asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will support proposals that the present Government of Kampuchea should be recognised by the United Nations as the legitimate Government of the country, and that the United Nations seat should be withdrawn from the previous Pol Pot regime in view of its record of genocide against its own people and that it clearly does not have the support of the majority of the Kampuchean people.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers. - UN Recognition of Kampuchea.
7.
When this issue first came before the General Assembly in 1979, Ireland decided to abstain on the question of which of the two regimes, that of Heng Samrin or Pol Pot, should be seated as the representatives of Kampuchea at the United Nations. In the Government's view, neither delegation could legitimately claim to represent Kampuchea — the former because it has been installed by military intervention by an outside power and continued to be supported by that power, the latter because of its barbaric record of genocide against its own people. It was judged that neither deserved Ireland's support and that an abstention in these circumstances was the correct position to adopt.
Since 1979, neither the circumstances nor the criteria which influenced the Government's decision have changed to a degree which would warrant an alteration in our position. If the question of Kampuchea's credentials is raised during the current session of the General Assembly, Ireland intends to maintain her abstention on this issue.
It is the Government's view that only a comprehensive political solution to the Kampuchean problem can resolve the question of which regime legitimately represents Kampuchea. Such a solution should be based on the Declaration of the International Conference on Kampuchea which was held in New York on 17 July 1981 and on successive resolutions of the UN General Assembly on the situation in Kampuchea. These resolutions which have the overwhelming support of the General Assembly, including Ireland, call for the total withdrawal of all foreign troops from Kampuchea, the right of the Kampuchean people to determine their own destiny free from outside interference, and the restoration and preservation of Kampuchea's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Is the Minister aware that since the Kampuchean Government — which has now existed for a number of years and is operating in Kampuchea — are not allowed to be represented, to be the representatives of the Kampuchean people at the United Nations, this prevents all aid, food and economic aid, to the Kampuchean people at the very time they most need it and as a result of the genocide of the Pol Pot regime which has a seat at the United Nations?
I have told the Deputy that our regard for the Pol Pot regime is not high. I must question the attitude of the Deputy, when he refers to the government that has been there for a number of years now, because this is a government that has been imposed by force, by outside force, on the Kampuchean people. It is not an elected government and the Deputy should not give the impression that it is.
The Deputy says that the government have been there for a number of years but this government were imposed by outside force on the Kampuchean people. It is not an elected Government and he should not give the impression that it is. For that reason it is not deserving of recognition.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that but for the fact that the Pol Pot regime was ousted that they would massacre a further million people. Is he aware that the Kampuchean people would have been destroyed if they had not been ousted? At this stage it must be seen that the Kampuchean people need some outside force to protect them from Pol Pot, the most heinous monster in history, probably even worse than Hitler.
What the Deputy says about the previous regime in Kampuchea is correct but, if the new government which was imposed by military intervention from an outside country was as acceptable to the Kampuchean people as the Deputy infers, how has the civil war lasted so long? There are other forces operating in Kampuchea which would be far more acceptable in Kampuchea than those imposed from outside.
Whatever one might say about the new regime, would the Minister agree that it is illogical that the seat of that country at the United Nations should be occupied by the representative of a regime which no longer exists?
That is not so. It is now occupied by a coalition which is headed by Prince Sihanouk and, even though the Khymer Rouge have a large part to play in the coalition and are far too powerful, it is not the previous regime who hold the seat.