Allowing other countries to exercise a veto over Ireland's Defence Forces was "deeply unwise" and "grossly unsatisfactory" for a sovereign nation, the Dáil was told as it approved a motion to deploy 42 troops to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Fine Gael's defence spokesman, Mr Billy Timmins, said: "We should have the maturity and confidence in our own foreign policy to be able to make a decision to participate in peacekeeping operations, based on the merits of whether we believe that we should be involved, not be held to ransom by other countries".
He was speaking during a 45-minute debate on the deployment of troops to join EUfor, the EU's biggest peacekeeping operation, which will be led by Finland.
Twelve Defence Forces personnel are already in the Balkan state, and more may be deployed at a later date.
The new EU-led peacekeeping mission will take over from Sfor, a NATO-led mission, which was deployed to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Agreement and provide a secure environment, approved by the UN.
The motion was introduced by the Minister of State for Defence, Mr Tom Kitt, who said Irish personnel would be attached to headquarters, the military police unit, verification teams and a national support element. Ireland's involvement would cost the State €3.458 million.
Mr Kitt said the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina was described as "stable" and local attitudes to the mission ranged from "neutral to positive", although he warned that the transfer phase from Sfor to EUfor could be used by some elements to cause trouble.
Mr Timmins criticised the "triple-lock" mechanism under which UN Security Council approval is required along with a decision by the Government and the Dáil for the deployment of troops.
He said the UN Security Council veto by any of the five permanent members could prevent Irish Defence Forces personnel participating in peacekeeping missions.
Mr Timmins said there seemed to be an inherent contradiction in some sections of Irish society that "we're very quick to condemn American foreign policy on many issues and yet here we are allowing US foreign policy to dictate that our foreign policy can be subject to the veto".
However, Labour's defence spokesman, Mr Jack Wall, said the problem was not with the triple-lock system but with the manner in which the UN Security Council functioned.
"If it is to continue to have legitimacy, its composition must be more broadly representative," he said.
Mr Aengus Ó Snodaigh (SF, Dublin South Central) said that there would be no refund to Ireland from the EU mission, compared to partial refunds from UN operations.
These new military alliances of Sfor and EUfor represented the failure of the UN, which should be reformed so that the "outsourcing" of peacekeeping operations to regional alliances such as the EU rapid reaction force would end.
The progressive undermining of the UN had led to unilateral actions like Iraq.
Mr Finian McGrath (Ind, Dublin North Central) also backed the triple lock but he was concerned about the contradiction of the Government saying it was fully committed to the UN and its policy of neutrality but at the same time supporting EU crisis missions.
The Green Party chairman, Mr John Gormley, said his party would prefer a UN-led mission.
"However, listening to Kofi Annan's recent speech, it is quite clear that he is now at the beck and call of the most powerful power blocs, and an exclusively UN force would appear to be a thing of the past," he said.
