Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 22 June 2006
6 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the deployment of ten military personnel to the Congo to assist in national elections; the type of work the personnel will be engaged in during their time in the country; when they will be deployed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23794/06]
View answerThe United Nations Security Council Resolution 1671 of 25 April 2006 authorised the EU to deploy a European Union Force, codenamed EUFOR RD Congo, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, in support of MONUC during the electoral period in the Democratic Republic of Congo for a period ending four months after the date of the first round of the presidential and parliamentary elections there. The DRC authorities have welcomed the EU military support to MONUC during the electoral process. On 25 April 2006, the Council of the EU adopted a joint action to launch the EU mission in support of MONUC.
On 9 May 2006, the Government authorised me, as Minister for Defence, to despatch up to ten members of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the EUFOR RD Congo. Ireland offered up to ten staff officers for the headquarters. However, the mission is oversubscribed and, therefore, only seven of the ten will be deployed, five in Potsdam in the operational headquarters and two in Kinshasa in the force headquarters. The five Defence Forces officers assigned to the operational headquarters for the mission in Potsdam in Germany have been deployed. The deployment of the personnel to Kinshasa will take place shortly.
The key tasks of the EU mission are to support MONUC to stabilise a situation in case MONUC faces serious difficulties in fulfilling its mandate within its existing capabilities; to contribute to the protection of civilians under imminent threat of physical violence in the areas of its deployment and without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo; to contribute to airport protection in Kinshasa; to ensure the security and freedom of movement of the personnel as well as the protection of the installations of EUFOR RD Congo; and to execute operations of limited character to extract individuals in danger.
This reflects the discussion we had earlier on Deputy Timmins's query about establishment. It is well covered in the new legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
Section 1 [of the Bill] amends the definition of "International United Nations Force", as provided for in the 1960 and 1993 Acts, to reflect the changes in the organisation and structure of forces deployed on Peace Support Operations under a UN mandate, in particular, the use of regional organisations to provide forces for peace support operations. It also reflects the variations in the language used in UN Security Council Resolutions, such that, the Permanent Defence Force will not be precluded from participating in a UN peace support operation, solely on the basis of the specific language used in a resolution.
Once again, the language used was "established". This mission was not established by the United Nations. It is a EUFOR operation. The United Nations was not responsible for establishing it but it authorised it. The same situation arises in this case. Are seven people deployed in the Congo for whom there is no strict legal basis under the 1960 or the 1993 legislation? We cannot pursue the matter any further until we examine the Attorney General's legal opinion given to the Minister but there is a question mark over it because the purpose of this legislation is to rectify that situation.
As I indicated to Deputy Costello in reply to an earlier question, the Attorney General's advice was given at a time before I came into the Department, because this matter had happened before that. Nevertheless, I have to accept the advice of the Attorney General. The Government acts on the advice of the Attorney General whenever troops are being deployed abroad. When we are deploying troops abroad, we do so in accordance with our domestic legislation. Successive Attorneys General have advised us that if the wording of the resolution says "authorised", we are covered.
We might as well not have this legislation if the Attorney General is so sure about it.
Not really, because the legislation covers other matters as well.
I am speaking in relation to this matter.
Is there not much stuff in this legislation?
The legislation has to cover other matters as well. I should be glad to debate the legislation with Deputy Gormley at any time.
I shall be waiting.
I am acting on the Attorney General's advice, which is that we are within the terms of the legislation. If Deputy Costello has a different opinion, he is entitled to it, but the person who advises me, as the Minister for Defence, is the Attorney General.
It is definitely precautionary legislation that is trying to close the loopholes.
The Minister is taking all Stages on one day. For God's sake, that is not a debate.
