Defence Forces Review 2008

Defence Forces Review 2008
Fifty years after the Irish Defence Forces’ first foray into the arena of peacekeeping the
landscape of international conflict management has evolved considerably. An analysis of the
current situation is worthy therefore, not just because of an auspicious landmark anniversary
for Irish peacekeeping, but because it is important to understand the environment which
provides a central plank of Irish Foreign and Defence policy. Is the UN in decline What
if any are the changes in the conduct of peacekeeping operations How will this impact on
Ireland and on the Defence Forces This paper attempts to provide some answers to these
questions by examining the current status of the UN with regard to peacekeeping and in
relation to the principal non-UN organisations engaged in peacekeeping.
In the interest of clarity it is important to establish what ‘non UN Peacekeeping’ means. There
has been much debate regarding appropriate definitions in the field of conflict intervention. I do
not propose to engage in that debate because it has been comprehensively addressed elsewhere
(Bellamy et al; 2005, Tardy; 2003). In the context of marking the 50th anniversary of Irish
UN peacekeeping this paper analyses ‘non UN peacekeeping’ as those interventions that are
multilateral in character, but not executed directly by UN forces, with the purpose of dealing
with the threat to international security as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
Ce l t i c Co n f l i c t Re s o l u t i o n -Ir i s h Pe a c e k e e p i n g
Ireland is committed to cooperative security arrangements mandated by both the Foreign
Policy (1996) and Defence (2000) White Papers. This commitment has legal status in the
so-called triple lock arrangement, which requires Government and Dail approval plus UN
Security Council approval for any Irish participation in a cooperative security mission abroad.
Members of the Irish political opposition have criticised the ‘triple lock’ as excessively
restrictive regarding Irish participation in peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions
(Mitchell, 2003). A significant concern is that by depending on the UN Security Council,
the government is effectively handing a veto over Irish participation to any one of the five
Permanent members. 1 The triple lock is a matter of government policy and the function of the
military is to abide by such policy. But it is fair to comment that adherence to the triple lock
will not overly confine Defence Force participation in overseas peacekeeping missions. In
practice the non-UN lead operations that we participate in, compose of like-minded nations
who either explicitly or implicitly seek legitimacy for their actions through sanction by the
UN Security Council. Whether through a NATO partnership arrangement such as in SFOR
or KFOR or through an EU initiative such as our current commitment to the Nordic Battle
Group (NBG) or the EUFOR Tchad mission, it is unlikely that Ireland will be at odds with
prospective partners over the requirement to have operations sanctioned by a UNSCR. The
Irish legal requirement will therefore, most likely be matched by a principled requirement on
their behalf.
How will Ireland’s participation in peacekeeping outside of UN Missions manifest itself
in the future Wiharta & Soder (2008) identify fifty-nine ‘multilateral peace operations’
currently active throughout the world. If we subtract the twenty directly supported by the
DPKO (as indicated below), which leaves thirty-nine operations conducted globally by non-
UN organisations. These organisations include the EU, NATO, the African Union (AU),
the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE), the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) and various ad hoc coalitions. Although Ireland has contact to
108