Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(a) by inserting "or International Peace Mission" after "International United Nations Force" in each place where those words occur.".

The House had a preliminary discussion on this issue during the Second Stage debate last night. Undoubtedly, the Government's position differs from that of the Fine Gael Party in respect of the triple lock. However, the Minister will understand that I have taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill to have a debate on this issue. Fine Gael's amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, with No. 6 being the most important, would attempt to change policy on the triple lock. It will be useful to have a debate on this matter because differing views exist on all sides of the House. The Fine Gael Party has chosen to do so by way of its amendments, in order that the debate will be on the public record.

As the Minister is aware, from 2003 Fine Gael has consistently argued for a change in the policy of triple lock. The current policy concerning the commitment by Irish troops abroad is based on three simple and straightforward resolutions, namely, a resolution of the Government, a resolution of the Dáil and a resolution of the UN Security Council. Fine Gael believes that this policy requires amendment, in order that the people themselves would decide on the operations in which they would become involved through the Defence Forces.

The Minister is well aware of the difficulties which exist at the UN, particularly as far as the Security Council is concerned. The latter has five permanent members and ten rotating members. Some years ago, Ireland was one such rotating member. Each permanent member has a veto in respect of any resolution put before the Security Council.

Last night during the Second Stage debate, Senator Minihan raised the case of Macedonia, where it was absolutely clear a contingent of troops was required for peace enforcement. As I understand it, 13 EU states and 14 non-EU states were involved. We committed to send troops to that region, which is within our sphere of Europe. The Chinese vetoed a resolution at Security Council level because the Macedonians had supported the Taiwanese. The Chinese retaliated against this small emerging democracy and for their own selfish political ends vetoed a perfectly sensible and rational UN Security Council resolution which would have better protected the region.

I know not many such cases exist, but this is a clear irrefutable example of where Ireland's national interests were put to one side as power play in New York determined whether we could commit troops in the field, and as such, it must be debated. There may well have been a time when the triple lock was necessary, in the context of the Cold War and the two power blocs which existed for so many years after the Second World War. However, we must question it in today's much more fluid and complex situation.

The Minister gave a straight-up explanation of the new EU battle groups last night. He described them as comprising approximately 3,000 troops. We will be part of the Nordic battle group. At six-monthly intervals these battle groups from various parts of the EU will be on standby. In the Minister's words not a huge number of Irish personnel will be committed. However, where we are part of that 3,000 contingent under the new arrangement we will be dependent on having a UN Security Council resolution before we can commit members of the Defence Forces. That is a loss or diminution of sovereignty. Others now decide how exactly we should fulfil our role in the international community. It is the considered view of my party that this issue must be debated.

The recent controversy in Shannon and the use of Irish airspace and airports by the United States was the most clear example of public outrage and expression of how people felt, one way or the other. The triple lock made no difference as to whether the United States was given permission to use our airspace. It is put up by the Government as a sacred cow and part of our traditional policy of neutrality. I believe we live in a much more complicated world, in which Kofi Annan asked for regional autonomy and capability. I refer to Chapter VIII, Article 52 of the United Nations Charter, which states:

Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

We suggest exactly that. We believe that if the Government and Dáil Éireann decide to commit troops in the context of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, we should be entitled to do so and we should not be stopped by petty squabbles at UN Security Council level. That is the position of my party and of many people who consider this matter in a rational way.

The Minister referred to the Petersberg Tasks, which were endorsed by the Irish people in the Maastricht treaty and subsequent treaties, a much greater test of sovereignty than any resolution to which the Dáil can come. How can we possibly rapidly respond to humanitarian or environmental issues under the Petersberg Tasks if we are stymied by power play in the United Nations? We believe we should amend our law in this area and provide for this much more transparent and exacting policy which would allow us to fulfil our international obligations.

We ask the Minister to consider these amendments in the spirit they are tabled. We understand this debate is ongoing but we will use the Bill as an opportunity to debate this important matter.