Dáil debates

Tuesday, 4 April 2006

Other Questions.

Common Foreign and Security Policy.

2:35 pm

Photo of Tom HayesTom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 42: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts with regard to the formation of EU battlegroups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13045/06]

4:00 pm

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The ambition of the EU to be able to respond quickly to emerging crises has been, and continues to be, a key objective of the development of the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP. An important aspect of ESDP is the development of a stand-by military rapid response capacity, in the form of battlegroups.

Almost all EU member states have already made a commitment to contribute to a specific battlegroup formation. Apart from Ireland, the only countries that have not done so are Denmark, which is in a special position due to its opt-out in this area, and Malta. Ireland has indicated to its EU partners a positive disposition to taking part in battlegroups. In this context, and as I have previously reported to the House in Parliamentary Questions Nos. 241 of 2 February 2005, 36 of 28 April 2005 and 45 of 2 June 2005, I met the Foreign Ministers of Sweden and Finland in January 2005 and the Foreign Minister of Austria in April 2005. In the course of those meetings, I discussed a range of issues, including possible Irish participation in battlegroups.

As the Deputy will be aware, the legal, operational and other issues surrounding participation have been considered by an interdepartmental working group, established by the Minister for Defence, which included representatives of my Department. The report of the working group has been considered by the Cabinet committee on European affairs and, informally, by the Government. Following on from this, more detailed discussions with other like-minded nations on a potential contribution by Ireland to a battlegroup have now commenced. A delegation consisting of representatives from the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces met their Swedish counterparts in Stockholm on 10 March to discuss possible participation by the Defence Forces in the Nordic battlegroup, which is due to be on stand-by during 2008. As the Minister for Defence has already outlined to the House, our representatives outlined Ireland's position in respect of battlegroup participation and international peacekeeping generally and gave a presentation on the capabilities Ireland could make available to a battlegroup.

This offer is now being considered by Sweden, which is the framework nation for the Nordic battlegroup, and its partners. Further consultations between the Defence Forces and the Swedish armed forces and between officials of the respective Departments are likely. I would expect these to conclude within the next few months. Any decision on a specific contribution to a battlegroup would be subject to formal Government approval.

Photo of Bernard AllenBernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that the concept of a battlegroup is that of one which is capable of responding effectively and rapidly to global crises such as genocide? The Minister for Defence attended a recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Committee at which he set out his plans, which were in line with the Minister's previous comments. Could the Minister calmly clarify certain matters which I find puzzling?

A battlegroup is designed to provide a rapid response to crises. As the Minister noted, Ireland will be part of a battlegroup which also includes Sweden. This battlegroup will consist of approximately 500 personnel and will be located somewhere in Europe where it will be ready to respond to a global crisis. In the event that a call is made to send the battlegroup to respond quickly to a crisis, Ireland will be unable to take part in the operation because it must obtain the approval of the Government and the Dáil and receive a mandate from the UN Security Council — the triple lock mechanism. This mandate could take between one and three months to obtain or may never be obtained. Does the Minister see the potential for major embarrassment for Ireland in such a scenario whereby it is revealed as being unable to respond as part of a battlegroup because it is paralysed by the triple lock? Could he explain the obvious contradiction between the definition of a battlegroup and the triple lock mechanism to which we are tied?

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is true that we wish to participate in this battlegroup, largely because we have been exhorted to do so by the UN, particularly by the Secretary General, Kofi Annan. He has requested that Ireland does so as one of the countries in the UN infrastructure with the highest proportion of UN peacekeeping forces per head of population currently taking part in operations in difficult and dangerous parts of the world. However, this Government is adamant that there must be UN authorisation for the participation of our troops in any peacekeeping force and I believe our position is held by most Irish people. I accept that this may cause some difficulties in respect of particular requests for us to participate in a battlegroup operation but it is the current position of this Government and I cannot envisage any change in this policy.

I am not making a political point but Deputy Allen is saying one thing while the two parties with which his party proposes to enter Government hold completely different views in respect of this matter. The Government is adamant that we must acquire the approval of the Government and the Dáil and UN authorisation for Ireland's participation in any battlegroup operation. This is because of the discomfort Irish people feel about Irish troops engaging in conflicts without UN authorisation. The Irish people welcome and are proud of the participation of Irish troops in UN peacekeeping operations with UN authorisation. We are clear that any participation by Irish troops in battlegroup operations or any amending legislation we bring forward in order to participate in battlegroups will retain the concept of the triple lock. This may cause us difficulty in respect of particular events, although, hopefully, this will not occur. If it does, other countries which do not have this requirement must step in. We, however, have this requirement.

Photo of Bernard AllenBernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked the question because there is an obvious contradiction in respect of this issue. I am not attempting to make a political point.

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No contradiction exists.

Photo of Bernard AllenBernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a matter of common sense. The Minister spoke about the view of the Irish people on the matter but this has never been tested. If tested, it would be revealed that the Irish people believe that Irish foreign policy should not be dictated by countries like China, which would have the power to veto any Irish initiative. This is the net effect of the triple lock. A major contradiction and potential source of embarrassment for Ireland exist in this regard so we must think the matter through. We should not take for granted that we know the view of the people on this matter when it has never been tested. From listening to people, I believe that they do not want our foreign policy to be dictated by China and other permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Michael D. Higgins.

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Am I not entitled to reply?

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a time factor at play.

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The only contradiction that exists——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was about to suggest to the Minister that his final reply be succinct because Deputy Gormley wishes to speak.

Photo of Michael D HigginsMichael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be brief. Does the Minister still agree that the title of the group is unfortunate? I understand he made this point originally. If such groups had been called human rights protection groups, which would reflect the move away from humanitarian intervention and towards humanitarian protection in UN thinking, it would provide an entirely different view. Is it not the case that different humanitarian protection groups could reply and respond with different speeds, given their constitutional context? When the time comes to legislate to accommodate any participation, could the Minister acknowledge this in, possibly, the title of such groups?

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

The Minister correctly pointed out that my party supports the triple lock. Has Ireland's participation in the battlegroups given rise to additional pressure on it to abandon the triple lock? Is the triple lock regarded as an impediment to full participation in the battlegroups?

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has not led to any pressure on us in respect of our participation in battlegroups. Our position is quite clear. A number of other countries which also require UN authorisation to participate, among them, Finland, and to a certain extent, Austria, have eased this requirement.

I agree with the point made by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. We found grave fault with the term "battlegroup". We would rather use the term "rapid reaction in relation to humanitarian", which is the terminology used by the UN. Irrespective of what we say or do in respect of our legislation, we raised this matter with many of our EU colleagues. As a result of certain issues relating to the military definition of the type of force which is being put together, it has become clear that "battlegroup" is the common term used throughout the EU.

Deputy Allen is mistaken in arguing that there is a contradiction. Our position is quite clear on the requirement imposed by the triple lock. The only contradiction in this debate is the position held by Deputy Allen's party and the other two putative parties in the alternative Government. These three parties should agree on a common position before they form an alliance.