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.