Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Apr 1986

Vol. 365 No. 11

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Soldiers in Lebanon.

4.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give an up-to-date account of the recent attacks on the Irish soldiers in Lebanon.

22.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of occasions since February 1986 on which Irish troops serving with UNIFIL have come under fire or threat of fire; the groups or organisations believed to have been responsible; the action, if any, the Government have taken as a result of these incidents; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 22 together.

The Government are kept fully informed of all incidents involving Irish troops serving with UNIFIL. The number of occasions on which incidents of one kind or another involving Irish troops occurred in the period from 1 February 1986 to 18 April 1986 was 87; on 82 of these occasions firearms were discharged by the bodies confronting the UNIFIL troops. The incidents arose mainly from the activities of Israeli-backed militia, although other armed elements active in the area were responsible in a limited number of instances. Thanks largely to the skill and training of the contingent, no fatalities were incurred in any of these incidents. However, on two separate occasions members of the contingent were wounded as a result of hostile firing. On 20 February, Corporal Christopher Shine was shot and wounded in an incident involving the local Israeli-backed militia; on 23 March, Private Kevin Moran was wounded in a confrontation with members of a Muslim militia group. Both soldiers have made a good recovery.

As I have repeatedly made clear, the security of Irish personnel serving in the Lebanon is given the highest priority by the Government and the situation facing our UNIFIL contingent is kept under constant review in this regard. I have ensured that the Secretary-General who has been given the responsibility by the Security Council for the day-to-day administration of the force is fully aware of our concerns in this area. Steps have also been taken through diplomatic channels to convey to the parties to the conflict our insistence that the members of the force be allowed to carry out their functions unimpeded and that there should be a cessation of harassment or other forms of attack on UNIFIL personnel.

As a mark of its concern at this and other aspects of the situation facing the force the Security Council at its meeting on 18 April agreed to extend the mandate of UNIFIL for a three month period only, in place of the more usual six month period. In examining the question of continued participation in the force beyond the expiry of the current mandate the Government will, in the period immediately ahead, continue to give very careful consideration to an assessment of the level of risk involved for our personnel and to a determination of whether it remains within acceptable bounds.

Is the Minister satisfied that our soldiers can discharge their role in carrying out the UN mandate and that there is a genuine commitment within the United Nations by the various member countries to resolve the problems in Lebanon? Can he also explain why the mandate was extended for only three months?

I answered the latter part of Deputy Treacy's question in my original reply. It was because of the concern which other members — not just Ireland — felt about conditions in South Lebanon and the harassment which UNIFIL forces were experiencing in trying to fulfil that mandate. However, as the Deputy is aware, UNIFIL forces have not been fulfilling the mandate virtually since their arrival in Lebanon but they have been performing a very useful role. At the invitation of the Lebanese Government they have been in a peace-keeping position in Southern Lebanon and have been welcomed by the population who wish to see them remaining in the area.

As regards the determination of the United Nations Security Council to find a solution to the problem of Lebanon, I am satisfied that such a desire exists amongst the members involved but, because of the complexity of the situation, they are as frustrated as everybody else in trying to find a solution which would be acceptable to all factions. It is a tragic country which has been divided and destroyed by warring factions and the goodwill which existed there ten years ago has vanished. Beirut is a bombed out city and peace loving people who just want to live normal lives are not allowed to do so because they are harassed by different groups of militia. In Southern Lebanon there is what the Israelis refer to as their security zone which is a further cause of tension and resentment among the local population. The solution is not easy but I am satisfied that there is a great desire among United Nations personnel to find it.

Is it true that some members of the United Nations for political and other reasons, have no commitment to the mandate in UNIFIL?

I would not like to think that any member of the United Nations who subscribes to its ideals — and one presumes that members do that — would not wish to see a solution to the tragedy of Lebanon.

I understand that some members of the United Nations do not make a financial contribution to it, which seems to indicate that they do not have a commitment to that organisation.

It is a bit more complex than that. I presume the Deputy is referring to the Americans and the Russians. However, because they did not subscribe does not necessarily mean that they do not wish to see a solution in Lebanon. The reasons the Russians gave were different and I am glad that they have now changed their minds, which is welcome. I also welcome the support they indicated they may give to UNIFIL forces in the future and the statement of the Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, that he hopes to have a reversal of the decision of Congress not to subscribe to UNIFIL. That is due to come into operation in October next.

Top
Share