Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 May 1997

Vol. 479 No. 3

Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the dispatch, pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1960, as applied by the Defence (Amendment) Act, 1993, of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the UN authorised multinational Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996, and that it further approves the terms of the exchange of letters on Ireland's financial responsibilities arising from participation in SFOR, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 12 May, 1997.

The purpose of this motion, which is required under section 2 of the Defence Act, 1960, as applied by the Defence Act, 1993, is to enable the dispatch of an Irish contingent for service with the UN-authorised multinational Stabilisation Force — SFOR — in Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996. The motion also provides for approval of the terms of an exchange of letters with NATO clarifying Ireland's financial responsibilities arising from participation in SFOR, copies of which have been laid before the House. This exchange clarifies that Ireland, like all other non-NATO troop contributing nations, will be responsible for its own costs.

In commending this motion to the House I wish to emphasise three key points. First, SFOR's presence and role are indispensable to the international community's efforts to maintain and consolidate peace after a sustained conflict which was the most destructive in Europe since the Second World War. The dimensions of the suffering and loss were and remain shocking: over 400,000 people died in the four year conflict in former Yugoslavia. Over two million people were displaced internally or became international refugees. Second, SFOR operates under the mandate and authority of the United Nations Security Council. Third, Irish participation in SFOR is entirely in keeping with our foreign policy traditions and objectives. It is particularly in keeping with our long and respected tradition of United Nation's peacekeeping that Ireland should participate in this UN authorised force, whose contributors number over 30 states, allied and non-allied, neutral and non-aligned, including all those European states with whom we have served over the years in UN operations such as UNIFIL and UNFICYP. SFOR currently has some 31,000 troops deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina made up of contingents from the 16 members of NATO and from 19 non-NATO countries, including Russia and Ukraine, most of the countries of central and eastern Europe, the neutrals Sweden, Finland and Austria, and non-European non-aligned countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Malaysia.

The conflict in former Yugoslavia posed major — indeed defining — challenges to the UN, to the European Union and the international community at large. There can be no one who has not been touched by the humanitarian catastrophe, especially in Bosnia. The resolution of the differences in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains a central objective of the European Union's foreign policy. It is also, as was made clear in Chapter 10 of the White Paper, a priority of Irish foreign policy. Ireland made an important contribution at the political and diplomatic levels through our conduct of European Union policy during the recent Presidency, through ongoing Irish participation in the European Community Monitor Mission and through the provision of members of the Garda Síochána to the UN's International Police Task Force, including the former head of the force, Assistant Commissioner Peter Fitzgerald. Since the end of the Irish Presidency the level of our Defence Forces participation in the ECMM has been scaled down significantly from its Presidency level of 79 members.

In the context of the preparations for the Bosnia peace agreement in 1995, the UN Secretary General made clear his view to the Security Council that, to implement a peace agreement in Bosnia, the Security Council should authorise a multinational force, acting as appropriate with regional organisations or arrangements. The Security Council, acting as the body under the UN Charter charged with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, decided that NATO would take the lead in connection with the multinational force. A large number of states, including other neutrals such as Finland, Sweden and Austria, non-NATO states such as Russia, and non-European non-aligned states participated.

UN Security Council Resolution 1008 of 12 December 1996 authorised the establishment of the multinational Stabilisation Force, known as SFOR, for a planned period of 18 months from December 1996. SFOR's role is to help the parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement a peace accord, the "Dayton" agreement, to which they have freely agreed, and to contribute to a secure environment necessary for the consolidation and stabilisation of peace in the region. SFOR, like its predecessor force, the UN authorised Implementation Force, IFOR, is crucial to the efforts to preserve peace and contribute to a climate of confidence in which the political and democratic processes can be pursued after a war which has left a legacy of great bitterness and division.

In execution of its Security Council mandate, SFOR co-operates and works with the other agencies principally involved for example, the Office of the High Representative — currently Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister — the International Police Force, which includes a number of members of the Garda Síochána, UN civilian agencies such as the UNHCR, the International Red Cross and the OSCE. This co-operation covers a wide range of activities, notably maintaining local security, facilitating freedom of movement for the local population and assisting the return of refugees.

SFOR, like its predecessor force, IFOR, operates under Chapter VII of the UN Charter: that is, it is entitled to use force to implement its mandate, to separate the parties in the event of a resumption of hostilities or to protect itself.

Although SFOR's predecessor, IFOR, generally succeeded in achieving on time the military objectives assigned to it under the peace agreement, and therefore in providing an environment in which the tasks of civilian implementations could be addressed, progress on the civilian side has been consistently difficult to achieve, although some important results have been achieved during the 18 months since the peace agreement came into force. In relation to war crimes, the Government wishes to see all indicted war crimes suspects appear before the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague to face the charges against them. We believe full co-operation with the tribunal by all parties to the peace agreement is a fundamental obligation. It is ultimately the responsibility of the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to ensure that indicted persons are handed over to the tribunal. The Government, in co-operation with our European partners, will continue to press the parties involved to do so.

Following national elections in September 1996 which were facilitated by the close co-operation of IFOR and the OSCE, most common institutions have finally been established and are now beginning to function. However, their work is still at an early and fragile stage and requires further time for consolidation. It was not possible to organise local elections in 1996 and these have been scheduled for next September. Local elections will have a crucial impact on important aspects of civilian implementation such as freedom of movement, return of refugees and associated reconstruction and economic development. SFOR and the OSCE are working closely in preparation for the local elections.

Ethnic tensions remain high in many parts of the country and could easily erupt again into open conflict in the absence of an international stabilisation force. A secure environment must be maintained if civilian implementation is to move forward at the desired tempo and if democracy and reconciliation are to develop. SFOR, by its presence and numerical strength, has an indispensable role in deterring threats to peace and providing the confidence and security necessary for implementation of the civilian aspects of the peace agreement.

I believe it is important to keep clearly in focus the reality that the United Nations is increasingly reliant on regional organisations to help it meet the new security challenges of the post Cold War world. The new reality we must face is that no one institution in isolation can cope with the full range of new and multifaceted challenges to international security — challenges with military, humanitarian, economic and diplomatic dimensions and which can transcend ethnic, state and even regional boundaries. Former Yugoslavia is one example of this, the situation in the Great Lakes region of Africa is another and the situation in Albania is the most recent example of an internal conflict with roots radically different from those we have been accustomed to over the last 50 years.

The OSCE has developed and endorsed the concept of mutually reinforcing co-operation between security institutions and has encouraged a sense of common purpose between institutions to meet the new security challenges. In Bosnia it is evident that the UN, the OSCE, the EU, NATO and the Council of Europe are all playing valuable and mutually reinforcing and supportive roles across a broad spectrum of activity — military, civil and humanitarian.

It is not only in Europe that the UN has encouraged and authorised regional peacekeeping approaches. Recent peacekeeping initiatives in Liberia and Haiti are also examples of this approach. In Africa too, efforts have been in train to enhance a standing African peacekeeping capability based on the Organisation of African Unity. The mandate given to SFOR by the Security Council should be seen in this broader context.

Participation in SFOR would place Irish troops under the command structures established by NATO in accordance with its UN mandate, but the participation of other neutral countries such as Finland, Sweden and Austria, of non-NATO countries such as Russia and of non-European, non-aligned countries indicates that military neutrality or non-membership of NATO has not been a barrier to participation in IFOR and SFOR. Moreover, in the context of peacekeeping, it is important to distinguish between the role of NATO as a mutual defence alliance and the assistance which, as an international security institution, it is providing in support of peace-keeping and other operations under the authority of the UN Security Council or OSCE, including by making its resources and expertise available.

Chapter 4 of the White Paper has dealt with this issue in some detail. Participation in SFOR would place us alongside traditional and like-minded UN peacekeepers. Our involvement would be in line with the approach to peacekeeping set out in the White Paper. Non-involvement, on the other hand, would risk marginalising us from developments in conflict prevention and peacekeeping in Europe under UN and OSCE auspices. The reality is that SFOR is a mission in support of peace in Europe which has brought 35 countries together under the authority of the United Nations in a way which would have been unimaginable earlier this decade. I strongly believe that Ireland should become part of this multinational effort.

We have exchanged views with the other participating European neutral countries who, far from seeing participation in SFOR as incompatible with their positions outside alliances, value their participation as a practical contribution to the peace implementation process in Bosnia. Moreover, they have emphasised to us, as traditional UN peacekeepers, the importance of enhancing their experience of and influence over the development of peacekeeping in the post Cold War era. It is very much in our interest to enhance our experience and influence in co-operation with these traditional UN peacekeeping countries as peacekeeping evolves to meet the new challenges to peace and security which the international community will face.

In deciding on Irish participation in SFOR, the most careful consideration has been given to all aspects of the matter. A team of officials from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence, together with representatives of the Defence Forces, had preparatory consultations with NATO HQ in Brussels, with the SFOR co-ordination centre based at SHAPE in Mons, Belgium, and, subsequently, made a reconnaissance visit to SFOR HQ in Sarajevo to establish the operational, logistical and financial arrangements for a possible participation in SFOR. These consultations identified an SFOR requirement for a military police contingent at SFOR HQ in Sarajevo as one that the Irish Defence Forces would be in a position to meet.

The Irish military police element would be part of the international military police company at SFOR HQ, which consists of a company HQ and three MP platoons. Ireland is being asked to provide the company HQ and one of the platoons. The Irish MPs will perform the normal range of military police duties for SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, where approximately 8,000 SFOR troops are stationed. Duties would include: (a) enforcement of military discipline and good order; (b) monitoring and control of military vehicular traffic, including investigation of road traffic accidents: (c) enforcement of SFOR protection policy, in other words, measures to ensure the safety and security of SFOR troops; (d) investigations of incidents involving SFOR personnel or property; (e) HQ security functions, for example, security checks on SFOR compounds; (f) liaison with local police and the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF) and (g) operation of 24 hour international MP stations at SFOR HQ and/or other SFOR locations at Sarajevo.

The MPs would be armed and equipped for their personal protection to carry out this supporting role. The Irish contingent would comprise the MP company HQ, totalling 16 personnel, the MP platoon, totalling 27 and a national support element consisting of six personnel. In addition, Ireland is entitled to appoint an officer to the force HQ at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel who will be the national contingent commander. Each nation participating in SFOR is also invited to appoint a military liaison officer to the SFOR co-ordination centre at SHAPE, near Brussels. In total, the Irish deployment to SFOR would consist of 50 personnel of all ranks in SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, with one military liaison officer assigned to SHAPE in Mons, Belgium, for the duration of SFOR's mandate.

The role which has been offered to the Irish contingent is an important and responsible one and is clear testimony to the high regard which SFOR has for the professionalism and commitment of Irish peacekeepers. Arrangements are in place at NATO HQ in Brussels for regular political consultations and briefings with all troop contributing nations on developments relating to the force. Under the terms of the Security Council resolution, monthly progress reports are submitted to the UN Secretary General and the Security Council. As a troop contributor, Ireland will be consulted on the preparation of these reports.

It is envisaged that the Irish commitment to SFOR will be until the expiry of the force's mandate set out in Security Council Resolution 1088. The expiry of the mandate is scheduled to occur in June 1998. It is envisaged that rotation of the Irish contingent will be at six monthly intervals. In keeping with good peacekeeping practice, it is our intention to confirm to NATO that our contingent will not be withdrawn without four months prior notice, unless otherwise agreed.

I referred earlier to the fact that SFOR, like its predecessor IFOR, operates under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This protective element of the mandate is becoming the norm in UN peacekeeping operations. Troop contributing countries are increasingly unwilling to commit troops to UN operations unless there is a Chapter VII authorisation to enable the peacekeeping force to take all necessary measures to protect itself. The House may recall that the multinational force planned for Zaire late last year, for which the Dáil approved Irish participation, also had a Chapter VII mandate. SFOR's predecessor, IFOR, was initially deployed at a strength of 60,000 under a Chapter VII mandate to ensure that it would be able to deter any aggression against it. SFOR has been reduced in size to half that of IFOR in the light of the major diminution of the likelihood of the force coming under attack. Currently, the main risk to SFOR personnel in the area of operations is posed by land-mines and road traffic accidents, risks which the Irish personnel in the EC monitor mission have had run for the last six years.

In recommending that Ireland contribute a military police contingent to SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, safety and security factors, including the specific function of the military police in SFOR, which as I have already said is a supporting role, were taken fully into account.

In so far as the discharge of SFOR's mandate is concerned, the Irish contingent, like those of the other neutral countries in the force, would come under SFOR's central and unified command and control structure. However, non-NATO nations, including Ireland, would retain national command of their contingents. Moreover, the force commander would utilise national contingents in accordance with their capabilities, taking into account the advice of the contingent commander. These are standard arrangements for non-NATO troop contributors to SFOR.

The Irish military authorities would take the necessary measures to assure the maintenance of proper discipline and would retain exclusive criminal jurisdiction for the Irish contingent. The Irish contingent, as a non-NATO contingent, would enjoy the same rights, privileges and immunities as are provided for in the status of forces agreements signed between NATO and the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Contributors to SFOR are responsible for their own costs of participation. This is set out in the terms of the exchange of letters before the House. As the Attorney General's advice is that this exchange of letters on the financial arrangements would constitute an international agreement involving a charge on public funds within the meaning of Article 29 of the Constitution, the motion also seeks approval of the terms of the exchange.

SFOR is an important expression not only of the international community's commitment to peace in Bosnia but also reflects the new and mutually reinforcing and co-operative approach to ensuring international peace and security. Ireland has long been an advocate of co-operative approaches to security and participation in SFOR would be a concrete example of our commitment to inclusive co-operative security in Europe in general and to helping the people of Bosnia in their search for peace and normal political life after a conflict of catastrophic proportions.

Ireland has a long-standing reputation in UN peacekeeping which is a legitimate source of pride for all of us. I attach great importance to our continuing involvement in the mainstream of peacekeeping. Our participation in SFOR is important in this connection.

I know very well the concerns of Deputies about the tragic situation which has developed in Bosnia. I share these concerns. I also know well that Ireland can and must play its full part in helping to ensure peace in Bosnia. That is what we have been doing in a number of ways. The further step we are now taking is fully consistent with, and complementary to, the efforts we have made not only in Bosnia but also in the service of peace under the auspices of the United Nations throughout the world. I commend the motion to the House.

Ireland has contributed to UN peacekeeping missions since the early 1960s. Members of our armed forces and, more recently, the Garda Síochána have earned worldwide respect and admiration for their courage and skill as members of various UN missions. We, in Fianna Fáil, have always proudly promoted Ireland's humanitarian and peacekeeping role. Today, more than 40 years after Ireland first joined the United Nations, Fianna Fáil remains committed to making an active contribution to the development of collective security under the auspices of the United Nations. We are equally committed to enhancing Ireland's positive role in the United Nations through peacekeeping. Fianna Fáil supports the principle that Irish troops should be made available to the United Nations for peacekeeping missions on a case by case basis. We believe that, as a member of the United Nations, Ireland must participate in SFOR, the stability force deployed in the former Yugoslavia under a UN resolution. I ask each Member of the House to support the motion and the accompanying financial resolution. By supporting the motion we fulfil our duty as a member of the United Nations.

The SFOR mission has as its mandate the implementation of the Dayton agreement and has been operating under a Security Council resolution since 1995. I freely admit that SFOR troops are under NATO command. However, the key point is that the request for Irish participation comes from the United Nations which bears ultimate responsibility for the mission. SFOR is not a NATO force. This point is clearly demonstrated by the participation of 17 non-NATO member countries, including Sweden, Austria and Finland. Unlike the Government parties, Fianna Fáil does not suggest that Ireland must participate in SFOR because several other militarily neutral countries are doing so or risk isolation. Fianna Fáil supports Irish participation in SFOR as it is in keeping with our firm commitment to play a positive peacekeeping role in the United Nations.

Were it the case that the SFOR mission was not under the authority of a Security Council resolution, Fianna Fáil and the people would strenuously oppose Irish involvement. This goes equally for all missions under Partnership for Peace which is little other than NATO under another name. As Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, I support the participation of Irish troops only on the understanding that Irish participation has been requested by the United Nations and the mission operates under the authority of a Security Council resolution.

Since 1991, 350 Irish troops have served in the former Yugoslavia, mostly as observers. During the Irish EU Presidency more than 100 Irish troops staffed the monitoring mission run by the European Union in the area. Today, the House will decide whether we should commit a number of our soldiers to involvement in SFOR in the role of military police.

Fianna Fáil believes Ireland, as a militarily neutral nation without a colonial history, can make a valuable contribution to world affairs. Through involvement in the United Nations, the Organisation for Security Co-operation in Europe and the European Union, Ireland has developed an active and positive approach to foreign affairs while remaining true to the principle of military neutrality cherished by the people. It is within the context of Irish military neutrality and membership of the United Nations that Fianna Fáil supports the motion. As a neutral member of the United Nations, we have a positive contribution to make.

Fianna Fáil is determined that Ireland must not be forced, coaxed or cajoled into surrendering her valuable position of military neutrality. We will continue in Government as in Opposition to defend and promote Irish military neutrality as a valuable asset while making a valuable contribution and playing an active role in the international arena. The Government has consistently undermined Irish military neutrality through its weak, divided and vacillating foreign policy. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Spring, is determined Ireland must join the NATO-led Partnership for Peace which has been described by the American Ambassador to NATO as nothing less than second-class membership of NATO and a clear step on the road to full membership. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has stubbornly ignored these warnings and the serious implications membership of Partnership for Peace would have for Irish military neutrality and remains determined to recklessly force a change in Ireland's neutral military status. His justification for membership of Partnership for Peace is that everyone else has joined and is typical of the Government's "me too" approach to foreign policy.

During the six months of the Irish EU Presidency, a period when Ireland was placed centre stage and given a unique opportunity to influence the development of the European Union, the Government did nothing to advance the basic principles of military neutrality and nuclear non-proliferation held dear by the people. Through its inaction, the Government has enabled the potential development of the European Union as a self-centred military alliance.

On 21 March, the Dutch Presidency launched an initiative to commit the European Union to the progressive creation of a defence union. In this context, proposals to commit the European Union to a merger with the Western European Union, a military alliance with a first strike nuclear capability, and to formulate a mutual defence agreement have been mooted. A senior French diplomat stated in no uncertain terms that military neutrality was no longer compatible with EU membership. The Government continues to refuse to take action for fear of offending those member states in favour of such developments and has failed to provide an opportunity to engage in meaningful debate on this issue either publicly or in the Dáil.

The strategy statement of the Department of Foreign Affairs published in March removes all doubt as to the Government's real intentions with regard to Irish military neutrality. It does not mention Irish military neutrality in either positive or negative terms as either a current strategy or a future objective. At this critical juncture, as the future security identity of the European Union is being decided under the Dutch Presidency, a strong and clear foreign policy is essential if Ireland is to fulfil its potential in the international arena.

The Government parties are totally divided on the central issue of Irish military neutrality. The Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, has stated on several occasions that he supports the development of the European Union as a federal super state with a binding common defence policy. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs prefers to emphasise his desire to see Ireland join Partnership for Peace while the third member of the triumvirate, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, in his address to the annual Democratic Left delegate conference clearly stated his party's contradictory policy that "Ireland ought not join NATO, the Western European Union or Partnership for Peace".

The clarity and unity of Fianna Fáil foreign policy, particularly in reference to Irish military neutrality, is in stark contrast to the opacity and disunity which reign supreme in the coalition Government. Fianna Fáil is fundamentally opposed to Irish participation in NATO, the Western European Union — beyond observer status — and NATO led organisations such as Partnership for Peace, all of which have serious implications for our military neutrality. Furthermore, we give the unconditional guarantee that Ireland will not participate in any co-operative security agreement without first consulting the public by way of a referendum.

Fianna Fáil strongly reaffirms Ireland's traditional role within the United Nations and its commitment to the development of international security as a collective and inclusive concept. In a recent article published in Der Spiegel Herr Genscher, the highly respected former German Foreign Minister and political architect of the new Germany, clearly expressed his views on the expansion on NATO on Europe when he stated:

Such a development would undermine the autonomy, independence and identity of the European Union. The creation of new trenches and separating lines can and must be prevented.

Fianna Fáil believes that the creation of new lines of division and global conflict must be resisted at all costs and for this reason opposes the expansion of NATO and Irish participation in NATO and Partnership for Peace.

It is interesting that we are having this debate on SFOR at a time when debates are taking place on the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia. This proposal is a major mistake. This is also the view of Herr Genscher and many others who have considered this matter. This is a classic example of ignoring history and of not learning lessons from it. If this expansion takes place we will unfortunately be ensuring that the mistakes of history are repeated. We witnessed the welcome break-up of the communist bloc, the disappearance of the Iron Curtain and the reunification of Germany. NATO, which was established for Cold War purposes, now has no real purpose and its generals and military chiefs are trying to find a new role for themselves. The seriousness of the proposal to expand NATO to the borders of Russia was highlighted by the Russian President, Mr. Yeltsin, who said it was the most serious occurrence since the Cuban missile crisis during 1961. The implications of this proposal must be seriously considered.

We are falling into the old trap of assuming that security frontiers give security to nations. The Maginot Line and the experience in Germany in the run up to the Second World War should have taught the people of Europe the lesson that security lines do not mean security. Security can only be secured by interdependence between nations and the principles which guided Schuman and Monnet in the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community after the Second World War. They recognised that to achieve real peace in Europe there had to be independence between nations in an economic and social sense.

Security is not only about the number of men and weaponry available, it is about creating interdependence. Europe should strive to develop the Organisation for Security and Co-operation from Vladivostok to Vancouver, thereby guaranteeing real security which respect frontiers and the positions of nations. The artificial expansion of NATO to the frontiers of Russia merely issues an invitation to the Russian military to rearm and prepare for conflict. We must encourage the people of Russia, the Russian Government and the forces to the East to establish interdependence with the rest of Europe in economic and social terms.

I welcome our participation in SFOR in the former Yugoslavia where more than 400,000 people have been killed. Late last year I visited Croatia where I saw at first hand the damage done to the heritage city of Dubrovnik. The murder of the people in that area and the damage to this city is an example of man's inhumanity to man. We should be ashamed that a member of the human race could do this. This destruction continued as far as the city of Zagreb. Some of the people displaced by this conflict have been welcomed into Ireland. It is important that we participate and are seen to participate in this very effective force.

Fianna Fáil is committed to the principles of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. We believe there is a fundamental contradiction in the Government's professed commitment to disarmament and non-proliferation and its determination to embroil Ireland in Partnership for Peace in the light of its intimate connection with NATO, a nuclear defence alliance. I again guarantee that Fianna Fáil will ask the people to make a judgment on this matter.

Fianna Fáil will strive to achieve a fresh vision of Europe where the European Union represents a new model in international relations defined as a political and economic community rather than a military superpower or federal super state. We are opposed to all plans to establish any organisation within the structure of the European Union which aims to boost research and development into weaponry, facilitate the international arms trade and place arms contracts. We are committed to developing non-military industry in areas of Europe threatened by unemployment due to the shrinking arms trade.

Military neutrality is defined by Fianna Fáil as not equivalent to splendid isolation. Fianna Fáil is determined that Ireland will fulfil its potential in the international arena. We believe that as a small nation on the periphery of Europe we can best reach that potential by maintaining our valuable tradition of military neutrality and through involvement in organisations such as the UN, the EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In keeping with Fianna Fáil's commitment to contribute actively to UN peacekeeping missions, I call on all Members to support this motion and Irish participation in this stability force.

I am happy to support this motion which proposes that Ireland should dispatch a contingent of troops to serve with the SFOR forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, it is necessary to comment on the circumstances in which we are doing this.

I understand that the contribution of troops is limited to 50 military policemen. It is a pity that our contribution is non-operational in a military sense and confined simply to activities as military police. In joining a contingent of this kind I would prefer if we had a larger contingent which constituted combat troops. The total SFOR force is 31,000 and our 50 military policemen will not be able to play a significant role in a force of that size.

We were told at some length that this was organised by the United Nations. Those of us in this House are almost not allowed to use the dreaded "N" word, but I have before me the draft exchanges of letters in which I find the name "NATO" appears 11 times. This is one of the more curious exchanges of draft letters I have ever seen because there is no indication to whom or from whom the letters are being sent. There is a kind of security anonymity about the whole matter. However, it is not for security reasons that this gross anonymity besets us, it is for political reasons.

In the brief opportunity I had to glance at the Tánaiste's speech, it appears that the unnamed Secretary General is not the Secretary General of the United Nations but the Secretary General of NATO. This is an entirely NATO commanded force and all the arrangements are made with NATO. The United Nations is not mentioned in the course of these letters except in a passing reference to a Security Council resolution.

Apart from the 11 times NATO is mentioned, it is interesting to see that Ireland will be entitled to representation at NATO headquarters, the only stipulation being that it will be at the expense of the Irish Government. All the arrangements are made by NATO. NATO, through its commanding officer, will cause identification cards to be issued to all SFOR personnel to make it clear they are troops under NATO command and answerable to NATO.

I have laid some emphasis on this because I want to draw attention to the fact that it is happening. I welcome the fact that it is happening, but I look around me at the empty benches in this House and inquire where today are those who told us this country would never have anything to do with NATO, that it would remain in glorious isolation that it ostensibly or nominally chose to be in for a long time and that it would not seek to face up to reality. Where today are the spiritual sons of Kim II Sung whom I might have expected to be apoplectic about the motion and the anonymous letters about to be exchanged which are now before us? I would like the Minister of State to confirm that those letters are to and from NATO, not the United Nations.

There was an interesting article in The Irish Times in the past few days by Séamus Martin, who is now stationed for that paper in Moscow, in which he amused himself and no doubt some of his readers, including myself, by speculating about the state of Irish neutrality. Ireland, we are solemnly informed, is neutral. It is neutral, presumably, between Russia on the one side and NATO on the other. The difficulty is that Russia has now joined the Partnership for Peace. I raise the question, which the Minister of State may wish to answer, as to exactly between whom we are now neutral. Mr. Martin says in his article that Ireland has one ally in Europe which has not joined the Partnership for Peace and that is Malta, which recently acquired a socialist government and withdrew from the Partnership for Peace. I was under a misapprehension because I thought there was another European state that was not a member of the Partnership for Peace, Vatican City. If one takes the greater European area as far as the Urals, I understand Tadzhikistan is not a member. Every other country is except Ireland, Malta and Vatican City.

That is because Tadzhikistan is experiencing some turmoil.

It is experiencing a serious civil war and I am sure it is concentrating on that and not on external matters. If one excludes Tadzhikistan, we are in the distinguished military company of Vatican City and Malta. We should really begin to cop on to ourselves.

Mr. Martin concludes his article by saying: "When the Dáil votes on Wednesday to send Irish soldiers to join Sfor in Bosnia it will be a stepping stone towards commonsense and responsibility. Membership of PFP would be a further step in that direction". I fully agree with Mr. Martin. Unfortunately, I was rushing from Limerick this morning and I did not get the opportunity to hear the Tánaiste's contribution to the debate, but I glanced through his speech on my way into the House and hoped it would contain an announcement that this country had now joined the Partnership for Peace. So far as I can see, it does not contain that announcement, which is disappointing.

Mr. Martin made some interesting comments in his article about European security and the Irish attitude to it. I am inclined to agree with him. He says that European security is hardly an issue to be ignored, given the recent outbreaks of violence in Europe which he describes. He goes on to say: "... it is, on the other hand, a concept to which all European states should contribute". I fully concur with that sentiment. I have always held the view that we should make a contribution pro rata with everybody else in Europe.

Mr. Martin continues: "But then `contributions', in Ireland's more recent European experience, have been something which other countries make and which Ireland receives". Unhappily, Mr. Martin is again right. If this country came under attack, or the threat of attack, we would rapidly turn to our NATO neighbours, to our direct east and to our direct west, to protect us. We would demand all the rights of protection of a NATO member without having contributed anything to it and having indulged in an official policy for approximately 40 years which almost cast doubt on the legitimacy of NATO as something inferior to which the moral Irish people could not descend. I do not accept that.

We find ourselves in a ridiculous position given development in Europe and the anxiety of President Clinton and NATO to come to terms with Russia and to expand NATO in a way that will not be seen by the Russians as a threat. They hope to expand it in a way that will guarantee the security of not just the 15 EU states but also the central and eastern European states which are more volatile, where there have been serious outbreaks of violence in the recent past and where the danger of further outbreaks will continue.

The SFOR force, the largest peace-keeping force ever assembled, is disappointing given its size and strength. It has done little to vindicate human rights in the former Yugoslavia. It has not arrested a single alleged war criminal. Indeed, the NATO commanders have made it clear they have no intention of doing so. The size of the force, the manner in which it is armed and its air and naval support off the coast of the former Yugoslavia mean that, for as long as the force remains in the area, there will be no major outbreak of hostilities in Bosnia and the surrounding states. However, as soon as the force leaves it is almost guaranteed hostilities will recommence. It is not enough that SFOR should remain in the area for a temporary period — it is mandated to remain until June 1998 — and then walk away and allow the former belligerents to attack each other again. The recent war in the Balkans, like all previous wars in that area, was notorious for its viciousness. Unhappily, if there is a further outbreak of hostilities in the Balkans it will be an appalling war in which hundreds of thousands of people will die and millions will suffer.

SFOR has been able to do little or nothing to restore refugees to their homes. It has simply propped up the partition of Bosnia and maintained a temporary and most uneasy peace which neither it nor anybody else believes will last. It has done nothing to bring to book those accused of genocide before the international tribunal established for that purpose. I am not saying every one of the accused would be found guilty, but they should at least be tried. No doubt many of them would be found guilty.

The record of the international tribunal, through no fault of its own, is a sorry one. It has found only one person guilty and only a handful of people have been brought before it. That is not the tribunal's fault. It depends on the forces mandated by the United Nations, which are under the command of NATO, to arrest and bring such people to trial. Many of them are charged with killing thousands of people in Srebrenica and other places which are a blot on the conscience of the western world because we stood by and allowed those events to take place. Even now we are not prepared, although we can easily do so, to arrest those who have been indicated for these crimes. We are even prepared to see SFOR troops fraternise, as it has been described in newspaper reports over the past year, with indicted war criminals. That is deeply regrettable and shows that the approach of many western governments to the vindication of human rights is coloured by their economic and political interests rather than by an attachment to such vindication.

I am disappointed Irish troops are joining a force that is not doing its job and not carrying out its duties. Nonetheless, I do not underestimate the significance and symbolism of what is happening today. I am glad it is happening and I support it. I hope on future occasions we will make a more meaningful contribution to such forces with sufficient numbers of properly armed and equipped combat troops. Unfortunately we are not in a position to do that today.

I also hope the passing of this motion will put behind us much of the nonsense and hypocrisy we have had to endure with regard to NATO and our so-called neutrality. I am glad to acknowledge NATO as the most successful military force ever assembled. It defended the western world against aggression for almost 50 years with consummate success and through its own strength and the resolution and interdependence of its members. Most successfully of all for a military force, it did so without having to fire a shot.

There is an unhealthy tendency in Irish society not to debate certain issues. There is a politically correct view supposedly supported by majority opinion to which we must subscribe, whether it is in relation to the Catholic Church, the Protestant churches, the Unionist view in the North on certain issues or the so-called unified Nationalist view of what should happen on this island.

Security and defence is also an area on which it is difficult to secure rational debate. In a Chamber such as the Dáil, where we represent the people, these issues should be debated. I listened with interest to Deputy O'Malley's contribution. He has done the House a singular service by putting forward a view — not all of which I support — which is a positive and worthy contribution to this debate. I wish we could discuss issues of this nature without being dubbed militarists if we do not take the Fianna Fáil line that we must align ourselves with Tadzhikistan — a country that will probably join Partnership for Peace when its civil war is over — or isolate ourselves and not participate in such debates.

Some people claim Ireland has nothing to gain from Partnership for Peace and should have nothing to do with it. That view has the support of a large number of Members of this House. However, Partnership for Peace is a co-operative security framework. It does not entail first, second or third class membership of NATO. It is important to emphasise that participation in PFP entails no treaty obligations of any sort. Partnership for Peace is fully compatible with our policy of military neutrality. Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland have already joined as countries that remain outside military alliances. Each state participating in PFP decides the scope of its own participation, 43 countries, all members of the OSCE, are participating in PFP. The European states not participating include, for obvious reasons, the three states of Yugoslavia and others that Deputy O'Malley mentioned. PFP has already become a key forum for peacekeeping co-operation and training involving most of the countries with which Ireland has traditionally cooperated closely in the past.

We stated in the White Paper that the Government has decided to explore further the benefits that Ireland might derive from participation in PFP and to determine the contribution that Ireland might make to the partnership against the background of the principles set in a later chapter of the White Paper apart from chapter 453, from which I am quoting. We say also that a decision on participation in PFP will be taken by the Government only in the light of consultations, including with the relevant committees of the Oireachtas, and such a decision will be subject to a motion on the terms and scope of any participation by Ireland being approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is going much further than we are required to do under the Constitution.

It will not happen during this Dáil — we are in the closing hours of this Dáil, if my intuition is right — but when we come to debate the issue, let us hear all the arguments for and against and, for heaven's sake, let us hear those arguments in a respectful way. We can put it before both Houses of the Oireachtas if a future Government decides to do so, but let us not get ourselves tied up in issues like the right of former Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO.

There are a couple of things Deputy Burke said to which I would like to respond. Deputy Burke said that the Irish nation is neutral. That is not so. Northern Ireland is part of the Irish nation and has been in NATO since 1949. If the Deputy wants to speak for this State, that is fine. This is the Parliament of this State, and we are the Government of this State. However, we do not necessarily speak for everybody in Northern Ireland. Let us stop talking nonsense about this nation. We are talking about the State, and that is not the same as the nation.

Deputy Burke said that the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, made points with which the Government would not agree. The Government's position is set out in the White Paper, and everything the Tánaiste said is consistent with that. If Deputy Burke had heard Deputy O'Malley's speech this morning, he would find it very hard to reconcile it with some of the nonsense he himself went on with. It was a Fianna Fáil Government that, without debate or discussion, took us into our current status membership of the Western European Union. Deputy Burke says we have not provided the opportunity for debate. This Government produced a White Paper on foreign policy, having consulted widely throughout the country. That White Paper was put before the Houses and committees of the Houses. The Tánaiste and I and many officials have appeared time and again before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs to update them on the Intergovernmental Conference and deal with questions. There has been much debate and discussion before any Intergovernmental Conference discussions were entered into by this Government. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government position on NATO is that we are not seeking or planning to join NATO. Our policy position is set out, but people like Deputy O'Malley, if they wish to challenge that, are right to do so. It is time we heard people who have different views expressing their views and having them respected. I have said where the Government stands on it. Furthermore, to correct something Deputy Burke said, any outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference in relation to changes in security or defence arrangements in Europe — and I do not expect that we will be under great pressure to do anything in particular as a result of that — will be put to the people in a referendum, and there will be no side door or back door entrances by this Government. The important thing is that we are not under pressure to do anything. The question is what role we want for Ireland and, furthermore, what role Ireland wants for Europe.

I thought Deputy Burke went very far when he condemned the expansion of NATO and the countries which plan to join it. If we take a decision for ourselves that is fair enough, but what right have we to lecture the people who have suffered in Hungary, the Czech Republic or Poland? The decision to join NATO is a decision which those states must make for themselves, and if they differ from us in making that decision, we should respect it. That is something which concerns those states, and they have a right to make that decision. If they wish to make that decision we should not lecture them.

We really do need to look at what Deputy O'Malley called the hypocrisy of our position. I find it difficult to justify some of the talk that has gone on. I am ashamed of the role of the European Union in dealing with the crisis in the former Yugoslavia where people had their eyes gouged out, their homes burned, their children massacred and where multiple rapes, murders, genocide and mayhem were perpetrated. That is what happened on our doorstep and all the talk that went on in the European Union did not help those suffering people. Let us not shed any more crocodile tears on their graves. The reason we are not speaking German, as well as the odd word of Irish, is that somebody stood up to the tyrant, Hitler. Tyrants have to be stood up to. I am not suggesting that the only way to do that is through NATO. For some states that is the way to do it, but for Ireland we want to make some contribution, and our contribution is evolving. Our contribution to SFOR is an evolving one. We may never go the way that some of the African states or the member states of NATO have gone, but we do need to have discussion on the role we want for Ireland and the role Ireland wants for Europe in taking on crises of this kind. I am glad the House supports this SFOR contingent and the motion to approve sending military policemen to participate in it. It is a worthy contribution for us to make. I hope that when the House resumes we will continue to discuss this issue in a respectful manner and that all views are reflected in the debate so that we can play the part in the security of Europe that we wish to play, that we do not do it through a back door but can see clearly what we are doing, where we are going and have agreement on it.

I support the measure before the House and wish the members of the Permanent Defence Force who take up duty in Bosnia Herzegovina every good fortune.

It is a disgrace that so few people have been brought before the war tribunal in The Hague as a result of the horrible civil war in the former Yugoslavia over the past five or six years. To date only one person has been convicted and that is appalling when the perpetrators are, in many cases, well known. They come from all sides, the Serbians having been the main offenders, but Muslims and Croatians were also involved. I just wonder if the tribunal will ever deal with the matter in a significant manner as it should be dealt with. We are delighted that relative peace has come to the region, although it is an uneasy peace, but it is very worrying that people are allowed to go scot-free when their identity is known. I hope the Irish force, with forces from NATO and non-NATO countries, will keep the lid on the position there.

Ireland should be a member of NATO. We should be involved in peacekeeping and peace enforcement activities and, while most people would not agree, that view must be taken on board. We cannot continue to evade our responsibilities in this regard. The United Nations and NATO protect mankind against tyrants and warmongers such as Saddam Hussein and Hitler. We have a responsibility to protect the humanity of which we are a part. We benefit from the civilised conditions that exist in most parts of the world today, but we are not doing our duty because we are not getting involved in peace enforcement activities. I do not agree with neutrality, it does not become us. It would be regrettable if Fianna Fáil were to make political capital from this issue simply because the majority of the people want us to remain neutral. It would merely mean making political capital from a humanitarian issue. Some of us must voice our personal opinions on this matter. We reap benefits from being members of the European Union and part of the civilised world and we should be willing to return that generosity.

Representatives of our armed forces have stated they do not want their members coming home in bodybags. None of us wants our soldiers killed abroad or our peacekeepers or aid workers to suffer. However, we have a responsibility and if that does not extend to peacekeeping and peace enforcement, I question the relevance of having a national Army. Would it be better employed maintaining civil order rather than pretending it is prepared to fight wars? The role of the permanent armed forces must be considered in a realistic light. We should not fudge issues. We should not have an Army for the sake of having one when we are not prepared to protect minority or ethnic groups which are in danger. We must be prepared to get involved in peace enforcement activities and if that means fighting to protect people then so be it. I make no apologies for holding that point of view.

I welcome this measure. I hope there are no casualties, but I would like us to change our attitude and strategy. I would like us to play a role that benefits mankind. We are currently sidestepping that issue to a considerable degree.

As Leader of Democratic Left and a Minister in this Government I support the motion before Dáil Éireann to approve a contingent of 50 military police to serve with SFOR, the UN mandated stabilisation force, in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

I support this motion because it is critically necessary that the people of Bosnia should be enabled to live their lives free from fear and oppression. It is particularly important that SFOR, the military operation to assist the people of Bosnia, will not run in isolation but will complement a detailed and comprehensive programme of civilian and political and economic reconstruction. I would not, and Democratic Left would not, support a purely military operation. We have to rebuild civil society in Bosnia, a many sided task.

I hope the Irish contribution can be part of a process which restores everyday life in Bosnia. The decision to support Irish participation in SFOR was not taken lightly, particularly by a party of the left. The legitimacy and authority for SFOR derives from a UN Security Council resolution and, while this will be the first time Ireland operates under a NATO-led command, delegated by the UN, it is noteworthy that 17 other non-NATO countries, including other neutral and non-aligned countries, will participate.

The basic issue is the continuation of our strong tradition of participation in peacekeeping operations in a changing geopolitical world. This is a greatly valued tradition on the left, seen as complementary to a foreign policy that is strong on both human rights and solidarity with the Third World. Ireland is greatly respected throughout the world for its stance on international peace issues and on international human rights since the foundation of the State. As Irish people and Europeans we are proud of our record.

Military neutrality is a cornerstone of Irish foreign policy and Ireland's voice has been strengthened and our influence increased because of it. Traditional Irish neutrality, as it was known in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, is dead. It began to die when we joined the European Union and is not relevant in its old form since the end of the Cold War. Democratic Left policy is for a positive neutrality — a policy that is proactive, not negative and reactionary. We support a policy that engages in dialogue about security of the European Union and of the world and recognises that military might is not a basis for that security. It must take account of the destabilisation caused by poverty and disadvantage, particularly in the Third World.

We believe we should not join NATO. We believe a peaceful Europe cannot be created through militarism, but we know also that we cannot hope to truly shape a peaceful Europe by turning our backs when we are asked for help. Our fundamental position is that Ireland should commit her military forces in the cause of peacekeeping only under a UN mandate.

We now have the possibility to assist in the reconstruction of a country which has been devastated by an appalling genocidal war. We have the possibility of helping to bring suspected perpetrators of war crimes to justice. We not only have a contribution to make to Bosnia, we can learn lessons from what happened there and its consequences. Such lessons are not only about how sectarianism can spiral into genocide and they can be applied even closer to home than Northern Ireland. Refugees do not appear in a vacuum. They are forced to seek refuge from war, civil strife, repression or poverty. In recent weeks there has been much political and media comment on the apparent increase in the number of non-nationals in Dublin. Many of them are asylum seekers whose applications will be processed under the new Refugee Act. Others are legal immigrants, and some may be illegal immigrants.

I suspect that part of the apparent increase may be due to the UK Tories' decision some months ago to cut off the social welfare entitlement of asylum seekers awaiting appeal. I urge the new Labour Government to reverse that outrageous decision out of common humanity.

In an era of increasing globalisation, it is inevitable, and not unwelcome, that Ireland will become an increasingly multicultural society. There is a responsibility on all of us, but especially on public representatives, to choose our words with care and to avoid creating or exacerbating tensions.

I have been extremely concerned at the tone of recent media and political comment. Ireland is not faced with a flood of economic refugees, as one Deputy opposite recently claimed. In a European context, the numbers entering this country are very small, and it is not up to any Deputy or any commentator to decide whether a person is an economic refugee or a "legitimate asylum seeker". In the Refugee Act we have an independent decision-making procedure which conforms with best international practice. Everyone in this House should respect that procedure and not prejudge the merits of any application or group of applications.

The Irish people have always shown a deep concern for the victims of famine or strife. That solidarity is exemplified by the excellent work of our development aid organisations, but we cannot simply view these problems at a distance. We are being challenged to give practical expression to our solidarity by ensuring that those seeking refuge in this country are not met with hostility or prejudice. Our experience of peacekeeping must serve as an object lesson to us on how our society should behave.

I strongly support the motion, as proposed by the Tánaiste, approving the dispatch of a contingent of the Defence Forces to Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of the Stabilisation Force, SFOR, established under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996.

SFOR's role is to help the parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina to implement a peace accord to which they have freely agreed and to contribute to a secure environment necessary for the consolidation and stabilisation of peace in the region. The mandate given to SFOR by the UN Security Council follows the precedent of the Implementation Force, lFOR, which was established in late 1995. In the case of IFOR, the UN Security Council decided that NATO, acting as an appropriate regional organisation under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, would take the lead in providing unified command and control of the UN authorised multinational force established to implement the above arrangements. It could be all too easy for us to forget the suffering and strife endured by the people of the former Yugoslavia a very short time ago. I feel, therefore, that it is incumbent on Ireland to support the ongoing effort to ensure peace and stability in the region.

Ireland has a long tradition of supporting United Nations peacekeeping operations and has been involved in international peacekeeping since 1958. Irish military personnel have built up a considerable reputation as peacekeepers. As a small country we can be proud of our record in terms of peacekeeping.

With the exception of our participation in UNOSOM II in Somalia in 1993, all Irish participation in UN missions has been mandated under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. The Security Council has endowed SFOR with a Chapter VII mandate, that is to say it is entitled to use force to implement its mandate, to separate parties in the event of a resumption of hostilities or to protect itself. SFOR's rules of engagement reflect this mandate and are based on the principle of minimum use of force. This protective element of the Chapter VII mandate is now becoming the norm in UN peacekeeping operations. Troop contributing countries are increasingly unwilling to commit troops to UN operations unless there is a Chapter VII authorisation to enable the peacekeeping force to take all necessary measures to protect itself. Thankfully the situation in this region is relatively stable at present and it is everybody's earnest wish that it should continue so.

There are at present 16 NATO countries and 19 non-NATO countries contributing to SFOR. Should the Dáil now approve the dispatch of a Defence Forces contingent, Ireland would be the 20th non-NATO country to contribute. There is at present a requirement for a military police contingent at SFOR HQ, based at Sarajevo. The Irish Defence Forces are in a position to meet this need by the provision of 50 personnel. The Irish military police element would assume the functions of the International Military Police Company at SFOR HQ in Sarajevo. This international military police company will consist of company HQ and three MP platoons. Ireland has been asked to provide the company HQ and one of the platoons. The Irish military police would perform the normal range of military police duties for SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, where approximately 8,000 are stationed. Their duties would include, inter alia, liaison with local police and the UN International Police Task Force or IPTF. There are 30 members of the Garda Síochána serving there who will shortly be joined by a further five members.

The tasks to be undertaken by the Defence Forces military police are duties for which they are already well trained and in which they are experienced. The composition of the Irish contingent would be the MP company HQ, totalling 16 personnel, the MP platoon totalling 27, and a national support element consisting of six personnel.

In addition, Ireland is entitled to appoint an officer to the SFOR Command at the rank of lieutenant colonel who would be the national contingent commander. Each nation participating in SFOR is also invited to appoint a military liaison officer to the SFOR Co-ordination Cell at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe, SHAPE, at Mons, Belgium. It is proposed that an officer at the rank of lieutenant colonel would be appointed for the duration of the participation of an Irish contingent in the mission. In total, the Irish deployment to SFOR would consist of 50 all ranks in SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, with one military liaison officer assigned to SHAPE in Mons.

The Irish contingent would be equipped with the necessary transport and equipment to discharge its role. In this regard it is intended that suitable and appropriate light transport will be dispatched with the contingent as well as certain technical backup equipment. Deputies may feel that our contribution is not very large in terms of numbers, but I assure the House that the contribution which we propose to make is a valuable one in terms of existing requirements in SFOR and is one which I am aware would be greatly welcomed by the force. It will be appreciated that the position at SFOR headquarters being offered to the Irish contingent is a prestigious one, offered undoubtedly on the basis of the Defence Forces' outstanding reputation as peacekeepers.

It is envisaged that the contingent would be deployed within approximately two months following Dáil approval. The pre-departure period is required for personnel selection, processing and administrative arrangements, etc. An advance party could, however, be deployed to the mission area within one month and the remainder would follow as quickly as possible. Personnel would be recruited on a voluntary basis. The Irish commitment to SFOR would continue until the expiry of the force's mandate, as set out in Security Council Resolution 1088, currently envisaged for mid-1998. It is proposed that rotations would be at approximately six-month intervals. The contingent would not be withdrawn without four months' prior notice unless otherwise agreed.

SFOR has been reduced in size to half of that of IFOR's strength, to 31,000, in the light of the major diminution of the likelihood of the force coming under attack. Currently the main risk to SFOR personnel in the area of operations is posed by landmines and road traffic accidents. In recommending that Ireland would contribute a military police contingent to SFOR HQ in Sarajevo, safety and security factors, including the specific function of the military police in SFOR, which is effectively a supporting role, were taken fully into account. The MP element will be armed and equipped for their personal protection to carry out this supporting role. I would not be happy to commit troops to any mission where their task would be unclear and where they would be exposed to unacceptable risks. I am satisfied that the proposed role of the contingent of Defence Forces Military Police would be in keeping with their training and experience to date both at home and overseas.

I fully agree that a contingent of the Defence Forces should participate in this mission. I support involvement in this worthy mission, notwithstanding the fact that all troop contributing countries, including Ireland, must bear their own costs. Command and control of this UN mandated force is vested in NATO as the appropriate regional organisation, as was also the case in relation to lFOR. While the SFOR mission operates under a UN Security Council mandate and reports on a monthly basis to the Security Council, participation of the Defence Forces in SFOR would place Irish troops under NATO command for the first time and this may cause some concern in certain quarters. The participation of other neutral countries such as Finland, Sweden and Austria, of non-NATO countries such as Russia and of non-European non-aligned countries indicates that military neutrality has not been an issue in the context of IFOR and SFOR. The overriding consideration is the critical need to create peace and stability in this troubled region.

The Irish contingent, once in the area of operations, would serve under the operational control of the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and his designated force commander for SFOR and would be subject to NATO rules of engagement. Non-NATO nations, including Ireland, would retain national command of their contingents. The Irish military authorities, through the Irish contingent commander, would take the necessary measures to ensure the maintenance of proper discipline, would retain exclusive criminal jurisdiction for the Irish contingent, and the Irish contingent, as a non-NATO contingent, would enjoy the same rights, privileges and immunities as are provided for in the status of forces agreements that have been signed between NATO and the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The operational, logistical and financial arrangements for possible Defence Forces participation in SFOR have now been fully clarified and the requirement for a 50 strong military police contingent has been identified by NATO as being the most pressing need within the force which would correspond with the resources which Ireland could possibly provide.

I am satisfied Ireland should contribute to this worthy mission in support of the war weary people of the former Yugoslavia by providing a contingent of 50 military police personnel who are well trained and suitably experienced to undertake this task.

Deputy O'Malley raised the point about why Ireland cannot deploy more than 50 Defence Forces personnel to SFOR, which I would like to address. There is a requirement for a military police contingent at SFOR HQ and that requirement has been communicated by the relevant SFOR authorities. The Defence Forces are in a position to meet that need by providing 50 personnel.

The level of overseas participation is kept under constant review to ensure that security needs at home can be met at all times and the cost to the Defence Vote does not become excessive. Unlike other missions in which we have participated in the past, such as those in the Lebanon, Ireland will bear the cost of this mission.

At present there are 711 personnel serving overseas and, in line with the decision of the Government last year regarding participation in UNSAS, Ireland would be constrained to committing a maximum of approximately 850 troops serving overseas at any given time. Each country participating in this mission is obliged to bear its costs. I hope that answers Deputy O'Malley's question.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn