Proposed changes to the Triple Lock are "nothing to do with Ireland's policy of neutrality" according to a former TD and deputy commander of the Army Ranger Wing.
Under the current system, Ireland cannot deploy any more than 12 Defence Forces peacekeepers overseas without a peacekeeping mission being approved by a vote of the UN Security Council as well as approval by the Government and the Dáil.
However, some government ministers have argued this is not serving Irish purposes well as the likes of Russia and China often veto UN Security Council resolutions.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Simon Harris will bring a proposal to Cabinet to amend Ireland's triple lock on the deployment of Defence Forces peacekeepers overseas.
Some opposition TDs have said such a move would undermine neutrality, while Sinn Féin's Matt Carthy called it a "kneejerk reaction".
In an interview with BreakingNews.ie, former TD and soldier Cathal Berry said the triple lock is "nothing to do with Ireland's policy of neutrality".
He pointed out that it came into effect in 1960, and was relevant for UN 'blue beret' peacekeeping missions, which is still the case.
However, before 2002 non-UN military operations abroad only required a 'double lock', of government and Dáil approval. It was part of the Seville Declarations in the Nice treaty.
"That system worked and there was no issue for 42 years, from 1960 up until 2002. When they tampered with it, that's when the issues started to arise.
"There has been a number of issues Ireland has not been able to participate in because of the expansion of the triple lock to all military movements after 2002.
"We couldn't contribute to the Macedonian peace mission, because there was no UN Security Council resolution as China vetoed it. We couldn't send a ship to the Mediterranean for Operation Sophia, it was delayed by about a year because there was no resolution.
"There was a counter-narcotics naval mission in the Atlantic as well, starting from Portugal and EU-backed, and Ireland couldn't send a ship because there was no UN Security Council resolution.
"There wasn't a single case of controversy surrounding this before 2002, but multiple cases of controversy after that, the root cause was tampering with the triple lock in 2002 which led to unintended downstream consequences.
"What's most likely being proposed is a return to the pre-2002 situation where it's triple lock for UN blue beret, double lock for everything else which is just government decision and Dáil approval.
"It will be a good thing to remove the 2002 amendment and return to its original purpose."
He also rejected claims that it would interfere with Ireland's policy of neutrality.
"The Irish traditional policy of neutrality is laid out in the Irish foreign policy white paper of 1995. It has two parts: that we don't join military alliances, and we don't enter into any mutual defence clause.
"Because the triple lock has nothing to do with alliances, and nothing to do with mutual defence clauses, it has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland's policy on neutrality.
"If anything, the extension of the triple lock in 2002 has undermined Irish neutrality, because we're now dependant on five vetoes. We're dependant on the vetoes of two authoritarian states, China and Russia, and three Nato powers.
"You're either a sovereign independent republic or you're not. There's no other country in the world that has this arrangement, because they treat defence as the ultimate expression of sovereignty, it's a national competence."
He added: "The UN General Assembly cannot authorise a peacekeeping mission, it is the exclusive preserve of the UN Security Council. There are some commentators who are stating a UN General Assembly resolution is sufficient, that is absolutely not the case.
"We have been at the mercy of the vetoes of the five permanent members. We know all about those vetoes because we applied to join the UN in the 1940s after World War Two, and Russia vetoed Ireland's membership of the UN until 1956.
"The sooner we return to a double lock for everything but UN blue beret missions, the better."
Mr Berry spent 23 years in the Irish Defence Forces. During this time, he spent six years in the Army Ranger Wing (ARW) and served overseas in the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East. In 2008, he led an ARW company in Chad.
Mr Berry said claims that removal of the 2002 amendment could open Ireland to involvement in conflicts were unfounded.
"There were numerous conflicts from the Gulf War, the Falklands War, the Suez Canal crisis, numerous conflicts where Ireland could have been involved with a double lock, but actively chose not to.
"In that period, we had single-party governments, so it would have been easy to deploy soldiers had they wished but Ireland didn't because we're a mature, responsible, progressive democracy.
"Currently the first lock, government decision, is a far more sophisticated check and balance than it was 50 years ago because we have coalitions with three parties or three components to government.
"The second lock is Dáil approval.
"There has been a lot of talk of abandoning the triple lock, that's not the case at all, we're abandoning the ridiculous amendment that was made in 2002 which caused the problems."
He also pointed to an article in the UN Charter which allows for peacekeeping missions to be carried out by a group of countries or regions without a Security Council resolution.
"Pre-2002, Ireland could participate in Article 52 of Chapter 8 of the UN Charter. This states if there isn't a UN mandate you can still deploy locally or regionally, groups of countries on a peacekeeping mission provided it is in keeping with the purposes and principals of the UN.
"The Charter actually encourages regional arrangements and local solutions, because people living in the neigbourhood understand the problem best.
"Only matters that can't be resolved have to be escalated to UN HQ in New York. That's a problem because the current triple lock does not allow for Ireland to participate in these arrangements, which undermines our peacekeeping reputation."
He added: "In summary, the policy of neutrality is clearly defined in the 1995 white paper 'challenges and opportunities abroad', no common defence arrangement and no military alliances.
The triple lock is nothing to do with the policy of neutrality.
"The only people attempting to change Ireland's policy are people who want us to become more isolated and a jurisdiction which doesn't engage in the outside world.
"I can say with authority, there is no move to joining a common defence or security alliance, this is copperfastened in the Constitution.
"Ireland can't join a military alliance with the EU without it going to referendum.
"The triple lock is nothing to do with the policy of neutrality and the only way to unlock the third lock is to get through the five vetoes which will be used frequently in this new world order where the big powers feel smaller countries are largely irrelevant.
"The proposal is not to scrap the triple lock, it's to scrap the amendment which was rammed through in 2002."
