4. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the consultation he has had with rank and file members of the Defence Forces in relation to the potential changes to their terms and conditions in the general dcheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025, which has recently concluded pre legislative scrutiny, particularly in the context of potentially more dangerous operational parameters of non-UN sanctioned missions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49295/25]
Sentiment score: -0.09
The general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025 represents a fundamental change to how we deploy troops overseas. For the many decades that Ireland has been participating in peacekeeping it has been under the exclusive banner of the UN. When people sign up for the Defence Forces, it is with a reasonable expectation that overseas service will be in a blue beret. Has the Minister consulted with rank and file members of the Defence Forces on this fundamental change to their terms and conditions?
Sentiment score: 0.21
I notice that the Tánaiste did not use the words "General Assembly" when he was describing how broken the triple lock is, so I do think we are still ignoring the fact that there is a facility within the triple lock to actually consult with the General Assembly. I would also point out that all previous Acts refer to this international United Nations force, not an international force. It is defined as, "an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations." It is to be replaced with an international force that can be under the banner of any international body. From peacekeeping that is guaranteed to be peacekeeping by the UN consistent with the UN Charter, we face a pivot to opening the door to missions of a lower quality and different nature that are branded as peacekeeping or strengthening international security under this legislation. I do not believe that what the Tánaiste has described is an effective level of consultation with the very men and women who are putting their lives on the line to discuss how the context in which they do that will be changed.
Sentiment score: 0.33
No one is denying the difficulties of the Security Council but the Tánaiste has given no effort to actually describe how the General Assembly could be engaged to fall back. It is in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. It is part of the triple lock and the Tánaiste is completely ignoring it. Constantly referencing other countries denies our history. It denies the Nice and Lisbon treaties and how we arrived at the point of the triple lock. Beside that, our association with UN mandates was way before then anyway. One cannot compare it to other countries like that. We can say that something is consistent with the UN Charter until we are blue in the face but the charter is clear around the use of force without consent and the backing of the United Nations. Everyone claims to go to war for peace, love, security and human rights but we have seen in the last 25 years how hollow those words can be. UN backing guarantees that peacekeeping missions are of high quality and that the operational parameters do not do more harm than good. We cannot send young men and women abroad into conflict zones with no blue beret and with no safeguard beyond what the Government of any given day thinks is a good idea.
Sentiment score: 0.14