I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves of the report by the Minister for Defence pursuant to section 4 of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Haughey.
Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993: Motion.
I take it that is satisfactory. Agreed.
I wish to place on record the position of peacekeeping vis-á-vis peace enforcement. Peacekeeping has been defined by the Secretary General of the United Nations as “the deployment of a United Nations presence in the field hitherto with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally involving United Nations military and-or police personnel and frequently civilians as well”. Peacekeeping is a technique that expands the possibilities for the prevention of conflict and the making of peace. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorises the Security Council to undertake, if necessary, coercive measures, including operations by land, sea and air of the United Nations, in order to maintain and restore international peace and security. It is under this authority that UNOSOM II was established. The original mandate for the force has been changed and is now more in line with the traditional peacekeeping mandates.
In accordance with section 4 of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993, I wish to report to the House on Irish military participation in United Nations missions. This relates not only to Somalia but to worldwide commitments in peacekeeping. As our participation in the second United Nations operation in Somalia — UNOSOM II — gave rise to the need for the enactment of that Act, I will deal with that mission first — it is a mission I know well. I visited Somalia on four or five occasions. I was unaccompanied on my first visit to the country as Minister for Foreign Affairs in August 1992. On that occasion I wanted to bring to world attention the tragic events in Somalia. In the following months I accompanied the President on a visit to that country. As Minister for Defence I visited Somalia on two occasions, first, in advance of the Defence Forces participation in this mission and on St. Patrick's Day last I visited Baidoa.
The advance party of the first transport company with UNOSOM II arrived in Somalia on 25 August 1993 together with equipment and stores, and the main body was deploved on 1 September 1993. The present Irish transport company consists of seven officers, 29 NCOs and 52 privates. In addition, one officer and one NCO have been serving at UNOSOM II headquarters since 25 November 1993 as a contingent liaison team and, since 12 January 1994, three officers have held staff appointments at force headquarters. Four members of the Garda Síochána are serving with UNOSOM II.
The Irish transport is based at Baidoa, 150 miles from Mogadishu and the position there at present is generally calm. The first unit settled in very quickly and established very good relations with the local community which is presided over by the Elder system. The Elders were cooperative and supportive of the United Nations and more specifically, the Irish contingent. They were also very supportive of all the aid agencies, particularly Concern, GOAL, the Irish Red Cross and Medicine sans Frontier. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the work done by the Irish aid agencies in Baidoa and in Somalia generally. They have left a legacy there, particularly in Baidoa where there is an orphanage, a school and basic hospitalisation, barefoot doctor type medical care.
The principal duty of the Irish contingent has been the provision of essential supplies — fuel, food and water — to the military components of UNOSOM II. It has also assisted in the movement of stores and equipment of units deploying or redeploying in the mission area. In addition, the Irish unit has provided assistance to the Irish aid agencies, Concern and GOAL as well as other humanitarian agencies. Responsibility for the Baidoa area was transferred from the French to the Indian contingent towards the end of 1993.
I pay particular tribute to the French contingent who, under the leadership of General Guidry, were very supportive of the Irish transport company. I had the opportunity to speak with and write to the French Minister for Defence, Monsieur Leotard, to express my appreciation of the work done by his troops in the context of our obligations in the Baidoa area. At present our people are in the gentle, courageous and concerned care of the Indian brigade under Brigadier General Bhagat. The Indian soldiers are of the very highest professional standard. Our logistics unit, when moving between Baidoa and Mogadishu, is under the courageous and concerned care of this general and his troops and their help is deeply appreciated. I take the opportunity to express Ireland's appreciation for the work they are doing on our behalf and on behalf of international peace in that unsettled part of the world.
As the House is aware, the mandate of UNOSOM II was changed when on 4 February 1994 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a revised mandate for the force, the thrust of which is peacekeeping. The Security Council Resolution also authorised the gradual reduction of UNOSOM II to a force level of up to 22,000 — the previous mandate required a force of 28,000 personnel. The resolution reaffirmed the objective that UNOSOM II complete its mission by March 1995.
The revision of the UNOSOM mandate to something more akin to the traditional peacekeeping mandate under which successive Irish contingents have proved their worth will, I am certain, be welcomed by all Members. I have been keenly conscious that many Deputies have had understandable reservations about the direction in which UN policy appeared to be heading. I have shared those reservations and I am sure that the House will endorse the very significant modification of policy which has taken place.
To avoid doubt, I reiterate that Irish troops are not, and have not been, involved in operational peace-enforcement. Their role has been that of a transport logistics unit. Without the enactment of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993, however, armed Irish troops exceeding 12 in number could not have been sent to Somalia in August 1993, nor can they in future be involved in any new mission under Chapter VII of the UN Charter without the specific approval of this House in each case.
Following a comprehensive assessment of the situation, including a detailed discussion which I had with the UN UnderSecretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, Mr. Kofi Annan, and a positive recommendation by the military authorities, the Government decided on 4 February 1994 to supply a further transport unit to UNOSOM II. The replacement contingent took up duty on 7 March 1994 and when I visited Somalia a short time later the members of the Second Transport Company were already in full command of their responsibilities.
In the course of my visit to UNOSOM, I had a meeting in Nairobi with General Aidid, interim president Ali Mahdi and Ambassador Kouyate, Acting Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General. I also had meetings in Mogadishu with the UNOSOM Force Commander General Aboo and Mr. Abdul Touray, Political Official with UNOSOM. I raised with all concerned the attack on the UN convoy on 15 March and have already informed the House about the incident. In brief, there is general agreement that the incident was almost certainly unpremeditated and not related to the political situation in Somalia; as far as can be ascertained it appears that the convoy got caught up in an armed confrontation between rival sub-clans.
With a view to improving the security of our personnel I arranged that two SISU armoured personnel carriers held by the Defence Forces should be dispatched to our contingent. These arrived in Baidoa on 9 May.
The future involvement of Irish troops in Somalia is being reassessed at present in a fundamental way. By the end of August next, Irish troops will have served in Somalia for a period of 12 months. Ireland is the only West European country with troops there. The time may have arrived to withdraw in the circumstances and having regard to our many other overseas commitments. The final decision in the matter will be one for Government and will have regard to the recommendations of the military authorities. The question will be decided well ahead of the end of the current tour of duty in September next.
Our largest single overseas commitment is with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon — UNIFIL. The contingent there now consists of a battalion of 574, an element of 47 in UNIFIL Headquarters Camp Command, 13 staff personnel and 12 military police at UNIFIL Headquarters and 17 members of the Force Mobile Reserve — making a total of 663. Nine other countries participate in UNIFIL. The total strength of the force is 5,294.
Even with the assistance of UNIFIL, the Government of Lebanon has been unable to assert its authority throughout the country. Some progress in this regard has been made in recent months with the deployment southward of about 300 members of the Lebanese Army. Lebanese military personnel have a number of positions within the UNIFIL area of operations, one of which is in the Irish area.
The year 1993 was marked by continued attacks by armed elements on positions held by the de facto forces in or close to the Israeli controlled area and the return of fire from those positions to villages in the Irish area of operations. Following the deaths in the Israeli enclave early in July of a number of Israeli military personnel, the Israeli Defence Forces initiated a bombardment of South Lebanon which lasted from 25 to 31 July and resulted in the deaths of about 130 Lebanese, 15 of which occurred in the UNIFIL area of operations. The Irish area of operations was subjected to intense shelling and attacks by aircraft and helicopters. Fortunately, apart from a few cases of a very minor injury and shock. Irish personnel were unharmed by the bombardment. While the safety of personnel was a top priority, the Irish battalion provided food and shelter for up to 600 local refugees. They behaved in the most courageous manner in the circumstances of this outrageous attack.
The Minister of State visited Cyprus where we have a large Irish contingent. In addition to the force commander Major-General Michael Minehane, 30 Irish military personnel are currently serving with UNFICYP. There is a personnel officer in the Field Operations division of UN Headquarters in New York. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East is Ireland's most longstanding UN commitment. At present 17 Irish officers are attached to UNTSO, and are currently based in Israel, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and the Lebanon.
When the mandate of the United Nations Observer Group in Central America and the United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan-Pakistan terminated on 15 March 1990, one officer was retained from each of the ten countries, including Ireland, which had contributed military observers to the mission. In June 1991, eight Irish officers were deployed for service with UNIKOM, the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission, which was established on 9 April 1991 in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Irish officers have also participated since 1991 in another UN mission set up that year, the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, also known as MINURSO. I know that area extremely well, having visited the refugee camps on two separate occasions. Six Irish officers are serving as observers with MINURSO, at the force headquarters in Laayoune. The total strength of MINURSO, involving 24 other countries is 351.
The remaining UN mission in which Irish military personnel are involved is UNPROFOR — the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia. Of the nine officers serving with UNPROFOR, four are based in Bosnia and four in Croatia. The amount currently outstanding in respect of Irish participation in UN operations is about £13.5 million, most of which relates to involvement in UNIFIL.
The Government, as evidenced in its recent restatement of the roles of the Defence Forces, remains committed to the principle of military participation in the United Nations operation in the cause of international peace. Consistent with the safety of our troops, which is an overriding consideration, this commitment will continue to represent a practical and exemplary manifestation of our support for the highest ideals of the United Nations.
I regret having gone through my script so quickly but felt I should conclude to allow Deputy Haughey to make his contribution which I know will add to the general debate.
I am very grateful to the Minister for sharing his time with me. The House would probably be far more interested in what the Minister has to say as the person who decides policy in this area. However, I hope I can add something to the debate.
I congratulate the Irish troops serving in Somalia. They have done us proud and, by all accounts, are very well respected by other forces in that country.
I had reservations — to which the Minister referred — about amending the Defence Act. The change from peacekeeping to peace enforcement caused much debate in this House recently. The Minister himself has reservations about it but I accept that he is carrying out the wishes of the Government and can have a different private opinion.
I congratulate the Minister on putting Somalia on the world stage. He visited Somalia four times which clearly demonstrates Ireland's concern in that regard. I understand that a number of countries have pulled out for different reasons. I would not like to think our troops would remain there in isolation without cognisance being taken of the general picture and I am glad, therefore, that a review is underway.
Ireland is a neutral country and our neutrality has been enhanced by the addition of the new members to the European Union. We are an anti-colonial country and, generally speaking, a non-military nation. We promote peace, justice and basic human rights throughout the world through diplomacy and negotiation and we are well respected for the role we play.
Peace enforcement is a military phenomenon and, again, I welcome the Minister's expression of the view that in Somalia our troops have not, as it turns out, been involved in it. I suggest Ireland should not get involved in military conflicts; that would be the general view of the majority of people here. We are not a military nation but we can rely on our missionary work, our voluntary aid relief and our peacekeeping by the UN troops for which we are well respected. When the Defence (Amendment) Act was brought before the House, I suggested it could be a slippery slope and that Irish troops could become more involved in military activity when the next flashpoint occurred around the world. I do not, however, believe that is the case.
I wish to deal briefly with the problems in Rwanda where terrible slaughter is taking place. I understand approximately 20,000 people have been slaughtered and that refugees are fleeing to neighbouring countries. I welcome the role played by the Department of Foreign Affairs in the rescue of eight Irish citizens. Our people in Rwanda ministering to the refugees deserve the full support of all the authorities here in their work to bring aid and relief to those unfortunate people. Perhaps there is a role for peacekeeping by Irish troops in Rwanda but that would be a major decision to take. There is another view that for various reasons peacekeeping forces could be made up of troops from African nations.
The role of the UN comes under scrutiny at this time. The editorial in today's Irish Independent states: “The UN is riddled by politicking, jobbery, incompetence, even outright corruption”. Those are stark words but they highlight the need to review all aspects of the UN. The Cold War is ended and we could have collective security in a real way. I would welcome a fundamental review of the role of the UN in bringing about the new world order that we so dearly wish to see.
A review of Irish foreign policy is needed and that is recognised by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs. The recently sanctioned military action in Bosnia was a major decision. We are enjoying closer co-operation with the Western European Union and these issues must be addressed in a full national debate. In 1996 there will be a treaty making conference by the EU and these issues, as well as the consequences of our role in the area of foreign affairs, must be teased out carefully and put to the Irish people. Ireland is a non-military nation; we have a tremendous role to play with regard to the promotion of peace and justice, basic human rights, the delivery of aid relief and, indeed, highlighting the general global inequality.
I am grateful to the Minister for sharing his time. I am glad we know his views on various issues.
Apparently the Minister lent some of his ideas also to Deputy Haughey or at least they appear to come from the same stable.
That is no harm, of course.
It is nice to see such party unity.
It is not only horses that are born in stables.
Our Lord was born in a stable.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Minister's report on the peacekeeping duties of our Defence Forces over the past 12 months. We heard some lofty but sincere and genuine words from the Minister, and from Deputy Haughey, but they remind me of words spoken by the former Fianna Fáil leader, not entirely unknown to Deputy Haughey, in another context when he referred to people being "in the party but not for the party". In relation to peace enforcement we are officially, as per an Act of the Oireachtas, in the business of peace enforcement but I question whether we are for peace enforcement. I will return to that later.
The Minister's report is comprehensive. It outlines the position over the past 12 months and gives us the up-to-date picture in relation to our troops throughout the world. The fact that we automatically think of Somalia and the peace enforcement rather than the peacekeeping side of the equation is an indication of how we have adjusted to the change in the regulations which allow Ireland to take part in peace enforcement rather than peacekeeping measures. The Minister was at pains to point out and reiterate that Irish troops are not and have not been involved in operational peace enforcement measures and stated that their role had been that of a transport logistics unit. That is a valid point but having supported, by an Act of the Oireachtas and as a result of a Dáil debate last year, the idea of peace enforcement, we should not be ashamed to engage in such peace enforcement. Peace enforcement measures can be enacted by the UN and we must not fool ourselves into believing that all the problems in the world will disappear or that somebody else will address those problems for us. We must play our part.
It is important — and the Minister stated this also — that a decision is taken soon on the future of Irish troops in Somalia and that that decision is announced well in advance of the September deadline. I hope that we in this House will have an opportunity to debate that decision and the policy options in more detail and that we will not be back here next October or November simply to make statements on the matter. We all have points of view on this issue; the Minister has heard some of them during Question Time over the past weeks. Those views are valid and I hope the Minister will listen to what we have to say on Somalia and other options for peace enforcement before he makes his decision during the summer months.
The deployment of Irish troops on the ground in Somalia can be described as a limited success. The troops have brought hope to a region where there was little hope. Their assistance to the aid agencies has been of practical benefit to thousands of people on the ground and the famine problem would not have been relieved to the extent that it has been without the peace enforcement measures of the Irish troops there. I have certain concerns about what is happening in Somalia. It is not a perfect situation and it causes one to reflect on the command structure on the ground. The Minister gave us no indication of his views on that but questions must be asked and answers must be given. I would like him to address that point when replying because there has been much comment on how the command structure could be improved.
In addition to giving us the written report of what has taken place over the past 12 months, we should be given also some information about our state of readiness for other such peace enforcement missions if requested by the UN and agreed by the Oireachtas. There are many trouble spots in the world today; Deputy Haughey referred to some of them. We hear the complaints of our constituents on a daily basis in relation to Bosnia, Rwanda and many other areas throughout the world. We would like a magic wand to make those problems disappear but, unfortunately, that will not happen.
The political question must be addressed by the UN and if a solution is reached peace enforcement measures may be necessary. Can we wash our hands and say someone else will do the job? Somalia will not be the only area where Irish troops will be needed. I hope we will look in a mature fashion at future UN requests for troops to carry out peace enforcement measures.
As regards neutrality we cannot afford to keep our eyes shut when we see Finland, Sweden and Austria reviewing their options. Ireland in the new European and world order will have to play its part and on occasion that may involve peace enforcement. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and hope someone else will solve the problem.
Last year the Minister travelled to Somalia and saw at first hand the difficulties and dangers which the troops would face. However, this may not always be possible and it is important that we have reports from the chief of staff, the UN commanders in the various regions and from the Department of Foreign Affairs when making decisions on future peace enforcement requests.
There is a question mark over the Government's commitment to peace enforcement. The Minister has a view on this and other aspects of defence policy, as have other Members. How do the arguments made by the Minister equate with his duty to the troops? Troops are sent at the request of the UN and with the agreement of the Oireachtas. It is not fair to have troops on missions abroad without full Government support. I am not trying to make a cheap political point. I recognise the Minister is entitled to his view on peace enforcement versus peacekeeping but it causes difficulty. It would be preferable if troops on peace enforcement missions, even if they do not have operational roles, had the full support of the Minister.
We are paying a certain amount of lip service to our commitment to UN peace enforcement. What practical steps are we taking to ensure the present mission is successful? The necessary procedures must be put in place to ensure the success of future peace enforcement missions. There is no provision in the Estimates for the extra training and equipment which will be required if further peace enforcement measures are requested and agreed by the Oireachtas. Has this area been examined? The training and military equipment required for peace enforcement is virtually the same as that required for peacekeeping. Unfortunately over the last 20 years those killed in action have been on peacekeeping and not peace enforcing duties. What additions have been or are being made to Army ordnance to ensure the troops have the equipment, training and facilities necessary? The Minister said extra equipment was provided to the troops as they arrived in Baidoa on 9 May. Does he consider the extra personnel carriers would have been required at an earlier stage? The UN blue beret is not a magic shield which deflects the aggressors' bullets, whether the troops are on peacekeeping or peace enforcing missions. We must ensure that they have the full support of the Minister, the Cabinet and the Oireachtas and have all the facilities and equipment they require.
My party has no difficulty with the principle of peace enforcement or with our troops playing a more active role in this area. Hopefully we will have a more resolute, strengthened and efficient UN. Everyone asks about the position in Bosnia and unfortunately they are now talking about Rwanda. They question the effectiveness of the UN. To date there have been no answers.
The Taoiseach poured scorn on the Fine Gael stance on neutrality, Europe and the Western European Union at the launch of his party's Euro manifesto. He trotted out the old Fianna Fáil line that they were whiter than white and more neutral than anyone else. On a recent "Questions and Answers" programme a Fianna Fáil MEP demanded immediate intervention in Bosnia and Rwanda. This will not happen by chance. If we wish to have a say in influencing such decisions we must be involved in the Western European Union. That is why my party suggested that the observer status we enjoy at the Western European Union, which is supported by the Government, should be extended to full membership, thereby allowing us to influence European developments in establishing a common foreign and security policy. We cannot simply wash our hands of the problems and hope they will disappear.
A review of the Common Foreign and Security Policy co-operation provisions of the Maastricht Treaty will be carried out in 1996. Fine Gael policy on this matter is based on three principles: the democratic control of decision-making, arms control and a reduction in nuclear proliferation and the specialised contribution of Irish forces to humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping. We have a marvellous tradition in providing humanitarian assistance and helping to maintain peace in various areas throughout the world, and I hope this will continue.
On the question of conscription — the Taoiseach left a question mark over this issue last Monday — the Fine Gael Party totally opposes the concept of a conscripted European army. We are trying to highlight the advantages of Ireland adopting a full status within the Western European Union. We cannot afford to remove ourselves from the central political decisions which will have to be taken at European and UN level during the coming years. We must have a say in decisions of fundamental importance to Europe and the world. It is very easy for us to don our neutrality cap, but this will not be enough in future. We have to be responsible, far-seeing and willing and able to play a full role in this regard. I have strayed from the matter under discussion, but it is important to point out that the difficulties which appear to exist about the peace enforcment role of our Army will be dwarfed by the wider political and defence questions which will arise in the coming years.
I congratulate all those involved in the UN mission during the past 12 months. They have performed their work in an exemplary fashion and the positive aspects of their endeavours can be seen in the countries in which they served. They have been a credit to themselves, the Army and us and I wish them well in their further duties. Despite my reservations about some minor aspects of his speech, I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this comprehensive report. He has an in-depth knowledge of and commitment to this matter, and I look forward to similar debates during the coming months. I hope we will be given an opportunity to debate the situation in regard to the troops in Somalia in advance of the Minister making his decision on this matter rather than the Minister simply making a statement after he has made his decision.
I compliment the Minister on the introduction of this report which he promised some months ago. It is important for this House to be acquainted with the activities of our Army personnel overseas. I am very proud of the military personnel and various aid bodies who have carried out tremendous work on behalf of people in dire distress. The increasing number of conflicts in various countries will place a demand on our troops for either peacekeeping or peace enforcement duties for many years to come.
The important role of the Irish forces in United Nations peacekeeping operations in troubled areas throughout the globe has been well documented. It is a source of pride that our soldiers have performed so well in difficult circumstances. No one should underestimate the important role of the United Nations. While, from time to time, we may criticise this organisation for alleged faults, we should bear in mind that it has a powerful influence on warring factions and wealthy nations and is in a position to impose moral obligations on countries and their leaders whose differing views often lead to war and destruction. While we may question its shortcomings we must acknowledge the premier role the UN plays in resolving conflicts and bringing about peace in warring nations. Without it the world would be a much bleaker place: we would have a world of bloody conflict and confrontation with nations in turmoil.
Ireland, a small nation, makes a significant contribution through the UN in maintaining peace in troubled areas throughout the world. We cannot forget our involvement in the UN peacekeeping mission in the Congo during the early 1960s. We were proud to see our forces wear the blue beret of the UN in far flung corners of the world and were determined to play our part on the world stage in the wider struggle for peace in developing countries. Our involvement in the UN peacekeeping mission in the Congo is etched into the souls of many Irish people because, for the first time, we became aware that keeping peace cost the lives of our soldiers. By its nature, soldiering entails death, and we have been strengthened in our determination to play an even greater role in UN operations because many of our soldiers have given their lives in the pursuit of peace.
We must not ignore the risks involved in peacekeeping. The Minister correctly stated that legislation governing the role of Irish troops in Somalia refers to neither peacekeeping nor peace enforcement. However, we must not fool ourselves into thinking that our forces in Somalia are not in any danger. Regardless of the word one uses to describe their role, our troops on UN missions face danger every day. We are all aware of what can happen when the peacekeeping role of troops is changed to peace enforcement. For example, in Somalia, where armed thugs roamed the streets at will killing and looting without restraint, American troops suffered heavy casualties. The Irish delegation in Somalia, which included senior civil servants and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, had to be protected by those armed gangs who demanded money for the service.
The crisis in these countries is caused by a breakdown in law and order, the collapse of legal government structures as a result of internal dispute and the violent overthrow of those in power. There is little hope of a peaceful resolution of such disputes. We order our troops into these areas as part of a UN mission, which very often is the last hope for many people. We have seen the heroic efforts made by our troops in Somalia and Sarajevo in not only maintaining peace but in saving the lives of innocent civilians.
When we debate the role of the UN we often seem to think only in terms of military solutions. However, many Irish civilian aid workers play a vitally important role in caring for the victims of these conflicts. For example, Mr. Eddie O'Dwyer from County Limerick who experienced the horror of war in Gorazde eloquently summed up what is happening in that country. He said he left behind the makings of a ghetto. Gorazde, located in a valley along the river Drina, was once a beautiful town. Many people from the surrounding countryside have been forced to take refuge there, resulting in the area being grossly overpopulated, people living wherever they can in burned out houses and holes in the ground. These are the words of a man who has seen at first hand the horror of war and conflict and how it hurts a civilian population. How can we sit in this Chamber and not be moved by such vivid images? All we need do is imagine such inhuman behaviour perpetrated in towns throughout our countryside. While we could never imagine such depravity taking place in our country we must bear in mind that many of the world's trouble spots were once peaceful nations seeking only prosperity and security for their citizens.
The role of the United Nations is of vital importance to countries in conflict. That organisation represents the only hope of peace and restoration of normality. That is why I support the Government proposal to widen the role of our forces. However, I wish to sound a note of caution. Whenever we take decisions on engaging our troops in peace enforcement we must be prepared to live with the consequences. We cannot ignore the dangers inherent in such United Nations operations. Within a peace enforcement role our troops will be exposed to even greater danger and will be closer to the lines of conflict. If our forces are to be given an expanded role within the United Nations they should be made aware of the dangers and be equipped appropriately.
Today newspaper headlines inform us of the latest atrocities in Rwanda, where up to one quarter of a million people have been killed in a bloody tribal conflict between opposing factions bidding for power. While our first reaction may be to ignore such savage conflict we cannot turn our backs on such inhuman behaviour. We must openly acknowledge that the United Nations has a role to play in resolving the underlying causes of tension and strife, even when it takes place in developing countries, because all of our interests are interrelated. As the world draws ever nearer to a global economy the West will have an even greater interest in a peaceful trading bloc so necessary to economic growth.
The tensions of the Cold War between the so-called super powers are no more. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Russian Federation and the Commonwealth of Independent States, the removal of a major sphere of traditional influence has tipped the balance of equilibrium towards the removal of ideology as a means of division. Instead, economic and industrial influences enter the picture. The breakup of the former Soviet Union and the disruption of the traditional East-West power struggle for political supremacy have lead to the emergence of the European Union as an influential force in the resolution of conflict. With the proposed enlargement of the European Union it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of the Baltic states will join Europe in the future and, to our mutual interest, develop trade and industrial ties.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to the future development of the European Union when he addressed the Association of European Journalists last month. He said it was possible, in certain circumstances, to foresee the European Union reinforcing its political role with a defence policy, as envisaged under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. The Tánaiste also foresaw the emergence of a new collective security system for Europe as a whole. At the same time he emphasised that Ireland's policy of military neutrality has served this country well. These are interesting comments and we should carefully consider his words.
The Tánaiste is a capable politician who appears to have his finger on the pulse of a new approach to security within Europe. There does not appear to be a contradiction in the Tánaiste's views because, if Europe is to have a new collective security system, it follows that Irish armed forces will have to form part of it. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the European Union will develop its own security policies and may intervene in some flash points whenever its military and-or commercial interests are threatened.
I am pleased to note that these issues will be the subject of a comprehensive policy approach in the Government's forthcoming White Paper. I am sure Members await that new policy document with interest. It is all very well to have policy documents and strategic plans, but, if we expect our troops to take part in peace enforcement missions we must ensure they are equipped on a par with the best in the world. Our troops must not be the needy cousins compared with other contingents. We must ensure they are provided with the resources and equipment necessary to enable them do a difficult job to the best of their ability.
I support the Government on this issue and urge the Minister for Defence to report back to the House at six-monthly intervals, to inform us whenever there are requests by the United Nations for Irish troops to take part in peace enforcement missions. While acknowledging that there is a certain amount of danger involved in peace enforcement there is national prestige to be gained. More importantly, the notion that we are part of the European Union will be underlined. As the European Union develops what the Tánaiste has described as a collective security system we must play our full part. Otherwise we will be left behind, merely regarded as a small, insignificant island on the periphery of Europe. Surely our history and traditions demand better treatment than to be ignored within the new Europe.
I welcome this opportunity to review the operations of the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993 in so far as it relates to the despatch of Irish troops to serve overseas with the United Nations. However, I am very surprised that no written report was provided by the Minister in advance of this debate. I received a telephone call shortly before the debate informing me that a copy of the Minister's speech would be available in the Library and I collected it shortly before the debate began.
In my experience it is almost unprecedented that a report of such importance should be presented verbally by the Minister. When the Dáil introduced this requirement during the debate on the Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993 in June last I do not believe anyone envisaged — perhaps the Minister did, but certainly not anyone on this side of the House — there would be anything other than a written report presented to the House — Given its nature it is a report which could have been provided at any time in recent months since it contains nothing of any significance, nothing new which would have necessitated awaiting decisions of one kind or another. The Act provides that a report be presented to this House as soon as may be after 1 January and also provides that we might vote on it. There is no resolution before the House in relation to this report, so we are not afforded an opportunity to vote on it if we so wish.
I do not believe this was the kind of procedure envisaged when the Bill was agreed in this House. It is another symptom of the less than honest way in which the Dáil and public have been treated by the Government in relation to this matter. The Defence (Amendment) Bill was introduced last year to facilitate the participation of Irish troops in the United Nations operations in Somalia. I opposed it and my party voted against it, not because we opposed the proposal to send Irish troops to Somalia per se but rather because we opposed sending them to Somalia to participate in a peace enforcement exercise as distinct from a peacekeeping operation, which had been the tradition of our Defence Forces.
While Somalia has disappeared from our television screens and newspaper headlines to be replaced by new horrors, such as those being perpetrated in Rwanda, Irish troops remain there and a new contingent was sent out at the beginning of March. I welcome the fact that, despite coming under attack on a number of occasions, casualties have been avoided although, given the unstable position in Somalia, it would be a mistake to believe there is no longer an element of danger for Irish troops.
We should also remember that, while it has not yet been the subject of such public attention, Irish troops continue to serve in the Lebanon and to face dangers, mainly from the Israelis and their Lebanese allies. Last summer Irish positions came under repeated fire as the Israelis launched a huge bombardment which wrought massive destruction on Southern Lebanon, killed more than 130 people and led to the displacement of tens of thousands more. We must hope that the historic agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation which today has led to the arrival of the first Palestinian police in the Gaza Strip, will eventually lead to a settlement of the wider conflict in the region, the ending of UNIFIL's mandate and the permanent withdrawal of the Irish contingent from that area.
When the Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993, was going through the Dáil last year I described it as one of the most significant changes in Irish foreign policy since we joined the European Community in 1972. I still believe that most people did not appreciate the significance of the changes made in that legislation. While we were told that the purpose of the Bill was to allow the participation of Irish troops in peace enforcement operations, the legislation made no reference whatsoever to peace enforcement, but authorised the commitment of Irish troops to "any international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations". There were no qualifications or conditions attached and the legislation effectively cleared the way for participation by Irish troops in aggressive military operations, once they had been sanctioned by the Security Council or the General Assembly.
In view of the points raised by other speakers to this debate in relation to the Western European Union, what precisely would the current phraseology in the Act mean in circumstances where the United Nations Security Council or the General Assembly were to sub-contract a peace enforcement mandate to the Western European Union? I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on whether Irish troops would be permitted to participate in such an operation under such a mandate under the current legislation.
The current review of the role and organisation of the Defence Forces cannot be taken in isolation from the wider debate about foreign policy, the role being developed for Ireland within the European Union and the commitment in the Maastricht Treaty to be involved in European defence policy, with the possibility post 1996 of being involved in European defence per se. These issues cannot be ignored and I would expect the Minister to lead the debate on the implications for the Irish Defence Forces of the current debate on Irish foreign policy. The two can no longer be kept in separate compartments as they have been in the past.
I still believe the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993, was a mistake, that it was passed without proper consideration of the implications and that it should be repealed. I remain committed to the participation of Irish troops in peacekeeping operations. Like most Irish people I am immensely proud of the Army in helping to keep the peace in various trouble spots throughout the world. However, I do not want to see Irish troops become the pawns of the big powers in dangerous and ill-defined peace enforcement operations. It strikes me in relation to the report before us that while the Minister referred to the changes in the mandate for Somalia he did not detail the terms of that mandate to the House in the course of his report. It is significant that the mandates under which the United Nations sends troops abroad, whether Irish or otherwise, are not automatically made available to Deputies.
Recent events in Yemen raise the question of how decisions about intervention are made by the Security Council. We have a range of experiences since the ending of the Cold War in various parts of the world, ranging from the former Yugoslavia to Somalia. Rwanda is a new area of concern which appears to be the tip of a very large iceberg. We need to be extremely conscious of the implications for the rest of Africa of the type of conflict which is raging in Rwanda and the role the United Nations may play. A civil war is raging in Yemen and there are no calls that I am aware of for the United Nations to intervene to stop it. Yet there are calls in relation to Rwanda and there have been persistent calls in relation to Bosnia.
There are issues behind the newspaper headlines which make for decisions at United Nations level. I draw attention to an article on the United Nations — which I quoted last year in the defence debate — in the March, 1993 issue of the Irish Law Times by Ms Liz Heffernan, a lecturer in law in Trinity College, Dublin, who said:
signs of undemocratic practices have emerged . . . not least the selective nature of Security Council action and the use of the Council as a vehicle for the promotion of the agendas of permanent members.
We need to have a more comprehensive and global view of the role of the United Nations forces and the role the Irish Defence Forces will play now and in the future in relation to requests we may have from the United Nations and the areas of activity. For example, the Minister in his report referred to "future involvement of Irish troops". He makes the point in relation to Somalia that the time may have arrived to withdraw "in the circumstances and having regard to our many other commitments". The Minister does not explain what he means by "in the circumstances". In the latter part of his report he stated that: "Consistent with the safety of our troops, which is an overriding consideration, this commitment to peacekeeping will continue...". What policy considerations does the Minister take into account in reviewing the participation of Irish troops in Somalia? It is not clear from the report why he believes it is necessary seriously to consider withdrawing Irish troops when the conflict is not settled. These are issues which the Minister's report should have dealt with in more detail. If the Minister had produced a longer report for the House it could have dealt with the issues I am raising.
The Somalian United Nations operation is a classic example of the difficulties which the United Nations will face in the future. While there was a genuine need to ensure that humanitarian aid was provided for those in need and that the relief organisations were protected, the whole approach was wrong. In the early days of the operation huge numbers of mainly United States combat troops were sent into Somalia with an array of deadly weapons and sophisticated equipment but rather than bringing peace they brought more conflict. While the conduct of Irish troops has been exemplary, the conduct of the United Nations contingents was more appropriate to an army of occupation. I draw attention to the fact that in Somalia United Nations troops shelled suburban areas and housing estates, supposedly in pursuit of the warlord Aidid, now commonly know as General Aidid. Housing estates were shelled in the belief that the conflict would end if they got this man. That was a nonsense.
I drew attention to the fact that no one would stand for shelling a housing estate in Northern Ireland in the pursuit of apprehending those involved in the conflict such as the Chief of Staff of the IRA or the Loyalist paramilitaries. My point — and I made it at the time — is that this is a stark example of what can happen when the wrong approach is adopted and combat troops are used in what is essentially a new role for the United Nations, peace enforcement. I am not sure if it is known how many people died in pursuit of the political objective of the US troops of delivering the head of General Aidid to President Clinton. The US troops have left and the mandate of UNOSOM II has quite properly been changed to peacekeeping. General Aidid, the former warlord, remains at large and only two months ago was able to meet the Minister for Defence in Nairobi, who later described him as his good friend.
That is right.
I am not criticising the Minister for meeting him. I am pleased his good friend was alive to meet him and able to participate in the peace process in Somalia.
Whether troops are deployed in peacekeeping operations or peace enforcement operations is a serious matter. In reaching that decision we need to take account of myriad factors, of which we may not be aware because of distance and cultural differences.
I met General Aidid on three occasions, I got on particularly well with him and I felt that my third meeting with him might have helped a little in bringing peace to Somalia.
I am not criticising the role the Minister played, which was very positive. He has also put on record his view on the UN peace enforcement mandate.
Important information has come to light since the legislation was passed by the Dáil, that the Minister for Defence opposed sending Irish troops to Somalia on a peace enforcement mission. If we had known that last year who knows what the Dáil might have decided? The debate certainly would have been different. It seems that the demand for the amendment of the Defence Act came from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence defended that decision when all along apparently he was opposed to it. During an inspection of the most recent contingent of Irish troops going to Somalia he told a reporter from The Irish Times“I always felt that the UN enforcement mandate was a mistake, I believe that UN peacekeeping should remain peacekeeping simpliciter.” The Minister confirmed this view when responding to my questions on 13 April. It is virtually without precedent that an important decision of that kind should be made, that the Minister of the day should defend a decision although he is opposed to it and, subsequently, say in this House he was always opposed to it. I expect that if the Government seeks to put through another resolution seeking Irish troops for a peace enforcement mission he will refuse to push it through, it is the least he can do for this House and the Defence Forces.
I do not have time to dwell on the question of abandoning our neutrality, which is not a black and white issue, we do not have to choose a traditional type of neutrality versus militarism or involvement in military alliances. Ireland can play a much more sophisticated role in foreign affairs apart from joining the big boys in the hope that we will be regarded as good and as a result not ignored. We have a very real role to play as a small State with a very honourable role in peacekeeping around the world.
I have received representations from Defence Forces personnel who work in the Ordnance Survey Office. Members who served voluntarily abroad have found it very difficult to return to their previous jobs on their return. That is not a proper way to treat members of the Defence Forces who serve this country on peacekeeping missions. I understand from recent replies to my questions that all such officers have been re-employed by the Ordnance Survey Office but, as far as I know, not all in the jobs they held before going abroad. Ways must be found to ensure that when Army personnel volunteer to go abroad on peacekeeping duties their jobs are safe.
I apologise for the speed with which I delivered my opening address but this was due to the limitation on time.
Deputy De Rossa expressed concern that I delivered this report viva voce rather than placing it in the Oireachtas Library. I thought he would have welcomed that.
My point is that the Minister's report, which is essentially his speech, was placed in the Library only a short time before this debate started. The report should have been given to us at least a week ago and it should be more comprehensive.
The Deputy's first point is fair and I will consider it as the matter can be corrected. The Deputy questions the comprehensiveness of the report but I think it stands on its own and bears examination on any question of detail. I do not accept that aspect of the Deputy's criticism.
I welcome the contributions by Deputies Bradford, Clohessy and De Rossa, although most of Deputy De Rossa's contribution was in the area of foreign affairs — he referred to neutrality, observer status at the Western European Union and whether we should become a full member thereof as well as discussing security in 1996. These matters remain to be dealt with.
Deputy Bradford asked whether we will continue to serve in Somalia, that will be a question for the Taoiseach and his Government in due course. I am not certain that in the meantime we will be able to have a debate in anticipation of that decision. I imagine that the decision will be taken some time towards the end of June or July, the Dáil may be in recess so I do not wish to give an undertaking on the possibility of a debate. Today's debate was helpful and I know the Deputy's view on that issue.
Deputy Haughey paid tribute to the troops and welcomed the presence of our troops in Somalia. He referred to the happenings in Rwanda. We heard this morning that the Security Council will be discussing the question of sending additional United Nations troops in whatever capacity they might be required. I am grateful to the Deputies; this general discussion has been helpful and will advance my knowledge.
Question put and agreed to.