Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 89: To ask the Minister for Defence the situation with respect to Irish troops participating in the EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1766/05]

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 91: To ask the Minister for Defence if he plans to abandon the triple lock, amend the Defence Acts or seek amendment of the Constitution to facilitate Ireland's participation in the EU battle groups or other military arrangements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1763/05]

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 93: To ask the Minister for Defence if he wants Irish soldiers to join the European Union's proposed rapid reaction battle groups; if he is still committed to the policy of not joining any military force not mandated by the United Nations; if he intends taking proposals to the Cabinet on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1765/05]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 89, 91 and 93 together.

I refer Deputies to my reply to the House on this subject on 17 November 2004. The position remains as I outlined at that time. The background to the rapid response elements concept, commonly referred to as battle groups, is that at the European Council in Helsinki in 1999, member states set themselves a headline goal that "by the year 2003, cooperating together and voluntarily, they will be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks as set out in the Amsterdam Treaty". In short, they are humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management operations, including peacemaking. This included, inter alia, a capability to provide "rapid response elements available and deployable at very high readiness". The ambition of the EU to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has and continues to be a key objective of the development of the European security and defence policy.

The EU has learned from historical experience in the Balkans and Africa and wants to be able to react more quickly when crises develop. This was effectively illustrated last year by the EU's first autonomous military operation, which was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The operation, undertaken at the request of the United Nations Secretary General and which deployed in rapid circumstances, was successful in contributing to the stabilisation of the security environment and the improvement of humanitarian conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Deputies will recall that during his visit to Dublin in October 2004, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, stressed the importance of battle groups and requested Ireland's support for them.

As I indicated in my reply to the House on 17 November, at the Cabinet meeting of 16 November, the Government agreed that I should advise my EU counterparts of Ireland's preparedness to enter into consultations with partners with a view to potential participation in rapid response elements. A military capabilities commitment conference was held on 22 November 2004 at which member states committed up to 13 battle group formations which will be available to deploy to crisis situations within a five to ten day period from 2005 onwards. The five to ten day period begins from the date of a decision by the European Council to launch an operation. However, it is to be expected that a crisis would normally have a longer gestation period during which the UN Security Council would have sufficient opportunity to decide on a UN mandate.

To fully assess the implications associated with such participation, I have established an interdepartmental group which includes representatives of my Department, the Defence Forces, the Taoiseach's Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's office. This group met in December and has established three subgroups to address the policy, legislative and operational issues arising. The work of these subgroups will span some months because the rapid response elements concept is still evolving and a complete picture of all other member states' proposed involvement is not yet available. Following completion of the necessary analysis I intend returning to Government with proposals regarding the level of any proposed participation by Ireland.

The House must bear in mind the Defence Forces are in Liberia in a UN operation, in Kosovo in a NATO-led operation and in Bosnia in a EU-led operation, and that rapid response elements are but one aspect of EU capabilities to assist in crisis management. The rapid response concept raises many issues, not alone for Ireland but also for other EU member states. I again stress that the question of Ireland's participation in rapid response elements will remain subject to the usual requirements of a Government decision, Dáil approval and UN authorisation and I have no plans to change this.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of myself and our party leader, Deputy Kenny, I thank the Minister for facilitating us to visit Irish troops in KFOR over the Christmas period. I am a little confused by the Minister's answer. My understanding following the last time Defence questions were answered was that the Cabinet had given permission in principle for an examination of the concept of joining the battle groups. The Minister has now stated that he would recommend to Cabinet the level of any assistance which Ireland might give. Will he confirm to the House that Ireland has not decided in principle to join these battle groups? Fine Gael believes that Ireland should join them.

He referred to the military capabilities commitment conference held on 22 November in Brussels where approximately 13 different formations were drawn up by 20 countries. Cyprus is hardly a wet week as a member of the EU and it is a small nation, yet it has given a commitment to a niche involvement. Is this not a cause of embarrassment for the Minister for Defence at meetings of the Council of Ministers or for the Taoiseach when he attends the Heads of State meetings? Ireland is a member of a club whose benefits it has enjoyed for almost 30 years, yet it is not willing to give something in return.

This relates to the evolution of peacekeeping. The Brahimi report outlined how the UN no longer has the wherewithal to carry out these operations and that they would need to be contracted out to regional organisations. Where better to go than to the EU and who better to participate than the Irish? Is it the Minister's view that Ireland should participate in these battle groups? If so, what legislative change will be necessary? Is the Government committed to bringing forward this required change in the legislation to allow training on foreign soil or to permit other armies to come here? In 2001, the Minister's predecessor stated that if a change in the legislation were required, it would be done. Is this still the Government's view? Fine Gael firmly believes that Ireland should participate.

On a final point, much confusion was caused over Christmas by the Taoiseach's office and the Minister's office as to whether a UN mandate was required. Does the Minister agree that while the triple lock may be an emotive issue, we in this country treat the UN in the same way as a dysfunctional family uses a comfort blanket and the time has come to make decisions for ourselves on a case by case basis?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I informed the House previously and as I repeated today, the Cabinet decided on 16 November that at the meeting in Brussels, I should advise my EU counterparts of Ireland's preparedness to enter into consultations with our EU partners with a view to potential participation in rapid response elements. That was the decision taken. There was no decision taken to join the rapid response elements but the decision was taken to consult our EU partners to see whether Ireland could participate in such a concept and to determine what obstacles lay in the way.

Deputy Timmins refers to other countries such as Cyprus. With all due respects to Cyprus and any other countries that have signed up as part of the battle group concept, if one looks at the size of their populations and economies, I doubt if they have put as much as Ireland into peacekeeping over the past 50 years. As I stated, Irish forces are deployed in Liberia, Kosovo and Bosnia. The contribution made by Irish forces to United Nations peacekeeping missions over the past 50 years has been second to none and, regardless of whether we participate in the rapid reaction force, that will not change. Participation in rapid reaction units is only one way in which we can contribute to world peacekeeping. That is the position.

The position in the Department is that there are a number of obstacles. Deputy Timmins asked me directly if I was prepared to abandon the triple lock mechanism. I read his party's interesting paper on neutrality. I do not agree with his statement that the triple lock is a political or other type of straitjacket. If we had to abandon the triple lock to enter into the rapid reaction arrangement, I would not be prepared to make that sacrifice.

The Department, in conjunction with other Departments, is seeking to determine if we can participate meaningfully within the parameters of the triple lock mechanism. This will depend on a number of factors, not primarily the Defence Act. It will depend, for example, on how the United Nations reforms its procedures, a process which is under way. The primary issue will be whether a Security Council decision can be obtained more quickly than at present. This is the main obstacle from the point of view of the triple lock. Something will have to happen on those lines before we would even contemplate looking at our legislation.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that the United Nations is not so much a comfort blanket as the basis of international law? On what legal basis is the triple lock founded? Does the Minister agree that section 2(1) of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 does not state that service outside the State by Defence Forces contingents can only be with a United Nations force but stipulates instead that service with a United Nations force can only be pursuant to a resolution of the Dáil? Will the Minister be clear on this? While I support the triple lock, I want to know its legal basis and the legal advice available to the Minister on it.

With regard to the implications of the new EU constitution, Article 40.2 is clear. It states:

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

That is one aspect. The crucial point, however, is the clear statement in Article 40.7 that: "Until such time as the European Council has acted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, closer cooperation shall be established, in the Union framework, as regards mutual defence." Is it not clear that involvement in closer co-operation as regards mutual defence is not compatible with the triple lock the Minister claims he does not want to abandon?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Deputy's sentiments regarding the United Nations. With regard to the legal basis of the triple lock, my advice from the Attorney General is that this is contained in the corpus of defence legislation, namely, the relevant Defence Acts. I do not have the detailed legal advice to hand but I undertake to the Deputy to obtain it and forward it to him.

As the campaign on the draft EU constitution has not yet started, Deputy Gormley has started his early.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am simply asking a question.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no doubt the advice I have received will be debated in various fora throughout the country. A Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs is examining the terms of the draft EU constitution. The advice we have is that the triple lock is perfectly consistent with signing up to the section of the draft EU constitution containing the concept of common or mutual defence. Deputy Gormley probably does not accept it but that will be a subject for debate during the campaign on the EU constitution.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Minister for Defence wants Irish soldiers to join the EU's proposed rapid reaction battle groups and if he is still committed to the policy of not joining any military force not mandated by the United Nations, he must clarify recent comments that he intends to bring proposals to Cabinet. What proposals will he bring to Cabinet? What are the precise legal and constitutional issues he has identified? How will these changes affect the triple lock procedure?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am committed to the triple lock as it stands. On the proposals I will bring to Cabinet, as I said, we have set up a group which is divided into three subgroups to consider all the issues on participation in rapid reaction units. I will take the conclusions of those groups to Cabinet where we will discuss them. That is the position. People have asked if we should make a decision on this immediately. At the conference in Brussels, some countries talked about committing by 2010. That did not indicate a great urgency. The only agreements at present are for battle groups set up by framework countries where a battle group would come from one country.

On multi-operational measures, where a number of countries are involved, I am advised that they will not get off the ground until approximately 2007 at the earliest. There is no great compelling urgency about this. We are performing our functions of peacekeeping and peacemaking on behalf of the United Nations in missions established or authorised by it as we have always done. This is another way in which we can help if we can. However, I am not prepared to abandon the triple lock to enable us to do so.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that we, as a nation, should be able to devise our own foreign policy? By adhering to the triple lock, we are, in a strange way, making ourselves subservient to American, Chinese, Russian, French and British foreign policy. That is a weakness in this whole system. After the tsunami disaster, people clamoured to get Irish troops to go to south-east Asia. I do not know what the Minister's legal advice was and whether we needed a UN mandate to send troops. I do not believe we needed such a mandate but if we did, is it not ironic that we are subservient to so many other countries in respect of our foreign policy?

When will the subgroups considering the possibility of Irish troops joining EU battle groups report? I am concerned that people will become confused and will use the concept of joining EU battle groups, which is completely separate from the EU constitution and common defence policy. It is important the Minister brings forward proposals, whether positive or negative, long before the campaign on the EU constitution begins because these are two separate and very different issues and I would not like one to be used to blur the other.

In the event of us joining the battle groups, which I hope we will, I realise that our commitments overseas are a drain on resources and numbers. There are 10,500 members in the Defence Forces and this would take its toll. Will the Minister consider the concept of developing military-cum-civilian cells whereby, in many of the contingents operating at present, perhaps 40% of the unit could be made up of reserve Defence Forces members who have expertise in certain areas, whether fitters, drivers or medical personnel? That happens in almost all other European countries and it would make up for the shortfall in Irish personnel.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are firmly in control of foreign policy. We devise our own foreign policy and do not look to China, America, Indonesia or elsewhere. My advice was that we did not need a UN mandate to deploy people on a voluntary basis overseas, as has always been done. For example, it was done in Mozambique and Honduras. I imagine the subgroups will report by the summer. The overall group met in December. I understand that each of the three subgroups will meet within the next week.

I agree with Deputy Timmins's last remark about deploying some reservists overseas. As the Deputy is aware, a programme was put in place last year, which will be implemented over a six-year period, to upgrade the reserve Defence Forces. Part of the recommendations on which the associated committee is working is that members of the reserve Defence Forces, particularly specialists, could be deployed overseas on a voluntary basis. A number of issues must be dealt with in this regard, such as adequate advance training, security of employment and so on. However, nothing like that will happen without full consultation with PDFORRA and RACO, the relevant representative groups within the Army. It is a matter under consideration that Defence Forces reservists may be deployed overseas on a voluntary basis after all these issues have been dealt with and the matter has been discussed fully with the relevant representative organisations.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister must agree that the days when we made our own foreign policy are long gone, given that we have long since been part of a common foreign and security policy. That is fact. The Minister made an interesting distinction between mutual defence and common defence in his reply. If we are part of a mutual defence arrangement under Article 40.7, the Minister must agree that it would be strange for us to say to an EU partner which is the victim of armed aggression that we cannot go to its assistance, although we are part of a mutual defence pact, because we do not have a UN mandate as required by procedure in our country. Although I support the triple-lock mechanism, does the Minister agree that it seems to be incompatible with that provision in the long term?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that but I do not agree. This is a debate we will have over a long period. Second, I reject Deputy Gormley's assertion that there is something lacking in the independence of Ireland's foreign policy. We are part of the EU and have certain responsibilities and obligations in this regard. However, by and large, Ireland controls its own foreign policy.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister committed to the policy of not joining any military force not mandated by the UN? Depending on his answer, what assurances can he give that the triple-lock procedure will be maintained?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The answer to the first of Deputy Sherlock's questions is "yes". I am committed to the principle of not involving Irish troops in any military operation unless mandated by the UN. Regarding the triple-lock procedure, the present position will be maintained. I can only give the Deputy my word. I speak on behalf of the Government in assuring the Deputy that it is Government policy that the triple-lock mechanism in its current form will be maintained.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For now.