Helen McEntee: Defends Triple Lock reform to protect troops

At the outset, I want to join with many colleagues in acknowledging the exceptional service of the men and women of the Defence Forces currently deployed overseas. Their work in peacekeeping missions so often, as we know, in challenging and dangerous environments has demonstrated, most particularly currently in South Lebanon, continues to reflect our enduring commitment to international peace and security. I'm deeply conscious, not least because I met many of those members and their families in recent weeks, of the sacrifice that they and their families make in serving their country and advancing the cause of peace. I fully recognise also the strong public interest in, the deep attachment to, Ireland's neutrality, as well as the strength of feeling it continues to generate. I also acknowledge that there are genuine concerns and, I have to say, in some cases, misunderstanding regarding the impact that the proposed amendments to the Defence Acts, including changes to the provision commonly referred to as the Triple Lock, may have on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Just a few seconds ago, we heard from a deputy saying that Ireland should not be dictated to by other countries, at the same time saying we don't need to amend the Triple Lock, the very thing that is actually allowing other countries like the US, China, Russia to dictate exactly what we do. Let me be absolutely clear, Ireland's longstanding policy in regard to our neutrality remains unchanged. We do not participate in military alliances or mutual defence arrangements, and there are no plans by this government to alter that position. I'm being very clear, there are no plans by this government to alter that position. That commitment has been repeatedly made on the floor of this House, and I again explicitly reaffirm it today. I want to again address a fundamental misconception at the heart of the motion proposed before the House today. The Triple Lock is not a defining feature of our neutrality. It is not set out in Bonnacht na hÉireann, and it is not a constitutional requirement. Rather, it is a legislative mechanism. It's grounded in the Defence Act. It's governing the dispatch of Defence Force personnel overseas, and primarily in the context of UN-mandated missions. The Triple Lock itself evolved from political commitments during the Nice and Lisbon Treaty process. We all accept that, but the idea that we would not have a discussion many years later in this very space where we have elected representatives that represent all of our constituencies when we are living in such a changed global environment. It is not a constitutional principle. This is an opportunity for all of us as elected representatives to discuss the very situation we find ourselves in, and that is quite simple. We cannot operate in certain missions, or there are certain missions that are due to end because of our Triple Lock. Amending the legislation underpinning this doesn't require a referendum, and I'm fairly of the view that such a proposal would neither be necessary nor proportionate in terms of what we are discussing. The government is committed to progressing the Defence Amendment Bill, the general scheme of which was approved on 4 March. This legislation will consolidate and update existing provisions relating to overseas deployments. It will modernise the framework in which such decisions are made that is reflective of the current global security environment, an environment which no new peacekeeping mission has been proposed since 2014. So since 2014, because of a veto of other countries, we are being blocked from, and UN peacekeeping missions are being blocked from progressing. The core objective of the legislative reforms proposed is to strengthen our ability to pursue that independent and foreign policy, that we can make our own decisions in terms of deploying our own troops. Crucially, it will ensure that decisions regarding the deployment of Defence Force personnel overseas to peacekeeping missions are determined solely by the government and by Dáil Éireann, the sovereign representatives of the Irish people, rather than being subject to the veto of the permanent members of the UN. Again, countries like the US, China, Russia, countries that are actually involved in conflicts that we are now trying to keep peacekeeping troops on the ground for. The practical reality is that the veto power exercised or indeed threatened by permanent members of the Security Council can and does prevent action, including in circumstances where there is broad international support. For Ireland, this can and in fact does create real and immediate consequences. In the absence of a UN mandate, deployments cannot proceed. They must cease, regardless of our position or of the will of this House. Just to give examples, and Deputy Henning, you ask why are we doing this? Why are we doing this now? Very clearly, we know that the troops that I met in Limerick only a few weeks ago will be the last operational mandate or battalion sent out to southern Lebanon for a peacekeeping mission that has been in situ for decades, where we have very proud traditions of sending thousands of members over those years to protect and to keep people safe. While the dynamic has changed, while it is a very difficult situation now for civilians, for our troops, with that mission ending by next year, we will have no mandate to be able to support the people on the ground. And you've heard Deputy Callaghan, but every other peacekeeping troop that I've met, every other member of the Defence Force that I've met, they want to continue that operation on the ground. That will not be possible. Secondly, we're seeing another example that's going to end on Sunday. So we have Operation Arrheni. It is an EU-led mission in the Mediterranean, where we have our own troops on that mission. That is coming to an end on Sunday. It is not being renewed, and we will not be able to keep our troops there as part of any new mission that's being progressed. This is what we're trying to do. We have members of the Defence Forces who train, who are highly skilled, who are highly experienced, and because of the fact that missions are not being renewed, because the UN Security Council is not operating in the way that it should, we all know that, we are now having to take back our troops, and we are not able to continue the fantastic work that we are so proud that they have been doing for so many years. The legislative changes that I am proposing will address this issue directly. It will remove the requirement for the UN mandate as part of the decision-making framework, while retaining robust safeguards. And I think that's what people want to know, that there will be robust safeguards, that there will be government approval, where appropriate to all approval, and that this will continue to be required. All deployments will remain fully consistent with international law, with the principles of the UN Charter, and under these reforms as well, we can continue to participate in missions such as Operation Irani, the one that I've just mentioned that's coming to an end, that we will no longer be able to be part of. Potentially, any further missions in South Lebanon, again, where I know our troops want to continue their work, should the EU or any other regional organisation propose such a mission, the House can decide that we would then be part of that, and I think that is a role that the House should take on. Let me emphasise, though, that they are often portrayed as such, the reforms to the Triple Lock legislation of altering our neutrality. This does not change our neutrality, and I would repeat what Deputy Callaghan said. We were a neutral country before the Triple Lock was introduced. Amending it does not change the fact that we are a neutral country. They do not signal any move towards participation in military alliances, nor would it do anything to expeditionary operations, nor does it diminish our commitment to the United Nations or to multilateralism. On the contrary, we'll continue to regard the principles of the UN Charter as the foundation of our international engagement, and we'll actively support efforts to strengthen and to reform the multilateral system. I've been briefed and I've engaged directly with, on a number of occasions, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations. On our intended approach, our position and our ongoing commitment to the UN is well understood within the UN system, just as our peacekeepers are highly valued and appreciated. The UN does not see that this is Ireland pulling away from the UN. This does not come across, nor do they believe that this is Ireland pulling away, but they understand the need for us to be able to deploy our troops to support the many missions that they themselves feel they cannot support because of the veto. Ireland's reputation as a peace builder, as a contributor to conflict resolution, to peacekeeping, human rights and disarmament, is well established and will continue to guide our approach. The security environment, and I think we've all touched on this, we all can see this, it is different from the previous decades. We are witnessing increased geopolitical tensions, a weakening of established multilateral mechanisms in certain instances, and the emergence of new and complex threats that do not respect national borders. Against that backdrop, it is both prudent and necessary that we ensure our legislative and policy frameworks remain fit for purpose. This includes ensuring that the state has the capacity to respond in a timely and an effective manner to emerging crises, whether they arise from conflict situations, humanitarian emergencies or risks to Irish citizens abroad. The ability to act when required and in line with our values is an essential component of a credible and responsible foreign and defence policy. Our participation in overseas missions, whether it's under the auspice of the United Nations, the European Union or other regional arrangements, has always been grounded in clear legal authority and a principled commitment to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. Nothing in the legislative proposals alters that fundamental position. Rather, what's being proposed is a pragmatic adjustment to ensure that Ireland is not unduly constrained in circumstances where international consensus may be blocked for reasons completely unrelated to the merits of a particular mission. Completely unrelated, and we have seen that. In such situations, it is reasonable that we remain and retain our sovereign capacity to determine our own course of action subject to the appropriate democratic oversight. Our international reputation, as we all agree, has been built over many decades on consistency, independence and a willingness to contribute constructively in support of peace and stability. Our Defence Force personnel are widely respected for their professionalism, for their integrity and dedication in challenging environments, ensuring that we can continue to deploy such personnel where justified and where appropriate is in keeping with that proud tradition. By next year, there will be hundreds of troops that will not be able to participate in a UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon in a way that we have done for decades. This is because of the Triple Act. What we are proposing here is to make sure that we can continue to deploy our troops. I would just touch on one other thing, because some comments have been made in relation to our investment here, investment in defence, investment in security, being a neutral country does not mean that we should not invest in our capabilities to defend ourselves and it also means that we should not be able to engage with other countries so that we are working collectively together. That does not in any way impact on our military neutrality.