No Irish Troops for Lebanon

by RC - PANA Wed Oct 11, 2006 19:22

“Resolution 1701 which provides the mandate for troops to be sent to Lebanon is a one sided document. It is a legal coup for Israel and the United States . It attempts to win diplomatically what Israel and it’s US & UK sponsors failed to win militarily in their murderous assault on Lebanon ; the disarming of the resistance in Lebanon .

Ireland is no longer a neutral state. Under the leadership of the Ahern Government it is now an active and enthusiastic supporter of the Bush/Blair so called, "war on terrorism." Its troops now guard Shannon airport to facilitate the use of the airport in that war. Ireland is already an integral part of the Bush/Blair war machine. Therefore it is a logical step for the Ahern Government to send Irish troops to Lebanon .

Due to our past history of opposing British Imperialism and the constructive role played by Irish troops in Lebanon it is more than possible that they will be initially welcomed by the people of Lebanon . The immediate mission to remove the many thousands of cluster bombs dropped on the civilian areas by Israel is, in itself, a worthy task.

The reality however, is they are only a very small part of a much larger military force of 16,000 troops, (much larger than needed to simply disarm cluster bombs), most of whom are from NATO states with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq . The UN international force includes the Germans who recently sold two nuclear capable submarines to Israel . One only has to scratch the surface of peace keeping rhetoric to realize this UN international force is an army of occupation to be tasked with the job of disarming the Lebanese resistance movement. There is already ample evidence that the US and UK are playing on sectarian divisions to deepen conflict among the people of Lebanon in an effort to disarm the resistance.

There is also the very real possibility that the US/UK/Israeli axis will bomb Iran leading to inevitable conflict in Lebanon and elsewhere.

What is happening in Lebanon cannot be viewed in isolation the wider political & military attack on the Middle East as a region. The Governments decision to deploy Irish troops to the Lebanon deepens Ireland ’s complicity in that attack. During the lead up to the general election Irish people will have a decision to make. Do we want to continue supporting Ahern’s collusion with Bush/Blair/Olmert axis of war? Or do we want to restore our integrity & international peace keeping integrity by demanding our neutrality be re-established & that our solders not be used in such a duplicitous scenario as we see in Lebanon today.

It is PANAs intention to make sure Ireland 's participation in that war IS an issue in the next election.

by Dáil Observer Wed Oct 11, 2006 19:56

In the Dáil today the Government put forward a motion to send Irish troops to the Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL Force. Joe Higgins T.D. opposed this motion and put forward the position of the Socialist Party and the Committee for a Workers’ International on this issue. The following is a copy of his speech.

Joe Higgins (The Socialist Party): "The United Nations has no credibility as a champion for the people of Lebanon. Resolution 1701 blatantly understates the criminal slaughter of more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians by the Israeli armed forces. The barbaric destruction of huge swathes of infrastructure in Lebanon and the massacre of the innocents was carried out using armaments, planes and bombs supplied to Israel by two of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, namely the United States and Britain. Germany has just given Israel three nuclear-powered submarines in the wake of the slaughter. This is the body to which the Government and others now look to resolve the problems of the people of Lebanon.

"Many well-meaning people in Ireland, including ordinary Irish soldiers, believe that United Nations troops will help to bring peace to the Lebanon. Unfortunately, they will be disappointed. Members should consider the disaster that recently befell the Timorese people when, under the very eyes of the United Nations forces, that country split apart. In reality, the terms of this deployment are dictated to the United Nations on Israel's behalf by the United States. Irish soldiers risk being caught in a murderous conflict between the Israel Defence Forces, IDF, and the Hizbollah.

"If the United Nations considers a buffer zone to be necessary in southern Lebanon - in reality it is to protect the IDF - why does it not maintain a buffer zone in the south of Israel to protect the long-suffering Palestinian people of Gaza, who are now corralled and slaughtered weekly, in what is the greatest concentration camp in the world? The solution to this crisis is not more United Nations forces. It lies in the hands of the working people and peasants of the Lebanon, the Palestinian people and the Israeli working class. It does not lie in the hands of the United Nations imperial powers, the Israeli ruling class, the inept Lebanese Government or any such force. Moreover, it does not lie in the hands of Hizbollah either, which is a right-wing fundamentalist force.

"On the basis of a democratic and socialist Middle East, in which its resources are used for the benefit of the people of the region, the peoples can come together, work out a peace solution and live in peace. This is the way forward rather than another short-term United Nations so-called solution, which will undoubtedly end in failure. As a Socialist Party Deputy, I am the only Member to oppose this motion. Unfortunately, under the rules of the House, this means there will be no division. However, I believe this opposition will be vindicated by future events".

by Dáil Scribbler Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:14

Remarks of Sinn Féin's Aengus Ó Snodaigh on the deployment of Irish troops to UNIFIL and the response from Minster Willie O'Dea to the debate.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt le na Teachtaí Gormley, Finian McGrath agus Joe Higgins.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo agus go bhfuil an Rialtas sásta an rún seo a phlé sa Teach inniú. Níl ach 65 nóiméid i gceist. Ní leor sin agus sinn ag plé beatha 150 fir agus mná Éireannacha agus a gclann. Ba chóir go mbeadh an díospóireacht seo sa choiste, áit ina mbeadh níos mó ama againn na ceisteanna seo a chíoradh i gceart agus baint go mionn leis na sonraí atá i gceist. Caithfimid déileáil leis an méid atá os ár gcomhair agus is trua nach bhfuil ach 65 nóiméid againn.

According to the Irish United Nations Veterans Association, since 1958 the Defence Forces have provided 70,000 soldiers for tours of duty overseas in 40 countries. Some 85 members of the Defence Forces have died overseas and many more have been injured. It is always important that overseas missions are fully scrutinised before the deployment of Irish soldiers. It is particularly important in the case of UNIFIL, given the threat posed to the personnel by Israel which last summer demonstrated again its willingness to kill United Nations personnel with impunity. Last July Israeli shelling resulted in the deaths of four UN observers despite the fact that UN peacekeepers had warned Israeli soldiers ten times to stop the shelling. This is not the first time Israel has shown absolute disregard for the lives of UN staff. In 2002 Israeli occupying forces in the West Bank killed UN Relief and Works Agency project manager Mr. Iain Hook. The direct threat posed by Israel to members serving with UNIFIL must be recognised and the Minister has not done this.

Sinn Féin had hoped the resolution extending the UNIFIL mission would provide for deployment on both sides of the border and give UNIFIL a mandate to monitor Israeli activities. Unfortunately and foolishly, the mandate does not extend to this. The mission is in south Lebanon alone. However, given that the Lebanese are supportive of the UN mission, Sinn Féin also supports it but we are concerned about some aspects of the expanded mandate. The Department of Defence briefing notes state the role of UNIFIL is to to be "considerably more robust" but claims that it still operates under Chapter VI of the UN charter. Chapter VI covers traditional peacekeeping tasks such as monitoring, patrolling and observing. However, according to a senior US State Department official, the resolution expanding UNIFIL's role has all the characteristics of a Chapter VII resolution. It walks, talks and acts like a Chapter VII resolution. Chapter VII allows for enforcement by military means. The Minister must clarify whether the more robust role of UNIFIL II strays into the arena of Chapter VII. Although he addressed some of these issues, I would like him to go further in ensuring we are not straying into the arena of Chapter VII.

While Ireland has a proud record of involvement in peacekeeping missions overseas, including Lebanon, where Irish members have been stationed since 1978, it is important to remember that there have been mistakes and we should avoid repeating them. During the years there have been reports of discrimination or differential treatment by UNIFIL of Muslims versus Christians.
Some former members informed me that at times the Israeli-backed Christian militias were given a free run in UNIFIL-patrolled areas, while some members of the Muslim population were treated poorly. I hope that will not be the case on this occasion. I am aware that it was not the case in most of the regions in which Irish soldiers served in the past and I understand they were quite good in ensuring that discrimination did not occur.

The Minister for Defence must monitor the operations of the new UNIFIL force to ensure that it operates at all times in a manner above reproach. This is particularly important in light of the new, robust UNIFIL mandate to which the Minister referred. We must be vigilant in respect of attempts to co-opt the UNIFIL force into serving the ends of interested countries and their foreign policies and we must ensure that such corruption of the mission is not allowed to happen. Given the nature of the mandate, I ask the Minister to make a commitment that the House will return to this issue in six months to discuss how UNIFIL ll is progressing.

Minister for Defence (Mr. O'Dea): I thank all Members for their contributions and for recognising the importance of the contribution of Ireland and the Defence Forces to international peace and security. I am particularly grateful for the kind words and compliments from Members regarding the manner in which the Defence Forces have discharged such missions. This debate reflects the high regard in which the Defence Forces are held as peacekeepers and the warm regard which the people have for the Defence Forces. This is recognition of the important role they play in the community they serve, both here and abroad.

I will respond to some points raised by Members. Deputy Timmins rightly sought assurances regarding the equipment and training the troops will receive before going to Lebanon and I am happy to provide such assurances. The Deputy also referred to the enormity of the physical damage, a point with which I concur. Approximately 30,000 buildings have been destroyed and as estimates of the damage come to between €3 billion and €6 billion, an enormous rebuilding job remains to be done. Deputy Timmins also asked whether, on the conclusion of the mission to Liberia next year, the troops involved will be redeployed to UNIFIL II with the same mandate or with a different role. I cannot say at present. It will depend on both circumstances in the Lebanon and on demands on our resources elsewhere in the world at that time.

Deputy Coveney referred to the possibility of our troops being asked to disarm Hizbollah. As he rightly noted, this will not happen. The disarmament of Hizbollah is the clear responsibility of the Lebanese Government and the United Nations has expressed the view that such disarmament can only take place within the context of an overall political settlement.

Deputy Costello questioned the Irish troops' role overseas. As I noted, the two major outstanding problems - apart from the volatility of the situation - are the destruction of property and infrastructure and the quantity of unexploded ordnance. The most recent estimate suggests that 350,000 unexploded pieces of ordnance remain in part of Lebanon, which is quite scary.

Mr. Costello: This refers to the cluster bombs that were used in the last days of the war.

Mr. O'Dea: Yes, this refers to cluster bombs, cluster bomblets etc.

I will explain the purpose of the Irish-Finnish contingent. The Finnish contingent consists of engineers who will rebuild the infrastructure. Any ordinary use of language would describe that activity as being humanitarian. In addition, the Finns will clear unexploded ordnance in their area of operations. Essentially, the Finnish contingent is an engineering unit and it will require protection. The Finns will need troops to perform reconnaissance and to check out the safety of an area.

At present, 677 troops are serving abroad. As the maximum to which we are committed is 850 troops, not much capacity remains. We did not have sufficient capacity to put together a full Irish contingent. We examined how we could contribute usefully and this is what we came up with. The Finns are delighted with it and the United Nations stated that it fits in perfectly with its plans and it will be a successful mission. The work the Irish troops will perform there is both real and valuable. In addition to the work they will undertake with the Finns, the Irish contingent will remain as an asset of the overall force commander in the Lebanon. He will be able to call upon the Irish troops to perform any other task he may wish to assign to them. I refer to tasks such as escort duties, patrolling etc., within their area of operations.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh and other Members referred to the possible danger to our troops. When taking such a decision, all Ministers for Defence, of whatever political persuasion, are always conscious of the danger to the troops. I agree with Deputy Gormley that this mission has the potential to be extremely dangerous. However, both the Liberian and Kosovan missions were extremely dangerous initially. From my perspective, this mission is not necessarily any more dangerous. However, it must be monitored as it progresses.

We have trained and equipped the troops to the maximum degree possible to try to ensure their safety. Moreover, our troops have considerable experience in peacekeeping operations and peace enforcement operations.

As to whether the mission falls under Chapter VI or Chapter VII, it is a Chapter VI mission and is described as such. In general, Chapter VI missions occur when a ceasefire is in place, which is the case at present. Basically, Chapter VI missions consist of monitoring to ensure that no one tries to break a ceasefire, that there are no arms transactions etc. and there is no training of illegal militias etc. It simply consists of keeping an eye on the situation. In Chapter VII missions, people must engage in what is called peace enforcement. They are obliged to use force to compel people to separate from each other, or to get in between opposing armies.

This is a Chapter VI mission. A ceasefire has taken effect and, essentially, this will be a monitoring operation. However, at some stage, I presume the Lebanese Government must discharge its obligation to disarm Hizbollah. In that case, UNIFIL II will play a supporting role and will support the Lebanese army and Government. The resolution contains wording to the effect that they are entitled to use all force to ensure that no one interferes with the discharge of their mandate. While this might have a Chapter VII ring to it, it is really a Chapter VI mission.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh also asked whether I would return to the House in six months time to discuss progress. Such matters are always kept under regular review anyway. If a debate is needed, or if the situation changes materially during the coming months, I expect the Whips will facilitate a debate in the House on the matter. In any event, the Government will be obliged to act.

Deputy Gormley referred to the activities of the Israeli army. There is currently a United Nations investigation into the use by the Israeli army of cluster bombs and I anxiously await its outcome. Deputy Joe Higgins voiced his opposition to the mission. He envisages the solution in terms of the working classes of Lebanon, Palestine and Israel all coming together. Although that may be great, while we wait for the working classes to do so, we must go in to secure the situation, which is the purpose of this proposal. I commend the proposal to the House.

by John Thu Oct 12, 2006 19:15

I see a bit of a problem for Mr. Cole. He supports and is a member of the Labour Party. Or at least he was, I have better things to do than keep myself fully informed on who is or is not a member of that party. The Labour Party will be fighting the next election on a platform of going into government with Fine Gael. Fine Gael are even more in favour of abandoning the 'neutrality' Mr Cole cherishes than are the present government. They want to formally abandon it and move towards joining miliary alliances with other EU countries. This is not a criticism of FG, I agree with their policies on this issue. But, can Mr. Cole tell us, when he urges people not to vote for the FF/PD government because he claims they've abandoned Irish neutrality, is he likewise going to urge the people not to vote for FG, his own party's preferred coalition partners?

by Robyn Wood - Tara Defenders Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:58 peacefulwarriorprincess at yahoo dot com dot au Australia

Interesting angle.

I support sending peacekeeping UN Blue Beret troops to Lebanon and Darfur and all trouble spots in the world - anything to stop the killing and rebuild peace.

Right, that said, its now a free for all -for you ideological nest of vipers to rip my head off.

I wish my country would send troops but we pretend we are too busy in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands and Lebanon is on the *other* side of the world where you Europeans should be leaping to action.

Never mind that my country has a large population of people with a Lebanese heritage.

What message would you like me to give my netfriend in Lebanon who is so desperate to leave his devastated country he will marry any foreign woman just to get her citizenship? A Muslim who's house has been destroyed and brothers killed in the wars, who is being refused welfare from the government who only support Christians? Is it any wonder that Hezbollah are so popular if they step in to provide welfare and support to the Muslim people whereas their own government abandon them to starvation and violence?

Your ideology is all well and good but people are suffering and dying on a daily basis.

Send in the Irish troops!

by Unsurprising , Really Fri Oct 13, 2006 13:16

Everything must be accomplished with the guns and the bullets.

Has the Irish Government press-released on humanitarian aid?

Are they supporting the NGO's that have an uphill struggle to bring relief

food, hospital shelter, drugs, medical supplies to the people?

9mm Willy is talking testosterone politics- who are the victims of war, do they want
soldiers or would they rather food/tents/medical relief.

The administrators of the Irish Regime have a napoleonic complex
and it is not lateral. .!.

by Roger - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Fri Oct 13, 2006 14:26 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance is a broad based alliance established 10 years ago to oppose the process by which this state's neutrality, Independence and democracy are being destroyed as it is steadily integrated into the US/EU military industrial structures in order to ensure all Ireland active participation in the resource wars of the 21st century. It is a policy supported by virtually the entire political/corporate media elite. It is a disasterous policy, in particular for the Arab people who at the receiving end of this imperialist war led by Bush and Blair and supported by Ahern.
On some issues the Labour Party leadership has not agreed, in particular, it strongly opposed Irish participation in the Iraq war, in particular the use of Shannon. However John is correct in saying that Labour Party members such as myself are in a minority on issues like the militarisation of the EU and indeed many people have left and joined other parties. The thought has crossed my mind as well. However, as I joined the party in 1967 and have seen party leaders come and go over that period I remain convinced that it will return inevitably to its Connolly tradition as we are dragged deeper and deeper into supporting the Bush/Blair/Ahern war. Wars have the effect of transforming politics in a way parish pump politics never do, and it will be no differerent this time either. As far as PANA is concerned we will seek to make the use of Shannon Airport in this Imperialist war an issue in the next election. While we have a perspective on the use of Irish troops in Lebanon differerent from other elements in the broad anti-war movement, our focus will remain on Shannon.