Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The reason I move it is that it is particularly important and it is one where we would have a heightened concern following the debate on Second Stage. Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, relate to changes to section 3 of the Act whereas amendment No. 2 is really about section 1 of the 2006 Act. It specifically relates to that definition of "international organisation". This is one of the reasons I did not press my amendment No. 1. There are concerns around the way "international organisation" is defined in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. One specific concern relates to section 1(d) which includes international organisations to which not just an individual but an entire contingent of our Permanent Defence Forces may be assigned. Under the new provisions of the new legislation, they may be assigned and may have operational control transferred in regard to their activities. It includes any regional arrangement or agency that participates or has participated in operations as part of an international United Nations force. On Committee Stage, my concern was about the words "or has participated". Frankly, my concerns are much deeper than they were going into Committee Stage because the example given was co-operating with NATO in regard to mine clearing under a UN mandate, and that is something I support as it happens under UN mandate. However, the question is having co-operated with NATO in regard to mine clearing under the UN mandate, does that mean we can then always co-operate with NATO? That seemed to be the position being put forward. I know we have a triple lock but it is a concern if we have regional arrangements or regional agencies which have engaged in UN mandated activities in that the fact that they have at some point engaged in UN activities does not mean that is a carte blanche that we should consider the other operations of that international organisations are necessarily ones to which we can second contingents of the Permanent Defence Forces and to which we potentially concede operational control. There are many other activities that NATO or any other regional alliance or agency may take part in which are very much not in the remit for Ireland, and that is very important.

I have another amendment in that regard. I have tried to clarify it to give some clarification in respect of "or has participated" to "and is currently working as part of an international UN force". I am trying to make it very clear. I am not saying that we do not work in exceptional circumstances with many different kinds of partners. I recognise that, but the fact that we worked with it under a UN mandate once does not mean the State should consider it fine to work with it in other circumstances. I would bear in mind that section 3(1)(a) is quite wide in what we might second Permanent Defence Forces to. There are other aspects of the definition which I have chosen not to take issue with because I am really trying to drill down to the core piece here. There are other aspects. If we look at partnerships the European Union has had - I am not sure where they fall in to it - it has made some mistakes in its partners. Consider the immigration control deals we had in the past where the European Union partnered and trained the kinds of activities covered here, such as the Libyan coastguard which has been involved in extreme human rights breaches, or where the European Union supported the former military dictatorship under Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir in Sudan for his border guard. There are times when co-operation may be appropriate but there are other times when it is not appropriate. There is much at stake in terms of ensuring we make clear and good decisions. We must be clear on who we work with, and when.

This does not rule out the humanitarian capacity but it states that when seconding an entire contingent of the Permanent Defence Forces, we should be sure we are doing so either to the United Nations, OSCE, the European Union, or if it is a regional arrangement or agency, that we do that as part of a United Nations force. This does not affect engagement in humanitarian partnership under section 3(1)(b) to section 3(1)(h). It does not affect those activities but it affected the secondment of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Forces.

It is a loophole and it may be an oversight in the legislation. We can all understand that "has participated" one time does not mean it is an imprimatur of permanent potential alignment. Given that the Minister gave the example of NATO under this example - I did not suggest this example; it came from the Minister on Committee Stage - that rang alarm bells for me.