Brian Stanley probes peacekeeping, maritime security and troop rules

And thanks to our guests for coming in, Andy, your papers and opening statement. Could you just say, first of all, Dr Bourke, just briefly, could you just explain to me your definition of the difference between peace enforcement, peacekeeping and peace enforcement, just briefly, because we have a short time. I don't want to be abrupt with you. Yes. Yeah, thank you, Deputy. So peacekeeping, I would say, is commonly defined as a peacekeeping mission with consent, not least of the host country. So essentially it's seen as you're not engaging in peace enforcement. You're not at war. This is consensual between the parties. And it's also normally assumed that the host country or countries has requested that mission to be there. So it's traditionally sort of pointed to, you point to Chapter 6. Sorry. Peace enforcement would commonly say that you do not require the consent of the parties to impose a, what is it, an attempt to impose a peaceful resolution of the conflict by force without consent. There could be military engagements involved. Sorry, excuse me? There could be actually military engagements involved in terms of, you know, conflict. Yeah, I mean, it would be, the assumption would be much more kinetic and without consent. The guns would be pulled. In other words, the guns would be pulled. Sorry? The guns would be loaded, like, and drawn. Absolutely. But Chapter 6, there would be two. And we've seen in Lebanon that occasionally there has been rather robust, sometimes called Chapter 6 and a half type peacekeeping operations where the mandate is extended. Or in the Congo, as Declan talks about, where the mandate changed in the 1960s and it became very close to peace enforcement. They're very different things, aren't they? They're very different things. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7? Peace enforcement and peacekeeping. Certainly, but there's always some ambiguity. So I'll give you the example of the Congo, if I could. I know, I know. I'm familiar with it. Yes. Thank you. Thanks for that. So, could I just say, in your statement, you said, our democracies and critical infrastructure, energy pipelines, fibre optic cables and cyberspace are vulnerable to attack. But as I understand it, the government have now ordered a new radar system and the Navy's going to be beefed up, which I welcome and support. I see the need to protect them. But what I'm just trying to do, what I'm trying to do is match that with why we need to be part of perhaps maybe some regional force or some other body outside the UN. Certainly. So if you look at, let's say, we've got, now we have EU nav for Irini, for example, in the Mediterranean, right? So which is an important way of, obviously, Russia has been particularly against that or been very critical of it, not least because it's interdicted Russian arms supplying. There's a UN resolution to try and bring about a peaceful settlement in Libya. Russia has been arming one of the parties and has, you know, and Irini, the EU task force has sometimes interdicted ships carrying weapons, Russian weapons, to Libya. So obviously they're against that. In the Atlantic, we may also need a maritime security strategy that may involve countries, such EU countries, including our own. It is possible there may be an Atlantic task force in the future. And some of the Western powers, it looks like, have attacked undersea infrastructure, such as the Northern Gas Pipeline. Which ones are you talking about, sorry? The one that's just after the Ukraine war started. North's invasion? Russia's invasion of, short death for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. What, sorry, has the evidence come before the committee on that, sorry? No, no, as I understand it, that the speculation is more towards some Western involvement in that. But I would say we're at the speculation phase at this point, and I don't have definitive answers to who's responsible for that. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Power. Just to return to you for a second that in your statement, you quote Taoiseach Sean Lamass back in the 60s, telling the doll that the purpose of the presentation may be simple. Its purpose is to authorize your relating, your dealing with the Defence Amendment back in 1960, for duties of a police character on behalf of the United Nations, and secondly, to provide and respect members of the Defence Forces may volunteer for overseas missions. As I understand it now, you can't volunteer once you join the Defence Forces, you are, you're in. Yeah. Just yes or no on doing that, am I correcting that? Sorry? Yes or no on that. When you join the Defence Forces now, if you're told you're going to Lebanon or going somewhere else, you're going and that's it. You can be detailed. You can be detailed. So if we join the regional force, right, if we're part of something else outside of the United Nations, and a person joining, a young person joining the Irish Army, as part of how things may evolve, would have to, if they were detailed, to go to Ukraine, for example, or somewhere in the Middle East, do we have to go, yeah? Yes. As the rules of the Army at the moment. Yes, but it should be understood that the deployment of Irish troops, whether we retain the triple look or not, and this is a very important point for us to absorb, any deployment of Irish troops would be in line with the UN Charter. Oh, I get that. So, and the amendment to allow Irish troops to be detailed was taking into account the changing character of the requirements for the Defence Forces, because otherwise what would happen was an unfair way would fall on certain members of the Defence Forces, and it wouldn't be a balanced experience. Most people in the list to serve abroad anyway. Could I turn to the proposed bill for a moment? Sure. The proposed bill that provides for peacekeeping, conflict prevention, strengthening international security. Now, as you understand it, I do hear Donald Trump and the Russians would say that they're strengthening their international security by what they're doing wrongly in Ukraine. Israel would say they're strengthening security by blasting the middle of Iran and leveling Gaza. You know, that's a very broad definition. Would you agree? I would, yeah. So, this could turn into anything. And could I ask you this question? Well, just to, you made a very valid point, just to come back on that. It's worth noting. As I said earlier in my opening statement, one has to take into account when you deploy troops, whether it's directly under the UN flag or under a UN-mandated mission that could be under the EU flag or the NATO flag or the African Union flag. Very messy, as you said. The changing tempo of operations on the ground dictates the pace. Now, you made a statement earlier that's worth coming back to. Peacekeeping was meant to be peacekeeping. There was no such thing as peace enforcement. The Cold War brought about the need to differentiate. And the reality is, the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon led to the Battle of Etyria. The peace enforcement mission in Sierra Leone was one of the more peaceful missions that Irish troops ever served on, even though, one, they were configured much more for war fighting in Sierra Leone than they were in Lebanon. And that is the reality of operational life on the ground. And it can get very messy, as you said yourself. And could I just ask you just one part, just very briefly, one bit that I'm curious about, if you were deployed as part of an international force, you'll be under some kind of a joint command. We just say Ireland, with a number of other, with a coalition of the willing of some group of countries or other, got involved in some operations, some mission or other, that it could be commanded by an NATO commander, it could be commanded by a German commander. Would that be correct? That's been the case. That has been the case since we have been involved in UN operations. Okay. Okay, thank you. Since the beginning. And we have been commanded by a NATO commander, have we? We have, yeah. Yes. Since the 1960s. Okay. You were a former Army officer, are you? I served as a non-commissioned officer in Defence Forces. Non-commissioned officer, thank you. Thank you very much.