Vol. 320 No. 1
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement in regard to the killings at the funeral of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador and if any representations are being made or action taken by the Government either directly or through the European Community in regard to the situation in that country.
12.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has received representations from church authorities in relation to (a) human rights in El Salvador and (b) the continuing export of arms to El Salvador by the US Government; and the action he has taken or plans to take on foot of such representations.
13.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has received representations regarding the serious violation of human rights, killings and imprisonments in El Salvador and if he will arrange to have these matters raised in the United Nations, with the European Community heads of Government and elsewhere so that all nations may be called on to implement a total embargo on all arms to El Salvador; the action he has taken or proposes to take in relation to this matter, and if he will make a statement in this connection.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 together.
As I stated in a written reply in the Dáil on 4 March last, the instability in El Salvador and its violent repercussions have been a source of grave concern to the Government. The country's gradual drift towards civil war, with all its terrible consequences, appears to have been even further hastened by the deliberately provoked killings of innocent civilians during the funeral of Archbishop Romero at the end of last month. The Government condemn unreservedly this abhorrent and cowardly act. The callousness of the deliberate massacre, which was clearly designed to achieve a political purpose, was demonstrated by the fact that the majority of those who died were reported as being elderly people who had come to pay their last respects to the memory of a man who had fought so valiantly to uphold their rights.
It appears to us that political stability in El Salvador can only be achieved when the people of El Salvador have been given the opportunity to choose freely an administration which would truly reflect their wishes and which would commit itself to the principles of equality, social justice and respect for human rights. Where, as in El Salvador, chronically unequal distribution of wealth exists, a stable society cannot develop until such time as genuine attempts are made to raise the standard of living of the majority of the population. However, before any real progress can be made on such basic reforms, it is clear the immediate problem of the country's drift towards further violence and possibly civil war must be averted. Urgent and genuine efforts by all sectors of the community are required in order that agreement may be reached on some common action which would receive the support of the majority of the population and halt the growing polarisation between left and right.
While contacts between Ireland and El Salvador are limited, it appears to us that an important element in the present situation in El Salvador is the inability of the present administration, in the face of growing violence from right and left, to exert its control or to make any concrete attempts to institute basic reforms. Given the right circumstances, however, it is conceivable that the present regime could act as an interim administration and restore some form of stability pending the election of a representative Government. It will be appreciated therefore that the question of an immediate arms embargo against the present regime in El Salvador, regarding which representations have been received, needs to be considered carefully. An embargo on arms to a particular country is normally a matter for individual states to decide and the United Nations has only instituted an arms embargo where there has been a clear threat to international peace and security, and not in the case of the violation of human rights in a particular country. However, the representations which the Government have received on this matter are receiving careful attention.
The violation of human rights by all the opposing factors in this tragic situation clearly warrants discussion at international level and the Government are presently considering how the matter might be raised in the most appropriate United Nations forum and what support might be available from other countries for such action. Ireland is also continuing to keep the development of the situation in El Salvador under close review, together with our partners in the Community.
On 31 March the Nine member states of the EEC, including Ireland, issued a joint statement on the tragic death of Archbishop Romero. The statement was as follows:
The Governments of the member States of the European Community express their condemnation of the assassination of Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero, Archbishop of San Salvador. They remain firm in their conviction that this deplorable crime will not prevent the ideals of justice and respect of human rights embodied by Monsignor Romero and deeply felt by the Nine from being asserted.
As I stated in my message of sympathy to the President of the Episcopal Conference of El Salvador following the assassination of Archbishop Romero, it is our hope that a situation will come about whereby his great work for social justice and his concern to ensure full respect for human rights will be carried forward for the benefit of all the people of El Salvador.
Perhaps the Minister, with a certain feeling of helplessness that very little can be done but bearing in mind not alone the awful death of Archbishop Romero but also the fact that about 1,000 people have died since last year there, would indicate if anything positive or constructive is taking place at the UN or if there is any concrete proposal to try to bring some kind of pressure to bear on the situation or have some kind of intervention.
We are doing that at present with a view to taking an initiative in that respect. We have always taken a lead in matters of this kind but the Deputy will appreciate that the UN in cases like this can largely exercise moral pressure.
Could the Minister indicate to the House what action he has taken within the context of the Nine to ensure that the Italian Presidency request the United States Government not to continue to support the repressive regime in El Salvador with arms; if he has taken such action and if he would consider that not taking such action invalidates the rather nice words he has read into the record of the House?
This is a matter that can be taken up.
It certainly can.
I will follow it up. I do not want it to be taken as implicit or explicit that the US Government are as involved as the Deputy suggests.
The bullets that killed the people had to come from somewhere.
I will have the matter looked at.
Deputy Kelly has had no supplementary yet.
The Minister was about to continue with his replies.
I do not want to cut the Minister short but I should like to ask supplementaries on this.
Would the Deputy put them briefly, please?
Where did the Minister get the information he read to the House in his answer? From what diplomatic representation did the information about conditions in El Salvador come?
We keep in very close touch with events in El Salvador. We also had the benefit of a very long communication from his Lordship, Bishop Casey, in the matter. We have had a number of informants coming forward with their views on the situation and those views indicate that a very serious situation exists in that country. The effectiveness of our response from this distance would not be very great.
Am I right in thinking that the nearest Irish permanent diplomatic representation to the site of these sad events is Washington, a couple of thousand miles to the north, and Buenos Aires, about a thousand miles to the south? Have we any diplomatic representation in Central America or the Caribbean?
We are considering Venezuela.
For oil reasons, but are there not many other reasons?
Deputy N. Browne and then Deputy O'Keeffe for a final supplementary.
Is it not a fact that the United States have been involved there for many years? Would the Minister not agree that there is a very serious contrast in our attitude to Afghanistan and to the Lebanon? We made a very brisk and completely justified protest to President Carter who armed the Israelis who armed Haddad. In the circumstances of the appalling killing in El Salvador we have a very lackadaisical attitude to the whole area where we could make a protest. This makes a very impressive contrast to responses——
A brief question please.
Our action in the Lebanon was taken within a United Nations context and we are trying to do this in El Salvador also. Within the United Nations umbrella it is not easy to do what one would like to do about regimes where it is alleged that breaches of civil and human rights have occurred. The UN have moved reasonably effectively in areas where there have been breakdowns in civil governments. The establishment of a United Nations presence can help, as happened in Cyprus, the Congo and the Lebanon, where they have run into some difficulties. It is very difficult for the United Nations within the present structure to do much about El Salvador, the Philippines and a few other areas.
Would the Minister recognise that it is important that we be clear as to what we would like to have done there? Do I infer from his reply that he is in favour of the continuation of arms shipments to the present regime in El Salvador?
I deplore the shipment of arms into any area where they are used to suppress human rights.
In that situation would the Minister feel that whatever diplomatic pressure can be used should be brought to bear to ensure that these arms shipments are discontinued forthwith?
We will continue to make our point of view known in that respect.
Has that point of view been expressed and has pressure been brought to bear?
It has.
Deputy Kelly with a final supplementary. We have had ten or 12 supplementaries on these two questions.
We can do something within the UN umbrella and this we are trying to do.
What was the response from Washington?
Would the Minister see any merit in pursuing throughout the world a persistent campaign with our friends—the Americans, the French and other western democracies—to keep an eye on right wing regimes that do not run things the way we would wish and which are beginning, one after the other, to fold up and give way to bloodshed, revolution and ultimately, to Marxist dictatorships which will be a threat to the rest of us?
A question please.
Would it not be advisable to keep permanent pressure on our friends, the Americans, the French, the British and anyone else to whom this may apply, to refrain from arms shipments and bringing other forms of pressure to bear on regimes of a right wing character——
Allow an equal distribution of wealth.
We will have to allow an equal distribution of questions.
——which are beginning to fold up and give way to bloodshed, revolution and succeeding authoritarian regimes of a Marxist kind which invariably follow, as we have seen in many countries——
Deputy Kelly, a brief question please.
I agree fully with the admirable sentiments expressed by the Deputy but unfortunately do not see it that way——
Neither do we.
We have shaken hands with every blackguard in the world in the name of protocol.
A final supplementary. Deputy Quinn has offered.
I fully recognise the limited leverage this country has diplomatically. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, did the Minister within the EEC ask the Italian Presidency to request the United States Government to discontinue arms sales to El Salvador?
No. A statement issued on that matter from the nine member states. That is all that happened. That is all that was agreed on.
The Minister did not even do that much. He did not even ask.
14.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will register a protest with the Government of the USA in respect of its policy of supplying economic and military aid to countries such as El Salvador which have shown a consistent disregard for human rights, and the steps the Government has taken to discourage trade with such countries.
As the Deputy is aware, the Government condemn violations of human rights wherever they occur and have consistently striven, in international organisations and through the channels open to them, to bring about an end to such violations.
The question of the policy of the Government of the United States in regard to the provision of military assistance to other countries is one for that government themselves to decide. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for us to make representations in the matter. I have however noted that in a number of cases US military assistance to other countries has been suspended because the US considered that the human rights situation in those countries was seriously unsatisfactory.
As regard the question of trade relations, I would refer the Deputy to the reply given on this matter by my predecessor on 8 November 1979.
Has it not been the persistent policy of successive Governments to maintain a position of non-commitment, of neutrality, in respect of issues generally? If one does not accept that, and if one is not necessarily linked to the Americans on these issues, do we not take up the position in regard to Afghanistan that violations of human rights have taken place there and that we will be justified in taking up a particular posture? Why can we not do that in regard to El Salvador also?
If we started interfering in cases of repression of human rights everywhere they occur, it would not be very effective and we would not be regarded as being very effective.
That is rather selective.
Question No. 15.
The sort of values we cherish——
I am calling Question No. 15.
