By participating in EU battlegroups, we can play our part in responding to emerging crises across the globe, writes Willie O'Dea
Yesterday, at McKee Barracks, I announced the Government's intention to begin talks with like-minded countries on our participation in the EU's rapid response/battlegroup concept.
Like many others, I find the term "battlegroup" unfortunate. It has connotations that some will exploit to raise baseless fears.
Nonetheless, it is the underlying concept we should focus on, not the word itself, which is essentially a technical military term for a rapidly deployable force, usually of battalion size.
The underlying concept is clear. The European Union, in advancing the aims of the United Nations and the UN Charter, must play its part in responding speedily to emerging crises across the globe.
This can be done by providing humanitarian relief and, where required, military support for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The development of the EU battlegroup concept has the full support of the United Nations, with the the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, being one of its firmest and most ardent proponents.
In his address to the forum on Europe in Dublin Castle on October 14th, 2004, Mr Annan specifically stressed how important strengthened EU capacities, in particular rapid deployment, are to the UN.
In his March 2005 report on UN reform, In Larger Freedom, he called on the international community to support the efforts by the European Union, the African Union and others to establish such standby units as part of an interlocking system of peacekeeping capacities.
More recently, all member states of the UN recognised the important contribution to peace and security made by regional organisations in the Outcome document of the World Summit, held in New York in September 2005.
Indeed they specifically endorsed the efforts of the EU to develop capacities "such as for rapid deployment, standby and bridging arrangements" - the kind of tasks intended to be undertaken by battlegroups.
Ireland has been, and remains, a staunch supporter of the charter of the United Nations and of the primacy of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. We take very seriously our obligation under the charter to make armed forces, assistance and facilities, available to the Security Council in order to contribute to international peace support operations.
In the past two decades we have seen some of the worst atrocities in man's history.
The horrendous carnage in Rwanda and at Srebrenica not only appalled and shocked us, it brought home how powerless and ineffective the international community was in the face of such barbarity.
The failure to act was not the failure of the United Nations as an institution. It was the collective failure of civilised nations to act together - rapidly, speedily and effectively in defence of the world's poorest and most vulnerable peoples.
We, in the EU, now have a wide range of instruments at our disposal to support conflict prevention, crisis management and reconstruction. These include political, diplomatic, economic and security means. It is important that we bring all these to bear in a co-ordinated and effective manner.
We have, in the EU battlegroups, the capacity to intervene and to speedily deploy a temporary force into a developing situation and to prevent it from escalating into a catastrophe happening.
The decision to enter into discussions with like-minded nations on participation in a battlegroup was not taken lightly.
All the issues involved, legal, operational and policy have been studied and considered in detail over the past year.
The special interdepartmental group I established to examine these issues reported to me in November last year.
Since then, its report has been considered by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European Affairs and, informally, by the Government.
Our decision to participate may draw criticism from various quarters. Some will see it as a step too far and claim it risks our policy of military neutrality, while others will accuse us of not going far enough and chide us for retaining the "triple-lock" of UN, Government and Dáil approval.
These criticisms are contradictory. It is our adherence to the triple-lock mechanism that expresses our commitment to military neutrality and the United Nations.
There are those who will attack it, not on the basis of what we are doing or the arguments underpinning it. Rather they will try to whip up baseless fears.
Nothing in what we propose constitutes a "European army" in any shape, make or form. It does not herald conscription or the militarisation of the EU.
It certainly imposes no obligations in relation to international or multilateral defence.
The principles of multilateralism, military neutrality and commitment to the United Nations that have existed since we joined the United Nations just over 50 years ago remain as potent and central now as they ever have.
The triple-lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval will continue. Participation of our troops in individual missions will be decided by our own national decision-making process, on a case-by-case basis. A UN mandate will be a pre-requisite for our participation in any battlegroup peace support operation, just as it is now.
Battlegroups are simply another vehicle within which Ireland can continue to play its role and contribute to effective multilateral action in support of international peace and security.
They are one further way of expressing our commitment to the UN and its principles.
Today, the UN is asking us to continue to make the expertise, and commitment of our Defence Forces available to them, including through the EU battlegroups.
Not to do so would be to depart from our traditional policy of full support to the UN.
• Willie O'Dea is Minister for Defence