Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Senator. There were no Irish troops there in either case. They were not part of the UN mission. They were part of a subsequent EU operation. The core of this amendment lies in the definition of international peace mission and the provisions under which a contingent could be despatched on such a mission. The rest of the amendments are consequential to the acceptance of the definition of international peace mission. What the amendment proposes is, effectively, the elimination of any requirement of a UN Security Council mandate, including any requirement for such a mandate even for a peace enforcement mission. It is proposed that a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force could be despatched on a peace support mission, once Dáil Éireann is satisfied that it accords with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and has approved the despatch of the contingent. From the outset of this process I have stated that a triple lock of UN resolution, Dáil and Government approval would remain. That has been the consistent policy position of this Government and I do not intend to depart from it.

It is also a position which I know is understood and appreciated by the Irish people. The effect of the amendment would be to make the existing provisions as regards an international United Nations force moribund. I cannot and will not do that. I am well aware that it has been a consistent policy of Fine Gael, and I respect that, to remove the requirement for UN authorisation. However, the United Nations Charter is clear. In Article 24 it provides that, "Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf". In addition, in Article 53 as regards regional organisations, the charter states, "...no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorisation of the Security Council...".

The effect of the amendment would be to undermine the authority of the United Nations Security Council. As strong supporters of the United Nations and the primacy of the Security Council in relation to the maintenance of international peace and security, we take our authority for participation in international peace support operations from the Security Council, and we do not need to apologise for that. The existence of such mandates confers a legitimacy on an acceptance of particular peace support operations by groups engaged in conflict. This is an important force protection issue also. In addition, to take on board what is now being proposed would open us to the possibility, as Senator Mansergh said, of military adventurism. While I understand the position and the thinking behind the amendment, I cannot accept it.

I want to make a couple of general points. As regards whether the necessity for a United Nations resolution will prevent us from deploying rapidly, I do not accept that it will. We intend, when we have successfully negotiated membership of the Nordic battle group, to have an administration arrangement to deal with those matters as quickly as possible. We have no control over how quickly the United Nations resolution will be forthcoming, but will have an arrangement in place to call the Dáil together quickly, to have a Government meeting, etc.

The framework nation for the Nordic battle group will be Sweden. We have had detailed discussions with the Swedish Defence Forces and the Swedish Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs. They do not foresee the United Nations resolution creating any impediment. None of the other members of the particular multinational group of which we hope to be a part, the Nordic battle group, has a legal requirement for a United Nations resolution before it deploys. It is fair to say, however, that there is an overwhelming requirement. People are extremely reluctant to deploy troops in the absence of a United Nations resolution. In addition, the Nordic battle group is not the only one in which Ireland will be involved. Perhaps it will be in the short-term, but we are exploring other possibilities. Some members of other multinational battle groups have a legal requirement. I also understand there is a possibility that at least one member of the Nordic battle group which does not have a legal requirement for a UN resolution may be changing its law to provide for that.

I can envisage situations in which Ireland could be part of a multinational battle group where other members might not want to deploy because they are carrying some historical baggage that would not allow them to become involved in a certain part of the world, not because of the absence of a UN resolution. Conscious of that, the multinational battle groups will have a built-in redundancy provision to provide for a situation where one or more constituents cannot deploy as required. In other words they will have a fall-back position to provide for such contingencies. We need not be too worried about that.

It has been a very good debate. I take on board everything that has been said about the triple lock. I take on board the possibility that we might be faced with a succession of situations. That is a fairly remote possibility but there is the chance that some future Government might be faced with a succession of situations where the overwhelming view of the Irish people is that we should be deployed some place, but we cannot because one member of the Security Council vetoes it. That is the position if, indeed, the United Nations decision making process remains at it is, which it probably will.

In the short term we are discussing with our potential partners, and with other European countries such as Austria, the possibility of participation in multinational battle groups. Nowhere in the course of these discussions has the possibility even been mooted that the necessity for a United Nations resolution, which everybody understands we have, will hinder or hamper us or stand in our way.