Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire: Protect Ireland's Neutrality and Triple Lock

The volatile nature of the world I think underlines all the more the reason that Ireland needs to maintain an independent foreign policy. Central to that independent foreign policy and as would have been articulated by members of the current government while in opposition is the triple lock is our neutrality and the triple lock is a crucial protection for that. I would like an update Minister as to where this legislation stands and what consideration she has given to the committee scrutiny report. Go raibh maith agat, Minister McAteer. Thank you Deputy. I fully agree and I think we can all see that we are living in a very changed world and a more complex world particularly when it comes to our overall security environment. That being said I want to make it absolutely clear that the government has absolutely no desire to change our position and our policy of military neutrality. This is something that is long standing and I think something that the vast majority of people in this country would support. However, it is my intention and the intention of government to change the terms of how our defence forces can be deployed overseas. Both I and government and I think many colleagues here in this house believe that it is untenable to continue with the policy that we currently have. Essentially we have a situation whereby other countries, many countries who are themselves at war or in conflict at the moment are able to make a decision that impacts on our sovereignty, our sovereign decision making process when it comes to where and how we deploy our troops and I think that is a position that is untenable. Any considerations on international peacekeeping engagement should be within Ireland's exclusive sovereign control. It should be our own decision making process and it should be purely within the remit of government here so that we can have these debates in our Oireachtas with people who have been democratically elected by the people of this country. It is a very strong belief and firm view that I have. I do want to thank the committee because this legislation has obviously gone through a number of stages at this point. For the excellent work that they have done on pre-legislative scrutiny, the report itself, I have considered a number of these recommendations carefully and brought this to cabinet recently and there is drafting work currently underway to progress some of the recommendations specifically around the international obligations but also in terms of annual reporting. I accept that where you remove essentially one element of what has been a long-standing process that we make sure that any mechanism that we have here within the Oireachtas and across the committees that we have that level of oversight and scrutiny. What is really important though as well and I think what was stressed by the committee is that any changes that take place, that it is very clear that any mission that would be approved, any peacekeeping operation, that it would be in line with and grounded firmly by the principles of the UN Charter and international law and that is something that the committee has stated very clearly. The Minister thanked the committee and I acknowledge that. I do think and I was under a different Minister but I do think and it is not I would say an unheard of occurrence, it is remarkable that government TDs and Senators on the committee were whipped to prevent extra hearings because there was such a rush in terms of this legislation and now it is many many months since that process was concluded and I find that hard to understand. We had a desire within the committee to ensure that we receive full scrutiny. Members of the committee clearly whipped to prevent the extension of it and I think that was a tremendous shame. I would make the point to the Minister that the Triple Lock is a protection for future governments as well. I would also, more importantly, I would make the point that it is our decision. It is our decision. The Defence Amendment Act is Irish legislation. It is legislation constructed and passed by these two houses on the basis of our troops should serve on peacekeeping missions that are mandated by the UN. So if we are going to be serving on peacekeeping missions that are not mandated by the UN, under what auspices are we undertaking those peacekeeping missions or other missions generally? Deputy, you say that this is about protecting potential future governments that might decide to deploy our troops to missions that are not based in the UN Charter, that do not uphold and protect fundamental principles of international law. What I am saying very clearly is that the legislation would have this enshrined in it. It would be very clear as to how and when our troops could be deployed. There would be a level of oversight within the Oireachtas here and it would have to be voted through by a democratically elected government but also the level of oversight within the committee, depending on when or how many troops are being deployed would also be included in the legislation. We have a situation emerging at the moment so we now have some of our final members from the 128th Battalion that are going out to UNIFIL. That mission has not been continued because we know that it would have been vetoed. So if it had been vetoed, if a vote had gone through last year, our troops would have had to have left immediately. So decades-long service of Lebanon peacekeeping troops would have ended immediately and we would have had no ability to send our troops back unless we have a new mission put in place, be it a CSDP mission, which is something that we are looking at at the moment. But moreover on top of that as well, we now have another mission, Operation Irene, that we are looking at very carefully but which very soon in the next coming weeks could come to an end because it looks as though that mandate is not going to be renewed. Now what we want that mandate for is to be able to monitor the shadow fleet in our waters, shadow fleet that are causing huge challenges that are funding the war in Ukraine but also a potential environmental disaster that is looming with any of these ships. And how do we know that it's going to be blocked? Because we know Russia is the person that's perpetrating these crimes, is on the committee and is able to do it. The idea that Russia would be able to stop us from keeping our troops in a mission on the Mediterranean that would monitor what are illegal ships is absolutely crazy. It is crazy that we are in a situation that as a country we cannot deploy our troops because a country like Russia is going to be able to stop us. Minister, just in terms of the CSDP potential deployment that you spoke about, could you elaborate on that potentially? Are you saying that there would be potentially a CSDP deployment to Lebanon in place of UNIFIL? Could you please clarify just in relation to that? Look, as I say, the issue in relation to protection of future guns, it is crucially important, it is my view and I think it is the view of the people. Our troops have served on the UN flag with incredible distinction. I think it is profoundly dangerous that UNIFIL is coming to an end. I really regret that decision. I think it is important that we continue to push for UN reform and I would like to hear the Minister say some more about that. Ultimately, if we are not deploying troops under a UN flag, they are going to be deployed in another context. It is not difficult at all to see circumstances in which if we remove the triple lock, the pressure comes on a future Irish government to deploy troops to a scenario or theatre that would clearly endanger our neutrality. I think you have said the Irish people support neutrality. This potentially brings future Irish governments into a position where they are pressurised into deploying troops in situations that would undermine our neutrality. The first thing to say is that any change to our triple lock does not change our position of neutrality. Our position of neutrality is about joining military alliances. If we are to deploy troops under this new legislation, it would have to align with and be adhered to and firmly grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law. That would be our law. To do anything other would be to breach our law and this would be overseen by the committee here or by the Chamber and by our committees as well. We fully support the UN. I make this point every single time I engage with them at an international level as well. They know that, but we know that the structure is not working at the moment. The very fact that Russia would be able to stop a mission that is currently underway in the Mediterranean, where our troops participate and do a really important job in terms of arms, the fact that we want to now use that mission to be able to monitor Russian shadow fleets, a legal fleet that are funding an illegal war, that are a maritime disaster ready to happen, the fact that they would be able to block that, it does not make any sense. They are taking away our sovereign ability to make a decision as to where we send our troops, but they are also stopping us from doing what we should be doing, and that is monitoring their illegal activity and making sure that we do everything in our power to prevent them from being able to wage the war that they are waging and possibly more beyond that. Just in terms of making it clear around the overall missions again, it would not be within our power to send troops to anything other than peacekeeping missions or if, as we have seen in most recent times because of the conflicts happening around the world, we need to get people out safely. I think that is something that we really need to be able to do.