Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence where he intends to deploy Irish troops in the event that he is successful in progressing legislation that would remove the triple lock neutrality protection, considering the Government has withdrawn from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, peacekeeping mission due to capacity constraints. [22123/24]

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where does the Tánaiste intend to deploy Irish troops in the event that he is successful in progressing legislation that would remove the triple lock neutrality protection, considering that the Government has withdrawn from the UNDOF peacekeeping mission due to capacity constraints?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Extremely regrettably however, no new peacekeeping mission has been approved by the council since 2014. The five permanent members of the council can use their veto power to prevent the Security Council from taking decisions, including those related to the mandates of peacekeeping operations. It could be argued that even the threat of the veto has impacted on new peacekeeping operations being proposed.

The proposed changes to the triple lock are not about Ireland turning its back on UN peacekeeping. Ireland is, and will remain, fully committed to the United Nations. The purpose of these modifications is to reinforce Ireland's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy by removing the power of UN Security Council permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions. In addition to the modifications to the triple lock, changes to defence legislation are proposed that govern the deployment of Defence Force personnel overseas for purposes other than to serve as part of an international peacekeeping force, for example, to allow for short-term crisis management deployments in countries where hostilities have broken out, to evacuate Irish citizens.

The Deputy and the House can be assured however that any legislative proposals will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN charter and international law. With regard to any future deployments, the Defence Forces are currently undergoing a process of consolidation relating to their overseas commitments and to prepare for future peacekeeping missions and crisis-management operations. This has included the withdrawal from UNDOF. The changing nature of demands and potential future mission profiles must be considered in the context of assets and capabilities that need to be acquired for overseas deployments that are becoming more challenging in the current security environment.

The Defence Forces continue to have a significant presence, with 400 troops currently serving overseas in the pursuit of peace. Most notable in this regard are our troops serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, where an additional platoon of 33 Irish personnel will deploy in the coming months with the aim of enhancing force protection. This is a decision that has been approved and welcomed by the UN.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take it from that answer that there is no intention at this point in time to deploy troops if the proposed triple lock legislation makes its way through?

I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence earlier this week to report on the engagement with the Foreign Affairs Council and Ireland's new arrangements with NATO. There was a certain outcry from members of the committee on learning of these new arrangements in the media rather than in the Oireachtas itself. This strikes many as a tendency to engage with the Dáil and committee to the minimum mandated extent, constitutionally and legislatively.

The Government wishes to remove the triple lock neutrality protection. That is a legitimate political opinion to hold and to advocate, although one that I and many others disagree with. It is also one for which there is no mandate to implement, as a mandate was never even sought from the people. On the contrary, the Government has campaigned and committed to its retention. In advance of legislation being brought forward, will the Tánaiste finally answer the question as to where he intends to deploy Irish Defence Forces personnel and from where he is currently precluded?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am unclear as to what the Deputy means about the Oireachtas committee. Is he saying that members are speaking more outside of the committee as opposed to speaking in it? I thought the debate in the committee during the week was reasonably constructive. There was no outcry, as such, within the committee anyway, but there was a conversation and people had different perspectives.

What we are doing here is very simple. I put it back to the Deputy in the sense of asking him if he thinks the House believes that Russia should have a power over Ireland's participation in any future peacekeeping missions. It is very simple. Does he think Russia should have that power of veto? Should the US have that power of veto? Should China have that power of veto? Anybody who has observed the workings of the Security Council over the past decade can see the utilisation of the veto has grown and that many of the permanent members of the Security Council have a particular focus on their own geopolitical ambitions. We can look at the use of the Wagner Group, for example, in parts of the Sahel and other areas. It is very clear that Russia would prefer the Wagner organisation to be in certain locations to a UN force. These are the realities of the modern world. We just want to be independent, but with the Dáil and within the framework of the UN Charter.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are all aware of the geopolitical difficulties and the fact that many people are game playing on an international basis but that does not change where the Irish people are on neutrality. They see the ending of the triple lock as a step in a direction that they would not like to go. We would like those opinions to be taken into account.

In a report on the Defence Forces serving with the UN laid before the Houses earlier this month, the Tánaiste references "one of the key outcomes" of the so-called consultative forum as "the need for a new process to replace" the triple lock. The report of the chair of that forum found: "There is at present no public appetite for a change to the current position in respect of neutrality." The Tánaiste can say that the proposed changes have little to do with neutrality but both the Seville Declaration and Irish guarantee in advance of the second Nice and Lisbon referendums were explicitly made in response to the fears of the Irish people regarding militarisation and its impact on Irish neutrality. He was a member of the Governments that made those solemn promises to the people. If he intends to breach them, will he at least seek a mandate to do so and agree to place his proposals before the Irish people via referendum?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should take the opportunity to congratulate the Chief of Staff, Seán Clancy, on being elected by his peers as chair of the European Union military committee, which involves a role in co-ordination and consultation across EU militaries in respect of peace enforcement, peacekeeping and conflict prevention.

That reflects well on the Defence Forces and needs to be said.

When the Deputy referenced "game playing", Russia and China are not game playing. Unfortunately, the world is changing. We are strongly committed to the United Nations and I disagree with this attempt to embroil the issue of the triple lock with military neutrality. We have no plans to join any military alliance. We have no plans to join NATO. Removing the triple lock simply enables us to participate in peacekeeping missions into the future or, indeed, evacuation. We can clarify the law around how we deploy troops to evacuate Irish citizens in areas where war or conflict has broken out. That is the context of the legislation. Any future peacekeeping missions will, without question, be within the framework of the chapters within the UN and also will need Dáil and Government approval.