Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this proposal. I join others in wishing those who will represent Ireland safety, health and success in their mission.

It is important that we put this decision in context. It is a very important implementation of a shift in thinking in regard to participation at the United Nations from, for example, humanitarian intervention to humanitarian protection. Humanitarian intervention has an old and somewhat discredited record going back to Mussolini and North Africa. The weakness was always that those who invaded countries would sometimes justify their actions on the basis that they had made a humanitarian intervention. The shift in thinking to humanitarian protection, which I support, has implications for classical constructions of theories of sovereignty. We are living in a world where it is no longer sustainable to suggest that one should use the veil of sovereignty as an absolute block against the vindication of human rights.

This brings me to the second point, namely, the significance of this force being authorised under a chapter VII mandate. This is correct as it enables the force to defend itself and United Nations personnel. Therefore, more force is attached to those who wish the participants well because it accepts the higher degree of risk, which the advice to the Minister has described as medium, and it gives one an idea of the difficulty of the situation. For my part, I would like to think that while our people are there, there will be a better attempt at linking the discourse on human rights with their particular actions of enforcement. There is an incredible gap in understanding in regard to the difficulties in the general region of Chad, the Central African Republic and the Darfur region of Sudan. There have been enormous refugee problems, enormous numbers of internally displaced people and a deepening rather than a lessening of ethnic and other divisions. Perhaps the most significant feature, which is the most tragic in the context of our contemporary history, has been the acceptance of rape and violence against women as a weapon of war and an instrument of oppression in a conflict zone.

With regard to the practice of humanitarian protection, I support the new proposals that have been made, and are acquiring some global support, for a United Nations emergency peace service. We are in a difficult time. It is a difficulty the Irish forces do not share but there have been difficulties about Sri Lankan forces and Canadian forces, who have a very good record with regard to Somalia and so forth. There is a need to wed together the human rights, development and peace building discourses to create the context in which forces such as this do not appear as a fire brigade, without having a theory as to how fires might be avoided.

There are 40 million people in uniform in the world. They have not prevented genocide, nor can we require them to do so. They are, for the most part, responding to genocide and to conditions which are characterised by genocide, including the one we are discussing. In that sense there is a necessity, with regard to humanitarian protection, to be explicit about the legitimate authority and about the real cause to which one is responding and to have the correct intention, which is the primary difference between human rights intervention and human rights protection. It is intention that defines the content of genocide as well.

It is also important that we be explicit about the human rights that are being threatened. In 1998, a total of 120 countries committed themselves to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The task is to turn the principles to which countries have signed up into a durable and operable set of obligations. We should use this opportunity of making our connection with this region and its difficulties as one to make other connections through our human rights or international legal perspectives and, as it were, use it as an attempt to achieve the globalisation of human rights, including their indivisibility and the universality.

One should also remember the context in which our troops are going. Chad, for example, has ratified virtually every international human rights treaty, and this is reflected in its constitution and laws. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has met with the representative authorities in Chad and one could claim to an extent that our forces are arriving in a welcoming environment. However, it is not that easy. I agree there is a necessity for a Chapter VII resolution. Chad is also a high contracting party to the Geneva Convention and has ratified all its additional protocols.

The regular raids by the different forces across the borders are unacceptable. The idea that older women must go out to gather firewood or be involved in agricultural tasks to lessen the risks for all women is indicative of the low level to which humanity has sunk. It is important, therefore, that we recall the context in which our troops are going and not just wish them well but assist the consequences of their good action by making linkages in our human rights and development discourses and in our international politics with what they are doing.

I agree with the Members on all sides of the House that it would outrageous if there were insufficient air transport. In Darfur, for example, it is unforgivable that the African Union force did not have basic means of communication and had to be assisted by NATO. We must ensure that the provision of logistical assistance by our European Union partners is not such as to either delay or mitigate against the effectiveness of Irish participation. We should secure the widest possible public awareness of what UN Security Council Resolution 1778 does. It is aimed at the security and protection of civilians, particularly refugees, internally displaced persons and civilians in danger, and the vindication of their rights. It might be useful if the Minister explained how the European Union joint action fits with the United Nations mission. The UN mission has a particular purpose with regard to civil society. I hope those who would be critical will see that the Irish participation in the European Union joint action is, in fact, in support of the set of principles embodied in the UN mission.

I wish the forces and the commanding officer well. I join the congratulations to Lieutenant General Pat Nash. It is a tribute to him and to Ireland that he has been given such a serious responsibility. I wish all the participants every success.

See this speech in context