John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I also welcome the Minister and his officials to the House. The opportunity to speak on this topic is a particularly welcome one. It is said that things come in threes and as far as this issue is concerned, they certainly do for me. It is almost three years to the day, 25 June 2003, since I first raised in this House the specific concerns which I still have today. In addition, the Bill has three main provisions. Finally, I refer to the so-called triple lock mechanism. I wish to deal with each issue in turn.

When I spoke in this House three years ago, it was in the context of a debate on Ireland's much-discussed neutrality. I maintained then, and still do, that "neutrality" is probably the second most abused or misused word extant. The most abused word is "republicanism". While neutrality is defined by the international community as "non-participation in armed conflicts among States", a legal definition based on the 1907 Hague Convention, in reality that legal definition is a much different concept from what a viable policy of neutrality actually is and I will elaborate on why. No one would argue with the formal definition. Nor would anyone argue, I suspect, that Ireland should cease to practice non-participation in armed conflicts among states.

We have a highly regarded and rare position in the international community as a nation with a sound, reasonable, suitably restrained and mature approach to conflict resolution and peace promotion around the globe. That position should not be taken for granted, undermined or threatened in any way. However, I do not believe that action by Irish Defence Forces in a humanitarian mission or in response to an emergency would be considered a breach of our neutrality, or that Ireland should be prevented from undertaking such action.

Our reputation as peacekeepers and honest brokers is renowned cross the world. As a former UN peacekeeper who participated in three peacekeeping missions in the Lebanon, I know at first-hand the value of our reputation. I also know that our neutral status is welcomed by host countries. Ireland was always the country they wanted because of our reputation. What made Ireland good at peacekeeping was our traditional, non-aligned military stance. That is of great value to us, yet we have a humanitarian role to play, which is my first point. We have international responsibilities we must face up to. We also have a duty to use our valuable and respected position in a way that eases conflict and suffering in other, more troubled parts of the world.

My second point relates to the provisions of today's Bill. As I stated, it has three primary provisions. The first of these is that it allows for Defence Forces personnel to travel abroad to train and participate in field exercises. From my military experience and knowledge I know the value of such action. While no exercise can absolutely prepare any soldier for the pressures and demands of a real-life conflict, our forces deserve the opportunity to be as prepared as possible to deal with the kinds of scenarios to which Ireland's respected reputation will lead them.

I will make an analogy with the Irish soccer team, the players on which all play with different clubs. Do we suggest they should come together and play an international without training together? It does not make sense. One cannot work for the first time in a United Nations operational environment with countries such as Finland, Sweden, Ghana and Senegal without having had the experience of training. In that regard we should acknowledge the tremendous international reputation of the UN school in our military college. Participating countries throughout the world vie for places in that school to learn from our experience as UN peacekeepers.

The second provision of the Bill is that it contains the type of wording more closely suited to the formulation of words employed by the UN Security Council in its resolutions, specifically those resolutions passed to endorse peace support operations. The term "battle groups" was mentioned during this debate. It is a military term and many military terms exist such as "assault", "kill" and "assault pioneers". Unfortunately, because of our neutral status, people have abused that terminology and misconstrued its actual intention.

While the law as it stands provides for Ireland's participation in missions "established" or "authorised" by the United Nations, it is less clear when it comes to missions which are "endorsed" or "supported" by the Security Council. Given the gravity of the action to be taken in these cases, clarity must be pursued vigorously and I welcome this element of the Bill.

I understand the Labour Party was of the opinion that this Bill will not allow participation in all of the peacekeeping missions in which the Defence Forces currently serve. However, it seems the consistent advice of the Attorney General has been, and remains, contrary to that opinion. Furthermore, I understand the Minister has given explicit reassurance on this matter.

The third provision of the Bill before the House is that it allows for Defence Forces personnel to participate in certain humanitarian operations, for example where a natural or man-made disaster occurs. As I stated earlier, I doubt anyone would consider Irish soldiers helping the peoples affected by the tsunami in south-east Asia as action contrary to our so-called neutrality. Until now, these soldiers had to be seconded to non-governmental organisations.

Regrettably, my third and final point is the same as that which I raised in this House three years ago this week. The Minister, on publication of this Bill, stated Ireland's participation in peace support operations will continue to require UN authorisation. The basis for participation in missions undertaken by the EU is grounded in the legitimacy conveyed by the UN Security Council. This will not change and the triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval will remain in place.

What this Bill will do, from what I can ascertain, is provide for Defence Forces personnel to be despatched overseas to be prepared and ready for missions, which have received the approval of our Government. However, a UN Security Council resolution must still be passed before action on the mission can start. In other words, the UN veto, for want of a better phrase, remains. I stated clearly three years ago, as I had previously, my discontent with this scenario. The triple lock mechanism does not serve the Irish people in the way I believe they seek, and it does not serve Ireland well.

I ask the House to recall the situation in Macedonia, referred to by previous speakers. Under UN Resolution 1371, it was decided to send a UN mission there. The resolution was vetoed in the Security Council by China and, as a result of our triple lock mechanism, we were ineligible to participate in the EU-sponsored mission. Even though we had troops already there, we had to withdraw. That is a flaw and a problem.

The three provisions of the Bill I outlined do much to be welcomed. However, it does not get us over this fundamental problem. I repeat my call on the Government to examine this and see whether an amendment to the Defence Acts can be tabled to correct this situation. I fully accept we fixed ourselves in with the Nice treaty. It will be a long time before I will be able to influence a change of the Security Council in the UN and create a situation where the majority will rule. The veto stands and change requires UN organisation and change. In Ireland, we should be careful about exactly what our people mean about our troops participating overseas. By bringing forward the triple lock mechanism, the Irish people did not for one moment intend that Irish troops could not participate because China, for some reason of vested interest, decided to exercise its veto at the Security Council.

I do not want Fine Gael to get excited about whether I am going against the Government. I am giving a personal view. Perhaps it will come back to haunt me tomorrow when we are on Committee Stage.