It’s been anything but quick march ahead for Irish troops on aid duty

WHEN the issue of sending Irish troops to the Asian tsunami disaster zone cropped up, it was bound to raise questions.

Questions like how many, where to and how quickly?

But we haven’t got that far yet. We’re still at the level of wondering, worrying and wavering over more preliminary matters such as can we, are we allowed to and how would we?

Tune in some time in the distant future and we just might be getting around to the more complex question of should we? Anyone will tell you that the point of departure from the open doorway of an aeroplane is no time to find out you can’t remember how the parachute works or what height you’re supposed to reach before you deploy it.

So any government minister should know he’ll get no awards for achievement in the art of perfect timing if he discovers while facing calls for action on a humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented scale that he is unclear how to wear the policy that guides such action, or when to pull the cord to activate it.

Yet that precarious place between retreating into the fuselage and leaping out into the unknown is where we are on the issue of involving Irish soldiers in the Asian relief effort.

A week ago we had indications from Minister for Defence, Willie O’Dea, that he was all for the idea of having Irish troops on the ground. He was going to ask the Cabinet to approve the move “so we can be prepared to act if the request for soldiers comes”.

Within a few days, he was sounding a little more cautious, citing the need for a formal mandate from the United Nations before soldiers could engage in such an operation overseas.

That view was repeated on Tuesday by Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, who said the Government had already told the UN that Ireland would give any assistance we could but “because of our Constitution we have to await a request in effect from the UN in relation to that”.

In no time the sound of throat-clearing could be heard coming from the direction of the army officers representative body, RACO. The minister was incorrect, RACO, dared to differ. No UN mandate was required.

Army personnel had assisted aid agencies before. They had all the essential experience and skills and they were waiting only on the Government to give the nod and they’d have their bags packed and their boots polished.

Later that day, Minister Ahern backstepped lightly over the issue, declaring that it wasn’t an issue after all. If the involvement of Irish troops was required and requested by any of the affected countries, he said, we would “get over” the question of the UN mandate. By way of explanation he said the situation was “so unprecedented”.

What is not so unprecedented is the way the Government has responded to a serious but, you might think, relatively simple question of whether or not we can send troops to help out in a disaster zone.

Their attitude seems to be: why decide when you can dither, why clarify when you can confuse?

That set the tone for the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday which came to a conclusion roughly equivalent to: We’re not sure but we think the legislation allows us send troops off our own bat and if it doesn’t, we’ll recall the Dáil and get them to change the law and in the meantime we’ll contact the UN to tell them we’re willing to send out troops in the hope they’ll ease the searing pain of the embarrassment scorching our cheeks by replying with a formal request.

The uncertainty over what we are entitled/obliged to do militarily is all the more astounding given that this was all supposed to have been sorted out by the Nice Treaty.

No, it wasn’t a bad dream - there really was a treaty that the electorate voted decisively against and then overwhelmingly for, all in the space of 16 months.

What happened in the interim was the Seville Declaration, a neat piece of hide-saving aimed at appeasing those who objected to Nice on the grounds it threatened to tie Ireland into a European Army.

The Seville Declaration was meant as an opt-out clause to preserve the country’s independence in decisions relating to a pan-European force and maintain our traditional military neutrality.

ARTICLE 6 states: Ireland reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European security and defence policy, requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government and (c) the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law.

The clause has become known as the “triple lock” mechanism but while it was designed to safeguard military neutrality, it seems to have succeeded in neutralising the military in the one activity where they have near-universal popular support - humanitarian relief.

This is not to say there are not genuine political and philosophical concerns to consider when it comes to deploying troops, even for disaster relief. The Tamil rebels of northern Sri Lanka might not take kindly to foreign troops traipsing over disputed territories at the invitation of the enemy government.

The Indonesian army may not make good bedfellows for Irish soldiers and there are complex diplomatic questions over who commands who and what degree of autonomy any foreign security force should have in a sovereign state.

Long-term, it might be easier for all if the number of uniforms involved are kept to a minimum.

But these are questions we won’t even get around to addressing if we’re going to be stuck perpetually on square one, bamboozled by our own legislation and fretting about making a move for fear of the policy implications.

Politicians, aid workers and soldiers alike have been talking all week about the need for leadership, focus and co-ordination in the disaster relief zones. When it comes to determining the areas most in need, Leinster House should be categorised a priority case.