asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a document issued by the Embassy of Israel regarding the UNIFIL presence in the Lebanon; whether he will refer it to the United Nations for urgent consideration or take other action with reference thereto; and, if so, the action he will take.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - UN Forces in Lebanon.
9.
I am aware of the document to which the Deputy refers entitled "UNIFIL in the Lebanese Cauldron" and which was issued by the Information Department of the Embassy of Israel in London on 12 March 1981.
The document contains many interpretations of UNIFIL policy and activities which would not accord with the United Nations assessment of the situation of the force. I can tell the Deputy that the United Nations, under whose command the force operates, are aware of the document, regard it as inaccurate and have made efforts to correct it and similar statements. I would regard such matters concerning the overall operation of the force as being for the UN Secretary-General to deal with as he sees fit.
Without apportioning blame or having a discussion on whether the document is totally true, will the Minister not agree that the position in the Lebanon indicates that the mandate originally given to UNIFIL was to a large extent unrealistic and that the situation in what is called "the cauldron" in Southern Lebanon indicates that the Lebanese Army is about as effective there as the British Army is in Crossmaglen? Would the Minister not accept, having regard to the fact that there are hostile activities there — we need not have a discussion as to who is responsible but one hostile action provokes another — that now is the time to raise the matter again in the United Nations with a view to altering the mandate so that it will deal with the actual situation there rather than the hopeful one?
There will be a meeting of the UNIFIL contributing countries shortly in Oslo and this point of view will be put. We had a meeting in Dublin some months ago and there will be another meeting in Oslo to put the precise point of view put by Deputy Ryan and to ensure that we speak as one unified group on this matter. I agree with Deputy Ryan that the whole nature of the mandate and the exercise of it is a cause for concern. The new Irish commander of the UNIFIL force there has made that aspect quite clear so there is no question as far as the UNIFIL force or the United Nations are concerned. The thrust of Deputy Ryan's point — we would like it also — is that all the troop contributing countries should come together in some sort of agreement to intensify his point, otherwise the whole presence of UNIFIL must be called into question. If it reaches a stage where it is not effective in any way it comes to a very dangerous stage. We have to watch that aspect also.
10.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that conditions in the Lebanon make it possible for the United Nations interim force to fulfil its mandate to ensure that its area of operation is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind; if not, whether he will take initiatives in the United Nations to strengthen the prospects of a cessation of military and paramilitary activities in the Lebanon; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Before addressing the substance of the Deputy's question, I should perhaps first point out that the mandate of UNIFIL as first set out in Security Council Resolution 425 of 19 March 1978 comprises three essential elements. UNIFIL is to (a) confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon; (b) restore international peace and security; and (c) assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. These three elements are commonly referred to as the three parts of the mandate of UNIFIL.
A further document drawn up by the UN Secretary-General on the operation of the force was approved by the Security Council in Resolution 426 also on 19 March 1978. This document listed a series of what were called terms of reference of the force and one of these terms of reference was as follows:
The Force will use its best efforts to prevent the recurrence of fighting and ensure that its area of operation is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind.
I would point out, therefore, that, if one were to quote from the original UN document, the phrase "use its best efforts" would be included in the Deputy's question before the phrase "to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind". I can assure the Deputy that I am satisfied that the force is using its best efforts to try to achieve this end.
On the general question of the conditions under which UNIFIL is operating, the Deputy will be aware that these are extremely difficult. To the south of the UNIFIL area of operations the de facto forces continue to hold a strip of territory with the financial and military support of Israel. They harass the force and impede it from carrying out its tasks. The force has also continued to be faced by attempts by Palestinian and radical Lebanese and other groups to infiltrate its area of operations from the north. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation.
Despite all these disadvantages the Secretary-General in his most recent comprehensive report nonetheless expressed the view that, UNIFIL "is performing an indispensable service to peace not only in South Lebanon, but with regard to the Middle East situation in general". The Government are prepared to accept this assessment of the Secretary-General and in this context will continue to do whatever they can to assist the UN in its efforts to improve the conditions under which the force operates. In this regard, we are in continual contact through diplomatic channels with the UN, the other troop contributors and countries which have an interest in the area.
Is there any ongoing assessment of the situation there with any prognosis? Is there anybody giving an expert view about how long it is likely the force will be needed in Southern Lebanon and what the short-term and medium-term future there will be?
The basic factor to remember is that if it were not for the presence of UNIFIL in that area undoubtedly there would have been very serious trouble up to now. One must obviously, moving from there, support any continuing presence in that area. One then comes to the final situation where if the United Nations decide that no useful purpose is being served by being there any more then other decisions have to be made. At the moment the United Nations are satisfied that it is important for us to be there and for UNIFIL to be there.
I accept what the Minister has said but it appears to me that there seems to be a situation of attrition in the area. I believe it would be wrong to pull out our troops. Is there any view as to what the short-term and medium-term future will be there and how long they are likely to have to remain there? Are there any further steps, based on such analysis, which could now be taken, which would lead towards eventual peace in the area and restoration of the Government in the Lebanon?
One cannot make predictions of that kind in the Lebanese situation.
(Interruptions.)
11.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has held any discussions with UN representatives on the likely duration of the participation of Irish troops in the UNIFIL force in the Lebanon; whether any approach has been made to the United Nations authorities on the matter; if he expects any improvement in the behaviour of the Christian militia; and if he will give details of any consultations he had on the matter prior to the recent meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister.
No discussions have been held by me with the United Nations on the likely duration of the participation of Irish troops with the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. The United Nations has not informed me as to whether it has had an approach from any other source on this matter.
As regards the de facto forces in Southern Lebanon, to which the Deputy refers as the Christian militia, I would naturally hope that there would be an improvement in the attitude of these forces who consistently harass UNIFIL and have prevented it from taking over control of all the territory entrusted to it by the Security Council. The Deputy will know that these forces are supported financially and militarily by Israel. I cannot say that recent events such as the killing of two Nigerian soldiers on 16 March would encourage expectations of improvement in the behaviour of these forces towards UNIFIL. However, the United Nations works continually to improve the situation of the Force and we are of course in constant touch with the UN and seek to be of assistance wherever possible in helping to bring about better conditions for UNIFIL.
I presume that the Deputy in the last part of his question is referring to the meeting in Jerusalem on 23 March between the Israeli Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence was at the time on a visit to Irish troops serving with UN peacekeeping missions in the Middle East and paid a courtesy call on the Israeli Prime Minister in Mr. Begin's capacity as Minister for Defence of Israel. I was of course in contact with the Minister for Defence before his recent visit to the Middle East
Quite apart from the meeting in Oslo, to which the Minister referred in the previous question of countries contributing forces to the Lebanon at this time, would the Minister agree that probably the time has come for some bilateral initiative on his part with the UN authorities to come to some conclusions about the value or otherwise of the operation in the Lebanon? Factors beyond our control operate in that area which make it very difficult indeed to foresee any successful outcome to the present operation. I agree that these factors are outside our control and relate more to the general Lebanese conflict. There does not appear to be, in the foreseeable future any possibility of a successful outcome to our participation. At least that would suggest that the Minister should be discussing, unilaterally at this point with the UN, the future of this operation.
I have had discussions on a regular basis with the UN Secretary-General over a number of months on this issue and we keep in constant touch. There is one aspect which I would like to put very strongly to the House, that we should only take this step in a United Nations context. It would not be consistent with the sort of reputation we have established in the United Nations over many years to take a unilateral attitude in this matter.
The Minister should have thought of that in Bahrain.
Perhaps the Minister misunderstood me——
The Deputy used the word "unilateral".
—— but, while adhering to the point of maintaining our loyalty to the UN for the foreseeable future, we would not be detracting from that loyalty if, on witnessing an operation which would not appear to be pointing to any foreseeable success, we found it necessary, with other participating countries who also have a good record with the UN, to take the matter up with the UN authorities. I am surprised that the Minister has not been discussing recently with UN representatives the likely duration of our participation in the operation in question. There are factors outside our control involved in this situation. The rules of the game do not appear to be operating and there is serious loss of life.
This is a long speech.
The topic is very serious.
It was important that we took the initiative of calling a meeting in Dublin of the troop contributors. As a result of that initiative the troop contributors will move together. A further meeting is being arranged for Oslo at an early date and that meeting is being held with a view to reconsidering the whole situation.
Will we be putting forward a definite view at that meeting?
I am calling Question No. 12.
It is important that I answer the question. I will deal with the matter in conjunction with the troop contributing nations and within the broad aspect of our support for the UN.