Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister for his educational lesson on how ESDP and the triple lock operate. It was most enlightening for Members on this side of the House. I have mixed views on this mission. I understand the logic behind Resolution 1778 and the desire of the Government to participate, given the situation in eastern Chad. A total of 230,000 refugees from Darfur are currently living in camps run by the United Nations and at least 180,000 Chadians have been left homeless as a result of attacks by armed groups and militia.

However, this situation arose as a result of the abdication of responsibility by the international community for the situation in Darfur. The Irish Government and the European Union cannot be held responsible for it but they have all had a part to play in it. The United Nations failed to broker a meaningful peace deal in Darfur and stood idly by as it witnessed genocide. The Minister referred to the genocide when he visited the area. In addition, there was mass rape and the absolute subjugation of human rights in Darfur. This led to the outbreak of further violence in Chad and the CAR. It is a highly unsatisfactory situation.

There is a huge need to protect the people who have been displaced and forced to live in horrendous circumstances in refugee camps in eastern Chad. The Minister is misleading us somewhat by saying that the Irish Defence Forces have a tradition of participating in missions of this nature. I do not accept this is the case. This is by far the most dangerous mission in which our Defence Forces have participated, particularly under the ESDP. The scale of the mission and the potential danger to our troops are significant and we must weigh up the pros and cons of participation. The potential impact that the troops will have by attempting to provide peace and stability must be contrasted with the risks and dangers to the Irish men and women who will serve there.

We are talking about sending an Irish force of 400 troops, the second largest in the entire deployment. In one sense this is very brave, but it must also be regarded as somewhat foolish. No troops have been committed by larger countries such as Germany or Italy. This must cause us to ask ourselves why Ireland, a small island state, must provide such a large number of troops to this mission. The region has been under siege in recent weeks and violence flared up in recent days in the area in which the Irish troops are to be based. That in itself is a cause for serious concern.

Let us consider the logistics of this mission. Irish troops are to be sent to an area that is entirely landlocked and 2,000 km inland. Based on the history of such missions, there is likely to be a considerable strain on the supply of necessary provisions, particularly water, food and medical supplies. I have major concerns about that aspect. I do not want our troops facing similar conditions to those experienced by troops in German East Africa during the First World War, when a lack of water, food and medical supplies resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. I hope we are not entering that type of situation. Deputy Deenihan mentioned this also in his remarks. The area of Chad is vast — more than three times the size of California — and there is a history of despotism and rebel groups and much danger involved. I have already mentioned the harsh conditions that will be faced. We are talking about temperatures of over 45° Celsius. Obviously, dehydration and the potential risks associated with that are of major concern.

The critical aspect of this mission, which is also my main concern, is the issue of aircraft. The Minister has entirely failed to deal with this point. It is acknowledged that in order to make the mission sustainable there is a requirement for approximately 20 helicopters and other aircraft. We have had no commitment on this from either the European Union or the Government. I am very concerned about it. Perhaps the Minister can emphasise to our European partners at ministerial level the need to provide assistance in that regard. I do not believe the Government should be providing these, given that we are already sending 400 troops. I hope the Minister will ensure that a guarantee will be given in this regard before we give this the go-ahead. I am concerned about us sending 400 troops to a landlocked area with a back-up of three helicopters, which will make it extremely difficult to provide the necessary supplies.

As we are aware, the infrastructure in Chad is very poor. There are 20 airports in the country but only seven of these have tarmacked runways that would be suitable for landing aircraft, a critical aspect of this mission. There is also a risk of disease. African countries, particularly Chad, are major risk areas for malaria and other tropical diseases. I want a guarantee from the Minister that adequate medical provisions will be made available and that doctors will be at hand with the necessary medical resources to deal with any problems that arise among our troops.

The focus of this mission is concern about the refugee camps in Chad. I would like to hear the Minister acknowledge that there are large numbers of displaced people who have not even made it into camps but are on the outskirts and have absolutely no protection. I hope our troops will look after the needs of these people and provide adequate protection for them. They are in a most vulnerable position, more vulnerable than that of the displaced people who are currently in refugee camps. I hope this will be acknowledged by the Minister in the terms of the mission.

We know the history of French colonialism in Chad. I hope the presence of French troops will be counterbalanced by the other troops on the mission and that there will not be a negative backlash from locals. The presence of French troops will be an advantage because they will know the area and the people involved, but there is the risk of a backlash. There is also a major risk of civil war. If this happens, I would like to know what the position of the Irish troops will be. What will happen if local tribes react in a negative manner to the current leader who, as we are aware, rose to power through a coup d'état that was backed by France? There is much tension about this aspect. Where do the Irish troops stand? Will we take one side or the other? Will we be neutral and how will that work in practice? Have these things been thought through?

While I understand the motivation behind this mission, I do not accept that it is a mission like any other because it is not. The conditions are harsher and more perilous, and the scale is far greater, than in any other mission undertaken by the Defence Forces. I ask the Minister to respond to the issues that have been raised by me and my colleagues on the Opposition benches.

See this speech in context