Umstrittene Schweizer Sicherheitspolitik ... - ETH Zürich

Rory Montgomery
Montgomery Rory: It is possible to argue that security is indivisible
and that every failed state has consequences which can, through a sort of
domino effect, have an impact on the domestic situation. However, I do
not think that the Irish public necessarily sees that. On an island at the
Western corner of Europe, it is difficult to argue that what happens in
Chad or Sudan – or, for that matter, in Kosovo – has a direct impact on
that island. I think that the political and public support for these operations
has more to do with a general sense that it is morally right for us to
meet humanitarian needs and to play our part in managing and resolving
crises. Maybe there is a general awareness that, as a small country particularly
open to the world in economic terms, we have a lot to benefit from
in a stable international environment. Even if the particular operations
we take part in do not have a very clear link to Ireland, it is appropriate
for us to make a contribution, though it may be only a small one.
Compared to what is being spent on the Armed Forces, we do not
spend that much money for deploying troops abroad. Deploying troops
abroad is in general not a huge drain on resources – this holds particularly
true for UN missions, where many costs are refunded – although at the
moment we are obviously looking at every Euro. As I said earlier, in the
whole period 85 personnel have died, a few by their own hand, but there
has only been one big disaster in peacekeeping. It occurred very early on,
in the early 1960s in the Congo, where there was an ambush in which a
dozen soldiers were killed. If our missions were to be more dangerous,
and if the costs in life were greater, you might well find a degree of public
opposition or resistance. Therefore, risk assessment is very important
when it comes to deciding in which missions, and how, to take part. Even
though in Liberia and in Chad we are taking part in something which is
certainly more than conventional peacekeeping, there has been no political
or other interest in extending our contribution in Afghanistan beyond
the seven personnel we have there as headquarters staff.
In brief: there is undoubtedly public support. It is strong in principle,
but only so long as the costs – both financial and human – are not too
great. So far, I think we have managed to strike a balance.
649