asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the United Nations Secretary General in relation to clarification of the mandate for UNIFIL troops in the Lebanon.
Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - UNIFIL Troops Mandate .
1.
: When I raised the question of the mandate, the Secretary General indicated that he had just received an assurance from Mr. Yasser Arafat to the effect that the PLO were not seeking confrontation. Mr. Waldheim said that on the information available to him, the picture was a great deal more satisfactory in this respect—though, of course, no one could be certain that extremists on either side would not cause trouble.
: I thank the Taoiseach and Mr. Waldheim for their reassuring statements. Would the Taoiseach agree with me that from two points of view—one, the safety of Irish troops and other contingents with UNIFIL and also from the point of view of achieving the objective of having the United Nations there, which is to restore peace in that area and prevent it from being used for further violent purposes—it is highly desirable that it be made absolutely clear that the troops who are there are authorised to prevent persons with arms entering the territory over which the United Nations have responsibility?
: What the Deputy says is a reasonable interpretation of what is the mandate in that respect. I understand the troops have been instructed to use force in self-defence only. Self-defence would include resistance by forceful means to attempts to prevent the contingent from discharging their duties along the lines suggested by the Deputy, that is, to free it from the forces that are in there, either Israeli or Palestinian, and to restore the territory to the Lebanese Government.
: Is the Taoiseach able to say that it has been made absolutely clear that the United Nations are authorised to prevent persons bearing arms entering the territory over which the United Nations have control, or is there still uncertainty as to the degree of authority which the United Nations troops may have to disarm people who are bearing arms unlawfully?
: I do not know that there is absolute uniformity in the manner in which the different elements of the contingent are carrying out their duties. As the Deputy is aware, there are five or six other nations there—French, Sengalese, Norwegians and others—and there may be differences of shade of interpretation. But, by and large, the mandate means preventing people interfering with the enforcement of the mandate to clear the area and keep it clear.
: Would the Taoiseach say whether or not it is the Irish Government's intention that the mandate extend to the point of preventing the area being used by people who are entering it with arms and also includes the prevention of the territory in question being used as a new base for attack of any type by anybody?
: The essential part of the mandate is that the United Nations interim forces there are for the purpose of confirming withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring of international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. There are armed forces going in there. Obviously arms must be an element in ensuring the carrying out of that mandate. If armed forces were not necessary ordinary negotiators would probably be sufficient to carry out the mandate.
: I take it the Taoiseach would confirm as highly desirable, in the interests particularly of the UN forces who are going there in a peace-keeping role, that there should not be any confusion or dispute about their authority in the area?
: May I add that it would be impossible, even with the assurances that the Secretary-General told me he had got from Mr. Yasser Arafat—that the PLO generally were prepared to co-operate—to ensure that there would not be maverick groups, extremists, who would be prepared to engage in confrontation.
: Next question.