Once our Army joins an EU battle group, there will be pressure for the triple lock mechanism to be ditched, writes John Gormley.
The decision to send troops into a possible combat zone is never an easy one. In Ireland, because of what is known at the triple lock, any such decision requires the approval of the Government, the Dáil and the Security Council through a UN mandate.
In the Dáil, the Green Party has had to make decisions on whether to send our troops abroad for peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions. It may surprise some readers to know that on each occasion - most recently in relation to Liberia - the Green Party have wholeheartedly supported these missions.
We salute the courage and commitment of our men and women in uniform and acknowledge the tremendous contribution they have made to UN peacekeeping. Ours is not a do nothing, stand idly by position - as some would like to portray it - rather a positive/pro-active one, which is committed to the primacy of the UN and international law.
We disagree profoundly with Fine Gael, which seeks to undo the triple lock by abandoning the requirement for a UN mandate. Such a move would undermine the legitimacy of the UN Security Council, a point made by Gay Mitchell when he criticised the US for embarking on a unilateralist course in the Iraq war.
The battle groups concept represents the first tentative picking of the Triple Lock. It might inspire some confidence if the Government were to agree to enshrine the Triple Lock in the Constitution, but Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has been categoric in his dismissal of this suggestion. Yet the Government are at pains to point out that, for the time being at least, the requirement for a UN mandate is to be retained in legislation. They also argue that Kofi Annan would like greater involvement of regional peacekeepers in UN missions. I don't doubt for a moment that Mr Annan is grateful for any assistance to the UN. However, he cannot be pleased about the prospect of the EU embarking on missions without a UN mandate. When this point was put directly to Mr Annan at a gathering in Dublin at the Forum on Europe, he remained tight-lipped.
It is clear that Ireland will be a member of a battle group with partners who do not require a UN mandate. Would it not be viewed as more than a little inconvenient if Ireland were to opt out of a mission because they had not secured a UN mandate? Realistically, how long can such a situation pertain? Surely there is mounting pressure within the country and from some of our EU partners to ditch the triple lock.
Can those who advocate this move still seriously argue that this will have no effect on our "neutrality"? You will note my use of inverted commas. I have argued previously in these pages that Ireland should no longer be described as neutral but rather as non-aligned. In the same way as our potential battle group partners the Swedes describe themselves. Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea and his Government colleagues would have us believe that Ireland can sign EU treaty after treaty with their increasing defence commitments and remain as neutral as we ever were. They have a credibility problem.
These are the same people who in opposition warned about the consequences of joining Nato's Partnership for Peace and demanded a referendum on the issue, only to forget about this commitment once in government. They're also the same people who told us that handing over Shannon to the US for the war in Iraq was perfectly compatible with traditional neutrality.
They now tell us that the participation of Irish troops in EU battle groups could have prevented the tragedy of Srebrenica. Invoking this massacre to justify the formation of battle groups amounts to nothing more than emotional blackmail. Even a cursory examination of the argument reveals that it is also completely without substance. The UN force at Srebrenica had a full peace enforcement mandate. Would a battle group consisting of a French general, who inexplicably failed to call in close air support, and Dutch troops, who behaved in a reprehensible fashion, have fared any better?
Mr O'Dea has stated on a number of occasions that he dislikes the term "battle groups". His preference for a word like "peace group" confirms those Orwellian observations about how language could be twisted to suit political purposes.
As much as Mr O'Dea would like to downplay its significance, joining the battle groups is a significant change in Irish foreign and defence policy.
Many valuable suggestions for the reform of the UN Security Council have been made, and rather than undermine or abandon the UN, these reforms should be supported.
If our Government is serious about its commitment to the triple lock then it should put it to the people in a referendum. I am certain, given our proud UN peacekeeping history, that such an amendment to the Constitution would receive an overwhelming endorsement.
Not to enshrine the triple lock in the Constitution indicates that in the future an Irish government will try to dispose of the requirement for a UN mandate.
John Gormley TD is chairman of the Green Party and spokesperson for defence and foreign affairs