asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland continues to recognise the Pol Pot regime ousted in Cambodia in early 1979 and, if so, the basis for such recognition.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Recognition of Cambodian Regime.
9.
Ireland recognises states rather than governments and recognises a State of Cambodia. As far as the Pol Pot regime is concerned we have not had diplomatic relations or any direct dealing with it.
With whom did we last have diplomatic relations in Cambodia?
We have not had diplomatic relations with Cambodia; we recognise the State of Cambodia.
Does the Minister regard his decision to abstain on the question of the delegation from the Pol Pot regime being admitted to the United Nations as being an adequate or appropriate response in view of the appalling genocidal character of that regime? I should like to know whether the decision merely to abstain rather than to oppose was influenced in any way by pressure or fear of pressure from other states?
To the last part of the question I can reply categorically that there was no pressure whatsoever. In relation to the decision itself, I should like to refer back to the non-aligned movement which we were being asked to join some time ago. In my view almost 80 per cent of the non-aligned movement voted for seating the Pol Pot regime in the UN. Therefore, that was not a perception that we had. What Pol Pot had done we saw as being totally reprehensible and unacceptable and, irrespective of what the non-aligned movement or others might be doing, we would not vote for it. Neither could we vote for Heng Samrin which had been imposed on the Vietnamese people by outside intereference. We could not vote for either and therefore, we abstained.
I should like to know why we did not vote against the Pol Pot.
It was quite clear from the attitude we took that we were opposed to both of them.
Does it not make the proposition clearer if one says "no" instead of not saying anything?
The Deputy should be aware that an abstention at the United Nations is regarded as a vote. It is as well that that is understood.
There are occasions when a conflict of ideals is involved on an issue and makes an abstention the most appropriate vote, possibly because one is in favour of the principle but is not happy with the expression of a resolution. However, in this instance there is a clear-cut issue of seating the regime and should we not have voted?
As far as I know—I am sure I am correct in this—no member of the United Nations voted against each of them, as the Deputy has suggested. A considerable number of members abstained on the basis of the same principle that we held. In doing so I believe we were in good company.
Did the Minister say that no member voted against each of them?
Against both, which I believe the Deputy is suggesting.
Why did we not vote against the Pol Pot regime? Others did.
The vast majority of the members of the UN who voted voted for Pol Pot and because we found, for different reasons, both regimes to be equally unacceptable, if we voted against one we would presumably vote against the other. Otherwise, I would be asked to explain why I was in favour of the breach of territorial integrity. Most of the non-aligned countries regard the Vietnamese regime as being guilty of that in terms of its invasion of Cambodia.
While recognising the breach of territorial integrity most Irish people would not accept that the two regimes are equally reprehensible. It would be very hard for any regime to equal the reprehensibleness of the Pol Pot regime.
One does not want to compete in atrocities, but I would remind the House that four months ago all of us were scandalised by the plight of the boat people. The Deputy should ask himself where those boat people came from and perhaps that might explain——
Question No. 10. I have called Question No. 10.