Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 1993

Vol. 433 No. 1

Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Barrett

I am aware that the Irish Army transport company, which it is intended to send to Somalia, is a logistic back-up unit. What type of protection will the UN commander on the ground afford to this Irish unit when it carries out the various logistical tasks assigned to it? It is important that we know exactly what role the transport unit will be expected to perform, the type of protection they will receive and if the Minister is satisfied that all reasonable precautions will be taken.

I would also like the Minister to indicate if any special allowance will be paid to Irish troops serving on peace enforcement missions which would reflect the additional risk involved and if he will consider introducing some sort of compensation scheme, perhaps by way of life assurance, for members of the Defence Forces who lose their lives while on active service. The Defence Forces are very far behind the Garda Síochána in terms of the type of compensation that is available to them. It is only reasonable that we as a country should respect the services given by members of the Defence Forces and be in a position to make some compensation available if they are unfortunate enough to lose their lives on active service. Members of the Garda Síochána deserve the same treatment. Most pension schemes in the private sector and in the public sector include a death-in-service benefit, and they do not have to face the risks that members of the Garda Síochána or of the Defence Forces face. For that reason it is reasonable that we examine the possibility of providing compensation, and it could be self-funded if we use the National Treasury Agency to manage the scheme. Will the Minister consider reviewing this matter and make some reference to it when replying to the debate?

On behalf of Fine Gael, I intend to try to amend the Bill to ensure that each request from the United Nations for a peace enforcement unit to serve on a particular mission will be examined in detail by the Dáil. It is important that all who serve on such missions do so on a voluntary basis. I appreciate that the 1960 Act does provide for a Dáil motion before persons may be dispatched on a peacekeeping mission. However, this is a new departure in so far as we are involved in peace enforcement. It would be well worth our while to review that section of the 1960 Act so that all persons serving in the Defence Forces, at present and in the future, would serve on peace enforcement missions on a voluntary basis.

I would like to refer the Minister to the document produced by Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, in which he referred to peace enforcement units and said:

I recommend that the Council consider the ultilisation of peace enforcement units in clearly defined circumstances and with the terms of reference specified in advance. Such units from member states would be available on call and would consist of troops that have volunteered for such service.

It is quite clear that the Secretry-General felt that anybody serving in such a unit should be doing so on a voluntary basis. I see no justification for differentiating between those who are presently serving and those who may join after this Bill is enacted. If we are asking people to serve on a peace enforcement mission it should be on a voluntary basis and I strongly recommend that the Minister consider the amendment I will be putting down on Committee Stage. It is particularly important that serving on peace enforcement missions should be on a voluntary basis in view of the fact that the average age of those serving in the Permanent Defence Forces at present is 35, which means that quite a considerable percentage would be married persons. It may be easy for us to agree to despatch a contingent of the Defence Forces to Somalia or anywhere else for peace enforcement purposes, but we must also consider the natural concern of the spouses of serving members. Making this voluntary service would enable people to discuss in the privacy of their own homes whether they should or should not take part in a peace enforcement mission.

It is vitally important that the Dáil be given the opportunity to review its position on each peace enforcement mission and on each and every occasion the UN mandate is up for renewal by the UN Security Council. I will be tabling an amendment on Committee Stage to provide that after 12 months, and annually thereafter, the Dáil would review the involvement of an Irish contingent on a peace enforcement mission. That would enable the Dáil to express any concerns it may have, in the case of a long running mission, about the length of time our troops will be in service on that mission. I see no reason that the Dail should not be given the opportunity to review the position every 12 months. It is a reasonable request. I will table an amendment on Committee Stage and I hope the Minister and the Government will accept that amendment. Fine Gael approves in principle providing Irish troops to assist UN action abroad in the preservation of peace. It approves the principle of this Bill, subject to the reservations which I have outlined and which Fine Gael will seek to incorporate into the Bill on Committee Stage.

It would be easy for my party in Opposition to play politics on this issue, but it is too important an issue to engage in such activity. All Members have the highest regard for members of the Defence Forces. I am careful not to instil any unnecessary fear in the wives of those who may be going to serve abroad. We should be conscious of that. We reserve the right to express our views in regard to each individual request made by the UN. I hope Governments in the future will be forthcoming in providing information on peacekeeping missions in Somalia and other areas. I am sure the Minister will do that. He has shown his concern by visiting Somalia. We should not put unnecessary pressure on the Government in relation to this mission. Every attempt has been made to ensure that our troops will be properly protected. However, it is important that we ask questions and if the answers to those questions are not satisfactory we should continue to ask more questions.

My party have too much respect for the Defence Forces to play politics in regard to such a serious issue. If it is decided that our troops should go to Somalia I hope that they will all return safely and that they will continue to play the important role they have exercised in the past and continue to bring pride to the country. I wish them every success and a safe return.

Mr. Clohessy

Before examining the general policy of this Bill, or the circumstances that have given rise to it, I would like to join other members of my party in emphasising the Progressive Democrats' strong disapproval of the way in which an important measure of this kind is being rushed through the House. This measure profoundly changes the nature and extent of Ireland's military commitment to the United Nations. In making this profound change, we are under no duty to rush this Bill. We are under a duty to consider carefully the measure and to judge the effect it may have on our Defence Forces and their members. The purpose of the Bill is to make members of Ireland's permanent Defence Forces liable for service in international military operations authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It will be the legal duty of all new recruits to the Defence Forces and all existing officers of the Defence Forces to participate in military operations, including acts of war such as that in the Kuwait-Iraq war, (a) if the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations establish the force and (b) if Dáil Éireann approves of the despatch of an Irish contingent for service in the force.

In short, Irish soldiers will henceforth be legally liable to be posted overseas, and there to engage in combat situations under UN auspices, where the Dáil so resolves. That is a fundamental change in the Constitution, and the role of what were heretofore known as defence forces. Irish soldiers may, at some future time, be liable to become involved in foreign offensive action where the Dáil and the Government so decide. It is vital, therefore, that this change in the law should be accompanied by a wide and far-ranging debate, that the implications of this Act should be fully understood and that great caution be shown in considering and minimising the future risk to Irish lives which may flow from the provisions of this Bill.

Having said that, my party and I believe that Ireland should in principle be legally capable, where it is democratically decided, of participation on a military basis in Chapter VII Actions authorised by the UN. Otherwise, we would be easily rebuked and derided by others if we were ever to call for other members of the UN to take any military action, howsoever justified, under Chapter VII. We cannot preach to others what we will not practice ourselves. It is the view of my party that Ireland must be, in every sense, a full member of the United Nations. We cannot afford to be an associate or semi-detached member, that is, one that is willing to adopt moral positions but decline the responsibility in certain circumstances of doing anything about them.

Some Members of this House have indicated that they regard Ireland's present position as both honourable and tenable. The Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960, the current legislation governing the despatch of contingents of the Permanent Defence Forces for service with the United Nations, restricts Irish participation to duties of a policing character only. While peacekeeping is honourable, there are occasions where the weak, especially the smaller nations, may need the military assistance of the United Nations to repel invasion of military subjugation by stronger States. Ireland, as a small nation, cannot expect the world community to intervene to protect it from such a threat in the future or to repel it, while denying the right of the United Nations to institute major military acts of warfare under Article VII. So while Article 29 of the Constitution commits Ireland to the peaceful resolution of international disputes and by implication prohibits Ireland from resorting to belligerent behaviour except as a last resort, it nonetheless follows that Ireland cannot totally wash its hands of the possibility of becoming involved in a Chapter VII activity where this House, which the Constitution refers to as the House of Representatives believes that our UN obligations require us so to do.

It seems right in this context to draw attention to the American action in Baghdad in which a series of missiles was launched at a target in a built-up area in retaliation for the plot to detonate a bomb in Kuwait on the visit of George Bush, the former American President. This action has been charaterised as an act of self-defence. In my view, the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter do not authorise an act of retribution in these circumstances. Article 51 envisages members states of the United Nations only resorting to acts of self-defence involving military action or acts of war where it is not possible or practicable to invoke the jurisdiction of the Security Council immediately. The American action does not amount to a legitimate act of self-defence contemplated by the UN Charter. It does not find any authority in any existing UN resolution and is, by any judgment, an act of retaliation and retribution rather than necessary self defence. There seems no good reason such action, even if it were warranted, could not have awaited consideration by the Security Council of the UN; nor do I accept that it can ever be right to take the lives of innocent people who are civilians living in an inhumane dictatorship to show their masters how to behave. When will we ever learn that killing people to highlight that killing people is wrong is not the proper basis for international peace or political progress?

This Bill is introduced to facilitate Irish participation in a Chapter VII UN operation in Somalia but the recent events there show that the UN intervention is in danger of becoming bogged down in the middle of a civil war for want of properly established political, military and humanitarian goals.

Second, the Pakistani shooting of civilian demonstrators requires an immediate and urgent report. We cannot have a lengthy and disingenuous inquiry such as happened in the Widgery inquiry into the Bloody Sunday shooting in Derry. The UN should not attempt a whitewash; the facts should be capable of being established within two weeks. A report should be published as soon as possible thereafter. If the Pakistani troops are to blame — and there is substantial evidence to believe they were — that should be admitted and a public apology made.

I believe it is unfair to ask Irish soldiers to participate in a UN force, whether peacekeeping or Chapter VII, where that force operates under the shadow of the recent shootings of civilians and where the force has no clear political mandate. The Government should clearly state the terms upon which Ireland is participating, the length of our probable involvement and the political, military and humanitarian goals of that involvement.

The Progressive Democrats will be tabling amendments to this Bill on Committee Stage, both substantive and technical. Our aim in principle will be to ensure that Ireland's participation in Chapter VII military operations is completely transparent and that the Government's responsibility, both before and after any agreement to dispatch an Irish contingent, should be one based on complete accountability to this House.

I congratulate the Minister on his visit to Somalia to see the situation for himself. We are dealing now with a Bill which will change the image of our Defence Forces and it must be considered in a rational, sensible and considerate fashion. I hope the Minister will implement this Bill in a proper manner.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move the following amendment:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"noting that the Bill provides for the involvement of Irish troops not just in the Somalia UNOSOM II Mission but in any international force established by the United Nations;

concerned at the implications of this for Irish defence and foreign policies and the unquantifiable risks that Irish troops will be exposed to in combat situations over which they will have no control;

believing that the United Nations must be reformed and restructured in a democratic manner before Irish participation in such operations can be considered;

reaffirming our commitment to Irish participation in UN peace-keeping operations,

Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill.".

If this amendment to the Second Stage, seeking that this Bill not be given a Second Reading, fails — and it is clear from what has been said so far by the other Opposition parties that my effort to have this matter deferred will in fact fail — I intend to propose a number of amendments to the Bill when it comes before us on Committee Stage.

Before I continue it is important to set the context of the situation we are being asked to change in this Defence Act. Much of the case that the Minister has made, and that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his briefing today to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, has hinged around the importance of a United Nations role of peace enforcement in Somalia. I wish to quote from an article in The Guardian of Tuesday, 15 June 1993. The article was written by Rakiya Omaar, a Somali, who is a codirector of African Rights, the London based human rights group. The opening two paragraphs of her article make interesting reading and should give the Members of this House cause for caution in how they address the Bill we are being asked to adopt here tonight. I quote:

The crisis triggered by the killing of Pakistani UN peacekeepers in Somalia is turning a mercy mission into a violent occupation. The UN retribution has been swift and merciless. If the killings had happened in Bosnia, the outcry would have been tempered by calls for an investigation, by the fear of jeopardising the UN's broader objectives and concern about public reaction in the West. But in Somalia the UN accused the faction led by General Mohamed Farah Aidid and launched a ferocious retaliation without conducting an investigation. Power has meant licence over people, rather than a means to influence policies. A degree of political thoughtlessness unimaginable in Bosnia is regarded as justifiable in Somalia.

One thing is beyong dispute. Somali civilians are paying the price for the impotence of the West in Bosnia. In particular, President Clinton is seeking to prove his political manhood on the streets of Mogadishu. Embarassed by accusations that he lacks the backbone to take decisive action in Bosnia, he hopes that the use of force against people who cannot retaliate, and who matter little in the international corridors of power, will help shore up his faltering presidency.

Before we reach Committee Stage I would recommend Members of this House to obtain a copy of this article from the Dáil Library and read it through in full because I believe it tells a story about Somalia which we are not getting from the Government in this debate. It should be taken into account, not because I draw it to the attention of the House but because it is written by a Somali woman who is concerned about African rights, about her country and the way it is being treated at this time by the international community.

The Bill we are being asked to consider today is a relatively short one running to just four brief sections, but the implications of the legislation are enormous and are likely to be felt for decades to come. The Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993, if passed in its present form will mark major departures for this country in both the defence and foreign affairs policy areas. In regard to foreign affairs policy it is probably the most important decision we have been asked to take since Ireland's entry to the European Community more than two decades ago. In regard to the role of our Defence Forces it is certainly the most important decision since the Second World War and is far more significant than the passage of the 1960 Defence Act which allowed for the participation of Irish troops in UN policing operations.

What we are being asked to do is to clear the legislative path for the commitment of Irish troops to combat situations, initiated by the United Nations throughout the world, where they will be under the effective control of the military authorities of other countries, exposed to severe danger and possible death — and that cannot be avoided — and which will effectively undermine Ireland's reputation and role as peacekeepers.

I am not arguing against this on the basis that there is a risk to Irish troops, because clearly in peacekeeping operations there is a risk to Irish troops. The case I am making is that in this and any future situation there is no guarantee that Irish troops will have any say in the decisions being taken with regard to attacks being launched. The public have been told that what is being done is to change the law so that Irish troops can participate in peace enforcement as distinct from peace keeping operations. Of course, strictly speaking this is not so. The new Bill makes no reference whatsoever to peace enforcement. What it authorises is the commitment of Irish troops to any international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, forces which we do not know about yet. There are no qualifications, no conditions, no ifs, no buts. If this Bill is passed Irish troops will be able to participate lawfully in aggressive operations once they have been sanctioned by the Security Council or the General Assembly. This Bill clears the way for participation by Irish troops in a future Gulf War type operation. A motion of approval by the Dáil will still be necessary for each operation, but this effectively means that the decision will rest with the Government, which has the majority within the House. Once a motion has been approved by the Dáil the scale of involvement by Irish troops can be increased without any reference back to this House.

I do not believe there has been adequate public debate concerning the proposed changes. The Bill has received little serious analysis in the media and the Government, through the ruthless use of the parliamentary guillotine that has become its hallmark, seems determined that it will not receive the scrutiny it deserves. I challenge the view that because an extra half hour was given to Second Stage tonight and Committee Stage will be taken tomorrow there is adequate time for calm and careful consideration of this issue, given the extensive effect the Bill could have on future policy.

When I expressed concern about this matter during consideration of the Department of Defence Estimates more than a month ago, I was assured by the Minister that a full discussion document would be produced before a final decision was made by the Government. We are now expected to pass all Stages of this legislation by tomorrow. We had a briefing today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for little over an hour, sandwiched between the end of Question Time and the beginning of the Order of Business, which was totally inadequate. What was presented was superficial nonsense in that none of the issues relating to the foreign affairs implications of the decisions we are being asked to make was addressed. We have been told that the immediate reason for the legislation relates to the desire of the Government to allow about 80 Irish troops to go to Somalia, but the implication of the legislation will go far beyond that. I am torn between believing that perhaps the Government is stupid enough to change the law so that it can send 80 troops to Somalia or perhaps that it has a hidden agenda with regard to what it hopes to achieve down the road by using Somalia as an excuse to change the law.

When this matter was first mooted, support for the idea of sending troops to Somalia was more widespread than it has been since recent events there. The anguish and frustration of Irish people about poverty and famine in Somalia is understandable, but his move to amend the Defence Act is only the thin end of a wedge that will eventually see Irish troops participating in a wide range of international military operations. Even on the question of Somalia, no convincing case has been made to justify this major policy reversal.

At the briefing given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs today I asked a simple, straightforward question, how could the Minister justify by way of a legal base the use of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to justify peace enforcement in Somalia when Chapter VII specifically refers to its use in the event of a threat to international peace and security. There is no evidence of an international threat to peace and security deriving from the Somalian position. Certainly no evidence was presented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs today or by the Minister for Defence here tonight. The Minister may regard this matter as legalistic twaddle, but unless international relations are based on law there can be no peace or security for anybody. I again appeal to the Minister for Defence to produce some justification for what is being done in Somalia for which we are being blithely asked tonight to give approval for the involvement of Irish troops.

Like most Irish people I am immensely proud of the role of Irish troops in United Nation peacekeeping operations and I am anxious that they continue to help keep the peace in troubled spots around the world. However, I am concerned that if we rush in to change the law without first securing structural changes in the United Nations and without a thorough debate on and understanding of what precisely peace enforcement means, Irish troops may be made pawns of some of the big powers, plunged into the most difficult circumstances and exposed to the risk of severe casualties simply to serve the self-interest of the big powers rather than the cause of peace. I draw the attention of Members to the quote I read from The Guardian of 15 June from a Somali woman who expressed concern about her country.

My concern has been greatly intensified by events in Somalia in the past few weeks which have demonstrated the difficulties involved in trying to carry out a vague and ill-defined peace-enforcement mandate. Three weeks ago 23 Pakistani soldiers serving with the United Nations were killed by one of the local gangs and a week later the Pakistani troops apparently took their revenge on the local population by shooting dead more than 20 unarmed demonstrators. I ask a simple question: if that action took place in Northern Ireland what would our attitude be to it? Would there not be calls for the regiment that carried out such an action, regardless of provocation, to be taken off the streets of Northern Ireland and sent back to Britain? Would we not make that demand here in this House?

Mr. M. McDowell

There are different standards in Ireland.

Proinsias De Rossa

Why are there different standards as between what we expect in Ireland and what we expect in Somalia? Why are there different standards in relation to what can be done in Bosnia and Somalia, what can be done in relation to Palestinians and so on? There are so many contradictions and so much selectivity in the way the United Nations deals with international matters that it is appalling we are being asked to simply jump in feet first into a matter without giving adequate thought to its implications.

I am appalled at the idea of United Nations troops, acting in the name of the world community, shooting civilians dead. I am not at all convinced by the excuses offered on behalf of the Pakistani troops, which seems to have been the classic response of the military in every country when they are accused of using excessive force. Justification of the mass killing of civilians by claiming they were providing cover for gunmen is an excuse that will not be unfamiliar to anyone who remembers the events of Bloody Sunday in Derry on 9 January 1972.

There are other disturbing parallels between Somalia and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland British troops were warmly welcomed when they first appeared on the streets in 1969, but within a year they were in conflict with the civilian population. Almost 25 years later they are still on the streets and have sustained heavy casualties, with no sign that they can be withdrawn to barracks for a long time to come. UN troops were warmly welcomed by the civilian population when they arrived in Somalia last year, but already they are in conflict with the civilian population, and reporters and journalists have been struck by the bitterness of Somalians towards the UN troops who were supposed to free them from the scourge of the warlords.

Newsweek magazine had this to say on the subject:

Policy makers would do well to study the British experience in Northern Ireland. Brought in to quell religious strife between Roman Catholics and Protestants in 1969, the British soldiers soon became targets themselves. Today after more than 3,000 deaths there are 12,000 British troops tied down in a ruined province that costs more than $1 billion a year. Somalia could easily become another Northern Ireland.

While the analogy may be simplistic there are enough comparisons to merit careful consideration. Do we really want to place Irish troops in a position where they may be asked to come into conflict with unarmed civilians? Do we really want to let Irish troops become targets of the gangs of the warlords that 18,000 UN troops have been unable to deal with? There would be immense problems in being involved in any UN military operation in Somalia in present circumstances. If Irish troops are to go, it should only be as peacekeepers with the right to defend themselves and the civilian population.

To send Irish troops to operate a vague and ill-defined mandate and without a proper chain of command to ensure that the operation is under the genuine control and authority of the Secretary General would be to gamble with the lives of Irish troops without any guarantee that they can significantly help the people of Somalia, that is not a gamble I am prepared to take. I appeal to Members to read what is being said by those who have seen close up how UN troops are being managed in Somalia, the scathing attitude of the United States professional team towards the UN team and the fact that they consider them to be totally unprofessional. I am not saying these things with pleasure; I am simply urging that this House approach the issue with caution, having fully studied the matter. There is no need to rush this change in our law tonight or tomorrow. The situation in Somalia will not go away overnight. It will not go away next week, next month or next year.

If Irish troops go, who will they be taking their orders from? While it is a multinational force, the real steel in the military presence in Somalia is provided by the United States and particularly by their Cobra helicopters and 103-H gunships. Turkey's Lieutenant-General Cevik Bir, may be in nominal command of UNOSOM, but the US forces are far more likely to be taking their orders from General Colin Powell than from Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali. Key strategic decisions which will impact on the safety and security of Irish troops will be taken in the Pentagon, and the determining factor will be the United States strategic interests in the region.

I am simply reflecting a reality. The missile asault on Iraq reflected the strategic interests of the US. We would be foolish to pretend otherwise. We cannot consider this Bill without also having serious regard to structural defects and democratic shortcomings of the United Nations. The United Nations was established in the aftermath of World War II. Its structures have remained virtually unchanged since then, although the world has changed beyond recognition. For several decades the United Nations was ignored — and even derided — by some of those who are now hailing it as the vehicle for creating a "new world order"— a new world order, no doubt, in their own image. The United States, in particular, treated the United Nations with contempt, vetoing Security Council motions critical of its activities, ignoring General Assembly resolutions and withholding funds due to the UN for peace-keeping operations.

As a result of the overuse of the veto by some of the permanent members of the Security Council, the UN was mostly reduced to the level of a spectator during major international crises since the 1950s — Berlin, the Cuban missile crisis, and two Arab-Israeli wars.

Many people hoped that with the ending of the Cold War, the United Nations would take on a new lease of life, give real moral and political leadership and provide a powerful force for the resolution by peaceful means of international conflicts and disputes. Sadly, this has not been the case. Writing on the current state of the United Nations in the March issue of the Irish Law Times, Liz Heffernan, a lecturer in law in TCD said:

Signs of undemocratic practices have emerged ... not least the selective nature of Security Council action and the use of the Council as a vehicle for the promotion of the agendas of permanent members.

A similar point was made more succinctly, if more brutally, by the distinguished international lawyer, Professor Richard Falk, at the time of the Gulf War, when he said that the United Nations has become "a virtual tool of US policy".

When faced with the illegal Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the 15 members of the Security Council allowed themselves to be pressured into passing a series of vaguely worded motions which those seeking a military solution interpreted as a blank cheque. Without giving sanctions an opportunity to bite, a massive war was launched causing very many casualties, the exact number of which we still do not even know.

We are seeing a new pattern emerging in regard to the United Nations. Military operations launched in the name of the United Nations, in theory, are increasingly being "sub-contracted" out to some of the larger military powers. The Gulf War — and it was war, not a peace-enforcement operation — was theoretically launched as a result of UN resolutions, but all key decisions were taken by the US military and their allies.

People will, I am sure, remember the Secretary General of the United Nations, Perez de Cuellar, admitting that the first he knew of the massive air strikes launched against Iraq — allegedly in the name of the United Nations — was when he heard about them on television.

UN action on the former Yugoslavia was sub-contracted to the CSCE, who in turn sub-contracted it to the EC. This trend means that the United Nations has then little or no control over the day-to-day conduct of these operations.

I would draw attention to the more recent operation referred to by the Somalia human rights activist I quoted earlier from The Guardian when the day after the “UN” troops launched their attacks on what was alleged to be the headquarters of Aidid, it was not Boutros Boutros Ghali who went on television to talk about that operation, it was Bill Clinton who went on television and said what a great operation it was and how successful it was and how he stood by his allies in the free world who were not only seeking to establish human rights and democracy but market economics in Somalia. That was his objective.

There is nothing in the UN Charter that obliges any country to be forced to acquire market economics, whatever one's view of them is. There is nothing in the Charter which obliges us to enforce any particular market system on anybody. We cannot have a situation where the President of the most powerful state in the world takes it upon himself to act on our behalf without any regard to international law. We are a small country. The only thing we have in our favour is that we have a reputation of being peacekeepers, people who have stood solidly on the side of peace. If we do not argue and fight for the rule of international law, we will have nothing whatsoever.

People will remember the Iraqi incident and I would draw their attention to the most recent Somali incident where Bill Clinton claimed credit and not the UN. UN action on the former Yugoslavia was also sub-contracted. Rather than simply going along with this situation Ireland should be to the fore in pressing for changes in the structures of the United Nations, which date from the cold war era and which concentrate virtually all of the power in the hands of the small number of countries which are the permanent members of the Security Council. Whatever justification there may have been in 1945 for the allocation of the five permanent positions, none remains in 1993. The membership of the Security Council was determined by the Second World War. What relevance does that have today? Why should all five permanent members be drawn from the Northern Hemisphere and none from the Southern Hemisphere? Why should three of the five be members of NATO? Why should there be two from Europe — three if you consider Russia to be a European country — and none from South America or Africa? Unless we set about reforming the United Nations its stature and authority will be further diminished and rather than being the collective voice of the world — which it can and should be — it will simply be the pawn of a handful of dominant, economically powerful states.

For all these reasons Democratic Left opposes this Bill. We should look at alternative non-military ways of assisting the people of Somalia. I challenge the Minister's claim that the only alternative to UNOSOM II and that mandate, and our involvement there, is the return to a 1992 situation. Will the Minister present evidence that there are no other options that the UN can pursue in relation to Somalia? I would argue strongly with the Minister with regard to his claim that we would in some way be immoral if we do not agree to changing our law to enable Irish troops to become involved in peace enforcement. I made this point when debating the Estimates for the Department of Defence and again on the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is nothing immoral, wrong or dishonourable in Ireland maintaining a role as peacekeepers. In fact, in the world today it would be the most honourable position for Ireland to adopt. It is one we should be urging on every other country that wants to play a role internationally. We should honestly examine whether it might be of more benefit to the unfortunate people of Somalia to divert the money which will be committed to any Irish military involvement there to some of the Irish aid organisations working in that country.

Why is it that money is always available for military adventures but so difficult to obtain for humanitarian aid? I must revert again to the United States of America, who hurled 23 Tomahawk missiles at Baghdad over the weekend at a cost of $23 million. Bearing in mind the level of hunger and deprivation in the world surely this money could be applied to better use. I suggest that, unless such money is applied to ensuring that poverty is dealt with or lessened in the Third World, we shall be sending troops and peace enforcement missions for the remainder of this decade and well into the next. Inevitably, poverty will drive people to war and there will be an on-going battle between the wealthy North and the poverty-stricken South for control of resources. That is where the risk to world security lies. I urge a rethink on the part of the Government in the direction in which it appears to be taking this country, our troops involved in the United Nations and indeed our foreign policy approach.

Miss M. Wallace

I should like to share my time with Deputies Kemmy and Eoin Ryan.

Acting Chairman (Miss de Valera)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss M. Wallace

I support the Minister on this Bill and commend him on his most recent visit to Somalia to check out the position obtaining there with regard to our proposed mission to that country. While the proposed mission to Somalia is to the forefront of our minds, we must be conscious that these provisions have much wider implications. I support the facilitation of the expansion of the peace enforcement role of the United Nations. I want to mention areas in which I believe vigilance is required once this new role becomes commonly accepted. While we are all reasonably pleased to note the work in progress on the proposed mission to Somalia, we must bear in mind future missions that may be requested of us.

Although this is one of the shortest Bills of this session it may well prove one of the most important, being a defining measure with regard to this country's relationship with the wider world. We have rightly taken much pride in our neutral role outside any major defence pact. While we must not over-emphasise that role, what has been important about our neutrality, and what will continue to be increasingly important, is that we have adopted an active rather than passive method of demonstrating it in international fora. Rather than sit on the fence on major issues, our neutrality has allowed us flexibility to act on basic principles on the merits of different cases. In so doing we have been able to make a constructive contribution often beyond what might be expected of a country of our size and/or geographic position. While there is little doubt that we were on the western side on major East-West issues of the post-war period, we have been able to speak our minds on important issues such as those that arose in Nicaragua, El Salvador and South Africa. This has not been a distinguishing feature of the foreign policies of countries belonging to military alliances. A key part of our active attitude to neutrality has been our willingness to participate in peacekeeping operations worldwide, a type of activity not countenanced by neutral countries such as Switzerland or until recently, by Japan.

The performance of both our Army and Garda personnel in trouble spots worldwide has been a source of tremendous pride to all our people. All Members of this House recognise their skills and professionalism, reflected in the number of occasions Irish personnel have been requested specifically to participate in United Nations operations. It is clear that our neutral position has played a key role in the ability of our forces to become accepted even in the most tense areas.

We must remember that there have been tragedies and loss of life in the course of our forces' activities abroad. For example, incidents such as those that occurred at Katanga and South Lebanon should always be in our minds when considering their international role. There is no doubt that the provisions of this Bill will implement a change from peace-keeping to peace enforcement, constituting a significant departure from the principles which underlined our participation in former peacekeeping operations. It is envisaged that we shall send our personnel into areas other than those in which a peace framework had been established, where to all intents and purposes fighting had ceased. The concept of peace enforcement within the United Nations framework of operations conjures up many possible types of action.

I can find no convincing argument to be advanced against the basic requirement of ensuring humanitarian supplies to Bosnia and Somalia. I do not think any Member of the House could advance any convincing argument against such provision. If we are to express our support for the basic principles of human rights — which we have been strong in supporting traditionally — then it has to be said that chief among them is the right of people to be free from the threat of death whether by starvation or war. It is not good enough to feel virtuous but not to do anything about such issues.

That being said, we must be cautious and vigilant before undertaking to participate in such peace enforcement operations. We must remember that the Korean and Gulf War endeavours were undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations. Those wars distorted the principles advanced initially to justify them and involved the development of a full-scale, offensive conflict. We must be conscious and wary of such development since, in those cases, widespread civilian casualties were inflicted by United Nations-sanctioned forces. We must bear that in mind and ensure that the same does not recur in the case of peace enforcement operations. We are not talking about sending our troops into the midst of such conflicts. Rather what we are talking about under the provisions of this Bill, vis-à-vis the mission to Somalia, are the humanitarian principles applicable to operations designed specifically not to involve direct conflict. In line with that approach we must be willing to say “no” on occasions whenever we believe action is designed solely to serve the interests of a particular power, a very real danger which must never be underestimated. We must also ensure that we do not over-stretch ourselves by agreeing to each and every request to participate in United Nations action. Our Border and other security needs at home should never be undermined by our commitments abroad.

I support the basic principle encompassed in this Bill, that of allowing our forces to participate in peace enforcement operations. That having been said, peacekeeping should remain our chief activity and whenever requested to send our personnel abroad on peace enforcement missions, we do so subject to strict conditions only, the main one being that any such activity or purpose be humanitarian directed towards helping the indigenous population, and emphatically not forming part of any engagement in direct conflict. We must protect our forces and ensure that we adhere to the humanitarian principles underlying our foreign policy.

Mr. Kemmy

I am glad to note so many Members offering to participate in this debate, the most important aspect of which concerns the changing role of our troops not only at home but overseas. This should not be taken for granted. There is also the question of public accountability in regard to decisions made in this House concerning our troops. That should also be the subject of a wide debate. There should be a full discussion in this House because this legislation should not be passed on the nod.

We are amending the Defence Act and it is important that we do not rush into it, especially having regard to the position in Somalia. The questions of our role as a member of the United Nations and the role of the United Nations itself have to be considered. It is open to question whether the United Nations should stand idly by and allow slaughter and carnage to take place in any country, especially in a small, weak country which has no natural resources such as oil.

It has been proposed that we should send 80 troops to Somalia. I listened carefully to Deputy De Rossa's contribution. It was carefully prepared and well researched but I hope, as a member of the Labour Party which supports the Government, that there is no hidden agenda involved in this move. If there were, I would not support it. I would not stand by and allow our troops to be used as guinea pigs. I have too much respect for them to do that. Deputy De Rossa deserves answers to the questions he asked.

This is a wide-ranging debate and it has been widened to include the role of the United Nations, be it peacekeeping, peace making or peace enforcement. We often join organisations on our terms only, we cannot do this when it comes to a large organisation such as the United Nations. It is also important that we look at the way in which the United Nations operates in practice as well as in theory. We should endeavour to ensure that there are democratic rules and regulations within the United Nations, which is what Deputy De Rossa asked for.

Too often the big nations call the shots, but it is wrong to expect the United States to act as a world policeman. That would be undemocratic and dangerous. There is no reason that the United Nations should not be what the name suggests, with all nations working together in concert in the interests of justice, fair play and humanity.

The United Nations has expressed frustration about the difficulties it has encountered in Bosnia. It has been slow, weak and unable to impose itself. We cannot look on this with any degree of satisfaction as a country which prides itself on its democratic spirit and liberty.

I am amazed that vicious warlords can reign in countries such as Somalia. It is sad to see countries when they obtain their freedom being torn apart in a vicious civil war by small groups of gangsters and warlords. The people of Somalia are suffering as a result. I am also amazed that so many people can buy guns in a poverty stricken country; they have no difficulty in getting their hands on the money to buy them.

I listened carefully to Deputy De Rossa's fears and forebodings. I would be worried if we did not get answers to some of the points he raised. He is entitled to answers. I am old enough to remember the shockwaves felt when the first Irish casualties in the Congo were announced. This had a searing effect on the Irish people. The same is true in the case of the Lebanon. Our troops at that time were innocent, naive and inexperienced but they have learned a lot since then. I have the greatest of respect for our troops and would never take them for granted. They, too, are entitled to answers. I am very proud of what they have achieved.

Apart from the question of our involvement in Somalia we also need to address the question of our role in the United Nations. Are we our brother's keeper? How should this role be determined and played? I have listened to two Ministers speak on this issue and they have sought to reassure me. Some loose ends have to be tied up and some questions have to be answered. I hope we will receive those answers in this debate because this issue is far too important to allow legislation to be rushed through the House. Given that the role of our troops is being changed there must be a debate. I am not against change; the world is changing and if we expect the United Nations to act in the way it should we must play our part. I support the Minister in this regard but I am anxious to ensure that answers are given to the points raised by Deputy De Rossa and that we seek as many safeguards as possible for our troops in Somalia.

Mr. E. Ryan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate the Minister on visiting Somalia to see at first hand the conditions our troops will face. It is important, once this Bill is passed, that each case is taken on its merits to ensure we know exactly what our troops will face.

It is extremely important to ensure the safety of our troops. In Somalia a group of warlords are looking after their own interests at a time when agencies from all over the world are trying to get food through to the population. Happily, it seems that the position has been improved greatly. This is to the credit of the many organisations operating there.

Our Army has given great service in various parts of of the world. It has represented us extremely well as peacekeepers, but now they are to become peace enforcers. I am concerned about the new world order. In this regard the United Nations will have to consider its own role carefully.

I am not anti United States but recently when they shelled various sites in Somalia they claimed this was done for humanitarian reasons. To some extent, they do this with our blessing. I am extremely concerned about what happened during the weekend in Iraq and about the fact that people came out immediately to support them. Perhaps I am being cynical but one must ask if the Russians, who supported this action, have received the cheque yet. Russia would never have supported such action in the past. Suddenly there has been a change. It will fall on countries such as ourselves who have a tradition of independence to be the policeman in this new world order. What happened during the weekend was almost like a PR exercise and it was not acceptable to me. I do not know the reasons the United States attacked Iraq. The only reason given was that an attempt was to be made to assassinate the former President, George Bush.

In certain cases it is important that we act as peace enforcers in an effort to get aid through to people who are starving but we must take each case on its merits. This new world order which we all welcomed at the end of the Cold War will present its own problems. We encountered one of those problems during the weekend.

I wish our troops well when they go to Somalia. The location to which they are going is more peaceful and I have no doubt they will represent us well and do an excellent job, as they always do. Having spoken to people in the Army I gather that our troops are anxious to go to Somalia to play their part in getting food through and rebuild what is left of its economy. I hope they can be of assistance to the people of Somalia. I did not hear all of Deputy De Rossa's speech but I understood the point he was making. It is increasingly clear that a small country like Ireland has to be very careful in terms of the direction in which the United Nations is going. We have to regard our Defence Forces as policemen and we have to ensure that there is no infringement of the role of small countries.

The bad guys in the world at present are the Arabs. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the history of the Arab world and its people. It is up to us, both in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and this Chamber, to ensure that everyone is properly represented at the United Nations, that we do our job properly and that we enforce the peace where necessary. At the same time we should not turn a blind eye to the things that are happening in the world because of some type of new world order.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is a short but important Bill in that it will fundamentally change the traditional peacekeeping role of Irish forces on United Nations missions. I pay tribute to the Irish troops who have served abroad on peacekeeping missions during the past 30 years. They have carried out their role under the United Nations flag with both distinction and courage.

It is very important to distinguish between the concepts of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Peacekeeping operations are entirely separate from fighting operations. There is an onus on United Nations officers in charge of peacekeeping to ensure that the soldiers under their charge remain cool, calm and controlled and are equally firm and decisive. All too often we have witnessed pictures on the television of soldiers on peacekeeping missions losing control in tense situations. The cost in terms of lives can be very high during these few moments of panic.

While the peace enforcement role proposed in the Bill will give Irish soldiers on UN peace keeping missions the necessary power to endeavour to implement a lasting peace, it does not make sense to send troops to places such as Somalia and the Lebanon with explicit peace enforcement instructions, only to find that they cannot carry out their role, by achieving lasting peace. Requests for United Nations troops are usually made by countries which are war torn or where there is a civil war. United Nations troops should not be seen as taking sides in these conflicts. Newspaper reports during the past few days indicate that the local population in Somalia are becoming increasingly hostile towards white men and women who in the past were regarded as the providers of food and medicine. We need to be very careful about the way in which the role of our Defence Forces is developed in the context of United Nations peace enforcement missions.

Our position on neutrality has been made very clear during the past years — our neutrality has a high profile in the world. I ask the Minister in his reply to indicate the effect this legislation will have on our neutrality and to give us an assurance that it will not have a negative impact on our neutrality. I ask him to comment on the provisions in our Constitution which clearly set out Ireland's international role in terms of peacekeeping.

Mr. McCormack

I wish to share my time with Deputy Carey and Deputy Connaughton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McCormack

Our Defence Forces have had a proud record in United Nations peacekeeping missions for over 30 years — the first contingent served in the United Nations mission in the Lebanon during the sixties. Members of the Defence Forces in Galway have a proud record of service in United Nations peacekeeping missions abroad. The people of Galway are very proud of the part played by the members of the barracks in Renmore in these missions. They have brought honour to their families, city, counties and country. The people of Galway are proud to have an Army barracks in Renmore. They appreciate the commitment of the Army personnel to Galway city and county. I am glad to have the opportunity to put this on the record of the House during the week I finished my term of office as Lord Mayor of Galway.

The Irish troops which have had the honour of serving on UN missions abroad have greatly enhanced Ireland's reputation in international circles. It is only fair to say that the peacekeeping skills of our troops have been enhanced by the other forces with whom they have worked. This has raised the morale of our Defence Forces and made our Army more attractive to young people.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the existing Act to allow Irish troops to serve abroad in a peace enforcing role. While this change is being sought to enable Irish troops to act as a transport company on a UN mission in Somalia, it should be remembered that this Bill will enable Irish troops to engage in other peace enforcement missions abroad in the future. Fine Gael will not oppose this Bill on Second Stage, but our spokesperson, Deputy Barrett, will put down amendments on Committee Stage to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards. Fine Gael believes that the use of force must always be a last resort in any endeavour to achieve peace and maintain or restore human rights.

During the past few months we have all seen on our television screens horrific pictures of human suffering in Somalia, for example, starving families and suffering mothers and children. People have been greatly moved by those horrific scenes and their immediate reaction might be that the United Nations should try to sort out this problem as soon as possible. Fine Gael believes that United Nations personnel should be involved in peace enforcement action only in specified circumstances and the personnel who volunteer for such service should undergo specialist training.

Up to now the Irish Army have been trained in peacekeeping duties. This Bill proposes to change completely the role of our Defence Forces. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that they will be given proper training for this new role. Will a greater demand be put on our Defence Forces for peacekeeping and peace enforcement duties abroad in the future? Would the Minister not agree that we should be building up the number of personnel in our Defence Forces, which has decreased significantly over the past years? I hope there will be a more detailed debate on this matter on Committee Stage, especially on the Fine Gael amendment which seeks to ensure that each future request comes before the Dáil for its decision. Deputy Eoin Ryan seems to have expressed support for that safeguard. I hope the Minister will be in a position to accept our reasonable amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Carey

I join my colleagues in saying a few words about the Bill. As Members have intimated, this is a major leap forward in conditions in the Defence Forces. I believe the Army will meet this challenge, and conduct itself in the proper way as it has done since we first sent missions in support of the United Nations. The Army is now being asked to play a peace enforcement role, but it appears to have made the right preparations.

The Minister has already taken time to go to Somalia and has seen at first hand some of the problems the Irish troops are likely to encounter. He should indicate the type of equipment that will be available to the current contingent going to Somalia. They will be undertaking the protection of a transport route. We have already seen cases where people travelling in convoy were shot at. An Irish volunteer serving with a voluntary organisation suffered the ultimate and lost her life while travelling in one of these so-called guarded convoys. I wonder what type of vehicles will be used by the transport division. I did not see any reference to that in the Minister's speech. Is it true these are not armoured plated vehicles but only light-weight trucks? Will the troops not be at risk in the wide open spaces of Somalia because they are not afforded the protection of armour plated vehicles?

The Minister said that the troops would carry light arms but would not have heavy weaponry and I am concerned that the troops should have the fullest protection possible. Will the Minister refer directly to this point when he concludes the Second Stage debate?

It is very important that troops have volunteered to go on this mission. Army personnel usually look forward to the challenge of serving abroad and indeed, they are exhilarated by the prospect of going to a place like Somalia where they can help. We, however, have a duty to see they are properly looked after and are happy in their role.

Members have referred to the average age of Army personnel, which is now 35 years of age. This of itself is an inhibiting factor when it comes to enhancing the role our troops will play in peace enforcement in the future. The Minister did not indicate if he will open up recruitment and allow people to join the Army from time to time. Surely this Minister who had the courage to go to Somalia must have the courage to take on the Department of Finance and ask them to provide the funds for recruitment. It will not cost a great deal to recruit people to the force and it would be a pity to continue with the embargo on recruitment to the Department of Defence.

I join my colleagues in wishing the troops well and I know this mission will be successful.

Mr. Connaughton

I lend my name to the majority view of the House that Irish troops should be deployed in peace enforcement duties only in certain circumstances. The Bill before us is very important in many respects. I do not wish to cover ground that has already been dealt with but I will draw attention to two or three aspects of the legislation that need to be teased out.

I, like other Members, feel we owe a debt of gratitude to our troops for their role in peace-keeping operations throughout the world. When I was a young lad, I saw on television that our troops were going to the Congo. Our troops have covered themselves in glory right around the world and they have a very proud record. I would like to think that they will be equally successful in their new role. I fully subscribe to this new role, provided there are proper checks and balances, which I will deal with in detail later.

There should be very tight rules as to where we should deploy our troops in a peace enforcement role. As a rule of thumb I believe we are talking about humanitarian reasons only. There is a huge fountain of good will towards us all around the world and we have no axe to grind with anybody. We have managed to maintain this for 30 to 35 years but we are now about to change from a peace-keeping to peace enforcement role. We need to be extremely careful when serving in areas of ethnic violence that we are only there for very specific reasons.

One of the reasons that prompted me to contribute tonight was the harrowing images on television recently of a huge convoy of humanitarian aid being stopped at a crossroads by a few warlords, who I would consider to be thugs. The United Nations commander looked like a person who had no authority. I do not know enough about foreign affairs, particularly in those parts of the world engaged in ethnic violence, but I know enough to realise that if that sort of imagery of the UN is beamed around the world, its authority will be undermined before we know where we are, and it will not be able to fulfil its role. If the United Nations cannot fulfil its role, whatever the United Nations General Assembly decide, there will always be people and countries who will decide to fulfil the role for them — and that is dangerous. For the future protection of many people across the world it is in all our interests to have a strong United Nations. I see the issue being discussed tonight as a step in that direction, but whoever decides where or how we will be involved in the future would need to have the wisdom of Solomon. One can imagine the horrendous problems in a situation where one could not win. I am not a military man and I am sure there are answers to all these queries, but I would like to tease them out with the Minister on Committee Stage.

This Dáil will give a unanimous decision because we are a peace loving nation and we believe that other people should have a right to the type of lifestyle we have. Our troops are extremely well-trained and disciplined and will be well managed under the United Nations flag. If they can bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world, then I am all in favour of it. It is reasonable to expect that every Deputy would say publicly and conscientiously what he believes the case to be. The Minister should take seriously the Fine Gael view that if our troops are called on in the future to serve in a peace enforcement role in other parts of the world, we should be given the same opportunity to consider the request, as we are doing tonight. I appreciate the lengths to which the Minister is going. I would not expect any Irish Minister for Defence to do any less to ensure that our troops are as safe as they can be. In the military world there will always be risks. If possible, I do not want to see any Irishman or woman lose his or her life in any circumstances; but we live in an age when soldiers and policemen even in civil law circumstances lose their lives.

Tonight marks a turning point in how the United Nations will operate. It is an impetus which the United Nations badly needed. I believe we are on the right track. It is important to make clear recommendations. It is important to ensure we know the culture and the type of terrain into which we will put our troops and that we will know when it is not in anybody's best interests not to send our troops, not least our own.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I wish to share my time with Deputy Seán Haughey and Deputy John Ryan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

It gives me pleasure to speak on this Bill and in support of the two large military encampments in my constituency in Fermoy — Fitzgerald Camp and Kilworth Lynch Camp — where we have a substantial number of personnel. We live in a volatile and changing world. Since the collapse of the old bi-power structures we have seen a great increase in violence and instability across the globe. In such a situation there is an onus on the countries of the world to reform their nations to maintain peace and to work collectively for the peaceful resolution of the problems of these troubled areas. This Bill makes a positive contribution towards attaining this aim.

Ireland has a long and noble record of participation in UN peacekeeping operations since 1958, when a group of officers took up duty with an observer group in the Lebanon. This tradition should be a source of pride to our country. It is a tradition that is very much in harmony with our nation's stance on neutrality in the international arena. More than ever there is a need for peace-keeping around the globe. Ireland has never shirked its responsibility in this regard. Indeed, we have recognised this responsibility as an integral part of our neutral stance. This Bill allows for a more effective participation in this process and as such I welcome it.

I would like at this stage to say a word of thanks to all those Irish soldiers who have served in a peacekeeping capacity around the world. They have been true ambassadors for Ireland and have carried the message of peace around the globe. Long may it continue. I would ask the Minister to consider an expanded role for the FCA, who play a magnificent part in solving many of our military problems, and an upgrading of this service is important. I fully support the recruitment of young people. It is necessary for the lifeblood of any Army to have young people coming on stream at all times. There should be a policy of annual recruitment. Again, I welcome the Bill and I look forward to its being enacted. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward such a vital piece of legislation.

Mr. Haughey

The changing of the role of Irish contingents serving with the United Nations international forces is a major step for this country. It is regrettable that so little time has been allocated for this debate, both in the House and nationally. I understand Committee Stage is being taken tomorrow and that a final motion will be passed on Friday. I appreciate that the contingent will have to travel next month. However, it is a pity that so little public debate has taken place regarding this major change in Irish foreign policy.

During the past few weeks important pieces of legislation, with significant implications for Irish society and Irish political life in general, have been passed in this Oireachtas with unseemly haste and without adequate debate. The role of parliaments in the political process is already diminishing in the modern state. The Oireachtas has again been sidelined, and surely a liberal democracy should not operate like this.

I congratulate the Minister for his role in putting Somalia on the world political agenda. I understand the Minister has travelled to Somalia three times. As he said in his speech, there is significant public support for action on Somalia. As Minister for Foreign Affairs and in his current ministry he has consistently supported the promotion of peace and justice and basic human rights throughout the world. I commend him for his humane approach in relation to this Bill and particularly his concern for the safety of the soldiers who will travel to Somalia and their families. The Minister encourages and supports a proud tradition initiated by Frank Aiken. I say with all sincerity, and without any ulterior motive, that his removal from the Department of Foreign Affairs was unfortunate for this country.

I have major reservations about this Bill, which in effect changes the role of our Defence Forces serving with the United Nations from that of peace-keeping to one of peacemaking and enforcing. The nature of international politics has changed dramatically since the ending of the Cold War and the United Nations has had great difficulty in adapting to this change.

I have always supported Ireland's policy of positive neutrality. Ireland's role in international affairs should be to continue to encourage negotiation and diplomacy and not to become involved in military conflicts. Ireland is not a military nation and we have a proud tradition of missionary work and of voluntary aid relief. The Minister rightly paid tribute earlier to organisations such as GOAL, Concern, Trócaire and the Red Cross. The Programme for Government makes provision for increased overseas development assistance. As a small, impartial and respected nation we should not be expected to become militarily involved in every flashpoint in the world. We will not shirk our responsibilities, but we should continue to play a constructive role in international affairs in more effective ways.

There is no doubt the Somalia cause is a good one. The Irish people have been moved by the scenes of starvation there and have become involved in voluntary fund raising for those people. Indeed, President Robinson represented us all when she visited Somalia to highlight its causes. However, once we take the crucial decision to become peace enforcers and the risk that involves for Irish lives, what will we be asked to do next? Will we be on a slippery slope? Will the next cause necessitating military intervention be equally worthy? We need a full scale national debate on Irish foreign policy; this Bill cannot be taken in isolation. For many, Irish foreign policy is drifting. Now that we have come to the end of the Cold War and, with creeping European integration and a change in character of the United Nations we are facing major challenges. Our role in international affairs needs to be clearly assessed.

There is no doubt Irish troops want to go to Somalia but, as previous speakers stated, evey soldier wants to fight. They are trained to fight and that is what they expect. However, we should take into account the wider implications of that decision.

I will deal briefly with the risks to which Irish soldiers will be exposed. The Minister is concerned in that regard, that was one of his main reasons for travelling to Somalia. He stated earlier that he could give assurances but no absolute guarantees. The general public should be made aware that this is a significant step. We should not lose sight of our overall objective if the military conflict is prolonged. Our overall objective is a humane one, basically to aid the ordinary people of Somalia.

The activities of the UN are being questioned and it is also being questioned in regard to its activities in Somalia. Certain reservations have been expressed, particularly following the killing of the Pakistani soldiers. Those issues need to be addressed. We need to monitor consistently the role of the UN in Somalia to ascertain if it is handling the situation correctly and in that regard we need to review our own position.

The Minister stated that if we do not proceed with this measure Ireland will be marginalised. Nobody in Ireland wants that to happen. We can continue to participate in peacekeeping missions, we are an impartial nation in many ways and are respected for that. We have always carried out our UN obligations in the past, for example, we allowed our air facilities to be used by the United States during the Gulf War. However, from time to time we must put forward a different view. For example, do wars simply promote the arms industry and in whose interest is it to have military intervention in many of those countries? We have a role to play in regard to diplomacy. More than anything, President Robinson highlighted what a small nation can do. We have moral authority and we became involved in the situation in Somalia. We highlighted the issue there, which demonstrates that Ireland can play a role, not necessarily a full military intervention role, but we can raise our voice and speak out as a respected nation.

Ireland has a moral obligation to address global inequalities, for example, the general issue of poverty in the Third World compared to the position in Western Europe and the United States. That is possibly the most fundamental issue underlying the debate tonight. Obviously, the specific issue under discussion relates to sending troops to Somalia, but that is because people are starving there and warlords are preventing food from getting to the starving people. We should examine the general situation, the banking situation and how those inequalities arose in the first place. That is a major challenge but it should be dealt with in this debate.

Mr. S. Ryan

On my election to Dáil Éireann in 1989, I became Labour Party spokesperson on Defence and since then I have become interested in the activities and operations of the Defence Forces, both Permanent and Reserve. I am pleased to say that those interests have at all times been facilitated by successive Ministers, officials and members of the forces, male and female, whether in the Army, Naval Services, Air Corps or Slua Muiri.

This legislation is the fifth Bill discussed by the Oireachtas since the primary Act came into force in 1954. It is the second time this matter has been introduced in this House in my time, the last being the Bill which gave effect to representations made by members of the Defence Forces.

The Bill before us is brief, a mere four sections. Its purpose is to permit the permanent element of the Defence Forces to operate in a peace-enforcing role, rather than a peacekeeping role in which we have been engaged since the first mission to the Lebanon in 1958. This is a significant expansion of one of the primary roles of the Defence Forces, last articulated in a full form around 1981. I have some reservations about the change in policy. Members of our Defence Forces are currently serving in some 13 missions overseas both in a UN and EC capacity. They are serving in Cyprus, in a high profile mission with UNIFIL, in the Lebanon — for which the United Nations was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1980 — in the Middle East and in less well known operations in the Sahara, Angola and Pakistan. In all, there are 1,700 men overseas, a significant proportion of a total Permanent Defence Force of 12,700. It is appropriate to record that since we joined the United Nations in December 1955 we have participated fully in sending troops on various missions and our role has been acknowledged throughout the world.

Since its formation as a corps back in 1924, Supply and Transport, from which these blue helmets will be drawn, has served the nation extremely well. It has provided the ultimate sacrifice in that Captain McNamara of the Second Garrison Company was the first fatality on UN service.

The legislation before us provides that a further 80 men will serve on overseas duties in the United Nations operation in Somalia. Those men are in a specialist unit and provide much needed support to the combat elements of the Defence Forces. A number of issues come to mind, both in respect of the Bill and the operations in Somalia. How many men volunteered for this mission? How many dropped out? Do we need a mandatory enlistment clause for future members of the Defence Forces as proposed in section 2 (1)? What is the nature of the peace enforcement mission? The first such mission under the UN flag was in Korea. I feel certain that there are many more volunteers than vacancies for such UN missions so only the element of volunteering needs to be added to the Bill.

Recent developments in the United Kingdom in respect of that state's manifold military missions, as well as those of other EC member states, come to mind again when I look at the general thrust of this and other overseas defence Acts. As far as we are aware, the Bill provides that only members of the Permanent Defence Forces may serve overseas. The various commitments we have at home — 9,767 military parties for Border operations, 523 military presences at blasting in the course of quarrying and 2,106 cash escorts — indicates the pressure on our forces. I wonder if now is the time to sit back to see if we can commit selected personnel from the Reserve Force and Second Line to undertake some of these operations. It seems that the demands on and resources of our full-time Army, with knock-on implications for hours worked, on a force which is already suffering the difficulties of a high age profile now require radical solutions.

It is important to note the age profile. The average age of a private in the British army is 18 whereas in the Irish Army it is 21. The average age of corporals in the Irish Army is 34 and of sergeants 40. This indicates a specific need for a recruitment policy by the Government. Notwithstanding financial difficulties, I hope the Government will introduce a recruitment policy, as recommended in the Gleeson report, as early as possible.

In regard to the legislation before us, I wonder to what extent the Council of Defence advised the Minister on all matters relating to the Department of Defence. What is the time duration of Irish participation in United Nations' operations in Somalia? I would also be grateful if the Minister could address the subject of payments by the United Nations of the cost of this and other United Nations' operations. We now have a significant proportion of the Permanent Defence Forces overseas participating in such missions, costing the Irish taxpayers significant sums. I understand that to date some major countries, such as the United States, are not paying their fair share to the United Nations. Every effort should be made to ensure that they play their part. I await the Minister's response to the various issues I have raised. I wish God speed to the unit preparing to go to Somalia and hope they return to Ireland without casualty.

Miss Flaherty

I propose to share my time with Deputy Enda Kenny.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss Flaherty

I am happy to support and welcome this legislation but with a few words of caution similar to those expressed by our spokesperson, Deputy Barrett. This move is to be supported. We in Ireland should be willing to expand our role in the UN from peacekeeping to peace enforcement. My interest in this stems from my time as spokesperson for the party on development affairs. Following the Cold War it is clear that apart from our aid responsibilities we have other responsibilities to the Third World arising from our often very destructive involvement in the context of our broad involvement with the western powers. That is a legacy that requires our active intervention. We also have responsibilities as Europeans to European trouble spots, but those are issues for another day.

This legislation will enable our troops going abroad to be involved in a way different from their role in the past. The Government has already made a decision about sending troops to Somalia. It obviously has ramifications for any potential demands in the future and gives the power to our troops to be involved in any UN action if this Dáil so approves. It is a very significant decision indeed.

It is important to dwell a little on the post-cold war situation. The Minister referred to how that had changed world politics in that balances which had been there had been altered and there was need for a new order. If it could be a new order based on the UN operating from the highest principles, that would be a good thing, but there are obvious serious questions about that when one considers the events of the last weekend. However, we should strive to create a better world order. Somalia is a most impressive example of how intervention can rapidly transform a disaster into a situation of some hope, some peace. As the Minister knows, if there is to be any serious development in any region an absolute prerequisite is peace, and this view is supported by the UN in the context of their annual reports on the state of the world's children who, along with women, are often the most vulnerable in times of famine and war. The UN see the end of the cold war as a beginning towards helping the cause of the world's poor in a number of ways. They identified the most substantial way which is relevant in Somalia and which may also be relevant, in the years ahead, in the context of Mozambique, where a huge UN resource has already been put in place to attempt to demilitarise the situation there and build on a very fragile peace of seven months, which has already transformed a famine-striken, war-stricken country into a country that has begun to build.

The move away from military dictatorship and military equipment as the driving force will not happen very easily because there are vested interests in the military presence in those countries, a vested interest which we saw at its most devastating and insidious when we finally got substantial amounts of aid into Somalia and it was blocked by the warring factions until such time as there was a UN presence there. If aid is to be of any relevance, if development is to be possible, demilitarisation must take place. In many cases, it will not take place spontaneously because there are so many powerful vested interests. In our own country we know how insidious and how difficult it is when ideals become enmeshed with power sources, to separate them. The consequences have been enormous right throughout the Third World, especially for children. In the last decade alone more than 1.5 million children have been killed in wars, more than four million have been physically disabled, more than five million have been forced into refugee camps and more than 12 million have lost their homes. It is easy to read those figures out but if one thinks about them they are truly horrifying.

It is right therefore that we should not stand back from situations and be involved only in peacekeeping and not get involved in complex situations where difficult decisions have to be made? We should not stand back and let a situation develop to a stage where a peacekeeping role is necessary. In the intervening period before complex situations develop great destruction can take place. I support the broad principles of the Bill. The transformation in Somalia over the last 12 to 18 months has been major and the position of UN troops there has become very difficult. The relationship with the local population has become more tense arising out of recent incidents in regard to which there has been much publicity.

Peace enforcing is very different from peacekeeping. Our spokesperson on Defence made the point that peace enforcing involves a different level of training, experience and resources. This issue was raised during Question Time last week. References were made to Boutros Boutros Ghali's views on this. He had not anticipated that every peace-keeping force would be transformed into a peace enforcing group, but he identified that new and different sensitivity and skills were needed for that role. The challenges posed to the soldiers on the ground and their leaders are great. The choices to be made become enormously complex and are fraught with difficulties. This issue should not be taken lightly; it should be given due attention. The cautions suggested by our spokesperson in relation to regular reviews of each request should be considered. Each request should be considered on its own merits.

I note the amendment put down by Democratic Left opposes our involvement in a peace enforcing role. I would not agree with that. The amendment refers to the need for reform of UN structures and that is very important. This matter was raised during Question Time. The UN was set up more than four decades ago to cater for different problems in those times. As it has adopted post-Cold War policies, the demands being placed on it have increased. All defence spokespersons and foreign affairs spokes-persons in the world should seek to set in place a review of the structures and functions of the United Nations. I am concerned about the self-appointed international policekeeping role of the United States. I have supported some of its actions but its position in this area is something that should be clarified. That should be included in a general examination of the structures and workings of the UN. I hope the Minister will assure us that he and other EC Ministers are taking this issues seriously and that some initiatives have been taken in this area. Initiatives are being asked for on the ground. UN officials managing complex operations in places like Mozambique are finding the delays, problems and bureaucracy very difficult to deal with. They are dealing with very tense situations involving two armies standing off from one another with the potential of war breaking out at any time. The response the UN can provide in such cases is inadequate and its reform should be seriously reviewed. With those words of caution, I support the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to provide assurance in regard to areas of concern.

Mr. E. Kenny

As a young child I vividly remember the visit of the late President Kennedy to this country in 1963. It was interesting to watch the RTE programme on Sunday — 30 years to the day of his visit — and to listen to his words in respect of the dark days that were on the horizon in the 60s. Given the tremendous boost people of this country and the world received from his character, personality and words, it is only after some years of involvement in politics and a certain sense of maturity that one understands the implications of war, military action and political decisions involving armies, armed personnel and participation in both peacekeeping and peace enforcement.

I compliment the Minister for Defence on his openness in regard to this matter, his concern and involvement as Minister for Defence in seeing that the ground is properly reconnoitred before a decision is taken to involve Irish troops in peace enforcement.

The Department of Defence was for many years a cinderella Department under the responsibility of junior Ministers of lesser ability than their peers. That responsibility was given to satisfy persons who might otherwise be peeved. However, the present Minister for Defence, having moved from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Defence, has given a new impetus, new status and a new stature to the Department of Defence and that is welcome. For over 1,000 years this country has been involved in military activities. From my primary school days I recall the lines of the poet who said that on the far foreign fields from Dunkirk to Belgrade lie the soldiers and chiefs of the Irish Brigade. I read in the daily papers last week of the involvement of Irish people in the Battle of Waterloo 178 years ago and one is constantly reminded of our people's history. One does not join an army for fun. Only certain types of people with certain characters want to join an army. That character is forged and tempered by an enthusiasm for adventure, excitement, involvement in humanitarian issues and the risk of danger and death. Irish Army personnel who have served our country well over the years have displayed not only those characteristics but, due to our history, they have shown an understanding of the variety of conflicts that exist across the world. It is no shame to say that people from this country involved in Army activities or other types of work have always shown a unique understanding for sorting out conflicts. If only we could sort out our own conflicts.

Section 1, the main section defines an international United Nations force. This calls for a change in the status of peace-keeping forces to that of peace enforcement. One does not join an army for fun, one joins to fulfil one's perception of that role. All we can do as a neutral country is assist in so far as we can to bring peace to areas of conflict where the UN is involved.

I found Deputy De Rossa's contribution this evening unhelpful to say the least. If the United Nations were not involved in Somalia would it be the equivalent of Democratic Left, or its counterparts around the world, attempting to put in place a political structure that would bring peace to a war-torn country such as that? It is impossible for people here to understand the mentality and the day-to-day activities that take place in Mogadishu, in other parts of Somalia or, indeed, around the world. It is difficult to do that without appreciating both the historic background, as in the case of the former Yugoslavia, or the local circumstances, as might obtain in Afghanistan, or elsewhere in deciding how a solution can be achieved. We have all been appalled — that is too slight a word — at the television pictures from Ethiopia, Somalia and other countries where, due to intervention and a mad craving for power by local warlords, the extermination of human life on a vast scale has taken place. We have no real appreciation here of what that means. Human life is valued in a very different way in many of the Third World or emerging countries than it is here.

I support fully the call for the change from peacekeeping to peace enforcement. I would ask the Minister, before Committee Stage, to give serious consideration to the amendment tabled by the Fine Gael spokesman, Deputy Barrett, requesting that, as happens de facto, each application would come before the Dáil by way of motion, that this involvement by Army personnel in peace enforcement be on a voluntary basis, that it be explained properly to personnel prior to any participation and that there be a review every 12 months of our involvement in any peace enforcement operations.

From a legal point of view I am sure questions, arising from peace enforcement, as to the consequences for a member of the Irish Army involved in UN peace enforcement operations who decides to take action to enforce peace either in self defence or otherwise, need to be answered. Who determines whether the peace enforcement was legal and proper? Will there be a monitoring system to ensure that everything is above board in so far as Army etiquette and participation is concerned?

I trust the Government will ensure that our Army personnel on UN duty in Somalia or elsewhere are given the best of preparatory training, supplied with proper equipment and the most up-to-date and sophisticated facilities for these peace enforcement duties. It may be that based on our historic understanding of how conflicts start and how the human mentality can be attuned to finding solutions, any involvement of Irish Army personnel could bring about a greater sense of realism and practicality in many of the current conflicts. I am aware that in his former capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs the Minister allocated £6,000 to a religious order to enable them to buy a printing machine in Ethiopia to help educate small children who would otherwise be prematurely sucked into a life of military activity.

An Ceann Comhairle

I regret to inform the Deputy that the time available to him is now exhausted.

Mr. E. Kenny

I regret that also because I could go on for much longer. I endorse what Deputies Flaherty and Barrett said and I commend the Minister on introducing this Bill. I hope he will continue to be as open and helpful during the participation of our worthy Army personnel in peace enforcement operations.

Mr. Andrews

I thank the Deputy very much for his remarks.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. T. Kitt)

I wish to share my time with the chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.

Mr. T. Kitt

Like Deputy Kenny, I wish to thank my colleague, Deputy Andrews, for introducing the Bill and preparing so thoroughly for the debate by visiting Somalia. I worked with Deputy Andrews in the Department of Foreign Affairs for almost a year and I am pleased to be contributing to this important debate and supporting his Bill. Deputy Kenny's late father and my father, who served this country together for some years, would be proud of what we are doing tonight because we are involving ourselves in an historic development and that should not be underestimated.

I have listened with interest to the statements and views which have been expressed in this House this evening. Like most Irish people, I was horrified by the death and destruction inflicted on Somalia and its people by the warlords and bandits there. However, as the Minister for Defence, Deputy Andrews, said the situation in Somalia has, in less than one year, changed dramatically. The people are no longer dying from starvation. That is not to say that everything has improved. Recent events in south Mogadishu have shown that fundamental problems still remain. There is a need for all parties and factions to respect the ceasefire and to work for national reconciliation and the establishment of democratic government.

The international community, through the United Nations, has become involved in Somalia to help its people resolve their differences and reconstruct their country. The United Nations is not in Somalia to impose its will or to impose a government on its people; it is there to help the Somalis reconcile their differences and establish their own government. Only through co-operation, patience and determination can the fear and distrust which have torn Somalia apart be overcome.

In March last, I had the opportunity to visit Somalia. While there, I met the special representative of the Secretary-General, Admiral Jonathan Howe, the commander of the UNITAF Forces, General Johnston, and a number of other senior officials. I also met representatives of a number of NGO's, including Concern and GOAL, and of women's groups in Mogadishu. I was impressed by the conviction of all whom I met to work for the future of peace and stability in Somalia. All recognise that it is neither an easy nor simple task.

On my way to Baidoa, I visited the feeding centre where Valerie Place had worked and I saw the beautiful monument that her Somali co-workers had erected in her memory. It was a most moving experience. Further on the road to Baidoa, I saw the place where she had been killed one month earlier. She was the third international aid worker to be killed this year in Somalia. It is tragic to think that she, and other aid workers, foreign and Somali, have lost their lives or been injured while trying to help others. Her death illustrated the immediate necessity of providing adequate protection for the humanitarian relief effort and of disarming the warlords and gunmen who have disrupted the country's social fabric and destroyed its infrastructure.

Following Valerie Place's death in February, I raised at a very senior level in Washington and at the United Nations in New York our concern about the situation in Somalia and the need to ensure that the humanitarian effort was not impeded. It was vital that there be adequate protection for aid workers, upon whom the relief effort depends so much. I reiterated our concerns to Admiral Howe when I met him in Mogadishu in March and made a number of recommendations as to how the security of the aid workers might be improved.

The visit by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews, to Somalia last August, and the visit by the President in October, brought the world's attention to the tragedy of Somalia. Ireland appealed to the international community to act immediately to help restore peace in that country, to provide the necessary humanitarian assistance and to support Somali efforts to re-establish national authority and democratic government.

The establishment of the United Task Force (UNITAF) was authorised by the Security Council in December 1992 as an interim step to bring stability to the country, when it became obvious that every attempt to help the people of Somalia was being consistently disrupted, often by General Aideed's faction which was responsible for much of the destruction of Mogadishu.

UNITAF was largely successful in fulfilling its mandate. It brought a measure of calm to its area of operations in southern Somalia. In Mogadishu people began to resume normal activity and there was hope that peace and national reconciliation would follow. The reconstruction of the Somali police force was begun, plans were made for the rehabilitation of the basic infrastructure of the city and projects in support of agriculture developed. In a few weeks time the crops are expected to be harvested after a good rainy season. While in that country I had personal experience of seeing the many NGOs working in this area providing seeds for the local community. We should not under-estimate the role these people have played in ensuring a good harvest for the people of Somalia. For the first time in nearly two years many parts of Somalia will be able to feed its people.

When UNITAF was established it was clear that it was a short term measure only. The United Nations would have to devise plans to fulfil its original political and humanitarian mandate. Following the presentation of the Secretary-General's third report to the Security Council in March 1993, the Security Council unanimously agreed to re-establish UNOSOM, with an expanded and enhanced mandate. This mandate expresses the original goals of the UN: to bring a permanent end to the fighting, to assist in the reconstruction of Somalia and to promote, through political reconciliation, the establishment of a democratic national government reflecting the wishes of the Somali people. It is clear beyond doubt that a very great international effort will be required for some considerable time to achieve these ends.

The mandate and activities of UNOSOM II must be seen as part of this effort: an attempt to create a secure environment in which the wider political and humanitarian objectives can be achieved. The Government, Irish NGOs and public and political opinion have pressed for action along these lines and for a stronger UN presence. Some progress has been made on the political front since an agreement was signed in Addis Ababa in March 1993, under the aegis of the United Nations, between leaders of the main factions, local elders and social groups, including women's groups. Sustained efforts have been made to encourage the Somali leaders, through patient and painstaking negotiation, to arrive at a political consensus. UNOSOM continues to work with and to encourage the elders and other representative groups throughout Somalia to reconcile their differences and to participate in negotiations with a view to electing representative local and district councils. This is a first step towards the re-establishment of representative national authority.

I deplore the events of 5 June and 13 June in which so many people were killed. I express my condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives. Our concerns have already been raised at a very high level with the United Nations in New York. I welcome the fact that the incidents will be thoroughly investigated and await publication of the findings. It is important that whatever measures may be called for are swiftly implemented by the UN.

The House is considering this evening the Bill to amend the Defence Act, 1960. It is necessary to amend the Act in order that Ireland can respond positively to the request from the United Nations for a transport contingent. I believe that we should participate in UNOSOM II. As I have already said, we have publicly pressed for an international commitment to help the people of Somalia. On behalf of the Government and the majority of the people of Ireland, I personally have conveyed this message to the United Nations. Now we have been asked to participate in the international effort for which we have called. We cannot turn our back on this international effort, which has been established by the United Nations.

UNOSOM II took over from UNITAF on 1 May 1993. Already approximately 18,000 personnel, from over 20 countries, are participating in Somalia. When deployment is complete over 30 countries will have provided a total of 20,000 military personnel, 8,000 logistics personnel and a civilian staff of 2,800. In addition there is a quick reaction force of battalion strength currently provided by the United States.

The Irish transport contingent, as part of the logistics component of UNOSOM II, will support combat troops in the provision of supplies. Following the visit of the Minister for Defence to Somalia last weekend, it appears that the UN has decided to locate the transport unit in Baidoa from where it will supply the Zimbabwean troops in Oddur and Wejit. The Minister for Defence has already provided details of the unit, how it will be equipped and its capability to protect itself should the need arise. The unit will, when fulfilling its transport role, be protected by troops from the UNOSOM Force Command. In its base camp it will be protected by the French battalion in whose sector it will be located.

I welcome the news that the Irish transport unit will be sent to Baidoa. Ireland has a particular relationship with that region. The Irish NGO's, GOAL and Concern, have played an important role in stemming the death rate there. They continue to support the local community in rehabilitating the schools and the orphanage and in supporting the local health clinics. I hope that when the transport unit is established in Baidoa it will be able to support and work with the Irish NGO's there.

Mr. Lenihan

In the context of all the modern global requirements to which the United Nations must address itself, our response in this instance is a minimum response. To put this matter in context, under the proposed operation in Somalia there will be a force of 28,000 troops from 32 countries and what we propose is to supply a transport contingent of 80 personnel who will be based in Baidoa. I hope the Dáil will approve the resolution to give effect to that proposal following on the legislation.

This legislation amends the Defence Act, 1960. Since enactment of that Act, in all United Nations operations in which we have taken part our military force has functioned in a police-like manner. They have been engaged in United Nations operations on the basis of keeping the peace, policing the peace as it were, between agreed lines that were settled between opposing forces in areas such as Lebanon. We are now amending the 1960 Act to allow our military forces to proceed to these areas as military personnel, and that is the minimum we should do. From 1960 until now they operated as police and now they are going, as they should as professional soldiers participating in a UN force under a UN command. That is not a new concept. It was written into Chapter VII of the UN Charter but it was frustrated over the years by the cold war rivalries on the Security Council. Deputy Flaherty touched on the nub of this matter when she said that what is required is for the UN to address itself to the post-Cold War era.

Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali in his book Agenda for Peace summarised what the UN approach should be now, how one can get agreement at the Security Council when it is not divided on Cold War lines and when one can invoke Chapter VII of the Charter. We are invoking Chapter VII in order to participate with the other nations in this operation in Somalia. The League of Nations failed because it could not invoke this sort of peace enforcement measure. Eamon de Valera, who was then the Irish representative on the League of Nations, strongly advocated the need for collective security and the importance of functioning on that basis. He considered that the test on which the League of Nations would stand or fall. The League of Nations failed in Abyssinia, the neighbouring country of Somalia, because it did not enforce the peace. After the Second World War Chapter VII was put into the Charter forming the United Nations to ensure that the UN could enforce peace; if there was agreement by the Security Council they could effectively enforce the peace by dispatching a contingent of this kind to Somalia. That is the sort of operation in which the UN will have to engage to a greater degree in the future. This is the kernel of the effectiveness of the UN. It is the essence of the concept of collective security set out in the Chapter. If peaceful means fail to prevent a breach of the peace or an act of aggression, coercive measures agreed by the international community may be used under the Charter. Otherwise the UN will collapse.

Our response is the correct response to ensure international banditry will not succeed and that an international rule of law to preserve peace will prevail. Ultimately there must be the sanction of force properly controlled under the direction of the UN by the agreement of the Security Council, designed to ensure that peace can be restored and the rule of law brought into operation.

This Bill should have the required safeguards. Safeguards are written into the Bill where we maintain the provision of the 1960 Act that any such overseas operation requiring Irish personnel of more than 12 members must come before the Dáil by way of a resolution. Each case can be adequately assessed on its merits in the Dáil. With that safeguard we are making our contribution to a great UN effort in Somalia. By incorporating this type of operation into legislation we are ensuring that this new orientation of international policy involving the enforcement of collective security is one which Ireland can participate and play its part.

Mr. Cox

I would like to share my time with Deputy Molloy.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cox

I am pleased to be able to take part in debate on this major legislation. It makes a very powerful statement about how we are shaping up to the post-Cold War period and about linking our defence policy with our foreign policy. This legislation is fundamental and profound. It is a watershed in terms of defence and foreign policy. I do not want to dwell on Somalia because we will deal with a motion as appropriate, when this Bill is enacted. The substance of this Bill is not about Somalia. It is about war and peace, about coercion with a UN mandate and about depriving aggression of the spoils and territorial gains that go with it. It involves issues of life and death. It involves commitment rather than passivity in terms of international affairs. I share the belief of a number of speakers that it is a pity we do not have more time to reflect on this. I support the measure. It is fundamental legislation which should not be diminished by the modest number of sections proposed.

The key issue has to do with the essential difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. It is worth explaining some of the differences. The peace-keeping mandate of the United Nations arises in the context in which all sides to a conflict will a peace and will the intervention of the United Nations as a peacekeeper. All of them agree to certain preconditions regarding what is required. In terms of the troops we commit it also carries with it very limited rules of military engagement.

Peace enforcement is very different. As a prior condition it does not require that everyone involved perceives the mandate in the same way. Not everyone who is party to a conflict will necessarily welcome the intrusion of the United Nations forces. It may involve acts of coercion in certain circumstances — hopefully not in Somalia — in line with decisions of the Security Council.

We are now considering a very major transition in terms of defence and foreign policy. In that regard I would be interested to hear the view of the Minister and of the Government in terms of the emerging agreement and consensus, within the context of the Maastricht Treaty, that the European Community should have a common foreign and security policy. What is this Government's view of what Europe should be saying about structures in the United Nations itself? It is an extremely important issue. I would be interested to hear even its first thoughts or principles on the matter.

The current make-up of the Security Council is entirely inadequate to deal with the breakdown of the bi-polar world, the breakdown of the old certainties of the Warsaw Pact versus NATO, of the equilibrium maintained across the face of the globe. It may have been a balance of terror but it had the advantage of some certainty. That has evaporated, leading to considerable potential for uncertainty. The Security Council of the United Nations was put together at the end of the last war when the victors all had a seat at the Security Council table.

The Security Council is in urgent need of reconstruction, to give greater weight to what was heretofore referred to as the Third World. Do we have a view about whether the European Community, within a reconstructed United Nations, should have a seat at that table? If we have such a view, at what price? Would it speak with one voice? Is it conceivable that the two existing members of the Security Council, both nuclear powers, France and the United Kingdom, would concede such a role to the European Community? We should be active in such a debate, active in promoting a view as to how the United Nations itself should work from the top down.

I should like to deal with one or two provisions of the Bill. The clear distinction will be made under this Bill between existing members of the Permanent Defence Forces and new members who would enter as serving officer, NCO or private. They will be obliged to accept, as a condition of their employment, that this United Nations peace enforcing mandate will form part of their conditions of employment. For existing employees that is not a condition. As we renew the Defence Forces over time it would be wrong to maintain such a distinction. I would add my voice to those who have called for an emphasis on voluntarism. I am convinced, in terms of their professionalism and their appetite to serve this country and the United Nations, there will be no shortfall of volunteers within the Permanent Defence Forces to fulfil any of the United Nations mandates this country takes up. We should allow for voluntarism in the case of all members of the Permanent Defence Forces for peace enforcing missions whenever they arise.

When the United Nations Security Council redefines some of the elements of a mission, whether it be the political objectives, the rules of engagement or any other relevant but fundamental matter to the nature of the mandate — and in ongoing difficult circumstances that is not an unusual thing for the Security Council to do — it should be incumbent on the Government of the day to come back to this House, in respect of any new mandate by the United Nations Security Council which could impact on Irish troops in operational terms. Those new conditions should be the subject of a separate motion in this House so that one could discuss the commitment. That is extremely important.

In the absence of the type of basic reform of the structure of the United Nations Security Council, we need to ask some very serious questions about the nature of the interface between the forces of the United States of America and those of the United Nations where they find themselves serving either together on the same field of operation or where the United States is leading forces under United Nations Security Council Resolutions. I do not subscribe to the view — and I would regard myself as of a friendly disposition in terms of my attitude to the United States — that the United States of America should have some free-wheeling, super policing role in global terms. In Somalia, there are serious difficulties in ascertaining the real chain of command involving the United States. I should like to know the view of our Minister and Government. It appears to me that much has been motivated by political needs and virility tests within the United States itself, perhaps directly on the orders of the Pentagon, rather than the clear command and authority of United Nations personnel on the ground. That is extremely disturbing if we are to commit ourselves to being co-partners in projects such as this, which I agree in principle and practice we should undertake. We should clearly insist that the United States be part and parcel of that United Nations umbrella in a significant and substantial way.

Perhaps in the way power politics operate, somebody will tell me that is somewhat naïve, but if we believe in a world order based on respect for the principles of international law we cannot have free wheelers on board. The use of the self-defence claim by the United States last weekend, when they sent in something like £28 million worth of hardware to bomb a target in Baghdad, in my view was reprehensible, disgraceful and indefensible in respect of the United Nations itself. I hope that, at the first opportunity, our Government will take advantage of whatever platform they get at the United Nations to express such a view.

Proinsias De Rossa

Not a chance.

Mr. Cox

If we believe in the primacy of the role of the United Nations, the corollary is that anything which brings it into disrepute should be repudiated. That must be a fundamental principle in this type of legislation on the future conduct of defence and foreign policy.

We have talked a good deal this evening about Somalia, which is the soft sell for the vigorous policy on which we are about to embark. The hard sell, were we to go down that road, is Bosnia-Hercegovina. I want to pose a few questions to the Government and ascertain what specific answers they might give. The Taoiseach attended the Copenhagen Summit last weekend. That Summit, in Annex III, issued a declaration on Bosnia-Hercegovina, in which the heads of the various Governments and the head of state in the case of France, included the usual ritual which the toothless and useless European Community in this regard is wont to repeat ad nauseam, including one specific comment:

The European Council decided to respond positively to the request of the United Nations Secretary General for men and money. It urged member states to comply with that request within their abilities.

Since we signed the declaration in Copenhagen is it considered that we have the ability to make a contribution of men and money to the operation in Bosnia-Hercegovina? On a wider basis, I would ask what are our views in the formulation of a common foreign and security policy? We are very close to the point where we will have to consider the question of joint action and to define principles.

Will it be a fundamental principle that aggression should not pay under international law in relation to the principles outlined in the UN Charter? If that will be a fundamental principle we will have to recognise the gross failure of the European Community to respect the principles of international law in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The European Community was the first to recognise that state. We set out laudable principles of international law in London and, prior to the Edinburgh Conference, we sent Vance and Owen on their mission, which has amounted to zero. We have reduced this to the protection of safe havens which must be the most unsafe places on this earth to live in. In addition, we are committed to providing a palliative, of men and money, as yet undefined. Are we going to be part of this dirty and difficult war where toughness will be required even in the safe havens and it will not be the soft sell as in the case of Somalia? What is our view on that matter, because this law has as much to do with Bosnia-Hercegovina as it has with Somalia? I have heard no one on the Government side of the House express a view on that matter and I would like the Minister to express a view on it.

I would like to make one other point in conclusion. The Government is being courageous in introducing this legislation and I salute it for doing so. We have reached a major watershed in marrying defence policy with foreign policy. I would like to know what implications this has for our unfolding policy at the United Nations, at the CSCE and in the European Community. If we are to become active in this regard we should forget about the soft sell and the double think.

Mr. Molloy

I would like to avail of this opportunity, as a former Minister for Defence, to express my sincere appreciation for the great service provided to this State since its foundation by those who have served in the Defence Forces and the great honour they have brought to this country in their peacekeeping role under the flag of the United Nations.

The legislation before the House introduces a fundamental change in the role that this House will ask Defence Forces personnel to undertake if they are to participate in peace enforcement operations. My party will table important amendments on Committee Stage which we will press very hard. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to these amendments — I have no doubt that amendments will be tabled by other parties also — to ensure that protection is provided for our troops when they commence operations under this new role and with this new responsibility. In recent times I had the privilege of seeing the Army in operation under the United Nations flag in Cambodia when I was part of a delegation from this House who acted as international observers during the elections there. They are performing magnificently in difficult circumstances. I hope the amendments that we will put forward will be accepted.

It is essential that serious consideration is given to the role of the Defence Forces. When emergencies arise we immediately look to the Army but forget about them in the intervening periods. It is important that they are provided with proper equipment and that the recruitment campaign is renewed to ensure that we do not end up with a "Dad's Army". There is a danger that this will happen given the failure to recruit personnel over a long period of years and the willingness of the Government to undertake UN missions abroad while failing to recognise that the duties for those who remain at home have increased threefold.

Mr. Kirk

I wish to share my time with Deputies Power, McDaid and Mulvihill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kirk

I am glad to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. Most Members realise that while it is a short Bill it is of significance and importance to our Defence Forces whose United Nations' role will change dramatically from one of peacekeeping to peace enforcement across the globe. We have a long and proud tradition of involvement with the United Nations down through the years and no one can dispute the fact that our commitment to its cause has been unwavering. Since the days of a former constituency colleague, the late Frank Aiken, Ireland has been a stalwart member of the United Nations.

Tonight we are focusing on Somalia. It has been proposed that we should send 80 Army personnel to that unfortunate country to see if we can provide any of the help and assistance that they so urgently need. The scenes of devastation which have been shown regularly on our television screens have brought the problems home to us. Unfortunately, the warlords wreak havoc and they have no difficulty in using death and starvation to achieve their own ends and objectives. The developed world has to act. While it may have been effective to adopt a policing role in the past we need to move towards the point where we can enforce the peace in countries such as Somalia.

We live in a changing world. As the Minister said, prior to the end of the Cold War the super-powers were able to keep small conflicts under wraps but following the ending of the Cold War the picture has changed. In the ideal world there would be no conflicts. The United Nations would be ineffective, as a peacekeeper, if army personnel from various nations which are accepted as being fair and even-handed were not made available. Our Army personnel have a good reputation and I am sure that we will continue to play an honourable role with the United Nations for many years to come.

Mr. Power

I have listened to most of the contributions which have been made on this Bill today. While the majority of Deputies have been very supportive of the Bill, I wish to bring to the attention of the House an unfortunate remark made last week by Deputy Bruton when he said that a Bill was being brought before this House which would commit Irish troops to almost certain death. I have not been a Member of this House for very long but that was the most unfortunate comment I have ever heard made by a Member——

Mr. Barrett

That is a very unfortunate comment by somebody who is looking for co-operation——

Mr. Power

We are getting full co-operation.

Mr. Barrett

It is unfortunate that the Deputy has brought the debate down to this level.

Mr. Power

I am not responsible for the words chosen by the Leader of the Deputy's party.

Mr. Barrett

Deputy Power should be ashamed of himself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy in possession, without interruption, please.

Mr. Power

I can understand the Deputy's shame, and I am not responsible for it. The purpose of this Bill is to allow our Permanent Defence Forces to act as peace-enforcers on behalf of the United Nations. Our Defence Forces have a wonderful record througout the world as peacekeepers. They have made friends throughout the world while engaged in that role. However, we must not under-estimate the challenges and difficulties the proposed change will bring. Last week, the Minister for Defence, aware of the concern regarding Irish participation in UNOSOM, travelled to Somalia with some senior military officers to discuss with officers in the UNOSOM headquarters in Mogadishu and the French contingent in Baidoa, the implications of this new role. This mission was undertaken to ensure that, first, it was relatively safe for Irish troops to travel to Somalia and, second, every precaution which could be taken would be taken so that our Defence Forces faced the minimum risk. The Minister must be congratulated for his caring approach in dealing with this issue.

Members of the Defence Forces will not be asked to serve on this mission unless they have offered to do so. I live in County Kildare, home of many members of our Defence Forces, and I know they are looking forward to this challenge. While they are very much aware of the potential dangers which exist, they know what is required of them and that they have the ability and capacity to meet the challenges of this new role. Members of the Defence Forces regard this request from the United Nations as a great honour for Ireland and an acknowledgement of the marvellous contribution they have played throughout the world as peacekeepers.

Many speakers thanked our Defence Forces for the wonderful work they have done and the tremendous ambassadors they have been for Ireland over the past number of years. One of the big problems which has confronted our Defence Forces in recent years has been a lack of recruitment. This issue must be addressed immediately. This lack of recruitment does nothing to improve morale among the Members of our Defence Forces. The Minister has indicated that he intends to deal with this problem. I should like to see it resolved as quickly as possible.

While the intervention of the UN in Somalia is very welcome, the UN itself is in need of close examination. The United Nations has been hijacked; certain actions taken recently have sullied the name of the United Nations. Serious questions must be asked about some of the decisions taken in the name of the UN. There must be proper debate to determine the future role of the UN. We must ensure that no one nation is allowed to dictate UN policy.

I am happy that every precaution possible will be taken before the mission commences. I wish the Irish Defence Forces well in Somalia. I have no doubt they will complement the good work being carried out at present by the Irish NGOs, Concern and GOAL.

Dr. McDaid

We are dealing with a very sensitive issue which the Minister has handled in his usual confident manner. This change in the role of our Defence Forces is a cause of some concern in view of recent events and the increasing number of volatile areas in the world. My main concern is that both world wars began in Europe and sadly, guns are again being fired there. While these guns are still a long way from the great capitals of Europe, London, Paris and Berlin, we must realise that the ending of the Cold War and all its economic dividends has not brought the desired peace to Europe or the Continent of Africa. On the contrary, bloody ethnic wars in Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Somalia and the Balkans carry the risk of spreading to surrounding regions and continents. The conflict in Somalia has been well documented in recent months. These current fanatical conflicts continue to prove highly resistant to UN and other international mediation; they are smouldering fuses which cannot be left to burn for too long. Who is going to help to put out the fires, guarantee the ceasefires, bring aid to refugees and protect the world from warlords and aggressive dictators? We can talk politics all we want but soldiers have a large part to play in this area.

Europe has introduced the most massive defence cuts ever witnessed right across the board. These cuts have been driven by political pressure as a result of soaring budgets caused mainly by skyrocketing social welfare costs. Politically speaking, the easiest areas in which to introduce cuts is in defence — there is no political profit in defending political budgets. During times of peace, soldiers are often castigated. Kipling once wrote — it is worth quoting him in this context —"For its Tommy this and Tommy that and chuck him out the brute, but it's saviour of his country when the guns begin to shoot." It is soldiers like Kipling's Tommy that we continue to call on in times of crisis. There is a growing need for more and more troops, preferably UN troops, in various parts of the world. We must be prepared to play our part in this respect.

The post Cold War Europe needs to rediscover the virtues of a sound defence. The trimming of the defence budget has already gone too far. I say this for the following reasons. We have seen the mushrooming of UN troop deployment throughout the world. There are approximately 20,000 UN troops in Cambodia; 14,000 in Croatia and 8,000 in Bosnia. If peace is to be achieved in Bosnia, it will probably require 60,000 UN troops. It is estimated that 50,000 UN troops will be required in Somalia. There is a demand for well-equipped, trained and disciplined forces. If we do not pass this Bill our troops will not only be less effective against the warlords in Somalia but also against the warlords in other parts of the world where they are likely to be deployed.

The Americans have decided to reduce the number of US forces in Europe to approximately 100,000. Germany has reduced its forces from 500,000 to 300,000. The strength of the British army is at its lowest since 1830. Only the French seem to plan to spend what it takes to remain an independent military power. What does one see when one looks around Europe today? There is still nuclear power in four former Soviet States, namely, Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhastan. The danger of a conventional attack from the East may now be deemed to be virtually non-existent but the risk of formerly controlled Soviet weapons falling into the hands of local warlords cannot be discounted. What are scientists who were once nuclear physicists in Russia doing now that the Cold War is over?

In addition to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, there are other equally explosive areas on our southern shores — North Africa and the Middle East. There is also the Iraqi problem and a major threat from anti-western Islamic fundamentalists extending from Algeria in the West to Pakistan in the East. The goal would appear to be the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical or biological. We know how close the Iraqis came to achieving this. The point I am making is that Europe is cutting back on its defence budget at a time when it is surrounded by a live, volatile area.

I commend the Minister for this Bill. I ask him to accept the vitally important points I have made. I know it is not directly relevant to this Bill, but reference has been made to recruitment to our Defence Forces. We cannot allow the Army to be under strength while expecting it to take its place in volatile areas. I commend the Minister on the Bill. Our troops will enhance their reputation because they are, and always have been, responsible and honourable people. I wish them well.

Mr. Mulvihill

I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. As an exserviceman I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. I spent nine years in the Irish Naval Service. One might ask what a sailor knows about the Army. We were first trained as soldiers in the Naval Service and then as seamen. I spent nine months training in the Curragh Camp some years ago and I gained considerable experience in those years.

After the Second World War, as Deputy McDaid said, many people expressed the hope that we had seen the last of warfare. Unfortunately that is not the case, and there have been local and national wars all over the world. Millions have been killed in these wars, usually without justification.

The United Nations, as its name implies, was set up to bring about co-operation, peace and harmony among the member nations. Ireland has been an active member and has played a useful role in the work and operations of the United Nations. We must continue to do our duty as a member nation. I know the proposal to send 80 Irish troops to Somalia as a transport unit has caused heart-searching concern in and outside this House. It is accepted that this is a dangerous assignment for our troops but I have every confidence that they will measure up to the task. Our professional soldiers are trained to the highest standards and we should wish them well in their mission. However, we must ensure that all possible safeguards are put in place to ensure their safety and the success of the mission.

As a considerable number of troops are working overseas, Army staff at home are expected to double up on duty. For this reason will the Minister consider recommencing recruitment? We take the Army for granted at times. Its personnel are brought onto our streets at times of industrial unrest to carry out public services. On such occasions they are lauded as great people but we seem to forget very quickly about them. Recently I visited Haulbowline and saw that of our seven naval ships five were tied up. Will the Minister examine this as a matter of urgency?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Minister for Defence (Mr. Andrews)

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate, those who expressed a contrary opinion and those who were in favour of the Bill. I thank Deputy Enda Kenny for his remarks. I will give serious consideration to the amendment tabled by Deputy Barrett which proposes that a review be carried out every 12 months. It may be possible to accommodate the import of that amendment in another manner, by virtue of other mechanisms in this House. I will examine the amendment further in view of the request by Deputy Barrett, so ably supported by Deputy Enda Kenny. Deputy De Rossa chose an unusual procedure, one I had not seen adopted previously in this House but, presumably, it accords with Standing Orders. It is provocative in that in the last sentence he asks that we decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill. By virtue of that line alone, apart from the general content of his amendment, I would be letting the Bill proposed by the Government fall if I supported the amendment and in the circumstances the Deputy will appreciate that I cannot accept it.

Proinsias De Rossa

Former Deputy Haughey might.

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy would want to talk to former Deputy Haughey about that but, in the meantime, I am bound by the collective wisdom of the Government who decided that this was the legislation that was required to meet the request from the UNOSOM II mission. The Bill is now before the House for its democratic decision.

In the short time available to me I will try to respond to as many as possible of the points raised by the Deputies. I thank the main Opposition spokesperson, Deputy Barrett, for the positive and constructive tone of his contribution and I welcome his support in principle for the Bill. The Deputy questioned the role of the United Nations troops in Somalia. As the Deputy will appreciate, UNOSOM II will consist of approximately 28,000 troops, drawn from 32 countries and its mandate, which covers the whole territory of Somalia, includes enforcement powers in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, 1945, so succinctly stated by Deputy Lenihan. Its mission will be to monitor and ensure that all the factions respect the ceasefire; to prevent the resumption of violence; to maintain control of heavy weapons; to seize unauthorised smallarms; to secure ports, airports and lines of communication; to protect United Nations, Red Cross and non-governmental organisations and facilities and to continue the demining programme and to assist in the repatriation of refugees. Basically, that is the mandate as set down under the UNOSOM II proposal. All the military forces of the United States in Somalia are part of UNOSOM. The suggestion that in some way the United States is separate and apart from the order of the United Nations is wrong. Their role is the same as that of the other contingents and they come under the United Nations command, of which the force commander is General Bir, a Turk. He is, in the nature of things, primus inter pares.

Deputy Barrett also raised the issue of compensation. Arrangements for compensation for Defence Force personnel compare favourably with those for the Garda Síochána. They are eligible for disability pensions and gratuities under the Army Pensions Acts and for special and substantial allowances payable in respect of injuries sustained in United Nations service. There are also widows' and orphans' pensions and death gratuities payable to dependants. This is especially so where the death is attributable to United Nations service.

Deputy Barrett, in common with a number of other Deputies, raised the voluntary nature of overseas service. It should be clearly understood that all personnel who are presently serving will not be liable for service in peace enforcing missions unless they volunteer. There is no question of the Army saying "You, you and you" when it comes to volunteering. It will be a question of a genuine will to serve based on the freedom of will of the individual concerned. Furthermore, although the majority of the Defence Force personnel are liable for service under the 1960 Act, in practice overseas missions are heavily oversubscribed by volunteers. Most, if not all the missions are oversubscribed and there are queues — if I may put it that way — but without oversimplifying it a very serious role that must and will be played by the Defence Forces. The 80 personnel of the transport company are all volunteers and will be replaced on rotation with volunteers.

Deputies Barrett and Ryan inquired about the allowances to be paid to personnel serving with UNOSOM II. Personnel will qualify for the same rates of overseas service allowances as troops serving with UNIFIL. The associations representing members of the Defence Forces submitted claims which will be processed in the normal way through the conciliation and arbitration scheme. RACO and PDFORRA have put in claims which in the ordinary way will be considered by the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

A number of Deputies, including the Progressive Democrats spokesman, Deputy Clohessy, made a positive contribution and questioned the procedures for obtaining Dáil approval for the despatch of contingents. The provisions for approving the sending of the contingents overseas are identical to those which have operated successfully and in good faith by successive Governments for 33 years. When the original legislation was passed there was considerable debate about the provisions governing Dail approval. None of the fears expressed has been borne out. The system has worked well and hopefully will continue to do so. I am not in the business of gazing into a crystal ball or whatever, but hopefully they will continue to operate positively and well into the future. Should some future issue arise giving cause for concern, the Dáil has many avenues available to it to make the Minister accountable, such as Question Time, Adjournment Debates, the annual Estimate and now the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. These avenues are available to make the Minister and, by defintion, the Government accountable for the concerns of Deputies arising out of this matter and, indeed, other matters in relation to the portfolios which I hold for the time being.

Deputies Barrett, Kemmy, Carey and Haughey are rightly concerned for the safety of the Irish personnel going to Somalia. Everybody in the House shares that concern. I cannot give a graduated assessment between one and ten of the risk factor. I would think that the risk in south Mogadishu, having visited there under very heavy security, is quite considerable; but we were informed that our transport unit will be going to Baidoa and comparatively the risk is less. I cannot guarantee the future. All I can do, as I have said in my opening remarks, is give assurances. The risk factor was addressed by many Deputies and, as Minister, I share that concern. For that reason I travelled to Somalia last weekend to obtain an update on the situation there from the United Nations commanders on the ground. I stated in my opening remarks that I met with Admiral Jonathan Howe, the representative of Boutrus Boutrus Ghali, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and General Thomas Montgomery, the deputy force commander in the absence of the force commander. I met with the logistics and transport people and at all times I was accompanied by the professional people to whose advice I listened very carefully. I was accompanied by two Army personnel, the Assistant Chief of Staff, Brigadier General John O'Shea and the force commander of the 80 man personnel transport unit, Commander Maurice O'Donoghue. I listened to their assessment and they listened to the assessment given to them by their peers in the United Nations.

I am a civilian and I have to listen very carefully to the advice I get from the military authorities. I listen carefully and I assess, based on their judgment, the realities. In the circumstances they appeared to be reassured by the people whom we met. The decision to go to Baidoa was made on the ground as it was not in our original programme. It was a wise decision because we met there the French contingent with whom we will operate side by side, presided over by General Quadri, who made us most welcome and was very supportive of our intentions to go to Baidoa. Effectively, we now know where we are going and the ground is staked out. That is as much as I can do to continue to reassure everyone that the situation will be relatively good from our point of view.

I am satisfied that suitable arrangements for the security of our personnel as they operate in a logistics role will be in place. Specifically, I can assure Deputies that, first, the Irish contingent will be among the most experienced and best trained in UNOSOM II; second, they have been provided with all the resources and equipment necessary to do the job; third, conditions in Baidoa, where they will be located, are not in any way comparable, as I have already stated, with the tense and dangerous situation in South Mogadishu; and fourth, the advice of the military authorities is unequivocally in favour of going ahead. I am satisfied that the detailed preparations by the Defence Forces, combined with the security arrangements which will be taken in Somalia, will ensure as far as humanly practicable that the contingent will be safe in all the circumstances.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the main question."

Proinsias De Rossa

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Members who are claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Rabbitte, De Rossa, Gilmore, McManus and Gregory rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Members have risen, in accordance with Standing Orders, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 59, the names of the Members who have risen will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Andrews

Tomorrow.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30 June 1993.