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

Question 1: To ask the Minister for Defence the discussions he or his Department has held to date with potential EU battle group partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7506/06]

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

Question 2: To ask the Minister for Defence the measures he has taken to ensure that Irish neutrality is not compromised by the participation of Irish troops in EU battle groups; the way in which the triple lock mechanism will be affected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7492/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The ambition of the European Union to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has been, and continues to be, a key objective of the development of the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP. The tasks to be carried out under ESDP, the so-called Petersberg Tasks, are defined in the Amsterdam treaty as "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".

Our participation in the ESDP and in the Petersberg Tasks has been endorsed and supported directly by the Irish people in the referendum on the Treaty on European Union and the subsequent referenda on the Amsterdam and Nice treaties. Our participation in the ESDP is also fully in accordance with our traditional support for the United Nations and our obligations as members of the international community to respond to crises, events and humanitarian disasters wherever they may occur.

Ireland supports the development of the EU's rapid response capability in support of UN authorised missions and is positively disposed towards participation in the rapid response elements in this regard. To this end, I established the interdepartmental group to examine all issues relating to Ireland's potential participation in an EU-led rapid response capability. The group reported to me in November 2005 and since then its report has been considered by the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs and, informally, by the Government.

On the basis of the study and informal discussions at Government level, I have authorised my officials to open discussions with potential partners on Ireland's participation in a battle group. In co-operation with like-minded nations, we will seek to contribute to the development of the battle group concept and, through this, to remain at the forefront of developments within the international community in supporting international peace support operations. With my recent announcement, 23 of 25 member states have signalled their intention to participate in battle groups.

My intention would be to identify specific options on participation and then return to Government for a formal decision. In the first instance we intend to talk to Sweden, which is the framework nation for the Nordic battle group. We have identified a range of potential offers ranging from smaller niche capabilities up to an APC mounted light infantry company group of approximately 200 personnel plus support elements.

While there have been some preliminary informal discussions with Sweden regarding potential participation, to date there have been no formal discussions with any EU member state. As such, I am not in a position to state what will come out of these discussions. However, arrangements have been made for a formal meeting between representatives from the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces of Sweden and Ireland on 10 March in Stockholm to discuss possible Irish participation in the Nordic battle group.

As members will appreciate, the Nordic battle group was organised some time ago and I understand that most of the core elements are already in place, with Sweden contributing the core manoeuvre battalion. In addition, battle groups covering the period out to 2010 have been announced and on this basis I expect that our contribution in the period to 2010 is likely to be limited. However, this will be a matter for ongoing discussion with other member states over the coming months, in particular, Finland and Austria with whom we have had some initial informal exploratory discussions.

There are no plans for the involvement of Naval or Air Corps assets, although individual members of the Naval Service or Air Corps may be deployed on overseas peace support operations as they have been in the past. Any commitment to a battle group will be met within the context of the overall ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time as set out in the White Paper on Defence.

There is no question of Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality being compromised by the participation of Irish troops in battle groups. Participation imposes no obligations concerning international or multilateral defence, nor does it give rise to constitutional issues. Any move to a common defence would be for decision by the European Council acting unanimously and in accordance with member states' constitutional requirements. At present, there are no proposals for such a move.

In any event, Ireland's position is clear. The amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann in October 2002 precludes Ireland from participating in a common defence. As a consequence, the Irish people would have to amend Bunreacht na hÉireann before Ireland could take part in a common defence.

Any decision to participate in any battle group mission will be a national sovereign decision, decided through our own national decision-making process on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, I have reiterated on many occasions that our participation in peace support operations would continue to require UN authorisation. Participation in battle groups will not diminish this requirement in any way. Ireland's basis for participation in missions undertaken by the EU is grounded in the legitimacy conveyed by the UN Security Council. This will not change. The triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval will remain in place.

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

What impact, if any, will this decision have on funding? Will additional funding be required and, if so, will it come from the present resources of the Defence Vote or will additional resources have to be obtained elsewhere? When will the Minister bring forward legislation? Will the Minister confirm what legislation, if any, is necessary to implement this proposal?

Will the report the Minister was given in November be made public? If it is to be published, when will it be made available? In his reply, the Minister stated that he did not have formal discussions with any of our EU partners but did he have informal discussions with them? Why did we pick Sweden and, it appears, that country alone? I am not saying there is anything incorrect in that as we have served with it in Liberia. It strikes me, however, that in view of the Good Friday Agreement, the so-called special new relationship with our nearest neighbour and the fact that it speaks the same language, we should have consulted the British on joining them. In the recent past, we have served alongside British forces in Cyprus. It would be much easier from an interoperability viewpoint to deal with the British who are very near to us.

I understand from the Minister's statement that Ireland will not be involved in such a battle group before 2010. If I am wrong, the Minister may correct me. Will the Minister not agree that the triple lock mechanism will give rise to efficiency? It is time for the Government to examine this neutrality rubbish we have spoken about. Ireland is not neutral so it is time we decided what our foreign policy should be. We should be mature enough to make such decisions in this House. I realise that the Minister is a bit concerned about scaremongering from certain quarters.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no scaremongering here.

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

However, we in Fine Gael would be most supportive of him if he decided to go ahead and put it on the record, once and for all, that we are mature enough as a nation to make decisions on whether we should participate.

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

We understand.

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

We should not be looking over our shoulders and letting the Americans or Chinese decide what we should or should not participate in.

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

Deputy Timmins has certainly raised a number of important questions. First, the funding question has arisen before. In the short term at least, I do not anticipate any increase in funding. We will stay within our limit of 850 troops and will operate from that. In other words, our total overseas commitment will not exceed our present limit of 850 troops.

Second, we will also insist on the principle under which we operate in the EUFOR and KFOR operations, namely, that costs will lie where they fall and each country will meet its own costs.

Third, our participation in a battle group, if it is deployed, might only last for 30 days. The maximum will be only 120 days. There will not be much extra cost involved when the battle group is on stand-by during that six-month period. If a battle group happens to be deployed we will of course have to meet the usual costs of deployment, sustainability, nutrition, overseas allowances and medical care. We will also have to meet the costs of bringing troops back. We do not expect, however, that it will add significantly to costs. Irish troops are well equipped for missions up to and including chapter seven missions. That is precisely the type of mission we are operating in Liberia at the moment. It is generally agreed that the force's assets are sufficient to provide adequate protection.

I hope to introduce the necessary legislation before the summer recess to enable Irish troops to go abroad for training. It will change the definition of the UN resolution slightly to incorporate the type of resolutions they intend to introduce. They will be the major changes, although there will also be one or two other minor amendments.

The Deputy asked about the publication of the report but as we are still working from it, I do not think it would be appropriate to publish it yet. Perhaps when I have gone to Government with a formal decision on joining a battle group, I will consider the Deputy's request to publish the report.

The Deputy also asked about other countries with which we have had discussions. I am told that we have had informal discussions at official level with Austria and Finland. I met the British Defence Secretary, Dr. John Reid, who came over to see me just before Christmas. The question of battle groups arose in conversation but I understand the British have their own. They are providing a single nation battle group while we will be part of a multinational battle group. We have joined with Sweden because to all intents and purposes, we are effectively in a battle group with that country.

The Swedish-Irish contingent is the rapid response unit of the United Nations contingent in Liberia. In effect it is a battle group in theatre. What it is doing and has been doing differs little if at all from what the battle groups we now envisage will be doing. We have traditionally worked with the Swedes. We are familiar with their system and they are familiar with ours.

It is not correct to say, as Deputy Timmins did, that we will not be doing anything before 2010. The general format for multinational battle groups up to and including 2010 has been agreed, so any contribution we make between now and 2010 will most likely be in a niche capacity. Following our discussions with the Swedes in Oslo on 10 March, I expect us to be able to move ahead straight away, perhaps have our contribution to a battle group ready before the end of this year and possibly even participate before the end of the year, should such a battle group be deployed and should we be on standby at that time.

The triple lock is not necessarily an impediment to our participation in battle groups. There is no doubt that in some cases, everyone might agree that a battle group should be deployed and Ireland will not be able to participate because the United Nations resolution has not been passed. That is a fact and that situation can occur. However, the Government is reflecting the will of the people when we say we will act in accordance with the United Nations resolution. That is and will remain Government policy. I point out to Deputy Timmins that it has been said to me by some of my counterparts in Europe that in certain situations, countries participating in battle groups will not want to go to a particular troublespot because of some historical problem or historical baggage. They would not be able to participate for that reason. It is not just the absence of a United Nations resolution which can preclude involvement in a battle group.

The important point is that all battle groups will have a built-in redundancy provision for situations where one or more participants cannot participate for one reason or another. That will be part of the organisation of multinational battle groups.

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

While the Minister is a very able person, instead of answering questions he makes speeches. It is very hard to figure out what answer he has given to the question. Will the Minister give details of the new legislation that is required to allow Irish troops participate in the new EU battle groups? Will this legislation be published and when does the Minister hope to have it enacted? Will he give further details of the partnership arrangements being sought with Sweden? Traditional Swedish neutrality, while similar to our own, has differed from the Irish interpretation of neutrality. Does this represent an evolution of our own neutrality in the direction of the Swedish model?

The maintenance of the triple lock is the Labour Party's greatest concern. I know the Minister has been at pains to stress it will not be affected. However, given the length of time it takes to achieve a UN mandate, a Government decision and Dáil backing, is it possible that international pressure will be exerted on Irish troops to enter into a battle group before each of these has been achieved?

The extent to which Irish neutrality has been compromised remains to be seen. It is clear that Irish neutrality has entered a new phase.

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

My answer was a bit long. I was trying to reply to all the different issues raised by Deputy Timmins.

We hope to have the new legislation published and passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas before the summer recess. That is our plan. The new legislation will enable the Irish Government, without having a UN sanction, to send people abroad for training. It is also intended to enable the Government to deploy troops, which it cannot currently do, on a humanitarian mission. For example, we found recently with regard to the tsunami and the flooding situation in New Orleans that we had to ask for volunteers for such humanitarian missions. The Attorney General advises us that under Irish law, we do not have the right to order people abroad on such missions. In most of those cases there is no international crisis so accordingly there is no UN resolution.

Under the Defence Act 1960, as amended in 1993, we are entitled to deploy troops, provided the requisite requirements are met, on a UN established mission. Deputy Sherlock is aware that, increasingly, the UN is subcontracting out, so to speak, some of this work to regional agencies such as the EU or the Organisation of African States. That is called an authorised mission. It is not established directly by the UN but authorised by it. We are advised by the Attorney General that the wording of the defence legislation probably extends to an authorised mission, although we are taking a chance on that. However, we have noticed in recent times that the UN tends to use different language such as "support" or "calls on to support". We will ensure that such a situation is covered and that our legislation will enable us to participate in a mission where the wording used is not "established" or "authorised" but perhaps "calls on" or "supports" and so on.

With regard to Deputy Sherlock's question about Ireland having a different model of neutrality to that of Sweden, I do not know what the Swedish model is. However, a UN resolution is not a legal requirement for the Swedes to deploy troops abroad. However, I understand it is a political requirement. The Swedes would be very slow to deploy troops on a foreign adventure without the sanction of the United Nations.

Deputy Sherlock raises a good point about international pressure. If we are in a situation whereby a battle group is ready to go and the United Nations resolution has not been passed, will we be under pressure in terms of the battle group not being able to operate because we cannot go? That is precisely why, in the discussions in Oslo on putting together these multinational battle groups, there will be built-in redundancy. There will be provisions to cover a situation whereby one or more participants in the multinational battle group cannot participate for one reason or another. That will be an essential feature of multinational battle groups. Otherwise the situation envisaged by Deputy Sherlock would arise.

We have a situation whereby there is a fixed number of troops, a fixed number of countries with a fixed contribution to a particular battle group. We might contribute perhaps only 20 explosives and ordnance personnel. The UN resolution might not have been passed, everything is ready and people are about to be slaughtered, but the battle group will not be able to move because we cannot send our 20 people owing to the lack of the UN resolution. Such a situation would apply tremendous pressure and compromise the integrity of national decision-making. That is why there will be a built-in redundancy provision so that someone else can step in during such a situation.

Deputy Sherlock also asked about our neutrality. That will not be compromised in any way. Traditionally, Ireland participated in international peacekeeping missions in the traditional way whereby the United Nations contacts various countries and deploys a group. Recently, the United Nations has been contracting out work to the EU or the Organisation of African States, for example. The deployment of battle groups is simply an extension of that. Various situations have arisen in recent times where, collectively, civilised countries have not been able to act quickly to prevent slaughter and massacre and to save people's lives. The battle group concept exists to meet that type of situation.

Ireland will look at each case. The battle groups are designed to carry out the Petersberg Tasks. If we think that any battle group of which we are part is being asked to do anything which constitutes common defence, going to war or anything of that nature, we will not participate. It will be decided case by case and within the terms of Bunreacht na hÉireann which specifically prohibits us from becoming engaged in common or neutral defence.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Minister for Defence the serious misleading and contradictory evidence examined in the military archive in relation to the Niemba ambush; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7494/06]

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

Following a number of questions in the Dáil on this matter, including some from Deputy Finian McGrath, I undertook to have the military archive examined in relation to the Niemba ambush and to revert with the findings.

The question arising was whether Trooper Browne was killed at the Niemba ambush or survived for a few days and was killed near a village where he was foraging for food. A recently published book, The Irish Army in the Congo 1960-1964: The Far Battalions, outlines the second version and draws on material from the unit history for its account. This differs from the long held understanding that nine members of the Defence Forces died at Niemba.

Accordingly, I requested the military authorities to examine the relevant files and they have returned with the following information. The unit history referred to, which was written six years after the event, holds many differing accounts of how Trooper Browne met his untimely death and does not attempt to reconcile them. It includes an account that Trooper Browne survived past the initial action for two days and was killed approximately three miles from the site of the action. However, this information was not included in the Dáil replies because, I am informed, it is not supported by any independent sources.

In November 1961 the Tribunal de Première Instance d'Elizabethville convicted five Baluba tribesmen of killing Trooper Browne and eight others on 8 November 1960. Information from Baluba survivors in Manona hospital in 1960 led investigators to believe Trooper Browne was killed at Niemba and his body had been removed from the scene by the ambushers. It was a Baluba custom to bear away from the field of battle their most courageous victim. It was decided that, on the balance of probability, Trooper Browne died on the battlefield in an attempt to save his comrades' lives. What remains incontrovertible is that Trooper Browne died, directly or indirectly, as a result of the Niemba engagement.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his response and commend the work of the Irish troops serving with the United Nations, particularly their role in dangerous global conflicts.

The Minister's contention that Trooper Browne died at Niemba is disputed by two survivors of the massacre and the officer in charge of the search party, which failed to find Browne in November 1960. Have the Minister's officials made any attempt to contact the two Niemba survivors, Mr. Joe Fitzpatrick and Mr. Tom Kenny, to ascertain their opinions? If not, why is that the case?

The Minister stated Trooper Browne's body was removed from the scene and added it was a Baluba custom to "bear away from the field of battle their most courageous victim". This is incorrect. A retired Swedish army officer who worked as an interpreter at Niemba for the Army stated there were some pictures of mutilated bodies but, in all cases, the remains were left on the spot and it was quite unlikely the Balubas would carry away a whole body, as it was more normal to take away body parts for medicine, strength and eating.

In light of the disparity of opinion on the Niemba controversy, will the Minister commission an independent assessment of the known facts rather than an Army inquiry in the interests of historical accuracy? Will the Minister and his officials revisit the book The Irish Army in the Congo 1960-1964: The Far Battalions by Mr. David O'Donoghue? They should study this book carefully as the strong evidence therein must be examined by an independent person to bring closure for the families involved.

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

The book to which Deputy Finian McGrath refers draws considerably on the unit history, which contains a number of differing accounts and makes no attempt to reconcile them.

When this matter was raised in the House by the Deputy and others, I asked the Army, which is the first port of call in such a situation, to examine its archives and investigate the matter generally. The Army has done so and I have outlined the reply it communicated to me. I cannot answer the Deputy's question on whether the Army spoke specifically with the two survivors but I will check and return to the Deputy on the matter.

I am not an expert on Baluba customs but have informed Deputy Finian McGrath of what I have been told. It is the understanding of people who are more familiar with these issues than I that the Balubas carry away the body of the most courageous opposing warrior. I do not know whether it is the tradition to carry part of the body only.

Before we commit ourselves to an independent investigation or the like I will accept the Deputy's suggestion to have the relevant people in the Army revisit the matter to specifically deal with the points he raised, including speaking to the two survivors. If Deputy Finian McGrath wishes, I will return to him on the matter in writing.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a final question.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are running behind schedule.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important to reconcile the two accounts.

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

Yes.