I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the dispatch, 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 with the UN authorised multinational Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996, and that it further approves the terms of the exchange of letters on Ireland's financial responsibilities arising from participation in SFOR, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 12 May, 1997.
The purpose of this motion, which is required under section 2 of the Defence Act, 1960, as applied by the Defence Act, 1993, is to enable the dispatch of an Irish contingent for service with the UN-authorised multinational Stabilisation Force — SFOR — in Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996. The motion also provides for approval of the terms of an exchange of letters with NATO clarifying Ireland's financial responsibilities arising from participation in SFOR, copies of which have been laid before the House. This exchange clarifies that Ireland, like all other non-NATO troop contributing nations, will be responsible for its own costs.
In commending this motion to the House I wish to emphasise three key points. First, SFOR's presence and role are indispensable to the international community's efforts to maintain and consolidate peace after a sustained conflict which was the most destructive in Europe since the Second World War. The dimensions of the suffering and loss were and remain shocking: over 400,000 people died in the four year conflict in former Yugoslavia. Over two million people were displaced internally or became international refugees. Second, SFOR operates under the mandate and authority of the United Nations Security Council. Third, Irish participation in SFOR is entirely in keeping with our foreign policy traditions and objectives. It is particularly in keeping with our long and respected tradition of United Nation's peacekeeping that Ireland should participate in this UN authorised force, whose contributors number over 30 states, allied and non-allied, neutral and non-aligned, including all those European states with whom we have served over the years in UN operations such as UNIFIL and UNFICYP. SFOR currently has some 31,000 troops deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina made up of contingents from the 16 members of NATO and from 19 non-NATO countries, including Russia and Ukraine, most of the countries of central and eastern Europe, the neutrals Sweden, Finland and Austria, and non-European non-aligned countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Malaysia.
The conflict in former Yugoslavia posed major — indeed defining — challenges to the UN, to the European Union and the international community at large. There can be no one who has not been touched by the humanitarian catastrophe, especially in Bosnia. The resolution of the differences in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains a central objective of the European Union's foreign policy. It is also, as was made clear in Chapter 10 of the White Paper, a priority of Irish foreign policy. Ireland made an important contribution at the political and diplomatic levels through our conduct of European Union policy during the recent Presidency, through ongoing Irish participation in the European Community Monitor Mission and through the provision of members of the Garda Síochána to the UN's International Police Task Force, including the former head of the force, Assistant Commissioner Peter Fitzgerald. Since the end of the Irish Presidency the level of our Defence Forces participation in the ECMM has been scaled down significantly from its Presidency level of 79 members.
In the context of the preparations for the Bosnia peace agreement in 1995, the UN Secretary General made clear his view to the Security Council that, to implement a peace agreement in Bosnia, the Security Council should authorise a multinational force, acting as appropriate with regional organisations or arrangements. The Security Council, acting as the body under the UN Charter charged with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, decided that NATO would take the lead in connection with the multinational force. A large number of states, including other neutrals such as Finland, Sweden and Austria, non-NATO states such as Russia, and non-European non-aligned states participated.
UN Security Council Resolution 1008 of 12 December 1996 authorised the establishment of the multinational Stabilisation Force, known as SFOR, for a planned period of 18 months from December 1996. SFOR's role is to help the parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement a peace accord, the "Dayton" agreement, to which they have freely agreed, and to contribute to a secure environment necessary for the consolidation and stabilisation of peace in the region. SFOR, like its predecessor force, the UN authorised Implementation Force, IFOR, is crucial to the efforts to preserve peace and contribute to a climate of confidence in which the political and democratic processes can be pursued after a war which has left a legacy of great bitterness and division.
In execution of its Security Council mandate, SFOR co-operates and works with the other agencies principally involved for example, the Office of the High Representative — currently Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister — the International Police Force, which includes a number of members of the Garda Síochána, UN civilian agencies such as the UNHCR, the International Red Cross and the OSCE. This co-operation covers a wide range of activities, notably maintaining local security, facilitating freedom of movement for the local population and assisting the return of refugees.
SFOR, like its predecessor force, IFOR, operates under Chapter VII of the UN Charter: that is, it is entitled to use force to implement its mandate, to separate the parties in the event of a resumption of hostilities or to protect itself.
Although SFOR's predecessor, IFOR, generally succeeded in achieving on time the military objectives assigned to it under the peace agreement, and therefore in providing an environment in which the tasks of civilian implementations could be addressed, progress on the civilian side has been consistently difficult to achieve, although some important results have been achieved during the 18 months since the peace agreement came into force. In relation to war crimes, the Government wishes to see all indicted war crimes suspects appear before the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague to face the charges against them. We believe full co-operation with the tribunal by all parties to the peace agreement is a fundamental obligation. It is ultimately the responsibility of the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to ensure that indicted persons are handed over to the tribunal. The Government, in co-operation with our European partners, will continue to press the parties involved to do so.
Following national elections in September 1996 which were facilitated by the close co-operation of IFOR and the OSCE, most common institutions have finally been established and are now beginning to function. However, their work is still at an early and fragile stage and requires further time for consolidation. It was not possible to organise local elections in 1996 and these have been scheduled for next September. Local elections will have a crucial impact on important aspects of civilian implementation such as freedom of movement, return of refugees and associated reconstruction and economic development. SFOR and the OSCE are working closely in preparation for the local elections.
Ethnic tensions remain high in many parts of the country and could easily erupt again into open conflict in the absence of an international stabilisation force. A secure environment must be maintained if civilian implementation is to move forward at the desired tempo and if democracy and reconciliation are to develop. SFOR, by its presence and numerical strength, has an indispensable role in deterring threats to peace and providing the confidence and security necessary for implementation of the civilian aspects of the peace agreement.
I believe it is important to keep clearly in focus the reality that the United Nations is increasingly reliant on regional organisations to help it meet the new security challenges of the post Cold War world. The new reality we must face is that no one institution in isolation can cope with the full range of new and multifaceted challenges to international security — challenges with military, humanitarian, economic and diplomatic dimensions and which can transcend ethnic, state and even regional boundaries. Former Yugoslavia is one example of this, the situation in the Great Lakes region of Africa is another and the situation in Albania is the most recent example of an internal conflict with roots radically different from those we have been accustomed to over the last 50 years.
The OSCE has developed and endorsed the concept of mutually reinforcing co-operation between security institutions and has encouraged a sense of common purpose between institutions to meet the new security challenges. In Bosnia it is evident that the UN, the OSCE, the EU, NATO and the Council of Europe are all playing valuable and mutually reinforcing and supportive roles across a broad spectrum of activity — military, civil and humanitarian.
It is not only in Europe that the UN has encouraged and authorised regional peacekeeping approaches. Recent peacekeeping initiatives in Liberia and Haiti are also examples of this approach. In Africa too, efforts have been in train to enhance a standing African peacekeeping capability based on the Organisation of African Unity. The mandate given to SFOR by the Security Council should be seen in this broader context.
Participation in SFOR would place Irish troops under the command structures established by NATO in accordance with its UN mandate, but the participation of other neutral countries such as Finland, Sweden and Austria, of non-NATO countries such as Russia and of non-European, non-aligned countries indicates that military neutrality or non-membership of NATO has not been a barrier to participation in IFOR and SFOR. Moreover, in the context of peacekeeping, it is important to distinguish between the role of NATO as a mutual defence alliance and the assistance which, as an international security institution, it is providing in support of peace-keeping and other operations under the authority of the UN Security Council or OSCE, including by making its resources and expertise available.
Chapter 4 of the White Paper has dealt with this issue in some detail. Participation in SFOR would place us alongside traditional and like-minded UN peacekeepers. Our involvement would be in line with the approach to peacekeeping set out in the White Paper. Non-involvement, on the other hand, would risk marginalising us from developments in conflict prevention and peacekeeping in Europe under UN and OSCE auspices. The reality is that SFOR is a mission in support of peace in Europe which has brought 35 countries together under the authority of the United Nations in a way which would have been unimaginable earlier this decade. I strongly believe that Ireland should become part of this multinational effort.
We have exchanged views with the other participating European neutral countries who, far from seeing participation in SFOR as incompatible with their positions outside alliances, value their participation as a practical contribution to the peace implementation process in Bosnia. Moreover, they have emphasised to us, as traditional UN peacekeepers, the importance of enhancing their experience of and influence over the development of peacekeeping in the post Cold War era. It is very much in our interest to enhance our experience and influence in co-operation with these traditional UN peacekeeping countries as peacekeeping evolves to meet the new challenges to peace and security which the international community will face.
In deciding on Irish participation in SFOR, the most careful consideration has been given to all aspects of the matter. A team of officials from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence, together with representatives of the Defence Forces, had preparatory consultations with NATO HQ in Brussels, with the SFOR co-ordination centre based at SHAPE in Mons, Belgium, and, subsequently, made a reconnaissance visit to SFOR HQ in Sarajevo to establish the operational, logistical and financial arrangements for a possible participation in SFOR. These consultations identified an SFOR requirement for a military police contingent at SFOR HQ in Sarajevo as one that the Irish Defence Forces would be in a position to meet.
The Irish military police element would be part of the international military police company at SFOR HQ, which consists of a company HQ and three MP platoons. Ireland is being asked to provide the company HQ and one of the platoons. The Irish MPs will perform the normal range of military police duties for SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, where approximately 8,000 SFOR troops are stationed. Duties would include: (a) enforcement of military discipline and good order; (b) monitoring and control of military vehicular traffic, including investigation of road traffic accidents: (c) enforcement of SFOR protection policy, in other words, measures to ensure the safety and security of SFOR troops; (d) investigations of incidents involving SFOR personnel or property; (e) HQ security functions, for example, security checks on SFOR compounds; (f) liaison with local police and the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF) and (g) operation of 24 hour international MP stations at SFOR HQ and/or other SFOR locations at Sarajevo.
The MPs would be armed and equipped for their personal protection to carry out this supporting role. The Irish contingent would comprise the MP company HQ, totalling 16 personnel, the MP platoon, totalling 27 and a national support element consisting of six personnel. In addition, Ireland is entitled to appoint an officer to the force HQ at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel who will be the national contingent commander. Each nation participating in SFOR is also invited to appoint a military liaison officer to the SFOR co-ordination centre at SHAPE, near Brussels. In total, the Irish deployment to SFOR would consist of 50 personnel of all ranks in SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, with one military liaison officer assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium, for the duration of SFOR's mandate.
The role which has been offered to the Irish contingent is an important and responsible one and is clear testimony to the high regard which SFOR has for the professionalism and commitment of Irish peacekeepers. Arrangements are in place at NATO HQ in Brussels for regular political consultations and briefings with all troop contributing nations on developments relating to the force. Under the terms of the Security Council resolution, monthly progress reports are submitted to the UN Secretary General and the Security Council. As a troop contributor, Ireland will be consulted on the preparation of these reports.
It is envisaged that the Irish commitment to SFOR will be until the expiry of the force's mandate set out in Security Council Resolution 1088. The expiry of the mandate is scheduled to occur in June 1998. It is envisaged that rotation of the Irish contingent will be at six monthly intervals. In keeping with good peacekeeping practice, it is our intention to confirm to NATO that our contingent will not be withdrawn without four months prior notice, unless otherwise agreed.
I referred earlier to the fact that SFOR, like its predecessor IFOR, operates under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This protective element of the mandate is becoming the norm in UN peacekeeping operations. Troop contributing countries are increasingly unwilling to commit troops to UN operations unless there is a Chapter VII authorisation to enable the peacekeeping force to take all necessary measures to protect itself. The House may recall that the multinational force planned for Zaire late last year, for which the Dáil approved Irish participation, also had a Chapter VII mandate. SFOR's predecessor, IFOR, was initially deployed at a strength of 60,000 under a Chapter VII mandate to ensure that it would be able to deter any aggression against it. SFOR has been reduced in size to half that of IFOR in the light of the major diminution of the likelihood of the force coming under attack. Currently, the main risk to SFOR personnel in the area of operations is posed by land-mines and road traffic accidents, risks which the Irish personnel in the EC monitor mission have had run for the last six years.
In recommending that Ireland contribute a military police contingent to SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, safety and security factors, including the specific function of the military police in SFOR, which as I have already said is a supporting role, were taken fully into account.
In so far as the discharge of SFOR's mandate is concerned, the Irish contingent, like those of the other neutral countries in the force, would come under SFOR's central and unified command and control structure. However, non-NATO nations, including Ireland, would retain national command of their contingents. Moreover, the force commander would utilise national contingents in accordance with their capabilities, taking into account the advice of the contingent commander. These are standard arrangements for non-NATO troop contributors to SFOR.
The Irish military authorities would take the necessary measures to assure the maintenance of proper discipline and would retain exclusive criminal jurisdiction for the Irish contingent. The Irish contingent, as a non-NATO contingent, would enjoy the same rights, privileges and immunities as are provided for in the status of forces agreements signed between NATO and the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Contributors to SFOR are responsible for their own costs of participation. This is set out in the terms of the exchange of letters before the House. As the Attorney General's advice is that this exchange of letters on the financial arrangements would constitute an international agreement involving a charge on public funds within the meaning of Article 29 of the Constitution, the motion also seeks approval of the terms of the exchange.
SFOR is an important expression not only of the international community's commitment to peace in Bosnia but also reflects the new and mutually reinforcing and co-operative approach to ensuring international peace and security. Ireland has long been an advocate of co-operative approaches to security and participation in SFOR would be a concrete example of our commitment to inclusive co-operative security in Europe in general and to helping the people of Bosnia in their search for peace and normal political life after a conflict of catastrophic proportions.
Ireland has a long-standing reputation in UN peacekeeping which is a legitimate source of pride for all of us. I attach great importance to our continuing involvement in the mainstream of peacekeeping. Our participation in SFOR is important in this connection.
I know very well the concerns of Deputies about the tragic situation which has developed in Bosnia. I share these concerns. I also know well that Ireland can and must play its full part in helping to ensure peace in Bosnia. That is what we have been doing in a number of ways. The further step we are now taking is fully consistent with, and complementary to, the efforts we have made not only in Bosnia but also in the service of peace under the auspices of the United Nations throughout the world. I commend the motion to the House.