asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have received from the United Nations the result of the UN inquiry into the deaths of four Irish soldiers in Lebanon earlier this year; if he will outline the main findings of the report; if any action will be taken as a result of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Soldiers' Deaths in Lebanon.
7.
The UN investigation into the deaths of Corporal Heneghan, Private Walsh and Private Armstrong, killed by a landmine explosion on 21 March has recently been completed. However, the investigation was not able to establish who was responsible for placing the landmine there or against whom it was directed. The report concluded that there was no reason to expect a mine had been placed there that day, that all procedures were carried out correctly, and that no UNIFIL personnel can be made responsible for the incident.
The UN investigation into the death of Private McNeela, killed on 24 February this year, has not yet been completed.
Immediately after these deaths, the Minister for Defence asked the Chief of Staff to visit Lebanon to assess the situation there. Arising from this visit, a series of additional security measures to protect Irish personnel serving in UNIFIL were put into effect.
Firstly, is it the Minister's intention that the report from the United Nations will be published or placed in the Library of the House? Secondly, arising from his reply, is it possible to determine the type of mine that was used, is it common to any particular group operating in Lebanon and is it possible to deduce from this who may have been responsible for the deaths? Finally, when is it expected that the report on the death of Private McNeela will be available?
With regard to the first supplementary raised by the Deputy, it is not the practice to publish reports of this kind. I have indicated in my reply the main findings of the report which has been completed. As I said in the reply, the other report has not been finalised. With regard to the third supplementary from the Deputy, it is not possible for me to give a precise answer to that question but we have been pressing the United Nations in New York to have the investigation completed as soon as possible. With regard to the final supplementary, I have no information with me as to the type of mine used. If such information is available I will consider sending it to the Deputy.
I have no particular interest in knowing what type of mine was used but we know from experience in Northern Ireland that the security forces there, and the security forces here, can often deduce what group has placed a particular mine by the kind of device used and it may be possible for the United Nations to do likewise.
I might be given permission to say that when I was wearing a different hat — and as far as this country is concerned the belief is held — at times we found one supplier supplying both sides.
When this matter came up previously on 19 April the Taoiseach answered questions on behalf of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs. On that occasion, as the Chief of Staff had been instructed by the Minister for Defence to conduct an investigation into the deaths, I asked the Taoiseach if he would publish the result of that investigation. I do not want to push that point in particular because I can see difficulties with it but I would like to ask the Minister if the investigation by the Chief of Staff reached the same conclusions as the United Nations investigation. On that occasion also I asked the Taoiseach if he would consider calling in the Israeli Ambassador, and not just the Chargé d'Affaires to convey the very strongly felt feelings of this House about the actions of the Southern Lebanese Army and he said he would consider the matter. I would ask the Minister if that has been done.
With regard to the first part of Deputy Barry's question, I have given my view on whether or not the report will be published and I am glad the Deputy is not pressing that. With regard to the second part of his question ——
There are two reports: one by the United Nations and one by the Chief of Staff.
Yes. As Deputy Barry knows, the Chief of Staff was directed by the Minister for Defence to go and assess the situation in Lebanon and have a look at the overall security precautions being taken by the members of UNIFIL.
And to conduct an inquiry into the death.
I am not quibbling with the Deputy about this. I just want to say to him that, as I said in my reply to the question initially, the Minister for Defence asked the Chief of Staff to visit Lebanon, to assess the situation there and to report back to us. With regard to the position in relation to making our views known to the Government of Israel, the Deputy can readily take it from me, without any conditions or qualifications whatsoever, that we will continue to make clear to the Israeli authorities the total unacceptability to us of their failure to comply with resolutions of the Security Council which require them to withdraw from Southern Lebanon and their continued support for the South Lebanese Army, which was responsible for the death of Private McNeela. We have repeatedly conveyed to the Israeli authorities that we regard them as responsible for the actions of the South Lebanese Army and expect them to exercise effective control over that body. The Government will make strong protests to any State whose actions or omissions demonstrably contribute to attacks on Irish troops.
I accept that but my question referred to the statement the Taoiseach made on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in April. My point then was and continues to be, that the level at which these views are made known has its own significance. An officer from the Department of Foreign Affairs speaking to the Chargé d'Affaires is not the same, nor is it taken as seriously, as the Minister talking to the Ambassador.
The Israeli Chargé d'Affaires, Mr. Cashton, was immediately summoned to the Department. I am not too sure if we had an Ambassador from Israel at that time.
That is what the Taoiseach said in April when I said that the matter should be raised at a higher level.
If that is what the Taoiseach said, I would like to know why it was not possible to do so.
He did not say it was not possible. He said he would consider doing that.
I do not doubt what Deputy Barry is saying. I think — and I am open to correction on this for very obvious reasons — that there may not have been an Israeli Ambassador at that time but I will find out what the circumstances were and I will get in touch with the Deputy. If he then wishes to raise the matter at another time he can do so. I agree fully with him that if the Israeli Government are to gauge the strength of our comments by the level at which they are made, then there is a heavy obligation on us to make sure they are made at the highest possible level. I also understand it was the Chargé d'Affaires in New York who was summoned to the United Nations — I just read that in my brief. I take Deputy Barry's point and there is no disagreement whatsoever between us.