1-20 of 1,885 results for subject:Deployment
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.256 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Deployment
- We searched for
- subject_t:Deployment OR subject_ses:90866
Session
X
2007-08
Type
+
Legislation (2)
+
Delegated legislation (2)
-
Statutory instruments (2)
+
Members' contributions (1,656)
-
Business questions (7)
-
Maiden speeches (2)
-
Oral answers to questions (70)
-
Oral question time interventions (1)
+
Oral questions (85)
-
Topical questions (6)
-
Proceeding contributions (1,500)
+
Parliamentary committees (11)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
-
Select Committee reports (3)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (3)
-
Select Committee written evidence (3)
+
Parliamentary papers (14)
-
House of Commons papers (8)
-
Unprinted papers (6)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (67)
+
Debates (21)
-
Adjournment debates (9)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Monarch's speech debates (1)
-
Queen's speech debates (1)
-
Opposition days (2)
+
Statements (44)
+
Oral statements (5)
-
Ministerial statements (5)
-
Written statements (39)
-
Urgent questions (1)
+
Written corrections (1)
-
Ministerial corrections (1)
+
Parliamentary questions (238)
-
Business questions (7)
+
Oral questions (85)
-
Topical questions (6)
-
Urgent questions (1)
-
Written questions (145)
House
Session
More
2007-08 (1,885)
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, the US has confirmed that it intends to transfer responsibility for Camp Ashraf to the Iraqi authorities. Transfer should take place before 31 December. The Iraqi authorities have given assurances that residents will be treated humanely. The Iraqi human rights ministry plays a key role in the transition. The US and the ICRC continue to follow developments at the camp closely and are content with Iraqi assurances so far received. The US and Iraqis have discussed the transfer with UNHCR and UNAMI.
My Lords, the US has confirmed that it intends to transfer responsibility for Camp Ashraf to the Iraqi authorities. Transfer should take place before 31 December. The Iraqi authorities have given assurances that residents will be treated humanely. The Iraqi human rights ministry plays a key role in the transition. The US and the ICRC continue to follow developments at the camp closely and are content with Iraqi assurances so far received. The US and Iraqis have discussed the transfer with UNHCR and UNAMI.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1437
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the rather ominous directive of the Iraqi Government of 17 June which called for the removal of US troops and their replacement with Iraqi forces, and for the expulsion of the PMOI residents in Ashraf City? Does he realise that expulsion in those circumstances would almost certainly mean execution? This is an extremely serious situation. Can he assure the House that he will keep a very close eye on developments and secure what guarantees he can from the Iraqi Government to avoid what would otherwise become a humanitarian catastrophe?
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the rather ominous directive of the Iraqi Government of 17 June which called for the removal of US troops and their replacement with Iraqi forces, and for the expulsion of the PMOI residents in Ashraf City? Does he realise that expulsion in those circumstances would almost certainly mean execution? This is an extremely serious situation. Can he assure the House that he will keep a very close eye on developments and secure what guarantees he can from the Iraqi Government to avoid what would otherwise become a humanitarian catastrophe?
Asked by
Lord Eden of Winton
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, this is primarily a matter for the United States, to which this group surrendered at the time of the invasion in 2003. The US has sought clear understandings from the Iraqi authorities that there will be no such expulsions and that the group will be properly protected. The ICRC is content so far with the understandings received.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deportation; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Refugees; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1437
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will make representations to the Government of Ethiopia about the presence of its troops in Somalia.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will make representations to the Government of Ethiopia about the presence of its troops in Somalia.
Asked by
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
The Government support the Djibouti agreement as the first opportunity for many years for Somalis to bring lasting stability to their country. We have stressed to the Ethiopian Government the importance of their troops behaving in accordance with international standards in all their operations. We continue to encourage Ethiopia to work with the Somali leaders and the UN special representative of the Secretary-General to find an appropriate mechanism for managing their troops in Somalia, and enabling their withdrawal, while preventing further deterioration of the security situation and preserving the fragile progress towards peace that has been made in Djibouti.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Ethiopia; Somalia
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
6496; 705 c343WA
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces serving with Joint Force Harrier have broken harmony guidelines in each of the last three years, broken down by (a) air crew and (b) ground crew and (i) Royal Air Force and (ii) Royal Navy...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces serving with Joint Force Harrier have broken harmony guidelines in each of the last three years, broken down by (a) air crew and (b) ground crew and (i) Royal Air Force and (ii) Royal Navy...
Asked by
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
21 November 2008
For answer on
26 November 2008
Answered on
26 November 2008
Information on numbers of RAF and Royal Navy air and ground crew personnel who may have broken harmony guidelines in the last three years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, on average, Harrier squadrons spend four months out of every 12 deployed on Operation HERRICK.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
483 c1554W; 239742
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) aircrew and (b) ground crew members of the Royal Air Force serving with a Tornado GR4 front line squadron have broken harmony guidelines in the last three years.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) aircrew and (b) ground crew members of the Royal Air Force serving with a Tornado GR4 front line squadron have broken harmony guidelines in the last three years.
Asked by
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
21 November 2008
For answer on
26 November 2008
Answered on
26 November 2008
Information on numbers of RAF air and ground crew personnel who may have broken harmony guidelines in the last three years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, on average, Tornado squadrons spend two months out of every 14 deployed on Operation TELIC.
Subjects
Deployment; Air force
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
483 c1560W; 239741
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of personnel in each pinch point trade in the armed forces exceeded harmony guidelines for tour intervals in the latest period for which figures are available.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of personnel in each pinch point trade in the armed forces exceeded harmony guidelines for tour intervals in the latest period for which figures are available.
Asked by
Liam Fox
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 November 2008
For answer on
19 November 2008
Answered on
26 November 2008
Individual Separated Service is currently recorded on the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) system. Individual separation is recorded as one of 16 activity codes; these codes allow commanders to identify how much separation is caused by each activity. Data from the system is currently only available to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. The Army, being the last to transfer to JPA, does not yet have sufficient data to provide meaningful statistics. A complete period of data should become available in January 2010. Even with a full cycle of data the system is not configured to identify individual tour intervals for Service personnel. The system is designed to identify where individual harmony guidelines are being broken. The current individual harmony guidelines are:"The Royal Navy guidelines determine that its personnel spend, on average, 60 per cent. of their time deployed and 40 per cent. alongside in their home port during a three year period. The maximum individual threshold (Separated Service) is 660 days away from their normal place of work in the same three year period.""The Army guidelines determine that its soldiers can be deployed for one six month tour in every 30 months (six on 24 off) and during that 30 month period a soldier should not expect to be away from his normal place of work for more than a total of 415 days.""The Royal Air Force guidelines determine that its personnel should not spend more than 28 days in every four months away from their normal place of duty, which allows for a four month operational tour (four on 16 off)."
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
483 c1521W; 237814
House
House of Commons
My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, this is primarily a matter for the United States, to which this group surrendered at the time of the invasion in 2003. The US has sought clear understandings from the Iraqi authorities that there will be no such expulsions and that the group will be properly protected. The ICRC is content so far with the understandings received.
My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, this is primarily a matter for the United States, to which this group surrendered at the time of the invasion in 2003. The US has sought clear understandings from the Iraqi authorities that there will be no such expulsions and that the group will be properly protected. The ICRC is content so far with the understandings received.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Eden of Winton
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the rather ominous directive of the Iraqi Government of 17 June which called for the removal of US troops and their replacement with Iraqi forces, and for the expulsion of the PMOI residents in Ashraf City? Does he realise that expulsion in those circumstances would almost certainly mean execution? This is an extremely serious situation. Can he assure the House that he will keep a very close eye on developments and secure what guarantees he can from the Iraqi Government to avoid what would otherwise become a humanitarian catastrophe?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1437
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, there is no doubt that with the return of these people to the Iranian Government, the rights not just of women but of the whole group would be in some jeopardy. That is why I assure my noble friend that the United States has worked hard to make sure that the camp remains open and people are not at risk of return.
My Lords, there is no doubt that with the return of these people to the Iranian Government, the rights not just of women but of the whole group would be in some jeopardy. That is why I assure my noble friend that the United States has worked hard to make sure that the camp remains open and people are not at risk of return.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Asked by
Baroness Turner of Camden
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are 1,000 women among these refugees in Ashraf City, who are very concerned about the possibility of their being returned under the care, so to speak, of the present Iranian Government, in view of their policy and attitude on women’s rights?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1438
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, on the latter point, we have raised it directly with the American authorities. I doubt that it is in the status of forces agreement but I shall respond to the noble Lord in writing on that.
My Lords, on the latter point, we have raised it directly with the American authorities. I doubt that it is in the status of forces agreement but I shall respond to the noble Lord in writing on that.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1439
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, some 300 members of this group have returned—they are admittedly low-level people in most cases—and we have no evidence that they have been inhumanely treated on their return. However, it has been the intention of the Americans in the understandings that they have sought from the Iraqis that Camp Ashraf remains open, and therefore that those individuals in it will not be expelled.
My Lords, some 300 members of this group have returned—they are admittedly low-level people in most cases—and we have no evidence that they have been inhumanely treated on their return. However, it has been the intention of the Americans in the understandings that they have sought from the Iraqis that Camp Ashraf remains open, and therefore that those individuals in it will not be expelled.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Archer of Sandwell
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the question is not so much, ““What are the intentions of the Iraqi Government?”” but, ““What would be the intentions of the Iranian Government if these people were delivered up into their hands?””. Does he agree that if there is to be any hope of their survival it is vital that we persuade our American allies that the fate of these people is in their hands?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1437-8
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, it is for exactly that reason that the United States has involved both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations in trying to ensure continued international monitoring.
My Lords, it is for exactly that reason that the United States has involved both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations in trying to ensure continued international monitoring.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Addington
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, will the Minister encourage our allies to make sure that there is at least some international monitoring of the situation when the Americans leave, and that there is some way of reporting back if there is a deterioration in the circumstances of these people?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1438
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is a difference between the dispersed communities to which he refers and the limited capacity of the Iraqi Government to protect them and the situation of this group, contained within Ashraf City. The right of protection can easily and effectively be transferred to the Iraqi authorities, so long as they are committed to playing that role.
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is a difference between the dispersed communities to which he refers and the limited capacity of the Iraqi Government to protect them and the situation of this group, contained within Ashraf City. The right of protection can easily and effectively be transferred to the Iraqi authorities, so long as they are committed to playing that role.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is this not a premature decision, given the failure of the Iraqi Government at present to protect the Chaldeans, the Syriacs, the Yazidis and other minorities, whose lives are endangered on the Nineveh plains where they have been expelled from Mosul? Is it not premature to change the status of those Iranians in Ashraf City?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1439
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very different question. I do not know whether all Iraqis share that view, but obviously there is a dramatic change in direction in which there is a rundown of western forces in Iraq. It is important that this group’s rights be protected while we recognise that new situation—that Iraqis will be responsible for security and human rights in Iraq.
My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very different question. I do not know whether all Iraqis share that view, but obviously there is a dramatic change in direction in which there is a rundown of western forces in Iraq. It is important that this group’s rights be protected while we recognise that new situation—that Iraqis will be responsible for security and human rights in Iraq.
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Dykes
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, aside from the special and heart-rending situation in Ashraf, is not the sobering reality for us all that, since 2003—five years ago—all Iraqi citizens want western foreign forces to leave as quickly as possible, particularly after so many citizens have been killed in Iraq?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1439
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the Minister referred to the responsibility of the United States but surely Britain, by virtue of its membership of the multinational force, will be as much in breach of international law as America if the protection of Ashraf City is handed over to Iraq without any real expectation that the rights of the inhabitants will be respected and that the Iraqi Government will not return them to Iran. Surely that must be the legal position.
I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Eden. In the light of the directive issued by the Iraqi Government on 17 June, it is surely very odd to take at face value present assurances by the Iraqi Government that these people will not be expelled, because the directive to which I referred calls for their expulsion.
My Lords, the Minister referred to the responsibility of the United States but surely Britain, by virtue of its membership of the multinational force, will be as much in breach of international law as America if the protection of Ashraf City is handed over to Iraq without any real expectation that the rights of the inhabitants will be respected and that the Iraqi Government will not return them to Iran. Surely that must be the legal position.
I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Eden. In the light of the directive issued by the Iraqi Government on 17 June, it is surely very odd to take at face value present assurances by the Iraqi Government that these people will not be expelled, because the directive to which I referred calls for their expulsion.
Asked by
Lord Waddington
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
My Lords, on the second point, the United States absolutely shares the noble Lord’s concern, which is why it has pressed the Iraqi Government to ensure that undertakings to look after this group are in place. I think that they are satisfied that that is the case. As to the UK’s legal responsibility, it is our view that the MEK/PMOI specifically chose American forces to surrender to. Secondly, the proclamation from the multinational commander at the time in 2004 that confirmed camp resident status as being ““treated as protected persons”” was clearly made on behalf of the United States alone.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Iraq; Protection; Peacekeeping operations; Iran; Mujahedin-e Khalq
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c1438
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK personnel are deployed on operations, broken down by location.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK personnel are deployed on operations, broken down by location.
Asked by
Liam Fox
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 November 2008
For answer on
17 November 2008
Answered on
26 November 2008
The endorsed force levels for current UK military operations are set out. The precise number of personnel in theatre at any one time fluctuates on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, including mid-tour rest and recuperation, temporary absence for training, evacuation for medical reasons, the roulement of forces and other factors. Having given detailed consideration to how we answer questions on operational force levels, Ministers have decided that, for reasons of operational security, future answers will be based upon the endorsed force level for each operation.
| Location | Endorsed Number (at 20 October 2008)¹ |
| Afghanistan | 8,050 |
| Southern Iraq | 4,100 |
| Baghdad² | 250 |
| At sea | l,050 |
| Falklands/South Atlantic | 1,500 |
| Qatar | 700 |
| Cyprus | 300 |
| Kuwait | 550 |
| Kosovo | 150 |
| Bahrain | 50 |
| Bosnia | <50 |
| Other³ | 150 |
| ¹ Rounded to 50 | |
| ² Providing support to the Senior British Military Representative Iraq | |
| ³ Small scale deployments in support of EU and UN missions, and headquarters liaison officers. |
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
483 c1520W; 236448
House
House of Commons
What assessment they have made of the likelihood of reinforcements reaching the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the next few weeks; and what considerations led the Prime Minister to state that 3,000 extra troops are required; and
What assessment they have made of the likelihood of reinforcements reaching the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the next few weeks; and what considerations led the Prime Minister to state that 3,000 extra troops are required; and
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
The UK co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1843, which was adopted on 20 November, authorised an increase in the UN mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo's (MONUC) force levels of 2,785 military and 300 police. These additional resources were requested by the UN Secretary-General to reinforce MONUC's presence in North Kivu allowing the mission, inter alia, to bolster its capacity to protect civilians; to maintain zones of separation between rebel groups and to increase the mission's mobility. We are pressing to ensure that deployment is as quick as possible. We are working with the UN and international partners to ensure that these additional resources are found and deployed in theatre as soon as possible. Although the UK is not in a position to contribute troops to MONUC given our existing military commitments, we are considering what staff, logistics or other help we can provide to MONUC and to potential troop contributors. We understand that the UN has received expressions of interest from several countries. It is a matter for the UN and the countries in question to announce publicly if they will contribute troops. Clearly it is vital that any troops are capable, correctly equipped and able to deploy quickly.
MONUC now has 95 per cent of its troop strength deployed in the east of the DRC following internal reorganisation of the mission, reinforcing its capacity to protect Goma and other areas of North Kivu until new resources arrive. An EU force is not currently under consideration, although we will keep this under review. We believe that any countries, including individual European countries, willing to contribute troops should deploy to MONUC, which has an existing command structure and logistical support in place.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Peacekeeping operations; Democratic Republic of the Congo; UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c302-3WA; 6425
House
House of Lords
Whether any countries have offered a specific number of troops for the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and, if so, what assessment they have made of the number offered, how well-equipped they are, and how soon they could be in place; and
Whether any countries have offered a specific number of troops for the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and, if so, what assessment they have made of the number offered, how well-equipped they are, and how soon they could be in place; and
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
The UK co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1843, which was adopted on 20 November, authorised an increase in the UN mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo's (MONUC) force levels of 2,785 military and 300 police. These additional resources were requested by the UN Secretary-General to reinforce MONUC's presence in North Kivu allowing the mission, inter alia, to bolster its capacity to protect civilians; to maintain zones of separation between rebel groups and to increase the mission's mobility. We are pressing to ensure that deployment is as quick as possible. We are working with the UN and international partners to ensure that these additional resources are found and deployed in theatre as soon as possible. Although the UK is not in a position to contribute troops to MONUC given our existing military commitments, we are considering what staff, logistics or other help we can provide to MONUC and to potential troop contributors. We understand that the UN has received expressions of interest from several countries. It is a matter for the UN and the countries in question to announce publicly if they will contribute troops. Clearly it is vital that any troops are capable, correctly equipped and able to deploy quickly.
MONUC now has 95 per cent of its troop strength deployed in the east of the DRC following internal reorganisation of the mission, reinforcing its capacity to protect Goma and other areas of North Kivu until new resources arrive. An EU force is not currently under consideration, although we will keep this under review. We believe that any countries, including individual European countries, willing to contribute troops should deploy to MONUC, which has an existing command structure and logistical support in place.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Peacekeeping operations; Democratic Republic of the Congo; UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c302-3WA; 6426
House
House of Lords
What assessment have they made of the timeframe needed for reinforcements to reach the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and
What assessment have they made of the timeframe needed for reinforcements to reach the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
The UK co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1843, which was adopted on 20 November, authorised an increase in the UN mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo's (MONUC) force levels of 2,785 military and 300 police. These additional resources were requested by the UN Secretary-General to reinforce MONUC's presence in North Kivu allowing the mission, inter alia, to bolster its capacity to protect civilians; to maintain zones of separation between rebel groups and to increase the mission's mobility. We are pressing to ensure that deployment is as quick as possible. We are working with the UN and international partners to ensure that these additional resources are found and deployed in theatre as soon as possible. Although the UK is not in a position to contribute troops to MONUC given our existing military commitments, we are considering what staff, logistics or other help we can provide to MONUC and to potential troop contributors. We understand that the UN has received expressions of interest from several countries. It is a matter for the UN and the countries in question to announce publicly if they will contribute troops. Clearly it is vital that any troops are capable, correctly equipped and able to deploy quickly.
MONUC now has 95 per cent of its troop strength deployed in the east of the DRC following internal reorganisation of the mission, reinforcing its capacity to protect Goma and other areas of North Kivu until new resources arrive. An EU force is not currently under consideration, although we will keep this under review. We believe that any countries, including individual European countries, willing to contribute troops should deploy to MONUC, which has an existing command structure and logistical support in place.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Peacekeeping operations; Democratic Republic of the Congo; UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
6427; 705 c302-3WA
House
House of Lords
Whether the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo has sufficient capacity until any reinforcements have been deployed; and whether a European Union force could be deployed until such reinforcements are forthcoming; and
Whether the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo has sufficient capacity until any reinforcements have been deployed; and whether a European Union force could be deployed until such reinforcements are forthcoming; and
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
The UK co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1843, which was adopted on 20 November, authorised an increase in the UN mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo's (MONUC) force levels of 2,785 military and 300 police. These additional resources were requested by the UN Secretary-General to reinforce MONUC's presence in North Kivu allowing the mission, inter alia, to bolster its capacity to protect civilians; to maintain zones of separation between rebel groups and to increase the mission's mobility. We are pressing to ensure that deployment is as quick as possible. We are working with the UN and international partners to ensure that these additional resources are found and deployed in theatre as soon as possible. Although the UK is not in a position to contribute troops to MONUC given our existing military commitments, we are considering what staff, logistics or other help we can provide to MONUC and to potential troop contributors. We understand that the UN has received expressions of interest from several countries. It is a matter for the UN and the countries in question to announce publicly if they will contribute troops. Clearly it is vital that any troops are capable, correctly equipped and able to deploy quickly.
MONUC now has 95 per cent of its troop strength deployed in the east of the DRC following internal reorganisation of the mission, reinforcing its capacity to protect Goma and other areas of North Kivu until new resources arrive. An EU force is not currently under consideration, although we will keep this under review. We believe that any countries, including individual European countries, willing to contribute troops should deploy to MONUC, which has an existing command structure and logistical support in place.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Peacekeeping operations; Democratic Republic of the Congo; UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c302-3WA; 6428
House
House of Lords
What efforts they are making to encourage other states (a) to contribute troops to the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) if its mandate is revised; and (b) to secure short-term reinforcements of MONUC.
What efforts they are making to encourage other states (a) to contribute troops to the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) if its mandate is revised; and (b) to secure short-term reinforcements of MONUC.
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Malloch-Brown
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 November 2008
The UK co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1843, which was adopted on 20 November, authorised an increase in the UN mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo's (MONUC) force levels of 2,785 military and 300 police. These additional resources were requested by the UN Secretary-General to reinforce MONUC's presence in North Kivu allowing the mission, inter alia, to bolster its capacity to protect civilians; to maintain zones of separation between rebel groups and to increase the mission's mobility. We are pressing to ensure that deployment is as quick as possible. We are working with the UN and international partners to ensure that these additional resources are found and deployed in theatre as soon as possible. Although the UK is not in a position to contribute troops to MONUC given our existing military commitments, we are considering what staff, logistics or other help we can provide to MONUC and to potential troop contributors. We understand that the UN has received expressions of interest from several countries. It is a matter for the UN and the countries in question to announce publicly if they will contribute troops. Clearly it is vital that any troops are capable, correctly equipped and able to deploy quickly.
MONUC now has 95 per cent of its troop strength deployed in the east of the DRC following internal reorganisation of the mission, reinforcing its capacity to protect Goma and other areas of North Kivu until new resources arrive. An EU force is not currently under consideration, although we will keep this under review. We believe that any countries, including individual European countries, willing to contribute troops should deploy to MONUC, which has an existing command structure and logistical support in place.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Peacekeeping operations; Democratic Republic of the Congo; UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Date
26 November 2008
Reference
705 c302-3WA; 6429
House
House of Lords