Vol. 530 No. 4
35 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Defence if it is intended to discontinue participation by the Defence Forces in UNIFIL operations in the Lebanon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4018/01]
87 Mr. Power asked the Minister for Defence the plans he has to re-deploy Army personnel serving in the Lebanon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4150/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 35 and 87 together.
Members of the Defence Forces have been deployed for service with UNIFIL since 1978. On 18 October 2000 the Government approved the provision of a replacement contingent to UNIFIL for a six month period beginning 30 October 2000 and authorised the Minister for Defence to make preparations for the selection of a further contingent to provide for the possibility of Ireland's continued participation in UNIFIL beyond April 2001.
On 30 January 2000 the UN Security Council extended the UNIFIL mandate to 31 July 2001. In his six monthly report to the Security Council on 22 January 2001, the UN Secretary General stated that two of the three parts of the UNIFIL mandate have essentially now been completed, namely, confirmation of the withdrawal of the Israeli forces and assisting, as far as possible, the Lebanese authorities to return to the vacated area.
UNIFIL's focus is now on the remaining part of the mandate which is the restoration of inter national peace and security. This involves patrolling, liaison, close contact with the parties with a view to correcting violations and preventing the escalation of incidents. The Secretary General foresees that the need for the UN to perform such functions will continue to exist in the foreseeable future. He states that these functions are those of an observer mission. However, in view of the conditions in the region the Secretary General is reluctant to entrust the task to unarmed observers alone and recommends a reconfiguration based on a combination of armed infantry and unarmed observers. In this regard he suggests two infantry battalions and a group of United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation observers.
In view of the situation in the region the Secretary General advises, as a prudent first approach, returning the strength of UNIFIL to that which obtained before it was augmented last year after the Israeli withdrawal which was 4,500 all ranks. The Security Council has tasked him to take the necessary measures to implement this decision by 31 July 2001, taking account of upcoming rotations of battalions in consultation with the Government of Lebanon and the troop contributing countries. Fifty extra Defence Forces personnel deployed to UNIFIL at the request of the UN in June 2000 returned home in October 2000.
Additional Information.The UN Security Council requested the Secretary General to submit a detailed report by 30 April 2001 on UNIFIL's reconfiguration plans and on the tasks that could be carried out by observers as part of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation. On foot of this report the Security Council will review the situation in early May 2001 and will consider any steps it deems appropriate regarding UNIFIL and UNTSO. The Security Council is due to consider the UNIFIL mandate in July 2001.
The review by the Secretary General in early May 2001 will determine the nature and the level of the force(s) to be deployed in south Lebanon for the longer term. I have indicated on a number of occasions, including during visits to Lebanon and UN headquarters, my desire that the Irish battalion could withdraw from UNIFIL by the end of this year on the basis that UNIFIL's task has largely been completed. However, the six months rotation in April 2001 will take place, unless otherwise requested by the UN, and I propose seeking the approval of the Government to deploy a contingent in April 2001. A battalion is currently in training to this end.
As I have indicated to the House previously, Ireland signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations in relation to the United Nations Standby Arrangements System. Ireland has committed up to 850 military personnel for UN service at any one time under UNSAS. There would not be any obligation to participate in any given mission and Dáil approval would be required for the dispatch of a contingent to a specific operation. The decision to participate in UNSAS is a tangible expression of Ireland's continuing commitment to involvement in peacekeeping operations.
The matter of Defence Forces participation in overseas missions is kept under regular review. There exists a standing interdepartmental committee on peacekeeping, under the chairmanship of the Department of Foreign Affairs whose function, inter alia, is to provide a forum for the exchange of views on policy issues relating to Ireland's participation in international peacekeeping with a view to increasing the effectiveness and coherence of policy in this area and to ensure that policy and its implementation can keep pace in a co-ordinated way with developments in international peacekeeping. The matter of the deployment of units of the Defence Forces overseas is being kept under continual review and in this regard account will be taken of the decisions of the UN Security Council in the coming months in relation to the future of UNIFIL when considering future deployments of contingents of the Defence Forces on missions overseas.
There has been a change of Prime Minister in Israel and problems continue in the region. Will the Secretary General's report be updated before a final decision is made regarding the withdrawal of troops? The situation in the region is changing from day to day and could develop into open warfare.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Will more negotiations take place before Ireland is asked to withdraw from the region?
The positions of the Secretary General and the Security Council are very clear. They are talking of reducing the complement in the region and having a mixed army and observer force. Last year I indicated that, because of the Israeli withdrawal back to the border, I envisaged that this year would bring an end to Ireland's major participation in south Lebanon which has gone on for 23 years. I will be putting proposals to Government in April for this to be the final contingent.
Preparation and training has already commenced towards this objective. However, one cannot be certain about what will happen during the rest of the year. We will be consulting with the UN in New York and with our military advisers in south Lebanon on an ongoing basis. As the situation stands, and based on any judgment call I can make and advice I am getting, including from the United Nations, it looks as if this will be the last major contingent to south Lebanon.
The Minister is talking about this being the last contingent and has mentioned 31 July 2001. The rapid reaction force comes into being on 1 January 2003 with a complement of 850, similar to our UN standby arrangement. Will we have a depleted complement of soldiers serving overseas in the interim period up to 2003? The Minister will recognise the importance of overseas service if people are to be attracted into the Army.
One could not emphasis too strongly the importance of our involvement with UN mandated activities in different parts of the world in terms of training, morale, experience and so on. I was not talking about 31 July but of completing our six months which will be at the end of October 2001. Quite a number of personnel might still be involved as observers after that date.
I would need at least that amount of time to prepare for whatever additional support could be given to Kosovo or whatever other demands might arise. One would need time to plan for that work. By the middle or end of this year, in the event of this commitment closing, we should be able to decide on other international activities in which we would be engaged. I will be looking to see where that is going to happen.
I assure the House that I will not be idle between the end of our involvement in south Lebanon and whenever a further demand might be made in Europe. Demands are being made of us from many other areas and there is much expectation. We have the capacity to fulfil these demands and are enhancing that capacity with the additional equipment we are purchasing.
The individual partnership programme for the PfP contains much information. In particular it states that the UN standby arrangements system is to be reduced "as soon as possible". Why is this the case? Are we reducing our commitment because of our commitments to the European rapid reaction force and the PfP?
Members of this House did not know about the individual partnership programme. I only found out about it last week in Brussels. When will this programme come before the House?
The second part of the Deputy's question does not arise and is well outside the substance of the two questions submitted to the Minister. I will allow a final reply from the Minister on the Deputy's first question.
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if I may explain why it is in order.
That is not a point of order. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and allow the Minister to give his final reply.
The question is relevant.
It may be relevant but it does not arise out of the two questions submitted to the Minister.
We need accountability in this House. There is no point coming into the House and making a farce of it if there is no accountability.
I suggest that the Deputy submits a question in his name on the matter he wants to raise. He cannot raise another matter out of a question.
Anything we do at home in terms of Partnership for Peace or the United Nations and whatever we plan to do is first brought to the Dáil before we take a step. It is important that everyone in this House does not try to distort that. Under our Defence Acts, we will not go anywhere until the Dáil decides to do so. The majority of Members in this House respect that and they will not twist it.
The Minister is twisting it.
As far as our commitment to UNSAS is concerned, in October 1998 I made a commitment of 850 to it and that stands. As far as our participation in Partnership for Peace is concerned —
Why is it being reduced? That question is relevant.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply without interruption.
It is an important part of how we proceed in the future, how we have inter-operability and how we engage with other contingents so that together we can supply to this world what has not been there before, namely, an instrument which could ultimately intervene before the holocausts take place.
That is pathetic.
That is the road we want to take. We have gone in everywhere else after the war has taken place.
I ask the Minister to conclude.
We are not afraid and we will not win by trying to scare people. I am just telling the truth.
What does the Minister want to win?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
