Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

With due respect to the Minister of State, what he has said is not accurate. The amendment would not prevent postings in the EU because the EU is covered under paragraph (c) of the existing definition, which refers to "the European Union or any institution or body of the European Union". It would not prevent postings to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe either because it is covered under paragraph (b). It would only place a condition on paragraph (d) which refers to any regional arrangement or agency that is not the OSCE, the United Nations or the European Union or any institution or body thereof. It is inaccurate to suggest that the amendment would affect work with the OSCE or the European Union. It is also unnecessary to list all of the various factors under section 3(1) of the 2006 Act because the next three amendments will amend those and because this amendment does not affect any of them except the first one. My amendment No. 2 would not affect participation in training, ceremonial duties, monitoring or observation, humanitarian tasks, reconnaissance, sporting events or the inspection or evaluation of stores. It would only affect the provision at section 3(1)(a), which relates to secondments to an international organisation of individuals and contingents of the Permanent Defence Force.

There has sometimes been a tendency to present one piece, which we are all in favour of and which is, therefore, passed, but let us be clear. My amendment specifically seeks to define an international organisation and to ensure clarity on taking part in regional arrangements or agencies - which, again, is very wide phrasing - that are not the OSCE, the UN or the EU. It would still allow participation with such arrangements or agencies under all of the other grounds I have listed. It would only affect engagement with them in respect of secondments. It does not even interfere with appointments or postings outside the State. It only relates to secondments, that is, where we are giving our Permanent Defence Force personnel to another international organisation. It is reasonable that we would be clear on what international organisations we may do that for. If it is not to be one of our trusted multilateral partners, we should at least now that we are acting under a United Nations imprimatur. That is the clarity we need and that we should have.

We are discussing activities for which contingents of the force may be seconded which are not covered under sections 3(1)(b) to 3(1)(h), inclusive, of the 2006 Act and not carried out by the OSCE, the United Nations, the European Union or any of its bodies. These are other activities that we are seconding people to other forces to take part in. It is a problem. In fact, it is an abuse of the United Nations if we use the fact of having previously participated in a United Nations activity as a badge to give sanction for any potential future activity. That is a misuse of the United Nations. It makes it problematic for the United Nations to work with specific regional or other parties, groupings and forces if, when it does, that is seen as an imprimaturfor other countries to continue to co-operate with them on any level. It is problematic and Ireland, with its responsibility to the United Nations, should be careful as to how United Nations participation is used or abused. The Minister of State gave the example of mines and asked whether I was suggesting that, when we finish participating with the United Nations, we should not continue to co-operate with those involved, outside the UN mandate. I was very clear that we should not.

I regret that the Minister of State is not able to accept the amendment. It is something on which we need to be clear. We are entering very turbulent times internationally. We need clarity. Ireland has something to lose because we have been champions of multilateralism. That is why I want us to have high standards and clarity. I will press the amendment.