Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 May 1978

Vol. 306 No. 4

United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I move:

That pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 (No. 44 of 1960) Dáil Éireann approves of the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service outside the State as part of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon which pursuant to a Resolution on Lebanon adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on the 19th day of March 1978 has been established by that Council for the performance of duties of a police character.

The purpose of this motion is to enable the Government to give a positive response to the request received by the United Nations Secretary General to provide an Irish contingent for service with the UN Interim Force in the Lebanon (UNIFIL).

As Deputies are no doubt aware, UNIFIL was set up by the UN Security Council on 19 March last when the council called on Israel to withdraw its forces from the Southern Lebanon. The force was given the mandate of "confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security, and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area". The force was established in the first instance for a period of six months and was initially authorised by the Security Council to have a strength of 4,000 men. Contingents from France, Norway, Nepal, Senegal and Nigeria, along with French and Canadian logistical support troops, made up this number. On 3 May, following a report by the Secretary General on his visit to the Middle East, the Security Council agreed to his proposal to expand the force to 6,000 men. The Secretary General has now asked Fiji and Iran, as well as Ireland, to supply contingents to bring the force up to this level.

The Government have decided, subject to the approval of the Dáil, to make available a contingent for service with UNIFIL in response to this request. Under the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act. 1960, Dáil approval is required. The present motion asks the Dáil to give this approval.

I need hardly refer in detail here to past Irish participation in UN peace-keeping forces. I will simply recall that Irish contingents served almost continuously with UN forces from 1960 to 1974 in the Congo, Cyprus and, from October 1973 until the contingent then serving was withdrawn in May 1974, with the UN Emergency Force in the Middle East in Sinai. Last July, as Deputies will no doubt recall, the Dáil gave its approval for the despatch once again of a full contingent to Cyprus. However, in the event, owing to a reduction in the strength of the UN Force in Cyprus the UN decided not to maintain the initial request which it had made for an Irish contingent.

Ireland's association with the peace-keeping efforts of the UN in the Middle East in particular is of long standing. It goes back to 1958, when Irish officers first took part in UN observer missions in the area. Our first involvement was indeed in the Lebanon in 1958 and later, when 50 Irish officers served with the UN Military Observer Group in the Lebanon. Soon afterwards, Irish observers joined the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) established after the first Middle East war to monitor ceasefire arrangements between Israel and Lebanon, Syria and Egypt respectively. In all almost 200 Irish officers have served with UNTSO since 1958 and 21 Irish officers currently serve in the area and hold senior posts in the organisation.

In general I may say that the role which the UN can play as a peacekeeper and mediator in areas of conflict and tension is one to which Ireland has always attached the highest importance. It is precisely the ability of the United Nations to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security by reducing the possibility of armed conflict that gives it an indispensable role in the Middle East.

Ireland has consistently supported the peacekeeping role of the United Nations, both in principle in the deliberations of the General Assembly, and in practice by our active participation in successive operations.

Our participation has also a particular significance from a national point of view. Countries like our own, which might be said to have developed some expertise in peacekeeping, can give practical support which is particularly valuable in the case of regional conflicts which are centres of tension involving great power interests. Indeed, this can be seen as a particular obligation and responsibility under the Charter of the UN in fulfilment of its fundamental purpose—the maintenance of international peace and security.

Having said this, I would not wish the House to be under any illusion as to difficulties and dangers of the task faced by the UN force in Lebanon. The situation in the Southern Lebanon is complex, and closely linked with the overall problems of the Middle East. I would not propose to go into details in regard to the latter—I will simply recall that we have joined with our partners in the European Community on a number of occasions in outlining our views on the elements which should form the basis of a permanent peace settlement in the Middle East generally and have encouraged negotiations to this end.

The current operation in the Southern Lebanon is delicate even by comparison with other UN operations in the Middle East. As Israeli forces complete their withdrawal, the UN force must endeavour to prevent further outbreaks of hostilities in an area where these have been endemic since the civil war in the Lebanon, and to ensure that the area is not used as a base for hostile activities by any party. The force may also have to supervise and assist in the return and resettlement of the many refugees who fled the area during the fighting.

The difficulties involved have already been evidenced by the fact that a number of men of the peacekeeping force have lost their lives and others have been wounded. The Secretary-General has made it clear that the force will be able to carry out its mandate only with the agreement and co-operation of all the parties in the area. The Government have noted the efforts made by the Secretary-General to secure this co-operation and we share the hope which he has expressed that incidents which have caused injuries or loss of life will cease and that the force will be enabled to carry out its mandate free from interference or threats. Our desire is that the force should be able to discharge the mandate which it has been given within a reasonable time and that, in helping to restore stability in this troubled area, the presence of the force will facilitate progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East.

If the Dáil should approve this motion, it is envisaged that a contingent of approximately 665, all ranks, will leave for the Southern Lebanon as soon as possible. The practical arrangements will be a matter for agreement with the United Nations. In accordance with the Secretary-General's request the contingent will be as self-sufficient as possible, so as to enable it to become operational without delay on arrival in the mission area.

The Government are satisfied that a contingent of the size requested can be made available without impairing the ability of the Defence Forces to carry out their tasks at home, given the increase in strength in the Defence Forces in recent years.

The request for a contingent for UNIFIL is an earnest of the confidence that the United Nations has in the capacity, efficiency and morale of our soldiers. I believe too that service in the cause of peace is a source of considerable, practical and moral encouragement to the Defence Forces generally.

As in the past recruitment for service with the UN force will be on a voluntary basis. I can assure the Dáil that, if the motion is agreed, there will be no shortage of volunteers and I am confident that they will display the qualities of courage and judgment that have in the past brought credit to themselves and to their country.

I commend the motion to the House.

Dr. FitzGerald

When it became necessary in May 1974 to withdraw the Irish UN force, it was a matter of great regret to the Government of the day. This interruption in the service we offered to the international community through the efforts of our forces in peacekeeping was regrettable. At that time it was necessary because the strength of our Defence Forces was not sufficient for domestic requirements. Since then the build up of the Army and the training of recruits has reached the point where it is possible for us to contemplate a re-involvement in this exercise. I am very glad we have reached that point and that we are able once again to play our part. Our people took considerable pride in the role of our forces in various UN peacekeeping operations and are always glad to see our soldiers playing this role, a role they play so superbly.

When visiting the Middle East in 1975, I found that among both the Israeli and Arab authorities there was a desire for our troops to return. Both sides expressed great confidence in their impartiality. It was nice to see there was something on which they were able to agree—the one thing they were unanimous about was that they both liked to see our forces holding the reins between the conflicting armies.

However, I am concerned about aspects of the present operation and seek some clarification from the Minister, although I have doubts as to whether he will be in a position to help me very much because, through no fault of his, the situation is so obscure. I note that the original mandate is:

confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security, and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

The Minister made reference to the completion of the Israeli withdrawal. The first question that arises is whether there is agreement on the part of the Israelis to withdraw from the Lebanon when the UN forces take over, or whether there is an indication that they do not intend to withdraw completely but only to within six miles or so of the frontier, as has been reported in some newspapers. It is important to know whether the completion of the Israeli withdrawal is something which is contemplated and accepted by the Israelis as being their intention. Secondly, there is the question of the precise role of this force. I read out the words used in the original mandate, but since then the Secretary General has reported on what the functions of the force should be, and some of the Minister's words later on probably reflect this, such as when the Minister said that:

As Israeli forces complete their withdrawal, the UN force must endeavour to prevent further outbreaks of hostilities in an area where these have been endemic since the civil war in the Lebanon, and to ensure that the area is not used as a base for hostile activities by any party. The force may also have to supervise and assist in the return and resettlement of the many refugees who fled the area during the fighting.

This does not leave me with a very clear picture of the precise mandate. It appears from the original mandate which speaks of assisting the Government of the Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, that the intention is that the only forces to be permitted in the area other than the UN forces would be the army of the Government of the Lebanon. That raises some difficulties because of divisions in that army, but is it clear from that, that the mandate excludes from the area any other forces either Israeli or Palestinian? If that is the mandate, is it the function of the UN to ensure the departure of such forces where they are in the area or to prevent their re-entering, and are they entitled to use force for this purpose in the last resort? The wording used by the Minister does not really help to clarify this. One accepts that the UN forces must endeavour to prevent further outbreaks of hostilities and to ensure that the area is not used as a base for hostilities by any party. The latter phraseology would seem to imply the exclusion from the area of either of the contending forces, that is the Palestinian armed forces or the Israelis. The Minister went on to say:

The force may also have to supervise and assist in the return and resettlement of the many refugees who fled the area during the fighting.

This imposes a very onerous burden on the force of distinguishing between refugees who fled the area and Palestinian forces carrying arms who might use the area as a base for further hostilities. Press reports in the last 24 hours or so have raised a considerable doubt about the mandate of the UN forces and what exactly they are doing. I have seen press reports which suggest that large numbers of Palestinians are re-entering the area and having reentered it are claiming to have been there all the time and are entitled to remain. The report I read said that so long as the Palestinians were armed the UN forces let them pass rather than risk a further conflict in addition to the conflict which is already taking place. If that is the case, it is difficult to see what the function of the UN forces is. If anybody who is armed is let into the area, how can they fulfil the mandate? If they are required to keep out people with arms, is this not being done, and is there a consistent mandate and instructions to the force as to what actions to take? If units of the UN force are permitting the re-entry of armed people into the area, is this being done by all units, is this by instruction, or is there a clear pattern? When our troops arrive will they be left with no clear instructions as to what course of action to take, when different units of the UN forces might take different courses of action? Before our troops go we should be told precisely what their function will be and what action they are supposed to take in order to achieve the objectives set out by the Minister in his speech, in particular "that the area is not used as a base for hostile activities by any party" and that we ensure the return of the effective authority of the Government of the Lebanon in the area. This cannot be achieved unless the UN forces are in a position to ensure the removal of Israeli forces from the area where they are not entitled to be and to prevent the re-entry of Palestinian forces to the area. Nothing that has happened so far suggests that the UN force has a clear mandate to achieve these aims or is in a position to pursue them.

There are several dangers here. There is a broad danger for the whole international community that a UN peacekeeping authority might become discredited because of confusion in the carrying out of the mandate, because of ineffectiveness in carrying it out, and there is the danger that soldiers from our forces and from other countries going there in good faith to carry out this mandate may, because of the confusion, find themselves in unnecessary danger because it was not made clear what the mandate was and because that mandate was not acceptable to different forces in the area. The situation in south Lebanon is one of the most dangerous the UN has faced, possibly the most dangerous since the Congo. It is a situation where the very serious choice between acting ineffectively and not carrying out the spirit of the mandate, and entering into large scale conflict with very well armed forces, may have to be faced. We are entitled to know what is expected of our troops before they go and we should seek clarification of this in the most precise terms from the UN Secretary General.

I am in no way reluctant to see our forces playing their part. That our troops can play this peacekeeping role is a source of pride to all our people. Our people and our Army are willing to accept certain necessary and inevitable risks of interposing themselves between two bodies of armed men who have a long tradition of firing on each other with very little excuse. Everyone in this House and in the Army is willing to accept all reasonable risks, including the risks that arise from that delicate and dangerous situation, if we can be assured that the mandate is clear and that the parties involved accept that mandate and will not contest it in a way which is going to place the lives of the UN forces in unnecessary avoidable dangers. I would ask the Minister to clarify so far as he can, what the position is, and in so far as he may not be in a position completely to clarify the mandate at this stage—which I readily understand if he is unable to do so in view of the confusion that prevails—I would ask him to have the situation clarified before the troops leave, and to find some method of informing the House and the people of the task that our forces are to perform so that we can be sure that what they will be doing will be useful work, if carried out effectively, as it will be if they are given a clear mandate, and that they will not be placed at unnecessary risk. Subject to that qualification, which in these circumstances is necessary, we support the motion.

Mr. Kerrigan

I support this motion which arises directly from the resolution adopted by the Security Council. As Deputy FitzGerald said, it is ambiguous in so far as nobody knows what mandate our troops will have in that area. There is no doubt that this is one of the most sensitive and most complex areas in the world. I would join with Deputy FitzGerald in asking the Minister to enlighten us if possible as regards the exact functions of the troops in that area. It says here that it was decided in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon to ensure the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be composed of personnel drawn from states members of the United Nations.

This brings with it all the pitfalls Deputy FitzGerald mentioned. It is necessary to have some assurance on what the functions of the troops are. Also, while everybody welcomes our renewed participation in United Nations peacekeeping forces—we accept the responsibility of membership of the United Nations—we should be under no illusion. It is not on a picnic or holiday our troops are going. They are going into a very serious and delicate situation. We should therefore ensure that in such an explosive area as the Lebanon we shall try to prevent at least any grave risks to our troops in situations to which they may not be able to respond unless they know exactly what their functions are.

I understand from the Minister's statement that there are more volunteers than are necessary. This is to be welcomed but I should like to have his observations—perhaps it is from another Minister we should have the observations—regarding a report in yesterday's evening papers to the effect that there is a possibility that a shortage of middle rank officers could affect recruitment for the Lebanon. These are all officers and men who would have experience of previous overseas service. There is also the question of the position of Irish troops in such world peacekeeping areas: usually, they have had the worst conditions and we should ensure if possible that they will have the best equipment and the best possible facilities where they are going.

I think there was general satisfaction with the manner in which Irish troops served in previous United Nations peacekeeping exercises in Cyprus and the Congo and with the officers who continue to serve to the present day in the Lebanon itself. They have been more than satisfactory and have been welcomed by every country. They were recognised as making a fairly vital contribution to the effort to resolve any difficulties that existed.

Our motivation is to assist at all times in the maintenance of world peace. This is one of the practical ways in which we can serve that aim and nobody would have any reluctance on that score if it is shown that we at all times observe neutrality in this country and have a policy of nonalignment. For that reason I think we are trusted more than most countries would be and our Army ranks fairly high internationally.

I welcome the motion but I should like a little clarification from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard to the questions asked.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I endorse the sentiments already expressed by Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Kerrigan. Any obligations this country ever had as a member of the United Nations were always met, subject to constitutional requirements. I am very pleased that the Government have decided to respond to the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations in regard to the peacekeeping force for the Lebanon. We have a very proud record of service with the United Nations. This motion gives Deputies an opportunity of reinforcing the very high standard of morale existing in the Defence Forces. It was regrettable that in 1974 our overseas service had to be temporarily suspended. I am glad that this request for Irish troops to participate in peace-keeping has been made. I do not think men can be called on for greater service than the service of providing, encouraging, pursuing and guaranteeing peace. It is on record that throughout the world the courage, devotion to duty, loyalty and, above all, the experience which the Irish Defence Forces have contributed to the United Nations are generally recognised with gratitude and appreciation.

The first Irish personnel to serve overseas served in the Lebanon in December 1958 and 16,000 Irish soldiers have participated in overseas service. All of them gained as well as gave experience. It is good for our Defence Forces, officers and men, to have the opportunity of participating in overseas service. It enables them to meet the cream of the defence forces of other countries also playing a part in this great role of peacekeeping. The record of the Irish Army in the Lebanon, Middle East, the Congo, in the India-Pakistan contention, in Cyprus and the Golan Heights reflects great credit on the skill, training and knowledge of Irish soldiers.

It is true that of all the professions one can follow, the profession carrying the greatest risk is that of a soldier. It takes a great man to be a soldier, because he must display bravery, courage, determination and, above all, be completely subject by way of obedience. I do not think that the average citizen has sufficient respect for or sufficient knowledge of the vital role members of our Defence Forces play. There is a risk in every walk of life and every profession, but I have always felt that members of our Defence Forces run the greatest possible risk. This has been borne out by the activities of members of our bomb disposal squad. That courageous group of well-trained professional soldiers have endeavoured to master the skill of dismantling bombs, something which has not been mastered by many armies.

There is general recognition that the Irish soldier who goes abroad on UN duty is of the highest calibre. This has been proved on many occasions and I have no doubt that it will be proved again. The leader of my party, Deputy FitzGerald, is right to refer to the grave risks involved in this mission. I had the pleasure in recent weeks of visiting the Israeli-Lebanon border. I should like to tell the House that when one arrives at a town called Matulla in the north of Israel one gets an extraordinary feeling of fear because of the rattling of machine gun fire across the border in the Lebanon. It comes from the participants in the civil war that has been raging in that area for a considerable time. Because of what I heard and saw on the Israeli-Lebanon border I can tell the House that our soldiers will be involved in a serious undertaking in their efforts to act as peacekeepers in the Lebanon. I also visited the Golan Heights and I realise that, because of its geographical position, it is an area that spells danger.

I have no doubt that the Irish troops will be readily accepted by all fair-minded citizens of the Lebanon and Israel. Realising the very difficult task which our troops will face on this mission I have no doubt that their contribution will be a generous one. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence should realise, as I am sure the Chief of Staff and the members of the Defence Forces realise, that the mission our troops will be engaged in is not a simple one. It is full of dangers. It is perhaps the most dangerous assignment our troops have had since 1958. The fact that there has been such a response from members of our Defence Forces for overseas service is an indication of the high morale that exists in our Army. It is also an indication of the courage which is characteristic of our Defence Forces. They appear to disregard all danger in an effort to accomplish the task they are asked to undertake, assisting in the restoration of peace.

I do not think that in a world in which there is so much groaning and grumbling, discontent and strife, one could undertake a greater role than that of peacekeeper or peacemaker. All our citizens wish good luck and success to our Defence Forces in this difficult task. It is correct to say that the National Coalition were committed to the policy of affording all possible support to the UN peacekeeping efforts. In the course of an interview with an Irish journalist on 4 March 1977 I was asked if there were any prospect of United Nations service for Irish troops in the near future. As Minister for Defence I replied to the effect that the Coalition Government were fully committed to the policy of affording all possible support to the UN peacekeeping efforts. I said that it would be the intention to respond positively to any request for troops that the UN might make to the Government in the future, subject to the needs of the home situation. I also told that journalist that since taking office as Minister for Defence I had expressed the hope that it would be possible in the not too distant future to release a contingent of Irish troops for service with the UN. I told that journalist that 21 Irish officers were serving with the UN truce supervisory force in the Middle East while a small number of personnel were still serving in Cyprus.

I also recall speaking to young Army officers on my visits to the Curragh and to Galway. They were full of zeal and devotion to their calling. They were extremely anxious for an opportunity to participate in overseas service. It is a great source of pride to any Irishman to learn that members of the Defence Forces are anxious to share their skills with others and to meet members of other armies. Not only is that very good, but it is very necessary for them.

I remember being asked how efficient our Army are in comparison with other armies. Now that the Secretary General of the United Nations has made this request, many ordinary Irish citizens are likely to ask the same question. There is only one way in which that efficiency can be measured. In their service with the United Nations peacekeeping forces they have appeared in a very favourable light. I recall reports on officers and men undergoing courses of instruction overseas which indicated a much above average standard of performance. This is to the great credit of members of the Irish Army.

The equipment of the Defence Forces is up to date. They have modern small arms, anti-tank weapons and mortars, armoured cars and armoured personnel carriers, explosives, ordenance demolition equipment and night vision equipment. Communications equipment and transport have been improved. The facilities available to our Defence Forces are second to none compared with any other army in the world today. No matter how superior the soldiers in other armies may appear to be, our officers and men are second to none compared with the mightiest armies in the world. That is no exaggeration. It has been generally recognised. I have no doubt the 600 or so men who will go abroad to undertake this very dangerous, serious and difficult task will carry out their duties in an efficient, capable and courageous manner in accordance with the finest traditions of Irish soldiers.

I should like to ask the Minister a question about the recoupment of the expenses involved in the participation of our forces abroad. The United Nations are a reasonably healthy financial institution. Because of that, I have little doubt the pay and allowances for our people will be of the highest possible standard.

When this resolution has been passed by Dáil Éireann, the men who will be going abroad as well as having to face the dangers of the existing strife on the Lebanon-Israeli border, and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East, will also have to endure separation from their wives and families. Therefore, one expects that there will be generous pay and allowances for members of the Defence Forces serving with the United Nations.

A problem arose in connection with our Army's participation in Cyprus. A claim to the extent of £4,600,000 was made and payments totalling £3,700,000 were received. A substantial sum was outstanding early in 1977. Under the special financial arrangements governing the United Nations emergency forces in the Middle East with which Irish Defence Forces served from October 1973 to May 1974, a sum of slightly over £500,000 was received covering pay and allowances and personnel equipment. Claims in respect of stores and equipment were presented and were under consideration by the United Nations authorities at that time. I hope the outcome of that matter was satisfactory.

I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence will ensure that if the risk is there, as it is, funds will be available from the United Nations and that the financial accounts will be disposed of in a satisfactory manner.

The Minister referred to the fact that Ireland's association with peace-keeping efforts of the United Nations in the Middle East is of long standing. It goes back to 1958, when Irish officers first took part in observer missions in that area. I repeat that their participation there and elsewhere has done nothing but reflect great credit on this country and on the very high qualities of the members of our Defence Forces. Courage, devotion to duty and loyalty are typical attributes of these men and I take this opportunity of joining with Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Kerrigan in wishing that all the efforts of the Irish Army in this difficult task will be crowned with the success and good luck they so richly deserve. I am confident that their training and skill will reflect to their advantage and that this country will be proud of their contribution towards keeping the peace in this area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude the debate. I must tell the Minister that we must take Private Members' Business at 7 o'clock.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. O'Kennedy)

That poses a certain problem in that a number of issues have been raised and I should like to have the opportunity to deal with all of them. This is not the type of debate which should be left hanging and I will try to target myself for 7 o'clock.

We all acknowledge that it would be better if the need for peacekeeping did not arise at all. The very fact that a peacekeeping force is called for means that there is a serious problem in the area. I share the concern of every Deputy in regard to this problem.

Arising out of the remarks by the Leader of Fine Gael, the House will recall that the resolution giving effect to this arose very quickly after the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon and, therefore, the fundamental and primary purpose of the peacekeeping operation was to effect and expedite the Israeli withdrawal, so that this area would not be an area of active armed conflict.

That takes me to the first point made by Deputy FitzGerald, namely, the guarantees which have been obtained in relation to the Israeli withdrawal. The purpose of the mandate is as follows:

... confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security, and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

The important point is that the strength of the force is to be increased from 4,000 to 6,000 because it was recognised when the Secretary General had visited the area that another 2,000 troops would be needed to implement the terms of the mandate, the first point of which is the withdrawal of the Israeli forces. As yet there is not any explicit Israeli commitment to withdraw, but consequent on the increase in the level of the force, which is in the course of approval here and elsewhere, the Secretary General will be entering into negotiations. He is having discussions at the moment in an endeavour to effect an Israeli withdrawal before the full force operates. I cannot say at this stage whether this will be done before our troops are in situ. It is possible, though not definite, that this will be the case.

The second point which Deputy FitzGerald raised is what is to happen at that stage. As I mentioned in my speech, this mandate can be effectively discharged only with the co-operation of all parties. The force will be under the command of the Secretary General under the authority vested in him by the Security Council. The Secretary General has been to the area himself and has been in contact with the parties to the dispute in an endeavour to ensure that there will be maximum co-operation in enabling the mandate to be discharged.

Deputy FitzGerald has rightly asked a question which has not yet been finally resolved: what will be the position of the UN force if guerillas resume armed conflict and try to enter an area? This mandate runs out in September. That is the first thing to recognise. It is based on the assumption that there will be maximum co-operation. Should it happen that it would not be possible for the force to fulfil the mandate, the ultimate would be that the mandate would not be renewed. In advance of that, we are satisfied that the Secretary General, in whom command is vested, is pursuing every possible avenue to ensure an Israeli withdrawal and to guarantee that they will not be subject to attack. I should like to have dealt for a little longer with these two delicate and sensitive issues raised by Deputy FitzGerald.

The report of the Secretary General, which was issued after the resolution, states that the force will use its best efforts to prevent the recurrence of fighting and to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind. It also states that the force shall not use force except in self-defence. Self-defence would include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council. It is important to recognise that the force is under the control, political and otherwise, of the Secretary General.

There is no doubt as to the number of men ready to serve. As of now, 2,600 have volunteered, of whom 450 are officers. That gives the lie to any report that it is difficult to get recruits for this force from within the Army. I cannot be responsible for reports that may be given from time to time. That is the position.

I can assure Deputy Flanagan that the financing arrangements are fixed under the resolution of the Security Council. This is a mandatory financing activity as distinct from the position in Cyprus which was voluntary. There will be no need for the Government to make a case to have matters assessed or examined. They apply automatically under the mandate.

There are dangers. This force was established for the purpose I have mentioned. I hope that between now and the arrival of our force in the area we will have further reassurances. I am sorry I have not time to go into a little more detail. I shall certainly communicate with Deputies through their leaders or otherwise to give further reassurances.

Dr. FitzGerald

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to give us any other clarification he may obtain before our forces go to this area as to the precise nature of their role and duties. What he has said does not really answer the question as to precisely what action they are to take, though it is no fault of his. This definition of self-defence does not really cope with the actual issues they face.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I regret that because of the timing of the debate I had to give such a rushed reply. I appreciate that it is a very sensitive area and I am sorry that I had to skip over details on which I could have elaborated.

Question put and agreed to.