Defence Forces

98. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Defence to provide a detailed explanation of the similarities and differences between the mandates of UNIFIL and the European Union Support Mission in Lebanon; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [77098/26]

105. Deputy Erin McGreehan asked the Minister for Defence for an update on the final dispatch of Defence Forces peacekeepers to the UNIFIL mission. [76828/26]

175. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Defence to provide an update on her recent visit to Lebanon, including her engagements with Irish peacekeepers serving with UNIFIL, and her assessment of the situation on the ground; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [77466/26]

At the heart of the recent propaganda effort by the Government to try to convince people that we need to scrap the triple lock while pretending it has nothing to do with neutrality has been the attempt to portray the EU support mission in Lebanon as being some sort of continuation of UNIFIL of which, obviously, Irish people are supportive. UNIFIL has positive support for the idea of our peacekeepers playing a real peacekeeping role there. The question is to explore the differences between these two things. Indeed, when she was in Ireland, Kaja Kallas said the EU is not seeking to replace UNIFIL. It is a very different beast that is being proposed.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 98, 105 and 175 together. I want outline very clearly that although both UNIFIL and the recently established European Union Support Mission in Lebanon, EUSM Lebanon, are intended to contribute to stability and security in Lebanon, they differ significantly in their mandate, legal basis and operational tasks. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. They are different and I am saying that very clearly. UNIFIL operates under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) and subsequent mandate renewals. Its primary tasks include monitoring the cessation of hostilities, supporting the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces in southern Lebanon, accompanying and supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces as they deploy throughout the south, assisting in ensuring humanitarian access to civilian populations and contributing to the creation of conditions conducive to a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution. We know that the situation has changed, so we know that many of those duties are not possible at the moment because of the changed environment, in particular in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL conducts patrols, operates observation posts, liaises between the parties, monitors developments along the blue line - now, we have a yellow line, which is essentially an occupation in the south - and supports de-escalation efforts in a challenging security environment. I want to acknowledge that. I travelled to Lebanon and south Lebanon last week and witnessed the environment in which they are operating. I commend all of our personnel, not just those who are there now but those who have served in Lebanon for many decades. While UNIFIL is fundamentally a peacekeeping mission, it is important to recognise as well that the mission is also authorised to take necessary action within its capabilities and area of operations to protect United Nations personnel and civilians under imminent threat and to ensure its area of operations is not used for hostile activities. By contrast, the EUSM is a non-executive training mission. It has been established as an EU Common Security and Defence Policy mission focused primarily on capacity building, training, mentoring and strategic advice. The mission is intended to support Lebanese state institutions, particularly the Lebanese Armed Forces and, again, having engaged directly with our political colleagues in Beirut only in recent weeks, it is very clear that a lot of support is needed. Many who are working in the Lebanese Armed Forces are working on a part-time basis. This mission is, therefore, intended to support them and enhance their capabilities, and other Lebanese security bodies, in strengthening their ability to exercise effective control over Lebanese territory, improve border security, enhance maritime security, counter illicit trafficking and smuggling and improve command, planning and operational capabilities. This is what we are setting out at the outset. The tasks envisaged for EUSM Lebanon include the provision of training, mentoring and advisory support; assistance in areas such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; support for border management and security sector reform; enhancement of logistics and command structures; and co-ordination between Lebanese security institutions. It will be a much smaller mission. It will be focused primarily north of the Litani river. There is no suggestion that we are going to be sending troops to the south or, in particular, the occupied part of the south. Therefore, a separate UNIFIL area of operations will exist yet will nonetheless operate as an important indicator of EU and international support for Lebanon following the end of the UNIFIL mandate. If there are any future elements to that, in particular around fourth protection, which is another element that is being discussed but has not been agreed, we would, of course, have to look at that and take it on its own in the round. There was no suggestion that we are going to propose anything other than a mission that would align with our values, with the UN Charter and with international law, making sure we are focused on peace and security. Both missions reflect the international community's commitment to supporting a secure, stable and sovereign Lebanon, albeit through different mechanisms and mandates. In addition, other potential missions in support of Lebanon are being planned and they may provide opportunities for Irish peacekeepers should the triple lock requirement be removed and, again, should they align with our national policies and legislation. However, any decision taken in that regard would have to be a decision taken by Government and would likely have to be a decision taken by the Dáil as well. In terms of the UNIFIL mission, which will conclude at the end of this year, the 69th infantry group is currently completing its final preparations for deployment to Lebanon, with approximately 294 personnel due to depart later this month as part of what is expected to be Ireland's final infantry battalion rotation to the mission following the end of the mandate at the end of this year. They will not be carrying out the same level of actions that the previous and current missions have taken. This deployment will be mainly focused on the withdrawal arrangements for the Irish-Polish battalion. I look forward to attending the ministerial review in Aiken Barracks this Thursday and meeting the personnel, in particular, and thanking them for their contribution but also recognising their families. We know that when troops travel abroad, whether it is to Lebanon or anywhere else, their family members are behind them, they support them and, of course, they are a crucial part of that overall commitment to our State. Furthermore, I reassure this House and the general public that the upcoming end to our participation in UNIFIL does not mark the end of overseas service opportunities. One of the things the troops asked me repeatedly when I met with them two weeks ago was that we would continue to provide them with opportunities to serve overseas. Many of these people joined the Defence Forces so that they can contribute to international missions overseas. They are trained and have the required expertise in this field. It is so important that we work to provide them not just with opportunities but that our long-standing history and proud tradition of peacekeeping and supporting vulnerable communities, not just in Lebanon but in other parts of the world, can be continued. That is a commitment I made to them.

I thank the Minister. I welcome the clarity, in fairness, that this is something very different than UNIFIL. It is not a continuation of UNIFIL in any way. It is not a peacekeeping mission. I will just dig into it a little bit in terms of what the Minister's position is. If this is a trade mission, and I agree that is what the EU mandate is, is it her position that she could not send Irish troops to participate in this training mission without her proposal in getting rid of the triple lock or does it require the triple lock at all? As I understand from media interviews, her position is that it does not actually or would not require the triple lock effectively and we could send troops there. If that is the case, then why has she said things like our ability to take part in missions in, for example, Lebanon, is now being diminished? Can she explain why she told the media that a future Lebanon operation could be undertaken on both a peacekeeping and peace enforcement footing when, in fact, what she is talking about here is neither but is a training mission?

Is this not a shared question?

The other Members are not here.

I am here

They are here.

I am taking Deputy Currie's. She did contact the Ceann Comhairle's office.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I thank the Minister for updating us on the position. I certainly regret that after 50 years, Irish involvement in Lebanon is potentially going to come to an end. Many men and women, including our Fine Gael colleague, Deputy Callaghan, have served proudly in Lebanon, providing an essential security presence to protect a hard-won and very delicate peace, as we can certainly see today. It is a humanitarian mission, which Irish personnel have provided with pride. As the Minister outlined, while the EU countries may maintain a presence, without a UN mandate, the Irish have no option but to withdraw. Is there any other country currently participating in the Lebanon mission that, due to the withdrawal of the UN mandate, is intending to withdraw its involvement in Lebanon?

I thank both Deputies. There are two elements to what we are proposing. The EU has been clear and I have been clear on this. There is a civilian side to it and a training element. I have outlined all of the different areas of that. It is still a relatively small number when we compare the 360-plus we have plus all of the other missions. We serve with Polish and Hungarian colleagues in our area alone. Indonesia, Italy, Spain and every other country are contributing. It is a relatively small element. There is a second proposal, which will likely be around force protection. To restate, we are already contributing to force protection elements within the current mission. On peace enforcement, I have said clearly - perhaps it has become muddled up with everything because a lot of that is happening - that we have taken part in peace enforcement missions across the UN for many years. There are 11 missions at the moment, one of which ended on Friday. Five of them are peace enforcement missions. They are all UN-mandated missions. As a country, we have engaged in peace enforcement. However, that is not what we are talking about. Anything we would agree to or even consider would have to be in line with the UN Charter and its principles and with international law. It would have to go through a process similar to what we have now but without the requirement for the UN mandate. We are clear. I must push back on a narrative that is being pushed. Time and again, I have heard the Deputy, other Deputies, Senators and people on other platforms suggest that when we remove the triple lock, we are going to be sending our troops to fight with the IDF against Hezbollah. That is an absolutely ridiculous narrative. I received a report from the senior management of the Defence Forces, which has received reports from senior personnel on the ground in Lebanon. Defence Forces troops are concerned that the kind of narrative the Deputy is pushing, which is completely false and inaccurate, to the effect that we are going to send our troops to fight with the IDF against Hezbollah, which is what the Deputy is saying-----

No, it is not.

That is exactly what the Deputy has said. He said, "If they get away with [it] ... sending soldiers to Lebanon on the same side as Israel against Hezbollah will just be the start." That is exactly what the Deputy is saying. I am saying to him that our troops are saying that is putting them at risk. I have just come from the region. They are surrounded by troops from Hezbollah and the IDF who are in conflict with each other. The Deputy is actively saying that we are going to be sending our troops to fight with Israel against Hezbollah. It is completely false and inaccurate. If he had any respect for our troops, he would not be making up that kind of nonsense.

Will the Minister answer the question about the triple lock?

Deputy O'Connell also asked a question. I apologise, but what was it?

Has any other country withdrawn?

A number of countries that have people there are re-emphasising their desire to be a part of civilian training and are considering what other type of element of force protection might be a part of any future mission. A number of countries, including Ireland, have already put up our hands for the civilian side. That is not a matter that requires the triple lock. Any future mission would require highlighting a desire to be a part of that mission. We are not yet at that stage. However, I have no doubt but that the vast majority of those on the ground will continue to want to be on the ground.

We did not get clarity there. What is the Minister's position? Do we need to get rid of the triple lock in order to send troops to participate in the EU support mission? Do we or do we not? It is a simple question and people deserve an answer. The Minister is saying that we cannot go to this mission because of the triple lock when I think her position is that we can and it does not require the triple lock because it is a training mission. There is deliberate confusion coming from the Government. There is going to be mission creep here. It is about getting the training mission agreed, which may not require the triple lock. We are then going to get into peace enforcement. Listen to what Kaja Kallas said when she was talking about the EU mission: Our objective is to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces and the ability of the Lebanese state to provide security across its territory ... That also means moving towards disarmament of Hezbollah. I do not want our troops involved in the armed disarmament of Hezbollah. I do not think our troops should be involved in that. I do not want to put our troops at risk of that. I do not know if the Minister wants to do so. She might clarify.

I thank the Minister for clarifying the position. The closure of Camp Shamrock is an absolute failure of our serving personnel. We have a duty to them to ensure that this does not happen. However, we also have a duty, and the Minister is trying to fulfil it, to ensure the public understands that without political action, legislative change and amending the triple lock, this is exactly what will happen. We hope there will be a training mission, but there will be other types of missions, too. This is a delicate piece in Lebanon and it will require more than just training missions. Why would we abandon people when they need us most? It is their most difficult time of need. How will we explain to future generations that we left Lebanon because we allowed foreign powers to decide whether we could go there and we, as a sovereign state, could not choose where to support those who need our protection? The Opposition says that this Government does not do enough for the people who are suffering in Gaza, even though we have done more than any other EU country. How does the Opposition then argue to retain the very measure that is forcing the withdrawal of Irish protection from the people of Lebanon?

Are we going to send troops to fight Israel? Is that the proposal? I would be surprised.

On Deputy O'Connell's last point, it is absolutely devastating to see what has happened in south Lebanon and, in particular, in what is referred to as the "buffer zone". It is an occupation. The IDF has come in and occupied a significant part of southern Lebanon, south of the Litani River. It has demolished entire villages. Some 99% of certain villages is gone and has been demolished. There are small minorities of Christian communities. There are orphanages. Very vulnerable people are now left in the south. What will happen when we pull out is that there will be nobody to monitor what is happening. None of us wants to be in that position. I am not suggesting that we are now going to be a part of any mission that is south of that border. That is not what we are suggesting. I am suggesting that we are a country which has spent decades contributing to peace and stability in Lebanon. The result is that every person in Lebanon knows where Ireland is, knows our troops and knows the contribution they have made over the decades. The idea that we would not go to every means possible to participate in security and peace in that country is beyond me and beyond what is being suggested. I am clear. There are two strands to what is being proposed. There is a civilian strand, which does not require the triple lock, and a military strand, which does.

Military training does require it, from the Minister's perspective, but it did not in Ukraine.

No, not military training; a military strand. I have said that force protection could be a part of that. This is what our troops are trained for. This is what they take part in. There should be no suggestion that this is something different or a departure. As part of their current mission, there is an element of force protection. That would require the triple lock to be removed or a UN mandate. To those who say we are not trying, I say that there will be discussions at the UN in the next week or two. Countries are specifically advocating to try to put in place-----

Does participation in the EU support mission require the triple lock or not?

The Minister is saying "No".

I have answered that question twice. I am not sure if the Deputy is listening.

Is the Minister saying that the military element-----

-----is a part of the EUSM or not?

Is it something separate?

This would be actually useful.

I have answered very clearly. The EU mission has two strands. There are two strands to one mission.

Okay, the Minister is saying-----

The attempt that is being made by Opposition parties which oppose this consistently is to fire accusations, shout and suggest we are going to be dragging everybody onto this slide and into this mission creep. We have been hearing that for decades. We have been hearing that we are going to join an EU army but it has not happened. We have been hearing that we are going to be sending our men and sons off to war. It is not happening. We have been hearing that we are going to be forced into all of this. It is not happening. I am saying that there are two strands to the one mission. We are choosing to be a part of the civilian side. I hope everybody agrees with that. It is training. Much of it is office work. It is about supporting through surveillance, cybersecurity and all of these other elements through which we want to support the LAF. If we wanted to take part in the other element - the military element, which could include force protection - we would not make a decision until we saw what it involved, what its boundaries were and whether it aligned with our values, international law and the UN Charter. We would not make that decision unless we were satisfied, but we cannot decide if the triple lock is in place.