Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 1980

Vol. 320 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Troops in the Lebanon.

16.

Dr. FitzGerald, Mr. Creed

andMr. P. Barry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the involvement of Irish troops in South Lebanon on 7 and 8 April 1980.

17.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the capture of nine Irish soldiers by right wing Christian forces in the Lebanon recently.

18.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will comment on the killing of Irish soldiers by Christian militia forces in the Lebanon recently.

19.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has taken the necessary steps with the United Nations to ensure the safety and full support for Irish troops serving in their peace-keeping assignment and if he has obtained full reports on all recent incidents in which our troops were engaged; and the action he proposes to take by way of immediate discussions at top level with the United Nations.

20.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the up-to-date position in regard to the safety and security of Irish troops in the Lebanon and the implementation of the United Nations resolution over the area controlled by the Haddad militia.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, together.

The events up to 16 April last were the subject of my statement to the Dáil on that day.

Deputies will already be aware that, following the abduction and murder of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne in the South Lebanon on 18 April, the Government held a special meeting on the morning of Sunday, 20 April. Following the meeting, the Government issued a statement expressing their serious concern, setting out their views on the position of the United Nations Interim Force in the Lebanon and the Irish contingent, and outlining the action they intended to take in this regard. I will circulate this for inclusion in the Official Report.

I would not, therefore, intend to repeat its contents in detail. However, I think that I should reiterate the Government's belief that UNIFIL has made a significant contribution towards the prevention of an outbreak of more general hostilities in the Middle East and their belief that Ireland should continue to play its part in the UN peacekeeping effort by maintaining its contingent with the force. Any UN peacekeeping operation, however, depends fundamentally on a necessary minimum of co-operation and support from the Governments who wish to see it interposed between parties in conflict. It cannot function effectively if it is prevented by deliberate policy from full deployment in its area of operation, and if it is the target of harassment and attack by forces supplied, trained, advised and supported from outside by a UN member state.

All involved must now see that it is necessary, once and for all, to create conditions which will allow the force to carry out its mandate in every respect, throughout the area assigned to it, in conditions of adequate security for its personnel. The Government have noted that on 18 April the Security Council which set up the force and gave it its mandate stated its intention "to take such determined action as the situation calls for to enable UNIFIL to take immediate and total control of its entire area of operation up to the internationally recognised boundaries" and they look to the Council for this action. In the Government's view, taking account of the fact that the role of the force is a peacekeeping one, this requires specific decisions of a political and diplomatic character, leading to the removal of all outside support for the Haddad forces.

Following a debate on the situation in the Southern Lebanon which took place over two weeks ago, the Security Council adopted a resolution on the subject on 24 April 1980. In this, it reaffirmed its determination to implement its previous resolutions in the totality of the area of operations assigned to UNIFIL up to the internationally recognised boundaries, and strongly deplored acts that have led to loss of life and physical injuries among UNIFIL personnel.

The Acting Permanent Representative of Ireland in New York addressed the Council on two occasions in recent weeks. He has also kept in constant touch with the Secretary-General, responsible officials in the Secretariat, and representatives of the other troop-contributing countries.

I should recall that UNIFIL is under the command of the United Nations, vested in the Secretary-General, under the authority of the Security Council. Command in the field is exercised by the Force Commander appointed by, and responsible to, the Security Council.

For their part, the Government are endeavouring to assist the UN and the Secretary-General in promoting this objective by diplomatic means. I have invited the other troop contributing countries and the Secretary-General to participate in a meeting at ministerial level in Dublin on Friday next to discuss the serious difficulties faced by UNIFIL in carrying out the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council and the conditions that would be necessary to enable the force to function effectively and with reasonable security for its personnel.

The Irish ambassador to Israel met Prime Minister Begin on 20 April to convey to him the contents of the Government's statement and the Taoiseach's personal concern about recent developments. The Prime Minister subsequently reported on the meeting to the Israeli Cabinet. The Prime Minister unreservedly condemned the killing of the Irish soldiers and reiterated that Israel would do its best to end the harassment of UNIFIL by the de facto forces. He repeated that Israel did not control Major Haddad. The ambassador emphasised that, in view of the nature of the relationship between Israel and Major Haddad, the Irish Government looked to Israel to restrain him effectively.

At the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Nine in Luxembourg on 22 April, the Foreign Ministers agreed, on my proposal, to issue a statement expressing their revulsion at recent events and calling strongly on all concerned to give their fullest support to the measures decided on by the Security Council, so that UNIFIL may be in a position to carry out in full its peacekeeping mission. This statement, a copy of which I will also circulate for inclusion in the Official Report, is being brought to the attention of the Israeli Government by the Italian Presidency. I know that the Nine will continue to give their full support to the effort to enable UNIFIL to operate effectively and in reasonable security.

The Taoiseach has also written a personal letter to President Carter, asking him to use to the full all the influence his Government can command in the present situation, and thanking him for the US Government's helpful interventions in the past. I am having a copy of this letter placed in the Dáil Library.

As regards reports by the United Nations, I am also arranging to have placed in the Dáil Library copies of special reports issued by the Secretary-General, subsequent to those referred to in my statement to the Dáil of 16 April last. In accordance with standing regulations relating to death in UN service, the United Nations will, of course, carry out an investigation into the circumstances of these deaths, but this has not yet been completed.

In conclusion, I know that the House will join with me in extending our deepest sympathy to the family, relatives and friends of these soldiers who died while courageously carrying out their duties in the most difficult circumstances in the service of the United Nations and in the cause of world peace. I am confident that the contingent now beginning its tour of duty will carry out its tasks in the same impartial and competent manner that has brought Irish UN units so much honour in the past.

Following are the statements referred to:

Statement following Government meeting Sunday 20 April 1980.

1. The Government held a special meeting this morning to consider the situation arising from the murder on Friday of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne, two members of the Defence Forces serving with the UN Force in Lebanon, and the death some days previously of Private Griffin from injuries received earlier.

2. The Government expressed their deepest sympathy to the families and relatives of the three men, all of whom died while courageously carrying out their duty in the service of the United Nations and in the cause of peace. The bereaved families should know that everyone in Ireland shares their grief and their sense of loss. That this grief is shared by the international community is evident from the many moving expressions of sympathy which the Government have received from abroad.

3. Following these wanton killings the Government heard reports from the Minister for Defence and from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, including the steps taken by Irish representatives at the United Nations and in various capitals during and immediately after the latest tragic incidents.

4. Ireland has a long and honourable record of service to UN peacekeeping over many years. The Government believe strongly that this commitment should be maintained and that the officers and men of Ireland's Defence Forces should continue, as they have for 22 years to play their part effectively in peacekeeping operations at the request of the United Nations.

5. The Government are extremely concerned at recent developments and at the further difficulties which have been placed in the way of the force in carrying out its mandate from the Security Council effectively, and in conditions of reasonable security for its personnel.

6. In the dangerous situation in the Middle East, the UN Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon has a particularly important—indeed a vital—role to play. The force has made a significant contribution towards the prevention of an outbreak of more general hostilities in the Middle East. The precipitate withdrawal of the force now would dangerously upset such stability as exists in the area. Such a withdrawal could lead to intervention by other outside forces. At the present time of heightened international tensions this could have the most serious consequences and might easily lead to wider war.

7. The Government recognise this, and they believe that Ireland should continue to play its part in the UN peacekeeping effort by maintaining its contingent with the force. But any UN peacekeeping operation depends fundamentally on acceptance of the force, and of its role, in the area where it is to serve, and on a necessary minimum of co-operation and support from the Governments who wish to see it interposed between parties in conflict. No UN peacekeeping force can function effectively if it is prevented by deliberate policy from full deployment in its area of operation; nor can the participating countries allow the officers and men of their forces who have volunteered for service at the request of the international community to be the target of harassment and attack by hostile irregular forces which are supplied, trained, advised and supported from outside by a UN member state on the grounds that it considers the existence and the activities of those forces to be helpful to its security.

8. The Government understand that Israel is concerned for its security; and they sympathise with the grief felt by the people of Israel when death or injury is caused by attack from across its border as in the recent tragic incident at Misgav Am. They emphasise, however, that there is no evidence that the infiltrators who carried out this attack came through the area where UNIFIL has been allowed to exercise effective control. Governments in the region, and all those Governments which wish the force to continue in being, must now see that it is necessary once and for all to create conditions which will allow it to carry out its mandate in every respect, throughout the area assigned to it, in conditions of adequate security for its personnel. It is clear, that a return to the situation as it existed before the attack on At-Tiri two weeks ago, while it may be a first step, is quite insufficient.

9. At their meeting today, the Government noted that, on the evening of Friday, 17 April, following the murder of Privates Barrett and Smallhorne, the President of the UN Security Council, with the agreement of all 15 member states, made an important statement at a special meeting of the Council. In it he reaffirmed

the intention of the Council to take such determined action as the situation calls for to enable UNIFIL to take immediate and total control of its entire area of operations up to the internationally recognised boundaries.

The Government now look to the UN Security Council for this action. Specific decisions must be taken of a political and diplomatic character to implement the stated intention of the Council, taking account of the fact that the role of the force is a peacekeeping one.

10. In particular, the intention of the Council that UNIFIL should take "immediate and total control of its entire area of operations", requires that the irregular Haddad forces who have been the major source of the problems created for the UN Force, and the direct cause of the recent loss of life by Irish soldiers, must cease their harassment and attacks. This means that they must be deprived of all outside support so that there will be an end, once and for all, to the threat which they have posed, almost on a daily basis, to the units of the force since it was first set up.

11. The Government have therefore decided to propose to the other troop-contributing countries that at an early date they consult closely with each other and with the UN Secretary-General to consider how far such measures as may now be taken by the Security Council, which has the responsibility in the matter, will be adequate to ensure that the force can function effectively and with due regard for the safety of its personnel. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will now seek to arrange an early meeting at Ministerial level with the other troop contributing countries. First contacts are already under way to this end.

12. The Government have noted the assurances given by Prime Minister Begin of Israel to President Carter that Israel would co-operate fully with UNIFIL. On the instructions of the Taoiseach, the Irish Ambassador to Israel, Mr. Seán Ronan, will meet Prime Minister Begin today to convey to him the Taoiseach's deep personal concern. He will discuss with the Prime Minister how Israel intends to carry out the assurances it has given and deal effectively with the forces of Major Haddad.

13. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will also bring the present serious situation to the attention of the Foreign Ministers of Ireland's partners in the Nine, at the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday and Tuesday and he will inform them of the views and of the concern of the Irish Government.

14. The Government are keeping the whole situation under continuing review.

Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine on the situation in Southern Lebanon and the position of the UNIFIL Force.

1. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine member States of the European Community meeting in Luxembourg on 22 April considered recent developments in relation to the United Nations PeaceKeeping Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).

2. They expressed their profound revulsion at the recent killing of soldiers of the force and especially at the brutal and cold-blooded murder on 18 April by the irregular forces of Major Haddad of two unarmed soldiers of the Irish contingent.

3. The Ministers recalled their statement of 11 September, 1979 reaffirming their support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and calling on all parties to give full assistance to the UNIFIL operation and to respect the decisions of the Security Council. They express very serious concern that armed attacks continue to be made on the UNIFIL troops, installations and equipment and that obstacles continue to be placed in the way of the force in its efforts to carry out effectively, and throughout the whole of its area of operation, the peacekeeping mandate it received from the Security Council.

4. The Nine believe it is vital that steps be taken to ensure that UNIFIL is permitted to carry out fully the tasks assigned to it and they support the efforts of the troop contributing countries to ensure that this will now be done. They note that it is the intention of the Security Council, as stated on behalf of its member states by the President of the Council on 18 April "to take such determined action as the situation calls for to enable UNIFIL to take immediate and total control of the entire area of operation up to the internationally recognised boundaries".

5. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine call strongly on all concerned to give their fullest support to the measures decided on by the Security Council so that UNIFIL may be in a position to carry out in full the important peacekeeping mission with which it has been entrusted on behalf of the international community.

Luxembourg 22 April 1980

Arising from the Minister's very long reply, will he state if the Government have had any contact with the Governments of the countries supplying troops to UNIFIL? If so, will the Minister state the nature of the contact? Secondly, will the Minister tell the House if he or his Government have done anything to end the campaign of vilification against our troops in the Lebanon by the Israeli press? Thirdly, will the Minister agree that having taken sides already or having shown our hand we are regarded as an unfriendly nation and, therefore, have lost a considerable amount of our influence in persuading the Israeli Government to back off the Haddad forces?

I have answered the first part of the Deputy's question already. I have invited the other troop-contributing countries and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to participate at a meeting at ministerial level in Dublin next Friday. I have been in close contact with all of the troop-contributing countries of whom there are ten. There are five in Europe—Norway, Italy, France, the Netherlands and ourselves—as well as Senegal, Fiji, Nepal, Nigeria and Ghana. All ten countries will be represented here on Friday. They fully support our attitude and our approach in this matter, that it should be preceeded with on a diplomatic basis to seek to achieve a situation where the UN mandate can be effective so that UNIFIL troops can control the whole area of the Lebanon up to the boundaries of the Lebanon. This is the crux of the whole problem. This initiative, with all troop-contributing countries moving in concert, is the sensible approach. We do not intend to take unilateral action; we will take this kind of diplomatic action. We have already taken action on it and, hopefully, the meeting on Friday will result in a positive diplomatic approach being made that can result in the achievement of what I am saying, namely, making effective the mandate which UNIFIL is seeking to carry out on behalf of the UN. Our position has not in any way been minimised. As a member of the UNIFIL group we play our part with the other nine nations. We propose to act as one of the group within the United Nations context.

What about the second and third questions asked by Deputy Creed.

I have answered the second question.

I should like to refer the Minister to my third question—the fact that we have already shown our hand or taken sides and thus have minimised our influence with the Israeli Government.

I have answered that question. We are not in the Lebanon in an Irish capacity. This is the question I was really answering. We are there as part of the UNIFIL force, one of ten contributing countries and most of them have taken the same attitude as Ireland with regard to a Palestinian homeland. Practically all of the troop-contributing countries have taken the same stand that we have taken. We are all acting under the UNIFIL umbrella and on behalf of the United Nations.

That is too subtle for Haddad.

I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, is it proposed that there be any change in the defensive tactics of the Irish unit in the UN force? It would appear from reports that were published that it has been the tactic of our force, in line with the tradition of our units in UN peacekeeping forces, not to return fire even when under fire except in cases of extreme danger while other units have taken a different attitude and have returned shot for shot. In view of the problems created by different tactics of different units, is it proposed that the tactics be made uniform? If so, does this involve a change of tactics on our part? Perhaps it would be better to leave my second question for the moment while the Minister replies to this question.

The question asked by the Deputy is pertinent and it will be one of the most relevant and germane aspects of the discussion we are having with other troop-contributing countries next Friday. It is important that this aspect be fully clarified. So far as Ireland is concerned, our view consistently has been that we regard our role as a peacekeeping role rather than a peace-enforcement role. Some countries have tended to take the peace-enforcement aspect. We want to ensure that there is a uniform attitude in regard to the conduct of the UNIFIL operations. We made it quite clear that the operations should be on a peacekeeping basis. Our whole thrust in having this conference, and if we get agreement from the other troop-contributing nations, would be to proceed on diplomatic lines and to exercise the appropriate diplomatic pressure where it can be exercised to ensure the withdrawal of the Haddad troops. In my view, it is very dangerous to go on the peace-enforcement line. Candidly, Ireland would view that as a mistake. We would view it as appropriate that the UN and the ten troop-contributing countries should act on the ground in a peacekeeping role and should act in concert in a diplomatic role to achieve the required diplomatic pressures to enable the withdrawal to take place. If it does not work, then that is an entirely new situation.

Deputy FitzGerald may ask his second question and then I will call Deputy Quinn.

Before I come to my second question I should like the Minister to tell the House why has this lack of uniformity in tactics persisted since last October? Which forces are operating in accordance with the directions of the UN command? From our point of view it is most unsatisfactory that there should be criticism of our forces pursuing what seems to me to be the correct peacekeeping tactics while troops from other countries are pursuing different tactics. Why have we allowed the situation to persist since last October without securing uniformity and leaving us vulnerable both to attack and to criticism for being unduly defensive?

The overall UN mandate is entirely a peacekeeping mandate, not a peace-enforcing mandate. The difficulty in an operation such as UNIFIL is that there are a number of countries with diverse military traditions. It is not easy.

Why have we not taken steps since the diversity of tactics emerged last October to ensure uniformity of tactics?

The Deputy can be assured that this aspect will be one of the principal matters discussed at the meeting on Friday.

It is six months too late. The Minister attempted to deal with the other question but he did not really answer it. I want to know how it is proposed to implement the Security Council resolution about moving up to the frontier line if Israel refuses to withdraw its support of Major Haddad given that the Minister has doubts, which I understand and appreciate, about the UN changing to a peace-enforcement role. How is a solution to be enforced if Israel does not co-operate?

I hope that with the moral pressure exercised by the ten countries acting together and bringing the appropriate pressure to bear on the United Nations and on the Security Council in particular this should operate as a diplomatic lever vis-à-vis Israel in regard to her attitude to Major Haddad's de facto forces that have bedevilled the situation in that buffer zone existing at present between the UNIFIL forces and Israel. This will be a diplomatic initiative.

In view of the American Government's failure to support condemnation of this attack, does he now——

Sorry, I must bring in Deputy Quinn.

I think this is a very relevant point. Deputy FitzGerald will appreciate, as a previous occupant of this post, that that is all one can do, seek to maximise diplomatic pressure because the only other road is the road which the Deputy agreed with me that we should not follow, that is to go into the peace enforcement role——

(Interruptions.)

I have called Deputy Quinn. He must get his supplementary. Deputy FitzGerald had six or seven.

If I may ask a question between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, could the Minister say if any of the other nine countries which supply the UNIFIL forces have recently changed their recognition of or their relationship to the PLO in a manner similar to what the Minister did on our behalf at Bahrein? Does he think that the changed attitude he adopted towards the PLO in Bahrein has any connection with the recent intensification of physical force in South Lebanon?

None whatever. Indeed France, one of the contributing countries, since we made our statement in that respect has made an even stronger statement. Nigeria, Ghana, Italy, Norway and Holland—each one of them in varying ways has recognised the rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland.

That is not what was there at Bahrein.

The homeland has been there for a long time. The Minister's statement at Bahrein was different from the homeland.

A question please, Deputy.

May I raise another issue with the Minister? Is there any suggestion that the Irish troops there should engage in firing more than they have to? Would the Minister accept that there should be some standardisation of armaments among the UNIFIL troops and in so far as other contingents have certain armaments, including the anti-tank Tow missile, which the Dutch have and for which our contingent have to radio to zero in on positions when we want shots fired by them and also the heavy machine gun——

The Deputy must ask a question.

This is a suggestion to the Minister.

The Deputy may not make suggestions at Question Time.

Does the Minister accept that it would be in the interests of the Irish troops that they should be armed with these two specific weapons, the Tow missile for anti-tank work and the heavy machine gun, as their own machine guns have not the range that the Haddad machine guns have?

One thing I do not like is amateur soldiers. We have an expert Irish Army, expert defence specialists who satisfy the Minister for Defence and myself that our Army is fully armed to cope with the problems there. One of the matters we shall be discussing next Friday is this whole area also. I should like to discuss it with the experts and I shall be reporting back to the Dáil on the results of the meeting. It is not very helpful for us to talk about matters of which, candidly, we know very little.

A final supplementary from Deputy Kelly. We have spent 12 minutes on this question.

(Interruptions.)

I am calling Deputy Kelly for a final supplementary.

I want to ask a couple of short questions about Friday's meeting. Has the Minister had acceptances of his invitation from all nine other countries?

Yes, I am glad to say.

It is so hard to be sure with this Minister——

A question please, Deputy.

At what level will the representation of these countries be? Are they all sending Ministers?

They will be sending very senior people, in many cases Ministers.

I want to emphasise again, with respect to our international standing at present, that there was a very immediate and full response from the other countries concerned, all of whom congratulated us on the initiative we were taking. Some of them will be sending a quite substantial number of personnel with a view to dealing with this matter in a very expert manner so that this will be——

Question No. 21 Minister, please.

The size of the delegation does not impress me. I want to know will the people there be of a rank sufficient to take decisions.

As the headquarters of UNIFIL Forces are in Nagoura inside Haddad territory, will the Minister be taking this up on Friday with the other members with a view to having harassment of the headquarters stopped?

That is another type of issue which will be taken up.

It is a very important issue.

We have a long agenda of issues some of which have been raised by Members of the House. All of these issues will be gone into in depth by either Ministers for Foreign Affairs or Ministers for Defence or the appropriate military or foreign affairs experts who will be present at this meeting which has been welcomed by all the other troop-contributing countries. I hope it will be a successful meeting and I trust everybody in the House joins with me in that hope.

We certainly join in that.

21.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount due to Ireland arising out of UNIFIL operations in the Lebanon and the steps being taken to recover the amount outstanding.

Before replying directly to the Deputy's question, I should first like to point out how the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is financed.

By decision of the Security Council UNIFIL is financed by contributions from all UN member states. However, because some countries withhold their contributions to UNIFIL, there has been a shortfall to date of about 26 per cent in the amount of money available to run the force. After it has met its own direct costs, the UN reimburses troop contributors for their extra costs with the money available under various headings approved by the General Assembly such as additional pay and allowances, usage factor for personal wear and equipment, depreciation costs, supplies costs and death and disability claims.

It is estimated that for the period May 1978, when we first joined UNIFIL, to April 1980, the amount of money which could be claimed by Ireland under the various reimbursements headings would be about £9.3 million. Because of the limited amount of money available for reimbursement to troop contributors, however, it seems unlikely at present that this country will receive more than £4.7 million of the foregoing of which approximately £3.6 million has been received to date.

The extra cost actually incurred, over and above regular expenses such as ordinary pay, in providing a contingent for service with UNIFIL, is however less than our entitlement under the reimbursement arrangements. It is estimated that over the period already mentioned, May 1978-April 1980, this extra cost did not exceed £6.2 million. On the basis that £4.7 million of these costs would be reimbursed by the UN the net extra cost to the State of providing a contingent for the first two years would be about £1.5 million. On the same basis the net extra cost to the State of providing a contingent for a further six months would be about £400,000. I should emphasise the figures given can only be rough estimates at this stage.

Since it became evident about a year ago that there would be a shortfall in reimbursements, the matter has been urgently pursued by the Irish mission in New York at the United Nations and in conjunction with other troop-contributors. The mission has maintained close contact with the Secretariat in the matter. Furthermore, the Irish delegation to the recent UN General Assembly played a prominent role in drafting and presenting the resolution dealing with the financing of UNIFIL and ensured that these resolutions contained specific provisions aimed at improving the financial situation of UNIFIL. In addition to some technical improvements, the major such provisions were:

the creation of a Special UNIFIL account to receive voluntary contributions for the force was set up and the UN Secretary-General will make a twice-yearly appeal for such contributions.

a review of the standard rates of reimbursement to troop contributors will be carried out at the next UN General Assembly this autumn. In view of increased costs, the case for an increase in the rates will be clear. The UN Secretariat has in fact already begun to examine cost figures supplied by troop-contributors.

I am of course continuing to take any action open to me to bring about an improvement in the finances of the force.

We are somewhat confused by all these figures. Could the Minister say simply what do we now claim is due and how do we hope to collect it?

The net amount due at the moment would be about £1.5 million. That is the net extra cost for the two years we have been there.

Does the Minister hope to collect that?

We are following it up, doing what we can.

Top
Share