What is wrong with the triple lock?

Sir, – It is the Government’s intention to “alter” Ireland’s triple lock (requirement for Government and Dáil approval and a UN mandate for Irish troops to be sent abroad) by removing the need for a UN mandate. Even the Green Party is now calling for a more “flexible” triple lock. The Government says the deployment of our troops should not be subject to UN Security Council vetoes, despite the fact that the only example ever given is once over 20 years ago when China vetoed a mission to Macedonia. The Department of Foreign Affairs website boasts that Ireland’s proud UN peacekeeping has been ongoing since 1958, longer than any other country.

The EU has been rapidly developing its own military dimension, including a new 5,000-strong rapid deployment capacity of land, maritime and air forces which is to be fully operational by 2025. This new rapid reaction force will respond to crises outside the EU. Ireland was one of the 14 states that proposed this force. There are already smaller EU battlegroups which Ireland has joined. However, these battlegroups have never been deployed, partly because of the need for unanimity.

The question for the Government is this: why is the switch from a UN mandate, where five countries can veto missions, to an EU mandate, where 27 countries can veto missions because of the unanimity rule, better for Ireland? Or, as Micheál Martin last month said, is Ireland now “very open” to shifting away from the veto on some EU foreign policy and defence issues? The EU treaties allow the EU to carry out Petersberg Tasks, including “tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking”, ie enforcement. In the upcoming months the Government must clearly explain why the triple lock is no longer “fit for purpose”. What is the new “purpose” for our Defence Forces that UN mandates no longer suit? – Yours, etc,

CAROL FOX,