asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the efforts, if any, being made at national and EC level to highlight violations of human rights in the Soviet Union in view of the fact that the Olympics are to be held in Moscow next year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Violation of Human Rights.
13.
This question relates to the implementation of the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act. The Final Act signed by the 35 Heads of Government in Helsinki in 1975 has two main elements. First of all, it contains a series of ten principles to guide relations between states, including the principle of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also contains a series of agreed measures designed to improve co-operation between them. Although the Final Act is not a legal instrument, it is a political commitment which the 35 participating states solemnly reaffirmed at the end of the Belgrade follow-up meeting last year.
From the outset, the Irish Government have attached great importance to the implementation of the Final Act and especially its human rights provisions. On many occasions, both publicly and privately, we have stressed the view that if the process begun by the Final Act is to be effective it must be based not only on the relaxation of tensions and growing co-operation between states but also a respect for human rights within states.
On the issue of human rights violations in the Soviet Union, no action has been taken specifically in the context of the Moscow Olympics by Ireland alone or together with our partners in the Nine. We have however made our views known to the Soviet authorities on many occasions and they are in no doubt about our concern. In the run-up to the CSCE meeting in Madrid next year we will continue to press for full implementation of all aspects of the Final Act and in particular its human rights and related humanitarian provisions.
Does the Minister accept that the Helsinki Final Act is largely defective in this area, that when there are obvious violations of it by signatories to it there seems to be no procedure whereby these can be highlighted and, more importantly, where those violations can be remedied?
It is obviously not as watertight as we would like it to be. It is not a binding agreement as such but one element in the Helsinki package is that it has created an awareness of human rights in the countries who are signatories to it. We get such things as the Charter 1977, Czechoslovkia and, it is fair to say, the repression against members of that group. The welcome development since Helsinki is that there has been a sensitivity, if no more, in the authorities where human rights have been denied. We have seen improvements—I am not saying they are fully satisfactory—in the situation. It is not watertight and I would be the last to suggest it is. That is one of the areas we will be considering in the follow up to it in Madrid next year.