Vol. 432 No. 8
5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Defence if he intends to proceed with his plans to visit Somalia; the purpose of the visit; his views on the implications of recent developments in Somalia for plans to send Irish troops there; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
9 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Defence the new resources, if any, he proposes to make available to the Defence Forces in view of their likely participation in United Nations peace enforcement missions in the future.
16 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the remarks by the General Secretary of PDFORRA in Killarney that the Government had already displayed penny pinching attitudes towards providing resources for the proposed UN operation in Somalia; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
28 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Defence if, in view of the new role of the Defence Forces as peace enforcers in Somalia, he will ensure that our soldiers on UN duties in that country will go out fully equipped to meet their new challenges.
31 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself that the amounts provided in the 1993 Estimates for the purchase of defensive equipment and vehicles are sufficient to provide adequate protection for the troops who will be serving on UN missions in a peace enforcing role; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 9, 16, 28 and 31 together.
The Minister for Defence intends to visit Somalia within the next few days in order to assess at first hand the situation in the region. He will be assisted in evaluating operational conditions by the Assistant Chief of Staff and the Officer Commanding the proposed transport unit. He will report to the House on the matter on his return.
All necessary resources will be provided for the members of the Permanent Defence Forces, who will participate in the United Nations mission in Somalia, subject to the appropriate legislation being enacted and the approval by the Dáil of the necessary resolution. I wish to state categorically that there is no basis whatever for the allegation about inadequacy of resources.
The military authorities have carried out a detailed assessment of the requirements for the proposed transport contingent. The equipment being supplied to the contingent is in accordance with this assessment in all respects. The resources being provided include transport vehicles, a weather-haven self-contained camp unit costing some £360,000, weapons and signals and medical equipment.
The Government decision to provide a transport company to UNOSOM II remains unchanged. Conditions on the ground are being kept under close and continuing review.
First, I wish to state that no allegation is made in my question with regard to resources; I am not the source of the allegation. May I ask the Minister of State if he would indicate to the House what precise role UNOSOM plays in Somalia and what the rules of engagement are for United Nations' troops given, if the Government decision is maintained, that our troops will be posted there? Is it true that the mandate of UNOSOM is so vague that the troops on the ground find it extremely difficult to intepret what they should be doing?
I acknowledge the point by Deputy De Rossa in the first part of his supplementary. I did not mean to point a finger at him for making the allegations. I think he knows the allegations to which I referred and I am happy to acknowledge that the Deputy made no such allegations.
The Irish personnel in UNOSOM will be going to Somalia as a transport company. That is their primary function. According to the mandate, the mission is an international body established for the performance of duties of a police character, that is, for peace enforcement rather than peace keeping, as was previously the case. The legislation relating to the mandate of the force will be general in nature.
Even though the United Nations mission is peace enforcement, which is completely different from the missions in which Irish troops have been engaged to date, anyone who attacks UNOSOM is unlikely to make a distinction between a transport contingent and a contingent of heavily armed troops. The Irish personnel in the transport company are likely to be casualties in circumstances in which UNOSOM decides to launch an assault in a particular area or against one of the gangs operating in Somalia. The fact that they will be transport troops will not lessen the risks for them. I have no doubt that the Irish troops are as brave as any other troops, but we need clarity on those precise risks. Will the Minister outline the rules of engagement for UNOSOM in Somalia? On what basis will the mission decide to make an assault? Who will be in charge of the mission? Is there a clear line of responsibility as to who makes the decisions? What role will the Irish authorities have in the making of any such decisions?
With regard to the latter part of the Deputy's question, the normal procedure will apply — the full mission will be looked after by a commander-in-chief or a commanding officer. The normal military structures will apply and the decisions will be made on that basis. This mission will not be different from a UNIFIL mission from the point of view of structures and order. The difference is that this is a peace enforcement rather than a peace keeping mission. The Irish transport company will have the capacity to defend itself against attack by local gangs. It will have a sufficient supply of trained personnel and weapons for that purpose. The transport company will be based in secure camps, will be escorted on all the movements it undertakes and, as it will be part of the overall force, will be privy to information and military intelligence. As the Deputy correctly said, there will be risks involved — the transport company will have to go into areas where action may have to be taken. The same applies to missions in Lebanon. Unfortunately one of our soldiers on a peace keeping mission in Lebanon was shot last year. I accept that the risks will probably be higher in Somalia. I give the Deputy a categoric assurance that every precaution will be taken to ensure the safety of Irish troops.
My point is wider than simply the safety of Irish troops. If Irish troops take an aggressive stance as part of a mission which is pursuing an aggressive intent, obviously there will be very serious risks. Why has the Government decided to make a radical change in the role of our Defence Forces and the role of this country in international conflicts whereby we now propose to embark on a peace enforcement, as distinct from a peace keeping, mission? Given the size of our country, the size of our Defence Forces and our traditional policy in relation to international conflicts, will the Minister agree that it would be better for us to retain an honourable role as a peace keeper in the world under the auspices of the United Nations?
We are having an extension of the question regarding Somalia. The time for dealing with priority questions is exhausted.
I will be very brief. The UN is not going to Somalia with an aggressive intent; it does not have a mandate for aggression. The mandate is designed in such a way that the UN force will be in a position to respond if it is subjected to aggression by local gangs, etc. It is not fair to give the impression that the UN is going into Somalia with an aggressive intent. This point needs to be underlined.
The House will have an opportunity, under the legislation which will be introduced next week and the resolution which will be introduced the week after, to discuss the change in the role of our Defence Forces. When we became a member of the UN we accepted its Charter. The UN has decided that this mission should be a peace enforcement mission. The House will have the opportunity to decide whether to agree to this change.
