Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 2003

Vol. 565 No. 1

Written Answers. - Foreign Conflicts.

Jack Wall

Question:

91 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the role of the Secretary General of the United Nations in relation to Resolution 1472, 2003, of the UN Security Council; the way in which he sees this resolution being implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9875/03]

Resolution 1472, 2003, was adopted so as to facilitate the use of the existing resources and commitments of the oil for food programme for the humanitarian needs of the civilian population of Iraq. The Secretary General has been given the authority – in relation to existing contracts and resources – to decide priorities and modes of distribution. The Secretary General has also been given the authority to negotiate new contracts for essential medical supplies. I am confident that the Secretary General will fulfil these new responsibilities in a timely and professional way. His ability to do so will, of course, be subject to the conditions on the ground within Iraq.

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin

Question:

92 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in relation to the resolution of the conflict in the Western Sahara; the Government's views on direct talks and on mediated talks through the UN, between the Sahara Arab Democratic Republic and the Government of Morocco; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9852/03]

Ireland is a long-standing supporter of the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination. The Government played an active role in seeking a solution to the Western Sahara dispute during our recent term on the Security Council, including meeting with representatives of all sides. On 25 March, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1469, which extended the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, MINUESO, and requested the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to provide a report on the situation by 19 May. This resolution followed the presentation to the parties by the personal envoy of the Secretary General, Mr. James Baker, of a new proposal for a solution to the dispute. We have not been given sight of this new proposal and are not aware of the detail of its provisions. Our initial contacts with the parties indicate, however, that there are a number of issues which are of concern, particularly to POLISARIO, the representatives of the Saharawi people.

The Government will continue to follow the situation closely. In general, we continue to consider the UN settlement plan, which provides for the holding of a referendum to determine the future status of Western Sahara, as a reasonable basis for a just political solution to the conflict. At the same time, we welcome political negotiations on possible alternative proposals for a solution, though these must embrace the consent of all parties to the conflict.

Question No. 93 answered with Question No. 74.

Joe Sherlock

Question:

94 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied with the response received from the Israeli authorities as to the measures to be taken in regard to those responsible for the wounding of an Irish citizen (details supplied) in Jenin on 22 November 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9867/03]

I refer the Deputy to the reply I gave to his colleague on 5 March 2003, ref 6443.03, which confirmed that the Irish ambassador to Israel received a response from the Israeli authorities on the matter in question dated 24 December 2002. The Israeli response states that, as the Irish citizen in question refused to speak to the Israeli authorities investigating the incident, they have not been able to verify the details set out in the note sent to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Irish Embassy on 26 November 2002.

Specifically, the Israeli authorities say it has not been possible to ascertain the exact place or circumstances in which the individual concerned was wounded. The reply states that following an investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces, it was established that armed Palestinian elements were shooting at Israeli forces, from immediately adjacent to the United Nations compound where the individual concerned was seen. The reply expresses regret for the injury caused to the individual in question and other innocent civilians, and asserts that Israeli military actions on the day in question were directed solely against terrorists.
As I outlined in my previous reply of 5 March 2003, regrettably, the response of the Israeli authorities does not meet the concerns raised in our embassy's protest. As I said then, it is clearly a responsibility of the Israeli occupation forces not to use disproportionate or excessive force in response to perceived threats. Random, or even worse, targeted, shootings of civilians and international personnel are completely unacceptable. I shall continue to draw the attention of the Israeli authorities to their responsibilities in international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, and publicly condemn their excesses where merited.
Top
Share