Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

After last Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, the Government very quietly announced plans to send about a dozen members of the Army Ranger Wing to Mali to join a counterterrorism operation that is widely regarded as the most dangerous UN mission in the world. It is no accident that five of the deadliest UN missions since 2010 have been in Africa, with MINUSMA being the deadliest. Some 177 peacekeepers have been killed in the last five years, including 16 so far this year, by gun attacks, home-made car bombs and improvised explosive devices.

The MINUSMA mission was created following a UN Security Council Resolution in April 2013. It was given a mandate based on the security and protection of civilians but it has never managed to end insecurity. That insecurity has now spread to the centre of Mali, causing the UN to deploy a peace enforcement mission to deal with the consequences. The operative words are "peace enforcement". That has encroached on the meaning of peacekeeping and further blurring more than ever before the already blurred boundaries between peace and war. That is particularly the case when it comes to Ireland's involvement.

MINUSMA represents a new venture. Peacekeepers will rub shoulders with those directly involved in conflict, including the French army and the joint G5 Sahel force, which is itself involved in counterterrorism operations. According to Maria do Céu de Pinto there is a paradox involved in the use of the oxymoron "peace operations". These operations traditionally built on the principles of UN peacekeeping, including the consent of the parties, impartiality and the non-use of force, except in self-defence. Those principles are now, however, being increasingly transformed into enforcement operations.

MINUSMA's mandate of powers is to engage in direct operations, including joint operations with the Malian military. The mission is supported by advanced hardware such as short-range drones and attack helicopters. There has been an emerging pattern of increased aggressiveness and offensive operations in parallel with what Maria do Céu de Pinto calls an "essentially hybrid nature involving both elements of peacekeeping and enforcement". The International Red Cross believes that countries such as Ireland and France are a party to the conflict and it has been stated that the legal implications of UN peacekeepers losing their non-combatant status could be far reaching. That is not taking into account the fact that Ireland already has a small contingent of troops in Mali on a non-combat training mission. What happens to their mandate?

By breaching the principle of the impartiality peacekeepers, the UN makes it harder to cast itself as a mediator elsewhere. This is dangerous considering that there is already international suspicion of multilateral co-operation between countries, with the United States taking the lead on unilateral approaches to global conflicts.

It is not an accident that no Minister has since said a word in public to explain the decision to send troops to Mali. I distinctly remember that the Independent Alliance Deputies were very outspoken when it came to wanting to engage in a peace mission to North Korea and that they called for a free vote when it came to the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. However, there has been nothing since it emerged that a dozen Irish Defence Forces personnel will be sent to one of the world's most dangerous conflicts. The Government needs to be honest about its motive which, simply put, is France. It may be a way to gain favour with France over Brexit negotiations, it may be part of Ireland intensifying its campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council in 2021, or it may be part of the continuous moves to get rid of our neutrality agenda. It is less about peacekeeping in Africa and more about appeasing the West.

See this speech in context