Vol. 361 No. 5
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will specify the present role of UNIFIL along the border between Israel and Lebanon; and if he still favours this deployment in fulfilment of the original mandate in the present circumstances in that region.
21.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if any additional burdens will fall on the Irish UNIFIL contingent as a consequence of the withdrawal of another contingent from the UN peacekeeping force.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 21 together.
Following the invasion of Southern Lebanon by Israeli forces in March 1978 the United Nations Security Council decided on 19 March 1978, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish UNIFIL for the purpose of "confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security, and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area". The mandate of UNIFIL has since been renewed 17 times by the Security Council, most recently on 17 October 1985 to cover the period up to 19 April 1986.
The Deputy will be aware that UNIFIL has since its inception been prevented from fully discharging its mandate. In recent months the situation has remained highly unsatisfactory because of the failure of the Israeli authorities to bring to completion their withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and to end their continued support for the South Lebanese army. The Government share the view of the UN Secretary General that the continued involvement of Israel in South Lebanon is contributing to a heightening of tension in the area and thereby adds to the risk of an escalation of violence. The Government hope that all those with influence on the parties to the conflict will use that influence to press for greater co-operation with UNIFIL by all concerned in the region.
In agreeing recently to the dispatch of a further contingent for a six-month tour of duty the Government were mindful of the fact that, in spite of the obstacles placed in their path, UNIFIL remains an important and recognised factor for stability in South Lebanon. It continues to provide a measure of protection for the local population against the activities of armed groups active in the area. It makes a valuable contribution through the provision of humanitarian assistance. Both the Government of Lebanon and the UN Secretary General have expressed the wish that the force should remain.
During the period covered by the present mandate the Government will be monitoring carefully the situation on the ground with a view to determining at the appropriate time the nature of our future involvement with the force. Given the clearly expressed will of the international community that UNIFIL should be facilitated in undertaking the tasks mandated to it, it is of particular importance that progress be made in creating an environment more favourable to the attainment of this objective. A particular responsibility lies with the Israeli authorities in this regard.
As regards the decision of the Netherlands Government to withdraw their contingent, it is not expected that any significant additional burdens will fall on the Irish contingent to UNIFIL following on this decision. Responsibility for the area of operations previously assigned to the Netherlands contingent has been reallocated to the Fijian and Nepalese battalions.
Will the Minister agree that the primary task of UNIFIL was to oversee the withdrawal of Israel and that has now been completed? The various communities in Lebanon, Christians, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Druze and others each have their own militia and they look primarily to them to provide protection for their community groups. Does the Minister not consider in view of the length of time that has expired that the risks of exposure of UNIFIL are greater than the benefits that might apply from their continuing presence there, a view apparently taken by the Netherlands Government? Consequently, when the next review comes up, will the Minister consider taking a step like that adopted by the Netherlands Government?
We will have to wait until after the six months to see what action the Government will take. The Government took into account the points of view made by Deputy Taylor when they decided to assign another battalion to the UNIFIL force. I do not agree with the Deputy when he said that Israeli influence in Southern Lebanon is gone. The Israeli troops may have gone through the southern part of Lebanon to their own country but they have influence especially through the South Lebanese army. In my opinion and that of many other people in the area, it is not in any sense of the word a force independent of Israeli influence or the Israeli army. The local populations would certainly wish to see UNIFIL remain because they feel they need protection from these forces. In other parts of Lebanon there is a little glimmer of hope in the talks that have been going on in the past few weeks under the guidance of the Syrian Government. All of us should wish those talks well and hope that out of them will come a government that can fulfil part of the mandate, namely, that the Lebanese Government should get and maintain full support in their own territory.
Did the Dutch Government give their reasons for the withdrawal of their force from UNIFIL? Has the Minister any indication of the withdrawal of their forces by any of the other peace-keeping nations
I am sure they gave their reasons to the Secretary General of the United Nations. They did not give them to me.
Will the Minister not agree that their primary reason for withdrawing their force was their dissatisfaction with the present mandate?
I am sure that was at least part of the reason but I do not know that officially.
Will the Minister indicate——
A number of questions are being taken with Question No. 11. For that reason I ask the Deputy to be as short as possible.
Will the Minister indicate the number of attacks that have taken place in which Irish troops have come under fire and indicate which groups were the perpetrators of these attacks? Further, will he indicate if the attacks which took place which originated from the Israeli side resulted in any apology or otherwise from the Israeli Government to the Irish Government?
That supplementary question goes way beyond the question asked. I do not have that information in my file but I will get it and sent it to the Deputy.
I am calling Question No. 11.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 24, 37 and 38 together.
On a point of order, is it possible to take a written question and deal with in an oral answer?
It is possible. It is linked with the question. The point raised by the Deputy also struck me at first but it is in order to take the question.
