Government can't replace triple lock with vague criteria for deploying our troops
The process has hardly been rushed. The fact that the draft law has technical provisions covering arrangements for pre-1993 and Reserve Force members shows the department and Defence Forces have thought through the consequences of the changes.
What is far less clear is the political thinking behind it. Two years after Taoiseach Micheál Martin's 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, there is little sign of any big political analysis in what will be a fundamental shift in how we decide peacekeeping and military engagement.
The push to reform the triple lock — which requires Government and Dáil approval, plus a UN mandate before deploying more than 12 Defence Forces personnel overseas — rests on the reality that the UN Security Council has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014.
Retaining legislation that does not recognise this stark fact of UN politics is empty symbolism. While the 'Triple Lock' phrase is a recent construct, the law that underpins it is the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960. It enshrined the core principle of a UN mandate. As did its later updates in 1993 and 2006, each update taking account of evolving circumstances.
Introducing the 1960 Act in the Dáil, An Taoiseach Seán Lemass said, '…it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations.' While the language may be a tad outdated, it describes a principled stance, grounded in national interest. One that still applies.
Vague criteria
I do not believe this government wants to abandon multilateralism. But the text it has produced suggests that neither an Taoiseach nor Tánaiste have given proper political thought to the impact of removing direct references to UN authority from our law. Citing Russia vetoes may make a good put-down in a terse discussion, but policy making by punchline is not good government.
The criteria that replace the third element of the triple lock are vague. Head 6 cites 'principles of the United Nations Charter' and 'conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' Both are honourable principles but the heads of bill, as drafted, would effectively leave it to the government of the day to decide if the criteria were met.
There is no reference to specific UN or OSCE resolutions. There is no requirement that missions be mandated by such resolutions. In effect, the opinion of the government of the day would replace a specific UN mandate.
Removing the UN mandate requirement without robust, transparent criteria is a mistake. It risks eroding public trust in the legitimacy of and integrity of the process of sending troops on overseas missions.
The public does not distinguish between peace support deployments to Lebanon or Congo, which were both UN-led, or to Kosovo or Bosnia which were Nato-led, or to Chad, which was EU-led. Regardless of who leads or runs a mission, the public views them all as UN-mandated missions. Peacekeeping deployments that were all in pursuance of UN resolutions.
These missions also had widescale cross-party Dáil support. Replacing an explicit multilateral mandate with a politically subjective text risks politicising the process. We do not want future deployments decided by tight Dáil votes, where partisan, government versus opposition, considerations dominate. This would undermine public confidence. We should not squander such a valuable trust.
Solution
I understand what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is doing it the wrong way. Meanwhile, the total Opposition approach from across the Dáil floor, is just as flawed.
Cross-party consensus is the way forward. And despite the rhetoric, it is within our grasp. We can create a new law that addresses current realities without undermining public support for future deployments.
Instead of pushing through its proposals as outlined, the Government should invite Opposition amendments that clarify deployment criteria. Criteria and tests that better express our commitment to multilateralism.
In return, the Opposition must accept that the 1960 Act needs reform and draft criteria that both recognise that the UN Security Council has not established a new mission since 2014 and reaffirm our national commitment to multilateralism. Playing party politics with this reform risks politicising future deployments.
We spend too little political time discussing national defence and security. Wouldn't it be better to use what time we do make available, to addressing our massive defence shortfalls, especially as our Air Corps and Naval service struggle today to offer even the barest cover?
We need a Defence Forces capable of meeting Ireland's obligations at home and also abroad. We need a principled multilateral framework for overseas deployments that commands public trust. That is the challenge facing us.
With political direction and leadership from across the Dáil, we can have both.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Post
4 hours ago
- Business Post
Apple lobbied Irish government on landmark EU regulation weeks before €500m fine
• What Apple said to Irish ministers ahead of its €500m Digital Markets Act fine — and how they responded • Details of Apple's private warnings over EU regulation and US tariffs
Irish Independent
4 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Indian Independence Day celebrated at the home of Sligo Rovers as its local community marks special bond with the club
It is the voice of former club President and native of India, the late Johnny Chadda which echoes around the ground as the teams take to the field of play at every home game in The Showgrounds. While an event to celebrate the occasion was cancelled in Dublin as a result of a number of assaults on members of the Indian community in the capital, the Sligo gathering went ahead with a strong message from all present focusing on the importance of inclusion and diversity. One of the event organisers, Nicholas Paul, spoke of the events leading to Indian independence, drawing parallels between his nation's struggle and those faced by the Irish in the 1920s around the time of the War of Independence. "Today is a wonderful reminder that we share a common past and future.' He said this shared future revolves around 'love, respect and working together.' The Indian national song was sung by Srikan Dawn followed by the raising of the Indian Flag while the Indian National Anthem was also played to celebrate the occasion. Cllr Donal Gilroy, Cathaoirleach Sligo County Council thanked the Indian community for the invitation saying the impact of former club president, chairman and treasurer, the late Johnny Chadda on Sligo Rovers and the Sligo community meant The Showgrounds was a fitting place for the ceremony to be held. "The Indian community has been one of our most active community groups. Your contribution to Sligo life has been significant and meaningful.' Cllr Gilroy also referred to the difficulties experienced by the Indian community in Ireland in recent weeks saying, 'We are here to show the people of Sligo are welcoming to communities, especially the Indian community, who come here to work and be part of our community.' Those sentiments were echoed by Sligo Rovers CEO Andrew Feakins who remarked, 'The Indian community and Sligo Rovers have a longstanding, historical relationship that has gone back many years, particularly relating to Johnny Chadda who was an icon of the club and it is wonderful once a year to celebrate the independence of India and not to forget the struggles, the challenges, that have taken place for that community and the Irish community in their history of struggles against the oppression of the British empire. "The rise of the voices that project hate and division should be drowned out by our solidarity in community, solidarity in diversity and inclusion of all ethnicities not just throughout Ireland but throughout the world.' ADVERTISEMENT The recent attacks on a number of Indian individuals in the Dublin area was strongly condemned by President Michael D Higgins. 'The recent despicable attacks on members of the Indian community stand in stark contradiction to the values that we as a people hold dear. That any person in Ireland, particularly any young person, should be drawn into such behaviour through manipulation or provocation is to be unequivocally condemned." To mark the strong links between the local Indian community and the county, forged by former Summerhill teacher Mr Chadda, a cheque was presented to the Sligo Rovers CEO by Anirban Bhanja, President of the Indian Association of Sligo. This was described as, 'A token of appreciation for the decades long, deeply rooted relationship between the club and the Indian community in Sligo. This gesture reflects our enduring bond and shared history with the local community.' Inspector Angela Cummins also addressed the assembled audience to highlight the contribution of the Indian community adding these links can be further strengthened. 'We enjoy very rich collaborations that grow from strength to strength every year. In every walk of life you are welcome." And, with a reference to the ongoing Garda recruitment campaigns, she added, 'Please come to us if there are any issues. We would love members from all our diverse communities to join An Garda Siochana because we represent you all.' The message of solidarity towards the Indian Community was also highlighted by Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Jim O'Callaghan following a meeting he held with Ireland India Council and the Federation of Indian Communities in Ireland, to discuss recent racist attacks on members of the Indian community. 'Any attack against innocent members of the public such as those suffered by members of the Indian community are totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Attacks on individuals because of their inherent characteristics including race are abhorrent to the values of our republic and are condemned by any right-thinking people,' stated Minister O'Callaghan.
RTÉ News
5 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Academic row over 'temperature neutrality' vs 'climate neutrality'
Ireland's national climate objective is set out in the 2015 Climate Act. It is to "pursue and achieve" and make the transition to "a climate resilient, biodiversity rich, environmentally sustainable and climate neutral economy" by the year 2050. There are massive commitments packed into that single sentence, yet it is not really clear what precisely it means. Ireland's climate scientists are now fighting over that issue. The first bit is OK - climate resilience. We are going to have intense rain, more frequent and violent storms, bigger droughts and greater heat stress. Resilience means preparing to live with that. The biodiversity bit is OK too. Protecting nature is not hard to understand and most people would sign up for that. The third term – "environmentally sustainable". Some people think "sustainability" on its own is a bit of a wishy-washy term. But environmental sustainability is now commonly understood. Committees have been set up to focus on it in workplaces and communities all over the country. But that last phrase in the national climate objective, the commitment to a "climate neutral economy". That is a different ball game altogether. There is no agreement about what this entails, and a big academic row has now broken out among climate scientists about it. They are at loggerheads over what exactly climate neutrality is and how it should be measured. On one side is the Climate Change Advisory Council. This is the independent statutory body of climate experts that advises the Government about climate matters. It is their job to set Ireland's so-called "carbon budgets". This involves calculating how much cumulative greenhouse gas emissions need to be restricted to, every five years, if the country is to stay within its legally binding climate commitments. A huge amount of data and information, and some very important judgement calls, are needed for their calculations. The data and information parts are complicated but straightforward enough. Judgement calls however, are never straight forward and can be very controversial, as they are in this case. This week, a group of climate scientists took a major swipe at a most important judgement call recently made by the Climate Change Advisory Council when setting Ireland's carbon budget for the years 2031 to 2035. They accused the council of choosing to define climate neutrality in a way that confers a competitive advantage on Irish agriculture. Their complaint, which is a serious one, is that the Government's key climate advisers are choosing now, for the first time, to substitute "temperature neutrality" for "climate neutrality" when calculating Ireland's carbon budget. It means the Climate Change Advisory Council has told the Government it is OK to only ensure that by 2050 Ireland causes no additional warming to the earth's atmosphere. This is not the same as delivering "net zero" emissions from Ireland by 2050 which is much harder to achieve. The "net zero" approach puts the key emphasis on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. It requires, among other things, enormous changes in farming practices, forestry and land use to ensure that absolutely all greenhouse gases still coming out of Ireland by 2050 are re-absorb by natural processes here. Of course, the alternative "temperature neutrality" approach, now favoured by the Climate Change Advisory Council, aims to do everything possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the difference with this approach is that the ultimate emphasis is to ensure the contribution Ireland is making to rising global temperatures is zero by 2050. The council explained that it considered multiple definitions of what climate neutrality means before deciding that, for Ireland in particular, it had to mean ensuring temperature neutrality. It also explained that in making this judgement call, it reflected on the national climate objective and was guided by the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It said the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal - which is to limit global warming to well below 2C and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5˚C - was also key in its deliberations. Ireland produces nine times more beef and dairy output than it consumes. Because of this it has an unusual greenhouse gas emissions profile, with a far higher share of methane emissions than most other countries. New Zealand is similar. But there are not many other places in the developed world where agriculture is so dominant. Methane from agriculture is an enormously potent greenhouse gas. It is capable of trapping about 85 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a short time frame. After about 10 years however, methane dissipates. It breaks down and disappears from the atmosphere. So, its impact on global temperature ceases in a few short years while the warming effect of carbon dioxide carries on for several hundred years. All this means that a country with a huge agriculture sector can have an outsized impact in terms of limiting global warming by doing a relatively small amount of methane reduction. It gives it more wriggle room if the main aim is to eliminate a nation's contribution to rising global temperature. In some circumstances it could even enable a country to ease up on carbon emission efforts in sectors outside of agriculture and still ensure a lower contribution to the global warming potential of its national greenhouse gas mix. It turns out that this is precisely the impact the Climate Change Advisory Council's adaptation of the temperature neutrality target has for Ireland. The council itself has gone to some length to explain and document this impact. It calculated that aiming for temperature neutrality instead of net zero emissions will enable Ireland to emit an additional nine million tonnes of greenhouse gases during the first five years of the next decade. It also said it is entirely up to the Government to decide which sectors of the economy can share in that additional climate mitigation wriggle room, and by how much. Its carbon budget proposal document says all this will be fine "provided the rest of the world follows an emissions pathway that can be considered compliant with the Paris Agreement long term temperature goals". In essence what they are saying is that since most countries in the world do not have as large an agriculture sector as Ireland, or New Zealand, they are unlikely to choose the same temperature neutrality approach. That is because there is no advantage for them in doing so. And if that remains the case then all will be well. It is an approach that has startled the critics who have specifically highlighted the polar opposite argument – that it would be a disaster if every country followed Ireland and adopted temperature neutrality as their climate target. The dissenters insist it would seriously jeopardise the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5˚C. These criticisms are outlined in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, by Dr Colm Duffy and David Styles of University of Galway, Dr Róisín Moriarty and Professor Hannah Daly of University College Cork, and Carl Doedens and Malte Meinshausen of the University of Melbourne. They claim that Ireland's approach rewards modest cuts in methane emissions and serves to protect what they describe as "methane emissions privileges" at the expense of poorer nations. In doing so, they say it locks in current inequalities in the global food system. Their paper highlights that, by enabling Ireland to maintain a high share of global agriculture emissions, adopting the temperature neutrality target undermines the global transition to a sustainable and equitable food system. They note too that it dramatically reduces the level of ambition needed for overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Many might argue that the additional wriggle room it provides of nine million tonnes of emissions for Ireland spread out over a nine-year period does not sound particularly dramatic. However, if lots of countries were to benefit from the same approach the impact could become dramatic very quickly.
