asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the trial of Dr. Yury Orlov constitutes a breach of the Helsinki Agreement; if so, if he has joined in the protest to the Soviet Government; and, if not, if he will outline his reasons.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Human Rights in USSR.
25.
I believe the decision of the Soviet authorities to prosecute Yuri Orlov and the sentence passed on him are contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Helsinki Final Act.
The 7th Principle of that document guarantees "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief" and it confirms "the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties in this field". The 9th Principle, on Co-operation among States, explicitly recognises the "relevant and positive" role to be played by persons and organisations as well as governments and institutions in contributing to the achievement of the aims of co-operation.
The Final Act is not of course a binding legal instrument. But all of the 35 participating states, including the Soviet Union and Ireland, undertook a common commitment to implement in full all its provisions, and then reaffirmed this commitment at the Belgrade review meeting which concluded in March of this year.
The Soviet authorities hold that Dr. Orlov's trial and sentence were in accord with Soviet law and are a purely internal matter. I believe that the common commitment that we and the Soviet Union have made gives us the right to express our views in the matter. The attitude of the Government to the right of the individual and of organisations to participate in the implementation of the Final Act has been consistently made clear. On 15 February I said in this House:
We feel strongly that the Governments who signed the Final Act and accepted its human rights provisions must ensure that their own citizens are free to exercise the rights which have been explicitly recognised and that they are free from official intimidation, harassment or arrest— free indeed from any abridgement of their rights merely because they have invoked them.
This view was also stated on several occasions by the Irish delegation at the recently concluded Belgrade meeting to review progress in the implementation of the Final Act.
The Irish Government are profoundly disturbed and distressed by the action of the Soviet authorities with regard to Dr. Orlov. I have made this view known to the Soviet Government through the appropriate channels.
Does the Minister accept that the trial was in breach of the Helsinki Agreement and, having accepted that the Soviet Government are the greatest suppressors of human rights in the world, can he tell us the nature of the protest the Irish Government made to the Soviet Government in relation to Dr. Orlov's trial and sentence? Will the Minister specify the nature and the content of the statement he submitted to the Soviet Ambassador here, or through other channels, to the Soviet Government regarding our opposition to their activities so far as the Orlov trial and many other trials in that country are concerned.
I can tell the House that on Friday 19 May I had the opportunity of conveying very clearly and forcefully the concern of the Government, and I believe the concern of all parties in this House and of the people, to the Soviet Ambassador. I expressed it on the basis as outlined in my reply that we as well as the Soviet Union and other countries are parties to the Helsinki Agreement and that as parties to the agreement obviously we are concerned with what appears here to be a clear breach of the spirit and the letter of that agreement. I explained to the Soviet Ambassador that to me this cuts across the very purpose of détente, with which all of us have expressed ourselves to be in support. I can tell the House that I have just been informed that a statement will issue on behalf of the nine members of the European Community within the next 30 minutes which, with the permission of the Chair, I shall make available to Members by placing it in the Oireachtas Library. This statement will express the concern of the nine members of the European Community, arising from a meeting which I had with my colleagues at the weekend.
Will the Minister make available a copy of the document which he submitted to the Soviet Ambassador for the information of the Members of this House?
I did not submit a formal document——
It was only informal?
It was not informal. I felt quiet capable of expressing clearly and deliberately the views of the Government in relation to this matter. The Soviet Ambassador took note of what I said. While there was no formal document, it was in line with what I have said to the House just now. We discussed it for some considerable time.
In view of the importance of the question, surely the protest should be sent to the Soviet Ambassador in a formal way? The terms of our protest should be set out in writing so that the Soviet Ambassador may be aware of our opposition to this kind of activity in a country that signed the Helsinki Agreement. Our protest should not be confined to an informal chat with the ambassador or with some other member of the embassy staff.
I want to reject any implication that this was an "informal" chat. It was a very deliberate discussion on a very deliberate occasion. With regard to the need to have a formal document, we have been parties to what is now a formal document on the part of the nine member states and we were very much involved in the formulation of that document. The collective strength and responsibility of the nine member states of the European Community should be effective, in addition to what we have done ourselves.
We associate ourselves with the Minister's protest on behalf of the House and the country. I am very glad to hear the nine countries are taking the action mentioned by the Minister. Does the Minister agree in the light of this that some doubt is cast on the wisdom of the nine and other west European countries in accepting such a very weak document as the Belgrade Review which seems to have contributed to, and perhaps almost encouraged, an intensification of oppressive activities in the Soviet Union?
The Deputy will be aware that we were not satisfied with the conclusions of the Belgrade Review. Quite frankly, the document was not as strong or as clear as we would have wished it to be. The Deputy will also be aware that it is part of a continuing process that will continue in Madrid, and even now subcommittees are preparing for that renewed meeting. The Deputy will also be aware that this is one element in the overall question of association with the countries involved and with bringing about greater understanding and détente. I appreciate the support of this House which I anticipated when conveying my views to the Soviet Ambassador. We are very anxious to ensure that détente will be seen to be indivisible and consistently applied in all its aspects. The opportunity which this has given me to reply to the concern of the House will also be significant in conveying this view to the Soviet authorities.
Dr. Fitzgerald
In view of that will the Minister ensure that the mistake at Belgrade is not repeated in Madrid?
Would the Minister not agree that the force of the EEC protest would be much more powerful if a number of components in the EEC, such as ourselves, Britain and Germany, did not have illiberal anti-democratic legislation on the Statute Book themselves?
On the contrary. I was at pains to point out to the Soviet Ambassador that because of the tradition of freedom of speech and the respect for it which we have in this country, as was clearly demonstrated recently by the Deputy himself——
The Special Court.
Because of our recognition of the right of the Deputy and others to express these views, we have very clear concern about the matter referred to in the question. This concern is not evident in other countries where people who express views that are not popular with the administration can be so put down. I think the Deputy should take the point.