Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply to my question in relation to the adequacy of numbers and reliance on United Nation forces — it being difficult to ascertain what might have happened on the ground — is the Taoiseach aware that there was widespread concern expressed that, when the final decisions were being taken in relation to numbers, they would be inadequate? Furthermore, is he aware that the reason the numbers were decided on were monetary rather than any decision in principle on the basis of what would be the best size of peace-keeping force? Furthermore, is the Taoiseach aware that there being only 700 United Nations personnel there on 1 April, when the problem broke out, the United Nations should not have called up the 101st battalion, which is known to be notorious as a heavy brigade, a battalion which engages in violence and exploitation, a strong arm battalion, when there were other battalions available to them and that their failure to do so only aggravated the problem? Would he agree that it is an indication of the total lack of preparedness and commitment, resulting from which the UN peacekeeping efforts have been seriously undermined? Would he agree that in order to get it back on the rails, the kinds of concerns we are expressing should be made known to the United Nations? Perhaps the best way of having this moved forward would be that Members who have particular concerns be allowed meet officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to ascertain how we can channel such concerns most constructively?

The history of the matter is that the Security Council approved the dispatching of the force on 16 February last. The force was originally planned to number 7,500. The Secretary General of the United Nations announced on 24 January 1989 that the initial deployment would consist of 4,650 only, 2,850 being held in reserve, as I have said. The permanent members of the Security Council had argued that the December 1988 arrangements on Namibia, between South Africa, Angola and Cuba, made the deployment of a large force unnecessary. Therefore, there were divided views at the Security Council. South Africa had given repeated assurances that they would respect the transitional arrangements.

Then the General Assembly approved the budget for UNTAG on 1 March last and, as has been repeatedly stated by the Secretary General, at least six to eight weeks would be the absolute minimum period necessary to permit UNTAG to be fully operational; that is reasonable. The Government here considered that due weight should be given to the Secretary General's views on the operational requirements of the peacekeeping forces, as the deployment of the contingent is the responsibility of the Secretary General who has promised to keep the size under review and will inform the Security Council if the situation in Namibia requires the deployment of additional military personnel. I do not suggest that we should not say anything or make our concerns known to the United Nations. On the other hand, specific responsibility for the size, deployment and operational requirements of the peace-keeping forces are all firmly placed on the Secretary General. It is his decision.

We are merely asking to have our concerns made known because we are concerned.

That is reasonable.