Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 67: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the cutting off of diplomatic relations with Chad by Sudan is a matter of concern for the UN mission to Chad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20152/08]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The breaking of diplomatic relations with Chad by Sudan followed an attack on 11 May by rebels from the Justice and Equality Movement, JEM, on the outskirts of the Sudanese capital, Khartoum. The Sudanese government accused Chad of backing the JEM rebels.

The UN Mission in Chad, MINURCAT, was established under UN Security Council Resolution 1778 and its mandate is to help create the security conditions conducive to a voluntary, secure and sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons, inter alia, by contributing to the protection of refugees, displaced persons and civilians in danger, by facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance in eastern Chad and the north-eastern Central African Republic and by creating favourable conditions for the reconstruction and economic and social development of those areas. MINURCAT provides security and protection for an estimated 400,000 refugees and internally displaced persons.

The EU military mission in Chad, EUFOR Tchad/RCA, was established under the same UN resolution and its mandate includes contributing to the protection of UN personnel, refugees and internally displaced persons.

As there is no cross-border dimension with Sudan to the MINURCAT mandate it is not expected that the breaking of diplomatic relations with Chad by Sudan will have an immediate significant adverse effect on the implementation of its mandate. However, the increase in tensions between Sudan and Chad is a matter of serious concern. Further rebel attacks in Chad in recent days have added to the already high tension. As Deputies will be aware, fighting took place over the weekend at Goz Beida near the Sudan-Chad border and Irish troops returned fire after being attacked, although there have been no reports of any Irish casualties.

The European Union has urged both Chad and Sudan to refrain from violent acts and providing support to each others' rebel groups. Diplomatic contact between the EU and both countries is continuing, including through the EU Special Representative for Sudan.

The UN Security Council on Monday last condemned in the strongest terms the attack conducted by Chadian armed groups since 11 June 2008.

In the longer term, the need to find a political settlement is the only hope for lasting peace between Chad and Sudan. Ireland will fully support any new African Union-United Nations mediation efforts to restore diplomatic ties and we will continue to monitor developments very closely.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I ask my question, I wish to say I am entirely supportive of what the Irish troops are seeking to do in protecting refugees, displaced persons and those involved in humanitarian relief. However, a serious situation has emerged and there is a problem with the interpretation of UN Resolution 1778 and the nature of the mandate under which the Irish troops and EUFOR are operating in Chad.

The director of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Chad stated that she would have expected Irish troops to prevent looting, the stealing of food and water, the displacement of staff and the closure of its office in Chad. The Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees stated that it was unhappy that the Irish forces were able to offer accommodation to the displaced people from the UNHCR office after the event. This raises a fundamental issue as to what is involved in the mandate that arises under UN Resolution 1778. Is it preventative? The Minister referred to creating a secure environment for the delivery of relief, sustenance and so forth which, according to most international interpretations, would include the protection of those involved in humanitarian relief. I say this to be positive but I believe that the proportionate presence of the Irish troops in relation to the overall French presence presents a further difficulty.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the Deputy asked this question because it might be opportune to clarify the situation. The Irish contingent with UNFOR is performing an outstanding humanitarian role. I met Javier Solana on Tuesday at the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. He has been to Chad and he came over to me to thank me and to pay warm tribute to the professionalism of Irish soldiers and the role they are playing impartially and objectively. He could not say enough about the quality of the contribution which the Irish contingent is making in difficult and challenging conditions and which is in accordance with its UN mandate.

I am aware of this morning's The Irish Times report and the reported comments of a UNHCR spokeswoman in Chad which were critical of alleged inaction by our troops during clashes last Saturday between Chadian Government troops and rebels. I understand my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, fully responded to these claims in an interview on RTE radio this morning before his journey home from a visit to Chad. As the Minister for Defence said, the senior UNHCR official in the area of operations of the Irish contingent specifically thanked him for the performance of the Irish troops during the incidents over the weekend. The UNHCR official praised the exemplary and professional way in which the Irish troops did everything they were asked to do by his organisation.

The Minister for Defence also referred during his interview to an apology that was made by the UNHCR for the remarks reported in The Irish Times. I hope the position will be clarified further in time to come. While it is important not to exaggerate the extent of the clashes over the weekend, I am advised the Irish contingent responded appropriately and within its mandate to the circumstances it faced, including firing warning shots. Subsequently, a significant number of humanitarian workers, including UNHCR staff, were given refuge at the Irish camp Ciara.

It is important to be clear about the role of our troops in Chad. The Irish contingent and EUFOR as a whole operate under a clear UN mandate to protect refugees and internally displaced persons, to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and to protect UN personnel, particularly the UN mission, MINUCRAT, which is deploying to support policing in Chad. It is not part of its mandate to intervene in any way in the conflict between the Chadian Government and rebels or to patrol the border with Sudan.

On the latter point, we are particularly conscious of the sensitivities of the situation and the neutral and impartial nature of EUFOR's mandate is crucial and has rightly been emphasised by the operation commander, Lieutenant General Pat Nash, who has reported on the positive impact the mission is already having in protecting civilians in danger and building positive relationships with the various actors in what is undoubtedly a volatile and difficult environment.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Irish troops remain the most neutral and impartial component in EUFOR. The proportion is important. It is official French policy to support the President of Chad. We are not required to do so nor am I am alleging that is Irish policy. However, I suggest that, practically, it is a complication.

My fundamental question is about the relationship between Sudan and Chad. I refer to the amassing of troops on the border. There has been allegation and counter-allegation. If the insurrectionary or rebel force reached a particular point in Chad, one would then be dealing with an international conflict and, effectively, a civil war. There would be no peace to be kept so the mandate would be different.

Does the Minister agree UN Resolution 1778 and the EUFOR mandate include the protection of humanitarian workers working for the multilateral agencies, such as the UNHCR? I am entirely sympathetic to, and in admiration of, the sophistication of the Irish component but we cannot afford confusion about the interpretation of the mandate. It must be clarified to demonstrate that it includes the protection of international humanitarian workers.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I said, it is not only to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid but also to protect UN personnel. I await the return of the Minister for Defence who will have first-hand knowledge, having been to Chad, and who will be able to give us the most up-to-date position. The Deputy hypothesised about a potential deterioration of the situation and a heightening of tensions which could lead to an international conflict. We hope that will not be the case and the UN is making every effort to try to prevent that from happening. However, the situation is very tense. There is a clear mandate in terms of how the troops are operating at present. If the situation changes, that will call for a review.