Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

What we are being asked to do is allow a detachment of 14 soldiers from the Army ranger wing to be deployed to the African state of Mali as part of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, MINUSMA, which was set up in 2013. We are being asked to endorse that and become part of the UN's response to a coup in that state. The force to which the detachment of 14 soldiers from Army ranger wing will be joining consists of 13,750 soldiers and police officers.

That is not all. It is supported by an international military force of 620 soldiers called the European Union Training Mission in Mali, EUTM, of which 20 soldiers are Irish. This was never brought Houses of the Oireachtas and was never endorsed by it despite the supposed triple lock. Twenty Irish soldiers are operating in Mali at the behest of the EU.

If that was not enough foreign military personnel in that African state, which is large compared to Ireland, the French have Operation Barkhane, which comprises a detatchment of 4,500 soldiers. All told, in excess of 18,000 military personnel of a foreign nature are deployed in this African country.

Before our troops embarked on this mission, some analysis or discussion of the history of Mali and the history of France in Africa and in the region now known as Mali should have taken place. Mali was established in 1960 after the rape of Africa by France, Belgium and other European countries whereby they ripped away many of that continent's mineral resources. These countries supposedly ended their imperialist adventure in Africa but they then decided that they had to reassert their influence. They started over again by ensure that all those mineral resources remained in their possession or in the possession of their fellow countrymen. Who owns the wealth of Mali? People might ask why I am talking about its wealth. It is the tenth poorest country in the world but it happens to be one of the biggest exporters of gold. That does not benefit the people living in Mali. It benefits other countries and international firms much more than Mali. There is not only gold but also phosphate, salt and other resources. That is the shameful history of European involvement in Africa and the division of nations that led eventually to the establishment of Mali in 1960.

It was not the end, however, because drawing lines on a map, as we have seen with Africa, often divided tribes and regions from each other. The Tuareg tribe was split between five different countries. That sowed seeds of division within Mali and we have seen the results. For decades, the members of the Tuareg tribe fought against the French. They fought against them before Mali was established. They fought against the French Foreign Legion and the French hated them for it and continuously put them down and slaughtered them. It was not only the Tuareg tribe; many other tribes were split, moved around and disconnected from their original heartlands. All of that led to civil war in Mali and other African states. Of late, those ingredients that led to civil war were added to by a mix of fundamentalist religious fanaticism and that, as well as the coup d'etatagainst the Government in 2012, is what has ripped Mali apart.

What is the role of France and the UN Security Council in all of this? They would have us believe, and they might be right to a degree, that they are there to stop international terrorism and put down uprisings. However, it is not a UNIFIL mission that Irish troops are being asked to participate in. This is a peace enforcement mission. That involves taking sides. This is breaching everything for which we stand from the point of view of our neutrality. It also undermines the proud tradition of Irish soldiers who have served abroad in defending peace when it has been established. There is no peace in Mali. If there was, the French battalions would not be sending in drones to attack villages and the like.

There are human rights abusers and Members are rightly standing up here and arguing against them. They can to be found on both sides. Those who took power in 2012 have also been indicted for human rights abuses and many of those who back the current Government are the same people who were human traffickers in the past and they are probably still engaged in that activity in the background. This is not an international force to try to keep the peace. In many ways, it is the exact opposite.

There are questions to answer. There should have been a context in terms of a debate on participation in this mission before the Minister of State even talked about sending Irish soldiers to Mali, but he sent them in any event. There are 20 already deployed there. They are being exposed to the impact of having to take Lariam. Another 14 soldiers are going to be deployed.The Minister of State has not addressed the issue of the prescribing of Lariam to our personnel despite the Dáil passing a motion that this should not happen. Will these soldiers be forced to take Lariam?

Can the Minister of State indicate when the UN will renew the mandate for this mission? Will it be exactly the same, will it change it or will it be worse than is currently the case? The information I have is that the UN is taking a decision at the end of the month. The Minister of State would not even wait until the end of month for that because he wanted some publicity from sending troops abroad. The logical course would have been to wait for that and then to have a debate.

The right thing for the Members to do is introduce a motion to withdraw the 20 personnel who have been deployed, not to deploy any more of our personnel and to use the good offices of the UN to try to change the nature of the force that is already there. We should be seen as mediators, which is the proud role Ireland would have in any peace efforts in that region or anywhere else in the world, not as enforcers. However, that is exactly what the Minister of State is doing. He is changing the nature of Irish engagement with international politics by having our personnel act as enforcers rather than mediators. This is totally contrary to what most people would believe represents our neutrality. This exposes us around the world such that if Ireland is not neutral in its dealings internationally, then it would sell its soul to try to get on to the UN Security Council to play with the big boys just because we seem to have been left out. We should adopt a different approach of focusing on the little boys and pull all of them together and create a bigger force in the world of countries which are at peace, can espouse peace and go around the world with a proper track record and help other countries. These would be countries which are non-alligned and understand the value of being neutral. That is not what the Minister of State has sought by putting this motion before the House.

See this speech in context