asked the Minister for Defence if he is satisfied with the situation whereby almost all members of the Defence Forces who go abroad for training go to NATO countries; if he has examined the possibility of more use being made of other neutral or non-aligned countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Defence Forces' Training.
7.
I am satisfied with the current arrangements for the assignment of personnel of the Defence Forces to training courses abroad. Such courses are selected on the basis of their suitability to the training needs of the Defence Forces.
The Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory. As a neutral country, does the Minister agree that when our Army are trained in NATO countries they are not alone given arms training but are indoctrinated with regard to the sources of attacks, etc? Would it not be better to have our forces trained in a neutral country which would not be under the NATO umbrella and would give us an idea of how we should operate as a neutral country in time of war? As we are not associated with any of the warring nations, this is the type of training our Army should be getting.
Members of the Defence Forces go abroad to gain experience in military techniques and I am satisfied that there is no question of indoctrination when they go on courses in NATO countries. It is arrant nonsense to suggest otherwise. In the Eastern Bloc political indoctrination is part and parcel of the Soviet technique and armies in that part of the world, but they are not applied to armies in the West. I am satisfied that, for reasons of particality, our troops and personnel of the Defence Forces who go abroad attend courses that best suit the requirements necessary at any particular time. Their presence in NATO does not in any way prejudice our neutral position.
Is the Minister seriously saying that the armies of Ireland, Britain or the United States are not indoctrinated? Are there no indoctrination courses here, in Britain, the United States and West Germany where our troops train? Nobody seriously believes that armies are not indoctrinated. Would it not be better, therefore, if Sweden or Switzerland were selected as the areas for continuous training of our armed forces?
It would not be practicable to do so. Our Defence Forces will go on courses to the countries which offer the best training having regard to the needs of the Defence Forces at a particular time.
Does the Minister agree that in the case of a neutral country like ourselves, which does not have the vast economic resources of other members of NATO, we are putting our soldiers in an invidious position by sending them there to be trained, because the arms and the armaments are of a much higher level than are available at home? The fact that they are being trained by NATO personnel puts them in a position where they would desire to have access to the same type of armaments ——
That seems to be argument.
They have the same type of armaments here.
They do not have the same sophisticated type of weapons.
Our Army is equipped with modern weapons although not in the same numbers.
Is the Minister satisfied that there is no danger of indoctrination?
Yes.
The Minister stated that the location of training is selected on the basis of the best available. What criteria is used to make such a decision? Is he suggesting that neutral countries of Western Europe are less efficient, less effective or less well trained than NATO countries?
We send our personnel to the countries that provide the most suitable courses for our personnel. A number of factors are taken into account in our decision. One factor is the cost involved and the nearest country to which we can send our troops on courses is Great Britain. Another factor taken into account is language as courses have to be in English. English must be the language of instructors and students, so that also is a limiting factor. Much of our equipment is purchased from countries that are members of NATO and Western countries and it is often necessary to send personnel on courses in the operation and maintenance of equipment to keep abreast of technological changes. These factors are all taken into consideration and obviously they will predetermine to some extent where these courses will take place. There is no particularly rigid policy as to where they will go. If there are suitable courses in non-NATO countries, they are taken up. For example, this year personnel will go on courses to Switzerland, Sweden and Austria, so there is no rigid policy. Wherever there is a suitable course, and having regard to all the factors determining suitability, we will send our Defence Forces there without any hang-ups.
Could the Minister give any indication of the approximate number in the Defence Forces, male and female, who go annually to Britain for training?
In 1984, 44 personnel went to Britain; 14 personnel went in 1983; 23 in 1982; in 1981, 18 went and 25 personnel went in 1980.