Brian Stanley backs triple lock, urges review of 12-person cap

I'd love for this to go on a couple more hours because I think it's a very important discussion. We probably... How much time have we left? We could probably put it on to quarter past maybe. Quarter past, okay. So could I just... I'll try and keep my piece concise. I'm certainly not Eurosceptic as an internationalist, you know, and I've had to listen to this. You know, I've many times down the years been accused of being isolationist. But, you know, what's happening in Gaza is as much concern to me as what's happening in, you know, Portlaoise or in Kerry or anywhere else, you know, or what's happening in any other... Africa or any other part of the world. And, you know, I do see a huge need, a huge need to improve our defence capabilities, you know, and somehow, you know, because we're neutral, we're shying away from maybe participating in war. You know, people in this country have stood up and fought against an empire. The peacekeepers that we sent to Lebanon and other parts of the world, they have shown how brave they are and they've put their necks on the line. And unfortunately, some of them even have lost their lives in service to the UN. So, you know, and we do, you know, so just to reiterate, we do need to improve our military capabilities. We do need to defend the cables in our waters. That is a separate argument that's being conflated in this issue around the triple lock and all of that. It's a nonsense argument. Our Navy, you know, and my next young next-door neighbour joined it recently, and we're all very proud of him, the fact that he's joined the Irish Navy, and a whole lot of other young people passed out recently as members of the Navy, which is brilliant. And so let me just ask you this question. I wanted to ask you in relation to, in relation to the triple lock and the deployment of 12 or more, the concern I have is in relation to the 12, the limit of 12, and I'm a supporter of the triple lock. I'm a supporter of the UN mandate, right, since 19, we just there since 1961, as you put that out, Professor Murphy. You know, in the case of an attack on an embassy, in the case of, you know, the narcotics rescuing Irish citizens, you know, it's a reasonable argument there to say that, you know, we should increase that to 50 or 100, you know, to be allowed to be able to deploy those in an emergency situation or in circumstances, you know, under some of those headings as outlined in those three areas. You know, it's a pragmatic thing to do. I mean, I'm open, certainly I would be open to the argument in favour of that while retaining the triple lock and recognising the UN mandate. That's the first part of my question. And Professor Murphy, you might address that and, Mr. Vine, and just in relation to the General Assembly, the mandate in relation to the Security Council and in relation to the General Assembly, you know, and I think, Senator Cairn, you were on a diplomatic when we were asked to go to put the case for, you know, to other governments in Europe at the time, an all-party group that was sent to try and get Ireland's case for a place on the Security Council, non-status member, non-permanent members. I think you were on that delegation. No, there was another Fine Gael member on it. And we're all on the one page, you know, like we're all there to try and, you know, to try and get Ireland's place as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council to lobby for that political parties in Europe to support it and indeed some African countries who were attending the conference in Geneva. But what I would say is that we just explained in relation to 1956 and 1964, you know, what happened there in relation to, you know, that the General Assembly gave the mandate. What happened and what was in relation to just those two episodes, what happened in those situations. Professor Murphy. So, thanks, Deputy, for your question. I've got to be honest, the last part of your question, you'll have to repeat because I was actually looking at my notes to answer the first question. It was the 1956 and the 1964 episode where the UN, you referenced earlier, where the UN General Assembly gave the mandate. Just briefly what that, in the time that we have, what was that about, you know, and, you know, did it, did it come into effect? You know, they gave the mandate. What was the mandate for and was it put into operation? Yeah. Okay. Well, first I'll address the issue of the 50 personnel. Twelve, yeah. Twelve, yeah. And now propose 50. My reservation about that, Deputy, is that if you look at Head 7 of the proposed legislation, the dispatch of a contingent of members of the Defence Forces for external service for purposes other than an international force, it outlines, you know, a range of activities, including evacuation and protection of embassies that Irish personnel can participate in or become involved in. And I have no problem with that. And it's completely separate from the issue of participation in the UN or an international force. The 50 personnel is the reason given in the explanatory memorandum just doesn't really, just doesn't seem to be, to me, to be clear enough. Essentially, it provides a legislative framework for the government to send 50 personnel on any mission without going to the Dáil. That's what this seems to permit. I understand that, but what I'm putting to you, Professor Murphy, would it not be, you know, in terms of our job, maybe amending, seeking to try and amend legislation, is that if there was a limit put on that, because I can see a logical argument as to why that 12 is too restrictive. Yes. As somebody who passionately supports military neutrality. But the legislation already provides for the provision of forces for evacuation, humanitarian, embassy protection. It's there, and that's pretty open-ended. Narcotics. And narcotics. No, it doesn't provide for narcotics. Yeah. So, you see... But would you see a reasonable argument for increasing it maybe to 50 or 100 to deal with the issue of narcotics? There are some, but I would have to say that it would need amendments which would restrict the roles that the defence forces would play if that particular provision was invoked. If the government decided to send 50 personnel, I think the legislation needs to restrict the circumstances under which it can send those personnel, because as I read it now, the government can send 50 personnel, but it doesn't say for what particular purpose. That's not clear enough. Okay? And just the 1956, 1964, just myself missed if I would comment on that. Yeah. No, I think Professor Murphy can comment on that much better than I can. Go ahead. Okay. In 1956, again, you're talking about the Suez crisis involving major powers, but especially the French. And there was no way that the Security Council was going to be able to approve any UN operation involving deploying in that particular area because of French direct involvement in the conflict on the ground. therefore, there was an initiative to go to the General Assembly to seek to have General Assembly approval under the Charter because, as I said before, the General Assembly will only have jurisdiction when the Security Council is unable to act. And this was tested before the International Court of Justice to be in conformity with international law and the UN Charter. So there is a precedent for the General Assembly taking a role in the maintenance of international peace and security. operation? The mandate came into operation under UNIF, yes. Yeah, okay, that's okay. And 1964? I can't... I'd have to check and what I will do is come back to you on that particular mission. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Dr. DeVine? Sorry. Dr. DeVine, first of all. I can go after Professor McClare. Please do. You're on the substance. I've got a smaller question. Well, I was just going to respond briefly to Senator Crockwell, if that's okay. And I appreciate your position that you're agnostic about the triple lock. And I recall you saying that people outside the Oireachtas maybe don't really care about it. But as I say, I'm an academic and I look at evidence and there is what we call a neutrality and triple lock roadshow being conducted around the country. And the response to that has been quite significant in terms of public opinion and support for the triple lock. That evidence is there. And I think... I know that Donegal County Council have passed a resolution in the wake of the roadshow saying that they want to retain it. And in Cavan as well. Yeah, I thought it was Cavan. I've done in Cavan written down, but my memory might fail me on Cavan, so don't... Can I just ask you? I mean, language is extremely important. And the conflation of triple lock, neutrality and military non-alignment are being used in the same sentence. Military non-alignment is a polar opposite to neutrality. And the triple lock is not, if you want, governed by either of them. There are three separate issues. And I think it's important that the public, when they're appraising these things, that the language they hear is clear and distinct. We've sorted this morning, we are not a neutral country under international law in the exact sense of the word. We might think we are. I don't think we've sorted anything like that now. I think you've made that assertion and you're entitled to make that assertion. I'm going to let that... But I don't think that's a settled view of the committee. I think it would be news if that was the case. But I'll allow Dr. Devine just a brief response and Professor Maguire. We were on Deputy Stanley's time. And then we're moving on to Deputy Gibney. Yeah, just briefly. I did publish an article with the co-author, Christine Agis, on the differences of the terms non-alignment, neutralism, neutrality, military neutrality, and active positive neutrality. But just to complete my point about evidence of the importance of the triple lock, clearly it was so important that it was put in a national declaration and exists in a way as an international agreement. And it was used to persuade the electorate in Ireland to vote for the Nice Treaty. And used again to persuade the electorate to vote for the Lisbon Treaty. And it is extremely important for all of the other small states in the international system that look at Ireland as a neutral, a good mediator on the side of kind of the small state as a small post-colonial state itself. And I think the triple lock is a real symbol of that. And so it is very important to, I think, a lot of people giving that evidence outside the Oireachtas. Thank you. Professor Maguire. On the same point, I don't think there's knee-jerk impression management going on here. I think people are concerned about the triple lock and I agree that they are, as Karen Devine has said. There have been 22 sessions of the neutrality roadshow. It has gone down really well. And I think, Senator, that people are concerned about the triple lock because there is a sense that if that goes, it brings us into a field where the kinds of things which people associate with what Dr. Devine has studied are sense of neutrality. That will be damaged. So for me, I'm not saying they're the same issue, but they are closely related. But one other thing, I'm just a clarification, Deputy Stanley. It seems to me you can argue for 12 or 50 or any number. That's one thing. and you can argue whether the Doyle should have a vote on it. So I'm just wondering which you're raising. My question I'm asking, Professor, is that in relation to the addition I'm raising is that what the number should be. I'm in favour of retention of the triple lock. Yeah. I'm in favour of the multilateralism and the UN mandate. Yes. but what I'm simply saying is is that you know and Professor Murphy has said that under the existing law that we can deploy more than we can deploy more than 12 in certain circumstances in relation to rescue missions but not in the case of narcotics. And what I'm simply saying is is that I can see an argument in favour of as somebody who's in favour of neutrality I can see an argument in favour of increasing that number from 12 you know on a pragmatic basis that maybe it would be 12 the 12 would maybe would be 50 or 60 in terms of rescue missions in that or in the case of narcotics I could see a case for that that's simply what I'm saying. But couldn't you argue for that without saying that oil should not move forward? That's my point. That's the only reason I'm putting it to you that I think that. Move on to Deputy Gibney I appreciate that we can return to that matter.