Dáil debates
Thursday, 22 June 2006
Priority Questions.
Overseas Missions.
3:00 pm
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Question 2: To ask the Minister for Defence the legislative provision under which 1,000 Irish troops have been deployed in Kosovo; if he is satisfied that the mission in Kosovo was established by the United Nations; if so, when it was established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24176/06]
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The statutory authority for the dispatch of contingents of the Permanent Defence Force for service overseas is provided for in the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 and the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993.
The Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, as amended by the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993, authorises, subject to the prior approval of Dáil Éireann, the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service outside the State with an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations.
As Deputies are aware, Ireland participates in missions either established or authorised by the UN Security Council. The consistent advice of the Attorney General is that missions either established or authorised by the UN Security Council fall within the requirements of the existing Defence Acts. UNIFIL in Lebanon and UNMIL in Liberia are examples of missions established by the UN Security Council. KFOR in Kosovo, EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and ISAF in Afghanistan are examples of missions authorised by the United Nations Security Council.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 authorised the establishment of KFOR for an initial period of 12 months, to continue thereafter unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. Ireland has participated in KFOR since August 1999, following Government decision S.16137Q of 29 June 1999 and the subsequent approval by Dáil Éireann of the necessary enabling motion on 1 July 1999. The Irish contingent comprises an infantry group of 213 personnel, including a variable number of personnel in staff posts at various headquarters. The infantry group was first deployed in September 2003 following the withdrawal of a transport group which had been deployed with KFOR since August 1999. I am fully satisfied that our participation in KFOR is in accordance with the provisions of the Defence Acts relating to such deployments.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister for his reply. My question does not imply that I am in any way opposed to our troops being deployed in Kosovo as long as their operation is in accordance with the legislation. The new Bill published today states "International United Nations Force" means "an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations".
I must point out to the Minister that of the words in that definition, only "established" is in the original 1960 Act, which makes provision for the deployment of an Irish contingent abroad only if the United Nations Assembly or Security Council establishes the force. The Minister already admitted that KFOR is in charge of the force in Kosovo, that it was not established by the United Nations but that it was authorised. However, "authorised" is not in the Act.
The Minister corrects the situation in the new Bill by including "established, mandated, authorised, endorsed". Clearly in the new legislation, the Minister admits he was wrong all along. The Minister must clarify——
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
——and explain this because it is not good enough to state that "established" means "authorised". It does not. By definition, "established" means the United Nations establishes the body and "authorised" means the body could be established by anybody such as NATO and the United Nations would subsequently authorise Irish troops to be there. Our legislation does not make provision for that.
Considering the severe and important legal implications for the troops in Kosovo at present, who may not be operating under a legal mandate under the 1960 or 1993 legislation, will the Minister publish the Attorney General's legal opinion? That would give us clarity once and for all as to the legal status of those Irish troops who served abroad in the past and who do so at present but are under a legal cloud as to whether they were properly established or authorised under the UN mandate.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not in any way suggest that Deputy Costello is opposed to the Irish presence in Kosovo. I did not mean to imply that at any time. Before we deploy troops abroad following a United Nations resolution, we take the advice of the Attorney General on whether, as the Defence Act 1960 as amended in 1993 stands, we are entitled under the wording of the resolution to deploy troops abroad. The clear advice of the Attorney General is that in every case where the United Nations authorises another party to put together a peace keeping force, we are covered. The word "established" in the Defence Act 1960——
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Attorney General defined it as including "authorised".
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is my question. Will the Minister publish the Attorney General's legal advice?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He defined it as extending to "authorised", but not extending to "support", "endorsed" or "calls upon". That is why I included that terminology in the new Bill. We will discuss that later. If I can obtain the Attorney General's detailed legal advice I do not see any difficulty in publishing it. I will return to the Deputy on that matter.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will debate the new Bill, but it is appropriate that it arrived today. We have not seen it before. The Bill does not seem to be retrospective.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What provision makes it retrospective in a case where doubt exists on legal status? Does the new definition of "established, mandated, authorised, endorsed" cover troops who were sent abroad prior to when we pass the legislation? The KFOR contingent was mandated in 2003. How does the legislation apply to them if there is any possibility of legal doubt?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The short answer is the legislation does not apply to them. It will only come into play from when the President signs it. I am satisfied they are abroad legally. The advice of the Attorney General on that matter is crystal clear. If I can procure that advice I will be glad to communicate it to Deputy Costello.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Question 3: To ask the Minister for Defence if members of the Defence Forces serving in SFOR's military police company in Bosnia in 2002 were aware that the SFOR headquarters Camp Butmir in which they were based was misused by the US forces for activities incompatible with the SFOR mission and international human rights and humanitarian law, namely the extraordinary rendition of six Bosnian men of Algerian origin to Guantanamo where they remain until the present time; and if there was an investigation into the matter since then. [24182/06]
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Between mid-1997 and January 2003, a Defence Forces military police contingent of approximately 50 personnel served in the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, following Dáil Éireann approval in July 1997. The force is known as SFOR. The Irish contingent formed part of the international military police company at SFOR headquarters in Sarajevo. The military police contingent was withdrawn from SFOR in January 2003. A small number of Irish personnel remained in service at SFOR headquarters during 2003, and 12 personnel continued to serve with the mission until December 2004, when it was replaced by the EU-led Operation Althea or EUFOR.
The military authorities informed me that Irish personnel serving with SFOR in 2002 had no knowledge of US forces activities, which were or might have been incompatible with the SFOR mission, international human rights or humanitarian law. I am aware from recent media reports that socialist members of the European Parliament's committee investigating CIA activities in Europe called for a NATO representative to appear before the committee to answer questions concerning the possible involvement of the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the abduction of six people from Bosnia. However, as I already stated, the information available to me from the Defence Forces, who were based in Camp Butmir, is that they were not aware and had no knowledge of the matter.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I take on board that the Minister stated he has no knowledge. However, he stated the Irish role in SFOR in Camp Butmir in Bosnia and Herzegovina was of a military police nature. One would presume part of their job was to secure the camp. If so, they should be aware of the comings and goings at the camp. This case involves the abduction of six men from the camp against the direction of the courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and an interim order placed by the human rights chamber by US forces at 6 a.m., not a time a substantial amount of movement would have taken place unless something drastic happened.
When did our Defence Forces become aware of what happened, if they were not aware at the time? What steps have they taken since then to ensure their position and role in the facility of peacekeeping missions are not abused in this manner in the future? What protocol governs the response of Irish Defence Forces serving in international missions in the event of such a hostile act occurring on their watch? Is the Minister aware of the allegations by the men's lawyers that US officials threatened to cut aid to Bosnia unless it handed over the men originally?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The protocol is simply that the Irish troops would not countenance any such activity. Our troops regard such activity as beyond the pale. As to whether they should have been aware of what may have happened, a number of investigations are taking place at present. An investigation by the European Parliament will be discussed on 5 July and voted on the following day. The Council of Europe is conducting two investigations, the parliamentary committee of which will discuss the matter on 27 June.
I spoke to the military about this. I wanted to know whether they had any knowledge or inkling of what allegedly happened. The answer was a firm "no". I cannot answer the Deputy's question on when they first became aware of it. I presume it was through the news reports which are emanating now. Given that roughly 50 troops were in Camp Butmir at the time, I very much doubt that the information could have been kept secret. On this basis, I have no reason to doubt the military authorities.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Irish military has a proud history and I hope nothing untoward will be shown to have happened. If it is true that the Irish military authorities only discovered that the six Bosnians were incarcerated in Camp Butmir when media reports emerged, I am concerned that it took so long.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not know exactly when they became aware of it. I will check and communicate with the Deputy.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Question 4: To ask the Minister for Defence the legal basis under which Irish military personnel serving in Brussels as part of Ireland's commitment to Partnership for Peace and other such operations are operating; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24179/06]
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As Deputies will be aware, I established an interdepartmental group comprising representatives of the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General to examine all issues relating to Ireland's potential participation in an EU-led rapid response capability force. As part of its study, the group recommended changes to current legislation concerning overseas service. The main elements of these changes concern the updating of the Defence Acts in respect of UN-mandated peace support operations, humanitarian operations, overseas training and exercises and a number of avoidance-of-doubt provisions. The requirement for this amending legislation arises irrespective of our participation in battle groups.
The advice of the Attorney General, contained in the report of the interdepartmental group, is that members of the Permanent Defence Force may only be despatched for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force, that is, a force established or authorised by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. However, as the Deputy will be aware, since the Defence Forces were established, members of the Permanent Defence Force have served overseas for many other reasons, including carrying out official representational duties, undergoing training, representing the Defence Forces at sports events etc. The deployment of personnel in Brussels as part of Ireland's commitment to Partnership for Peace would fall within the ambit of these types of duties, as would the deployment of personnel in the permanent representation to the EU, the permanent mission to the UN and our representation to the OSCE.
Ireland's presentation document for participation in Partnership for Peace was approved by Dáil Éireann on 9 November 1999 and, following Dáil approval, Ireland joined on 1 December of that year. It is implicit in being a participant in any international arrangement such as Partnership for Peace that appropriate staff will be deployed in the relevant liaison office. Currently, there are two military officers and one full-time and two part-time civil servants from my Department serving in the Partnership for Peace liaison office in Brussels. The part-time civil servants also have European Union responsibilities.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Having regard to the advice from the Attorney General to the effect that there is no formal basis in the Defence Acts for the despatch of Permanent Defence Force personnel on such duties, I believe it important that the matter be put beyond doubt. I am taking the opportunity in the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006 to do this. With the co-operation of the Oireachtas, I hope to have this legislation enacted before the summer recess.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This issue is similar to that raised by Deputy Costello but slightly different in that it appears the individuals serving with Partnership for Peace, who might be in New York, or involved in other such operations, would have been serving illegally abroad. This contrasts with the circumstances in Kosovo and the dispute over established and authorised personnel. Would section 3 of the proposed Defence (Amendment) Bill rectify the problem?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The advice of the Attorney General is that there is no reference to this sort of matter in the legislation. Successive Governments have presumed they are entitled to send people on ceremonial duty for seminars, sports events etc. when they are not part of a United Nations force. The defence legislation only refers specifically to circumstances in which troops are to be sent abroad as part of an international peacekeeping force.
Since the Defence Forces were established, successive Governments have held the view that while the defence legislation does not mention the sending abroad of individuals in the circumstances I have outlined, it does not preclude their being sent. It could be an oversight in the legislation but it simply does not refer to them. In case it is argued that the only authority to send troops abroad stems from the defence legislation and that there is therefore no authority to send military personnel abroad in the aforementioned circumstances because there is no reference thereto in the legislation, I am taking the opportunity to include the necessary provisions in the amending legislation to avoid doubt. It is better to counter the argument before it is raised even though I do not believe it would succeed.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not believe it has been the tradition of this State to enact precautionary legislation. Am I correct in assuming that the Attorney General's advice is that the personnel in question are serving illegally at present?
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If not, why has the Minister proposed the new section 3?
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Attorney General has stated he is almost certain the personnel are serving legally.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Nearly all Irish military personnel abroad are serving illegally.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To be doubly sure, we are including the necessary provision so nobody will ever have the slightest doubt about the matter in the future.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Am I correct in assuming that this category of personnel serving abroad is different from that involved in the KFOR mission?
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are two different issues.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The KFOR mission and those I discussed with Deputy Costello are part of international United Nations missions, either established or authorised. They are international peacekeeping missions.
Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is supposed to be covered by the legislation but it is not.
Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I refer to individuals, for example, those in our permanent representation to the EU or the two military personnel serving in the Programme for Peace liaison office in Brussels. These are individuals whereas Deputy Costello's question referred to international peace-support groups.