Situation in Lebanon: Statements.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

The Government have followed with increasing concern the rapid deterioration of the situation in Lebanon in the course of the past week.

Our sympathy goes to the people of Beirut who once again are suffering the consequences of the inability of the various factions and communities in that country to agree on suitable measures for the future government of Lebanon.

We are also concerned that the present crisis will make even more difficult the possibility of achieving such a reconciliation. We can only urge that all parties involved, and in particular those with most influence in the area, will refrain from actions which would have the effect of further inflaming the situation.

My Department are in constant contact with our Embassy in Beirut which in very difficult conditions has continued to supply valuable information and assessments of the situation there.

A small number of Irish citizens remain in Beirut and to the extent possible contact is being maintained with them by the Embassy. As of 4.15 p.m. this afternoon the First Secretary, Mr. Piaras Mac Einrí, has contacted the 25 known people of Irish birth or extraction and he is satisfied as to their safety. Even in the present tragic situation we must not lose sight of the wider dangers which the conflict in Lebanon holds for the stability of the region as a whole. The problems of the Middle East overlap and interconnect. Indeed, Lebanon in recent years has presented in microcosm the wider conflicts of the region. While the immediate priority must be the alleviation of the suffering of the people of Beirut and Lebanon and the promotion of reconciliation there, it must also be recognised that the long term stability of Lebanon and the region can only be achieved in the context of an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Irish policy in co-ordination with that of its partners in the Ten remains directed to this goal. This should also be the objective of the wider international community.

I understand that the United Nations Security Council may meet soon to consider the most recent developments in Lebanon and the appropriate response which they require.

As the House is aware, Ireland's direct involvement in the situation in Lebanon arises primarily from the participation of our Defence Forces in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

The tasks of UNIFIL are confined to Southern Lebanon where it continues to play a valuable and valid role in keeping the peace and protecting the local population. It is worth noting that in all of Lebanon the area patrolled by the UN force is one of the few places where there is relative peace and stability. The Government remain, as they have always been, concerned for the welfare of our troops and we shall continue to monitor the situation and ensure that all steps are taken to maintain their safety. Our latest information is that, unlike that in Beirut, the situation in the south is relatively stable and calm and UNIFIL are continuing to carry out their duties in accordance with the Security Council's mandate.

The withdrawal of portions of the MNF from Beirut may give rise to call for a UN force to help restore and maintain peace in the city.

While the UN may indeed have a role to play in Beirut, this is a matter in the first instance for the Government of Lebanon and for the UN Security Council.

Mr. Haughey

I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister and the Government for responding to my request for a statement to the House today on the situation in the Lebanon. We are all deeply conscious of the tragedy that is unfolding by the hour in the Lebanon, a country which was once prosperous and a centre for tourism for that part of the world because it was so attractive in many ways. The agony of the Lebanon has continued for a long time now and, unfortunately, no end to that agony seems to be in sight.

It is difficult to visualise how peace can effectively be brought to parts of the region, especially to the capital, Beirut. We should have a very special sympathy for the Lebanese people and should avail of any opportunity that presents itself to make some contribution to alleviating the situation in the Lebanon. Of course, overshadowing the whole situation is the plight of the Palestinian people whose problems continue to be unresolved.

I think there is a valuable lesson to be learned internationally from recent developments in the Beirut area. It is instructive to contrast the situation that obtains where United Nations forces have been entrusted with the role of peacekeeping with that which obtains where this multinational force have been brought in. On this side of the House we have always been quite clear that the UN are the international agency with whom we should work for peace and the peaceful solutions of international disputes and tensions. Our commitment is and should be to the UN and we can be reinforced in that belief by the unfortunate happenings in the Lebanon. It is quite clear that the concept of a multinational force of the sort brought in is a mistaken one. With the best will in the world, a multinational force of that kind cannot be relied upon to achieve the objectives there which we would all like to see.

In Southern Lebanon our information is that the UN force and our troops who are part of it are welcomed by the population, accepted, respected and are making a very important contribution to stability in the area and to maintaining peace. I hope our Government will keep this stark contrast clearly in mind — the acceptability of the UN force in one part of the Lebanon as against the tensions which, rightly or wrongly, have followed in the train of the multinational force in another part.

I hope that the Government are constantly in touch with the situation. We want to play our part as a peace loving member of the international community of nations. We have always undertaken a commitment to UN peacekeeping. It has its dangers, and many of our soldiers have lost their lives in maintaining that role in the UN.

It is something we must continue to adhere to. A situation may develop which would make it necessary for UNIFIL to be withdrawn. I hope the Government are assuring us that no such situation obtains at present. The Irish people would like to be assured when they read these terrifying reports of what is happening that, in the circumstances, the UN force is as secure as it can be and that there is no particular need to review its presence there or to consider its withdrawal.

As the Minister can see, parliaments and public opinion in other countries are quite nervous and agitated about the position of their troops. I am referring, of course, to troops which are part of the multinational force. While we would not necessarily have the same anxieties about UNIFIL, it is important that from time to time we should get a review or an assessment of the situation from the Government. We should get assurances that the situation in so far as our area out there is concerned is reasonably stable and secure. It is important that the Minister should be in a position to give that assurance to the Dáil today and in the future if the situation continues indefinitely.

The Minister acknowledged the difference when he said:

It is worth nothing that in all of Lebanon the area patrolled by the UN force is one of the few places where there is relative peace and stability.

That is a very important consideration to keep in mind and I hope it will help to point the way forward out of the tragedy now taking place in the Lebanon. Perhaps through the UN a solution can be found. For us the UN should be the main agency on which we could rely. I do not know whether the Minister would consider taking any initiative at the UN at this stage. He said that the United Nations Security Council may meet soon to consider the most recent developments in the Lebanon and the appropriate response which they require.

Whatever we can do to bring about such a meeting should be done. It is quite clear from recent developments that the multinational force has failed. It might be going too far to say it has made a bad situation worse. I do not know enough about the political and military realities on the ground, but it does not seem to have any capacity to contribute to a peaceful solution of the tragedy of the Lebanon. That makes us all turn to the UN, in desperation, if you like, to see if there is some action which can be taken at the level of the UN to intervene or take an initiative or make some contribution to the appalling situation which prevails out there.

Our sympathy must go out to our Ambassador and his staff and our understanding of the very difficult circumstances in which they find themselves. We hope they will be able to keep the services of the Embassy in being. It is good to know that, as of 4.15 this afternoon, all the Irish citizens we are aware of out there are safe and well. It is a very anxious situation. I urge the Minister and his Department to keep in the closest possible touch with it and be ready to undertake any emergency action which may be necessary at any moment. On some early occasion the Minister may give us a fuller review and assessment of the position of UNIFIL, whether it is in the position to fulfil its mandate and what the future possibilities are. I urge the Minister to consider seriously whether, in conjunction with other like-minded countries, we should take some initiative in the UN to endeavour to bring peace to the Lebanon.

Mr. De Rossa

I should like to preface my remarks by welcoming the Minister's assurance that Irish people living in Beirut at the moment are safe and that all steps possible are being taken to ensure the safety of our troops in the Lebanon. The situation in the Lebanon, which has deteriorated so rapidly in the past couple of weeks, must be a matter of great concern to all of us. The divisions in the Lebanon are obviously a direct result of the wider problems in the Middle East. It is clear that if the situation in the Lebanon continues to deteriorate, this could spark off a train of events leading to another Middle East war. This, in turn, could lead to a confrontation between the world powers which could have appalling consequences for all of us.

There is another reason why we should have a very direct concern and interest in the events in the Lebanon, that is, the presence of an Irish contingent in the UN forces in the south of the country. We have paid a considerable price in terms of the lives of our troops in our contribution to the UN peace-keeping forces. While the roots of the problem in the Lebanon go back over very many years, direct responsibility for the present situation must be firmly laid at the door of the Israeli Government. The Lebanese had largely recovered from their disastrous civil war in the mid-seventies and the various factions had managed to reach some sort of accommodation when the invasion by the Israeli army in June 1982 unleashed what can only be described as a murderous chain of events which led to destruction on an unprecedented scale. We still have strong memories of the massacre of innocent Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila and, of course, there is a virtual state of civil war at present.

There can be no solution to the problems of the Lebanon until there has been a total withdrawal of all Israeli forces. The Israeli Government have persistently refused to comply with the terms of Resolutions Nos. 508 and 509 passed by the United Nations in 1982 calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the Lebanon. The partial withdrawal of Israeli troops to positions in Southern Lebanon last year was aimed effectively at enforcing the partition of Lebanon and the de facto extension of Israel's northern border.

Similarily the treaty forced on the Lebanon by Israel from a position of strength has been a major contributing factor to the present situation primarily because it was so unacceptable to so many of the Lebanese people. This treaty imposed upon the Lebanon a security zone in the south under the effective control of Israel. Under this treaty Lebanon had to repeal all treaties with fellow Arab countries to which Israel had any objection, while future treaties had to be scrutinised by Israel. All cultural activity deemed to be a danger to Israel had to be suppressed. The treaty compelled the Lebanon to withdraw from all mutual defence pacts with other countries. It was a specific requirement that the troops of the multinational force would have to be drawn from countries which had diplomatic relations with Israel.

The treaty imposed on Lebanon conditions that negated its history and made no concessions to its traditions or Arab character. It must be clear to everyone now that to have introduced at that time a multinational force made up of troops from NATO countries was a grave mistake. While the troops of some countries, notably the Italians, made a real effort to be impartial and to offer protection, the US troops in particular made no secret of their support for one faction and consequently became a further source of conflict.

The Lebanon has a very detailed constitution going back to the 1940s. It takes account of the divisions in the country between Christian and Moslem and gives the country an institutionalised form of sectarian power sharing. Systems like this rarely, if ever, work. Institutionalised power sharing did not work in the Lebanon and did not work in Cyprus. We believe that if it were to be introduced in Northern Ireland it would not work there either. When the constitution was introduced the Maronite Christians were in the majority and were given the dominant position under the constitution. The Moslems were very much the second-class citizens. Since then the balance has changed and the Moslems are now in the majority. The Maronites do not, however, seem to be prepared to accept that they should now have to surrender their privileged position. Any solution to the problems of the Lebanon would have to take into account this change in the population structure.

I would not support any call for the withdrawal of the UNIFIL contingent at this stage. While its influence is very limited, largely because the United States and other world powers allow the Israelis to flout its authority, the force does offer some degree of protection to people in Southern Lebanon. The Government must make sure, however, that the Irish troops have the authority and the means to defend themselves against any forces which may attack them.

We believe that at international level the Irish Government should call on all factions to observe a ceasefire. They should call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. They should demand that the Israeli Government immediately withdraw their troops and observe the spirit and the letter of various UN resolutions. The Government should consider the introduction of diplomatic sanctions if this is not done. The Government should also call on the US Government to speed up the withdrawal of their troops and should, as a matter of priority, demand that President Reagan order his naval force to cease shelling the Lebanese mainland.

Foreign troops may be necessary in the Lebanon to help keep the peace but they should be under the control of the United Nations and should be acceptable to all factions there. Consideration should be given to the calling by the United Nations of a conference with a view to producing a new constitution which would guarantee the territorial integrity of Lebanon and enable all groups to play a full role in the country's affairs. The people of the Lebanon have in recent years been asked to endure more than any people should be asked to suffer. The world community has a duty to ensure that they are not effort is made to come up with a lasting solution, not just to the problems of the Lebanon but of the entire Middle Eastern The main crux of the Middle Eastern problem is, of course, the plight of the Palestinian people and lasting peace can never be found in the Middle East until the Palestinian people are allowed to return to their homeland and live in peace.

Mr. Taylor

The Minister's statement is to be welcomed and it is a relief to the House to know that the Irish citizens in Beirut——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carey): I was instructed that there were to be only three speakers — the Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy De Rossa. They are all who are permitted under Standing Orders.

Mr. Taylor

Is there no speaker from the Labour Party? I have to say something in response to the sort of Soviet position which has been given here by Deputy De Rossa. I could not allow that to pass.

Acting Chairman

There are other means you can pursue but not now.

Mr. Taylor

There has been a speaker from every party other than the Labour Party.

Acting Chairman

You will have to resume your seat. The Government have had an opportunity to make the statement and the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy De Rossa have also spoken. You will have to pursue this at another time.

Mr. Taylor

Deputy De Rossa represents a party of two people and some of the remarks he makes are completely unacceptable and outrageous. He is referring to the cause of this problem and——

Acting Chairman

You are being disorderly.

Mr. Taylor

—— he makes no reference to the role of the Syrians and the Soviet Union.

Acting Chairman

You will have to resume your seat.

Mr. Taylor

It is outrageous that this kind of statement should be made here and completely unsubstantiated.

Acting Chairman

I am asking Deputy Taylor to resume his seat.

Mr. Shatter

On a point of order, there are other Deputies who would like to contribute. I appreciate that this has been arranged on the basis of statements. Could I invite both the Government and the Leader of the Opposition——

Acting Chairman

Standing Order 38 states:

A member of the Government who has given prior notice to the Ceann Comhairle may make a statement in the House on any matter. No debate shall be permitted on any such statement but further statements may be allowed at the discretion of the Ceann Comhairle from a spokesman nominated by a Party in Opposition.

That is quite clear and I had started to call on the Minister to proceed with Item No. 10 the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill, 1983.

Mr. Shatter

On a point of order, would the Leader of the Opposition and the Government agree that it would be possible——

Acting Chairman

I must ask you to resume your seat. The position is that under Standing Order 38 this is all that is permitted. You will have to find another way.

Mr. Shatter

I ask for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment this evening.

Acting Chairman

That can be considered.

Mr. P. Barry

The Leader of the Opposition made a suggestion that I might come back to the House at some future date to give a more up-to-date statement on the role the Irish contingent to UNIFIL are playing. I would be happy to do that next week when the position becomes clearer and, subject to agreement between the Whips, we might have a more prolonged debate and not just statements on the issue. That might help everybody.

Mr. Taylor

This arrangement is supposed to have been arrived at between the Whips. It was not arrived at by arrangement with me as the Labour Party Whip. This happened on a previous occasion when statements were made in this way and Deputies who had something important, constructive and knowledgeable to say about this matter were debarred from doing so. When these debates are set up — and "set up" is the operative term — they should be so structured that someone who has something to say should be enabled to do so. As Labour Party Whip I was not a party to this arrangement between the Whips.

Acting Chairman

I am bound by Standing Orders and that has nothing to do with the Chair. It is something that has to be ironed out between the Whips of both parties, the Deputy's Party Whip and the Government Whip.

Mr. Shatter

On a point of order, I would like to make the point that in the context of procedures——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is being disorderly.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 1984