Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FG condemns UN 'veto' on Defence Forces

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FG condemns UN 'veto' on Defence Forces

    The Irish Times

    http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ire...8DATROOPS.html

    Ireland Fri, Nov 26, 04

    FG condemns UN 'veto' on Defence Forces
    Marie O'Halloran

    Allowing other countries to exercise a veto over Ireland's Defence Forces was "deeply unwise" and "grossly unsatisfactory" for a sovereign nation, the Dáil was told as it approved a motion to deploy 42 troops to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    Fine Gael's defence spokesman, Mr Billy Timmins, said: "We should have the maturity and confidence in our own foreign policy to be able to make a decision to participate in peacekeeping operations, based on the merits of whether we believe that we should be involved, not be held to ransom by other countries".

    He was speaking during a 45-minute debate on the deployment of troops to join EUfor, the EU's biggest peacekeeping operation, which will be led by Finland.

    Twelve Defence Forces personnel are already in the Balkan state, and more may be deployed at a later date.

    The new EU-led peacekeeping mission will take over from Sfor, a NATO-led mission, which was deployed to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Agreement and provide a secure environment, approved by the UN.

    The motion was introduced by the Minister of State for Defence, Mr Tom Kitt, who said Irish personnel would be attached to headquarters, the military police unit, verification teams and a national support element. Ireland's involvement would cost the State €3.458 million.

    Mr Kitt said the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina was described as "stable" and local attitudes to the mission ranged from "neutral to positive", although he warned that the transfer phase from Sfor to EUfor could be used by some elements to cause trouble.

    Mr Timmins criticised the "triple-lock" mechanism under which UN Security Council approval is required along with a decision by the Government and the Dáil for the deployment of troops.

    He said the UN Security Council veto by any of the five permanent members could prevent Irish Defence Forces personnel participating in peacekeeping missions.

    Mr Timmins said there seemed to be an inherent contradiction in some sections of Irish society that "we're very quick to condemn American foreign policy on many issues and yet here we are allowing US foreign policy to dictate that our foreign policy can be subject to the veto".

    However, Labour's defence spokesman, Mr Jack Wall, said the problem was not with the triple-lock system but with the manner in which the UN Security Council functioned.

    "If it is to continue to have legitimacy, its composition must be more broadly representative," he said.

    Mr Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF, Dublin South Central) said that there would be no refund to Ireland from the EU mission, compared to partial refunds from UN operations.

    These new military alliances of Sfor and EUfor represented the failure of the UN, which should be reformed so that the "outsourcing" of peacekeeping operations to regional alliances such as the EU rapid reaction force would end.

    The progressive undermining of the UN had led to unilateral actions like Iraq.

    Mr Finian McGrath (Ind, Dublin North Central) also backed the triple lock but he was concerned about the contradiction of the Government saying it was fully committed to the UN and its policy of neutrality but at the same time supporting EU crisis missions.

    The Green Party chairman, Mr John Gormley, said his party would prefer a UN-led mission.

    "However, listening to Kofi Annan's recent speech, it is quite clear that he is now at the beck and call of the most powerful power blocs, and an exclusively UN force would appear to be a thing of the past," he said.

    © The Irish Times

  • #2
    What a difference being in power makes.

    Coveney rejects call for abandonment of Ireland’s neutrality policy
    Leading academic says the state should not rely on the UN Security Council to judge when to deploy Irish troops


    Minister for Defence Simon Coveney has rejected a call by a leading Irish academic for Ireland to abandon its traditional policy on military neutrality. File Photograph: Alan Betson/The Irish Times
    Barry Roche


    First published:
    Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 10:21

    Minister for Defence Simon Coveney has rejected a call by a leading Irish academic for Ireland to abandon its traditional policy on military neutrality.
    The academic also called for the current Triple Lock policy to be replaced with a Double Lock Policy.
    Mr Coveney said he could understand why Professor Brigid Laffan had argued for the removal of the Triple Lock whereby Ireland required a UN mandate as well as the approval of the Dáil and Cabinet to send Irish troops on peace keeping missions but he did not agree with it.
    “I can understand why Prof Laffan would be saying that because the UN Security Council now has become a very difficult place to make decisions because of the tensions between Russia and the EU and the United States and obviously, China has interests there too” he said.
    “Having say that, I think the Triple Lock is something that Irish people hold quite dear- we send troops abroad on the back of the UN mandate or a UN mission and that has given us credibility with the Irish people in terms of the maintenance of our neutrality.
    “It has also given us reassurance that we don’t send troops abroad lightly and that it is part of a UN effort so before we would change that it, would need a lot of debate and I think we would need a lot of open debate in the Dáil.
    “I don’t think the government is likely to decide to change that policy or position without a pretty comprehensive debate first. It’s not something that’s on the agenda at the moment to be honest but I can understand why Prof Laffan would say it.”
    Prof Laffan urged the government to change the current Triple Lock policy as it meant that someone such as Vladimir Putin could effectively hold a veto over where Irish troops could be deployed if the government was depending on UN sanction for a mission.
    Speaking two weeks ago at the Daniel O’Connell Summer School in Cahersiveen, Co Kerry on the theme Ireland and Europe, Prof Laffan called for debate on the issue which she said needed to be addressed by the government.
    “We in Ireland have a deep love for the UN and it’s a very important institution in the world but it is deeply flawed in its ability to maintain peace and security in the world. Why should we, as a country, give Putin’s Russia a veto over the deployment of Irish troops,” she said.
    “Why do not we trust our own Government and our parliament to decide where and when Irish security forces are deployed? Why should we rely on the UN Security Council to judge where it is just and right and positive to deploy Irish forces .
    “I do think the parliament and not just the Government, should always sanction the deployment of Irish troops but by including a reference to the UN Security Council, Ireland is effectively giving Putin’s Russia and China’s Xi Jinping a say in the deployment of our troops.”

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...licy-1.1926737
    "Fellow-soldiers of the Irish Republican Army, I have just received a communication from Commandant Pearse calling on us to surrender and you will agree with me that this is the hardest task we have been called upon to perform during this eventful week, but we came into this fight for Irish Independence in obedience to the commands of our higher officers and now in obedience to their wishes we must surrender. I know you would, like myself, prefer to be with our comrades who have already fallen in the fight - we, too, should rather die in this glorious struggle than submit to the enemy." Volunteer Captain Patrick Holahan to 58 of his men at North Brunswick Street, the last group of the Four Courts Garrison to surrender, Sunday 30 April 1916.

    Comment


    • #3
      Isn't that the opposite of the Party policy on neutrality?
      German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
      German 2: Private? I am a general!
      German 1: That is the bad news.

      Comment


      • #4
        read closely, Coveney not saying that it won't be changed, merely that it won't be changed without a debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          Debate = listening to every nut job with an axe to grind.
          'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
          'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
          Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
          He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
          http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

          Comment


          • #6
            I could be wrong but during the boom FG suggested getting rid of UN mandate requirement (think it was after not being able to deploy to Macedonia

            Comment


            • #7
              Giving the power of Veto on deployment of the Irish Nations Defence Forces to the Security Council is just crazy. Why not just ask the Cabinet to ask China, Russia, France, the UK and USA to approve all decisions made - even better, send an officer from each to the Curragh with the power to over-ride the entire CoC and countermand any decisions that any of them don't like.
              'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
              'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
              Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
              He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
              http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                I could be wrong but during the boom FG suggested getting rid of UN mandate requirement (think it was after not being able to deploy to Macedonia
                The problem is with their partners in government.
                German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                German 2: Private? I am a general!
                German 1: That is the bad news.

                Comment

                Working...
                X