Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

155. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if a peacekeeping mission deployment has ever been unable to proceed due to the lack of agreement of the UN General Assembly, as provided for in the in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, since the introduction of the triple lock following the Nice and Lisbon treaties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18307/25]

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

156. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will outline his proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18077/25]

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the context of the ongoing discussions around the triple lock, which have been referenced, and the Government's proposal to dismantle it, I ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence whether a peacekeeping mission deployment has ever been unable to proceed due to the lack of agreement of the UN General Assembly since the introduction of the triple lock, which is a measure provided for in the Defence (Amendment) Act.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are the Deputies happy to do them in this order?

Catherine Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Apologies, I skipped Question No. 154 by accident.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So we will do this and come back. Is that okay?

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Gibney and Ó Laoghaire for raising this important question. I accept we approach this from very different points of view. I do not doubt the Deputies' bona fides on this and ask that they do not doubt mine. I value military neutrality. I am not proposing Ireland joins any military alliances; I am proposing that the triple lock in its current form poses challenges and should change. We will have an opportunity to tease through legislation and vote accordingly. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this question. I know the questions are grouped but Question No. 155 refers to the roles of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

Since 1958, Ireland has contributed to a range of UN missions across the world. I recently had the honour to visit our troops stationed in Lebanon and saw first-hand the vital role they are playing with UNIFIL, where many thousands of Irish soldiers have been deployed over a number of decades. The UN Charter unequivocally sets out the primacy of the UN Security Council with regard to all matters relating to international peace and security. In practice, peacekeeping missions are only ever deployed on the basis of mandates from the UN Security Council. Under the charter, it is the Security Council alone that holds the power to take decisions that member states are obligated to implement. The UN General Assembly cannot compel a peacekeeping operation. That remains the province of the Security Council. In certain instances, where a matter has been considered by the Security Council and has been the subject of a veto, the General Assembly may consider the matter and make a recommendation to UN members for collective action. The term "recommendation" is key here, however, with a recommendation being devoid of any binding legal force.

UN General Assembly resolutions cannot compel action, therefore. Only once in history has the UN General Assembly invoked the "uniting for peace" resolution and recommended a peacekeeping operation. This happened nearly 70 years ago, when it established the first UN emergency force in the Middle East in 1956, which proceeded with the consent of the parties involved. I have a lot more to say on this but we will have to go back and forth.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question is somewhat different from Deputy Gibney's, albeit hers makes an important distinction that needs to be made. People have been talking about the Security Council. There is no dispute that the world is changing. That is recognised. It is a question of what Ireland's place in this changing world is. If we remove the triple lock neutrality protection, we will potentially expose ourselves to significant external pressure to participate in missions that the Irish public does not wish to participate in and that, according to the Tánaiste's bona fides, he does not wish to either. It is a rash approach and one not in our strategic interests.

Several of the examples given are not, in fact, covered by the triple lock. The triple lock was brought in in 1960 in respect of peacekeeping missions. The triple lock legislation and the defence Acts do not prevent the rescue of Irish civilians or prevent us participating in missions to intercept drugs or anything like that. To examples such as those given, we have no objection. The triple lock is the problem there.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Tánaiste for his answer. Once again he said he supports military neutrality but it appears not when we see the actions the Government is taking and this proposal before us. While he positions the change as something he has to do because he cannot secure the UN mandate, the facts do not justify it. I am left to assume he does not want to have that UN mandate applied to our peacekeeping missions and the human rights monitoring and transparency it demands. The reality is the General Assembly endorsement can satisfy our triple lock.

I will go through some of these facts. China vetoed the renewal of the Macedonia mission in 1999 due to its recognition of Taiwan. No peacekeeping mission has been blocked since. In fact, many UN peacekeeping missions have had their mandates renewed, including the Golan Heights, and UN mandates were given to Operation Sophia and the mission in Haiti established last year. The Tánaiste mentioned the time the General Assembly was used. They based it on the "uniting for peace" resolution, which can be deployed. These are the facts and the Tánaiste's answer does not adequately address them. Can he point me to when a peacekeeping mission has been prevented or even hampered because the General Assembly did not do its job?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can I ask a question back? Does the Deputy accept there are countries in the world which are absolutely neutral militarily and there is no question of it, and which do not deploy a triple lock mechanism for their decisions around peacekeeping? I genuinely do not believe the issues should be conflated. There are a number of examples. The European Union peace operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not have a UN Security Council mandate and Ireland was unable to participate in that mission despite wanting to do so. In 1999, a permanent member of the UN Security Council vetoed the renewal of the United Nations preventative deployment force. The EU security mission in the Mediterranean - the then Operation Sophia - did eventually get a UN mandate until 2016 but Ireland could not consider contributing to the mission for quite a period because that mandate was not in place.

Let us take a very real one. I was in Lebanon recently. I also met the men and women in Renmore barracks who are about to go out to Lebanon. What would we do - this is up for renewal this year - if any member of the UN Security Council decided for budgetary or other reasons not to renew the mandate? There is not a person in Ireland who wants us to end the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. I am not saying we are. We are very committed to it but, hypothetically, if that happened this year, if I was standing here taking questions and a permanent member of the Security Council had vetoed renewal of the mandate, would the Deputy want me to bring the troops home from Lebanon? That is what I would have to do.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was not a person in Ireland who wanted us to withdraw troops from the Golan Heights or was in favour of that, and that was done for budgetary reasons. That was for budgetary reasons because of the Government. That was the primary obstacle.

The last time Irish troops were pulled out of a peacekeeping mission, it was entirely the decision of the Irish Government and it was not informed by anything to do with the triple lock. I do not think that particular example bears it out.

I would again make the point that it is not the case that there are some UN missions that will go ahead without us because of the triple lock that we would otherwise like to participate in. There are no UN missions without the UN mandate. The UN is imperfect but the point is that if we are talking about participating in UN missions without a UN mandate, we are talking about participating in non-UN missions. We are talking about participating in missions without knowing what kind of missions they are.

The Minister talked about conflating the two issues. The Irish public can be forgiven for that, given the context of the various referenda and the statements of successive Irish Governments, primarily made up of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which made that connection themselves during the course of referenda when arguing that the triple lock was a crucial protection for neutrality. That was the argument made then. I think the Irish people can be forgiven for remembering that.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In answer to the first of the two questions posed by the Tánaiste, I am aware that, of course, there are other countries that are militarily neutral that do not have a triple lock. However, they did not arrive at their position of neutrality in the same historic pathway as we did with the Nice and Lisbon treaties, simple as that. The other question the Tánaiste asked concerned whether the people of Ireland want those missions to be stopped, which once again brings us into the hypothetical - the “What ifs?” or “Would you?” - and the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, did exactly the same when we had a debate on this a number of weeks ago. This veto is posed as a "What if?” or "Why are we there?" It seems the Government wishes to justify this massive policy change with no examples of the actual issue arising for peacekeeping. EU missions have received UN mandates before. I mentioned, for example, Operation Sophia and, in that instance, the mandate guaranteed the human rights monitoring and other checks and balances that are vital to missions like these. We pulled out of the UN mission in Syria not due to a lack of mandate but due to a lack of troops. The reason we had that lack of troops was that we committed to a non-UN-backed EU battlegroup that is not accountable to either the European Parliament or the European Court of Human Rights.

If I genuinely believed that we were boxed in in the way the Tánaiste describes, I would be with him on this, but there is no evidence to that effect. That is why I am left asking why we are pivoting away from human rights accountability and transparency in the deployment of our troops and jeopardising our long-held gold standard reputation for peacekeeping.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not doing that. Any missions we participate in will have to be in line with the values of the UN Charter. In fairness to everybody in this House, we are having this debate before we all have a chance to scrutinise the legislation, and I accept that reality. I am looking forward to getting to tease it out line by line so we can all understand what we are being asked or not asked to do.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the timeline for that?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The timeline is “very shortly”, that is, I expect I will be in a position to publish it this month. Certainly, it will be published very shortly, but in and around that time.

I have a difference of view to Deputy Ó Laoghaire on this. I think people in Ireland do differentiate between military neutrality and the triple lock. I know politicians do not pay any attention to polls, definitely not, but if they did, they would know there is a significant gap between the number of people who absolutely support military neutrality and the number open to hearing how we change how we deploy our peacekeeping troops. In many ways, much of society is ahead of where this debate is.

The Deputy asked me for a simple example or to name an opportunity where Ireland wanted to participate in a peacekeeping operation and could not because of the lack of a UN mandate.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I asked when it was prevented by the UN General Assembly.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A specific example of where we wanted to participate was the European Union peace operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. When the European Union wants to deploy peacekeepers and the Irish Government and the Dáil want to deploy peacekeepers, I do not think it is up to Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin or, frankly, anybody else to decide whether we can do that.

Catherine Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will now go to Question No. 154.