Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)

I thank the Tánaiste for his answer. Once again he said he supports military neutrality but it appears not when we see the actions the Government is taking and this proposal before us. While he positions the change as something he has to do because he cannot secure the UN mandate, the facts do not justify it. I am left to assume he does not want to have that UN mandate applied to our peacekeeping missions and the human rights monitoring and transparency it demands. The reality is the General Assembly endorsement can satisfy our triple lock.

I will go through some of these facts. China vetoed the renewal of the Macedonia mission in 1999 due to its recognition of Taiwan. No peacekeeping mission has been blocked since. In fact, many UN peacekeeping missions have had their mandates renewed, including the Golan Heights, and UN mandates were given to Operation Sophia and the mission in Haiti established last year. The Tánaiste mentioned the time the General Assembly was used. They based it on the "uniting for peace" resolution, which can be deployed. These are the facts and the Tánaiste's answer does not adequately address them. Can he point me to when a peacekeeping mission has been prevented or even hampered because the General Assembly did not do its job?

See this speech in context