Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

People Before Profit will also oppose this proposal to send 14 more Irish troops, in this case rangers, to a deadly conflict and war that is raging in Mali for many reasons. Before explaining why we are opposing this planned deployment, I should note that our opposition to the Government's plan is not in any sense a criticism of our troops who may be sent to Mali if this House makes the decision to do so and in that regard, if Fianna Fáil backs the proposal, it seems they will be sent. I have absolutely no doubt about the bravery, courage, professionalism and heroism of members of the Defence Forces, the personnel who are already in Mali on the EU training mission and, for that matter, those who will be sent and rotated if this mission goes ahead. Our opposition is because the political decision being made is a big mistake. From the point of view of Ireland's neutrality, the safety of Irish soldiers and the impact on the war and conflict in Mali, we think there are dangers involved or, worse, that sending our troops would be counterproductive.

Members of the public need to know what is going on in Mali because they do not know a hell of a lot about it. The Minister of State's speech has not illuminated our understanding of the conflict, the historical situation in Mali that led to that conflict, the role of the different powers involved in military intervention as part of the UN mission and, as has been mentioned, the crucial role of France. The public is not being informed. I do not know the degree to which the rangers or members of the Defence Forces generally are being informed about what is going on. If they were informed, we would be in a better position to have a serious debate about this before the Government rushes off and sends troops into a deadly conflict in which terrible massacres of hundreds of people have been perpetuated by all sides in the past three months and 177 UN peacekeepers have been killed over the past three years.

We are sending our troops into a deadly situation. There has been no real explanation as to why this is happening, the context or what might come out of this endeavour. To put it in simple terms, this mission breaches our neutrality. Most people understand that our neutrality has something to do with our historic opposition to empire and colonialism. In so far as people have a view of the commendable and noble tradition of the Defence Forces being involved in UN missions abroad, it concerns peacekeeping. On both of those counts, this mission does not qualify. We are now involving ourselves with a colonial intervention. The French are backing the Malian armed forces and we are going to be involved on this mission, backing Mali and its armed forces. The French Army is a colonial force with a long history of trying to control this area and ruthlessly crushing opposition movements. As has already been mentioned, the Tuareg is the most notable of those movements. The colonial carve-up of the region was the ultimate cause of this conflict. The other cause is the desperate poverty in Mali. It is worth mentioning that as well. Half of the population lives below the poverty line, life expectancy is 55 as a result of malnutrition, access to clean water is lacking and adult literacy stands at 38%. That is despite Mali having considerable mineral resources. All of that desperate poverty is a direct result of colonialism and French colonialism in particular. We are effectively going into Mali and underwriting a colonial intervention to allow France to maintain its influence and control in the area.

That to which I refer is a very dangerous thing to do in the context of the welfare and safety of our soldiers. It is also dangerous to our reputation internationally as people who are not associated with imperial and colonial interventions, as well as to our neutrality. In any meaningful definition of neutrality, backing the armed forces of the Malian state in a civil war has nothing to do with that concept. It is a clear breach of neutrality. This is a serious matter because the lives of Irish soldiers are on the line. As has already been mentioned, we do not pay these soldiers properly and their allowances have been slashed. The result is that they are already at the bottom of the ladder in terms of public sector pay. The Government refused to restore those allowances and many members of the Defence Forces are living on family income supplement. We are, however, willing to send them into this deadly situation. It is a great tribute to the heroism, bravery and professionalism of our Defence Forces' personnel that many of them want to go on this mission. They want to hone their skills and try to do some good. The political context in which they are being sent, however, is dangerous for those troops and also flies in the face of our military neutrality.

There is a very simple question we should ask ourselves. Why have the Canadians pulled out of this mission having previously participated? If the Minister of State is concerned about understanding the nature of the conflict and protecting the welfare of our troops on this mission, has he had a conversation with the Canadian Government? If he has, could he please relay details of that conversation and the rationale regarding why Canada pulled out of the mission to the House? That would be very illuminating.

The other context relating to this issue is Ireland's desire to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council. It is interesting to note that we are competing with Canada for that position to some extent. Is coincidental that just as the Canadians pulled out of the mission, Ireland has rapidly stepped into the breach? We have done that without a proper public debate. Are Irish troops being put in danger by engaging in peace enforcement instead of our traditional role of peacekeeping because of a desire to get a seat on the Security Council? The UN was not terribly happy that Canada made a decision to pull out of its involvement in Mali. I suspect there is a connection and that is another important reason for us to not get involved in this mission. I do not think the timing is coincidental.

Nobody could suggest that what we are doing is not a serious departure from the traditional practice and understanding of peacekeeping. There is no peace to keep in Mali because a war is going on. It is a very bloody war with many massacres. The UN and the EU are now involving themselves with forces from a country, France, that has a definite colonial agenda. People in Mali know that. Those involved in the conflict have bitter experience of French involvement in Mali. Ireland being connected to that, even indirectly - though in reality it will be direct and will be perceived as such - is going to implicate us in the French role and agenda. There will be immediate damaging consequences for the safety of our personnel. Our reputation as a neutral state will also be damaged.

I do not state that we oppose this deployment lightly. If the troops are sent, then we have to exert pressure to ensure that their security will be protected as much as possible and that they are as well equipped as possible. Given all that I have stated, however, I do not think these troops should be sent at all. The Government is sending them into danger and doing so in a way that damages Ireland's international reputation as a neutral power.

See this speech in context