Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Jul 1993

Vol. 433 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Despatch of Irish Army UN Contingent to Somalia: Motion.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the despatch, pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960, as applied by the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993, of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service outside the State to participate in the United Nations Operation in Somalia, known as UNOSOM II, as part of the International United Nations Force established by the United Nations Security Council.

This motion is required under section 2 of the Defence Act, 1960, as applied by the Defence Act, 1993, which became law last week. One of the purposes of the motion, in approving the despatch of a contingent from the Permanent Defence Force, is to allow the House to review the situation in the country or region to which the Irish troops will be sent. I propose, therefore, to outline the background to the establishment of UNOSOM II before considering the issue of Ireland's participation in that mission.

The modern history of Somalia is tragic, although the omens were good. While there are regional differences, Somalia is probably unique in Africa. A country of one people, one language, one culture and one religion. Somalis are divided into five major clan families which claim a common ancestry. The Somali Republic came about as the union on 1 July 1960 of the former British Somaliland Protectorate and the former Italian-administered United Nations Trust Territory of Somalia, which was approved by a national referendum in June 1961. A form of democratic government existed until 1969, when President Ali Shermake was assassinated on 15 October. Six days later there was a military coup led by General Mohammed Siad Barre.

Somalia's strategic position was ably used by Siad Barre during the Cold War period to play off the Soviet Union and the United States. The result was that Somalia became one of the most heavily armed countries in Africa and this is one of the most difficult problems that the UN operation has to face today.

During 1990 fighting between Siad Barre's Government and rebel forces escalated. One of the rebel groups, the United Somali Congress (USC), entered the capital, Mogadishu, in late December and claimed, by 1 January 1991, to control large parts of the city. Shortly afterwards it announced that it had taken control of the Government and invited all former opposition groups to participate in a national conference to discuss the democratisation of Somalia. Siad Barre fled the capital, thereby ending his 23 year dictatorship. Sadly, all attempts by the different groups to reach agreement on the future of the country failed. By mid-March 1991 southern Somalia had begun to disintegrate into anarchy.

During 1991 there were several further attempts to reconcile the different Somali movements, particularly by Djibouti, which hosted two conferences. Ceasefires were agreed but failed to hold. In November 1991 the United Somali Congress split. Its leadership and principal support come from the Hawiye clan, which is numerically Somalia's largest, and dominates the commercial and intellectual life of Mogadishu and its hinterland. Fighting broke out between two factions — the supporters of interim President Mahdi and the partisans of USC chairman, General Aideed.

Alarmed at the rapid deterioration in the situation and the heavy loss of life, the Security Council in January 1992 imposed an arms embargo on Somalia — a very necessary measure that has to be seen in the context of the vast quantity of arms already in the country. Under the same Resolution, Resolution 733, the Secretary-General appointed a Special Representative for Somalia, who was charged with ensuring (a) the cessation of hostilities, (b) the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance, and (c) movement towards national reconciliation.

The imposition of the arms embargo and the appointment of a UN Special Representative was followed in April 1992 by the establishment of the UN operation in Somalia known as UNOSOM I. This provided for 50 military observers to be sent to Mogadishu to monitor the ceasefire agreement and the deployment of 500 security personnel to protect the transport, storage and distribution of humanitarian assistance in Somalia. The deployment of security personnel was blocked by General Aideed, whose agreement was only secured in mid-August.

President Robinson, accompanied by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, visited Somalia in October and reported on the situation to the UN Secretary-General, briefing him on what they had seen, on the inadequacy of the supplies getting through to those in need and on the unacceptable security situation.

The Government decided in November, in response to a request from the United Nations, that Ireland would make available a transport unit to UNOSOM, subject to Dáil approval. Unfortunately, it was becoming clear that in spite of the efforts of the UN special representative, UNOSOM would be unable to fulfil its mandate. Its efforts were blocked by the warlords and bandits at every stage. In December 1992 the Security Council authorised the establishment of the Unified Task Force (UNITAF) under United States command.

The United Task Force was created as an interim arrangement to deal with the immediate problems of creating a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian relief. It largely succeeded in this objective. But it was clear that a wider international effort would be required if peace and stability were to be restored to Somalia. On 3 March the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council in some detail on the situation in Somalia and the efforts being made by the UN and UNITAF to restore peace. He recommended the establishment of UNOSOM II with a wider and stronger mandate.

The Secretary-General's recommendations were endorsed by the Security Council on 26 March when, by Resolution 814, it established UNOSOM II. Resolution 814 is the key resolution governing the UN's current involvement in Somalia. I believe it is worthwhile to set out the overall objectives of the UN in Somalia as provided for in that resolution. These are:

to assist in the provision of relief and in the economic rehabilitation of Somalia, based on assessment of clear, prioritised needs;

to assist in the repatriation of refugees and displaced persons in Somalia;

to assist the people of Somalia to promote and advance political reconciliation, through broad participation by all sectors of Somalia society, and re-establishment of national and regional institutions and civil administration in the entire country;

to assist in the re-establishment of Somali police, as appropriate, at the local, regional or national level, to assist in the restoration and maintenance of peace, stability and law and order, including in the investigation of and facilitating the prosecution of serious violations of international humanitarian law;

to assist the people of Somalia in the development of a coherent and integrated programme for the removal of mines throughout Somalia;

to develop appropriate public information activities in support of the United Nations' activities in Somalia;

to create conditions under which Somalia civil society may have a role, at every level, in the process of political reconciliation and in the formulation and realisation of rehabilitation and reconstruction programme.

Resolution 814 endorsed the Secretary-General's proposal that the UNOSOM mandate be expanded to include what he called "military tasks". Again, I believe it is worthwhile to spell out in detail what these military tasks are. They are:

(a) to monitor that all factions respect the ceasefire; (b) to prevent the resumption of violence and to take appropriate action against factions which violate or threaten to violate the ceasefire; (c) to maintain control of heavy weapons; (d) to seize unauthorised small arms; (e) to secure ports, airports and lines of communication; (f) to protect UN, Red Cross and NGO personnel and facilities, and to take such forceful action as may be required against attacks on them; (g) to continue the demining programme; (h) to assist in the repatriation of refugees; and (i) to carry out such further functions as may be authorised by the Security Council.

The mandate and activities of UNOSOM II must be seen as part of an attempt to create a secure environment in which the UN's 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. The mandate of UNOSOM II — disarmament, control of weapons, greater protection for aid personnel — corresponds to the requests that the Government has made directly to the UN and the US in recent months.

Resolution 814 demanded that the Somali parties, movements and factions, comply fully with the commitments they entered into on 27 March, when they signed an agreement of national reconciliation formally ending the civil war. The agreement also includes the establishment of a Transitional National Council (TNC) to be made up of representatives from each of Somalia's 18 regions. UNOSOM political officers are currently holding meetings throughout southern Somalia, seeking agreement on the election of representatives to the district councils, from which in turn the Transitional National Council representatives will be chosen. It is important that the international community maintain pressure on the Somali leaders to work together for reconciliation and for a democratic national government.

UNOSOM II, at full strength, will have 20,000 military personnel, 8,000 logistics personnel and a civilian staff of 2,800. More than 18,000 personnel are already deployed. In addition, the United States provides a quick reaction force under UN command. This is to be replaced by an international quick reaction force before the end of this year.

The estimated cost of UNOSOM II, is $1.55 billion for the initial twelve months period. Ireland's share is approximately $2.79 million. This amount would have to be paid whether or not we decide to participate in UNOSOM II. UNOSOM II will be financed through assessed contributions from UN member states. Additional financing is to be provided through the UN Trust Fund for Somalia, which was established under Security Council Resolution 794. Ireland contributed £115,000 to that fund in December 1992.

Before taking up the UN's request to Ireland to participate in UNOSOM II, I would like to outline to the House some of the wiser implications of the use of Chapter VII in the evolution of UN peacekeeping as traditionally understood. It is this feature in particular which distinguishes our proposed involvement in Somalia from any other UN operation in which Ireland has previously participated.

At the heart of the concept of collective security as contained in the UN Charter is the notion that, 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. In acceding to the UN, and in subscribing to the Charter, Ireland accepted that coercive measures, including military action, might need to be taken by the Security Council under Chapter VII to maintain or restore international peace and security. That chapter empowers the Security Council to adopt preventive and enforcement actions ranging from economic sanctions and blockades to military action by air, sea and land forces.

Because of the Cold War, the Security Council never made use of the most coercive of these provisions. With the end of the Cold War, and the new mood of co-operation in the Security Council, the UN has been looking again at the possibilities open to it of dealing with serious international and regional crises. The decision to establish UNOSOM II under Chapter VII with a defined range of military tasks, in support of humanitarian and political objectives, can be seen in the context of the new co-operation in the Security Council and the desire to use the potential of the UN to its fullest in the search for peace in Somalia.

Traditional UN peacekeeping operations are not specifically provided for in the UN Charter. They developed out of the need for practical instruments to strengthen and underpin the efforts of the UN to bring about the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter IV of the Charter. There is a general consensus in the UN that such operations can be considered as having a basis in the broad powers conferred by the Charter on the UN and especially on the Security Council. In this sense, they are seen as falling somewhere between the political and diplomatic means described in Chapter VI and the enforcement measures envisaged in Chapter VII. In the case of UNOSOM II, the Secretary-General believed that the force would not be able to implement its mandate unless it were endowed with enforcement powers under Chapter VII. In the circumstances of Somalia, the Government accept the Secretary-General's view that UNOSOM II should have such a capability.

On 5 April, the United Nations Secretary-General formally requested Ireland to make available an 80-strong transport contingent to the mission. A number of our EC partners have also been asked and some are already participating in UNOSOM II. These include Belgium, France, Germany, Greece and Italy.

I have set out on a number of occasions, including most recently to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, my view that Ireland should participate in UNOSOM II for the following reasons: participation would be a clear demonstration that Ireland is prepared to give operational content to its policy on Somalia; it would reaffirm our longstanding commitment to international peace and security and to upholding the role of the UN, even in difficult and complex situations; it would strengthen our position in demanding greater protection for our aid workers.

I believe that, to withdraw our original offer made in November 1992, would be perceived as demonstrating a lack of political resolve and of acting in a manner that falls short of our publicly stated commitment to the people of Somalia. Furthermore, participation in UNOSOM II would underline our view that peace keeping, and peace enforcement under the Charter, are international responsibilities shared by the entire UN membership and are not the preserve of the larger powers.

In the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, and during the debates on the Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993, some concern was expressed about the involvement of Irish troops in a United Nations peace enforcement mission and the potential combat role of those troops. I wish to assure the House that, in proposing that Bill, the intention of the Government was that Ireland should adequately play its role in the international force established by the United Nations to respond to the horrific man made situation in Somalia and that we should play our part in the international effort, which we ourselves had demanded. It was not, and is not the Government's intention that Irish troops should be placed in a combat role in Somalia.

Ireland will provide non-combat troops to UNOSOM II. I believe that, by acting in such a manner, we will be fulfilling a necessary and important role within the United Nations, a role that is in line with our proud tradition of peace keeping, but reflects the changes which have taken place in our world in recent years. Such a role will permit us to voice, with authority, our views on the nature and mandate of this and future missions.

I want to put on the record of the House the Government's deep regret and concern at the recent loss of life in Mogadishu. The killing and wounding of Pakistani members of the UNOSOM force on 5 June, the deaths of more than 20 civilians on 13 June, and the attack on Italian soldiers last week highlight the unstable and volatile situation in the city. These events must be fully investigated and the necessary measures taken by the UN. I have already said that it would be deeply worrying if the UN force — whose objective is peace — becomes the focus of resentment or rejection by the Somali people. I understand that the UN Secretary-General is to report shortly to the Security Council and I will ensure that a copy of his report is made available to Members through the Dáil Library.

The debate on the Defence (Amendment) Bill has shown that there is wide political support for Ireland's participation in UNOSOM II. I believe that this reflects the views of the vast majority of Irish people who have, time and again, demonstrated their humanitarian concern for the plight of the Somali people.

The participation of Irish troops in Somalia is in the best tradition of Irish involvement in UN operations and it will, I hope, contribute to the restoration of peace in that troubled land. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Connor

Fine Gael has no objections to the proposals set down in this motion. Nevertheless, we find it regrettable that the Minister was not in a position to accept the amendment we tabled last week to the Defence (Amendment) Bill proposing that troops sent abroad go in a voluntary capacity. Even at this late stage I urge that this matter be reconsidered and that troops sent on missions of this kind are volunteers.

Ireland has long been one of the world's best members of the United Nations organisation in terms of participation in peacekeeping, support for the UN Charter and the various UN agencies. The establishment of UNOSOM II last March is a necessary step forward in UN involvement in Somalia. Fine Gael supports the general intention and thrust of UNOSOM II, with reservations. By agreeing to the Secretary General's request for a transport contingent of 80 personnel we would like it to be made clear that we are contributing not only to the military aims of UNOSOM II but to the wider aims, to bring an end to this internecine civil war, to assist in the reconstruction of the country by promoting political reconciliation and creating an environment in which political organisations and parties can grow, eventually leading to democratic government in Somalia.

There are some who believe that normal political activity or indeed any form of national government can never return to Somalia given its history in the last 20 years or so. The establishment of the Siad Barre military dictatorship, which resulted from a coup in 1969 following the assassination of the president, led to civil strife and savage repression — this was particularly characterised in the last five years of the Siad Barre regime. The flight of Siad Barre from the country resulted in anarchy and secession, with people living in sheer terror of the warlords.

This whole generation of political violence and total disregard for civil and human rights has led to a culture of vengence with power and authority coming from the barrel of a gun. Many would rightly say this is not the most auspicious place to send our troops. However, we must remember that Somalia was once a normal and peaceful country.

For ten years after its independence, by drawing together the old British protectorate and colony and the Italian trust territory, it enjoyed relatively good economic progress. Parliamentary democracy worked and elections were freely held. However, that position changed with the assassination of the president in October 1969 and the coup which resulted in Siad Barre coming to power six days later.

I draw this matter to the attention of those who see no hope of normality returning to Somalia. I emphasise that there is hope because for almost one third of this stricken country's modern history life was normal by African standards. Democracy worked there, and it can work again. The United Nations, and we as a member of that organisation, must be careful in our approach. The impression can be created that the US-led UNITAF operation, primarily a military operation intended to break the stranglehold of the warlords, is needed on an ongoing basis to maintain peace in Somalia. That is not so and let us have no part in that thinking. UNITAF broke the blockade by the warlords on relief supplies and as a result the distribution of food and medicines saved many thousands of lives. However, UNITAF could not address the wider problem of this stricken country and that is why the central purpose of UNOSOM II must be orientated towards the wider problem. I am concerned that, as its largest component consists of 20,000 military personnel, it could see its role in terms of military intervention. We all know that public opinion can turn against military solutions, and that is true even of countries like Somalia which we regard as not having informed public opinion.

The overriding role and objective of UNOSOM II must be the restoration of a civil society. This must be done by disarmament, an area in which UNITAF has failed. There can be no effective progress without disarmament. Somalia is the most heavily armed country in Africa, a country with no Government or central authority. Therefore, disarmament, which is a most difficult task, should be a first priority. This approach is crucially important. We were recently reminded that there is no point in disarming a shopkeeper in Mogadishu who keeps a weapon for self-defence and defence of his business while not disarming the bandit whose aim is to rob and possibly murder. The restoration of a civil society must be concentrated on humanitarian efforts.

It is little known that in the last ten years of the Barre regime epidemic and endemic diseases such as tuberculosis, measles, dysentry and malaria killed more people in Somalia than famine. The public health crisis in Somalia, one of the worst in the world, is related to the collapse of civil order. UNICEF confirms that Somalia possibly has the highest child mortality rate in the world in terms of children who die at birth and before they are five years of age.

According to reports compiled by NGOs such as Concern, Trócaire, GOAL, Oxfam and others, there are at least two million displaced people and refugees as a result of civil war and mayhem — more than 25 per cent of the total population of 7.5 million are displaced or refugees in their own homeland. The enormous logistical problem of resettling these people must be a priority of UNOSOM II, the same applies to the public health crisis. I urge the Tánaiste to emphasise that in his contacts with the Secretary General. Political reconciliation is at the very heart of bringing peace and stability to this broken country where political structures hardly exist at all. It is so long since anything approaching normal politics existed that it is almost gone from living memory there. The whole northern region has declared its secession and this is a major problem.

While we welcome the meeting and agreement of the various Somalia political factions in Adis Abbaba last April, which pledged to work for reconstruction and ultimately the establishment of a government based on the rule of law, decentralisation of power, protection of human rights and the building of a democratic republic whose integrity would be protected, we see that that is very much an aim in the long term, given the circumstances that exist in the country. Nurturing that political process towards those ends must be a parallel priority for UNOSOM. We need to say over and over again that by sending our soldiers we are sending them not to impose some form of international military solution on Somalia, but to do our bit towards rehabilitation, reconstruction and restoration of the civil order to bring this impoverished almost destroyed State back into the international community.

I welcome the fact that the Minister told us this evening that it would be a central part of the role of our transport contingent to protect NGOs. There have been complaints by NGOs operating in Somalia at the lack of protection. There has been hostility between the various international NGOs and UNITAF and I am informed that there is not a great relationship between NGOs operating in the country and the personnel of UNOSOM II who have now moved in. In contacts with the Secretary General, the Tánaiste should ensure that the role of UNOSOM II, which will run for two years initially, is closely linked with the various non-governmental organisations and the various inter-governmental organisations working in Somalia. Let us not forget that when the UN abandoned this country in 1991 the only people to stay there to provide some kind of humanitarian assistance and some semblance of civilised order in certain places were these non-governmental organisations. It is important that they are given a role and that UNOSOM II sees it as part of their role to give a meaningful role to the non-governmental organisations.

Complaints have been made that ordinary Somalis are not given a role in the present reconstruction process. That must change. A programme that excludes the local population is doomed to failure. I acknowledge that very often the people who write these things in various publications have their own agendas to promote, but I have read such reports in at least three internationally recognised and respected publications. The Minister should bring these matters to the notice of the Secretary General.

I welcome the fact that now that the United Nations has been freed of the restrictions and the shackles of the Cold War it can move to peace-enforcement in the world. As I said before, at the behest of the UN I went to Angola last October to observe the elections. The most tragic thing happened there. For two years the UN worked in the setting up of what was needed to bring about a ceasefire between two major factions in that country. The ceasefire was brokered and the leaders of the various factions were brought together several times. A normal atmosphere was created in which a general election campaign could be fought and an election held. The election was held under the auspices of the UN and other international organisations, but when the results were announced the losers could not accept the result and the country reverted to civil war. Various accounts now claim that almost 500,000 people have been killed since the general election last October. The UN was left toothless because its mandate did not extend to doing anything after the elections. The assumption was made that somehow the result of the election would impose normality on that unfortunate country, but it did not.

We have made great progress in the reformed role of the UN. This international organisation has seen further down the road. We cannot create conditions in which elections can take place and then walk away and hope that everything will be normal in countries where normality was the last thing on the agenda for the previous ten or 20 years. I am delighted that that measure of commonsense has been brought into the conduct of the UN internationally.

We agree with this proposal. Two weeks ago, on the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Fine Gael Deputies pointed to the horrible situation in which Africa finds itself. There are many countries in deep trouble, for example, Angola and Mozambique, and there are two countries where all forms of civil authority and government have disappeared entirely, that is Liberia and Somalia. It is almost inconceivable in the modern world with modern communications, when people were, perhaps, never more politically aware, that all civil order and all government can disappear leaving total mayhem and lawlessness.

UNOSOM II in Somalia is a contribution towards rolling back that awful tide that has beset that unfortunate continent over the last 15 years. The winds of change that brought decolonisation and self-government to Africa have been for so many a terrible tragedy and much of that tragedy was contributed to by the powers who participated in the Cold War. Both saw their aims being served by supporting various countries, one against the other, very often to the total destruction of the economic structures in that country. Indeed, Somalia is a very good example. The first Government in Somalia elected in 1960 after independence was pro-western. When Siad Barre came to power he was pro-western for a little while, and then as he used to say himself, he was pro-Soviet bloc before being pro-western again. The Soviet Union, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and others poured arms into these countries with the result that you now find in Africa children carrying AK47 rifles, due to the lack of control over weapons. In preparing for this debate I read an article in which it was stated that it will take years to complete the demining programme in Somalia and that the number of mines runs to six figures and perhaps seven. All of this military hardware was imported from the Soviet Union, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other Eastern bloc countries, such as Czechoslovakia. All we can say from these benches tonight is that the people concerned, whatever the purpose, have much to answer for.

Having said that, we welcome the thrust of this motion. However, we are sending our troops into a danger zone. While we should not shirk our responsibilities, they should go on the basis that they are volunteers. Heretofore, to my knowledge, all the troops who went abroad on peacekeeping missions volunteered to go. It is a pity this principle was not incorporated in the Defence (Amendment) Act last week. We made the point that they will face great danger, that we face the prospect of body bags and that there would be greater acceptance if the troops go there as volunteers rather than by military order.

Mr. M. McDowell

My party, the Progressive Democrats, supports this motion. As far as we are concerned, membership of the United Nations carries with it an obligation to live up to the Charter of the United Nations in its entirety. To some extent the 1960 Act, in so far as it confined Ireland to police type peacekeeping operations, shortchanged our fellow members — not that we have any major contribution to make in terms of military might to Chapter VII military actions which may from time to time occur. The point is well made in the Minister's speech this evening that one is hardly in a position to criticise others for failing to do that which one is legally prohibited from doing. Therefore our membership of the United Nations entails, as a corollary, a willingness to participate fully in Chapter VII operations when necessary, in the view of the Security Council, to secure international peace and vindicate the rights of member states of the United Nations.

Deputy De Rossa has outlined his view in this House and at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that there is nothing ignominious or dishonourable about being involved in peacekeeping operations and has queried, on a very clear line of argument, whether it is our duty to expand our role beyond peacekeeping for formal Chapter VII actions. I cannot accept as logical that on the one hand a state could prohibit itself privately by its internal laws from living up to is obligations imposed by United Nations membership and, on the other hand, expect other states of a similar or greater size to participate in United Nations peace enforcement action. Nor can I accept that any such state could ever ask for outside assistance when the need arose for Chapter VII action to preserve its own integrity, if it prohibited itself from doing the same in the case of other states in a similar set of circumstances.

Lastly, and most forcibly in this context, whereas I agree that there has been much justified criticism that Chapter VII action has been dictated by geo-political forces not under the firm control of the United Nations, it seems that if small nations such as Ireland make a virtue out of not participating, they leave the way open only for those with large armies and the military capacity to deliver. We cannot whinge if the United States takes a leading role, both politically and militarily, in Chapter VII operations if at the same time we say that under no circumstances will we participate in such operations. Either we accept the Chapter VII aspect or we do not. If we accept it we should be willing to participate to the best of our capacity and if we do not accept it we should in all honesty say as a matter of conviction that Chapter VII, which relates to the capacity of the United Nations to act internationally, should be removed from the United Nations Charter, because we cannot have it every way.

The Minister said that Chapter VII was never used during the Cold War period; but I think, in a fit of stage politics on one occasion, the USSR left the United Nations and found that in its absence the Korean mandate was given under Chapter VII. That was the only exception. As the Minister said, there was an unremitting failure to employ Chapter VII during the entire Cold War period.

Anyone who has done some background reading in relation to the Horn of Africa would be sceptical that a United Nations force would have the capacity to establish a civil society on foot of a military mandate in present circumstances. It is noteworthy that the area in question was colonised late and was of little interest to the colonising powers apart from is strategic importance at the entrance to the Red Sea. If one were to read Packenham's book Scramble for Africa, or Wilfred Thesiger's book Arabian Sands about the Horn of Africa as he found it in the twenties or thirties, one would see that it showed little promise except for those colonial powers who wanted to exclude others from making use of the coastline.

We now find ourselves in the strange position where an area, part of which was the subject of a United Nations mandate, is effectively being militarily occupied by a United Nationas force for the purpose of establishing civil institutions in a process which, having read the documentation which has been furnished to me as a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, I still fail to understand. It is all very well to talk about national and regional councils, but it is hard to understand how two well-armed rival movements in Somalia will be brought together and married in some set of institutions in a process sponsored by the United Nations in the presence of United Nations troops. I do not believe that this process has been well thought out. It might have been better if the United Nations had been more radical and established a mandate to impose civil rule rather than pretend it is going to weld together two well-armed factions who know that the capacity of the United Nations to remain in that country must be measured at a period of 24 months at the outside, after which the country will again find itself in a vacuum and these two contending groups will attempt to have their way by force of arms.

Having said that, I believe the United Nations was correct to intervene. I have listened to the points made on previous occasions by Deputy De Rossa about the dubious deployment of Chapter VII powers, given what he claims is the absence of any international dimension to the problems in Somalia. Bearing in mind the previous conflict in the Ogaden Desert and the difficulties posed for Kenya on its border, I believe there was an international regional threat to order and security and that to allow the matter to simply continue uninhibited would probably have been a huge mistake in terms of international security and the security of the neighbouring states. I believe it was right to intervene in the conflict and that the United Nations was correct to establish UNOSOM I, UNOSOM II, UNITAF, etc.

However, what is needed now is a clear political programme and a set of political steps planned in advance as to how that programme is to be achieved. I do not see from the documents furnished that such a political programme exists. Therefore, I have doubts about the deployment of military force in support of what are, in the last analysis, somewhat ethereal and elusive civil political objectives. The political mandate of the United Nations should be strengthened and all the necessary steps taken to create some form of civil administration in that territory. The impression should not be created among the warring factions that the UN will have a go at doing that but will withdraw if that process fails. That would be fatal and could create a huge conflict at a later stage.

We are great at calling people we do not like warlords. The suggestion that a warrant should be issued for the arrest of General Aideed and he should be made amenable to some form of justice, which the UN apparently claims to be entitled to administer in respect of certain major crimes, carries with it certain worries. I am not happy as to how such warrants could be executed, how such trials could be conducted, where the persons involved could be detained or punished and what reality there is to such a process. It is the first time I have seen a warrant backed up by the use of bombers, fighter planes, etc. I do not like the process which was adopted to deal with General Aideed — it was retaliatory and, to some extent, a deterrent. This process was not evenhanded and I do not think in the final analysis it will win support for the UN mandate in Somalia. On the contrary, the military intervention in recent times will obviously create resentment and bitterness towards the UN. As a consequence General Aideed or, if he is taken out, his successor will be strengthened greatly by his claim that he stood up to the foreigners in the region. We need to be more subtle about what we do in this regard in the future.

I am most unhappy about the Pakistani incident. I do not accept for one minute the suggestion that it was necessary to shoot women and children in order to get at armed elements in a crowd. That is an age-old excuse in such situations and it is very clear that the excuse was contrived on this occasion. Of course, I was not there but this incident has the smell, so to speak, of a justification which was not honest. I have not known of any situation where it has been necessary to shoot down women and children in order to get at gunmen. I do not recall seeing any clear evidence published thus far that there were armed gunmen using these people as human shields. This matter should be investigated quickly, thoroughly and honestly and, unless there is convincing evidence to back up the Pakistania side, which I do not believe will be forthcoming, an aplogy should be issued at the earliest possible opportunity to the Somalia people for what I consider to be an actrocity.

As previous speakers have said, this Chapter VII action is part of a wider role to which Ireland is now becoming alerted. Some of the criticisms made by Deputy De Rossa are valid in so far as he has suggested that a Chapter VII action is motivated on some occasions and vetoed on other occasions by the strategic interests of the larger members, in terms of military and political strength, of the United Nations.

The recent deployment of missiles in Baghdad, under the ostensible mantle of Chapter VII authority, was unlawful, was not an act of self-defence and was a flagrant breach of the rules of the United Nations and the Chapter in general. It is not sufficient for Ireland and the other EC member states to express, as the Minister recently did, concern about the matter; it goes much further than that. The EC member states should, through EPC, have indicated very clearly to the United States that this attack was unacceptable, was never to happen again. It has done tremendous damage.

I accept that the Minister must play a diplomatic game and he does not want to step out of line for fear of overly offending the Americans because we have commercial and other interests in not offending them. On the one hand we cannot take our relationship with America for granted in many different ways, but on the other, the European Community should make it very clear to Washington that there is to be no more of this type of retaliatory action to protect American interests under the mantle of the United Nations Charter and Chapter VII. This practice must stop. It has been mooted that similar steps will be taken if the Lybian Government does not surrender the hijackers who the Americans suspect were responsible for the Lockerbie aircrash. If the last bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi were wrong — I believe they were wrong and I admire Deputy O'Malley for criticising them outright at that time — then the attack on Baghdad was wrong, and any further retaliatory steps under a Chapter VII mantle against Libya and other members of the Islamic world would equally be wrong.

This brings me to my final point. A fundamental mistake is being made in western and, in particular, American diplomatic circles in failing to understand the Islamic world, what makes it tick, the aspirations of the peoples of those countries and the dangers of treating them in a second-class way. We are treating the peoples of the Arab worlds and the wider Islamic world in a way which sometimes borders on the contemptuous. The western world cannot afford to do that, first, on the basis of self-interest at the very lowest and, second, any sense of decency. The Arab and Islamic worlds are entitled to be treated better than they are. They are not second-class citizens and they are not obliged to sustain these unfair and unlawful discriminations at the hands of the greater states. I believe that if Chapter VII means much, it should mean something being done for the Palestinians at some stage and enforcement of the United Nations resolutions in relation to solving the Palestinian problem.

If we are becoming involved in Chapter VII activity on Somalia, it contrasts very much with the pathetic performance of the European Community — Ireland must take its share of the blame — in regard to Bosnia. I know the situation in Bosnia is complex, but this country, among the other EC member states recognised the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. We accepted that they should be admitted to UN membership and we saw, just as clearly as the other member states of the European Community, that it was proposed to dismember them by a campaign of war and genocide, and this country insisted on nothing being done to save them except futile humanitarian gestures. In that context, if as I accept the Bosnian Muslims ought not be armed now and if they are not entitled to self-defence, they are entitled to call on the Community internationally to defend them. International law and international politics cannot require that certain people be defenceless and that war be waged on them with impunity.

I compliment the Tánaiste for the way his Department of Foreign Affairs and he have taken the role which is now much more obvious in this House in relation to foreign affairs and the courteous and supportive way in which they have interacted with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. In that context, I want to pay a particular tribute to Deputy Lenihan, the chairman of that committee who has been unfailingly courteous, kind, reasonable, supportive and positive in the way he has chaired the committee to date. Long may it continue.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 1:

To add the following to the motion:

"The Permanent Defence Force's participation in UNOSOM II shall be related only to performance of duties of a police character, including the protection of aid workers. The approval of Dáil Éireann shall be required for (a) participation in a UNOSOM II mandate which has been altered, (b) an increase in the number of Irish troops participating in UNOSOM II, or (c) participation in UNOSOM II other than a transport unit."

We are often told that because the Berlin Wall has fallen and the Cold War has ended we no longer have conflicts between the major powers. That is utter nonsense. It would be foolish for this country to pursue its international relations and foreign affairs policy on the basis that we are now living in a benign world, where only the good, the beautiful and the kind reign supreme. Clearly, there are major regional interests: the powerful states in the world are anxious to maintain their interests and hegemony over resources in various regions of the world many thousands of miles away from their national territory. That is the reality. In debating the issue we should bear in mind how and when this country should become involved in peace enforcement, either directly under the remit of the United Nations or in some franchised way through the authorisation of the United Nations. In my view it is wrong to pretend that the only role of the various elements that make up the decision-making process of the Security Council in relation to Somalia is that order and democracy be restored and that the people be allowed get on with their own affairs. Clearly, that is not the case. Even a superficial reading of the most recent history of Somalia indicates that the major powers — the US and the Russian Federation which now replaces the USSR — played a ping pong game with Somalia. They supported the very warlords whom the United Nations is now being asked to suppress and to replace with a democratic system.

I wished to make that point before proceeding to discuss the amendment I tabled to the motion. The motion before us is far too general in terms of the mandate we are giving to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to Somalia. We are being asked simply to approve the despatch of a mission under an amended Defence Act and it does not refer to the fact that it is a transport unit or that only 80 personnel will be involved. Under the Defence (Amendment) Act the number of personnel can be expanded to any figure that the Government decides, and the Government does not have to come back to this House to get approval for the increased involvement. Neither does the motion confine our troops to serving in a transport unit nor to a non-combatant role. Although the Minister assures the House he has no intention of allowing Irish troops to become engaged in combat, the motion does not say that. There is no provision in the motion to ensure that the Government will return to the House if the Security Council next week, next month or next October, when the current mandate is up for review, decides to strengthen the mandate yet again. There is nothing in the motion that obliges the Government to come back to the House again to seek approval for the continued engagement of Irish troops in that situation or to agree to a change in the role of Irish troops. I tabled an amendment to address those issues.

I contend that the United Nations in Somalia has stumbled into uncharted ground during the past few months. It is not at all certain what exactly is the legal status of the United Nations involvement in the country. Lawyers tell us — but Deputy Michael McDowell did not — that the nature of law is a constant dialogue between consent and coercion, between right and might and between de jure and de facto but legal authority without the power to enforce it — which is what is happening in the United Nations call for war crime trials in the Balkans, brings legality into disrepute. The deployment of raw power without legal sanction, which I believe is the state of affairs in Somalia, is the essence of anarchy. Of course, there are two kinds of anarchy, particularly in Somalia. The first is what used to be the case in Somalia where there was no effective central authority and piratical warlords competed with each other. The second is what is happening now where there is a central authority — the United Nations forces — but they seem to be shooting first and thinking about their legal standing afterwards. The United Nations is operating in Somalia without legal precedent. It has never before intervened, without invitation, in the internal affairs of a state but of course it is argued there is no Somali Government to issue such an invitation. There is nothing in the United Nations Charter to provide for such circumstances. Therefore the legality of what is being done is open to question. If the United Nations does have a legal case, it remains unstated and the Minister here this evening has not stated it either. It appears it is highly confusing; certainly that has been my experience in attempting to come to terms with it.

Deputy Michael McDowell raised the question of Chapter VII and argued that we have no right to declare our commitment to the United Nations Charter and then say we have the right not to become involved in actions being taken under Chapter VII. Of course, since the UN was formed, Chapter VII is probably noted more for its non-implementation than for its actual implementation. If my memory serves me correctly, only since 1991 has the United Nations actually become involved in peace enforcement, with the possible exception of the Korean War. It is notable that the history books make it very clear that that was a war in terms of one particular political view fighting another political view and had very little to do with the United Nations Charter. Therefore, this question of Chapter VII does arise. I might draw Deputy Michael McDowell's attention to an article which I am sure he has read in the Irish Law Times of March 1993 which I quoted in our debate on the Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993, last week. This article is written by Ms. Liz Heffernan, a lecturer in Law at Trinity College, Dublin, and entitled “Military Action Under the Auspices of the United Nations” in which she stated:

The instigation and operation of each such licence—

this is in relation to military intervention—

raises a multiplicity of concerns but what is often overlooked is the fragile legal foundation on which the actual licensing power of the Council is based. The Security Council has never relied directly on Article 42. Moreover nowhere in Chapter VII is the Council expressly empowered to authorise states to impose military sanctions. Rather, the Council seems to have assumed a power to do so, presumably on the basis of Article 39 and Chapter VII as a whole. To date, that power has been limited to the formulation of recommendations rather than decisions.

Of course that is also debatable in that we are told almost daily that if the United Nations Security Council takes a decision, we are obliged to pursue its implementation in any way it is possible for us to do, ignoring the fact that not all decisions of the Security Council are binding on all its members and that some are merely recommendations. That was the case in respect of the franchising of the United States to engage itself in attacks on Iraq resulting from the latter's invasion of Kuwait.

The practice has developed of arguing that, first, we must take the United Nations Charter at its face value and, second, that we must take a particular interpretation of Chapter VII on the basis of those who argue for peace enforcement as distinct from peacekeeping. I have heard it stated a number of times that we have a moral obligation to support the Somalis in whatever way we can. Indeed, Irish people, both privately and through non-governmental organisations, have done so, as have our Government and President. But I have not yet heard a convincing argument for sending a transport unit, which incidentally the Minister says will not be involved in combat operations. He told us there is no intention that Irish troops would be involved in combat operations, but they would be involved in a peace enforcement mission. It seems to me there is double speak, there. We must be involved in peace enforcement in order to fulfil our moral obligations and to strengthen our case in arguing for assistance from the United Nations in other areas, but at the same time we will not allow our troops become involved in combat situations and will not send combat troops to Somalia.

I have already said that the motion does not in fact preclude the sending of combat troops to Somalia. There is nothing to prevent the Government deciding next week to send a battalion, brigade or unit of some kind of combat troops to Somalia. Therefore there is a range of debatable issues in relation to this decision which I believe have not been given the public airing they require. We must remember we are affecting an historic change in the role of our Defence Forces and Ireland's role internationally. We are allowing it to slide through almost without a peep at 9.45 p.m. on a Tuesday evening. It seems to me that the reservations expressed by Deputies Michael McDowell and Connor are very valid ones and should lead at least to an urging of the Minister to defer this decision and to support my amendment to the effect that out role should be a peacekeeping one until such time as we have had clarified exactly what is meant by the United Nations when it talks about peace enforcement.

I might draw the attention of the House to the United Nations Security Council motion, which reads:

5. Decides to expand the size of the UNOSOM force and its mandate in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report of the Secretary-General of 3 March 1992, paragraphs 56-88, and the provisions of this resolution:

In effect the mandate of UNOSOM is contained not merely in this resolution but in paragraph 56-88 of the report of the Secretary-General of 3 March 1992 to the Security Council. I want to draw the attention of the House to the issues that are detailed in this report, in paragraph 56-88, which are quite astonishing. A simple reading of the motion is not sufficient to understand precisely in what activity UNOSOM II will be involved. I might draw attention to page 34 of that report where it is stated:

I have also received an understanding from the United States Government that a tactical quick reaction force would be available in support of the force Commander of UNOSOM II; a memorandum of understanding will be concluded between the United States and UNOSOM during the transfer phase.

What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that the quick reaction force will not be under the direct control of the Commander of the UNOSOM forces? It is not explained and is certainly not explained in the motion or in the Minister's remarks.

On page 36 of the report it is said:

I would like to stress, however, that the ability of UNOSOM to carry out its mandate will depend on critical logistical and other support from the United States, including a tactical quick reaction force.

Again, there is no explanation as to where exactly the control will reside. I pointed out in the course of the debate on the Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993, last week that it is my belief that control will reside in the Pentagon.

The whole question of legal authority is one which this House must address before agreeing to send Irish troops on a peace enforcement mission. We are being asked to approve the commitment of Irish troops in circumstances in which the United Nations clearly sees its role as one of peace enforcement rather than its traditional one of peacekeeping. There are many things we could be doing and supporting in Somalia which would not involve our troops being engaged in peace enforcement. The fundamental aim of policy in Somalia should be to develop a partnership between the United Nations and the Somali people. That is not possible if they are engaged in bombing and responsible for civilian deaths. The UN should help people to help themselves. The UN should adopt a more sensitive approach rather than depending on the raw power and the fire power of the 30 states that will be engaged in this adventure.

A number of essential preconditions should be set. A high level inquiry has to be established into recent events and the killings and abuses since December. Those inquiries should be staffed by foreign and Somali representatives and be independent of the United Nations. I do not think the Secretary General of the United Nations can investigate alleged abuses against his own forces. There must be a curtailment of the rules of engagement of the UNOSOM forces which are extremely wide. I fail to see how, in a civilised society, we can allow them to continue.

An independent public watchdog over all international operations in Somalia must be created so that Somalias can highlight their needs and have their complaints investigated. There should be support, constructive, independent and accountable initiatives as part of the political process. The elders, religious leaders, women's groups and voluntary organisations all exist in Somalia. It is not a society totally bereft of rational human beings. It is not a country made up of so-called warlords. The UN should stop following the dubious lead of the American Government in the invasion of Grenada, the bombing of Tripoli, the toppling of General Noriego and the recent bombing of Baghdad with Cruise missiles. The US understanding of this distinction between right and might is shaky to say the least.

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that in recent years the United States was supporting the major side in the civil war in Somalia and helped to destroy that country. Now the US is the leading force and we have been told they are the people who will bring about peace and democracy there. It beggars belief. We should be extremely cautious about being led down the road where we are seen simply as the pawns of the major powers in the world to continue to fight their battles in a proxy way in other countries.

Mr. Lenihan

I strongly support this motion approving the despatch of a contingent of our Defence Forces to Somalia as part of the UNOSOM II mission established by the United Nations Security Council. One important element is that this UNOSOM force will be under the control and direction of United Nations command and is contrary to a suggestion by Deputy De Rossa that in some way there is a United States element involved. This is a United Nations international force under United Nations command and we are one of 32 countries playing a part. It is important to emphasise that UNOSOM II was established by the United Nations Security Council on 26 March 1993 with the twin aims of a secure environment for humanitarian relief work and for political reconciliation.

At all levels in Ireland, from our President to aid agencies and to this House we have called for a strong determined international effort to assist the humanitarian relief work in Somalia and to secure peace in that unfortunate country. The United Nations, through the Secretary General and the Security Council, responded. In view of our consistent attitude can we turn our back on the people of Somalia or on the United Nations? I agree fully with Deputy Michael McDowell in this respect. We have been asked to supply a transport contingent of 80 troops in an international force of 28,000 troops, drawn from 32 countries. That is a minimum response from us to help Somalia having regard to the strong attitude at all levels of Irish society. We would be guilty of rank hypocrisy if we adopted any other attitude in the circumstances.

As members of the United Nations, we have performed well. We have pursued a positive policy of helping peace-keeping operations and other activities of the United Nations since we became members. We are being asked to participate in a mission which is supported at every level in our society.

The mandate and activities of UNOSOM II must be seen as part of an attempt to create a secure environment in which the UN's wider political and humanitarian objectives can be achieved.

The Government, Irish non-governmental organisations, public opinion and political opinion have pressed for action along these lines and for a stronger United Nations presence.

The mandate of UNOSOM II which includes disarmament, control of weapons and greater protection for aid personnel corresponds exactly to the requests the Government made directly to the United Nations and the United States in recent months. How then can we consider in any rational way Deputy De Rossa's amendment which seeks to confine our participation in UNOSOM II to duties of a police nature? Have we, one of the 32 countries involved, a right to confine our involvement to what we regard as minimum police duties concerned only with the protection of aid workers? Should Ireland with our minimum contribution of 80 personnel, seek to carve out some exception or exemption for ourselves under Chapter VII? With all due respect to Deputy De Rossa, that is not realistic and runs counter to what we want for Somalia.

We should participate in the manner proposed by the Tánaiste. That would be a clear demonstration of support for UN policy in Somalia and a re-affirmation of Ireland's commitment to international peace and security. It would be a positive response to calls for greater protection for Irish aid workers and the workers of other countries.

The core of Irish foreign policy must be the pursuit of peace through the application of the international rule of law based on the collective security of states under the Charter of the United Nations. Indeed, in 1936 the League of Nations ignored Eamon de Valera's advice and failed to deter Mussolini's aggression against Ethiopia. From that year the League of Nations lost all credibility as an international organisation precisely because it was unable to take the necessary collective action against Mussolini.

At the end of World War II the international community decided to make a fresh start and began the United Nations experiment. Today, almost 50 years later, the end of the Cold War has made it possible for the United Nations to begin to function as its founders intended, as the guardian of international peace and security. It has failed to perform that function over the years. The divisions and confrontations in the Security Council prevented and frustrated the United Nations from acting in the manner the founders hoped, in place of the League of Nations and as a viable organisation maintaining peace and security on behalf of the international community.

The Cold War division frustrated that purpose and since 1958 all UN interventions, in which we participated admirably, were confined by reasons of the divisions on the Security Council to operations merely of a police character. That was confirmed in the Defence Act, 1960, but it was not the purpose of the original framers of the United Nations. It was a minimum response from the international community because of the frustrations on its actions caused by division on the Security Council.

The motion before us will enable our Defence Forces to participate in an international United Nations force, to use the phraseology of the Bill. There is no mention of peacekeeping or peacemaking, merely an international United Nations force in which we are seeking to participate. Under the Defence Act, 1960, every mission of 12 or more Irish troops must have Dáil approval. That safeguard is also enshrined in this motion.

The mission to Somalia is a minimum response, but it involves our participation in a military group and, as Deputy De Rossa stated, it is a new step in that respect. It involves our participation in a military group mandated under Chapter VII of the Charter which provides for a package relating to peace and security in a global sense in Somalia, Cambodia, East Timor or elsewhere. Within Chapter VII of the Charter there is scope to provide for peace enforcement as part of a collective security concept that includes preventative diplomacy, peacekeeping and peace building.

Proinsias De Rossa

I will believe it when I see a peace enforcement mission going to East Timor.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the essence of what the Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, emphasised in a short report on the future of the United Nations. In his view we must look on peace enforcement as part of a package which includes peacekeeping, which is preceded by preventative diplomacy, after peacekeeping and peacemaking operations it would then engage in peace building. That is the composite package envisaged under Chapter VII and emphasised in an agenda for peace by the Secretary General.

The essence of the concept of collective security, emphasised in the UN Charter, is that it must have one very pertinent capacity, that if peaceful means fail to prevent a breach of the peace or an act of aggression, coercive measures agreed by the international community may have to be used. In joining the United Nations and subscribing to the Charter in the 1950s, Ireland accepted that coercive measures, including military action, might have to be taken by the Security Council under Chapter VII to maintain or restore international peace and security. The type of action now being undertaken by the UN forces in Somalia may rightly be taken under UN procedures in other areas of the world in future. That is the historic nature of this step which I envisage being taken wherever regional conflicts disturb the peace, involve breaches of human rights, aggression or breaches of the international rule of law.

When preventative actions, peace-keeping and all the efforts of diplomacy and sanctions fail, this type of action may have to be undertaken. It is being undertaken at present in Somalia by the UN forces and, as long as it is taken under UN procedures and the force or commission sent is under the command of the UN, we should give it our full support. Only in that can smaller countries ensure the observance of an international rule of law and not the law of the jungle as was the case in the 1930s when the world was at the mercy of real warlords prior to World War II. We can always play our appropriate role with other nations, in this case with 31 other nations, on a collective basis in the cause of peace and security.

Human nature being what it is, laws cannot function without sanctions. Domestic law would be disregarded and anarchy would prevail in the absence of enforcement. Similarly, if we are to achieve observance of an international rule of law to preserve peace and prevent aggression, the international community must be in a position to enforce its collective peaceful will. That is a central principle which we must face up to. There was a tendency to debate this matter in a woolly and fudgy manner. We are setting a precedent where we can acknowledge that we, in a small way, can take our place with other nations in the interests of the collective security and peace we want and we can only do that through the observance and enforcement of an international rule of law.

Mr. Dukes

This is a very interesting and significant debate, not just in the context of what we are proposing to do here, but from the point of view of what has been said this evening, particularly by members of the Government. I say that with a good deal of satisfaction because I see tonight the emergence of something significant on which I hope we will reflect carefully and build on in future years.

The remarks of the Tánaiste and Deputy Lenihan were significant because they were different in tone and content from what they said in the past. We are seeing the evolution of a much more realistic and healthy approach to our place in the United Nations and in some of the wider activities on the world stage which, unfortunately, are necessary and, regrettably, will continue to be necessary for some time to come.

I am delighted we are taking this step. Although Deputy De Rossa has reservations, I fully support the motion, particularly as it is clearly centred on the mandate given to UNOSOM II by the UN Resolution. Unlike Deputy De Rossa, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with it because it clearly states that we accept the full breadth and depth of the content of the mandate of UNOSOM II. I do not accept that, faced with the position in Somalia, the rest of the world could contemplate standing by and doing nothing, nor do I accept that it would be moral in the light of the history of that part of Africa to stand aside now and not try, however difficult it might be, to restore some semblance of peace and order to that part of the world so that the people there can get on with the business of running their democracies and, above all, feed themselves, nurture their children and develop their societies.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Connor, who expressed the legitimate concern that the UN forces should adhere rigidly to the terms of the Resolution and to the mandates of UNOSOM and UNITAF because they would have no legitimacy in going even the slightest bit beyond the framework of those mandates. It is interesting to note that the provision of relief is a central part of Resolution 814. That is why we are sending troops and why a logistical support facility is required there. It is clearly a very sensible and proper part of the kind of operation that should be conducted.

The situation in Somalia is volatile, to say the least. There are dangers and hardships involved for everybody trying to assist in any way. We should remind ourselves that Irish aid workers, and indeed people who work for non-governmental organisations of all kinds, voluntarily accept the risks and dangers of situations like that. They enter that kind of scene to do the kind of job they are motivated to do and for which they get far too little recognition. Tragically, there have been fatalities among the non-governmental organisation workers. As far as possible, they deserve support from the rest of the world community and we should provide the framework for the work they are trying to do which is, essentially, peace building work, even though it may not always be presented or perceived like that. Voluntary workers enter into that on the basis of their commitment to that kind of work, and on the basis of a voluntary commitment by the organisations for which they work, to do that kind of work without, necessarily, looking for any outside guarantees of their safety. It seems that if voluntary workers — and there are many of them, thank God — voluntarily enter that kind of danger to carry out such work, the forces of order in states committed to international obligations should be prepared to support their work. It is generally agreed that we should be particularly concerned with safety and security for all the personnel involved in these operations and for aid workers in particular. Again that seems to imply that where we can do it and where it is in accordance with the United Nations Charter and obligations we should give the kind of assistance provided by UNITAF. Under the terms of the UNOSOM mandate member states of the United Nations should participate as fully as possible. That is a proper and legitimate part of the mandate and the operations of our Defence Forces, given the obligations we have freely undertaken.

There is no basis for opposition to sending Irish troops to carry out the kind of logistical operation proposed for our contingent of 80 people. It is impossible to predict what will happen and how that operation may develop but, again, there will be agreement all round on the legitimacy of the operation.

The Minister pointed out the military tasks involved in the mandate of UNOSOM II. Section (f) states: "to protect UN, Red Cross and NGO personnel and facilities and to take such forceful action as may be required against attacks on them". That seems to have a double significance in the context of what we are discussing this evening. In the first place it is that provision, the requirement to protect UN, Red Cross and NGO personnel and facilities, on which Irish troops will rely — and on which we are told they can rely — if it comes to the point where our logistical unit needs protection from aggression. Section (f) will ensure that other troops there will have the obligation to protect Irish troops. In the expectation that it will protect aid workers we should, if we are serious about our acceptance of the UN mandate, accept, at least in theory, that if we were called upon to do so we would participate in providing that guarantee for UN workers, NGO personnel and Red Cross personnel. It seems we accept the whole mandate or none of it. There is no logical or moral argument about that. That is a protection which we would like to see for our troops and, therefore, one which we should provide if we are ever called upon to do so. It is important for our troops to know that is our view because their involvement in the operations in which they participate are wholehearted.

I understand the reservations of people who hesitate to send Irish troops into dangerous situations. It is something to which we can all very readily relate. I live only a mile or two from the largest military establishment in the country and I have a great deal of contact with personnel there and their families. I know the tensions and the strains to which they are subject and I know the fears that they all have, understandably, in cases like this. They are the same fears and tensions experienced day in, day out, by the families and relatives of voluntary workers. To the extent that we can make a commitment addressing those fears and concerns of people in relation to members of their families, we should be prepared to do it. Our people and resources to give that kind of commitment and undertaking are in our Permanent Defence Force, that is a part of their mission.

I will not argue any of the points made last week in the debate on the Defence (Amendment) Bill. It would be futile to start that discussion again. I simply want to make the point that all the people involved, the members of our Defence Forces, voluntary workers and the families of all those people deserve our wholehearted commitment to any operation in which they are involved. That view is traditionally and rightly held by the members of our Permanent Defence Force and we owe them our support in telling them that is also our view. It would be illogical to say that we would give that commitment where Irish people concerned are voluntary workers with non-governmental organisations but that we do not want to give it when the people concerned are members of our Permanent Defence Force.

It is very interesting that the Minister and leader of the Labour Party who so eloquently made the point, which comes out very clearly from his speech, that peace enforcement under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is, if anything, more clearly and more formally a function of the United Nations and of its members than peacekeeping as we have traditionally known it up to now. A rereading of the Minister's script, which I assume was very carefully put together, will demonstrate the force of that argument. I am not in any way criticising peacekeeping operations, far from it. Essentially the Minister said peace enforcement is a proper part of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Peace enforcement is a function the United Nations can, and arguably must, carry out while peacekeeping is a flexible and desirable response which has emerged over a period and in the context of particular operations. It is something which latitude in the UN Charter provides for. It is not in any sense as clearly, formally or overtly a part of the UN Charter as the peace enforcement operation we are discussing now. The logic of the position set out this evening by the Minister and shared by Deputy Lenihan is that it would be proper and in keeping with our obligations as a member of the United Nations under the UN Charter to provide troops in a combat role. There is no point in denying that. That is the essential logic of the obligation we have undertaken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Some people will say we have not had a debate on this until now because we have a particular view of neutrality which I believe is nonsense. As the Minister and Deputy Lenihan pointed out, the reason we have not had this debate is that this is the first occasion on which this operation by the United Nations has become possible or, as the French would say, "Envisageable.” The circumstances where the UN could engage in such an operation with the type of mandate that is now provided under UNOSOM II have not existed up to now. I would invite the neutralists among us, including many on the Government benches to reflect on that and to come to the conclusion, which I came to a long time ago, that what we have very often presented as neutrality has been more an accident of circumstances than a policy. I do not wish to start a controversy but to appreciate the full significance of what we are providing for. It is certainly something that was never envisaged by our ratification of the UN Charter. Deputy Lenihan's expression of that principle deserves to be extracted from the record, and put up in lights wherever debates take place about these issues. That very well expressed principle is different from past doctrine. If I were being mischievous, which I have no intention of being, I would say it is very different from a great many things I heard Deputy Lenihan say in the past but that is a matter for another day.

It would be worthwhile reflecting on the provisions in the United Nations Charter for regional arrangements, particularly in the context of the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, but that may also be work for another day. The Minister's point regarding the nature and extent of the obligations we have undertaken under Chapter VII of the United Nations would bring greater reality to the debate on many of these issues than we have seen to date. Consideration of the provisions of the UN Charter for regional arrangements would inform much of the vague and pointless debate which has taken place for some time on what the nations of the European Community might or might not do about what is happening in the former Yugoslavia.

This is an essential operation and an important part of it is to provide relief for people in Somalia. Somalia, the Horn of Africa, East Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa are in the grip of famine and will be for some time to come. I share Deputy McDowell's concerns about the vagueness of political objectives in regard to Somalia. If those political objectives were miraculously to produce peace tomorrow, it would take seven or eight years' peace for a commercial agricultural sector to emerge in Somalia. This would also be the case in East Africa and the position is more difficult in Sub-Saharan Africa where desertification has become a major issue. We know that vast areas of Africa will need a massive food aid programme for as far ahead as any of us can see. Unfortunately, I do not see any action being taken in the European Community, the United States or the United Nations to address that problem systematically with a five or ten year plan.

I would ask our Government to undertake a campaign to sensitize the institutions of the United Nations to that problem and to begin by approaching the institutions of the European Community. I will not enter into a debate on this but there is plenty of room for this given the present agricultural policies and problems of the European Community and of North America.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Ms Burton)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Gallagher (Laois-Offaly).

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Burton

I worked in Africa for three years as a development worker. In view of the comments about the role of governmental and non-governmental agencies, I would make some personal observations on the motion before the House. The motion must be seen in the context of the commitment by the Government earlier this year to increase overseas development aid substantially in line with a general commitment to move towards the UN target. That represents the Government putting its money where its mouth is and the Minister must be congratulated on the approach he has taken in that area. This year will see a substantial increase in our development programme, particularly in Africa. That is widely welcomed by people who worked in the development area and by the agencies working in that field at present.

Africa runs the risk of being forgotten with the current emphasis on the problems of Eastern Europe. Great as the problems of Eastern Europe are, we risk abandoning the poorest parts of Africa to their fate, which seems to be a combination of famine, AIDS and war. Post-colonial Africa has potential for many tribal conflicts. In Europe many parties, particularly parties of the left, have spoken and written at some length about the peace dividend, the end of the cold war and what that might bring for Europe. It is important to recognise that instead of the end of the Cold War bringing peace for Africa it may have left fullyarmed factions in certain areas. How that arming came about and which particular sides in the conflicts of the Cold War were involved is something which all parties in this House have on various occasions condemned, and as a country our position on that has been very clear down the years. However, Ireland should participate in a determined effort to restore peace in Somalia. The objective of the Irish participation in UNOSOM is to assist in relief efforts and, ultimately, the restoration of civil society. Anyone who believes that civil society can be restored overnight or in a couple of years from a situation of warring clan factions, as is the case in Somalia, is taking too sanguine a view of what has happened there.

Ireland has established a reputation in Africa as an independent neutral country. Many Irish people who have worked in Africa, whether in the development area or as missionaries, believe that they develop a special rapport in different African countries because of our own history. Our culture and our approach to other people has certainly added to the contribution which Ireland has made to Africa and which, in many ways, is out of proportion to its size.

There has been vast public support here for a positive humanitarian effort for Somalia. It is dishonest to pretend that Irish and other aid workers in Somalia can assist the Somali people in rebuilding their society without adequate protection while the level of armed conflict between the clans there continues as at present. Everybody in this House would wish to see the conflict in Somalia end and the disarming of the various factions take place voluntarily and peacefully. However, a positive effort at peace enforcement by the UN is required. Without this it will be difficult for aid workers to assist the Somali people in their efforts to rebuild their society.

The proposal that the Irish contingent going to Somalia should serve and assist Zimbabwean troops is interesting. It is very significant that a substantial number of African countries will be sending troops. For instance, Zimbabwe's emergence from a history of bitter racial conflict is a model for the rest of Africa. I recall at one time, walking down a street in Harare and seeing a man whom I vaguely recognised. I wondered who he was and thought that it was perhaps someone I knew. Some time later it occurred to me that it was Ian Smith walking down the main street of Harare totally unnoticed. I felt that was a kind of tribute to what had taken place in that country for decades previously and it is important that it is the Zimbabwean troops whom the Irish contingent will initially be deployed to assist.

There are no great strategic interests in this part of Africa. The post-Cold War has changed forever in ways which some in this House may regret and in other ways which are infinitely for the better. The country which is probably at greatest risk from famine, war and AIDS, which is linked to the first two, is Africa. We have a responsibility to the people of Africa not just to assist in a process of development, which is seen as easy and a logical development from one year to another. In fact, Africa is many countries. It is an incredibly complex series of societies. Somalia alone has a very interesting history. It is worth noting that both the Germans and the British, particularly during their colonial period, admired the Somalis for their military bearing and what was seen by the British as their war-like stance.

The Irish contingent to Somalia will face a certain degree of risk. Once an army is in a situation where there is civil conflict and where there is the level of armaments which exist in Somalia, we are all aware that it is not risk-free. However, the situation is not risk-free for Irish aid workers either. Men with guns in any country are terrifying and in parts of Africa they are particularly terrifying because there is no clear idea of whose control they are under.

In looking to a strategy of peace enforcement I believe we are making a serious contribution rather than simply paying lip service to the concept of restoring civil order in Somali society. Unfortunately, the re-creation of a civil society in Somalia is probably some considerable years away. The UNOSOM force has a clear mandate; it is a force which will be accountable and there will be a clear governance of it which is important. Retaining the confidence of the Somali people is important also to the future of the force. Everyone involved in aid and development work deeply regret what happened to the Pakistani and Italian troops. However, we cannot allow war and famine to continue to rage in Somalia and to say that we will contribute humanitarian aid but will not be party to a serious effort to ensure that that humanitarian aid gets through to the Somali people. In the first instance and for the coming period of time we are talking simply about relief work. It will be some time before we can help to rebuild Somali agriculture, industry and civil society. The proposal put forward by the Government is very much in the tradition of the determination of people here to make a humanitarian contribution to the improvement of developing countries and, in this case, to the ending of the conflict in Somalia.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): When the tragedy that is now Somalia was first brought to our attention it was, as is usual in these cases, the non-governmental organisations who first alerted us to the issue. It is interesting that from the very beginning they stressed the need for a wide-ranging response to the question of Somalia, in addition to the immediate need fo supplying humanitarian aid.

This stress on the need for a wider intervention was highlighted to us and to the world by President Robinson's visit to Somalia. This engaged us in support for the humanitarian efforts which were taking place at the time. It is interesting that following the President's visit to Somalia she then went to the United Nations to report on the wider needs in the area of the Secretary-General. Anyone who is aware of development issues and the type of disasters and emergencies that arise periodically in developing countries knows that these emergencies are only symptoms of much deeper problems. In the case of Somalia we have seen a breakdown of political and administrative structures, a breakdown in Government and in commercial and economic activity due to the country's post-colonial position and the fact that for at least two decades it served merely as a pawn in the super-power games between the former Soviet Union and the United States.

It is hoped that the United Nations mission in Somalia will address this problem in a wide-ranging and fundamental way. It is different from many of the firebrigade efforts of the past. In the past two years there were a series of UN interventions in Somalia. Those interventions were demanded by non-Governmental agencies and by public opinion in countries such as Ireland. The UNOSOM II mission is the result of those demands.

The actions of the United Nations in Somalia cover four broad areas. First, the provision and organisation of humanitarian aid, the most basic need. What struck me when studying UNOSOM reports to United Nations headquarters in New York was the effort towards political development and humanitarian aid. I was impressed by reports of work by political affairs teams who consult elders, local leaders, women's groups, religious groups and traditional leaders in an effort to build a form of district council administration. This effort to re-establish some form of political activity and local administration should be supported. We tend to concentrate on the humanitarian aid and military aspects, but if there is to be a lasting solution local activity is very important.

Efforts are being made to re-establish a climate for economic and commercial activity and they will be supported by military means if necessary. Those who question the need for such military support should ask themselves whether Irish aid workers with NGOs or the United Nations should be provided with protection by the United Nations to allow them help the local people.

Like other Members, I was concerned about the change in Ireland's role from the traditional one of peace-keeping to what is termed peace enforcement. However, I am satisfied that this change enables us to play a full part in the United Nation's effort and furthers the aims for which the United Nations was established. We had an opportunity last week in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to put our concerns to the Tánaiste and I was satisfied with his response then and when speaking on this motion tonight. I am proud of the record of the Irish overseas development assistance programme in developing countries, particularly in Africa. I was concerned that our neutrality and our no-strings-attached approach should be preserved in our operations in the United Nations and I am satisfied that will be done.

Proinsias De Rossa

Neutrality has gone.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I was also concerned about our participation in operations under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, particularly the operation in Kuwait which was led by a superpower in defence of what can only be termed imperialist interests. However, there is a fundamental difference between that type of operation and UNOSOM II which is being established directly by the Security Council of the United Nations. I am satisfied we should participate in this mission.

UNOSOM is not led by a superpower. It will consist of 30,000 troops and personnel and it is important to note that these people will be drawn in the main from developing countries, African countries and countries such as Sweden which has a proud tradition of neutrality. Bangladesh will make a substantial contribution as will Egypt, India, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Pakistan. Our small contribution is needed. If we are not prepared to participate we cannot look for protection of our people in Somalia. The operation will involve an international force. Our troops will not be involved in combat duty but will work in support of a Zimbabwean unit in an area protected by French forces.

I am satisfied that this motion is in accordance with the terms outlined by the Minister under the Defence (Amendment) Act. Three principles were outlined: there would be no change in our fundamental position in that we would participate only in operations established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations; Dáil approval for the despatch of contingents under the United Nations would continue to be sought — this worthwhile debate shows the necessity for such approval — and the Government would assess each request individually and carefully — that has been done. We have an obligation to participate in this operation and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. D. Wallace

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. D. Wallace

Nobody should underestimate the importance of Irish involvement in the peace-keeping process around the world. At present almost 1,000 Irish soldiers are stationed in other countries. This is a significant number by any yardstick and is indicative of the level of commitment of our Army to the vital task of peacekeeping in the various troubled spots around the world. We have a long peacekeeping tradition. The request for our troops to go to Somalia is the latest extension of this positive tradition.

Somalia is torn by civil strife and the people there suffer from starvation. The country suffers as a result of disasters, both natural and manmade. In short, it is a country crying out for help from other countries around the world. We cannot ignore this plea and it is not in the nature of the Irish people to do so. We have not shirked our responsibilities in the past and we will not do so now. Somalia needs our help and morally we cannot refuse.

Other speakers dealt with this issue from a broad political angle but I would like to deal with it from a personal viewpoint. Relatives of mine have been involved in peacekeeping forces in the past in Lebanon and Cyprus and I have personal knowledge of the commitment and courage this task entails. Many of the soldiers stationed in Collins Barracks in my constituency will participate in this important mission to Somalia and have participated in missions since we first became involved in peacekeeping operations more than 30 years ago. I wish to pay tribute to these men of whom we are proud for their valuable contribution to world peace. There can be no more important task. Peacekeeping is an onerous task and is not one to be taken lightly. Ireland, as a full member of the United Nations, has always taken seriously its responsibilities in this regard. Somalia, and its suffering people, can expect no less of us at this critical time.

The Irish people have responded humanely and generously to Somalia's cry for help and actively support our participation in UNOSOM II. Public opinion would be critical of a refusal to participate in this mission. We have seen the horror, and the heart of the nation has been moved by the cries for help from Somalia. From Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan and other places there have been calls for assistance from nations such as ours, and we have responded to the calls. In Somalia along with 31 other countries we will provide troops and assistance. Irish voluntary workers have put their lives at risk and have represented us proudly in Somalia in organisations like Concern. They have played a major contribution on our behalf. Our military contribution although small in numbers is a major contribution having regard to the size of our Army and our nation and Irish troops are respected throughout the world, in the Congo, in Cyprus, in the Lebanon and wherever they have played a part in peacekeeping. We can all remember the tragedy in the Congo. Some people gave their lives there in the cause of peace, but we were never sorry for sending the troops. Tonight we are ensuring that our troops will play their part once again on our behalf and on behalf of the UN.

It is not always earthquakes and natural disasters which cause world tragedies, but greed. We see the misery and the legacy of death and destruction which has been brought about in Somalia by greed. Out of a nation of four million people almost two million are in danger of death or serious illness. Certainly people do not have a normal life. We have an important role to play. Following on the visit of our President, Mrs. Mary Robinson and our Minister, Deputy Andrews, our troops will be well received in Somalia.

I commend this motion to the House.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Ireland has a long and noble history as a world peacekeeper. Irish men and women both through the armed forces and through the invaluable work of voluntary organisations, have contributed hugely to peacekeeping around the world. This task continues today and there is hardly a trouble spot on the face of the earth in which the Irish are not actively working for peace. I take this opportunity to offer a vote of thanks to all these men and women for their dedication and commitment to the cause of peace. Theirs is a dangerous task which brings no great reward other than that of furthering the cause of peace. Long may their work continue.

The Irish have never shirked from a peacekeeping challenge. For that reason the suffering of Somalia cannot be ignored. Here the agony of civil strife is compounded by the misery of hunger and pain. Already members of our voluntary organisations are active there carrying out invaluable work in brutal and inhospitable conditions. There is an obvious need to supplement this with the participation of our soldiers in the UN forces there. I have no doubt that our soldiers will perform this task with the same excellence with which they have carried out this work in other countries.

I do not agree with Deputy De Rossa's amendment. Ireland is a full member of the United Nations and has always fulfilled its obligations in a most responsible manner. We can not act differently now when faced with such a crisis. I have no doubt whatsoever that our soldiers feel the same way about fulfilling these important obligations.

I wish our soldiers well in the challenges that face them in Somalia. I also hope for the speediest possible solution to the problem of Somalia. It is not in anybody's interest, particularly the long suffering people of Somalia, for this dreadful situation to persist.

Somalia should not only be seen in a peacekeeping context but also in the broader overseas context. There is much more to Somalia than securing peace, although this is a vital objective in itself. True peace is inextricably linked to the process of development. I am happy to see that the Government in the Programme for Government is committed to increasing the level of Ireland's overseas aid. This is significant. Somalia's problems go very deep. They can only be allayed by a serious process of development. Ireland must play its role in this process to the full and that also means increased levels of aid. I have no doubt that the Government will build on this commitment in the most positive way possible.

From my constituency in Cork East, members of the First Motor Squadron, Fermoy, from the Fitzgerald camp who have served with honour and distinction over the years, will participate in the peacekeeping. We are seen to be a compassionate and caring people and wherever Irish troops go there is always a welcome and a request for their return.

Somalia, a poor state in Africa is unique in many ways. Many Irish aid workers have gone there over the last couple of years to give advice and assistance. It is recognised that we have the best aid workers in the western world and we are always welcomed. I was proud to see our President, Mrs. Mary Robinson and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Andrews, visit Somalia. They laid the foundation for the participation of our peacekeeping soldiers who are anxious to gain recognition for the tremendous role they have played in the past. I have no doubt that they will once more serve in Somalia with honour and distinction. I fully support the motion.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I welcome the contributions from all Deputies. It is a very important precedent in this House and a longstanding tradition that we discuss the implications of sending missions abroad. In that respect, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate tonight.

Deputy Connor raised the question of the volunteer nature of our troops on UN operations abroad. In our long and distinguished tradition of participating in UN operations, the Minister for Defence has never encountered difficulties in finding volunteers for UN missions and in practice, overseas missions are heavily oversubscribed by volunteers. The personnel of the transport company will be volunteers and in fact their replacement in due course will also be volunteers.

Deputy Connor also pointed to the vital role performed by the non-Governmental organisations in Somalia. I agree with this point. When much of the international community ignored the conflict and the famine the non-Governmental organisations remained active. Their call was a call to conscience in Somalia. The fact that today food is more readily available in Somalia is due in great measure to the activities of the non-Governmental organisations.

It is vitally important for that reason to have good relations between the non-governmental organisations and UNOSOM, which is the case in most areas. I should add that our troops have an unparalleled record in fostering and maintaining good relations with all sides in United Nations operations: the local population, other contingents and aid and other humanitarian workers. I am confident that this will continue, given the reputation of our troops and the manner in which they handle themselves on these missions.

Deputy McDowell pointed out that there is a need to uphold the authority of the United Nations and this point is well taken. The amendment to the Defence Acts permits the Dáil to approve the despatch of a contingent to serve in a Chapter VII operation but the change does not restrict Ireland's continuing ability to participate in traditional peace-keeping operations in which I strongly believe we will continue to participate with distinction. I have no doubt that the Army's standing internationally and at home will be enhanced by its role in Somalia.

Deputy McDowell also mentioned that the United Nations had encountered difficulties in Somalia in recent weeks. In my opening statement I outlined my concern about recent events in Mogadishu. Shortly after the killings I called for the urgent restoration of calm and order and our concerns were raised at the United Nations headquarters in New York. I expect the Secretary General's report to the Security Council to be available shortly and it is my intention to make sure it is available to every Member of this House through the Dáil Library.

I read Deputy De Rossa's proposed amendment with interest but I do not believe it is necessary or desirable. The purpose of the change to the Defence Act which has been debated extensively in this House and in the Seanad is to enable Ireland to take part in the United Nations operation established under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This is the reason the provision in the original Act, which restricted participation to operations of a police character, has been removed. Without that necessary amending legislation a contingent of the Defence Forces could not participate in any capacity in UNOSOM II. I have made it clear to the House that our troops will participate in the Somali operation in a non-combatant role and that their duties will be logistical. That position is understood by and agreed with the United Nations. I do not, therefore, see a need for the provision suggested by the Deputy which reverts to language which has been excised from the Defence Act.

The safety and well-being of Irish aid workers in Somalia is a matter of vital concern to the Government. When the force was being established we put it to the United Nations that the mandate should provide for the protection of aid workers and this has been specifically included. One of the principal purposes of our involvement in UNOSOM is to help create a secure environment in which humanitarian aid can be delivered and in which aid workers can operate in safety but it is a matter for UNOSOM to determine how best and with which elements of the force the protection of aid workers can be ensured.

In so far as the proposals for a Dáil review are concerned, the Government has already accepted an Opposition amendment which has been included in the new legislation requiring the Minister for Defence to report to the Dáil each year on Ireland's participation in United Nations operations. This will provide an opportunity for a full annual review of our involvement in the Somali mission and of our wider role in the United Nations. That is of importance to this House and the Defence Forces.

Deputy De Rossa asked what the legal basis is for the Somali operation. This is in Chapter VII of the Charter and in Resolution 814 of the Security Council. Under Article 39 the Security Council is specifically empowered to arrive at a determination on the existence of any threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or act of aggression and it is on the basis of this determination that the Council is empowered to take decisions under Chapter VII. In the case of Somalia the Council in Resolution 814 determined that the situation in Somalia threatened peace and security in that region. This determination was arrived at after an extensive debate in the Council and a detailed report from the Secretary General.

I agree with Deputy De Rossa that the end of the Cold War did not bring an end to conflict. In fact one of the great international challenges facing us today is how we should deal with the problems which did not surface during the Cold War. These include old conflicts, territorial claims, ethnic differences and minorities. These are on the agenda on a daily basis and we have to find responses to them. UNOSOM is an example of the efforts of the United Nations to find ways to deal with these conflicts. Cambodia is another example.

The success of these operations depends on the resources made available to the United Nations. In this regard pressure is being put on all governments at present. We are placing a burden on the United Nations which it never carried before in relation to its operations and it is the responsibility of all governments to honour their obligations to the United Nations. If we want to resolve these complex conflicts and play our part, this will test our response.

Deputy McDowell mentioned the challenge to the world order. In the past we played a constructive role in the United Nations and the changes in recent years require the Government to play a new role. That is the reason the Defence Act was changed last week under which our 80 strong transport division will participate in UNOSOM II.

I commend the motion to the House. Not only is it in our interests, it is in the interests of the United Nations. It faces a difficult task which will not lessen to any degree given the complexities of the problems in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Cambodia, other African nations and the emerging democracies. This country has a proud tradition since we joined the United Nations and we are honouring that tradition by passing this resolution in the House this evening.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is: "That the amendment be made".

Proinsias De Rossa

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Members who are claiming a division please rise?

Deputies De Rossa, Gilmore, Rabbitte and Sargent rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the amendment lost. The names of the Members who have claimed a division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the House.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and agreed to.