Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Jul 1991

Vol. 410 No. 9

Memorandum of Understanding on Monitor Mission to Yugoslavia: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Monitor Mission to Yugoslavia, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 12th July, 1991."

The Memorandum of Understanding is an agreement by which a multi-national Monitor Mission, whose main purpose is to stabilise the cease-fire in Yugoslavia, will be established. It is intended that the memorandum will be signed later today or tomorrow in Belgrade by the Presidency on behalf of the Community and its member states, by the representatives of the Federal Government of Yugoslavia, and by representatives of Slovenia and Croatia.

The mandate of the Monitor Mission, as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding, will consist of three main points.

First, the mission will help stabilise the cease-fire agreed between the Yugoslav parties with the assistance of the Community. The mission will conduct ad hoc evaluations of, and investigate alleged violations of, the following elements of the cease-fire: the lifting of the blockade of Yugoslav army units and facilities; the unconditional return of Yugoslav army units to their barracks; the clearing of all roads; the return of all facilities and equipment to the Yugoslav army; and the deactivation of territorial defence units and their return to quarters.

Secondly, the mission will monitor the suspension, for a period of three months, of the implementation of the declarations of independence of Slovenia and Croatia.

Thirdly, if and when required the mission will monitor the release and return of prisoners detained in connection with hostilities since 25 June 1991, in co-operation with the International Red Cross.

The mission will commence its activities as soon as possible after signature of the Memorandum of Understanding by all participating parties. It is intended that the mission's activities will end after three months, but the parties may decide to prolong its mandate.

The mission will concentrate its activities on Slovenia and, as appropriate, Croatia unless the parties agree that the implementation of the mandate also requires activities beyond these areas.

Initially, there will be between 30 and 50 members of the mission; these will be known as monitors. Monitors will not carry arms and will wear civilian dress. They will have the facilities necessary for them to undertake their duties, including the privileges and immunities extended to diplomatic agents.

The mission will have a very clear Twelve character. The mission will display the flag of the European Community and will operate under the responsibility of the head of the mision, who will be a national of the country holding the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the Community — currently, the Netherlands.

As is made clear in the Memorandum of Understanding, the Yugoslav authorities have requested the European Community and its member states to organise this monitor mission. This mission has been endorsed by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. All 35 participating states in the CSCE, meeting in Prague on 3 and 4 July, welcomed the readiness of the Community to organise the mission. It is provided that the Community's Presidency will inform the CSCE committee of senior officials at the earliest opportunity on the activities and findings of the mission. At a later date, other CSCE countries may contribute monitors to the mission. This, if it happens will be done with the agreement of the Yugoslav authorities, at whose invitation the mission operates, and on the basis of the arrangements now worked out between the Twelve and the Yugoslav parties.

It is intended that Ireland will contribute a small number of officers from the defence forces and the Civil Service to serve as monitors with this mission. I consider that participation by Ireland will enable this country to make a valuable and concrete contribution to resolving the Yugoslav crisis, which is a threat to peace, stability and security in Europe. I believe our participation will serve as a powerful indication of the concern that is so clearly felt by the people of Ireland at the tragic events of the last few weeks. It will serve to underline, once again, our long-standing commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflict, and our readiness to assist in the ways that are open to us in reaching a peaceful solution of crises in the international arena and, in this instance, a solution by negotiation of the problems that afflict Yugoslavia and her peoples. I would emphasise that full compliance with the letter and the spirit of all the provisions of the Brioni Agreement is essential for the European Community and its member states to continue their current efforts of assistance in overcoming the Yugoslav crisis. The mission also represents recognition by all European countries, and by the United States and Canada, of the role which an ever more united Community is called upon to play in the new Europe that has emerged in the past two years. The international community looks to the Twelve to help Yugoslavia in the search for a future structure that is acceptable to the peoples of all its constituent republics. The fact that the federal authorities in Yugoslavia as well as the representatives of Slovenia and Croatia are parties to the Memorandum of Understanding underlines the particular acceptability of the Community as an interlocutor in the crisis. It is incumbent on the Community, and in particular on all its member states, to respond wholeheartedly to the challenge and to fulfil the expectations placed in us. For these reasons, I warmly welcome the opportunity that is offered to us to participate in this mission.

For many months now, the Twelve have been very actively engaged in efforts to find a peaceful solution to the problems in Yugoslavia. The European Council on 28 June sent the Troika of Foreign Ministers to Yugoslavia where they secured agreement from the parties on a threepoint package: (i) a cease-fire with a withdrawal to barracks of armed forces; (ii) a three-month moratorium on the implementation of the declarations of independence; (iii) the appointment in regular rotation of the Croat representative, Mr. Mesic, as President of the Presidential College. On 30 June the Troika obtained renewed commitments to these terms.

On 7 July the Troika again held lengthy discussions on the island of Brioni with the Yugoslav federal authorities, and with representatives of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, Mr. Mesic had in the meantime been installed in regular rotation as President of the Presidential College. The Yugoslav parties reaffirmed their commitment to the points of the cease-fire agreed on 30 June with Twelve mediation. It is the joint declaration of the Brioni meeting that forms the basis for the despatch of the monitor mission and which also provides an agreed reference point for further efforts to negotiate a settlement of the Yugoslav crisis.

At Brioni, the Yugoslav parties agreed that it is up to the peoples of Yugoslavia to decide upon their future, that a new situation has arisen in Yugoslavia, and that all parties concerned will refrain from any unilateral action, particularly from all acts of violence. As called for by the Twelve, the parties in Yugoslavia also agreed that talks would start by 1 August on all aspects of Yugoslavia's future without preconditions and on the basis of CSCE principles, in particular respect for human rights, including the right of peoples to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity.

The situation in Yugoslavia is a particularly difficult one and its handling is of great importance for the future development of affairs on the continent of Europe. Reference is frequently made in this case to the right of peoples to self-determination, and, of course, this is one of the principles that applies. However, we should pause and consider whether this principle can be applied in isolation.

In the case of Yugoslavia alone, for instance, the Republic of Croatia has also proclaimed its independence, the implementation of which has now been suspended for three months too. Croatia has a population of 600,000 Serbs. Are these Serbs, too, to be conceded the unqualified right of self-determination? The autonomous province of Kosovo, now part of Serbia, has a two-thirds majority of Albanians. Kosovo is at the same time the historical heartland of Serbia. Should the principle of self-determination, unqualified, be applied here? I could go on. The autonomous province of Vojvodina contains a significant minority of ethnic Hungarians. The rationale for the separate existence of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina is mainly that the population is predominantly Muslim, but one third of the population is Serbian and nearly one fifth is Croat.

The same pattern can be replicated in a general way more widely in other countries of eastern Europe. The fact is that the right to self-determination is not to be looked at entirely in isolation. It is a principle which exists in tension with others, in particular that of the territorial integrity of states. This is recognised by all the participating states of the CSCE, as evidenced, for example, in the Charter of Paris where all 35 said:

We reaffirm the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.

At the same time, it is, of course, now clear, and accepted by all parties in Yugoslavia, that the existing constitutional arrangements in Yugoslavia are no longer viable. They have to be revised in order to take account of all the principles contained in the Charter of Paris and, more specifically, the legal, human rights, including the rights of minority populations, economic, commercial, financial and security relations mentioned in the Brioni Joint Declaration.

The talks agreed to between the Yugoslav parties will, as I have explained, be explicitly based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. The aim of Twelve policy is to promote the beginning of these talks in the very near future. I trust that they will enable all the peoples of Yugoslavia to decide their future on the basis of negotiated agreement. It has in any case to be clear that it is up to the Yugoslavs themselves to decide their future. We in the international community have a responsibility to help create the conditions in which that is possible. I am certain that we in Ireland accept our full share of that responsibility and will play our role in the international efforts to achieve a peaceful outcome to the Yugoslav crisis.

First, I welcome the fact that the EC is in a position to take responsibility in the peacekeeping area. It is a new initiative for the EC to be involved in peacekeeping in Europe. Traditionally this has been a responsibility exercised, where it arose, by the United Nations and a major development of the EC is that it is now in a position not only to adopt common positions in regard to foreign policy, but to send peacekeeping missions similar in many ways to the UN peacekeeping missions, to ensure that problems that can be solved amicably are solved amicably rather than through the use of force. I believe this is an important step in the building of a federal Europe, and I have no hesitation in welcoming the development of federal Europe. We should acknowledge that, in a sense, that is what this is about.

In the not too distant future, perhaps within the next ten to 15 years, it is probably that Yugoslavia will become a member of the EC, or at least the states currently occupying the territory of Yugoslavia, will become members of the EC. In a sense, which of those eventualities is the case ought not to be of tremendous importance so long as they can participate in it.

Before saying some words about the Yugoslav situation I would like to refer to one defect I see in the Memorandum of Understanding, a defect that indicates the limited institutional growth of Europe in this area. In this case the head of that monitoring mission will report regularly not to the European Commission, not to any European institution as such, but simply to one nation which happens at that time to be holding the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers, namely the Netherlands at present. Given some of the member states of the EC are quite small and that no one department of foreign affairs in any one member state contains within it all the necessary understanding and expertise that is represented by common European foreign policy thinking, I do not think it desirable that the controlling agency should be the Dutch Foreign Ministry, or whatever country follows the Dutch — I think it will be the Portuguese Ministry at the beginning of next year — it should be the European Commission. However, the controlling agency cannot be the European Commission because there is no provision in the Treaty of Rome giving the Commission power to take on such responsibility. As a result it has to be done on an ad hoc basis between governments on what is known as an intergovernmental basis.

In his statement on the Summit here during the week, the Taoiseach said he supported the idea of many pillars for Europe, not just having a single Treaty but having different forms of co-operation on different bases. One of the fruits of such a multi-pillar approach is that you get precisely this sort of situation. Instead of the Commission taking charge and being responsible to the members, on some matters the Commission is in charge and on other matters departments of individual countries who happen to hold the Presidency are in charge. I do no think that is either tidy or conducive to good decision making. We should be working towards having a treaty on foreign and peacekeeping policy for Europe which would be managed by a continuing European institution rather than on an ad hoc basis by one foreign ministry after another depending on who is holding the Presidency. Other than that criticism, I think this is a major step forward which is to be welcomed.

I was very interested, and I am sure students of history would be interested, in the fact that an Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs should say what the Minister said this morning:

Reference is frequently made in this case to the right of peoples to self-determination, and of course this is one of the principles that applies. However, we should pause and consider whether this principle can be applied in isolation.

I am sure those are almost the same words spoken to the Irish delegates who tried to attend the treaty negotiations at Versailles in 1919 on behalf of Dáil Éireann. They were told: "Your State does not really exist at the moment and if your right to self-determination was to be acknowledged, what about the right of self-determination to, for example, Unionists living on the island of Ireland in the counties of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and Derry?".

We are entering a new union.

That sort of debate would have been entered into. This indicates that the Minister was absolutely right to point to the complexity of the situation when populations of different political allegiances are intermixed, just as we have on this island.

Territorial nationalism as an ideology is insufficient for the management of human affairs at this time or at any time in the past. It has to be tempered by other considerations which respect the rights of minorities in any given territory. We in Ireland have done a great deal of very good work in that area. The concept of executive power sharing that was developed in Northern Ireland to deal with that situation could be particularly useful, for example, in Croatia which has a mixture of Serbs and Croats. Why not give the Serbs living in Croatia a right to some form of executive power sharing in the government of Croatia on whatever basis Croatia is to be governed in the future?

At European level we need to do a great deal of work on this, drawing on the attempts made in different parts of the world to reconcile majorities and minorities and find out which action is most useful. Because of the situation in Northern Ireland we were the first to face such a problem and what was attempted in Northern Ireland — the establishment of a power sharing executive — was unique. It had never been tried. In fact, there was a wealth of precedent in other parts of the world where similar problems had been faced and to a greater or lesser extent overcome. I ask the Minister to take up what I am going to say. We should be asking the Council of Europe, which has a wider remit than the European Community, to consider actively the most successful means of blending together and giving adequate political and group rights as well as individual rights to minorities where they have to live on the same territory as majorities who have a different traditional political allegiance. It seems that the Council of Europe, which does not proceed on the basis of majority voting but rather on the basis of consensus, would be able to do very useful work in this area which would be helpful not only to us in finding a basis, for example, for solving problems in Northern Ireland where majorities and minorities have to share the same land but helpful also in the Baltic states where there are significant Russian speaking minorities living with the Latvians, the Lithuanians and the Estonians. It would also be helpful right across central Europe, in relations between the Slovaks and the Czechs, in all the situations that exist in Yugoslavia, in Romania where there is a significant Hungarian-speaking minority and in Bulgaria where there is a significant Turkish minority. All these cases are very similar to the position on this island.

What we need is a pooling, under the greater ideal of European unity, of expertise and experience in different parts of Europe in solving these problems. What we have to do ultimately is replace the ideology of territorial nationalism in individual parts of the Community with recognition of the rights of peoples as rights that must be operated in conjunction with one another and without suppression of any other right, all of that done under the umbrella of a greater European loyalty.

The development of the European Community in the area of peacekeeping in Yugoslavia represents in a sense a movement towards the greater European ideal of building peace through a common identity, with the important ingredient of tolerance and political rights for minorities, which we have not seen operate sufficiently in the past. Rather than simply see this as a one-off effort on the part of the Community, however useful, I hope an attempt will be made to learn from the Yugoslav experience and indeed from experiences in Belgium, for example, where exactly the same problems exist, to build a structure for co-operation between minorities and majorities.

I want to warn Members of the House that the easy assumption that once people become proserous they become tolerant, that once people are sufficiently well off historical antagonisms die, is just not true. We are very pleased to welcome to our country the Prime Minister of Canada. The experience of Canada shows how false that statement is. The greater the prosperity of Quebec the greater are the demands for Quebecois, self-determination, and the greater indeed is the determination of the Quebecois that English not even appear on street signs in their cities and towns. Therefore, far from tolerance resulting from prosperity, in the case of Quebec there is a growth of a form of intolerance towards people who happen to be members of an English-speaking minority in what is one of the richest parts of North America, the richest continent in the world.

Even if we were to double the gross national product of Yugoslavia or of Northern Ireland I do not believe that would solve the problems. Even if everybody in Northern Ireland or in Yugoslavia had a job — in some parts of Yugoslavia the level of unemployment is astronomical — I do not believe that would solve the problem either. Community tensions exist and will continue to exist. I very much welcome this motion. I hope that lessons will be learned from it and that we will try to carry out a wider study through the Council of Europe on coping with minority-majority cases throughout Europe. Perhaps a special institution would be established for such a study, using academic and political expertise.

I note that this resolution is being approved on the last day of the Dáil session, and I am glad the Government have put the resolution before the Dáil, but what would happen if this matter arose next week when the Dáil would not be in session? Would there be an obstacle to the Government participating in this matter in the absence of a Dáil resolution? If there was such an obstacle, that would make the case even stronger for giving the Community a direct competence in the area of foreign affairs. It ought not be necessary to have to wait for each of the 12 member parliaments to agree before certain initiatives can be taken in that area because matters evolve so quickly. That again makes the case for having a unitary structure for the new European Treaty which would encompass all the Community's responsibilities in one treaty rather than continue on the basis of a unitary treaty for economic matters and various inter-governmental arrangements for other responsibilities.

Having said that I welcome this motion. I am sure all Members of the House hope that it will be an outstanding success and that peace will come to one of the most beautiful parts of the world and one of the most attractive peoples in the world, namely the various peoples who inhabit the area of Yugoslavia.

Ar dtús ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don bhunréasún atá taobh thiar den mholadh seo, is é sin síocháin a bhunú. There is probably nobody in this country who would be other than welcoming to proposals that would prevent loss of life and lessen conflict in the disputed and conflict areas at present. There are people who would respect the mutuality of invitation and proposal that stands behind this motion, the Community on the one side and differing parties to the conflict on the other. There are some elements in the motion that are interesting in terms of the operation on the ground of an unarmed force which may not secure peace. That is the first dimension.

I am absolutely appalled, and I am amazed that this point has not been adverted to much more strongly by previous speakers, at the manner in which this document has been brought before the Dáil. It is a scandal. The Minister talked about the memorandum, which I looked at this morning, being placed before the Dáil on 12 July. Today is 12 July; the document was made available this morning, not yesterday.

The draft was made available yesterday.

Sometimes things have to be done quickly.

The Deputy received it yesterday.

I am delighted to have it, and I can assure the Minister and Deputy Bruton that I have looked at it in detail — I will turn to that in a moment.

The Deputy was given it yesterday.

It was sent to me yesterday. I accept the Minister's word if he says it was sent yesterday, but I did not get it yesterday. Let us not quibble. Let us assume that in a blast of consultation it was sent yesterday and let us take up the point about some things having to be done in a hurry. If this matter had to be dealt with in a hurry why not consider the sending of this force as the main matter to be dealt with? Why use it as an opportunity of putting into a speech by stealth a number of other principles? If it was, as Deputy Bruton said, that something had to be done quickly the Minister had a number of choices facing him. He could have justified it on human grounds, spoken about its desirability, the way it would be welcomed in Europe, the manner in which it would be welcomed in the different territories and left it at that. If he wanted to do something else he could have anticipated a great deal of this and had a debate earlier on the full implications of why the CSCE was being chosen as a model, the significance of this and the different principles involved. That was not done. Instead of that we are back to the old game again of firing issues and statements by way of bland remarks as if issues had been divided. In his contribution the Minister said the mission will have a very clear Twelve character. A new linguistic usage we are getting now, is the "Twelve character", it is an evolution linguistically of communautaire. It is like saying: five go for a picnic, five go down to the sea again, twelve go down to the sea again, twelve go to Yugoslavia. The Minister said that the mission will display the flag of the European Community. I should like to ask the Minister to give us the international legal justification of that. The Minister continued:

...and will operate under the responsibility of the Head of the Mission, who will be a national of the country holding the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the Community...

That Council has no legal status whatsoever in the basic treaties of the Community. That is an interesting matter and yet this country has signed and entered into internationally binding contractual obligations with all other participants to the CSCE. Will the Minister unravel all that?

I do not want to appear negative but I clearly divined the popular support there will be for any measure that will avoid conflict, that will help build peace, understanding and so forth. The second dimension is about the manner matters like this are brought before this House — and as long as I am here I intend to mention this again and again. If ever there was a case for a foreign affairs committee to discuss and respect the full complexity of the issues that have been mentioned, here it is now. Instead it is assumed that one can go on. I love the idea, the rhetoric of people who give us lectures about how majorities must be responsible to minorities and how minorities have rights. If one wants an example of how a flimsy majority in this Parliament deprives the rest of the House of a discussion on foreign policy one need not go further than this Chamber.

The Deputy's party were prepared to go along with a similar process in regard to the Estimates.

If Deputy Bruton continues to interrupt me I might say that we would have had a foreign affairs committee in this House if his party had not voted it down in the other Chamber some years ago.

That is not the case; the other Chamber is no different from here.

But then they had a very rapid conversion in favour of the idea when they thought it might be a popular one — as they would put it in their party — with the punters or, as I would put it, the public.

I would also like the Deputy to recall that some of his colleagues in Government at the time were not very supportive of the idea.

May I continue? I presume I will be given some extra time because of these interruptions.

Injury time.

There are some matters I will raise which the Minister can develop and give his answers to them. In relation to the practical operation of the force a rather sloppy parallel was developed by the previous speaker in relation to the United Nations. United Nations forces, military peacekeeping and others; have two models, one in which the headship was decided by the United Nations and others where it was approved to another nominated source. In this case this is not so clear. If, for example, Irish members run into difficulties on whom does the responsibility lie for the resolution of these difficulties? There is an interesting point within the domestic situation. I understand, from the Minister's contribution, the group will be composed of members of the Defence Forces and the Civil Service. In relation to Acts governing the establishment of the Defence Forces which clearly place a well defined and controversial role for the President, it is very interesting to see whether that matter has been resolved or if it is a matter of members of Defence Forces without arms in civilian garb becoming civilians or civilians moving within the ambit of the control of the Defence Acts.

At the back of all this — I do not want to be dismissive of some of the very good points Deputy Bruton touched on and I welcome the fact that it is also contained in the Minister's speech — is a respect for the complexity of the situation with which we are dealing. Prosperity does not automatically bring tolerance but it is certainly true from the evidence of this century that when people are removed from economic insecurities and from marginal existences they are less likely to fall back on old badges of hate and difference. There is evidence to support that in every country in Europe as one moves from insecurity, impoverishment, hopelessness and unemployment. It would, even in Northern Ireland, help the communities to come together to live in a better way.

There is another side to all of this. One of the reasons for my irritation at these short stabs of debate is that we must have a respect for the complexity of things and in respecting that we must have time, a component that both parties present rarely speak of. The differences in the territories to which we are referring are not only religious, ethnic, linguistic and cultural; they are very much influenced by migration and by the migrant character of the population. No serious work on migrant rights has taken place at European level since the distinguished Commissioner, Dr. Patrick Hillery, took significant initiatives in his day. No person has taken any significant initiatives on the rights of migrants in Europe — legal and illegal — since then. I paid tribute to Dr. Hillery so long ago.

Decisions were taken at the Dublin Summit on that.

Statements were issued at the Dublin Summit but I am talking about the work done in the Commission for the evolution of a charter for migrants. It is in the Library.

I had Dáil Questions down about it.

I am sure the Deputy had; you are getting to be like your predecessor, you invented the world.

No, I did not.

The Deputy should keep a list in case he goes wrong. There is another notion which is important: the discussion of what rights are and what limited rights are. I welcomed one important point this morning, and it is beginning to be accepted by consensus, that there are few unqualified rights. Certainly, I am not willing to fire away, in anticipation of a new definition of sovereignty, the concept of territory as Deputy Bruton does. We are not ready for that in a sense but what is interesting is the attempt being made to try to balance rights. Here we find the absurd dilemma of the Community. The Community is having an attack of federalitis at present and is dealing with the federation which, our Minister concludes, has lost the basis for its constitutional holding together.

How then do people stay together? Certainly there are those who have irresponsibly suggested that the desire for independence of an economic kind of the richest part of different territories in the world is an unconditional right. The irresponsible nature of that is that it does not deal with their neighbours on different standards of living. It does not deal with the fact that, very often, the economic dimension is a narrower one than ethnic, cultural, linguistic and historical alliances. The people who make simplistic arguments every time they hear a claim for a certain part of a system which has a multidimensional character should exercise a little patience. Equally, there is in the question of sovereignty and self-determination another restriction which was never fashionable in the Irish Department, unlike other places in Europe.

Could it be that we went on another track and said there was a sovereignty definable from a human rights dimension, that if we took the human rights dimension and defined it in terms of the basic rights, freedoms and needs of people, one could end up by disposing of the kind of territorial grip on the definition of sovereignty? At the moment we are only groping our way towards these new concepts and, therefore, the position of my party is very simple. We welcome any initiative which will be of assistance but we do not welcome the precedent established of introducing documents. I will not quibble with the Minister with whom I have a courteous relationship in relation to the exchange of documents, but we should have had more time.

With the short time available to spokespersons on foreign affairs, it is not a time for rhetorical flourishes about it being a significant and new day for Europe and that we will be flying the European flag. We need to debate the question of Europe before we get these rushes of blood to the head. I do not oppose the memorandum but I have reservations in relation to its procedures, legal and international. It contains a part which is really only a flourish and not a principle of policy, where the Minister says that the international community are watching us and that the United States and Canada will be delighted. He said that everyone generally will be clapping because we will be part of this together. That is simplistic and we do not need to take such a statement seriously.

As we head towards a significant constitutional shift in our relationship with Europe we do not want little bits of ad hoc statements, which make assumptions and present us with a fait accompli. Let us do something generous, let us have a debate about consensual and common foreign policies, and how they would operate. In that context we could introduce these measures which would mean far more for us all in relation to foreign policy.

Before I speak on the proposals, Deputy Bruton raised an interesting point in regard to tolerance and the assumption that it derives from prosperity. Deputy Higgins referred to one aspect of it, with which I agree. One of the aspects of tolerance in society which tends to be ignored and which is becoming increasingly prevalent is that where prosperous sections of society are threatened by other sections intolerance becomes a very real fact of life, which is the case in many European countries, not just in non-EC countries but in the European Community. It is also a factor in Canada, whose Prime Minister we hosted yesterday; there are tensions within the federation arising from — they feel — migrant workers. It is something which we must tackle, not just in terms of our own little patch but of the impact these tensions will have for the cohesion of the European Community, and indeed Europe.

You cannot disentangle what is happening in Yugoslavia from events in France, Canada and in our own country, to a much lesser extent, in relation to the travellers in our midst. It is not possible to do this in the course of a 15 minutes contribution in this House where we are trying to deal with the consequences of intolerance and tensions arising from it in a part of Europe. It again highlights, as other Deputies said, the need for a forum in this House where matters of this kind could be discussed in some detail, not in generalities, which is all that is possible in the limited time.

We need a foreign affairs committee which would have the research and backup resources to work effectively. The worst thing we could have is a foreign affairs committee which could not do their job; that would be more disastrous than the present position. I wish to remind the Minister that in the course of Question Time some months ago — I do not have the reference — he said he was favourably disposed towards the idea of having weekly foreign affairs debates in the House.

May I correct the Deputy?

He said he could foresee a situation where we would be sitting on a Friday.

Will the Deputy allow me to correct him?

My offer was that on a Friday, on a monthly basis, with the agreement of the Whips we would have discussions on any matters relating to my Department's responsibilities.

I accept the Minister's recollection of the event but we have not had any such debate on a Friday.

I will repeat the offer.

I appreciate that and I think the Minister. I hope that when our party's Whip attends meetings of the Whips when the Dáil returns in October that the Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats' Whips will agree to what has been proposed. We will agree to it so I hope that the generosity which the Minister displayed will be shared by the representatives of his party when the Whips' meetings take place.

There is never any trouble with the Government Whip.

I wish to make a number of points in relation to this. The Memorandum of Understanding, of which I have a copy, is marked "a draft", which I received yesterday. Is the document, which I presume was placed in the Library, precisely the same as the copy I received? I have a number of questions in relation to it and I want to be assured that it has not been changed.

It is the same document.

The Workers' Party believe that the international community should take all reasonable steps to assist the peoples of Yugoslavia to overcome the current crisis without further loss of life and by peaceful and democratic means. However, we have serious reservations about the proposal before us, that the European Community should send what are essentially military observers to Yugoslavia as we do not believe that the Community has competence in the military area. This move may well create a dangerous precedent for the further involvement of the Community in military matters. I emphasise that I am making that point, not because I do not believe at some point in the future the EC may well take on a military role of some kind or be involved, but because we have been assured here, time and time again, by the Taoiseach that the question of a military or defence dimension will not be down for discussion or decision for a very long time to come, perhaps five or ten years. That is why I question the precedent with which we seem to be presented now. The implications for Ireland as the only non-NATO member of the European Community are particularly serious.

The situation in Yugoslavia is tragic and is still fraught with great danger. The complex political and regional structures established by Tito have crumbled and ethnic tensions which had lain dormant since the Second World War have bubbled to the surface once again. As a result of the political deadlock there is real doubt as to whether the Yugoslav National Army is answerable to any constitutional authority. Within the past ten days the country was clearly on the verge of a serious civil war which would have resulted in massive casualties.

All those involved in the efforts which led to the compromise agreement reached at Brioni on 7 July deserve the gratitude not just of the peoples of Yugoslavia but of all Europe. It has to be stressed that what was agreed at Brioni was not a lasting solution but simply a three month breathing space. Outbreaks of violence are continuing. The declarations of independence by Slovenia and Croatia have not been withdrawn, simply suspended, but it must be hoped that the time now available will be sufficient to ensure a negotiated settlement.

The Workers' Party support the resolution adopted by the European Parliament this week which acknowledges the right of the constituent republics and autonomous provinces of Yugoslavia to determine their own future in a peaceful and democratic manner. If the people of Slovenia and Croatia decide that they want independence then that is their right. We should, however, be very wary of doing anything to encourage or promote the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The break up of that country would have serious implications for the region.

There are several other countries in the Balkans which face similar problems of minorities who wish to seek independence. The disintegration of Yugoslavia could set off a chain of events leading to the emergence of a large number of states with conflicting territorial claims and potentially explosive ethnic disputes. Even if Slovenia and Croatia secure their independence there is no guarantee that all the problems will be solved. There is, for instance, a substantial Serbian minority within Croatia which oppose secession, and independence could lead to a Northern Ireland type situation.

Against the background of this very difficult situation there is an obligation on this country and the rest of the Community to take all possible action to help solve the problem. We accept that international observers are necessary to ensure that the Brioni agreement is honoured by all sides, and we have no problem with Ireland playing its part in that process. We have supported unstintingly the role that Ireland has played in United Nations peacekeeping forces.

We have, however, very serious reservations about this being done under the auspices of the EC and we believe that the appropriate body to provide and supervise the observers is the United Nations.

While it is not specifically covered in the Memorandum of Understanding, it seems that what is envisaged are military personnel — indeed, the Minister confirmed that in his speech this morning — albeit unarmed and in civilian clothing. According to The Irish Times of Tuesday last senior Defence Force sources saw no military or logistical problems in supplying observers.

Under what provision of the Treaty of Rome is the European Community empowered to provide observers for a mission of this sort, especially as it relates to a country which is not a member of the Community? The real danger is that this move will create a precedent and play into the hands of those who want to see the EC taking on a military dimension without that being debated and agreed to by all member states. What happens to the observers if the Brioni agreement breaks down and full scale war breaks out? Who will then be responsible for the safety of the observers? What would happen if the observers were to be taken hostage by any of the parties to the conflict? Who would be responsible for securing their release? Would we then hear calls for peacekeeping troops from EC countries?

Surely a far more acceptable arrangement would be for the observers to be part of a United Nations mission. The UN has extensive experience of providing not just peacekeeping forces but also observer groups of the type apparently envisaged for Yugoslavia. The organisational structures for such missions are already in place in the United Nations. Irish troops have played a distinguished part in both peacekeeping and observer missions and have won great credit for their role internationally and at home.

It is a matter of great regret that the House has been given such short notice, so little time for debate, and so little information on a move which might have the most far reaching implications for this country. As I said at the outset, everyone acknowledges the terribly serious situation in Yugoslavia and the need to do everything possible to avoid further bloodshed. However, given that this mission is to be under EC rather than UN control, it is our belief that no Irish defence force personnel should participate in it. Irish participants could be drawn from either the garda, who served with distinction with the United Nations in Namibia, or from civilian employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

There are several points I wish to raise in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding.

Article 2.2 states that the monitoring mission will end their activities three months after signature of the Memorandum of Understanding by all participating parties. The point I wish to raise about that subparagraph is that it is stated that the participating parties may decide to prolong the mandate of the monitoring mission. This morning we are agreeing to a global mission. Will the Minister come back to the House for approval if it is intended to extend the mission? It would be important for the House to have an opportunity to review the way the group operate. I would be happy if the Minister indicated he would come back to the House to seek its approval for any extension of the mission.

Under Article 5.4 there is simply a note in brackets — I do not know whether it is part of the Memorandum of Agreement — that states that the number of military personnel and their status is to be decided. What does that mean? Who will be the auxiliary personnel? Will they be unarmed and wear civilian clothes? What will their purpose be? Precisely what is intended by that statement? To some extent we are being asked to agree to the memorandum without knowing precisely what is proposed. I ask the Minister to address himself to that issue.

During his speech the Minister pointed out that at a later date other CSCE countries may send monitors to the mission. There is nothing in the Memorandum of Agreement relating to the CSCE other than a welcome for their support of the idea. What relationship would there then be between the EC monitoring mission and the CSCE countries that become participants? Would there be a joint mission or could it become a CSCE mission in total? What would be the exact status of the countries?

Acting Chairman

I am putting the question that the motion be agreed to.

Could the House give the Minister a few minutes to reply to some of the issues raised? I would be in agreement with that.

Acting Chairman

Does the House agree to that proposal? Agreed.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil as ucht an díospóireacht a bhí againn anseo ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo.

I thank Deputies for the comments made by spokespersons and the agreement of the other parties on this very important issue. I do have a few points to make but I shall try to be as general as I can, otherwise the debate could go on as if it were the Committee Stage of a Bill, and that cannot happen.

One point that should be made very clear is that this operation is under the CSCE. The CSCE is the overall body concerned. In reply to a specific question asked by Deputy Bruton, I note that the presidency who will be in charge will report to the CSCE committee of senior officials at the earliest opportunity on the activities and findings of the mission. I mentioned that in my speech. The CSCE, as Deputy Bruton knows, requested the Twelve to try to put this monitoring operation together. That is how it came about. The EC, through its Troika of Ministers, after three visits to Yugoslavia, were able to get agreement between the Yugoslav Government and the authorities in Slovenia and Croatia which brings about the declaration we have today.

In reply to Deputy Higgins' comments on what is in that declaration, which I totally accept, I should say that there is room for amendment. At a meeting of the Foreign Ministers in the Hague only two days ago there was a number of suggestions as to how we could improve on the declaration and these were on the lines of Deputy Higgins' suggestion. The difficulty was that it was a negotiated document at that stage. We had to take into account the reactions from Europe and it was only after a meeting of 16 hours that the Troika of Ministers succeeded in getting us as far as we got. There was a danger there that if we went back to try to amend it and make it better, the thing might begin to unravel and we would then not be able to get the monitoring force which everybody agrees should be in position as early as possible for very obvious reasons.

I want to offer my apologies to Deputy Higgins for the delay in getting the documentation through. There was a bit of a hitch and I apologise for my part in it. It was late on Wednesday evening when we concluded our meeting and we had to have further discussions and negotiations to prepare ourselves to be here. We moved as quickly as we could.

Acting Chairman

I hesitate to interrupt the Minister but I have to remind the House that the Order of Business only ordained an hour for the debate. I would ask the Minister to be as brief as possible.

What is going ahead now is a mission mandated by CSCE which will report back to CSCE. There is a provision already made by the CSCE for a second mission, a mission of good offices, when invited by the Yugoslavs to help in designing new institutional arrangements for Yugoslavia. Deputy Bruton is right in saying that the Council of Europe would play a major role. We would accept that and agree that they could play a very useful role especially through the institution established and democracy totally through law. The CSCE and the Council of Europe will be very closely involved and that meets the Deputy's point.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins spoke about the legal status of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers does have a legal status in all Community Treaties and the Twelve have received a mandate from the CSCE for this mission. It is out of elementary considerations of security that the Twelve will identify themselves as such and display the signals and the flags. In dangerous circumstances now applying in Yugoslavia I think——

Could the Ministers take a question? How can the CSCE give the EC a mandate?

Because they requested the EC to do it and they are entitled to do it under the Treaty. Basically this is not a military mission. It will be headed by civilians and composed of at least 50 per cent civilians. Technically it is composed completely of civilians because none of the participants will be in uniform or bear arms.

Deputy De Rossa also asked about the composition of the auxiliary personnel, drivers, interpreters, back up services to help people do their job. If one were to adopt what seems to have been the tone of Deputy De Rossa's contribution, that there are many reasons we should not go in, perhaps we would not be there at all. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the decision arrived at is the correct one. Please understand that we are there with the agreement of the Yugoslav Federal Government representatives and the representatives of the States of Slovenia and Croatia, and we are there for a limited time. I was asked if I would come back to this House to seek approval to extend the mandate. I am advised that legally I would have to. If such an opportunity arose I would obviously come and talk to the House about it to give them an update on it and try to have a discussion on it if that would be of benefit to the House and agreeable all round.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share