asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that his recent representations to the Israeli authorities have had their intended effect on safeguarding Irish lives in the Lebanon conflict.
19.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Troops in Lebanon.
18.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if satisfactory assurances have been received from the Israeli Government in regard to activities directed against Irish troops in the Lebanon.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 19 together. As Deputies are no doubt aware, this matter has already been discussed in the House on several occasions over the past few days.
In the light of these discussions, I feel it would be useful, at the outset of this reply, to recall some basic facts about the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. UNIFIL was established by decision of the UN Security Council in March 1978 with the aim of ensuring Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and restoring the authority of the Lebanese Government in the area.
The force is under the command of the United Nations and carries out its peace-keeping mandate under the overall direction of the UN Secretary-General, Dr. Waldheim. In response to a request from the Secretary-General, the Government, with the approval of the Dáil, agreed to contribute a contingent to this force even though we had no direct interest or involvement in the area. We felt that by so doing we were giving practical expression to our commitment to international peace and security.
UNIFIL has had great difficulty in carrying out its mandate. It has been unable to establish control over a strip of territory just north of the border with Israel, which the Israelis handed over to the de facto forces of Major Haddad when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon. In addition the force has been subject to continual harassment from the de facto forces which Israel continues to support.
The United Nations, under whose responsibility the force operates, constantly uses its best efforts to reduce this harassment and it has engaged in intensive diplomatic activity on the occasions when the level of harassment increased. We have helped and supported the United Nations in these efforts and it is in this context, and in the interests of our troops, that I wrote to the Israeli Foreign Minister in January of this year and the Taoiseach wrote to Prime Minister Begin in April. Following these representations, the level of harassment of our troops lessened somewhat.
We have also, along with other troop contributors, on several occasions made formal representations to the Israeli authorities through our Permanent Mission in New York. In addition we have ourselves been in frequent contact with Israel and we have pressed it very strongly on this matter both directly and through other friendly Governments such as that of the United States which are in a position to influence it. I believe that the pressure which we bring to bear through these continuing contacts has helped to reduce the risks faced by UNIFIL, but that is not to say that we are satisfied with the Israeli response to the constant representations I have referred to.
It is, of course, wholly unacceptable that there should be interference from any quarter with a United Nations Peace-keeping Force. In order to make quite clear publicly that we deplore the continual harassment to which UNIFIL is subjected, I instructed our Permanent Representative to the United Nations to request to speak in the Security Council on 14 June last when the mandate of the force was being renewed for a further six months.
On that occasion our Permanent Representative made it quite plain that we condemn any harassment of UNIFIL from whatever quarter, and that we are seriously concerned at the dangers which such harassment poses for our troops on this peace-keeping mission. Indeed, in the same debate the Secretary-General referred in particular to the harassment to which UNIFIL is subject as a major obstacle to further progress and pointed out that, if the situation of UNIFIL did not improve, it might become necessary to consider the withdrawal of the force despite all the dangers this would entail for the region and for peace in the Middle East area as a whole.
Despite all difficulties, however, it remains the view of the Secretary-General that UNIFIL is performing an indispensable function in Southern Lebanon and has done a great deal to reduce the threat to international peace and security. The Government share this view of the Secretary-General and we shall continue to assist him through all channels open to us in his efforts to reduce the risks faced by the force and to enable it to carry out its mandate successfully.
It will never, of course, be possible to give an absolute guarantee of the safety of our troops in any peace-keeping operation or in this very difficult situation in one of the world's major trouble spots. I am satisfied that the Government and the United Nations are doing everything open to them both directly and indirectly to ensure conditions under which the force can operate effectively. I am sure this House will join with me in paying tribute to the way the officers and men of our Defence Forces who have volunteered for this duty have been carrying out their difficult and hazardous assignment on behalf of the world community.
Have any assurances been received from the Israeli Government with regard to their future conduct?
Yes, as I mentioned, an assurance from Prime Minister Begin in a direct letter to the Taoiseach that he would instruct his forces to ensure that there was no direct harassment of or firing on our troops, and advise the Christian forces as well. That was an assurance. The Deputy will also have noticed in my reply that I referred to an assurance given in the UN Security Council debate. There were those, and many other assurances.
There are assurances that Israeli troops will not fire on them?
Yes, indeed.
Do those assurances cover the situation in regard to Major Haddad's de facto forces?
The Israeli position has always been that they do not control the Haddad de facto forces. They recognise that they have a certain influence. They have always responded that they do not control them, but that they would convey the views that we have conveyed to them to the de facto forces, and that they would request them particularly not to engage in any direct harassment of the UN operation.
How does the Minister suggest that we should further tackle the problem in the light of the continued firing which took place in the past week or ten days?
I have indicated in the past number of days that the assessment of the United Nations and our own forces is not in line with the assessment given here. I can only rely on the professional assessment. I have indicated to-day that I am not satisfied. We have not been satisfied and we are not satisfied that the Israelis are behaving in a manner which would enable the UN troops, of which ours are a contingent, to implement their mandate.
We on this side of the House are not satisfied to what degree there is firing going on at the moment. There is firing going on and our troops are there.
There is no evidence of direct firing on our troops by the Israelis or the Christian Forces.
If there are rounds going off we do not want our troops to be near them. Does the Minister consider that we have been exerting sufficient pressure on the Israelis, first, through the UN and, secondly, and perhaps more importantly, through the US?
The control and direction of the forces, which I also mentioned last week in a reply to the Leader of the Deputy's party, is a matter for the UN, not for the Government and certainly not for me. On that basis we make our representations in support of the UN. On this occasion we have taken the extra steps, which is not usual, of making direct representations in support of the UN to Israel and to the US. We have continued to ask both countries to use their influence in their appropriate ways to ensure that the harassment will not continue.
While welcoming the marked change of tone in his remarks in comparision with last week, in the light of the assurances received from the Israeli Government that their forces would not intervene in the UN controlled territory, what action does the Minister propose to take in view of the fact that they did raid into the Irish zone about a week ago? Has a further protest been made and has the Israeli Prime Minister been asked what value his assurances have if his forces pay no attention to what he apparently instructs them to do?
We have made protests and we have sought further guarantees that it will not be repeated. We have been in contact at every level. In regard to the Deputy's remarks about the change of tone in my remarks, it might be helpful to remind the Deputy that on the previous occasion, as the record shows, perhaps unwittingly, he stated that it was my responsibility to ensure the safety of the troops. When the Deputy makes a mistake in a suggestion of that nature he should understand that I might tend to respond.
The issue at stake is whether anything the Minister says or does is helpful to the interests of the UN and to the safety of our forces. My suggestion was that his apparently complacent attitude could be unhelpful in that regard.
It was during a Private Notice Question that the Deputy said that. I said that the Deputy, who sat in my place, should above all know the procedures. It was subsequently that the other matter came up during which the Deputy made a comment about my ineffective handling of the matter. We may have reacted to each other but the Deputy started on a misstatement of fact, which I hope he will now acknowledge.
When I was Minister I certainly felt a considerable responsibility in anything I said or did that could affect the interests of the Irish forces serving with the UN.
We have gone outside normal representations and have added our voice directly to the Israelis. We have done everything open to us in the matter.
I should like to ask the Minister——
We are not having any further questions on this matter. I am calling Question No. 20.
——if he has any evidence——
Is the Deputy going to insist?
Yes.
The Chair considers that we have had enough supplementary questions.