In the Seanad on June 27th 2006, on the 2nd Stage of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006, I said:

I welcome the Bill as a committed supporter of the continuing role of our Defence Forces in contributing to world peace and stability through international peacekeeping operations. I have two reasons for my support. The first is the good it does for the benefit of mankind in general. One of the greatest achievements of the United Nations has been its peacekeeping operations, even though they have not always been successful or without controversy. I pay tribute to the former Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson, who created this concept in the 1950s.

Ireland has made many friends worldwide through its contribution to peacekeeping operations in many troubled areas. These activities reflect exactly the image we want to put across of this country ? that we are peace loving people who can be friends with anybody. I recall going to Baldonnell airport in 1961 with my then fiancé to watch the first Irish troops depart for the Congo. We had such regard for those troops because they were acting on an international basis and they raised the status of the Army, which has remained high since.

The other reason I support peacekeeping operations is more local and selfish. Foreign involvement is very good for the Defence Forces. The State must have an Army but the prospect of it being required to defend us against an external attack is minuscule. While this is good, it provides a problem of motivation and morale for those of our citizens who choose to make a career in the Defence Forces. Without foreign involvement, there is a danger they will begin to regard themselves as being akin to a spare wheel on a car that never gets used. This is why this issue is so important.

Ireland?s foreign involvements provide the Defence Forces with an additional reason for their existence. In one sense, it is more important than its primary purpose, because in this case, it is actually used. This provides the Defence Forces with an opportunity to raise their professional standards and to use their training and skills in a real-life, live situation. I am certain that entirely restricting the Defence Forces to national duties, would have prevented them from recruiting many of the fine people who serve in their ranks today.

Despite what is stated in the explanatory memorandum, the real reason for this Bill concerns the issue of Irish participation in the proposed EU battle groups. It is intended to establish beyond any doubt a legal basis for Ireland?s participation in those groups. As such, I have no general problem with it, provided Members can believe the repeated assurances by the Government on the nature of these groups and on Ireland?s participation in them.

If Members can rely on those assurances, they have no cause for concern. The Government has assured the House that any missions which include Irish participation will be used exclusively for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes. While the present Minister has given this assurance, I am concerned that a different Minister or Government in the future may have a different view. The Government also assures Members that the so-called triple lock will still apply. In other words, any proposed action will require the approval of the United Nations, the Government and the Dáil. The case of Macedonia demonstrated that if someone in Manhattan was able to prevent Ireland from carrying out work which was required in Europe, it is time to reconsider the triple lock.

Furthermore, the Minister stated that any involvement will be considered strictly on a case by case basis. Ireland?s membership will not involve giving anyone outside the country a blank cheque as to how and when the Defence Forces will be used overseas. While I do not want to question the sincerity of such assurances, I must confess to a reservation regarding this issue. My concern arises because of the striking difference between the manner in which battle groups are talked about in Ireland and the manner in which they are discussed in other parts of Europe which lack Ireland?s sensitivities regarding military neutrality.

Undoubtedly, many people across Europe seek something which goes well beyond an involvement in peacekeeping and humanitarian activities. Many powerful people in Europe today envisage the future of the European Union as a fully-fledged military power, with all available tools to throw its weight around as it pleases in international disputes that arise anywhere in the world. Those who take this view believe that for as long as the EU lacks military capability, it is merely playing at the business of being an effective influence in world affairs.

For such people, battle groups are the thin end of the wedge. They envisage their evolution, perhaps very quickly, into a fully-fledged military force that will not be restricted to peacekeeping and humanitarian activities, but which will be capable of doing anything a military force is equipped to do. In other words, they will be capable of waging war.

For example, I will remind the House of a frightening statement made in March 2005 by the Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. When asked to respond to the frequently made claim that the EU?s battle groups would never go to war, Mr. Scheffer stated: ?I don?t believe that?s true. Why is the EU creating battlegroups? It is not just to rebuild a country. The battlegroups are not for rebuilding schools.? The Secretary General also stated his belief that the EU was developing into a military power. He stated: ?[T]o keep the peace, combat may be necessary. If the EU creates battlegroups and NATO a rapid-reaction force, we shouldn?t think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power.?

This kind of statement puts the Government?s assurances into their proper context. It illustrates clearly why Ireland must be eternally vigilant that the foreign involvements of its Defence Forces do not become a slippery slope that, willy-nilly, brings it to an unintended and undesirable point.

The provisions of the Bill give reasonably adequate safeguards to ensure that such a situation will not suddenly be sprung on Ireland. Surely however, common sense dictates that Members must be careful to exercise constraint and unremitting vigilance on this critical matter. While I believe the legislation to be well thought-out, I wish to ensure that care will be taken and that the Bill will not be rushed through without being given serious consideration.