Tonight when the clock strikes midnight, the Dáil will vote on a very important piece of legislation. The Defence Amendment Bill 2006, which represents a fundamental departure in Irish defence policy, will pass all stages in a period of about three hours, writes John Gormley.
You will hear very little discussion about this legislation - which is necessary for membership of an EU battlegroup - in the media, and that's the way the establishment parties would like to keep it. Fianna Fáil, in particular, knows that many of its core supporters still cherish the notion of Irish neutrality and our commitment to the United Nations.
Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea's legislation will mean that another core element of Irish neutrality, the triple lock, will be so diluted as to make it meaningless. The triple lock, which is unique to Ireland in the European Union, is so called because three stages of approval are required before our troops can be despatched on peacekeeping or peacemaking duties: a UN mandate is needed followed by Government and Dáil approval. Each time such a mission has come before the Dáil for sanction in the last decade, the Green Party has voted in favour.
We salute the courage and commitment of our men and women in uniform. The outstanding record of our blue-helmeted peacekeepers has been acknowledged worldwide.
So why change that now? The answer is straightforward: our current legislation is incompatible with our new battlegroup commitments.
When I wrote on this subject in The Irish Times last February, I stated that any decision to join a battlegroup would necessitate a fundamental change in the triple lock. I had expected this to happen gradually over a period of years. Little did I know at that stage that plans were being hatched to rush the new legislation through the Dáil in the final days of this session.
Not that the Minister is too concerned about what I, as the Green Party defence spokesperson, thinks on the matter. When I predicted that we would join a battlegroup, Mr O'Dea denied that the Government had any intention in this regard. When eventually he did announce that we were joining he was adamant that the triple lock would remain intact - another falsehood, as even a cursory reading of the new Bill will reveal.
Section 1 of the Bill changes the definition of "International United Nations Force". Not only can such a force now be "established, mandated, authorised", but also "endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations".
This "anything goes" clause gives the Government plenty of room for manoeuvre when it comes to the interpretation of UN resolutions, which, like scripture, can be quoted by unscrupulous politicians for their own purposes.
One only has to think back to George Bush's and Tony Blair's interpretation of the UN resolution on Iraq which they argued gave them the go-ahead for the invasion of Iraq because the resolution stated that failure to comply would result in "serious consequences".
Section 3 of the Bill lists a series of appointments, duties, missions, and tasks which will no longer require any Dáil approval or a UN mandate. On first reading, many of these activities such as participating in sporting events, inspecting stores or equipment or undertaking visits would seem pretty innocuous. But there are others that deserve scrutiny.
Even "undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency" seems reasonable. How could anyone object to troops saving people caught up in a natural disaster? Again, the problem is one of interpretation.
When one reads that Javier Solana, the EU High Commissioner, regarded the bombing of Yugoslavia as a "humanitarian mission" or that former US general Alexander Haig was critical of the Clinton administration for using the tag "humanitarian mission" as an excuse for sending US troops to Somalia, where many of them died, then one quickly realises that it's not that simple.
An amendment of this section is required which would ensure that if members of the Defence Forces are placed in any danger, the approval of the Dáil is required.
Section 8 is what I call an Irish solution to an Irish problem. If other members of the battlegroup are heading off on a mission that does not have a UN mandate what do we do? Well, the Government's solution is that we go along too and wait for authorisation, which, as we've seen from Section One, could be a general resolution from the Security Council or General Assembly. While waiting for this resolution, our soldiers could easily find themselves in the line of fire.
How should they respond? If they defend themselves, which is their right, they quickly find themselves in a battle without a UN mandate.
Space limitations do not permit me to go into other problematic aspects of this Bill, but it should be clear from the above examples that railroading it through the Dáil is not the wisest approach.
It is astounding to think that the Seanad could not find sufficient speakers to discuss the Bill, and it is this apparent lack of interest in the Upper House which the Minister is now using to justify his use of the guillotine in the Dáil .
Perhaps Senators were persuaded to cut short their own debate by the Minister's argument that genocide in Srebrenica and Rwanda could have been avoided had an EU battlegroup been in place. Using these tragedies to support the abandonment of the triple lock is not only reprehensible, but also has no real basis in historical fact.
Srebrenica was protected by a Dutch contingent, who had a full UN peace enforcement mandate. Their lack of discipline and disgraceful behaviour has been well documented, as has the inexplicable decision of the French General Janvier not to call in close air support until it was too late. It was the French too who played a major role in Rwanda. Far from protecting the Tutsis, French troops trained the Hutus, who later put these techniques to use during the genocide which followed. The French have been one of the main promoters of the Rapid Reaction Force, the battlegroups and the European Arms Agency, which incidentally was never debated in the Dáil.
Mr O'Dea now suggests that by throwing our lot in with these former colonial powers we can make the world a better place. And so, once this Bill is passed, our troops can head off to Northwood outside London, where the operational headquarters of the Nordic Battlegroups we are proposing to join are located, to train with the British and others.
At midnight the triple lock, as we know it, will be no more and it will happen with the support of Fine Gael and Labour.
John Gormley TD is chairman of the Green Party and spokesman on defence