Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill but I repeat that I regret the limited amount of time to debate it.

Every country and every government has responsibilities. Protecting the citizen, encouraging job creation, guarding the environment, providing education and strengthening stability are all key responsibilities that every good government should assume without question. Allied with these fundamental responsibilities at home, every country and every government has a clear responsibility to the international community. The saying, "no man is an island", can also be applied to the state. Isolationism, in clear sight of the challenges that face our world, is not an acceptable stance. As the interconnectedness of our world grows deeper, so too do our international responsibilities. When people are under threat, be it as a result of humanitarian disaster, political upheaval or pernicious disease, we have a responsibility to give assistance.

The people of Ireland have always had a keen sense of that responsibility to others. This was most notably exemplified in their outpouring of compassion to the countries, communities, and families so devastated by the tsunami in South-East Asia. For the people of Ireland, there was no question but that we, as part of the international community, had a responsibility to help those in crisis following this disaster.

For our part, Fine Gael recognises very clearly that different situations call for different types of assistance. While monetary aid is often critical in responding to a crisis, providing skilled volunteers to manage the aftermath of any disaster is also necessary. In addition, we must acknowledge that, in certain scenarios, military intervention and military protection is called for.

The need for a military response to alleviate human suffering, genocide and other crimes of war has been highlighted by the United Nations. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, recognised that when he stated, "Sometimes you need to show force in order not to use it".

A cursory glance at some of the atrocities of our recent past shows that, in a number of cases, unstable situations have escalated into genocide and the loss of thousands of lives. We see that today in Darfur, where many thousands of people are being slaughtered while the so-called civilised world looks on. In these situations, the men, women and children threatened by violence can only be protected by a credible military response.

If we choose to send all the assistance we can to those affected by humanitarian disaster but refuse to act in other types of crisis situation, then we are differentiating between human suffering and human need in an unacceptable manner. Alongside our keen interest in extending financial and volunteer resources to countries in need, we must recognise that our Defence Forces have a key role in asserting the adherence to fundamental human rights, wherever those rights are challenged or attacked.

For this and other reasons, Fine Gael is very supportive of the development of EU battle groups. These stand-alone military forces, drawn from all EU member states, will have the capability to respond to crisis situations without delay so genocide and crimes of war can be prevented and human life protected.

The need for a speedy response in certain crisis situations has been seen time and again throughout history. The EU battle group concept means that when human life is threatened, we can offer those in fear for their lives more than simple words of support.

My principal point of concern, however, relates to the retention of the so-called triple lock mechanism, which dictates the manner in which Ireland may deploy troops overseas. Currently, the Defence Forces can only take part in military operations that are specifically endorsed by a UN resolution, approved by Dáil Éireann and agreed within the Government. Those three conditions make up the triple lock. It is clear that this triple lock system is excessively restrictive. For example, the Defence Forces could not take part in an EU peacekeeping force sent to Macedonia, even though this force replaced NATO forces in the region and had both EU and UN support. In the week that is in it, is worth mentioning the Celtic cross monument in Macedonia, I believe in Rebrovo, in honour of the losses suffered by the 10th Irish Division in the First World War. However, the Defence Forces could not take part in this mission because a formal UN resolution on the matter was vetoed by China as a protest against the recognition of Taiwan. This resulted in Ireland being debarred from participating in the EU-backed mission, which was requested by the President of Macedonia and which involved a total of 13 EU countries and 14 non-EU countries working together. Ireland had no role in this peacekeeping mission.

The Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006 again regrettably confirms the use of the triple lock and deals specifically with international United Nations forces which, according to the definition, are "sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations". Fine Gael believes that the triple lock should be reformed and that in deciding for ourselves whether to deploy a contingent of the Defence Forces on a mission overseas we should have regard to the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, as set out in the Charter of the United Nations. In the circumstances it is necessary to read these into the record, as it is very important that our policy is not one of abandonment of the United Nations. Article 1 states:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2 states:

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Fine Gael believes that those principles are adequate to assist us in determining whether we should participate in any operation.

I would like clarification on the role of the General Assembly in these matters. According to Chapters 6 and 7 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council has the primary role in deciding what action to take in matters of dispute and where international peace and security is threatened. Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations states:

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Furthermore, Article 34 states:

The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

In light of this, I would like to know the rationale behind the clear reference to the General Assembly within the legislation.

Given that the Security Council, the most powerful organ of the United Nations, has the lead responsibility in the determination of resolutions on matters of international security, we should not ignore the real difficulties that can arise when agreement on these resolutions is being sought. Resolutions are voted on by the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council. Resolutions can only be passed if nine or more members vote for the resolution, and if it is not voted against by any of the five permanent members. These members are the People's Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It is clear that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council may veto any resolution they choose, and this has already happened in the case of the veto applied by China on the resolution concerning Macedonia. While it was argued in the Seanad debate that this has happened only once, once is enough.

In the case of Ireland, where any deployment of our Defence Forces is inextricably linked to the deliberations of the United Nations, these permanent members hold a veto over our forces. Waiting for UN approval often means waiting for some internal security squabble between the permanent members of the UN Security Council to be resolved and may have little to do with the merits or demerits of any given resolution. This situation is unwise, unhealthy and unacceptable for any sovereign State.

While the triple lock has been of concern to Fine Gael for some time, there is a more pressing need for reform in this area in the context of the development of EU battle groups. These military groupings will place a high priority on readiness, which will involve joint training between the Defence Forces and the forces of other EU member states. These groupings may also be positioned outside the State in preparation for deployment and, as has already been outlined, the need for a speedy dispatch should a crisis arise is a key aspect of their development. By leaving the triple lock in place, Ireland could be left in the farcical situation where a contingent of our Defence Forces is already in position overseas, ready to begin its Government-supported mission, but our soldiers are unable to do anything other than sit on their hands due to wrangling at the United Nations.

Membership of the Nordic battle group, in which Ireland is taking part, will be drawn from a number of states. Since they are drawn from different states EU battle group formations must be highly co-operative. They must engage in joint training missions in readiness for any future missions. However, under the constraints of the triple lock, we may need to withdraw from any future battle group mission if the United Nations cannot reach agreement regarding a resolution. This could mean that Ireland would be obliged to renege on the commitment made to our European neighbours, who would be obliged to go on mission alone and without the assistance of the Defence Forces. This scenario would not arise if the Government had full sovereignty over the Defence Forces.

No man is an island, and no country can afford to be one either. The interdependence of our world means that we must be prepared to offer a wide variety of assistance to other states when needed. In some cases, this assistance must be of a military nature. As just one example, more than 400 Irish citizens, all members of the Defence Forces, are serving in the West-African country of Liberia. Ireland's Defence Forces were pivotal in the holding and transfer of the former Liberian leader, Charles Taylor. Members of the Defence Forces 94th Infantry Battalion Quick Reaction Force escorted Mr. Taylor from the capital Monrovia to the UN Special Court in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where he is wanted for war crimes. The mission in Liberia is one of the most challenging roles ever assumed by our Defence Forces, and their work has enhanced peace, security and stability in Liberia, a huge benefit to the people of that troubled State.

Fine Gael supports the role of the Defence Forces in their important work overseas and will support the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006. However, we remain gravely concerned at the veto over our Defence Forces which has been given to five of the dominant players in global politics. Does anyone believe that China, the United Kingdom, France, the United States or the Russian Federation would accept an Irish veto over their military forces?

I ask the Minister to clarify, either now or on Committee Stage, the issue over the resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. I know the vote of the Security Council requires the support of nine of the 15 members, obviously including the five permanent members. I believe the General Assembly may have passed a resolution on the war in Korea. I seek clarification on why the General Assembly is mentioned.

I support the amendments made in section 1 to the definitions in the 1960 Act. Section 3 deals with the issue of personnel serving overseas, whether with the Partnership for Peace in Brussels or the UN in New York, and sets out the assistance we can provide in respect of humanitarian operations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is advancing this concept and has raised the possibility of using military personnel and bases in that regard. However, humanitarian assistance operations would be more efficient if they were under the control of the Department of Defence. It is important that such operations are co-ordinated by the Defence Forces and the private sector so that expertise can be pooled. If some of the funds we provide for overseas assistance were diverted to these operations, people would see tangible fruits for their money.

Section 4 provides that members of the Permanent Defence Force who were appointed or enlisted prior to 1993 shall not be liable for service on overseas peace enforcement missions.

Sections 5 and 6 deal with the triple lock. Some commentators accuse Fine Gael of abandoning the UN. For historical reasons, Irish people take a positive attitude towards the UN, but the organisation is inefficient in many ways and needs to be reformed. I have personal experience of service with the UN on the frontline and in headquarters. People on the frontline do all the work and take all the risks but administrators have all the perks and seem to utilise most of the resources. For example, UNFICYP, which was established after the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, still has a section for missing persons, even though it has not located a missing person for the past 30 years. Some aspects of the UN simply defy logic. As regards the triple lock, if a Government of this State adheres to the fundamental principles of the UN, it will be as careful as the Security Council when getting involved in missions.

Deputy Gormley and I have described section 8 as an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Some people believe battle groups represent the militarisation of Europe. They claim we are losing our neutrality but I do not believe we were neutral in the first place. This Bill will help to save lives by increasing force efficiency. The concept of battle groups and regional forces arose from the failure of the UN to respond adequately to crises. In the past, the UN forces were static and contingents were not interoperable. Battle groups will allow for a more robust and efficient force.

I would like clarification on the legal advice with respect to allowing foreign troops to train in Ireland. When the Constitution refers to one Army in the State, it does not mean to refer to the training of foreign armies. In any case, foreign troops training in Ireland might not meet a certain definition of "army".

I welcome the Bill. While section 8 does not go as far as Fine Gael would like, it will help the Defence Forces to save lives by allowing them to respond more quickly to crises. I have reservations on the triple lock but hope we will eventually be mature enough to reconsider the issue.

See this speech in context