Paul Murphy: Will Ending the Triple Lock Enable Illegal Wars?

Thanks a lot, Chair. So back again to the Triple Lock, this time on the kind of international implications of it. And I'd ask the Minister whether the new Bill will allow, or would have allowed, Ireland to participate in Trump's illegal war on Iran. We heard, despite seeming objections from yourself and your junior Minister, at the committee that, from the top civil servants, that if the Triple Lock wasn't there, Ireland could have participated in the invasion of Iraq. So, if the Triple Lock is gone, if you get through with your Bill, will there be anything stopping in from Trump's war? Stopping you making Ireland join in Trump's war on Iran. Minister. Thank you, Deputy. Could I say maybe at the outset, so times have changed, and I think we should be allowed to debate the fact that we're in a different world now to when this was first introduced, but maybe to go back to when the Triple Lock was introduced. At the time, those who opposed the introduction of the Triple Lock said that it was going to drag us into wars, that the US, that Russia, that China, that the permanent member states of the UN were going to drag us now, through the Triple Lock, into all of these wars that we were going to partake in and that we would lose our neutrality. So these were debates that were actually put forward at the time. That didn't happen. That didn't transpire. We've had decades of peacekeeping troops on the ground that have contributed to peacekeeping missions, and that has been it. What's now happening is that we have the bizarre situation where now those very countries, like Russia, that is waging a war, the US that is obviously actively involved on the ground, I don't dispute that, they are now preventing us from continuing on these peacekeeping missions. So I don't understand or fathom how we could find ourselves in a position now where we would sit and do nothing, where we would allow larger countries, countries that have nothing to do with, nor should they have anything to do with how we deploy our troops, that can actually prevent us from continuing on missions, and that see us now having to come off missions that other member states are on. There are no other countries within the EU that have this position. There are no other countries that are neutral. If you take Austria, for example, they will not sign up to a military alliance in the same way that we won't, but if they're putting forward members for peacekeeping missions, they don't have to go through the same Triple Lock mechanism. You've also made a number of dissertations here this evening, Deputy, that we're going to suddenly decide out of nowhere, as a doll, that we're going to put forward our troops for missions that don't align with international law, that are completely outside of the UN Charter. The legislation as it's being proposed is very clear and specific, that any mission that we would propose our troops for, that it would have to align with international law, that it would have to align with the principles of the UN Charter, and that it would be a decision for this House here. I mean, we are all democratically elected members. We represent the people who voted for us, and so we have a duty to make sure that we reflect their views and their wishes, and I believe that we can have that debate here without allowing an outside force that has nothing to do with anybody that hasn't been democratically elected by a single person in this country, to decide what we do with our peacekeeping troops. Deputy Murphy. Thanks. Minister, there's something called international law, and I quote to you what Minister Robert Troy said, Ireland's position on the use of force, where there is no UN mandate or authorisation, is well established and known. For fear that anyone has any doubt, let me be clear, it is wrong and it is illegal. Do you agree with Minister Troy? Because all the triple lock does is ensure that we would send troops that are in line, that we can only send troops where there's a UN mandate or authorisation. That's all it does. And you getting rid of the triple lock is about enabling you to send troops outside of the framework of international law. That's 100% what it's about. What's interesting is you speak about the new bill is going to talk about the principles of the United Nations Charter. Well, will it say that we will only send troops abroad in accordance with the articles of the UN Charter? Because the articles of the UN Charter are very clear. You can send troops abroad in self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, or you can do it with a UN authorised mission, which is precisely what the triple lock says. The triple lock enshrines in Irish law international law. It says we can only send troops in accordance with international law. The only reason to get rid of it is if you want to send troops outside of the framework of international law. In terms of what will be in the proposed legislation, we'll have an opportunity to discuss and to debate in this House and Committee stage as we should do anything of significance. And this is significant because this will allow us to continue a practice that we have had in place for many decades. The absolute priority here is to make sure that any future deployments for operations are put forward, that they adhere not just to the principles of the UN Charter, but to international law. So we're very clear, we're not going to start proposing sending troops on any other missions that don't adhere to international law and that are not peacekeeping missions. There is a proposal in the legislation that would allow four UN troops and smaller numbers to be able to remove people safely from conflict zones. That is something that happens at the moment, but we need to make sure that we have this included in the legislation as well. Where there will be a requirement to seek government approval, where the number of defence forces over a certain number, the Dáil approval will still be triggered. So there will still be a mechanism here in the Dáil to make sure. At the moment the number is 12, the legislation proposes to increase this number to 50, but even at that there will have to be engagement at the end of the year with the final report and that there will be engagement with the committee through different states. So all of this can be discussed when this bill comes to the fore. But again, can I just make the point in the referendum? The referendum is to change the Constitution. What are we talking about putting in here? Because what we're actually talking about is amending legislation. We're not amending anything that's in our Constitution. We're talking about changing legislation that was agreed by this House many decades ago, and I believe the onus is on us now as members of this House to change the legislation in the same way so that we can continue doing the legislation set out to allow us to do in the first instance, and we're now being prevented from doing that. Thank you Minister. Deputy Murphy. Yeah, I think the Minister is being deliberately a bit disingenuous there in terms of, okay, this is agreed by legislation. You don't recognise the referendums, the European referendums, which enshrined this. We have the Seville Declaration. It's part of international law. You don't recognise that the people voted on this. That's forgetting about the recent presidential election where neutrality dominated the campaign. It's forgetting about all the opinion polls that show that people support neutrality and support the triple lock. The Minister might enlighten us then. What are the circumstances that you think that it is legal to deploy soldiers abroad that don't have UN authorisation but nonetheless is in the framework of international law? What is it that you're talking about? I can't understand. Because international law, UN Charter, is very clear. It's very clear about the circumstances where you can deploy troops abroad. You can do it in self-defence or you can do it when there has been a resolution of the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. It's clear, but that's precisely what the triple lock says. So instead, what I think you want to do is say this thing, we adhere to international law, but we do what we want and then we just say that it's in line with international law. When America engages in their imperialist adventures around the world, they always say they're in line with international law. I think Putin claims that his invasion of Ukraine is in line with international law. There's a big difference. Minister. Deputy, you are being completely disingenuous yourself by consistently and continuously linking the triple lock with our neutrality. We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. Do you accept that? We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. It was introduced at a time to make sure that we could send our troops across seas, across waters, to peacekeeping missions. That, in many instances, is not possible. So again, do you accept that in the last two weeks alone, we have troops that have been active in a mission in the Mediterranean that have had to come home because we now no longer have a mandate? And you can say it's changed and the mandate's changed. Our naval services monitor Shadow Fleet across the EEZ at the moment that we have. This is not some... Thank you. Our naval service already monitor Shadow Fleet. So the very fact that this is now not being continued and the UN mandate is not continuing, it is because countries like Russia do not want us to. It's not a back and forth, please. You are being disingenuous in saying that this is about our neutrality. There was nothing in this that impacts our neutrality. We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. We will be a neutral country if this changes, when this changes. And I hope that we can change it as soon as possible.