asked the Minister for External Affairs whether it is proposed to maintain this country's forces in Cyprus in view of U Thant's statement regarding member countries' financial obligations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Troops in Cyprus.
3.
Mr. O'Leary
We gave the Secretary General advance notice that if the Security Council renewed its mandate the Government would be prepared on receipt of a formal request and an assurance from him of full recoupment of our extra expenditure for the period, to maintain an Irish contingent with the United Nations Force in Cyprus at the present strength for a further period of three months. So far no such request or assurance has been received.
Does the Minister mean by that that if this assurance is not received, the Irish troops will be withdrawn from Cyprus?
Yes.
Is the Minister in a position to say what period must elapse before an automatic withdrawal takes place?
The present tour of duty of the contingent ends on 18th April next.
Might I ask the Minister if his statement today represents a new policy? Heretofore, I understood him to have told the House we would not accept recoupment except from the general fund of the United Nations. Do I correctly understand him today to say that in the event of the Secretary General requesting a renewal, we are now prepared to accept recoupment from such fund as the Secretary General is prepared to let us have?
Yes.
We have changed our policy on that point?
Yes, we have. I think if we are accused of anything, it is that we try to do too much for international peace. I would rather be accused of that than that we did too little.
You did not do it in Ireland.
If we were to take account of our national income and of the income of our partners in the UN, we have done far beyond anybody else. However, it cannot be left to one or two small nations or to one or two big nations, to guarantee the security of the peace. As a nation, we have done more than our share.
Could the Minister say if this is to be retrospective?
Is this a retrospective decision? We took a decision in principle that we could never accept recoupment except from the general fund of the UN. We have now changed our minds. I do not complain at the Minister's or the Government's decision in that respect. Are we now prepared to say that the burden imposed on us has proved excessive and that we are now, as from the original date on which our troops went into Cyprus, prepared to accept recoupment? It does not seem logical to accept recoupment now and to refuse it in respect of earlier commitments.
We did say to the Secretary General when he first asked us to send a contingent to Cyprus on the basis of voluntary subscriptions that we thought it was most unwise for the UN—that if we were to have any security in the world and the smaller countries had to play a part in it, it would be essential that the expenses of such operations should be shared by all members as a compulsory assessment. At all times we insisted that our extraordinary expenses were a debt which the UN owed to us. We have not yet succeeded in getting the UN to come down and say firmly that all members must contribute to the expenses of such operations.
When we are going to do that for the future, why should we not ask them to refund us what we have already paid?
We have done that. The Secretary General has paid back to us a certain amount of our extraordinary expenses and has been endeavouring to recoup us for the total amount of these extraordinary expenses.
What is involved in these extra or extraordinary expenses?
The extra expenses are the payments we give our troops for overseas service and the extra amount the troops receive from the United Nations by way of supplement to their pay.