Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 49: To ask the Minister for Defence when he informed the United Nations officially of the decision to withdraw Defence Forces from participation in Chad; if he formally informed the United Nations of the decision prior to, or following, his announcement of, or revealing of, the decision publicly on 30 March 2010; if the United Nations either formally or informally urged that the information not be announced at the time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15847/10]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 50 together.

MINURCAT was established under the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1861 of 14 January 2009 to replace the EU-led EUFOR TCHAD-RCA mission in Chad and the Central African Republic with which in excess of 400 Irish Defence Forces personnel had been serving since May 2008. Ireland has participated in MINURCAT since the transfer of authority from the EU to the UN on 15 March 2009.

In January 2010, President Déby announced that he wished to see the UN military element of the mission withdraw from Chad. Since then, staff in Ireland's mission to the UN have met UN officials on numerous occasions to ascertain the future of the MINURCAT mission. Our officials made clear Ireland's concerns regarding the future of the mission and our need for a substantive renewal of the mission after 15 March 2010 when the then extant mandate was due to expire. Our representatives pointed out that, in the event that the mandate was not renewed, it would not be possible to extract Defence Forces personnel and equipment. Moreover, under both national and international law, Ireland cannot remain in Chad without the cover of a substantive UN mandate.

In the event, the Security Council, on 12 March, agreed a technical roll-over of the mandate to 15 May 2010 to allow for ongoing discussions on the mission's future with the Chadian Government.

There was further engagement with the UN by our representatives highlighting to it the very real concerns on the part of Ireland in regard to the mandate and the impact of the onset of the rainy season. In this regard, we acted in close co-ordination with our Finnish colleagues and there was more or less daily contact between our officials in Dublin, Helsinki and New York.

Not alone was there uncertainty regarding the extension of the mandate but even if it was extended, there was no certainty in regard to the overall duration of the mission, the number of troops that might be retained in the mission, the sectors to which they may be deployed, the nature of the mandate and the role and authority of troops within the mission. Given of the uncertainty of the situation, the imminent onset of the rainy season and on the basis of the military and policy advice available to me, I brought the matter before the Government which accepted my recommendation that it was necessary to withdraw the Irish contingent from MINURCAT.

I assure the House that this was not a decision the Government took lightly. Ireland's clear preference was to remain in this mission. In the days leading up to the Government's decision, I spoke twice and at length with Under Secretary General Le Roy in the UN department of peacekeeping operations to emphasise the seriousness of the situation and impress on him the importance of some reassurance from the UN on the mission mandate. Regrettably, the under secretary could give no reasonable assurance and I, therefore, advised him that I had no option but to recommend to Government that we initiate the process of withdrawal.

At no stage did the under secretary suggest that the timing was sensitive in terms of ongoing discussions or ask me to withhold publicly announcing the decision. If anything, he indicated he understood Ireland's predicament and the difficult position we faced. During my discussions with the under secretary, I asked him to revert to me urgently if there was any significant change regarding the future of the mission in the days following the Government decision. I told him I would leave the door open for as long as possible and that I would consider reversing the decision should we get some assurance regarding the continuation of the mission in the immediate future.

On 30 March 2010, Ireland's ambassador to the UN met Under Secretary General Le Roy and formally advised him of the Government decision to withdraw its contingent from MINURCAT. The under secretary indicated that he understood the reasons behind Ireland's decision. He said there would likely be no final decision by the UN until May in the knowledge that was too late for Ireland to withdraw its contingent. The ambassador highlighted Ireland's continuing commitment to the UN and reassured the under secretary of Ireland's future participation in UN missions.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, congratulate him on his new portfolio and look forward to a very good working relationship with him. I also extend my best wishes to the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Dermot Earley, and his family following the announcement of his premature retirement on medical grounds. Lieutenant General Earley showed great leadership not only in the Defence Forces, but also on the playing fields of Ireland and in his community.

There were a number of reports in the national media, including RTE, from UN officials that they felt the Minister's announcement of the withdrawal of the Defence Forces from Chad undermined delicate negotiations which were ongoing at that time in N'Djamena between UN officials and the Chadian Government and that it probably supported the case of those who did not want the UN in Chad. Will the Minister confirm that?

Alain Le Roy, the under secretary for peacekeeping, expressed concern about the withdrawal of the mission before and after the announcement. John Holmes, the UN humanitarian chief, also expressed concern when the Minister made the announcement. Will the Minister confirm that when he made the announcement, the United Nations was very clear Ireland would withdraw its troops?

In view of the fact hundreds of thousands of refugees in these camps will be unprotected, what arrangements will be put in place to replace the Irish mission? Will the Minister confirm whether he will withdraw all the equipment from Chad or will he leave some there?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Deenihan for his best wishes. I had the opportunity to visit Lieutenant General Dermot Earley on two occasions and I agree with what the Deputy said.

On the press reports that the Irish decision might have undermined delicate negotiations, I have been unable to find any reliable source at UN level to indicate that. Long before my appointment, my predecessor and the officials explained very clearly to the United Nations the difficulties that would arise in regard to the mandate expiring in the middle of May and the fact the rainy season was imminent and that there was a considerable amount of Irish equipment there which needed to be taken out. The best estimates were that, at an absolute minimum, eight weeks would be required to withdraw the troops and equipment. People may not understand that when the rainy season starts, there are de facto no roads in Chad. Whatever limited travel is possible is by helicopter or aeroplane. That is a very grave difficulty. We obviously had concerns in regard to the UN mandate because we could not be there without it. We had concerns about the safety of troops and about the equipment, which Deputy Deenihan mentioned, that could not be taken out if that were to arise.

The day after my appointment, I spoke to the under secretary on the telephone and explained to him all these difficulties. To be fair, this matter had already been explained in some detail by my predecessor and by defence officials. He understood that was the position and he did not indicate the decision would create any of the difficulties mentioned in the press reports. Unfortunately, not only was he unable to give a guarantee that there would be a renewed mandate, which would have been an unreasonable request of him, but he was unable to give me a strong indication that there was confidence that there would be a renewed mandate. I telephoned him again a number of days later before the Government meeting. The situation had not changed and it was not expected to change.

Current indications are that if there is a renewed mandate, there is a question about the numbers mandated and the kind of mandate that may arise or whether there will be a mandate. That was always the situation as can be seen from that which arose last January and, more particularly, from the limited nature of the renewal that arose in March.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy O'Shea for his good wishes. He has the advantage of having had the benefit of a visit to Chad. The Deputy is correct that the strength of the Chadian military has been increased. The Government's preference was to have been able to continue in the MINURCAT mission. It is true, however, that considerable improvements have taken place and the impact of Irish and other United Nations troops has been positive. Nevertheless, the Government wanted to continue to participate in the mission. It is generally understood, however, that owing to the conditions that prevail in Chad, the decision to withdraw our troops was necessary. It was not possible to keep the decision secret although in any event, no one suggested it was either necessary or desirable to do so.

While there have been some improvements in the position in Chad, the Government's clear preference was for a renewal of the UN mandate at the current level, rather than at the level at which it may, according to speculation, be renewed - if it is renewed. We would like to have been part of any such renewed mandate.

On the future role of Irish troops, we have an ongoing commitment to the United Nations to provide 850 troops. Anyone who deals with defence matters will be aware of the triple lock requirement which applies when more than 12 troops are involved. The triple lock, which involves a Government decision, United Nations mandate and approval by the House, remains in place.

Looking back over previous missions, few would have predicted that Irish troops would serve in Chad when Liberia, Eritrea and other trouble spots were having the benefit of the input of Irish troops. Unfortunately, the state of the world is such that there is generally no great shortage of places where troops are required for deployment. The Government is well disposed to fulfilling our mandate in that regard.

We intend to avail of this opportunity to do a substantial amount of what may be termed "housekeeping" to bring equipment up to date and provide training. Those who have been serving overseas also need rest and a break. A considerable amount of work needs to be done and there is no danger that Army personnel will have a slack period, as it were. In any event, we have a commitment to the United Nations which we intend to fulfil when the UN requests us to do so. As Deputies will be aware, EUFOR has submitted a request to retain a small number of Irish troops - approximately 50 - in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We will accede to this request which was received in recent days.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To repeat my earlier question, who will protect the refugee camps the Irish mission was protecting? What arrangements are in place to do the work the Irish contingent was doing very successfully? The Irish personnel on the successful Chad mission earned considerable international respect arising from the manner in which they operated.

Is it the Minister's intention to leave some equipment behind in Chad given that some of it has been used extensively and it would be expensive to transport it to Ireland? Will the Minister confirm that Ireland's hard won reputation in the United Nations, which it has built up since the Congo mission, has not been undermined in the UN or among our peacekeeping partners as a result of this decision? It is important that the Minister provides this reassurance.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the House that our standing with the United Nations remains high. There are strong indications that we will receive further requests for assistance from the UN. As I indicated, Irish troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina will remain in the country for a much longer period than anticipated. They were due to return to Ireland in July but will now remain until the end of the year, assuming the mission's mandate is renewed. While I understand the mandate will expire in mid-October or thereabouts, difficulties are not envisaged in that regard and Ireland does not have any difficulty in this respect with the United Nations.

Deputies O'Shea and Deenihan asked a question about the United Nations mandate and the protection of people in the camps and so forth. I understand there are currently approximately 3,400 UN troops on the MINURCAT mission. This figure is likely to be scaled back by almost one half to around 2,000 troops. Questions arise about how these troops will be deployed. I do not have information on that issue at this point. As Deputy O'Shea noted, however, the capacity of the Chadian authorities to address some of the issues they face has improved.

One welcome development which must not be overlooked is that many emerging African nations are in a position to provide troop support to the United Nations. This is, in some instances, highly desirable and I have no doubt the United Nations has been giving the matter consideration, particularly as some host authorities in particular regions have welcomed the development. That is not to say that our troops will not have a role in future. The Government is more than happy to examine any proposal from the United Nations and there are strong indications that such proposals will be forthcoming.

Two issues arise with regard to equipment. I understand it would not make sense to move certain equipment and it would be beneficial to people on the ground in Chad if it were left in place. Nonetheless, the mission's military equipment will be returned to Ireland. The arrangements are made through a private contractor. I understand that the cost is probably in the region of about €8 million, but virtually all the cost is borne by the UN.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I share the Deputy's concerns and his views on what should be done. Much would depend on the type of mandate operated by the UN. The current mission is under a Chapter VII mandate, which brings some freedoms and some restrictions. There are suggestions that any future mandate is likely to be under Chapter VI, which removes the role considerably further away from the direction Deputy O'Shea and many others would like to see it going. There are logistical, cultural and other problems which have to be addressed when the mandate is of the nature outlined by Deputy O'Shea. In situations where this is required, and where organisations of the calibre of Amnesty International are doing a wonderful job in the human rights area, it is incumbent on the UN to pursue those issues.

Apart from our responsibility or willingness to participate on a military level, it is fair to say that Ireland's participation in the UN, via the ambassador, the Minister and the Department, is very highly regarded. We have historically been pursuing issues of this nature and have a particular standing with the UN in diplomatic terms and in terms of the respect that has been built up by the Defence Forces on UN missions over several decades.