Vol. 498 No. 2
22 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence the plans, if any, he has to supply military personnel to any new overseas mission or to assist in any humanitarian mission other than those currently serviced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26721/98]
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe — OSCE — is establishing the Kosovo verification mission, or KVM, on the basis of an agreement signed by the chairman in office of that organisation and the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 16 October 1998. UN Security Council Resolution No. 1203 of 24 October 1998 endorsed and supported the agreement and urged states to make personnel available to the mission.
Yesterday the Government decided to allow up to 30 members of the Permanent Defence Force to participate in the mission. Five military officers are being deployed immediately to key positions in the planning and support unit of the KVM. It is anticipated that the remainder of the personnel will be deployed to the mission early in the new year, at which stage OSCE selection procedures are expected to be completed.
At my request, four military personnel visited Honduras between 26 November and 2 December on a fact finding mission to ascertain what humanitarian assistance could be rendered by the Defence Forces over a short timeframe in the wake of the destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch. A report on the visit is being studied in my Department at present in consultation with the military authorities with a view to assessing what assistance, if any, could be given. It is envisaged that military personnel would be seconded with pay to a non-Governmental agency.
I thank the Minister for his reply and am delighted there has been a move to supply people to Kosovo. Are there other contingents in that region at present? There seems to have been an inordinate delay in sending people there. Is there a reason?
I do not know if I can give all the reasons, but one of them was the security of the officers and members of the forces who would be travelling to Kosovo. The Deputy will understand those difficulties. Also, if the security position was to deteriorate, there was the question of what exit arrangements would be made. The mission is unarmed.
To return to Honduras, to which I alluded in the reply, 24 hours after I spoke to the Chief of Staff about sending people to that country there were 20 volunteers. I compliment the Defence Forces on that quick response to a difficult mission.
I welcome the Minister's initiative in this area, for which this side of the House has pushed in the past, although I do not know whether that influenced his decision. It is important that we have a small group which can respond rapidly to humanitarian needs. What was the catalyst for the Honduran mission? Will the Minister consider establishing a permanent group which can respond to these crises? He mentioned that volunteers came forward quickly in this case, and the Defence Forces are to be complimented on that, but perhaps there should be a standing group of medical and engineering staff. Any time the media mention the Defence Forces they home in on the army deafness claims — they always return to ridicule. It is disappointing that this welcome move has received little or no publicity.
I am sure the members of the Defence Forces going to Honduras are more concerned with the job than with the publicity but it would have helped if it had received more recognition. As I said, within 24 hours of making the decision, volunteers made themselves available. The devastation seen in Nicaragua and Honduras has had traumatic consequences for the local population in terms of loss of life, destruction of houses, etc. and it is important that we realise what is involved in such a disaster. I will consider whether we can have a group such as suggested by the Deputy. I will not say it would be on a permanent basis because there are draws on our technical and medical staff in many areas, such as in the contingents we already send for the UN, but I will undertake to examine whether it is possible to have, on a reasonably continuous or semi-permanent basis, a group which is ready to respond to such disasters.
I welcome the Government's indication that it will change its attitude on joining the Partnership for Peace. However, Deputy Gormley's point is fair. I ask the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to consider the possibility of a debate on the issue. It has been my party's policy for several years but Deputy Gormley and others of a similar mind should be afforded an opportunity to put forward their views which can then be challenged. Their views appear to dominate the airwaves and have been unchallenged. This was particularly the case in the run up to the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty.
I would welcome such a debate and support any initiatives on that. However, the Deputy's party did not go the whole way in the White Paper on Foreign Affairs although it had the opportunity.
I do not remember that.
