Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Nov 1989

Vol. 393 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Cambodian Situation: Statements.

I am happy to be afforded this occasion to address the Dáil on the situation in Cambodia, a situation which is continuing to cause concern both here in Ireland and internationally. The announced withdrawal of the Vietnamese occupation forces in late September, and the fears of many that the Khmer Rouge could once again seize power by force, have refocused attention on this small country, whose inhabitants have had to endure so much suffering.

Who among us could forget the infamous "Killing Fields" of the Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge regime, which reigned with such absolute terror between 1975 and 1978? The memory of the deaths of over one million of their fellow citizens caused by the Pol Pot regime is etched irreversibly on the collective consciousness of the world. The absolute horror of that period must never be repeated.

The Government have, therefore, been deeply concerned at the recent intensification of hostilities in Cambodia in the wake of the Vietnamese pullout. We have been particularly concerned by the reported successes of the Khmer Rouge forces on the ground, since a central plank of our policy on Cambodia has always been that everything must be done to prevent the return to power of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime, which is guilty of so many heinous crimes against its own people.

But our policy must not be, and is not, based solely on a negative reaction to any prospect of a return to power of the Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge. The Cambodian people need and deserve our best efforts to chart a course towards a comprehensive political solution to this conflict, which has so scarred their country in human and physical terms. Our policy throughout the years has remained consistent and coherent in its adherence to a set of core principles, around which, in our view, any settlement must be built.

The Government believe that a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement must be based on the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Cambodia. It must include the withdrawal of all foreign forces under United Nations supervision. We also insist on the absolute right of the Cambodian people to determine their own destiny free from outside interference. The exercise of this right must find expression in the holding of internationally supervised, free and fair elections. Any settlement must, of course, ensure that the people of Cambodia are never again subjected to the inhuman barbarities which they suffered under the Pol Pot regime.

Ireland, along with its partners in the European Community, has welcomed the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia. We would have wished that the withdrawal had been effected under the supervision of the United Nations in order that it could have been fully verified and accepted by the international community. The fact that it has not been so verified has given rise to controversy regarding the extent of the Vietnamese withdrawal and a refusal by certain key countries to accept that the withdrawal has been total.

The occupation of Cambodia by foreign forces was a fundamental stumbling block to progress towards a settlement, as well as being a transgression of one of the basic principles of the United Nations Charter. The Government consider that the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces provides a valuable opportunity to move towards a comprehensive political settlement. We therefore strongly urge an immediate end to hostilities by all sides in Cambodia, as well as an end to all foreign and military aid to the parties to the conflict. Ireland has already made a plea at the United Nations, as recently as last month, that all sides to the conflict resist the temptation to seek to advance their objective by force of arms and instead devote themselves to the search for a solution by peaceful means.

The window of opportunity provided by the Vietnamese withdrawal must not be allowed to be closed by the forces of intransigence. The Government believe that the recent international conference on Cambodia held in Paris in August, under the chairmanship of France and Indonesia, managed to make worthwhile progress towards a settlement. The conference had to be suspended before a number of important issues could be resolved. It is now time to resume the conference and tackle these issues in a spirit of flexibility and compromise. The Cambodian people deserve no less.

The issue of Cambodia is due to be debated at the United Nations during the course of the next two days. At the end of the debate the General Assembly will be asked to vote on a draft resolution setting out the Assembly's view on the current situation in Cambodia. A number of representations have been made to me concerning Ireland's vote on this resolution, and whether we will be voting to allow the present incumbents of the Cambodian seat to remain in control of that seat.

As the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Sean Calleary, informed the Dáil during the Adjournment Debate on 2 November last, the issue of the representation of Cambodia at the General Assembly is not due to be voted on during the current session of the Assembly. In the past, this issue has been raised in the form of a challenge to the credentials of the delegation of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. Such a challenge has not been made at the current session of the General Assembly. Whenever such a challenge has been mounted in the past, Ireland has abstained in the vote, on the grounds that neither the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, nor the Government of Mr. Hun Sen in Phnom Penh, has received any form of endorsement from the people of Cambodia. We hope that at the next session of the General Assembly the Cambodian seat will be held by a delegation which truly represents the people of Cambodia, following the exercise by them of their right to self-determination through participation in free and fair elections.

The draft resolution on the situation in Cambodia, which has been tabled by the ASEAN counties and which has a large number of co-sponsors, has been carefully examined to ascertain the extent to which the fundamental principles espoused by Ireland have been included in the text. From Ireland's point of view, the draft resolution contains all of the points which we regard as fundamental, notably: withdrawal of all foreign forces under UN supervision; restoration and preservation of the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral status of Cambodia; the right of the Cambodian people to determine their own future through internationally supervised free and fair elections; and the incompatibility of a return of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime with the achievement of lasting peace in Cambodia.

As a result of the inclusion of these fundamental points in the draft resolution, Ireland will vote in favour of it when the voting scheduled for Thursday, 16 November, takes place. Although Ireland will vote in favour of the draft resolution, we have declined to co-sponsor it — despite having co-sponsored the corresponding resolutions in previous years — because there are some points in the draft resolution with which we are not entirely satisfied. For example, we would have preferred a stronger emphasis on the need for an immediate cease-fire and a return by all parties to the negotiating table. We also believe that the references to the non-return of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime could be more explicit. Therefore, in voting in favour of the draft resolution, Ireland will deliver a statement in explanation of its vote, which will state clearly the fundamental principles on which our policy is based and which will particularly emphasise our total opposition to a return to power of the genocidal Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime.

The Cambodian people have suffered for long enough. It is time to give them the opportunity to put the past behind them and to elect a Government which can lead the country on the difficult path to national reconstruction. To achieve this aim, the international community must prevent a return to power of the discredited and barbarous Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime.

As an expression of our solidarity with the long-suffering people of Cambodia, the Government have decided to make available the sum of IR£50,000 for emergency humanitarian relief inside Cambodia. We hope that, when peace has finally been restored in Cambodia, the international community will join in assisting the democratically-elected Government in the massive task of reconstruction which they face. I am sure that I reflect the views of all Deputies when I express the hope that the Cambodian people will not have too much longer to wait before they are allowed to get on with living their lives in peace, free from outside interference. I can assure Deputies that Ireland will continue to do whatever it can to advance this aim.

I am disappointed with the Minister's remarks because there is a conflict between saying that the resolution maintains the incompatibility of the return of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime with the achievement of a lasting peace in Cambodia and then voting in favour of that resolution——

Hear, hear.

The resolution leaves the seat in the hands of those who hold it now, which is disappointing. However, I congratulate and strongly welcome the allocation of £50,000 for humanitarian aid to the Cambodian people, which is very badly wanted. Having said that, I urge the Minister in the strongest possible terms to instruct the Irish delegation at the United Nations to vote against the resolution the day after tomorrow because of the effect it will have of leaving the seat in the hands of the Khmer Rouge.

The Government should also use their influence with their European Community colleagues to get support for the strategy to seek to remove the mantle of United Nations recognition from the present coalition. Although statements have been made by many members of the United Nations, it is extraordinary that even at this stage they still support a coalition that had effectively broken up 18 months ago and which now sees the Khmer Rouge on their merry way as they did for three years when they ruined Cambodia.

The Government should also undertake diplomatic and political action to ensure that material support and legitimacy is cut off from the Khmer Rouge. The almost incomprehensible level of violence and genocide which have marked the conflict in Cambodia shows us that the roots of social and political upheaval there are complex in the extreme. There is a shift in the balance and influence in that part of Asia and people from outside are trying to influence events there. While I welcome the opportunity to discuss the situation in the Dáil, a short exchange such as this cannot even begin to explore the complex problems in Cambodia in particular and in South-East Asia generally. In such a short time it is impossible to tease out each Member's position.

Fine Gael have proposed an all Party Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs. I understand it has been agreed between the two parties in Government that such a committee will be set up. That is the objective of all the parties in Opposition and if such a committee was in place now the issue could have been debated at greater length there than in the Dáil by means of a series of statements. Many of the issues which would come before such a committee are not Fine Gael, Labour Party or Fianna Fáil issues; they are national issues and there should be a national stance in that regard. A committee of that kind would bring about the kind of consensus which is necessary in relation to our dealings with the rest of the world.

As I said already, the situation in Cambodia is very complex and is changing almost daily. The Khmer Rouge took control of the country and engaged in a policy of genocide and tyranny for the three years they were in power, which was ended by the Vietnamese invasion of 1978. The Cambodian people — and perhaps others outside the country — were initially not displeased with that turn of events and it is ironical that, ten years later, the Vietnamese, in spite of the diplomatic efforts centred on removing them from Cambodia, are probably not displeased to go given the fact that they lost 25,000 people in their foray in the area. They badly damaged their economy and their per capita income is now less than that of Bangladesh. When the USSR said they should withdraw they had no option but to go. I know some doubt has been cast on whether they went but the only country of substance that holds the belief that they did not withdraw from Cambodia in the past 12 months is China. Everyone else accepts the fact that they have gone. That fact will help to improve their relations with the Chinese and perhaps with the Americans whom they hope will use their influence to lift the sanctions that have isolated them for the past ten years. They also want to be on good terms with their ASEAN and South-East Asian neighbours.

When I was President of the Council of Ministers in the European Community I remember two very long meetings, one in Jakarta with the ASEAN countries plus New Zealand, Australia, America and the Pacific bowl countries. Almost two days were devoted to what was then the problem of Kampuchea and how it could be resolved using the influence of that group of nations to bring about the restoration of the right to run their own affairs, the removal of the Vietnamese and the assurance that, whoever took over after the Vietnamese pulled out, a vacuum would not be created which the Khmer Rouge could fill. However, that is precisely what happened. There is a vacuum and a grave danger that the Khmer Rouge will fill it.

We had another subsequent meeting in Dublin in which the ASEAN countries and the Foreign Ministers of the European Community took part. They devoted a very lengthy period to the same problem, they came to the same conclusion as to what we wanted to achieve but they were powerless to achieve those ends. Five years have passed since then and some of the ends have been achieved but there is a grave danger that the outcome we most dreaded — the return of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to power — will come about against the wish of the Cambodian people.

Our position with the rest of the west was that we could not support Vietnam because they invaded Cambodia. Neither could we support the coalition Government because of the presence in it of the Khmer Rouge. However, that situation has now changed because of the Paris Conference and the withdrawal of the Vietnamese. The collapse of the peace conference in Paris was because the Prime Minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen, refused to allow Pol Pot or his representatives to share in the formation of a government. The other partners felt that if civil war was to be avoided Khmer Rouge participation was necessary and that is the impasse in which the United Nations and the Minister find themselves in the vote coming up the day after tomorrow. The Minister is, in effect, voting for what is impossible because voting for this resolution will mean that the Khmer Rouge will take part in talks and that the existing Government will not.

Until the United Nations in particular and the collective wisdom of the members of that body apply their minds to the problem, the danger of Pol Pot coming back to power in Cambodia is increasing. The failure of those talks has brought that possibility much nearer: many would say that it has arrived. The Khmer Rouge troops, probably an army of more than 25,000, are battle-hardened, very skilful, well-trained, disciplined and very well armed by the Chinese with modern rockets and so on. They could overrun the country because the capabilities of the Phnom Penh army are unknown, although there are probably as many as on the Khmer Rouge side. However, they are not as experienced in battle as the Khmer Rouge and the danger is that they will be overrun by the Khmer Rouge whose hatred for them is every bit as deep and bitter as their hatred for the Khmer Rouge. Of course the danger is that if the Khmer Rouge did win, so far as I know, it would be against the wishes of the Cambodian people who do not want, under any circumstances, to see a return to power of that tyrannical organisation.

The Cambodian people may be very much divided as to who should rule them, whether it should be Hun Sen, Prince Sihanouk or whoever. Certainly the vast majority of them hold the view that the person who should not rule them is Pol Pot. Anything that this House, the EC — acting in political co-operation — or the United Nations can do to prevent that happening is something to which all of the Minister's energies should be applied. The Cambodian people now face either a civil war, of nearly balanced forces, war that would drag on for another three years, tearing apart further that country which has seen far too much bloodshed, death and destruction. The Minister said in the course of his remarks that in the period 1975 to 1978, 1 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge. Indeed, that is an under-estimate; conventional wisdom is that that figure could be greater. We certainly do not want to see a recurrence of those atrocities.

That takes us to the point at which we must ask what we should do. What advice can we give the Minister? What would we like the Minister to do acting on our behalf bearing in mind that the position we adopt, as is the case in regard to most matters dealing with foreign affairs, should represent the collective view of this House and country voiced by the Minister in office at the time. The foreign affairs committee we propose would allow that to come about. But what should we do now? The position has changed since Ireland abstained on votes in recent years. The Vietnamese troops have now left, the Paris Conference has collapsed. We should be working in the EC with other western nations and with the ASEAN countries who no longer constitute the unquestioning coalition supporting phalanx. Thailand is no longer a steady rock. Thai is the front-line nation in this regard, the nation most exposed, that has had to take in refugees from Cambodia. Thailand are no longer unquestionably in support of the coalition as it was for the past ten years. The Thai Prime Minister himself has been in conference with Hun Sen on a number of occasions in the last six months. They are not as firmly committed to the same ASEAN policy as they were up to six months ago. That point should be borne in mind.

Thailand are co-sponsoring the resolution.

I know but they are still talking to the Hun Sen Government. The two Prime Ministers have been in conference on, I think, three occasions in the past six months. That point should be borne in mind that even though they may be co-sponsoring the resolution, the effect of that resolution will be to achieve something nobody wants, that is to give the Khmer Rouge back some influence. That is something the Minister would want to watch.

I should say I have no doubt about the Minister's good intention in this regard. Like everybody else in this House what the Minister wants to see brought about — as was set out in the course of his remarks — is the isolation of the Pol Pot régime, the Cambodian people being re-enabled to organise their own affairs, with free and democratic elections being held there. I doubt that the way the Minister is going about that objective is correct. I do not doubt at all that he wants to achieve that end.

We should be using our influence both within the EC and at the United Nations to get the Paris Conference re-convened. That is the first essential and, emanating therefrom, to get an interim administration, installed without the Khmer Rouge. I do not under estimate the difficulty of achieving that aim because of course the Khmer Rouge will insist on their power of veto, as they are doing at present, in the coalition. They are bogging down any political move in that regard because they have the power of veto and will do the same in any interim Government. We want to get that interim Government installed without them, to make preparations for elections as early as possible in 1990, which elections should be overseen by the United Nations.

In that regard we should change our position and vote against this resolution on Thursday. Given the statements issued by the Belgian, Dutch and German delegations who are considering change, and the very harsh statement on the part of the US Secretary of State, Schultz, last year and that by the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, earlier this year when she visited the refugee camps in Northern Thailand — at least they are thinking of changing their position — we should reconsider ours. Sweden, which co-sponsored last year, will change their position. They have not yet reached a conclusion on whether they should vote, abstain or vote against. They will not be co-sponsors this year and will not vote "yes"; they will either vote "no" or abstain. Given all of that, we should follow that example. I would recommend changing our position of abstension to voting "no". I would impress on the Minister that that is the course he should follow on Thursday.

First, I join Deputy Barry in welcoming the allocation of £50,000 toward urgent relief for the Cambodian people. We should put that allocation in context. That allocation is to a country that has been denied inter-governmental aid from a number of countries, including the European Community, for a very long time for reasons to which I will come in a moment. It must also be put in context in relation to the amount of money spent by UNICEF in any one year in Cambodia which is five million dollars on a number of projects including education, health, irrigation and so on. It will be welcomed.

I agree also with the previous speaker in his call for a foreign affairs committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I made that suggestion for the first time as a Member of the other House in November, 1986. I welcome the fact that parties are now supporting the concept because, on that occasion, there was support for the concept but not for the model I suggested. I hope we will be given the opportunity of having a foreign affairs committee of these Houses.

In that regard we are placed in an extraordinary position. It is not my purpose this evening to go into that and waste the time of the House on this valuable subject except to say that the Irish people are interested in how Ireland votes at the United Nations: Ireland votes on their behalf. They are entitled to have foreign policy accountable to them. They are insulted when they are told that diplomatic complexity is a professional activity that does not need to be trammelled by democratic accountability as is foreign policy in other countries in Europe. On that bizarre notion we set ourselves apart in Europe as being the only country without a foreign policy committee. We are superior in our reverence for the awe of diplomatic activity.

To turn to the statements before the House this evening I must say I cannot muster enthusiasm for the ministerial speech I have just heard. I find it trite in a number of parts. For example, knowing what I know of the Cambodian people's experience, I should not like to have drafted a sentence in the Minister's speech and I quote:

It is time to give them the opportunity to put the past behind them and to elect a Government which can lead the country on the difficult path to national re-construction.

The people of Cambodia will rightly tell anybody who wants to listen that they do not want ever to forget what happened. Indeed the reason the present Government of Hun Sen have said he left the Paris talks was because he could not defile the memory of the people who had died in Cambodia. I do not think we should invite the people of Cambodia to any amnesia.

There are a number of very important moral issues involved for Ireland. I want to stick to the text of the Minister's remarks for the moment. It is very important that we get absolutely clear what is taking place. The Minister referred to what is suggested as the non-challenge of the representative of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations. I respectfully suggest that that is a gloss on the factual position. I believe that if challenges, in a technical sense, were prepared by other countries Ireland could lend its voice. If I were simply to stick to the text of the Minister's remarks my problem with it is this, and it is a repetition of a statement of the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Calleary of 2 November:

Such a challenge has not been made at the current session of the General Assembly.

— that is, a challenge to the representation of Cambodia. We were not told on 2 November what the Irish attitude would have been had their been a challenge, and we have not been told tonight. There are many people in this country who are interested in this issue and they want to know where we stand in regard to the representation. It is true that later in the speech a kind of muted horror is expressed at the prospect of the return of the Khmer Rouge to any position of significance. Yet the motion for which we have been told a vote will be cast in our name includes them in the equation. The resolution also expresses confidence in Prince Sihanouk, which probably very few others share, and that, for example, he is able to influence events and so forth.

I think what the Members of all parties wanted the Minister to do on this occasion was to make a statement ahead of the session to say that Ireland found the representation of the people of Cambodia at the United Nations by a representative of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot as absolutely abhorrent to them. I have written elsewhere that it could probably be put on a parallel as saying that Hitler would be an adequate representative of the victims of Dachau and Auschwitz. That is what it is.

On that first moral point about who should represent Cambodia at the UN, the speech is silent and Ireland is voting for this motion which includes the names of the ASEAN countries and a number of other countries which have been moved to sign the draft. In the time available to me this evening I have not got time to untangle the complex motivation of the ASEAN countries in sponsoring a text of this kind but it is not unrelated to the economic connections of the different ASEAN countries with some of their patron countries, in particular, the United States. Neither have I time to start getting involved in undoing the casuistry of statements from the American Embassy during the week that they oppose the Khmer Rouge.

On the fundamental moral issue, what the public wanted the Government to do was to express their abhorrence at the representation. They also wanted the Government, if they had the oportunity, to vote against the present representative to seek support for at least a minimum position of declaring the seat vacant. Many others, including me, wanted the Government of Hun Sen recognised. That is my position. I advised the Labour Party on this position and it is the one the Labour Party asked me to indicate. I had a very good reason for this, and this brings me to the second difficulty I have with this speech.

This Parliament do not have a foreign policy committee and they go on saying they are worried whether the Vietnamese have really withdrawn and if the UN have supervised the withdrawal. We supervise nothing officially in this country and we do not send people anywhere, unless they go themselves and publish their reports. I believe it is a bit mealy-mouthed to ask for UN supervision after the event. Are they not happy that the Vietnamese withdrawal has taken place?

I want to ask a technical question of the good old diplomatic advisers: now that the Vietnamese have gone what qualitatively is different in Ireland's position now since the time we were saying that the Vietnamese had installed a puppet government? Where is the change reflected in the Irish position? It is truly offensive to say we are voting for the resolution but we will issue an explanatory statement that we were unhappy with parts of the resolution. If someone suggested that at a Labour Party conference they would be laughed at. It is as daft as that.

They would not suggest it or anything like it.

The other point I want to make relates to the representation because there is a certain kind of bland disregard for the realities of what the Cambodian people are suffering. The recognition of the Pol Pot representative and the non-recognition of Hun Sen's Government have effectively isolated the Cambodian people from governmental aid or the aid of such people as UNICEF, Trócaire, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Goal and other agencies. I want to say in passing in this Parliament of ignorance in foreign affairs — this is not our fault; we do not have the structures — that we are continually indebted to these agencies for the assistance they give us, precluded as we are from the professional advice for which we pay our taxes.

The question of recognition is inextricably tied to the question of aid. It is because of what happened post-1979 that we are now giving IR£50,000 — Irish punts as the Minister went to the trouble of explaining in the text. Why am I saying that I would take the step of recognising the government of Hun Sen? It is because I find that the evidence of reconstruction is real in relation to what happened when between one million and two million people were killed during the years 1975-79. In 1980 infant mortality was running at the rate of possibly one child in every three born. This rate has decreased to maybe one child in five. There have been significant achievements in relation to food production, even if they are far short of the levels achieved before the country was dragged willingly into the Vietnamese conflict. There have been improvements in the areas of education and water supply and attempts have been made to redress the situation where the number of doctors in the country had dropped from 500 to perhaps 50. A government who are isolated and trying like that deserve at least the aid we are giving them.

I must say — and this really bothers me — that at the end of the day I am only too familar with the suggestion in relation to votes of this kind — that "it is all too complicated, and much more complicated than you could possibly understand; the way we go about things is by drafting resolutions; sometimes we participate in those; we might not sponsor them and so forth." There is a great impatience in this country at the lack of moral nerve in Irish foreign policy. We know perhaps as much or more than most. An Irish agency have 15 field workers there and they told us what happened. They told us the efforts which have been made since 1980, in isolation. They told us that they need assistance and they have established without doubt that the aid embargo was linked to the fact that Hun Sen's Government were not recognised. If we recognised them we were opening the gate to aid.

What have we done instead? We have continued, at least on this occasion, to vote for a resolution which superficially suggests that while we would abhor the return of the Khmer Rouge influence, we are voting in the context of accepting their representative as the spokesperson for Cambodia. In that regard, even at this late stage, I would press, the Minister to contact our delegation and explain that it is the parliamentary will of this country, supported by the public, that we take initiatives. The Minister may say it is too late for this and the process is all over, but why has he not said this evening that he regards it as outrageous that Pol Pot's representative sits at the UN and that the flag of the people responsible for genocide, as he said in his speech, will fly outside the UN while the Irish representative will be inside voting for a composite resolution which will accept representation of Cambodia by somebody responsible for brutal murder and genocide. This is an outrageous position. When the explanatory statement is being issued in New York, will the Minister give every Irish person a copy so that they can hand it out to their friends and say we did not vote against it, sponsor anything different or say anything but we issued this interesting piece of paper to say why we voted, although we did not really want to vote. It is a piece of casuistry that brings disgrace on professional diplomacy. It is an outrage to decent Irish people of all parties who wanted us to take a moral lead and who wanted to see at least a vacant seat. The more positive thing to do would be to recognise the Government of reconstruction in a post-Vietnamese withdrawal arrangement and allow the aid to flow to the people who urgently need it.

I share the disappointment of Deputy M. Higgins and Deputy Barry at the Minister's statement here tonight. It is full of platitudes and plámás and I am appalled that the Irish Government intend to vote in favour of the resolution before the United Nations, which will do nothing more than confer legitimacy on the disgraced and despicable Khmer Rouge, who have wreaked such havoc on the Cambodian people. The current Irish policy towards Vietnam and Cambodia is in dire need of review, especially in the light of the recent withdrawal of all Vietnamese troops from Cambodia.

While I understand, the resolution to be taken at the United Nations tomorrow will not explicitly address the question of who should occupy the United Nations seat, this is the crucial issue and in my view the Irish representatives at the United Nations should challenge the continued presence of the Khmer Rouge in the UN. The Irish policy, which has been to abstain on the competing claims of the Heng Samrin government and the so-called Kampuchean coalition for the United Nations seat has been shameful.

The continuation of such a policy poses an obstruction to development and stability badly needed within Cambodia and, in addition, suggests indifference on the part of our Government towards the prospect of Pol Pot forces running this south-east Asian country once again. Moreover, abstaining on the vote in the United Nations suggests Ireland's inability to differentiate between the present Government of Cambodia and the coalition, which includes in its ranks the Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge, which was responsible for the unprecedented mass murder of its own people while in power.

The basic facts surrounding Pol Pot controls in Cambodia cannot be disputed. In 1975 Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge conquered the country, closed the frontiers and inaugurated a reign of terror in which about one million people were slaughtered. This is clearly the worst case of genocide in this century next to the annihilation of the Jewish community during World War II. When the Vietnamese army helped the people of Cambodia to drive out Pol Pot in January 1979, they found the country devastated and the remaining population close to starvation. Ten years later, the Khmer Rouge leaders, instead of being arraigned for genocide under the UN Convention of 1951, are actually regarded as part of the legitimate Government by the majority of member states in the United Nations. The current government which has made valiant efforts to restore the shattered morale of the people is now considered a Vietnamese puppet.

The continued support which the Khmer Rouge enjoy diplomatically is intimately bound up with the support they receive from China and the United States, both of which seem to put a higher premium on opposing Vietnam than ensuring a possible re-run of the Killing Fields. Are we to be guided by the policies of a Chinese Government, a government which has in recent months massacred a large number of its own people? Additionally, are we expected to succumb to the reprimands of the United States, especially in the light of its own disgraceful record in south-east Asia? In the meantime, the unwillingness of western Governments in the United Nations to take a strong line against the Khmer Rouge and its allies prolongs the suffering of its people and perpetuates the plight of the quarter of a million refugees living in camps in Thailand.

The Irish Government and other EC countries have for many years been calling for the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops. Now that this goal has been accomplished there is an obligation on us and the other EC countries to respond in a positive manner. The Government should now unequivocally support the right of the Heng Samrin government to unseat the Khmer Rouge, or at the very least support a position that the seat should be left vacant and we should urge the EC to adopt a similar position. The only sure way of ensuring recognition for the Government of Cambodia is through prompt diplomatic and political action. The Irish Government should be ready to support resolutions which would highlight the dangers of reinstalling members of the Khmer Rouge and the other EC member states should take a similar position. At this point, it is crucial to explore all avenues to sponsor or support moves to remove the mantle of legitimacy and material support from the present occupant of the UN seat.

Clearly, the dynamics of the conflict in Cambodia have now changed and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has pointed out in the past, the lasting solution to the conflict in Cambodia is contained in the Declaration of the International Conference on Kampuchea. The declaration calls for the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and the exercise by the Cambodian people of the right to determine their future. Now that the removal of troops has come to fruition, are we not under an obligation to acknowledge this change and act accordingly?

The Workers' Party believe that now is the time for Ireland to exercise its political vote in the UN, and indeed to exercise some independent initiative to unseat the Khmer Rouge. If the seat is left vacant, there is little doubt that the de facto government will continue to consolidate and gain popular support throughout the country and the nightmare of a Khmer Rouge return to power will be dispelled. To this end, we should be initiating action within the European Community to remove the ban on the recognition of the Government of Cambodia and encourage reconstruction and development aid to be delivered by the EC. After all, preventing the resurrection of the Khmer Rouge can only be accomplished by winning the economic battle. The sooner this happens, the sooner the current Government will gain the confidence and support of the rural population, which makes up 80 per cent of the total population. Then and only then will the people of Cambodia have the freedom to determine their own future.

How bad do things have to get before Ireland wields whatever political power is available to aid the desperate lives of the people in Cambodia? The humanitarian aid supplied by the EC and by independent organisations such as Oxfam and Trócaire has been extremely important. The indifference displayed by the Irish Government to this situation is no longer a timely or appropriate response in the light of the severity of the situation in Cambodia. While I welcome the Minister's statement that £50,000 is to be provided, I think we need to go much further than that, and develop a programme of aid for Cambodia. Ultimately, is not within our realm of responsibility to brave the opposition and encourage members of the United Nations to vote in favour of denying the Khmer Rouge a seat within that organisation? As the director of Oxfam pointed out "history will condemn the international community if they award the seat to the illegitimate coalition". Certainly, a strong stance on the part of our Government today would contribute to cultivating some semblance of a future for the people of Cambodia tomorrow.

The people of Cambodia have endured appalling suffering and deprivation as a result of almost 20 years of continuous fighting and destruction. They surely now have a special case for sympathetic consideration in regard to food and development aid. A number of voluntary organisations such as Trócaire and Oxfam are already providing aid from their own limited resources. As I have said previously, the Government should initiate their own programme of aid. I believe that despite our own economic difficulties, the Irish people would support such a move.

Despite the appalling level of suffering and deprivation, EC food and development aid has been withheld for purely political reasons. This is shameful and must change. In addition to our bilateral aid, the Government should press for a change in EC policy and ensure that adequate international aid is now provided to assist the people of Cambodia in their efforts to reconstruct and develop their country.

I wish to repeat what I said at the beginning. I consider the position being adopted by the Government at the United Nations is totally wrong. I agree with Deputy Michael Higgins when he called on the Government to reconsider their position and to respond to the will of this House, to what I believe is the all-party view, that we should oppose the resolution in the United Nations, that we should make it quite clear that we do not want to collaborate with the Khmer Rouge presence in the UN. I believe that position is supported by the great majority of the people of this country. I agree with Deputy Higgins when he says it is time that foreign policy — and this perhaps is as good as place as any to start — should respond to the wishes of the Irish people who have traditionally shown great generosity towards the suffering of people in other parts of the world.

The people of Cambodia have suffered massively under this horrific regime. The people of this country have been horrified at what they have seen on their television screens and what they have read about the horrors and the massacres that have been committed by this regime. We should have absolutely no truck with them. The response of the Government is not adequate. The platitudes in the Minister's statement and the cop-out, the explanatory statement he talked about in relation to our vote in the United Nations, are not adequate. Again, I would call on the Minister to, even at this very late stage, reconsider the position and issue different instructions to our representatives in the United Nations.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Quill.

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

First, I wish to state that I share the widespread growing concerns that have been expressed internationally about the present situation in Cambodia and the implications of the draft resolution to be voted on at the UN on Thursday, 16 November. The Governments of the UK, Germany and the Netherlands have, in the last few days, moved away from the unquestioning support of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. The UK Government have recognised that Vietnam have indeed withdrawn their troops from the country. The sad reality is that these three countries are co-sponsors of the draft resolution tabled at the UN. However, I welcome the movement that the German and Dutch Governments have made in expressing strong statements on the need to explicitly condemn the Khmer Rouge and ensure safeguards against their return to power.

I am pleased that Ireland with Belgium and Portugal are the only European Community countries that did not co-sponsor this resolution. Indeed, in 1982 we quite rightly abstained on the vote giving the ousted Democratic Kampuchean Government the Kampuchean seat at the United Nations. However, I feel we should go that step further on this occasion. As many of the troubled areas of the world such as Namibia, South Africa and the Middle East send us hopeful signals of peace and progress and as a wave of freedom sweeps across the continents and tyranny and oppression crumble before increasingly powerful popular forces, it is regrettable and a matter of grave disquiet that a dark cloud still hangs over the troubled lands of Cambodia. Workers with agencies such as Trócaire and Oxfam who have been operating inside the country for the last ten years have witnessed the fear of the people of Cambodia at the possibility of the return in any form of the Khmer Rouge.

As a small neutral country with a healthy international reputation on human rights around the globe, we in Ireland must align ourselves firmly and without equivocation with all those who are demanding freedom and democracy and the right of self determination. The co-sponsors at the UN want us to recognise "the continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean people under the leadership of Prince Sihanouk". To support such a resolution would mean, I believe, siding with the Khmer Rouge who are allies of Sihanouk in the civil war. To adopt this stance at the UN would in effect put this country on the side of the oppressor. I believe Ireland should vote against or at least abstain on this UN motion. It is a crucial motion which could result in the troops of the Khmer Rouge over-running Cambodia again as it will give encouragement to the Prince Sihanouk led forces.

The memories of the Pol Pot régime are still very vivid in our minds. Sadly the world did not know until it was too late what was going on during those dark days in Cambodia. Now we have a clearer picture, thanks to reports from relief agencies and also an informed and vigilant media. A new situation now exists in Cambodia. The Vietnamese forces have left. The Hun Sen Government have been governing the country and feeding the people against great odds, with very little help from the outside world. According to numerous journalists and aid workers they are a responsible Government who have the support of the people. They have made changes in their economic policy allowing free market principles. Sadly the genocide of the Khmer Rouge has left its mark in that the country has been left bereft of much expertise at Government and official level. Emergency development assistance is required and I certainly hope the European Community will match the efforts being made by the Government. I warmly welcome the announcement that £50,000 will be made available by the Irish Government for humanitarian relief in Cambodia.

As a breath of freedom sweeps through Eastern Europe and dramatic changes in the political map of Europe take place, nurtured by an enlightened Soviet leader, one cannot but feel gravely disappointed that the western world and the United States in particular cannot adopt a similar role in South East Asia. The US and the European Community have close and growing economic relations with that region and can play a key role in bringing peace and stability to this troubled area. We will have to bring ourselves to realise that the Vietnamese have left and that the Cambodian people inside Cambodia and in the camps on the Thai border must be given a chance to express their will in any future participation of the Khmer Rouge in a comprehensive political settlement. This could be done through an internationally supervised referendum which would lead to a fair and free election. The international community must act quickly as the Khmer Rouge have a large army and are waiting in the wings training and recruiting in refugee camps on the Thai border.

I am asking the Irish Government to stand apart from our European Community partners and oppose or at least abstain on this UN resolution which continues to legitimise the Khmer Rouge dominated coalition's seating at the UN. Indeed we should support any forthcoming initiatives to declare Cambodia's seat vacant at the UN. A vacant seat would mean that the United Nations could become directly involved in a peace initiative. Since the breakdown of the Paris peace conference in August, no agreement has been reached on an interim administration. The current impasse that exists presents us with a very volatile and dangerous situation and this peace conference must be reconvened. In conclusion, I would urge the Irish Government to maintain a strong humanitarian stance at UN level and either oppose or abstain on this resolution. I thank the Minister for agreeing to make time available for this important debate.

I wish to thank Deputy Tom Kitt for sharing his precious time with me. I very much appreciate the opportunity of making a contribution, although a very brief one, to this debate.

It is entirely fit and proper that we in this House this evening are debating the issue of Cambodia. First, this is the eve of a vital two-day debate on that country at the United Nations; secondly, events within Cambodia are at a very crucial juncture at this time and thirdly, the upcoming presidency of the EC confers on this country a privileged position, a position that enables it to use its influence to change events within Cambodia and also to influence other countries to alter their attitudes towards the Cambodian question.

The people of Cambodia have suffered more than most, not just at the brutal hands of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge but equally, if less directly, at the often callous and self-interested hands of much of the so-called civilised world — that was touched on very well by Deputy Barry here this evening. The recent history of these people is horrific. We are all now familiar with the horrors inflicted on a defenceless people during the reign of terror of Pol Pot. We are familiar with the brutal stories of the killing fields, stories of the genocide, the acres of crushed bones, the systematic torture, starvation and murder of anyone who had even the most modest standard of education and who in any way was seen to deviate from Pol Pot's vision of what Cambodia ought to be.

Cambodia has suffered more than most, as I have already indicated, from the intricacies of diplomatic manoeuvring between the super powers and the geopolitics of the ill-starved region of South-East Asia. These considerations, and particularly the stance adopted by the United Nations in recognising the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea which includes the Khmer Rouge as a legitimate voice of the people of Cambodia, must be seen as a threat of return of Pol Pot to that country. Recognising Pol Pot and his forces as the representatives of Cambodia can only be compared with recognising Hitler as the representative of the Jewish population of Germany after the Second World War. This point has already been made with some force and passion by Deputy Higgins and is one that must be taken into account.

That being so, we have a moral responsibility as members of the international community to work for a fair and just solution to the enormous problems facing Cambodia. I accept there are aspects of the resolution to be debated in the United Nations over the next two days with which this country is in broad sympathy, such as the call for a return to the Paris peace negotiations, respect for the right to self-determination for Cambodia and the holding of free elections in that country, but it is essential that we use the opportunity of the coming United Nations debate and every subsequent available opportunity to demonstrate our total abhorrence of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in much stronger and clearer terms than those set out in the United Nations motion.

We must also make crystal clear our total rejection of the recognition by the United Nations of the coalition of Democratic Kampuchea, including Pol Pot, as having any legitimate role as a representative of a new Cambodia. The continued recognition of a coalition which includes representatives of the Khmer Rouge which has sought so desperately to destroy is an indictment of all of us in the civilised world. It is a cruel parody of what the United Nations stands for and it is also a cruel parody of the charter on which the United Nations was founded and as long as this position persists we will all have blood on our hands.

At this point I want to compliment the Minister on his announcement this evening that he is sending aid amounting to £50,000 to Cambodia. I hope this money will go directly to the people of Cambodia and will not be diverted or intercepted in any way by Khmer Rouge apologists. I also hope that this is only the beginning as more and more help will be needed.

Ireland has a long and honourable tradition at the United Nations. We have acted with courage and honour on many occasions in the past. We will have an opportunity tomorrow and the day after to act with equal courage and honour. The representatives of this generation have a duty to the representatives of previous generations to uphold and maintain the proud tradition of Ireland at the United Nations. Anything less than casting our vote to unseat the coalition of Kampuchea with its Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge influence and element will be a betrayal of our proud position and tradition at the United Nations. At this stage——

Tá an t-am istigh.

At this stage I appeal to the Minister to use his influence with our representatives at the United Nations to ensure our vote is cast in that manner. When that is done we will have done ourselves some credit and enabled the United Nations to act as a free and independent body to bring about peace and to work for the reconstruction of a new, free, democratic Cambodia.

I am glad the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, is present in the House tonight for this debate. When I was given the opportunity to raise this issue on the Adjournment on 2 November, I commenced my contribution by expressing my disappointment that he was not present in the Chamber and was not able to hear some of the worries which Members of this House have expressed. I also hoped that in raising this issue on 2 November the Minister would have had time to reflect and alter Ireland's position at the United Nations. I cannot believe that the Minister can be so insensitive to or unaware of the enormous rise in public opinion against Ireland's position at the United Nations with regard to representation of the Khmer Rouge.

He cannot be blind to the fact that during the past few weeks many people have telephoned his Department. Today groups of students from the Presentation School in Bray, from St. Louis' Convent and from St. Finian's College in Swords joined in a demonstration of peaceful vigil outside this House along with many ordinary citizens who were asked to come here to express solidarity with the people of Cambodia and to call on the Members of this House to influence the Minister in any way they can to change Ireland's stance at the United Nations. The Minister cannot be blind or insensitive to the call of the ordinary people of this country.

I understand that in mainland Britain and Belfast today similar vigils were held in an attempt to get the UK to change its position. I have been given information to the effect that the UK is dramatically changing its opinion. They have already given a commitment to send £250,000 to Cambodia, to send a British diplomat to Cambodia and to hold discussions and negotiations with the Hun Sen Government. Perhaps between now and tomorrow we will see a change but they have already made moves to change this resolution. I do not know as of yet, perhaps the Minister does, what action the UK will take over the next two days on this resolution.

Why can we in Ireland not take a lead in this? Why do we have to be hiding behind shirt tails of other countries? During the campaign and vote on the Single European Act we got a categoric assurance from the Government that we would maintain an independent foreign affairs stance, that we would act with courage and conviction and would not all the time seek the full support of or go along with the Twelve. The Minister now has an opportunity to show his bona fides in respect of all those statements made during the debate on the Single European Act.

I condemn the Minister for what he has done to the motion which comes up for discussion at the United Nations. He has dined à la carte on the motion. He has found some little pieces of the motion which he feels he can sell and support but he has ignored some other more critical elements of the motion. He has decided instead that he can sell the line: “Of course, we are in favour of the restoration and preservation of independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Of course all those things are good and proper and we are in favour of humanitarian aid”. Hidden inside this omnibus motion are the crucial lines which imply that the Khmer Rouge will be part of any independence and restoration of sovereignty. The motion calls for a comprehensive political settlement and this includes the Khmer Rouge. If the Minister cannot see this or if his officials cannot explain to him what that means, then shame on him. Does he not realise that in voting for this resolution he is voting for the continued presence of the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations. As Deputy Higgins and I have already said, this would be identical to saying to the Jews that Hitler is alive and well and gone to the United Nations to represent them. It is shameful for the international world to continue in any way even under the guise of an omnibus motion such as this to support the presence of the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations.

I believe that the Minister could and should take a positive initiative. Why has he not since 2 November, when I first raised this issue in the House, gone about sponsoring and putting forward a motion calling for the removal of this coalition from the United Nations? Why has he not said that the seat should remain vacant, if necessary, until such time as free elections can be organised in Cambodia? He has had the time to do so. Why has he not had the courage to do this? He cannot continue to support the decimation and annihilation of humanitarian aid and long-term development aid. The EC supports a policy of not giving such aid.

I believe this region of south east Asia has become the playground, arena or theatre for the big powers but this cannot continue, nor can we continue to take part in a sham of diplomacy and debate at the United Nations while continuing to support the Khmer Rouge. The position has changed dramatically, even since we decided to continue with the line that as long as Vietnamese troops remain in Cambodia we would have to continue to abstain on a vote on the presence of the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations. The Vietnamese troops have withdrawn from Cambodia. How then can the Minister come into this House and criticise a country for not allowing the United Nations to supervise that withdrawal while at the same time the United Nations allows the murderers of the people of Cambodia to sit in the hallowed halls of the United Nations building? How can they ask those people to put aside all their sorrows and say: "come in, UN". As long as the Khmer Rouge have a seat at the United Nations it will be impossible to ask the people of Cambodia to allow the UN in.

The troops have withdrawn. All thinking countries in the world have accepted that. Members of the European Parliament, members of various agencies throughout the world supervised that withdrawal. The situation has dramatically changed. Ireland can no longer hide behind saying that they cannot support any changes in the UN as long as foreign troops are on the soil. This motion that the Minister will instruct our UN representative to vote on in the next two days has not accepted that the troops have withdrawn. Why can the Minister not accept that and realise that the ball park has changed? After tonight's debate, if the Minister is not willing to listen to Opposition speakers perhaps he would take account of the fact that two backbenchers of the Government have called on him to change Ireland's stance. Perhaps the Minister would reflect on that, if he will not reflect on what we are saying. Members of the Minister's party are deeply concerned about the action he is proposing to take.

I congratulate Deputy Quill and Deputy Kitt for taking a courageous line because so often backbenchers are wheeled in to support their Minister's proposal. There is an independent line here tonight and it is very welcome. It again sells the idea that we need this Foreign Affairs Committee. Already this week there have been three major issues which could be rightfully debated in a Foreign Affairs Committee: the issue of east Germany, this issue and Namibia from where I have just returned from observing the free and fair elections for a country getting its democracy for the first time. Not a word was said in this House or at any committee to discuss any of these issues. We neither have the time nor a forum to debate the intricacies of south-east Asia. There are many intricacies there and there would not be a straightforward discussion.

However, there is a straightforward decision tonight. I would ask the Minister to listen to the pleas from around this House and I would ask him not to disgrace Ireland and shame our people by going into the UN or sending a representative in tomorrow or the next day to vote for a motion that is riddled with references and hidden words to the effect that it will continue to support the return of the Khmer Rouge, the Pol Pot régime into a country that has seen one million people die in three years, a country that has no infrastructural development, no water, sewerage or health services, and no schools except those that the nongovernmental agencies have been able to supply with their limited funds.

I join with the other speakers to say that without the courage of those agencies the people of Cambodia would have been abandoned by the international world, to our great shame. Those agencies have gone in against all the odds and carried out vital work, but they need the support of governments. They need Government aid. They need full, long term sustainable development aid from the EC.

In a few months, the Minister will be sitting in a very important position when Ireland holds the Presidency of the EC. Let it be the Minister's desire that during our Presidency we will see full development aid being granted to the people of Cambodia. I welcome the fact that £50,000 aid has been announced here tonight. It is the least the Minister could have brought in here, in view of the enormous interest and concern being expressed by the Irish people. The Minister should ensure that that £50,000 is channelled to the people of Cambodia through bona fide Irish agencies already working in that country and who have contacts, so that not one penny is wasted on administration or unnecessary loss of time because of lack of contacts. That money should be spent as quickly and as relevantly as possible and it should be only a start of the money that this Minister, this Government and the country are pledging and committing to Cambodia.

We need a policy that is coherent, believable honest and moral. We have not had that over the last ten years. I respect the fact that there were sustainable reasons put forward as arguments why Ireland continued to abstain. Those reasons no longer exist. I hope the Minister is aware of that, after this debate tonight, if he was not aware of it before. I hope the Minister is aware that our people are demanding a change of Ireland's position. If the Minister is genuine he will listen to our pleas tonight and tomorrow morning he will have the triumph of coming into this House and admitting that following tonight's debate he is pleased to announce that Ireland will be voting against this motion. I will finish with that urgent plea to the Minister.

Is there the possibility of a few minutes?

Ordinarily the debate would return to the Government side now. I wonder if I can anticipate the Minister's agreement in so far as Deputy Garland has had intimation that he might get a moment or two.

The Government order today said that the Minister would be called on five minutes before the end. Anybody else can contribute to the debate up to that time.

Please allow me to discharge the duties here. The order said not later than five minutes and ordinarily the debate would now return to the Government side, Deputy Owen having completed her 15 minutes.

Nobody is offering.

I am not sure I had my full 15 minutes.

I understood from the Ceann Comhairle that if there was time left before the five minutes allotted to the Minister, he was willing to allow Deputy Garland have those minutes. Otherwise I would have indicated that I would have shared my time. I understood that the spare minutes gathered throughout the debate would be available to other speakers. With respect, it has been a very democratic debate so far.

Yes, and I would have hoped that it would have proceeded without people on your side attempting to demonstrate to me what I should be doing.

I do not make any apologies.

If that is the way the Deputy——

I will continue to do it.

——wants it, I shall call the Minister.

You do what you please, but I do not want any lecture about it.

Please let Deputy Barry contain himself and not presume to tell the Chair how to organise the business.

I will not be lectured, Sir.

I am not lecturing, I am just——

Indeed, you are.

I am sure that Deputy Barry is always anxious to learn the correct position. That is all I am telling him. With the Minister's agreement, I can accomodate Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy Garland.

That is all right as long as I get in at 9.55 p.m. I would come in now if there were not others offering.

I now call Deputy Garland and I would ask him to exercise his degree of magnanimity and leave three or four minutes for Deputy Mac Giolla.

I will, of course. My first reaction this evening was one of disappointment and almost of disbelief at the arcane and hair-splitting attitude that the Minister has taken in this matter. However, I was very heartened by Deputies Quill and Kitt who have shown a degree of independence in this House. If there was a free vote of this House I am sure the House would direct the Minister to direct our representative in the UN to vote against this resolution. I have no doubt that if there were a nationwide referendum on this issue the vast majority of people would call for our representative to vote against this régime. Most of the points have already been made and I will not delay the time of the House talking about them.

The current position is that most western governments would rather support a genocidal régime than a communist régime. The Irish Government have been consistently guilty on this issue by abstaining at the UN. That was an incredible decision over the years and is totally untenable now in view of the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops. I should like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. I hope that in the course of his reply he will tell us that he will be instructing our representative at the UN to vote against this resolution.

I am disappointed at the Minister's attitude and I should like to appeal to him to look again at this issue. It all seems to revolve around the question of Vietnamese withdrawal. That was the point put forward over the years by the American Government and it was adhered to by everybody else. Of course, everybody forgot that but for the Vietnamese the Cambodian people would have been wiped out. It was they who saved them from Pol Pot. Nevertheless, that excuse no longer holds good because the Vietnamese have withdrawn. The Americans now say they do not believe that the Vietnamese have withdrawn, that there are some of them still in that country. The Minister in the course of his speech said that the Government would have wished that the withdrawal had been effected under the supervision of the UN in order that it could have been fully verified and accepted by the international community. The fact that it has not been so verified, he said, has given rise to controversy regarding the extent of the Vietnamese withdrawal and a refusal by certain key countries to accept that the withdrawal has been total.

The Minister seems to accept that position, that the possibility is that the Vietnamese have not withdrawn. He appears to hold the view that that gives him the excuse for maintaining the same posture of abstension at the UN. I should like to ask him if it is not a fact that the UN are prevented from going into Cambodia to supervise any withdrawal because the Pol Pot régime is accepted by them, having a seat at the UN. They do not want the UN making any moves whatever in Cambodia.

The Minister said he is sorry and surprised that the Vietnamese withdrawal has not been verified by the UN but that statement is made with tongue in cheek. The Minister should, as Deputy Owen said, accept the withdrawal. He should visit that country, or send a delegation, to verify that the withdrawal has taken place. The Minister should change his stance and give the lead to the other nonaligned countries of the world, at least at the UN, and exert pressure on the Chinese and the United States to refuse a seat at the UN to Pol Pot. The Minister should re-examine the draft motion scheduled for the debate at the UN. He should reconsider his decision to support it because of its dangerous implications. He should seek to amend the motion to take account of the Irish Government's view on this issue.

I should like to express my appreciation and thanks to the Members who participated in the debate. As I said in my opening statement, the question of Cambodia has caused great concern to all of us in particular because of the fears that anything Ireland did might contribute to the return of the dreaded Pol Pot-Khmer Rouge. Even a small country like Ireland must weigh carefully all the factors in play so as to ensure that Ireland is seen to uphold internationally the principles of justice, democracy and freedom which the Irish people hold dear.

I fully share the views of Deputies that we must utterly reject the idea that the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge be allowed back to power. We have not, and never will do anything whatever to help their cause. When they ruled Cambodia in the seventies Pol Pot and his minions were responsible for the deaths of more than one million of their fellow citizens. I am sure the Cambodian people would never wish to see them in positions of responsibility again. The Khmer Rouge claim to have the support of the people of Cambodia. I would say, well let them prove it by asking the people of Cambodia for their support in free elections. I am totally opposed to the fact that the Khmer Rouge, and other parties to the conflict, are being supplied with arms from the outside and I agree that what the Pol Pot régime did amounted to genocide in the normal meaning of that word. Unfortunately, there is no international court competent to try people for the crime of genocide and the UN Convention on the crime of genocide leaves the main responsibility for trying such crimes with the people of the country.

I do not expect the Hun Sen Government, many of whose members including Hun Sen himself were active members of the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot's leadership, to undertake this responsibility. It will be for a future democratically elected Government to decide if former members of the Pol Pot régime should be brought to justice for crimes against their own people. I agree that the failure to stop Pol Pot's "killing fields" is not to the credit of the international communities' efforts to vindicate fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, the human rights of the ordinary man and woman are often a silent victim of great power rivalries and I do not think anybody realised the extent of the horrors being perpetrated by Pol Pot until, sadly, it was too late.

On the question of withdrawal and the confusion as to whether the Vietnamese pulled out I should like to say it is a great pity that the Hun Sen Government and Vietnam did not agree to have the United Nations supervise the withdrawal. If they had we would not be having the dispute we have today. I utterly reject the idea that the United Nations could not have acted impartially in monitoring the withdrawal. Indeed, we have memories of many great Irish soldiers dying in the service of the UN. They always acted in an honourable and impartial manner that brought credit to this country.

I have no quarrel with those Deputies who have stated that Mr. Hun Sen is probably an improvement on Pol Pot but we must remember that he was installed by a foreign invasion and I certainly cannot endorse his Government. We should also remember that Mr. Hun Sen, and many members of his administration——

The Minister wants the genocide to continue.

——were actively involved in the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot. Indeed, Hun Sen was second in command of a Khmer Rouge regiment at the height of the ghastly "killing fields" episode. Those who claim that the choice between the Hun Sen Government and the coalition led by Prince Sihanouk is like that between good and evil should remember those realities.

Normally, we do not get involved in the question of who should run a country; that is the business of that country's people. If we have to take a position, as in the case of Cambodia, we say that only a government democratically elected by the people will have Ireland's support. I am confident that the Irish people would support the Government on this.

Good foreign policy decisions in a case like this are not made by taking into account only one side of the argument. Hun Sen, a former Pol Pot lieutenant was installed in power by the Vietnamese who invaded their smaller neighbour and occupied it for ten years. Now that the Vietnamese have apparently decided to withdraw, though it should be said that they rejected a proposal made at the Paris Conference that this withdrawal should be verified by the UN, they would like the international community to support the continuation of their protégé. Hun Sen is head of the Government in Pnomh Pehn.

The Government's view is that the Cambodian people should be given the opportunity of determining for themselves what their government will be. We will not, therefore, contribute to giving democratic respectability to a regime which far from having been elected by the Cambodian people was installed by a foreign power.

But the Government are giving respectability to the Khmer Rouge.

This does not mean that we support Pol Pot. As I explained, we shall in voting for the resolution make absolutely clear our rejection of any return of Pol Pot to power in Cambodia.

Some Deputies have suggested that I should instruct our Ambassador to the UN to abstain our vote against the UN Resolution on Cambodia because they claim that the resolution is favourable to the Khmer Rouge. As I said earlier, the resolution mentions twice that there should be "no return to the universally condemned policies and practices of the recent past". I agree that more explicit language on the Khmer Rouge would have been preferable and this is one of the main reasons I have instructed our ambassador not to co-sponsor the resolution.

It is not enough.

With due respect to Deputies who suggest we should oppose a resolution just because it is not exactly what we want and thus join the tiny minority of states who have backed the Vietnamese invasion from the beginning, that would be totally irresponsible.

That is disgraceful.

Let us hear the Minister out.

Several nations have changed their position.

The resolution contains all the points that Ireland regards as fundamental: withdrawal of foreign forces under United Nations supervision, non-return of Pol Pot and recognising the right of the Cambodian people to self-determination expressed through participation in internationally supervised, free and democratic elections. How could Ireland not vote in favour of a resolution endorsing principles which are so fundamental to the Irish nation?

Please reconsider.

(Interruptions.)
Debate adjourned.
Top
Share