law”. This language comes directly from Article 42.1 of the Treaty on European Union but has not been applied in a manner consistent with the UN Charter. Instead, it has sought to protect the interests of EU countries in the global south in a highly extractive and neocolonial manner.
I wish to highlight further examples that illustrate the shifting EU policy towards militarisation and direct public funding, by Irish citizens, of arms companies that are enjoying record profits. The Commission has recently proposed to allow cohesion funds to be used for military expenditure. That is funding that in the past was used to build our road networks and that should be used for other countries to develop their infrastructure. Ireland is a net contributor to that fund. That fund now can be used for military expenditure. The European Commission has also confirmed that defence spending will be categorised as sustainable finance, thereby allowing weapons companies to compete for finance with companies and small and medium enterprises that are actively trying to combat climate change, and we know climate change is a security threat. The Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, accepted that fact at the UN.
I thank the committee for allowing me to present today and have included a supplementary paper with more details and references on the issues I have provided in the opening statement.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is very important to have the EU perspective during the scrutiny of this Bill and recognising the large mandate both witnesses have. The committee invited an EU representative from each of the parties and groupings, so we appreciate the attendance of the witnesses. Each member will have seven minutes and we should use our time within the seven minutes for both questions and answers. Non-members will come in after all members have spoken and I will allow either three minutes or five minutes.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses back to the Oireachtas and thank them for their contributions. On the last point Ms Boylan spoke about the urge of the EU to increase spending on militarisation. Does she support additional investment in our armed forces here in terms of personnel, equipment and capabilities? On Tuesday, the military expert Mr. Colm Doyle, who is a retired colonel, was at the committee and he spoke about the UN veto system reflecting the realities of global power dynamics and how it also leads to deadlock in situations where the five permanent members' interests conflict. As a result, the Security Council is often unable to act decisively in conflicts in which one or more permanent members have geopolitical interests at stake. Considering one of the five members was involved in an illegal invasion of Ukraine, is there not a conflict in requiring support or at least consent or even abstention from that member in terms of peacekeeping forces Ireland would be part of?
Ms Lynn Boylan:
In response to Senator Kyne's first question, the political party I represent, Sinn Féin, supports the level of ambition 2 investment in our Defence Forces. There is a very big difference between investing in the Defence Forces as a neutral force and then throwing our lot in with a European Union that has different interests, backgrounds and cultural context. It is also very different to using critical EU funding. For example Ireland is a net contributor to cohesion funding and that will be used for military expenditure. That is denying developing countries the development and peace programmes Ireland benefited from. That will now be used for military expenditure. It is also deeply problematic that there is no oversight of the expenditure. There is a clear distinction. Yes, invest in our Defence Forces but we do not need to lose our neutrality to do that.
In regard to the Security Council veto, I note the veto has never been used by Russia, Britain or the US against a peacekeeping mission. We are talking about something that could hypothetically happen but has never happened. There is also the fact a General Assembly resolution can allow for a peacekeeping mission to go ahead. As I said in my opening statement, I support UN reform. Ireland can play a major role in reforming the UN but now is not the time to be dismissing the UN or flagging concerns around it when it has been undermined daily by the US, Israel and some members within the European Union. We need to defend the UN because there is no plan B.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
And by Russia of course. I note Ms Boylan did not mention Russia or Ukraine in her opening statement and strikingly, the only threat she identified was climate change. Unfortunately, however, that is not the way the vast majority of European countries see this situation at the moment. Ireland is at a level of 0.24% of GDP investment in our Defence Forces, which is the lowest of the 38 countries surveyed. Countries such as Latvia and Estonia are at approximately 5% to 7% and they are not doing that lightly. This involves massive trade-offs whether it is about borrowing, increased taxation or cutting back social services. These are really painful decisions that are having to be taken by other EU member states. In fact, the neutral countries - Malta, Austria and Cyprus - all spend a lot more on their defence forces than we do. What has happened during the past couple of years is surely a wake-up call that we need to take a much more progressive view.
On the veto, as I said in my opening statement I very much feel the UN Security Council has changed. Its main purpose is the preservation of peace in the world and we do not have to go too far into our newspapers to see that it is not really working very well at the moment and there is a good opportunity for Ireland to reflect on whether or not we want to be tethered and harnessed to that forum for decisions around our foreign policy.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Lynn Boylan, MEP mentioned the General Assembly and the possible use of that.
The last time it was used was in 1956. Without reform of the UN Security Council, as it stands, it would require clearance on an new mandate. That is part of the issue.
Can either of the MEPs see any other safeguards? We acknowledge that the P5 is somewhat dysfunctional but are there other safeguards that could be put in place? Mr. Andrews mentioned this committee and the advice of the Attorney General.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
I will only be repeating myself. I have recommended that there is an alternative. I spoke to some colleagues in Finland about what they do. Their flowchart is that in order to trigger the deployment of troops, a proposal is issued by the Government, which then goes to the relevant committee; the committee considers it and then it goes to a vote in the parliament, after which the president passes it. Elements of that are practically possible in Ireland to provide guardrails, given that some members are concerned that they would be added on.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
The only point I would add is that there are legal experts who can put forward proposals. What I am trying to say to committee members is that the triple lock is a security to guard against the pressure that is coming to bear on countries in the European Union. We were singled out by Commissioner Kaja Kallas only recently. She dismissed our neutrality and effectively said that we did not know oppression or discrimination on ethnic or language rights in this country. That is the culture we are dealing with. That is the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who dismissed Ireland's neutrality on the floor of the Parliament. What I say to all members is that, regardless of who is in government, we can point to the triple lock as a firewall against this pressure.
To use the example of Spain, Mark Rutte has clearly said - as has Mr. Andrews here today - that we should cut social welfare in order to provide funding to reach 5% of GDP. The Spanish Prime Minister has said he is not prepared to do that, but he is coming under enormous pressure. He is being publicly excoriated for saying that. We must be honest with the public. Are we saying that we want to cut our social welfare in order to pay for European defence?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
Of course I did not say that. I merely made the point that Latvia has had to choose between a range of options, including potentially cutting its social welfare. I do not know how Ms Boylan managed to extract from that, that I am proposing cutting social welfare in Ireland when we have a very healthy surplus and there are many other options for reaching level of ambition 2.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Andrews for clarifying that.
Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank this morning's witnesses. I have a few comments to make. Mr. Andrews states that the future of UNIFIL in Lebanon is under threat from the US, which will potentially veto its renewal in August. That would mean the end of an Irish presence in Lebanon. Other countries might be able to continue with a reconfigured source. This would be a terrible end for a mission we have been committed to for more than 45 years. Is it likely or could it happen that the US could object? If it does, what will it mean for our people who are currently overseas on the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
I thank Deputy Scanlon. Trying to predict what the United States will do in the next week is difficult, and trying to predict what it will do in August is impossible. Unfortunately, in recent months, since Trump came into power, there has been a significant undermining of international bodies, for example, the World Health Organization where funding was withdrawn from the Gavi vaccination programme. We can also look at the implications of the collapse of USAID. The US failed to appoint new members to the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. That also happened under Biden. Unfortunately, there is a massive pattern of US disengagement from international obligations.
It is not reckless to bring up the danger and the threat that the US would exercise a veto on the extension of the UNIFIL mandate. It is something that must be on our minds and feature on the committee's deliberations. What would happen to the troops? They would have to be withdrawn and come back to Dublin.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
We can deal with what might potentially happen in the future, but we must also look at what is happening right now. One of the biggest threats to our peacekeeping force is Israel. It is the most destabilising force at the moment within the Middle East and the EU has allowed Israel to act with impunity. I reiterate the European Union is not upholding international law and therefore it is vital for us to have the triple lock as a firewall. Israel is the biggest threat to our peacekeeping force in Lebanon right now.
Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is sad to see the hands of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly tied behind their backs in regard to what is happening in the world today. What are the witnesses' thoughts on that? We read in the newspapers today that 78,000 Palestinian people were killed in the past two years, yet the UN is unfortunately unable to do anything. I know the reason is that the major powers are vetoing everything that is happening there. That is very wrong.
Is there a better way to deal with these types of situations where people are suffering? We saw what happened in Bosnia 30 years ago. Everybody hoped and prayed it would never happen again, yet here we are in a worse situation.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
The European Union has a crucial role to play here. If the EU can at least agree on one thing, which is humanitarian access into Gaza, that would be a really good start. Unfortunately, the European Union has demonstrated complete double standards when it comes to its approach to Ukraine, in respect of ICC arrest warrants in that regard, and in making sure that there is full support for Ukraine in the face of aggression. In contrast, the EU has been silent on the ICJ's decision on the illegality of the West Bank settlements and has said nothing about the ICC. Sanctions have been imposed by the US and there are options available to the EU but they are not being exercised. Unfortunately, the perception of the EU internationally is very negative. The European Union's credibility has been really undermined by this last episode, and it has had implications for international humanitarian law. The United Nations would have looked to the European Union as a reliable partner for making sure that it would back up the institutions and all the elements that make up international law but, unfortunately, that has been lost. Currently, the United Nations is undergoing reform, some of it enforced by the massive reduction in funding, not just from the United States but also from EU member states. It has embarked on the UN80 initiative. It will probably merge some of its agencies, but ultimately the UN Security Council requires drastic reform. There should be African member states. It is a 1945 answer to a question nobody is asking any more. The P5 has full responsibility and that must change.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I echo what Mr. Andrews is saying in one sense, in that if we want to stop innocent Palestinians being slaughtered in their thousands, we must stop arming Israel and we must sanction it. Unfortunately, that is not happening at a European level. We saw only last week that the European Council again failed to reach a decision to take any action against Israel. That is why we must reinforce the fact that Ireland is a neutral state and that we can separate and draw a distinction between ourselves and countries such as Germany and Austria, which are wholeheartedly arming and supplying the weapons that are slaughtering innocent Palestinian children.
We also have a Commissioner, Kaja Kallas, who initially when the humanitarian blockade began, said that she would work with Israel to find an alternative source of humanitarian aid. She backtracked on that but, again, she was willing to endorse the Gaza humanitarian fund, where again we are seeing innocent civilians being slaughtered.
It is therefore important for Ireland to be able to distinguish ourselves from the EU when necessary such as, for example, when we cannot stand over the inaction of the European Union and its arming, supplying and enabling Israel to act with impunity, while, as Mr. Andrews said correctly, we were very swift to apply sanctions to Russia.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There was a discussion about our situation with the Defence Forces and it is welcome to have that discussion. It is not strictly precluded by that. However, I welcome the interest of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael representatives, given the neglect of the Defence Forces under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments in recent years that have let us get to the situation, where there are fewer members of the Permanent Defence Force than the establishment strength. It is obviously the case, as I am sure the witnesses will agree, that there is nothing in the triple lock that prevents us from investing in our Defence Forces and ensuring they are up to scratch.
My first question is for Mr. Andrews. If I understand his position correctly, it is that he agrees with the removal of the triple lock but he is in favour of neutrality.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
One of the types of missions that it is most likely Irish troops would be sent on in the event of the removal of the triple lock would be an EU-led mission. Would that be fair to say?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but under a UN mandate. I understand. Would Mr. Andrews be confident that the institutions of the EU, including the treaties, are robust enough to ensure that EU missions without a UN mandate would be human rights compliant and would not be involved in acts of aggression or anything like that?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
Yes, there are safeguards, not only in the EU treaties, but also in the Irish Constitution, whereby we are obliged in the exercise of foreign policy to comply with international law. The European Union is bound by customary international law and international humanitarian law and is a signatory to many of the conventions that govern the conduct of and the decision to deploy troops. For example, the UN mandated the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but many European countries decided not to deploy any troops to Iraq, quite rightly. Although there was a UN mandate, Ireland also took the sensible decision to have nothing to do with that. It is dangerous to demonise the European Union.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, perfect.
My next question is for Ms Boylan. The EU could deploy without a UN mandate but it is bound by its treaties and so on. In her experience, is the EU and its Commission currently abiding by the rules of the treaties?
Ms Lynn Boylan:
It is clearly not abiding by international law when it comes to the ICJ and ICC. That is first and foremost. We have seen that six of the 11 missions in the past, before 2017, were led by the former colonial powers.
A huge amount of work goes into a UN mandate, as I said in my opening statement. It assesses the situation on the ground and has set, clear objectives. That does not happen at an EU level. There is no oversight by the European Parliament, the Court of Justice of the European Union or the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Auditors has also stated it has no way of assessing the expenditure of these missions. We do not have any transparency around the number of casualties. There is no analysis of the objectives of the mission in the first place.
Another example is that in 2020, the Malian national security forces received training and finance from the EU and then went on to be responsible for the killing of hundreds of civilians. An EU mission does not have the same level of preparation, transparency and objectives as would a UN mission. That is the clear distinction and we have not heard anything from the Government in its proposal to remove the triple lock about what would replace that scrutiny and level of analysis and research before we put troops on the ground.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it fair to say, however, that at times the European Commission has not abided by its own treaties? At times, it has disregarded the rules.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
Absolutely. That was the point of ASAP and the SAFE regulation. President Metsola has already complained that the SAFE regulation did not go through European Parliament scrutiny and the Bundestag has criticised it. Equally, the finance and public expenditure committee under the last Government also criticised that ASAP was designed to bypass and not comply with the treaties. Effectively, expenditure for defence and military purposes required unanimity at Council and that rule was bypassed. Therefore, it is not complying with its own treaties.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Perfect.
My next question is for both witnesses. I was unimpressed with Commissioner Kallas's comments. I recognise and am happy to say that her country suffered oppression during the 20th century under the Soviet Union. I have no problem saying that whatsoever, but it was wrong of her to denigrate what was experienced in Ireland. She used that to strike out against Ireland's policy of neutrality. She did not reference the triple lock. She only spoke about neutrality. Do the witnesses believe that attitude is widely held at a leadership level in the EU, namely, that Ireland's neutrality is a questionable policy and one that has limited validity or application?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
I will go next. On the SAFE regulation, there is a dispute. It is worth sharing this mainly because Roberta Metsola, on behalf of the Parliament, is irritated. A case has been taken against the Commission arguing that the way it passed the SAFE regulation was unconstitutional under the EU treaties. It is possible for the Parliament to do that. I make that point because it is a Union of laws and that is happening.
On the general attitude to Ireland, it is a mixed bag. There are four neutral countries, which take different positions. There were six neutral countries until recently and each time we discuss it, we make sure there is a reference to the unique constitutional provisions of individual EU member states and so, for example, to Ireland's policy of military neutrality. However, some people consider Ireland to be a laggard. They have reference, not so much to our neutrality, but to the low level of investment in our Defence Forces in proportion to the GNI.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In this instance, it was specific to neutrality, rather than defence spending.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am glad to hear that.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
As the Deputy already said, there is nothing in the triple lock that prevents us from investing in our Defence Forces and I think everyone agrees that we need to invest in them. It is unacceptable that we cannot provide crews to crew our naval ships and that there are issues in the aviation sector. That is not acceptable but it is completely separate to abandoning the triple lock.
From my experience of sitting in on any of the debates in the European Parliament, it was quite distinctive that Commissioner Kallas called Ireland out specifically on its neutrality. However, what will be heard from Members of the European Parliament, even within the Green group - you feel quite isolated when you are on the left - is the need for a European army and for qualified majority voting on foreign and security decisions to be abandoned. There is huge pressure and huge dissatisfaction among other member states about the fact that some countries want to be neutral and do not share the same context or world view as other European member states.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In that context, there is certainly an attitude that it is a questionable policy. Given that EU battle groups can be deployed within five days, do the witnesses think Ireland could come under considerable pressure to deploy as a battle group in the absence of the triple lock?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Why does Mr. Andrews not believe it will?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will not be around for the second round.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
It is because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that could happen. In other words, the battle groups have been in existence for some time. There is now a proposal to replace them with a rapid deployment group of 5,000 troops that might be EU-led. That is a proposal but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Ireland came under pressure in the past or will come under pressure in the future.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay, I will move on to Deputy Brabazon.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have been putting one question to a number of witnesses on the triple lock issue.
If we came up with an acceptable wording that was put to the people about enshrining neutrality in our Constitution and that was passed, would the same concerns around the triple lock manifest?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
What is neutrality? While I know the committee has been through this and I know it is not the main purpose of this discussion but the consultative forum chaired by Dame Louise Richardson heard lots of different views on what neutrality is. Reference was made to the Hague Convention of 1907 but that includes political neutrality. We do not comply with that convention with regard to our position on Ukraine, so we are not neutral in that way. Austria is neutral but adheres to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union on common European defence so it is a very strange position. We are quite a strong neutral in comparison with anybody else in the EU. Therefore, to try to capture that idea in a referendum with our history of referendums would be a really difficult thing to do and would create constraints on our capacity to carry out our foreign policy and in particular to deploy troops for lots of the purposes contained in the general scheme of the Bill that is before this committee. I would be very worried about that not only defining neutrality but that in the case of a referendum, we could end up with an answer to a question we did not ask. It can be difficult sometimes. We know that with the Lisbon treaty, part of the answer was the need for safeguards and this was where the triple lock came in. There were, however, also questions about tax autonomy in Ireland and subsequently we changed our position on tax, there were questions about abortion and subsequently we changed our position on abortion and there were questions about the triple lock and we are in the process of considering whether the triple lock is an appropriate constraint on our foreign policy.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I would point to the fact that even though we have changed positions on issues that came up in the Lisbon and Nice treaties, the difference here is that polling consistently shows that the Irish people support neutrality and a majority continues to support the triple lock. There is a conception that our neutrality is already enshrined in the Constitution and as it is something of which Irish people are incredibly proud, I would support having a referendum on neutrality. Regarding the wording of that, we have seen citizens' assemblies being very effective in bringing together advice in a calm and reasoned manner to come up with language. I do not think language is an excuse to not put the question to the people. I would say to the Government, which is proposing to abandon the triple lock, that if it is so certain of its position, it should ask the people because this is a matter of huge significance in terms of our neutrality. People were given assurances after Lisbon and Nice and we had the Seville Declaration that our neutrality was enshrined and the triple lock was fundamental to that. Micheál Martin, the then leader of the Opposition who is now Taoiseach, said on the floor of the Dáil that the triple lock was a crucial part of our neutrality. If the Government wants to abandon the triple lock, it should put it to the people. We can work around finding the language but that should not be a reason to not have a referendum.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The conflagration in the Middle East has become wider than Israel and Gaza. It now involves Israel, Iran, Russia and potentially China and others behind Iran and the US and UK coming in behind Israel. Both sides are on the Security Council and either of them could decide to use Ireland as a pawn in the bigger game and say it will veto the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate, which is required next month. In such a scenario, as other witnesses have informed us, we would have to withdraw our troops immediately because we no longer have any legal standing to have our troops there. This would be catastrophic for that region and further destabilise south Lebanon in particular. What do the witnesses have to say about that?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
Israel put pressure on the Irish troops to withdraw about a year ago. Irish troops were under extraordinary pressure and withheld and stood up to that pressure. Their independence there is underlined by the fact that they have also come under fire from Hezbollah forces prior to that. We all know about the tragic death of Seán Rooney in those circumstances. It is an extraordinary legacy; the longest running peacekeeping presence anywhere. It was a huge honour for me to be in Camp Shamrock and to see that. The way the Deputy characterises is correct. We have the two sides of the Security Council - P5 - facing each other in the Middle East through proxies at war. It is absurd that we consider that those parties should have a veto over the question of deployment of troops. It is extraordinary and to me is a question of sovereignty. We are taking control of this decision back into our democratic institutions. I published that paper calling for the end of the triple lock in 2022. I then put my name forward for election and got re-elected. Those of us who feel we need to evolve as everyone else has have put that before the people in our democratic mandates and are entitled to push these issues in our parliamentary forums.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is good to see Mr. Andrews and Ms Boylan back in these Houses while acknowledging the fact that I never served during their time here. I recognise that both opening statements contain differing points of view but I also recognise the work both Mr. Andrews and Ms Boylan do following their own viewpoints with such determination. This debate is so heavily politicised with Government versus Opposition that one would swear that it is a debate that is happening in every country or that we are not in a unique situation in this country with the triple lock. I do not think people are aware of that when it comes to other neutral countries.
The triple lock is not essential to ensure we are a neutral country by virtue of the fact that there are and have been other neutral countries across the world that have been neutral without a triple lock. What do some of those countries look like? How do they maintain their neutrality? Dr. Cathal Berry went into it. Mr. Andrews mentioned his contribution. I know some others have put forward other ideas around the role of this committee, the Houses or the President. I find it very hard to accept that the triple lock is the one thing protecting our neutrality or that we would instantly no longer be neutral if we did not have the triple lock when there are clearly other options out there that other countries have followed and are following successfully.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
As Deputy O'Meara notes, he was not around back in the day. We remember that the armed forces were occupied with paramilitaries for a long time in the 1980s and 1990s before the ceasefires and we benefited from our geographic position for a long time but that is no longer as relevant as it was. Other neutral countries evolved their neutrality based on their geography. I know Finland quite well. Everybody has to serve time in the reserves. The country has a very high level of civil preparedness for attack. Some people mocked the idea that we are all supposed to have 72 hours of provisions in our homes but for Finland, it is a week. It has enough fuel, food and water and is prepared. It has invested heavily in its armed forces in terms of capability.
Even within the context of its neutrality prior to joining NATO, it partnered with NATO to make sure it had interoperability and that whatever it was using could be used with NATO members. It also became involved in joint procurement with NATO. It was of a very different character to the way we see it. Obviously, it has a 1,000 km-long border with Russia. We have a huge maritime area and have already very clearly seen not only vulnerability but examples of where we need to step up. Frankly, it depends on the geography. That has changed for us in recent times.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I go back to the point that the wider EU context needs to be taken into account. I keep using the term "triple lock". It is a firewall for any Government at the EU Council table to be able to point to and try to resist the pressure that it will come under. The pressure is enormous. We have a European Commission led by woman who is actively arming a genocide and ignoring the International Court of Justice and her own treaties in terms of defence and military expenditure.
If we are joining EU missions, they are very often EU missions led by a former colony of a region. That does not guarantee neutrality in terms of our peacekeepers. There are vested agendas in EU missions compared with UN missions. In respect of the broader context, my view is that we are looking at a European Union that has set its mind in one direction and one direction only, namely, abolishing unanimity at the Council level and where militarisation is the only show in town. Every EU fund is being made available to facilitate the arms industry and prop it up. Irish taxpayers' money is being used for that. The only defence we have against coming under pressure is the triple lock, unless we enshrine neutrality in the Constitution.
It is a unique position but I am telling the committee the direction of travel in the EU. I want to know whether the Irish public are happy that our money, which we pay in - we are a net contributor to the European Union - is being used to fund the arms industry, an arms industry that, is in effect, is making record-breaking profits.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My issue with Ms Boylan's point on protecting against what she says is the EU expansion into militarisation is that we are relying on a veto and a system that does not work to protect us against that. I do not see why that is the only option. Why would we go back to relying on the P5 when it is incapable of allowing new peacekeeping forces to go abroad from any country, but this one in particular, when there could be another option?
The role of the committee could be strengthened. We could trust our politicians, including our party, as well as Ms Boylan's, in terms of scrutinising any decision being made. Rather than trusting the people in the House, strengthening the work of the committee, considering the potential role of the President or other ideas that have been put forward, those against the triple lock for the reasons Ms Boylan has mentioned look back to the P5. That group is incapable of running the United Nations in any way that is acceptable at the moment and prevents us from getting into any new peacekeeping forces abroad.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But the people elected us last November.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The people voted last November for a Parliament to pass laws exactly like this. There is no mandate or obligation to have a referendum.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When I was canvassing, nobody ever brought up the issue of neutrality. Nobody asked whether we were neutral. There is a broad acceptance in this country that nearly every political party believes in our neutrality. The question is whether the triple lock will remove our neutrality. I think the answer is clearly "No".
Ms Lynn Boylan:
With all due respect to the Deputy, as someone who ran in the European elections, it came up on numerous occasions. I gave an assurance to the electorate that we would defend our neutrality. As we know, the European elections are very different, as are European referendums. Neutrality comes very much into focus because the Irish people are not stupid. They can see the direction of travel of the EU and want to make sure that we defend our neutral status. They like certain elements of the EU, but they do not like the militarisation of it.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
It is historically accurate to say that in 1973 a lot of those on the left opposed Ireland joining the European Economic Community, EEC, because of the EU army, militarisation and conscription. There is an idea that we will be unable to resist pressure. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that we will be under pressure to deploy troops. One example is the 2003 UN-mandated invasion of Iraq. EU countries decided they did not want to have anything to do with that. Ireland, being in the triple lock, had an opportunity to become involved but nobody put us any under pressure. We were very close to the United States and made a sovereign decision that we did not have anything to do with the invasion, and quite rightly so.
I ask whether somebody can show me some evidence that this is happening. It is absolutely right that the European Union has decided security and defence are an absolute priority for the next couple of years but to extrapolate from that that there will be a knock on our door from Ursula von der Leyen saying that the EU wants Ireland to deploy troops against our will is just not credible.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As we are waiting for the Senators to come back, I will use this opportunity to ask a couple of questions.
During previous sessions, safeguarding has been mentioned in regard to the Oireachtas. This committee being a safeguard has been discussed. In terms of scrutiny, that is absolutely the case but there are constraints and it is important to point out that we are time-limited, even in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny where we have been confined to eight weeks. We were not allowed to seek an extension on that. All Oireachtas committees, to the best of my knowledge, have a Government majority, as does the Seanad and obviously the Dáil. That may not be the safeguard that some may think it is. Do the witnesses see any protections in the heads of the Bill which would prevent the growing EU militarisation encroaching on our neutrality?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
On the safeguarding issue, and the role the committee, Parliament and Seanad plays, the argument the Cathaoirleach has put is an argument against having a Seanad, Parliament or committees. If the committee cannot, or feels it is not able to, carry out a scrutiny function, I am confused as to what the purpose of the committee is.
I was in the Oireachtas and the committees play an important role. As I mentioned, that is exactly how Finland operates. It deals with these issues through a Finnish parliamentary committee and it is considered by the people of Finland, who are a democracy and peace loving and socially progressive people, that is a sufficient safeguard. It is a dangerous argument to suggest that somehow or other, parliamentary scrutiny is insufficient and does not do what it is meant to.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I as Chair would stand over the fact that there are constraints around the scrutiny we can carry out. All members here, whatever their opinion, would agree that there are constraints, notwithstanding that we make the work of the committee as good as we possibly can, as in this case. We are trying to carry out the very best, fair scrutiny and most transparent scrutiny that the constraints on the committee enable us to do. It is important to point out the constraints.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was in the Seanad and missed some of the debate. On Tuesday, retired Major General Maureen O'Brien spoke about the fact that while there are occasions where peacekeeping missions have ended up becoming engaged in armed conflict, it is much harder to move from a situation of military conflict or armed deployment to peacekeeping than the other way around.
This comes to a key point. When talking about peacekeeping, the vision is not to have soldiers everywhere forever. The vision of peacekeeping in its UN understanding of the term - and this is why this is kind of crucial - relates to the idea of creating space for peacebuilding. Within the UN, we see that understanding because there are structures in peacekeeping that have clear channels and connections to the structures of peacebuilding. Peacekeeping, with the application of the UN, international law and all of that, should then be linked to peacebuilding structures. For some of these other missions, however, such as some of the ones in the Sahel and in Mozambique in which EU troops have been involved, it seems to be harder to make that leap to peacebuilding from them. The focus and the place where Ireland can add value is in peacebuilding. That piece is crucial. Will the witnesses talk about peacebuilding and its construction, including the differences between the EU and the UN? Both witnesses may answer that question, but it was more directed at Ms Boylan.
I know Mr. Andrews is very passionate about the SDGs, as am I. Ireland played a key role in negotiating them. What we have heard from a number of experts is that the "uniting for peace" resolution has been used, can be used and does not require Security Council unanimity for it to be used. We have also heard that Ireland is the kind of country that could help make it happen. As Mr. Andrews has said, while Europe is losing trust internationally, Ireland is actually the kind of country that has trust, partly because of our rigorous UN history and because we do not have a complicated or muddied history from other EU missions or missions that put interests before principles. Will he comment on that? Do we risk losing some of our impact in that space and our capacity to get something like a "uniting for peace" resolution across the line? That question is for either of them as well.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I will come in on the peacebuilding first. There are two important points to be made. The first is Ireland's historical knowledge and experience of peacebuilding that we bring to the table. I will go back to the issue of cohesion policy funds, which we on this island have benefited from for peacebuilding and peace funding. This fund is now being used by EU countries for military purposes and is moving away from the peacebuilding. The EU was set up as a peace project initially.
As Senator Higgins said, it is also important to note that peacebuilding should follow peacekeeping. The UN is a leading instrument in doing that through working with civil society organisations, regional organisations and multilateral banks. The UN fund responds to and addresses critical peacekeeping opportunities. The structures the UN has in terms of peacebuilding pillars and the framework have to be in place. Additionally, money has to be put behind it because peacebuilding also requires money.
The UN's peacebuilding fund, PBF, strategy for 2020 to 2024 has a target of investing €1.5 billion over five years to broaden and deepen actions that would prevent violent conflict. Comparing that with the EU, not only are the cohesion policy funds now moving away from where they were, but the EU peacebuilding initiative is being funded to the tune of €5 million. That is also in the context we have at a time when the EU is proposing to spend €800 million on weapons. Annually, €5 million will be spent on peacebuilding, while €800 million will be spent on weapons. I compare that with the UN and its peacebuilding model of €1.5 billion over five years.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They have a very different focus.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
To be clear, the €800 million is not being spent by the EU. The private sector and different member states are included. The EU's own spending is a much smaller figure. Ms Boylan referred to €7 billion for the EDF over seven years, whereas France spends approximately €50 billion a year on defence. The European Union is quite different-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My time is limited. I sit on the finance committee. We are currently looking at extraordinarily large requests and proposals in terms of EU spending on the SAFE regulation and military spending.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Mr. Andrews answer my question on peacebuilding?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
As far as the Middle East is concerned, the high point of hope was the Oslo Accords. Norway is a country that has been seen as a peacebuilder. It is the home of the Nobel Prize and the Oslo Accords, yet it is a member of NATO. Norway is very proactive when it comes to peacebuilding. Ireland obviously has that role. Ms Boylan is right, by the way. The investment in peacebuilding at a European level is extremely low. It is a real worry that just 3% of the NDICI-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I raise the "uniting for peace" resolution and the support Ireland has got in the past across the UN. Will Mr. Andrews discuss the "uniting for peace" mechanism?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
I do not think it is all down to the triple lock, for example. It is a combination of things, including our non-colonial history, our very principled approach to international development and sustainable development and multilateralism. All of those things contribute. Is the Senator asking-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In its current iteration, is Ireland a country that would have good credibility in terms of something like the "uniting for peace" mechanism? For example, the World Food Programme has asked for the "uniting for peace" resolution to be used.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is out of time.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ireland would be a credible country now in the current situation.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
Yes, but that is not based on the triple lock. I have spoken to a lot of people in the EU about the triple lock. They have no idea what I am talking about. People in developing countries have no idea. We are the only people who do it.
We are here to do pre-legislative scrutiny. If the Senator is talking about the Uniting for Peace motion, there is no connection, publicly or internationally-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In fairness, they know what we are not doing-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is very fortunate that she is the first Senator back in. We will go back to the members of the committee now. I call Senator Craughwell.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their submissions.
They are both elected through a democratic process to the office they now hold. I therefore assume that they believe in sovereignty. Do they believe Ireland is a sovereign nation capable of making up its own mind with respect to the deployment of its troops? If we were to apply the triple lock to MEPs and had to get permission from Whitehall to allow them to go to Brussels every week, how do they think MEPs would react to that?
Ms Lynn Boylan:
Senator Craughwell was not here when I gave my opening statement but I pointed out that a lot of the focus on sovereignty has been on the UN and the Security Council and less so on what the EU is doing at the moment to undermine to undermine the sovereignty of EU member states and in trying to push for qualified majority voting at Council level to do away with unanimity on foreign and security positions-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With all due respect, are we a sovereign nation?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Ms Boylan respect our sovereignty?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But she is happy for somebody else to oversee it.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
The Senator is clearly happy for Ursula von der Leyen to dictate Ireland's foreign and security policy. I am very concerned by the European Commission. Yes, the UN needs reform. The Senator will not hear any different from me. Is the Senator honestly, hand-on-heart saying that he thinks the EU will respect our sovereignty when it comes to neutrality when all of the evidence shows otherwise? They are trying to remove the unanimity for foreign and security decisions. As I pointed out, Ursula von der Leyen has bypassed the treaties on the functioning of the European Union as it exists and has bypassed them because she-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sorry now. Ms Boylan sits in the European Parliament-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Why does she not bring them to heel?
Ms Lynn Boylan:
-----complying with the treaties. The EU missions, which the Senator would like the Irish Defence Forces to join, would not have the scrutiny of national parliaments.
They would not have the scrutiny of the Parliament to which Mr. Andrews and I were elected, nor of this Parliament, nor the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, nor the European Court of Auditors nor the European Court of Justice. It would have none of that scrutiny.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Irish troops will not be deployed without the Irish Government.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I remind witnesses it is not up to the Chair on how the members use their time. They direct the question to whomsoever they want the answer from.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
One cannot compare the European Union to the constraints from Russia on the Security Council. I am critical of von der Leyen but we have had a net gain in our sovereignty from our membership of the European Union. There are times when we are upset with what it does but the P5 in the United Nations Security Council gives a veto over Irish foreign policy to Russia. We have to remember this discussion is happening in that context. When discussing defence, you have to have a threat analysis. The threat right now for the whole of Europe comes from Russia because Russia has decided it wants to go down the road of spheres of influence in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and all of its neighbouring countries. Europe is reacting to that. To compare Ursula von der Leyen and say that somehow or another the European Commission is the same as Russia and the influence it has is absurd.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sorry to cut in again. The point was made. I am as concerned as any citizen in this country at a rogue Government deploying troops somewhere in the world for some war or other. I have a difficulty using the United Nations Security Council but we are a democratically-elected Parliament. There has been suggestion that there should be a referendum. I put to Mr. Andrews that we hold a referendum to change the Constitution to allow all three elements of Government - the President, the Seanad and the Dáil, including this committee - to have a say over the deployment of troops and replace the triple lock with that. That would set the bar high enough that it makes it difficult for a rogue Government. How would Mr. Andrews feel about that?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
I am nervous about referendums in general. It is hard to speculate. One would have to be careful about the wording. Sometimes other issues that are live at the time infect the decision-making process. We have seen that in our neighbouring country where they decided to leave the European Union on the basis of a referendum, 52% to 48%. It is a very imperfect way of making laws. I have confidence in the democratic powers of scrutiny of this committee, the Dáil and Seanad. I do not believe in a referendum being the solution all the time whereas sometimes it is, of course, necessary. We have had a good history of referendums in Ireland in recent times. The triple lock is no longer fit for purpose. I said that in my submission earlier. We cannot ignore the new geopolitical situation. We have changed a lot of things since the Lisbon treaty. For the European Union, I have to report that we are seeing an extraordinary change in approach. It is not out of a desire for militarisation; it is a desire to ensure the security and peace of Europe at a time when there is a war on the European continent we cannot ignore.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not accept the notion of a firewall. I have never accepted we are a neutral state. We do not fulfil the requirements for neutrality. As Professor Tonra and Ray Murphy said, we do not meet the international law requirement. What is Irish neutrality - it is Irish neutrality. That is it.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
We have been involved in Partnership for Peace, PESCO and the Common Security and Defence Policy for years. The Government said it will get involved in the SAFE regulation - it is not about spending more but about spending better and procurement. When we did vaccine procurement, we did it at a European level and got vaccines at a price we could never have got on our own. As we move to level of ambition 2, that is militarisation in Ireland. We are trying to increase our military capacity in Ireland just as the European Union is. It has decided it is not fit for purpose right now. The European Union wants to work together for interoperability, to do procurement together, for civil preparedness and partnerships outside of the European Union including Japan, South Korea, Norway and the UK. We are doing the same. Characterising what the European Union is doing as militarisation is to misread the mood at the moment.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
In the interests of transparency, I am here as someone with a mandate to defend neutrality. I was elected on that. In terms of other witnesses, I have nothing to benefit financially from my opening statement, unlike some who may have been quoted. In relation to the SAFE regulation-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Boylan will have to clarify that. That is a very serious comment. Chair, people's reputations have been brought into question. On witnesses who came before this committee, Ms Boylan said unlike others, who have to benefit.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Nobody has been mentioned.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It does not matter, you cannot let it go.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Nobody has been mentioned. The Senator is out of time.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
The SAFE regulation on common public procurement includes not just EU member states but also acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidate countries and other third countries with which the Union has entered a security and defence partnership. That is an incredibly broad provision and could have serious implications in respect of the use of Irish taxpayers' money for arming any number of countries which would fall into such a broad category.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming here today. I can only imagine how demanding their schedules are flying over and back. To give up an afternoon to come here is very much appreciated. As Mr. Andrews said, nobody else has a triple lock; it is unique to Ireland. Nobody else has an Arc de Triomphe except Paris and nobody else has an Empire State Building. The Arc de Triomphe is probably kind of useless but I like it. I like our triple lock. Maybe its usefulness is under question. I accept the reasons around interrogating its usefulness or otherwise at the moment. My concern is the Bill does not amend it, it removes it completely. In that context, would Mr. Andrews support, like other neutral states like Switzerland or Austria, if we dispense with the triple lock, that we should have an explicit statement of military neutrality put into the Constitution as a backstop? Military experts who came to the committee on Tuesday, namely, my former colleagues, General O'Brien, General Brennan and Colonel Doyle, agreed that in the absence of a Security Council mandate, any likely future mission Irish troops would be involved in, by whatever mechanism, will be peace enforcement or war fighting. They agreed with that definition, that it is war fighting. Given the size of the contingent the Irish could deploy, which the military experts said would be around 300 troops, we will always be under the command of somebody else.
Section 17A(2) of the Defence Act 1954 as amended by the Defence (Amendment) Act 2021, states "In accordance with this Act, the Minister may delegate to a Force Commander the operational control [which is military command] of a contingent, or member, of the Defence Forces." Section 17A(4)(c) states a delegation will:
in so far as is necessary for the efficient operation of a mission, provide that each member of the Defence Forces assigned to an international force led by a Force Commander shall comply with every lawful order issued to him or her by a member of the international force in his or her military chain of command, subject to any exclusion as may be [under the mission parameters].
It also states they will come under military discipline, subject to military law, of whatever force commander is there. How does Mr. Andrews feel about that? Does he agree or disagree that this will fundamentally change the nature, profile and scope of Irish involvement overseas? Does he agree or disagree that is at variance with the Irish public's understanding of our peacekeeping tradition?
In 2022, Russia's criminal invasion of Ukraine happened. It was an obscenity - murdering, raping, theft and looting. It is an obscenity, there is no other word for it. Putin is a war criminal and the Russian forces are engaged in Russian acts. I have attended security briefings at the CIA in Langley, the Pentagon and many other places.
They tell me that half of Russia's armoured fleet has been destroyed. Half of their armoured fighting vehicles, tanks, have been destroyed in Ukraine. The Russian forces are bogged down. They have not managed to achieve any of its war aims. They did not collapse the regime. The only thing they have managed to do is establish a narrow land corridor from Luhansk and Donetsk, down to the Crimean Peninsula. In Europe, I am hearing statements to the effect that Russia will be ready to mount a successful ground invasion against a NATO member state by 2029. We had a German chief of staff say Russia is now producing 1,500 main battle tanks per annum. The fact of the matter is Russia can produce about 200 tanks per annum and it struggles to do that. What it is doing is trying to refurbish old T-60 variant battle tanks that are 60 years old. Does Mr. Andrews believe the Russians are capable of successfully mounting a ground invasion against any NATO member state in Europe in the next four years?
Finally, Mr Andrews is at the beating heart of Brussels. From the distance I am out from it, what I hear is moral panic and groupthink. We had a threat posed by the Soviets. We had nuclear missiles pointed at every capital city in Europe. We had Russian and Warsaw Pact troops throughout central and eastern Europe. What weapons system brought that down? It was our social and economic success. How does Mr. Andrews feel about that sense of moral panic or groupthink? Is it something we ought to consider?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
First, on the referendum, I have answered that question earlier. I would be very concerned about putting language into the Constitution. The lawyers would be the biggest winners. We would have a lot of problems. Once again, I would say I have confidence in the powers of scrutiny of this committee and of the Seanad and the Dáil.
Second, on the question of the troop numbers, in Camp Shamrock, where I visited about two or three years ago, it was a Polish-Irish battalion and there is currently a Spanish camp commander there. The Senator is asking about the public perception if we end up having someone who is not from Ireland commanding Irish troops. Irish troops have commanded non-Irish troops and vice versa. It is very good that we have interoperability and that we also learn from the best. We want our troops to be trained by the best, to have the best equipment and the best experience so that they are there and prepared. That is the whole idea as far as I understand it.
Third, on Russia, the Senator is right about the conventional capacity. It is probably very limited but hybrid warfare is where we are at, especially for Ireland where we have threats to critical infrastructure. We have heard so much about cables but there are also threats to pipelines such as our gas pipelines. We rely so much on two gas pipelines that come across from the UK for our electricity and everything that flows from electricity, and we have seen Russian ships having to be escorted away from them. Hybrid warfare is cheap. Drone warfare is cheap and it is evolving every few months.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Mr. Andrews think there is a link between that and the triple lock?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
The Senator is asking the questions here. Frankly, I do not think most of this has anything to do with the triple lock but I will answer if he is going to ask these questions. As to groupthink, there is a tendency to groupthink in the European Union, yes. It used to be said about the Brits that they did not necessarily do the right thing but they all did the same thing. There might be something like that because I am seeing a massive reduction in development spending. We are all going for hard power right now and soft power being left go of is a dramatic mistake. There is groupthink around that.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I share the Senator's concerns because of the amendment in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2021 because it does mean, if we participate in an international force, under the provisions of the heads of Bill we could have Irish troops technically under the command of EU or NATO commanders. That is very different then just as I talked about the difference between the EU and UN missions. The objectives of those missions are very different. I share the Senator's concerns as I think the Irish population would. Regarding the groupthink in the European Parliament, there absolutely is a moral panic that is there. The Senator is right. We condemn the illegal invasion of Ukraine but what we would like to see, if we are really serious about a peace process and about a dialogue, then tooling up and allowing all EU funds to be used for military expenditure is not sending out a signal to anybody that we are actually serious about a peace process. Therefore, we are sending out mixed messages from the EU as well. I would much rather see the focus and the investment put into a peace process. Ukraine has to be at the heart of that peace process - nothing about them without them - but we are not serious about trying to have a peace process in that conflict.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does either Ms Boylan or Mr. Andrews believe that Russia will be able to successfully mount a ground invasion against a NATO country by 2029?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
"Yes" or "No" as we are running out of time.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I will also just say on the gas pipelines and the hybrid warfare, going back to the point again, the triple lock does not prevent us from investing in our Defence Forces and we currently do not have the personnel to crew the navy ships that could be patrolling our waters. That is nothing to do with the triple lock. We can do that and defend our cables, and the corporations that own those cables should also support that but there is nothing in the triple lock preventing us from doing that.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am moving on to Senator Stephenson who has five minutes.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank both witnesses for coming in. Mr. Andrews made a really interesting point there regarding soft power and soft power being let go of being a massive mistake. We are seeing a decrease in development spending and, indeed, peace spending as a consequence of the increases in defence spending. I know Mr. Andrews is chair of the European Parliament Committee on Development as well. How does he align that then? I believe development spending is critical to our soft power. How does that align to the increased defence spending?
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, I understand that.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
And it is being cut by the EU in favour of defence spending.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My question is more just about-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is Senator Clonan's question. My question-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is my time and my question is regarding the soft power. Does Mr. Andrews not think we are letting go of soft power by decreasing our development spending?
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would question then the increase in defence spending in lieu of the increase in development spending as a risk. Given the mandate-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I feel that is how it is being treated at the EU level at the moment.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
However, across EU member states there has been a decrease.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. I would disagree with that.
We have the SAFE regulation that has not gone through the EU Parliament or the Dáil. That means EU battle groups are not accountable to the EU Parliament or the courts, I think. How does that align to sustainable development goal 16, which, for those who might not know, is providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions on all levels? I worry that the fact that those regulations have not gone through those two institutions decreases our accountability. That is a question for both witnesses.
Mr. Barry Andrews:
Yes. I know the Senator's time is limited but just to be clear, the EU Parliament has decided to sue the Commission because of its use of Article 122 in the way the SAFE regulation has come onto the Statute Book. Therefore, it is being taken very seriously by the Parliament. We will see how that plays out.
Ms Lynn Boylan:
The question was around the sustainable finance and that on 17 June, the Commission adopted the fifth of its omnibus packages, which dealt with defence. One of the measures included was a notice on how the EU sustainable finance and due diligence rules will apply to the defence sector. It has confirmed to us that you cannot discriminate against the defence sector and it will be eligible for sustainable finance. For anyone who does not know, sustainable finance is supposed to be helping us to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal and the objectives of reducing our carbon emissions and taking climate action. We now have a situation where sustainable finance will be eligible for defence companies that not only are using critical raw materials which are contributing to our carbon emissions - if you look at the carbon emissions of what is happening in Palestine right now it is enormous - but are also diverting funds away from actually addressing climate action. Climate change does lead to increase conflict.
We know that. That was accepted by the UN in 2007. The UN Secretary General at the time, Ban Ki-moon, clearly said that the war in Darfur was the first climate change conflict. Of the 25 countries most vulnerable to climate change, 14 of them are currently suffering from conflict. We do not need funding going to defence and certainly not the sustainable finance fund, which is supposed to address climate change.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to touch on the question of safeguarding in the context of EU battle group missions. We know a lot about the different safeguards that come with a UN deployment. UN missions are a whole holistic thing that include safeguardings, the monitoring of human rights violations and ensuring missions are compliant. Mr. Andrews mentioned in his earlier interventions that the EU’s international law would be a safeguard. I am concerned because the EU is currently not meeting its international obligations vis-à-vis trade with the occupied territories, for example, and the ICJ ruling. Therefore, can we trust that as a legitimate safeguard? I would love to be able to trust that concept as a safeguard, of course. Can we trust it as a safeguard for EU battle groups when the EU is already demonstrating a failure to commit to meeting those obligations?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
It is a legitimate question to ask. I am afraid I do not have a great answer, frankly. I am astonished at the way the European Union is approaching the Middle East and the complete fragmentation. In all other contexts and geographies, I am proud of the European Union and the role it plays internationally.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Were there violations in any of the Mali or Niger missions?
Mr. Barry Andrews:
Obviously, things do not work from time to time. Push backs on migrants at EU borders is one such example. There are a lot of examples where the EU has fallen below its own standards. It is a treaty and a union of laws and I respect that. I do not accept the idea that the European Union is a negative influence. It has been an incredibly positive influence for Ireland.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Absolutely. I fundamentally agree with that. To come back to the battle groups-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Absolutely. That piece of credibility is what I am getting at. That is my concern when it comes to battle groups. Please let me know whether there are mechanisms at Parliament or the European Court of Human Rights levels to monitor battle groups. I have that sense of safety around the UN missions because of the mechanisms that exist when they are deployed. I do not believe - correct me if I am wrong - similar mechanisms exist for EU battle groups. That is my concern.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It would lead us to engage in EU battle groups without the UN mandate. It is linked.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Only up to 12 personnel, surely. The triple lock fundamentally changes our relationship with the EU battle groups and deployments.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I disagree with that point. I thank Mr. Andrews.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does Ms Lynn wish to finish on that point?
Ms Lynn Boylan:
I share the Senator's concerns. We are giving up the triple lock, which is a protection we have. We are asking Deputies, Senators and members of the public to trust our political leaders while political leaders at the European level are ignoring international law. We are asking the Irish people to trust us when we have the President of the European Commission refusing to condemn Israel's illegal attacks on Iran. She actually came out and said that Israel had the right to proactively attack a sovereign country. She did not condemn what happened to the UNIFIL troops. We did not hear proper condemnation when EU diplomats, including Irish diplomats, had weapons pointed at them by Israel. We have a President, who is at the very top of the European Commission, not complying with international law. We are asking people to trust the EU.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We currently only provide training in EU battle groups-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
While we will not be obliged, there are no safeguards to say we will not do it. We may not be obliged but-----
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
At every opportunity we have had to deploy our 12 troops to any place, Ireland has done it.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have deployed troops to Afghanistan. Any opportunity that has been given to us to deploy our 12 or below troops on a rolling basis, Ireland has participated in that, including missions. While I am not saying our troops were ever involved in anything that was human rights non-compliant, they have been deployed to such missions in an overall sense, including Afghanistan. That has happened historically.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am going to cut it at that. I have been more than generous with time. I hope everyone is satisfied that they had a fair hearing. On behalf of the committee, I thank our two MEPs, Ms Boylan agus Mr. Andrews, for being here today and for the material they circulated to the committee in advance of today's meeting. The meeting now stands adjourned until Thursday, 10 July at 9.30 a.m., when the joint committee will meet in public session to continue our pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025. Go raibh maith agaibh go léir.