Vol. 424 No. 9
13 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will support the calls made at the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Jakarta in September, 1992, for reform of the United Nations, including the ending of the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council and wider representation for regional groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I am aware of the wide-ranging statement issued by the Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries at their conference in Jakarta last September. Ireland is not a member of the non-aligned movement, as the Deputy knows, and would not necessarily subscribe to all of the proposals or formulations contained in that statement.
Discussion is taking place at the United Nations on reform of the Secretariat, General Assembly reform and on proposals submitted by the Secretary-General in his report entitled An Agenda for Peace, which is currently under detailed examination in the Security Council and in the General Assembly.
I would like to emphasise that the Government support the principle of UN reform, to mirror more closely the current realities in international relations. In the course of my General Assembly address, I stated that:
... the question of reform of the UN, and in particular of the Security Council, is a sensitive issue that touches the very essence of post-war international co-operation.
But after almost fifty years, it is reasonable to ask if the structures and methods of work agreed then correspond fully to contemporary realities — to the UN's growing and now almost universal membership, to its new tasks, to the great changes that have taken place in economic and political relations.
The time has come to take up these issues frankly, here, within the UN itself. We could only profit from such a discussion. Our aim should be to ensure that the decisions of the Organisation are truly authoritative and representative of the will of the entire international community.
Article 23 of the Charter provides for the election of ten non-permanent members of the Security Council, in addition to the five permanent members. Equitable geographical distribution is among the criteria applied in electing the non-permanent members. The ten non-permanent seats are currently distributed as follows: Africa and Asia, five; Eastern Europe, one; Latin America, two and Western Europe and others, two. Geographically, therefore, the Security Council can be said to be broadly representative of the general membership.
Views have been expressed to the effect that the allocation of permanent seats and the power of veto in the Security Council, as provided for in the Charter, should be altered to take account of the changes in international relations since the foundation of the United Nations.
Any change in that regard would require an amendment to the Charter. Article 108 provides that any proposed amendment must command the support of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and be ratified by two-thirds of the members of the Security Council. In practice no amendment can be carried without the agreement of all five permanent members of the Council.
I thank the Minister for his response. Could the Minister indicate his or the Government's view with regard to the five permanent places on the Security Council and whether or not he considers that the current system gives an unwarranted power to those five states, namely the US, Britain, China, France and Russia, to a degree which excludes to a significant extent larger parts of the world in terms of decisions, particularly with regard to the veto they have and have sometimes used on critical issues? Will the Minister not agree that this House, either by way of debate on the floor or through a Foreign Affairs Committee, should properly be addressing this issue and our attitude to how the UN operates, given that we play a significant role in peace keeping under the auspices of the UN and that we have a very particular concern about how it evolves in the future.
I agree with the Deputy's view that there should be ongoing dialogue within the House through a foreign affairs committee which will be set up in the not too distant future——
——that will be subject to the agreement of the Whips, of course.
Subject to the raucous laughter of the Opposition.
No.
I shall do it on behalf of Fine Gael.
I have been pressing for the establishment of a foreign affairs committee with great enthusiasm and with a sense of the need for urgency. Unfortunately, the response has not been the greatest. Other Members such as Deputy Michael Higgins have also been pressing for the establishment of such a committee, and I feel they may be recognised as the authors of it. It will be a matter of the sooner the better that we have a committee to take account of what Deputy De Rossa requests.
In relation to an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council, this is an issue that could be considered in the context of the reforms in the main body of my reply.
Would the Minister accept that there is scope for Ireland to take a very positive and active role in reform of the United Nations? Would he agree that such reform might focus on the present obvious inefficiencies of that body and some of its subsidiary agencies, as highlighted in Somalia and elsewhere? Would he also agree that Ireland should have a planned, positive approach to the amendment of the Charter of the United Nations? I think particularly of Article 7 — this being an old hobby-horse of mine — in that the United Nations is prevented from interfering in many instances of blatant denial of human rights, and indeed genocide, because of the provision that the United Nations cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a member state.
In East Timor, for instance.
I recommend for the Deputy's delectation and reading the recent publication by Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, Agenda for Peace. That treatise was produced in June of this year and contains several important proposals for reform in the area of preventive diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping. Ireland and our European Community partners are among the countries that made submissions to the Secretary General earlier this year and a number of the ideas put forward are reflected in that excellent report. The Government, both nationally and at European Community level, have welcomed the Report of the Secretary General and I in my address to the United Nations' General Assembly of 25 September last endorsed the direction of the thinking of the Secretary General in that booklet. Earlier, on 30 June, the Community issued a statement of support for the ideas contained in the report. If the House wished I could leave a copy of the report Agenda for Peace in the Oireachtas Library or I could give Deputies who so desire individual copies of the report which is well worth reading. Given the kind of agenda that I believe this Government should be pursuing, the booklet is a catechism — if I may use that expression.
I agree with the Minister in his support of the booklet Agenda for Peace, which was inherited by Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali and to which many countries contributed. I wish to ask the Minister two small questions. Would be not agree in regard to the tragedy in Somalia, for example, that on the occasion of the resolution dealing with Somalia the African representatives were outvoted and that the reason for a weak resolution was an abuse of their position by the five permanent members of the Security Council? My second question is more important. Would the Minister agree that if reform of the United Nations is to take place Ireland should ideally initiate or at least support such resolutions as come for the reform of Article 108? The five permanent members of the Security Council will always refuse to give away their power unless the initiative is started with reform of Article 108. Is it the Minister's position that if such resolutions come before the United Nations General Assembly Ireland will support reform of Article 108 to enable reform of the United Nations to take place?
The answer to the second part of the Deputy's question in relation to the reform of Article 108 is "yes". The first part of the Deputy's question related to the permanent members of the Security Council and their responsibility for Somalia. I would not go so far as the Deputy has gone in the circumstances, but certainly as far as the international community is concerned Somalia remains a very serious blot on the escutcheon.
I should like the Minister to give an unequivocal commitment that he will do everything in his power to remove this special veto from the five permanent members of the Security Council. The Minister has not been anything like strong enough. Could he give a commitment to do everything within the rules and regulations of the UN — and the Minister knows the rules much better than I do — to bring an end to that veto? The continuation of the special veto is not in our interests, the interests of the smaller countries in general or in the interests of world peace.
I take the Deputy's point but I do not consider that the abolition of the veto which can be exercised by the five permanent members of the Security Council is a practical option. However, the more general questions of voting in the Security Council could be considered in the context of the reforms that I have just mentioned.
Yes.
As for an initiating role, I shall certainly examine the matter and come back to the Deputy on that aspect in due course. Alternatively, the Deputy could table a parliamentary question.
