Vol. 359 No. 10
asked the Minister for Defence the total number of occasions on which Irish troops serving with UNIFIL have come under attack during the past 12 months; the groups believed to be responsible in each case; if he is satisfied that Irish troops have sufficient resources and that their mandate is adequate to allow them to defend themselves; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
16.
asked the Minister for Defence if he is satisfied that Irish soldiers attached to UNIFIL are in a reasonable position to defend themselves from militia forces; the number of attacks on Irish soldiers attached to UNIFIL in 1985; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 16 together.
The number of occasions on which incidents of one kind or another occurred involving Irish troops serving with UNIFIL in the 12 months ended 19 June 1985 was forty-eight. Thirty-six of these incidents have occured this year. Irish troops or positions came under fire on twenty-five occasions. The incidents arose mainly from the activities of Israeli-backed militia, unknown gunmen, and on two occasions the Israeli Defence Forces in the area of operations patrolled by the Irish contingent.
Our troops are issued with the most modern range of weapons and equipment and I am fully satisfied that their training and equipment provide very adequately for their protection. The Government continue to monitor developments in South Lebanon and will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of our troops.
Would the Minister indicate whether the question of the mandate under which the troops are operating has been reviewed and whether it is proposed to change it from a peace-keeping to a peace-enforcing mandate?
The question of the review of the mandate would not be a matter for me or the Government. It would be a matter for the United Nations.
As a member of the United Nations and a country supplying troops, I presume that if the mandate is to be reviewed we will be consulted about it. Has the question of the mandate been raised or reviewed by the United Nations or have we been consulted about it in any way?
I am not aware of any specific proposal to review the terms of the mandate. I understand it is a matter which is kept under review on a continuing basis. The troop contributing countries meet informally through their representatives at the United Nations and I am sure this is one of the matters they discuss from time to time.
I am sure the Minister will agree that 48 incidents involving attacks on Irish troops while on peace-keeping duties in foreign fields is a very serious matter. Have any representations been made to the United Nations through our representative to have the troop supplying countries called together to review the situation and the mandate.
Whenever an incident occurs it is protested. There are various channels for these protests. There is direct diplomatic protest by us to the Israeli Government, if that is relevant. It is protested by the UN people on the ground and in the case of very serious incidents it may be raised formally at the United Nations. The troop contributing countries keep in close touch through their permanent representatives in New York and the mandate and the general conduct of the operation in Lebanon is kept consultantly under review.
It seems that there were 25 occasions on which Irish forces were attacked by militia during the past six months or so. Would the Minister agree that these are illegal uniformed groups financed by the Israeli authorities and could he give any indication of the steps the Government have taken to bring this to the notice of the Israeli authorities?
I wish to clarify the position. The Deputy mentioned that Irish troops came under fire on 25 occasions. On many of those occasions there was crossfire in the area where they had outposts. That is not to say that Irish troops came under direct fire. I want to make that quite clear. Whenever an incident occurs involving the local militia, and the local people are satisfied that these militia are under the control or influence of the Israeli defence forces, appropriate representations are made to the appropriate Israeli authorities.
Could the Minister give any more information about the two occasions where the Irish Army were involved in incidents with the official Israeli forces? How did this come about and what exactly happened?
One of those incidents was well published because it took place under the cameras of Independent Television network. Gunfire was directed not at but in the general area where there was an Irish patrol. The other incident involved crossfire between an Israeli patrol and some target they had identified.
The involvement of the Israeli authorities has very serious implications since Israel is a member of the United Nations. In view of the fact that the Israeli authorities appear to have ignored protests by the Government and have continued to back the SLA, has the question of these attacks been raised at United Nations level or is it proposed to raise it there?
It would be wrong to call them all attacks but these hostile confrontations are raised as a matter of course at appropriate level, whether at diplomatic level between the two countries, at UN level in the area of operations or at the UN in New York. They are constantly raised and protested. Generally our experience is that the protests have the effect of claming the situation.
A final question from Deputy Treacy.
This is a very serious situation from an Irish point of view. Can the Minister indicate whether he, the Taoiseach or the Government made formal complaints to the President of Israel, Chaim Hertzog, on his recent visit here, particularly since there was a very severe attack on Irish forces at that time?
I do not want to exaggerate or minimise the nature of these incidents but many of them are hostile confrontations, no more than that. Occasionally they have escalated to something more. They are protested in the normal diplomatic way. A formal protest was not made to the Israeli President when he was here because he is a constitutional President. As a matter of protocol, it would not be appropriate to make a formal protest to him and it would not be his place to receive such a protest. I have no doubt, however, that he became fully aware of what took place and our reaction to it.
