Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

At the end of my discussion on a related amendment on Committee Stage I introduced the question of the position of mercenaries, and I had a particular reason for that. I can see the goodwill of the Minister towards the spirit of my amendment but he is unwilling to accept it due to difficulties in implementation.

The use of the position of non-combatants in the Geneva Convention is not helpful. It is a strategy employed by the Government of the United States to handle many people who are deprived of the basic elements of the protection of international law in Guantanamo Bay. It is also something related to operability in the field, the wearing of a uniform and what constitutes a uniform, and Deputy Timmins would know of the application of that part of the Geneva Convention. It is an area of discussion that may belong to a different occasion.

I am interested in the consistency between the point I am arguing in this amendment and what I argued on the control of exports as it governs military equipment. I did not succeed, but I made a case for the importance of securing information on end use and argued that if something is used in a military way, one takes responsibility for its final usage. As one looks at what is produced it floats out of control and moves into an unaccountable area.

Regarding this particular matter, the reputation of the country would be damaged if it decided to look aside, and I am not accusing the Government of that.

I am not going to dwell on this, but not so long ago I was in Karamojo, northern Uganda where once people were cattle rustlers and used spears, but now in the marketplace people are buying and selling guns. There are no places producing armaments on the continent of Africa, but they have been introduced as instruments of death. I appreciate this might not be the place to do what I was trying to do with my amendment, to cast the net so wide that anybody who ever participated in transactions involving departures from the spirit of this legislation would be within our remit.

I am not convinced by the argument that people might find themselves in a group or in an army that was a non-signatory. This argument does not move me because I have a view that is even more conservative than that of the Minister with regard to personal responsibility. The fact the State is throwing its net abroad and as widely as possible does not bother me. That is where I am not conservative. The balance of personal responsibility exists, but I believe the State should be an activist with regard to seeking to get compliance with good legislation. This is undoubtedly good legislation, even if it is less than perfect.

See this speech in context