Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Oct 1973

Vol. 268 No. 6

UN Peacekeeping Force: Motion.

I move:

That pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960 (No. 44 of 1960), Dáil Éireann approves of the despatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force, for service outside the State as part of the International force which, pursuant to a Resolution on the Middle East by the Security Council of the United Nations on the 25th day of October, 1973, has been established by that Council for the performance of duties of a police character.

May I say, a Cheann Comhairle, that copies of my very brief statement should be available in a few moments. I apologise to the House. There has been urgency about this and my statement should be available in a few moments.

As Deputies are aware, the Government have received a request from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to provide an Irish contingent to participate in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East. The Government have decided to meet the Secretary-General's request, subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann which is being sought in this motion.

On a point of information, is the Minister aware that adequate copies of this very important statement are not available to the Members present?

I did apologise at the outset and I understand that copies have arrived.

Some have arrived but not enough to go round.

The Chair has no control over matters of this kind.

I appreciate that.

I apologise again but, as I said, there were problems of urgency.

It is a rather important statement.

The Emergency Force was established by a resolution of the Security Council on the 25th October. The terms of reference of the Emergency Force are set out in a report to the Security Council by the Secretary-General on 26th October. The force will have the task of supervising the implementation of the Security Council's demand for a complete cease fire between the parties in the positions occupied by them at 1650 hours GMT on 22nd October. The force is also required to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of the fighting and will co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross in its humanitarian endeavours and, in the fulfilment of its tasks, the force will have the co-operation of the military observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation.

The Secretary-General has stipulated three essential conditions to enable the force to carry out these tasks effectively. First, the force must have at all times the full confidence and backing of the Security Council; secondly, it must operate with the full co-operation of the parties concerned; and thirdly, it must be able to function as an integrated and efficient military unit.

The force will be under United Nations command, vested in the Secretary-General under the authority of the Security Council. The commander in the field will be appointed by the Secretary-General with the consent of the Security Council. The interim commander is General Siilasvuo of Finland who was formerly Chief-of-Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East. I might mention here that two Irish officers have been appointed to very senior positions in the United Nations peace-keeping and supervisory operations in the Middle East. This is a tribute to Ireland's role and to the exceptionally high calibre of our officers.

The commander of the Emergency Force will be responsible to the Secretary-General, and all matters which may affect the nature or the continued effective functioning of the force will be referred to the Security Council for decision.

The Emergency Force will operate at all times separately from the armed forces of the parties concerned. Consequently, separate quarters and, where-ever desirable and feasible, buffer zones will be arranged with the co-operation of the parties. Appropriate agreements on the status of the force will be concluded with the parties concerned.

The Secretary-General has stipulated that the force will be provided with weapons of a defensive character only and will not use force except in self-defence. Self-defence would include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council. The force will, of course, act with complete impartiality as between the parties concerned.

Present indications are that the force will have a total strength of the order of 7,000 all ranks and will be initially stationed in the area for a period of six months.

The cost of the force according to preliminary estimates prepared by the Secretary-General is put at approximately 30 million dollars for a period of six months. As far as costs are concerned, the Security Council has decided that these will be considered as expenses of the organisation to be borne by member states.

The total strength of the Irish contingent will be in the region of 240 all ranks, of whom approximately one half will be transferred from Cyprus. If the House approves this motion, arrangements will, it is hoped, be put in train for the immediate transfer of our Cyprus contingent to the Middle East and the balance of our force will follow as soon as possible. Deputies will be aware that advance contingents from Austria, Finland and Sweden are already on the ground in the Middle East.

This is not the appropriate occasion on which to enter into any detailed discussion of the Middle East problem as such. Deputies will appreciate that we should be careful to avoid saying anything at this stage that might prejudice our position. I should tell the House, however, that we have for some time past in consultation with our partners in the Nine been considering the whole situation to see if any initiative could be worked out in a European context that might help towards an eventual solution. While these efforts have so far not been fruitful we shall continue to explore all possibilities for peace in the area. In this connection I want to recall what I have said on other occasions that a primary basic objective of Irish foreign policy is to help to maintain world peace and reduce tensions. For that reason we are anxious to support the United Nations and the Security Council in the measures they are pursuing to bring a settlement to this troubled area of the world.

It is an honour for Ireland to be asked to make this practical contribution to deal with this situation, which has not only disrupted the peace of the Middle East but which has serious repercussions far beyond the immediate area of conflict, and particularly for Europe which is so closely connected to it.

It is indeed flattering and a recognition of our impartiality and the independent and constructive attitude which has characterised our role in the various international organisations in which we participate, that we have received this invitation. The task to be undertaken by our troops, in common with those of other countries participating, is obviously a most difficult one and one fraught with vital consequences for the preservation of world peace. I have the fullest confidence that our officers and men will discharge their heavy responsibilities in a manner fully in keeping with the traditions of the Army and with the high standards of efficiency and dedication to duty which have always been displayed by our troops when they have been called upon in the past to assist the United Nations Organisation in its primary task of maintaining international peace and security. We must hope that this force will be a factor in bringing about not only an end of the conflict but will also contribute to a lasting settlement in the area.

The Minister can be assured of the support of this side of the House in giving approval to this motion. The Minister has indicated that it is an honour for Ireland to be asked to make this contribution to deal with the situation, and he has further stated that it is flattering and a recognition of our impartiality and the independent and constructive attitude which has characterised our role in various international organisations. It is, indeed, an honour; it may well be flattering, but all of us feel that it would almost be surprising if Ireland had not at this time been asked to continue to play the role she has so effectively played since our forces were enabled to act by virtue of the 1960 Defence (Amendment) Act, in the United Nations peace keeping operations. It is a good thing for that reason that under section 2 of that Act motions of this type must come before the House for approval, first of all, so that we can assess the role our forces have played, are playing and, we hope, will play in the United Nations peace-keeping operations; and, secondly, so that we can be assured that in connection with any particular operation for which troops may be requested by the UN, the purpose and function of the United Nations and the purpose and function of our forces within the United Nations can be adequately fulfilled and achieved. When the Defence (Amendment) Act of 1960 was being introduced in Dáil Éireann the then Taoiseach said at columns 1877-78, Volume 183 of the Official Report of 20th July, 1960:

It is a weakness in world organisation that their members often tend to be more conscious of the advantages these organisation seem to afford them than of the obligations which membership of them applies.

At the time when that legislation was introduced in this House, it was regarded by the Members of this House as being a major break through, and I do not think any contribution made on that occasion was more indicative of that attitude than the contribution of the present Tánaiste when he said that it was hundreds of years since an army sponsored by the Irish Government had gone overseas. The break through was made in 1960. Indeed, it is fair to say that before that time, even in 1958, we had sent a force of 50 officers to the UN observer group in the Lebanon. It is important that we recognise what has been achieved by our forces and our policies in the interim period, and also, of course, to recognise the great potential they have in the future.

One might ask why it is that Ireland should be called upon at this time to play this role. For an answer to this question one need go no further than to note what the Taoiseach said when this Act was first being passed through this House, at column 1878, Volume 183, of the Official Report of 20th July, 1960:

The question naturally arises why the Secretary-General should address his request to Ireland rather than to other members of the United Nations which, from many points of view, might be better able to contribute to the United Nations Force than ourselves. The answer is provided, I believe, by the special position we occupy in relation to world affairs and by the policies we have been able to pursue since we became a member of the United Nations in 1956.

That was the answer then, and I am glad to say it is the answer now. I hope it will always continue to be the answer. In so far as the Fianna Fáil Government initiated this trend, we certainly, not just for that reason, but for the obvious reasons behind the Minister's proposal today, are very ready and willing to support it.

There are, however, some differences in this situation of which the House might take note. The first difference which arises between the Congo situation at that time which was the purpose behind the Defence (Amendment) Act of that date, and the present situation, is that here we are concerned with an international conflict, one in relation to which the Minister said we must be careful that anything we would say should not in any way inflame the position there. Nonetheless, from the point of view of our troops going there, we have to face the fact that here we are concerned with the situation that a cease fire has been brought about basically through the intervention of two world powers exercising their influence and protecting their interests. We are very anxious to ensure that the cease fire, brought about for whatever reason, will be maintained but that, even further, it will lead to a permanent and secure peace in that area.

However, I understand we have a situation in which —the Minister can elaborate on this in his reply—the troops will be placing themselves between the combatants prior to the cease fire within almost hundreds of yards of each other. This is very different from any position in which our troops would have found themselves either in the Congo or subsequently in Cyprus. It will obviously call for the greatest restraint on the part of our troops and the UN peace keeping force but also for the greatest restraint and guarantees on the part of the combatants and the other nations involved as well. What can be achieved here can only be achieved through the good will and co-operation of all concerned. We would like to be assured that our forces there and all the UN forces—because when we speak of our forces we speak of them as being part of the UN peace-keeping force and not in any narrow national sense—will be protected and be given guarantees in the performance of their duties to the best possible extent.

This is a period both of great hope for the Middle East and at the same time a period of great danger both for the Middle East and for the forces giving their services in the cause of peace. We are, therefore, concerned for the physical protection of our troops who, we hope, will not have to engage, in the defence of peace or otherwise, in any confrontations. We are concerned for the physical protection of all the forces that will be engaged on this very delicate mission.

There is another factor as well pertaining to our force to which I shall just make a passing reference, as our spokesman on Defence will deal with it in further detail. The Minister has said it is intended from our point of view to provide in the region of 240 of all ranks of whom approximately one half will be transferred from Cyprus. As I understand it, the individual members of our forces on UN peace-keeping operations are there in a voluntary capacity. I wonder whether the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Defence have considered—I presume and hope they have and if not I would like that they would now consider—that those who are in Cyprus would be given an opportunity of volunteering for this service and will not be just transferred, without consultation with them, to this new service. It is service of a different type though service for the same end and the same purpose, the maintenance of world peace and order. The individuals concerned and their families may be anxious that they would be given the option, as they would be given before signing on for any operation, of accepting or rejecting the opportunity of serving in this particular operation.

There is, of course, too, the question of Cyprus itself. I was very gratified, as I am sure so many Members of the House would have been gratified, to hear from time to time from the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister at European level, both publicly and privately, of their recognition of the very effective role our troops were playing in the peace-keeping operation in Cyprus, due to the confidence which the people of Cyprus had in them and their tolerance, good humour and understanding. If it were necessary up to now to maintain the peace-keeping force in Cyprus it is equally necessary to do so now despite the urgent and serious demands which exist for a peace-keeping force in the Middle East.

We are always ready to meet our responsibilities, but I must ask whether we intend to replace the troops in Cyprus? Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Defence have any information to suggest that the position in Cyprus is now such that these troops are not necessary? We wish to serve the cause of peace where-ever that may be necessary and where-ever the opportunity arises. We want to help to ease tensions wherever they arise. It is quite clear that the trends of the world today are such that, no matter where tensions arise or how narrow their base may be initially, somehow the major powers of the world may become involved in a peripheral or indirect way as a matter of status, influence, or determination of their position.

We must be sure that wherever there are trouble spots internationally our forces and the UN forces in general will be able to head off any possibility of developing friction. The financing of the UN peace-keeping operation was raised over a considerable period by a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Aiken. To the best of my knowledge there were significant arrears due to the Government here from the United Nations Peace-Keeping Operations Fund. There were significant arrears to that fund which were due from some of the major powers who were indirectly involved in bringing about the situation which led to the cease-fire in the Middle East.

If we want to maintain a situation where the UN can function effectively and promptly we must, particularly in times of peace and not just in times of crisis, ensure that the machinery will exist to finance peace-keeping operations when the occasion arises. Every member of the Security Council representing the major powers should honour their commitments and obligations by, as the Taoiseach of the time said, contributing to the peace-keeping operations of the UN. This might be an appropriate time to raise this question again because some of those who have been constantly in arrears are fairly actively concerned with the Middle East situation. It is interesting to note how times have changed. Deputy Corish said, when speaking on this subject on an earlier occasion, that we might consider sending someone outside the Army to keep an eye on the situation to see that our volunteers were not involved in something in which they should not be involved. Time and events have since proved that no such suggestion was necessary. Our Army are trained and equipped to discharge their functions without being overseen by anyone outside the Army. Events have proved that they, in conjunction with their colleagues, whether in the Congo, Cyprus or the Middle East, have discharged their responsibilities to the UN and have played a very significant part in bringing about peace in these areas. They helped to ease world tensions in the long run.

There is a broader side to this conflict. I do not intend to discuss it in detail. I intend to recognise the limits on our political involvement or influence in the Middle East situation. Nevertheless it must be said that for many years now there has been a constant problem in the Middle East, not just for the nations concerned but for others. There has been misery and suffering, which we recognise now to be part of our misery and suffering insofar as nations now have a greater understanding of their brotherhood with each other than they had 20 years ago.

Had the moneys provided by the great powers in supporting the military activities of recent weeks been provided for the purpose of bringing about a peaceful resolution of the Middle East situation, how much further would we have come on the road to a permanent and just peace in that area, even allowing for the complexities of the problem. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of a previous Government, Mr. Aiken, suggested at the UN on many occasions that it was necessary to set up a compensation fund for the Arabs who had been deprived of their lands. This money should provide, where possible, for the restoration of their lands. Full compensation and an opportunity to set up elsewhere with capital amounting to $1,000 per head was suggested in 1958. That is 15 years ago. It was suggested that the great powers should help those who suffered, perticularly in the Middle East and Israel. Israel was born out of disaster, persecution and suffering. We recognise the sufferings of the people there during their lifetime. Their numbers were increased by the persecution of other nations in Europe during the Second World War. The suggestion of help to those who suffered is still there but has not yet been taken up by the major powers. The suggestion has not been promoted to the extent one would have hoped for.

Where one reads the debates of 1958 one senses the feeling and hope that the problem of the Middle East would be solved and that it was necessary to solve it within the foreseeable future, speaking as of that time. Now, 15 years later, we are still in the same situation. One has the impression that the European nations, recognising the limitations set on them, are looking to their own national interests rather than to the contribution which they can make to effective and permanent peace in the Middle East.

I acknowledge the complexity of the position. It is strange that it was due to the nuclear alert of the United States and to the possible confrontation between that Power and Russia that the cease fire came about. Other nations who might not be directly concerned might have played, not just in the last few weeks or months but in the intervening years, a much more effective role in bringing about a situation which would have helped to head off these developments. We are in a position of relative peace and ease arising out of what might have been an international conflict of major proportions. It is time that we, small as we are, made it clear that our existence and the existence of peoples all over the world can be compromised and put at issue by the power play of the major nations with their nuclear armaments and power. As long as this situation is allowed to continue we will be dependent on the reactions of the powerful nations and, in particular, on individuals in positions of power in those nations.

We must lead a movement for peace in the United Nations to ensure, as was done by a former Minister, Mr. Aiken, the control of the spread of nuclear weapons and armaments and, to go on from there, the reduction of the stockpile of nuclear weapons with a view to destroying or effectively putting an end to the threat of nuclear war which hangs over every one of us every day of our lives. This is not a situation in which young people can grow up in peace and security. We want to make a contribution to world peace and understanding. The result of this situation is that it has brought about a cease fire. I should not like to think that we would have to go to the brink on any future occasion to ensure world peace.

We may be small, but I believe our view of the role we play in world peace through the United Nations is repeated by every small nation seeking peace throughout the world. Since our force is one of those to be called upon on this occasion, as it has in the past and will in the future, and since we are one of the non-aligned nations who can speak with independence and confidence about our position and world peace and security, we must make it quite clear that, while we may not have strength of arms behind us, we certainly have the strength of justice. We must ensure through international co-operation, and particularly through the United Nations, that those situations can be prevented and world peace guaranteed.

I welcome this opportunity and am confident that our forces will play an effective role in peace keeping in the troubled areas. We, on this side of the House, will support this motion and any further motion the Minister may feel necessary to introduce to the House from time to time to fulfil our role in the cause of international peace and security.

I wish to intervene very briefly in this debate. My own past experience of what is involved in peace-keeping operations makes me very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to the risks involved in a peace-keeping operation. I would hope that there is no misunderstanding among the powers who set up this peace-keeping emergency force—but we cannot determine that here—or by the Members of this House or among the people of this country about this.

I am speaking in support of this motion, which I hope will be carried unanimously. I should like everybody to be clear on the fact that this is not a no-risk operation. Deputy O'Kennedy spoke of the need to ensure the physical protection of the force and of the Irish contingent in it. We all hope that their will not be in danger and they will not come under fire; but if they do and something goes wrong, there is no one who can afford them physical protection.

Brave men, tested in similar conditions elsewhere, go there to provide protection for others. There is no one, but no one, who can protect them. We should be clear about this. If there is anyone here who feels that this risk should be run, let him say so. Let no one come back afterwards in other circumstances and say that these men should not have been risked. I said this was not a no-risk operation but I do not want to suggest that these risks are excessive for the great purpose of maintaining the peace and giving an opportunity for lasting peace to be restored in that area.

In some ways this particular peace-keeping operation starts with happier auguries than any other in the past. As compared with the previous United Nations Expeditionary Force in the Middle East, this is one which is based on a Security Council decision and therefore, has a higher status in international law. This is a point in its favour. You may say that the United Nations operation in the Congo also started out as a Security Council decision, but it then ran into difficulties because of the failure of consensus and, a division of opinion among the great powers. There is reason for better hope now. The Congo operation took place in "cold war" conditions and before the existing détente between the great powers. This is the first post-détente Security Council operation. These are good auguries. As quoted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the points made by the Secretary-General in his interpretation of this are valid.

It remains true however that we are taking a risk. Those who go into this with their eyes open are also taking a risk. It is our duty to those concerned and the people who elected us to make that explicit here. The fact that it is a peace-keeping operation does not mean that it will always be taking place in peaceful conditions. In his speech Deputy O'Kennedy rightly underlined that fact and it is undoubtedly true. The force would be in great difficulties if war were to break out again because they would have to be got out and there would be risks involved. If concensus broke down in the Security Council the whole matter would have to be looked at again. We hope none of those things will happen and there are good auguries for such hope.

I should like to conclude on an optimistic note. We are sending them in hope but not closing our eyes to the risks involved.

I fully subscribe to the views expressed concerning the honour that the request for Irish troops to go into this troubled spot bestows on our Defence Forces. While I have no doubt that they have earned a reputation which would make them acceptable in any trouble spot throughout the world I cannot but think at the same time that it is a bit of a horse laugh to see our Government and our Defence Forces seeking to create peace where there is trouble throughout the world while here in our own country we do not seem able to do anything about it or even to be trying very hard and, if we are, we appear to be trying in the wrong way.

I also suggest that in this exercise the Minister for Foreign Affairs should take whatever steps he can to ensure that those who do not know the score here in our country are not misled by the presence of our troops in this new trouble spot into believing that we have no trouble at home that we might need help to solve. If at all possible he should try to get the UN more interested than they appear to be in our problem here. We seem to be very fine members of the UN when something is required of us but when we have required something of that body the goods do not seem to be delivered. Perhaps this new demand on our resources, whereby we are sending a voluntary force into a very troubled area, should be an occasion when we should underline to the UN that we have problems and that there are very few outside this land caring, doing or prepared to do anything about them.

I suggest also that in the Minister's contacts with the two major powers who have intervened and acted so quickly in this dispute he should realise that if they could be induced to utilise their colossal influence they could bring a peaceful end to our problem here in a very short time. This occasion might be used to get across that point of view. As regards what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said, I could not agree more in that our troops in going to the Middle East are not having a picnic outing and that there are very definite and grave dangers that they will run into trouble. It is wise to put that before the House in terms as specific as those used by the Minister. The House in agreeing to this measure— as I am sure they will—will be doing so without any illusions that it is a picnic or that there are no dangers. The dangers are there and will remain for some time and although we all hope it will not happen, anything can happen. We hope our peace keeping force will return with their mission accomplished in a fairly short time.

Overall, I think the exercise is good for the morale of the Army. This type of exercise, since we first began to participate in it, has raised the morale of the Defence Forces and the more frequently and pressingly our forces are requested for those delicate tasks the more it becomes clear to members of the Defence Force that they have been doing a good job and, perhaps, through experience have learned to do it even better now than they did initially. In the long term it is good for us to be able to say that to the extent that we have resources of this type at our disposal we have played our part. Yet, I cannot but feel with many of those who know the situation in this country that it is rather queer that we seem to be able to help quite substantially despite our small size in settling the problems of other nations in any part of the globe and yet we seem unable to perform this service for ourselves nor do we seem to get much sympathy or thought from the other powers of the great United Nations who seem to be able to act if the situation is grave enough and represents a threat to the greater powers or threatens to lead to a major conflagration. I think the smaller members of the UN are used to run errands when required by the big powers but if these small powers want something themselves as we do— peace in this land—very little can be expected from the big powers. We have learned that in recent years. While I agree with sending our troops as proposed, I do so not forgetting that we are leaving our own problem unresolved. It is a burning problem and in relation to the size of our community it is, perhaps, as great a problem as the one we now propose to try to alleviate in the Middle East.

I am glad that we have time to discuss this motion. I can appreciate the efforts required on the part of the Minister to bring it to the House in a hurry. It was only on 25th October that the United Nations Security Council passed the resolution and here we have this very important motion just a few days later. I and my colleague Deputy O'Kennedy will agree that we should send those troops on this peace-keeping mission. We are well aware, as others have said, that there are risks involved and we know that our troops in this mission will be exposed to very great dangers which may lead to loss of life or permanent injury. Nobody here is under any illusion as to what is at stake.

Having said that, I think there is a little confusion about the motion and I should like the Minister for Foreign Affairs when replying to clarify the matter. I may be critical but it is constructive criticism. I see, according to the motion that the force has been established by the Security Council of the UN for the performance of duties of a police character. Further on I see that the Secretary General has stipulated three essential conditions to enable the force to carry out these tasks effectively—first, that the force will have at all times the full confidence and backing of the Security Council; secondly, that it must operate with the full co-operation of the parties concerned and thirdly, it must be able to function as an integrated and efficient military unit. I think this is a little confusing but no doubt the Minister will be able to clarify it.

Later on I note that the Secretary General has stipulated that the force shall be provided with weapons of a defensive character only and that self-defence will include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council. I think there is something contradictory in those statements and I say this because it is only fair when our forces are going there that whoever is in command should know what it is all about and what he has to do. Like the other speakers, I am well aware that we as a nation are playing more than our part in trying to promote peace in the world. We send troops or observers to many parts of the globe; we have lost men in foreign fields. That was very sad for us but we and our men have gained a reputation of honesty and impartiality and our troops have been most efficient and have been welcome wherever they have been. That can be said truthfully, no matter where an Irish peace keeping force has operated.

It is sad that some of the bigger members States of the United Nations will not send their forces or, should I say, that their forces are not acceptable to both sides in the present dispute. That is the kernel of the matter. Our troops will be joining troops from Finland, Austria and other small nations. The non-aligned countries are being asked to carry out many peace keeping duties. This seems unfair. Small countries are being asked to carry a burden which is out of proportion to their population and their military strength. Domestic matters may arise which will not allow them to play that role forever. The United Nations should be well aware that the small nations cannot forever bear the burden the bigger nations should be bearing.

Deputy O'Kennedy said that the United Nations were in arrears in paying money to the nations who provided soldiers and observers for peace-keeping duties. I hope the Minister will bring us up to date on that position. We are all anxious to hear what he will have to say about it. The Minister told us that 250 men of all ranks will be going and that approximately half of them will be transferred from Cyprus. I understand that when men were being recruited for the Cyprus operation it was on a voluntary basis. They volunteered and there was not much trouble in filling the contingents. I should like the Minister to state whether that is the position at the moment. No doubt the motion before the House will be passed unanimously but I should like to know are men still volunteering for this service. There will be a strain on our Defence Forces on the home front. The Minister stated that the strength of the Army at the end of June had not increased over the previous three or four months. Since we are sending out extra troops, we will be put to the pin of our collar with regard to security.

Like Deputy O'Kennedy, I should like to inquire who will be taking the place of the Irish troops in Cyprus. They did a good job and they were very welcome. They were very successful. Is there any danger that the troops who will replace them, and who will be coming from other nations, might upset the balance within that island? Everybody must realise that it was the success of our troops and those of other nations which made peace possible in that Island.

There is also the question of the safety of our men when they are deployed in the Middle East. I do not know where they will be going. I suppose it will be wherever the Commander-in-Chief thinks fit to send them. I have no doubt that the Government are as concerned as I am to see to it that our personnel will be well looked after. It is vital that supplies will be kept up. There has been some talk—I do not know where it came from—to the effect that it will not be easy to send supplies to those troops in the event of hostilities breaking out again, even in a localised way.

If some great power—as happened before—starts to arm either side or both sides, what happens? In the recent conflict millions of pounds were spent on providing arms and military material, ground to air missiles and air to air missiles, for both sides. That was very sad. Was any guarantee given to the United Nations by the USA and the Soviet Union that that would not happen again? If they again start to provide arms to both sides, we should have a hard look at what role our peace-keeping forces should play. If the Minister becomes aware that both sides are arming for another battle, he should come back to the Dáil for a further discussion on what our role in the Middle East should be. Everybody knows that the peace will have to be kept for two or three years until they are ready to have another "go" at each other. Our men would then be caught in the middle and it would be very hard to get them out. I have no doubt that the Minister and the Government are as concerned about that as I am.

Like the Minister, I could not praise our Army too much for the excellent way in which they behaved in the various fields to which they were sent. They established themselves as a highly trained force, very efficient and impartial. Our party will give consent to this motion. We are well aware that many risks are involved. We are depending on the Government to take every precaution to safeguard our personnel. If the Government want extra legislation to safeguard our troops, we will be only too glad to come back to the House to discuss it.

It is a great honour that we should be asked to send our troops to take part in this great work of charity. The horrible things which have happened have been encouraged if not motivated by other forces larger than ours. It says something for our Irish heritage and for our position internationally that we are acceptable to both sides. That holds good for other small nations such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Austria. There are Canadian troops in Cyprus. There are also observers from other countries.

Last week was quite tumultuous so far as the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs were concerned because, when hostilities looked like ceasing, the question arose as to how peace keeping could be achieved, and how observers could be provided. The first request received was for nine officers. The Government acceded immediately to that request. Those nine officers have been selected and, so far as I know, are at the moment almost finished with their medical and other tests and will be going out within the next few days.

Then there was the request that our troops in Cyprus be transferred to the Middle East. After consideration of the request it was decided that, in order that our international obligations be met and our high reputation preserved, the request should be complied with. At that stage it was pointed out that the number that would leave Cyprus would be about 125. It is not possible to be specific on the number because a small number must remain behind to carry out such duties as looking after equipment. Attention was then drawn to the fact that this was not even a lieutenantcolonel's command and a request was made that we provide about another 100 men.

At present our own security duties are heavy. We must ensure that subversives of all kinds will not continue with the activities that have resulted in almost 900 people being killed during the past four years. Therefore, we have to consider this request very seriously but the concensus of opinion in the Government was that, notwithstanding our heavy commitments at home, Ireland should again carry her head high and that we should provide these extra men.

Only this evening I received from the Chief-of-Staff the present proposal, that is, that we would increase the 25th Infantry Group by 131, that the additional company would be 93 and the extra HQ personnel would be 38. I presume that would include the nine officers. There are other people, such as doctors and technical staff, who were not taken into consideration in the first appraisal of the situation. It is necessary that the group should be self-contained, that they would be able to look after themselves medically, technically and in every other way. They are not going on a picnic. The military authorities are carrying out their responsibility to the letter of the law to ensure that our men are provided with the very best that it is possible to provide for them.

It has been pointed out in the House that at some stage the men could experience difficulties in obtaining food. Of course, it will not be all fun and games for them. However, the Army are to be congratulated when one considers that the earliest departure date was Monday, November 5th. The actual date will be determined by medical process. Five days is the minimum required and that is contigent on all the people having had overseas service within the past three years. Therefore, the date, November 5th, may be extended by a few days; but in the case of the specialists who must go and who have increased in number, as I have indicated, the medical process will take 14 days.

I wish to accentuate that this is not a matter merely of another 131 men. These men must be taken from their various commands. We must choose the young and the fit, people who would be able to endure the climate of the Middle East both in winter and in summer. I spent a period of six weeks in that area at one stage and I can tell the House that the climate is not very nice. We must decide whether the men are fit physically for the arduous duties that will be required of them. We must replace them at home but we must ensure that we send a contingent of young men of whom we can be proud and whom the UN will be glad to have. The assignment is a difficult one.

During the past week I have been engaged in the discussions relating to the duties that may be required of the men and I have been advised by senior staff officers of the Army, each of whom has served either in the Middle East, in the Congo or in Cyprus, of what will be involved. It may transpire that our men will be the jam in the sandwich, that is, that they may find themselves in a situation where the Arabs are half a mile away on the one side and the Israelis on the other side. Our men may be popular when then arrive; they may be popular a year later or they may be very unpopular. However that is something that will be dictated not by them, not by the diligence with which they perfrom their duties, not by how friendly they may be with the people concerned, but by how politics move in the Middle East and by the light in which the Israelis and the Arabs view their presence. Each may see them as a body helping the other side.

As has been recalled, the Niemba ambush resulted in Irish blood being left on foreign shores. In this instance, too, our boys are undertaking a serious task. The decision to send them was a serious one; but, now that that decision has been taken, we must back them with all the help that they need. Most of the equipment they require will be provided by the UN. I assure the House that, so far as I am concerned, I will keep as close a contact as possible, through my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and directly in the military sense, if necessary, to ensure that the Irish contingent are well serviced. I know that the other side of the House are with me in this regard.

I move now to a pleasant feature of this matter, that is, the fact that two colonels of our Army have been placed in extremely important positions in the Middle East. Colonel Paddy Hogan is second-in-command to General Siilasvuo, the Finnish general who is Chief-of-Staff there, that is, he is in command of the entire force there. It must be remembered that there are two types of force. The first request we received was for nine officers for UNTSO, which is mainly an unarmed force of officers whose duty it is to observe a truce that may exist in any part of the world. Where a breach of a truce is seen or, in their opinion, has occurred, they report such breach to the UN so that a more serious breach or major hostilities could be prevented at source and negotiations begun immediately.

Colonel Bunworth is acting head of UNTSO in the whole of that war-torn region. I cannot tell the House at this stage what is the position in relation to General Siilasvuo and Colonel Bunworth, but it is satisfactory to know that two of the most senior appointments have been given to Irishmen and that they have been given them because of their good service in that region.

I have been asked what is the position in relation to volunteers. In relation to the first request for officers I can assure the House that almost every young man, married or single, wished to be sent to the Middle East. What happened was that the OCs of the various commands put forward six names. Twenty-four people were short-listed and of these nine have been selected by the military authorities. I presume that manner of selection was as good as any other.

The position in relation to the men who are in Cyprus is that those who joined the force before 1966 have the right to opt out if they do not wish to volunteer, while those who joined after that year can be sent anywhere under the terms of their admission to the Army, but at no time has anybody wanted to get out of it. They are a devoted body of men who act as a unit. They joined up as soldiers. They took an oath. A lot of the time being a soldier entails watchful waiting, but when the opportunity arrives, when, shall we say, the chance is presented for him to be a real soldier, a member of our Army will take it. I have the utmost confidence that that will occur in every case. All of our troops in Cyprus have signed agreements. They can be transferred, but the legal position is pre-1966. They would be in a different position if they had not signed their agreements.

I must at this point call attention to the fact that our Army is under-established and that we are to begin a heavy recruitment compaign almost immediately. I intend to say in another place, and I say it now in the House, that the removal from here of 300 officers and men has a much greater effect on us than the proportion of 300 to 11,000 would seem to represent. When those men come back they will have one month in which they can be put into their various commands again, to be reassimilated, before they are ready again for the Border duties which are so important. The Government, with the full co-operation and support of the Opposition, had to take the decision to put Ireland's head high abroad by placing our troops in foreign services so that our reputation abroad would be preserved, and I do not think anybody will object to my asking in the House to join with the Government in asking for replacements in the Army.

The opportunities are good and I try my best, and will continue to do so, to improve them. Our men at the moment are serving as long as 100 hours per week, even though for 35 hours of that they may be in barracks waiting for a call. Still, they are far from their wives, families or sweethearts. This is a disincentive for them at the end of three years to rejoin, and we are now looking for replacements if for no other reason than to ensure that those now in the Army will not be asked to serve further extra hours, may I say without overtime. Then, perhaps in months or a year or one and a half years those young men will have reached a point where they can join those honoured men now in the service of the country.

All will agree with the plea of the Minister for Defence for replacements for the troops who will be leaving. It is appropriate to say a few words on an occasion like this, even though they will have to be careful words.

The Minister will be replying to some points made by Deputy Meaney. I agree that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was quite right to point out that the troops we are asking to go to the Middle East will not be going into a situation such as that which exists in Cyprus. There is more than that involved and it is important that they should go as volunteers, as did all our troops who went abroad.

One Deputy queried the apparent inconsistency of our sending troops abroad when we have our own problems. That is a valid point. It appears to be an inconsistency, but this is not the place in which to engage in a debate on that issue. I hope that at some stage we will have reached a quieter situation in which the problems referred to by that Deputy can be fully discussed here. Nevertheless, I think one can say, bearing in mind that there is little or nothing that can be done by way of use of troops in the area of our country in which there is difficulty, that it is very much to our credit that over the years a small country like this, which has had its very difficult, almost impossible, national problems, has been and is now contributing to peace keeping efforts in different parts of the world.

Much has been made of the point that the UN, or perhaps some of the major powers in that organisation, have not taken greater interest in our problems here. The UN are precluded from doing so by what is called international law. Nevertheless, it is a good thing that a small nation like this, despite the disinterest of the major foreign powers in our problems, is still prepared to make its contribution in difficult world situations. I do not think it is any harm to speak out at a time such as this, when we have been asked by the Security Council to make this contribution. A small nation should be able to speak independently and constructively about the rather frightening play of power politics among the major powers which we have seen in relation to this area of strife in the Middle East during the past 15 years. These powers, as has been said, have been engaged in supplying arms to both sides, not in the interests of any fundamental rights but because of their own involvements in power politics.

There is not a lot small nations can do but those nations which apparently qualify only because they are not involved in major power politics—independent nations—should in the near future make their voices heard more strongly in pointing out the fright and the fear that is being caused by games of power politics among the major world powers. Perhaps a little telling-off of this kind would be listened to. In any case it would not do any harm.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister for Defence, said that this is a great honour for our country, but it is not entirely an honour so much as an obligation. I would not mind pointing out to some of these powers that there are very few independents available because of their various influences. These powers should be told that they are in a pretty bad way when they have to come to a small independent nation of this kind looking for forces to contribute to peace when they could themselves make major contributions to peace if they made up their minds to do so.

It is a good thing to see that we have 100 per cent of a goodwill send off for our contingent. With a great sense of pride I noted the tributes paid by Members of this House to the members of the Defence Forces who for many years have played an important part in peace keeping duties throughout the world. In that troubled land they are going to throw oil on the troubled waters and I hope they will be very successful.

I am aware that oil has been thrown on the fires burning in these lands by the bigger nations. It may be that it is sensible to have a smaller nation, who knows what it is to have suffered, involved in such peace keeping operations. The remark by Deputy Blaney that this Government is doing nothing in its own country for peace is regrettable. In this regard I would suggest that Deputy Blaney examine his own conscience.

I hope, and pray, that we will not have a shot fired in anger by our own Army, that they will continue with the good work they have done in the past, bring honour and glory to this country and bring peace and goodwill to the land that once gave us those words. I hope they will be successful in bringing peace and goodwill between all men and all nations and I hope that will apply to our own country very soon.

I should like to join with the other Members in wishing our military personnel every success and safety in their new task. It was very nice to hear the obvious concern being expressed by all Members of the House for their welfare, especially the concern expressed by our Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Posts and Telegraphs.

It is significant to note that our Army has been acceptable to take part in this very important and, perhaps crucial area at the same time other members of the European Community have not fared so well—indeed sanctions have been taken out against them almost. Since our country, under the present leadership, have embarked on a positive and dynamic outward looking policy we are happy to see the reaction and the effect this is having. I should like to compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the way he has consistently portrayed our country in Europe and in the United Nations. It is not only to his credit but to the credit of those who before him embarked on this same type of policy. In this way our country can regain a good name and show that we are capable of playing a fuller and better role in international politics. I want to support the Minister in the arduous work he is doing and wish him every success.

Deputy Brugha when he said that it was not just an honour but an obligation for us to assist in this matter struck the right note. It is an obligation and one that we recognise to be such. It is not merely a general obligation—if asked, one obviously wants to help. It is even more than that because the position in the Middle East is such that the number of countries available and acceptable to assist is remarkably few and this is now posing a problem. By mutual agreement the great powers, the permanent members of the Security Council, are at this stage regarded as being out of court for this purpose.

Because of doubts amongst the different alliances in Europe about each other, members of these alliances are mutually unacceptable at this point in time. The Middle East affair has aroused such partisanship in many other parts of the world that many other countries are so identified with one or other protagonist—rather more with one than the other numerically— that to define countries whose forces would be acceptable to both sides is in this instance quite strikingly difficult. It is the recognition of this fact, as well as a sense of the honour paid to us, that has made it necessary for this Government to take this matter very seriously and try to meet this obligation. It has not been easy.

The original request was for nine officers and that was met. The Minister for Defence has said that he was then asked to transfer the Cyprus force and this was agreed to very rapidly. Then we were asked to reinforce this and to virtually double its strength. That, of course, poses a problem because it involves reduction in the available strength at home and we had to consider that very seriously. Indeed, it was not without very careful thought that we agreed in view of the pressure we were under. One Deputy spoke about the Army being at the pin of its collar to do the work it has to do at the present and that is a very fair expression.

In normal circumstances and had there not been this very particular problem we would not easily have agreed to transfer forces in this country at this time, but given the fact that so few countries are in a position to help we had no alternative but to do what we could even if this puts our own domestic situation under strain. The Minister for Defence has said that he intends to initiate a recruiting campaign, which, I think, was due in any event, but it is all the more necessary now. I hope, as the Minister indicated, it will be all the more successful perhaps, in view of the attention drawn to the Irish Army and its role by what is now happening.

It is important that we succeed. We have a problem at home of a kind which the other participants in this force do not have and it is not easy for us to meet the dual demands of our own domestic security and our international role which the particular circumstances of the case have devolved upon us somewhat unexpectedly and in a way that we cannot resist.

Deputies have made several comments on the role of the super powers in this area. Deputy O'Kennedy said that perhaps if the money spent in supplying arms had been spent in other ways the crisis might not have arisen. That is a point of view that could well be true. Another Deputy raised the question of whether these super powers are going to continue supplying arms to the participants thereby potentially increasing the danger to the United Nations force. That is a very fair question. I cannot, at this moment, assure him that there is any guarantee that it will not happen. It will certainly be the purpose of our Government to try to prevent that happening. Any efforts we have made —and we have been concerned to do what we can throughout the past month—have been in that direction. There will now be another incentive to reinforce them in view of the increasing danger that will arise if more arms are poured into the area.

Deputy Meaney raised that point, one which I consider to be a very fair point and one which is very much in my mind.

The question of the danger to our forces has been mentioned. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was concerned least the particular mode of expression of Deputy O'Kennedy would suggest that he felt there was some way in which we could offer a guarantee that they would not be in danger. I hope this was not Deputy O'Kennedy's intention. Indeed, Deputy Meaney went on to stress that they would be, in fact, in very great danger.

We can offer no guarantee on this point. They are separating two very large armies which have already come into conflict in major wars on four occasions and have had on other occasions been involved in minor conflicts along the border. All we can do is to help to create the conditions internationally propitious for negotiations and likely to lead to a reduction in tension. Our diplomatic efforts will be directed towards that. However, there can be no guarantee of the safety of our force which is going to be, in a sense, pinned down between two such combatants with their long tradition of repeated conflict.

As the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs so rightly said, no one should have any illusions on this point. Deputy Meaney made the position of the Opposition clear on that and we are agreed in recognising the danger but realise we have an obligation to accept that danger. The troops concerned will be those who volunteered for overseas service and, in the circumstances, that is important.

I was asked what troops would replace them in Cyprus. We are not at the moment in a position to say what troops would replace them, although it is the intention of the Secretary-General that they will be replaced in Cyprus. I can only add to that that the Greek, Turkish and Cypriot Governments have agreed to our troops being transferred. Our troops have been extraordinarily acceptable in Cyprus. The work they have done has endeared them to the two communities in the difficult situation in which they find themselves. The Cypriot, Greek and Turkish Governments recognised there was a particular need for our forces there but perhaps it may be somewhat easier to find alternative forces in Cyprus than in the even more controversial area of the Middle East. However, we have no information at the moment about the troops who will replace our soldiers. Immediately, I think they will be replaced by the remaining forces in Cyprus extending their area of activity temporarily, pending the transfer of other forces.

I was asked about the question of arrears. There has always been a problem of arrears of payment to us in respect of Cyprus due to the way that operation is organised. However, that will not arise in this case because what we have here is an operation that is part of the normal expenditure of the United Nations and we should not face a problem in this case as we faced in Cyprus.

I would ask the Minister to elaborate on the problems of the arrears regarding Cyprus due to the way that operation is organised.

I am not sure I can elaborate on it in great detail from my recollection at the moment. I was not briefed to talk about Cyprus in this debate. As a former Minister, the Deputy will know that there has been a problem here in the past and that the particular resolutions under which the Cyprus operation was organised are such that there is not an accepted obligation for it to be financed as a normal UN activity. This has meant that the operation has depended on voluntary contributions which have not always come. The arrears are not very serious at this time, but there always is an arrears situation. It is my understanding that the Middle East operation is quite different, organised as it is under the Security Council and as part of normal UN activities. For that reason we should not face the problem of arrears. I cannot develop it further. If the Deputy would like more details of the arrears problem perhaps he would put down a question and, given due notice, I shall be glad to enlighten him further.

Deputy Meaney raised a question of the different terms used for police activities, military units, and self defence. It is quite understandable he should raise a question here. The position is that UN operations are regarded as police operations because they are policing situations with a view to preserving the peace. They are not military operations in the sense of setting out to conquer territory or to defeat another army. They are police operations carried out by military units, as is the case, less happily, in Northern Ireland. Obviously, police duties can be carried out by military units, and we ourselves are using military units to reinforce and assist in police activities in this country. There is not any contradiction here. The police activities refer to the nature of the objectives and the aims of the United Nations. The force is policing a cease fire with military units who will only engage in military activity in self-defence or in defence of the operation they are carrying out. I hope I have satisfied Deputy Meaney on this point.

Does policing there relate to military personnel policing military, rather than military personnel policing civilians?

Obviously in this case the police activities involve policing a cease fire between two armies. I did not intend my analogy to be a full one but only to say that the mere fact that an army is involved does not mean it cannot be engaged in policing activities of one kind or another.

It is different from the experience in the North.

It is. Perhaps the analogy was a badly drawn one. The question of volunteers has been dealt with by the Minister for Defence. Deputy Meaney referred to the problem of the static size of the Army. The Minister dealt with that by referring to the imminent recruitment campaign, which I hope will solve that problem to a considerable degree.

Deputy Blaney raised other issues not really proper to this debate. I would only say that this Government have been concerned to ensure that the attention of other governments with whom we have friendly relations is drawn to the situation in Northern Ireland. We have taken every opportunity, and we have gone out of our way, to seek opportunities, to explain the position to other countries with which we have diplomatic relations. We have ensured that the United Nations, through the speech I made there, are aware of the situation and in our contacts with the UN secretariat we have made sure they understand the position here. We do not seek at this moment UN intervention in a situation of which there are some hopes of solving by negotiations between the different interests in the country, negotiations involving the United Kingdom Government. However, so long as the situation persists and is not resolved, one can never exclude the possibility of the situation arising in which assistance might be called for from other countries. That is why we keep in close touch with them and keep them fully informed. That is why in the last sentence of my UN speech I made it clear we do not close off that possibility because it is something that could happen. We hope it never will arise, we pray it will never happen, but we have not excluded it. In replying to Deputy Blaney, I would not want in this debate to go beyond those few comments which I think are appropriate.

I recognise at all times the risk our men are facing. What I was merely asking was that, recognising the real dangers that exist, we would take every precaution to guard as much as possible against any injury or death.

The United Nations have a very good record of going to great lengths to protect the forces operating on their behalf. I do not think we have any fears there will be any lack of concern on the part of the Secretary General of the United Nations or the officials under him so far as that is concerned. All that can be done will be done. It is a question of trying to reduce the tension so that the dangers are minimised by getting back to a normal situation and by moving towards peace in the area which, hopefully, will make it possible for this force to be withdrawn completely.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn