Vol. 439 No. 6
4 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposals, if any, he has for the reform of the UN at this stage; and the role, if any, the proposed National Committee for the UN 50 Anniversary will have in making recommendations for reform.
5 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposals, if any, Ireland has for the reform of the United Nations; the fundamental position Ireland is adopting on the issues of permanent membership of the Security Council, the right of veto, and the role of the United Nations in peace enforcement operations; his views on whether participation by prominent Irish people in advisory bodies on these issues would be beneficial to the promotion of Irish policies on these matters; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17 Ms. O'Donnell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the role he envisages for voluntary advisory bodies in relation to the reform of the United Nations; the participation in such bodies he expects Ireland should have; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
28 Ms Keogh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposals, if any, Ireland has made to date in the reform of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
35 Mr. Cox asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the role he envisages for voluntary advisory bodies in relation to the reform of the United Nations; and the participation in such bodies he expects Ireland should have; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
36 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the action, if any, the Government has taken to pursue the objectives in regard to reform of the United Nations which he set out in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 1993; the further proposals, if any, he has for reform of the UN; his view on the role of various informal bodies which are to report on the future of the UN, such as that sponsored by the Ford Foundation and Yale University; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5, 17, 28, 35 and 36 together.
A significant portion of my address to the General Assembly at its 48th session last autumn was devoted to the question of reform of the United Nations. In my statement, I underlined the importance for the organisation of being able to meet the new challenges and demands that confront it, and pointed out that at no time in its history had the need to re-examine and strengthen the UN system been greater or more widely felt. In reply to parliamentary questions on 7 October, I set out in some detail Ireland's objectives in the area of UN reform, in particular as it concerns the composition of the Security Council, the General Assembly, UN peacekeeping, human rights and UN financing. Ireland was fully engaged in the consideration of these issues throughout the session and the delegation actively pursued the objectives outlined in my statement to the Assembly.
Given their importance to the entire international community, and the requirement that any proposals for reform must be able to command widespread support in an organisation that comprises 185 sovereign states, it is inevitable that the process of agreed change on these questions will take time. I remain confident, however, that sufficient progress will be made during next year to enable important decisions affecting the future role of the UN to be taken in 1995, which marks the 50th anniversay of the UN.
The area covered by UN reform is extensive and I will deal with the most important issues here.
In regard to the Security Council, Ireland supports an increase in its membership to enhance the Council's political authority and its capacity to act decisively and with confidence. In view of the changes in international life since the Charter was drafted there is a good case for an increase in the permanent membership of the Council and I am considering whether this would best be met by extending the current form of permanent membership or by the establishment of a category of semi-permanent members.
Ireland accepts that the veto accorded to each of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council is intrinsic to the system of international organisation established when the charter was drawn up in 1945. The relevant provisions cannot be changed without the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN, including all the existing permanent members. I am not convinced, however, that it would be desirable to extend the right to veto to other members as part of the current reform process.
These are among the issues that will be taken up by a new open-ended working group which has been established by the General Assembly to consider all aspects of the question of an increase in the Security Council's membership. Ireland is a member of the working group and our Permanent Representative to the UN is actively taking part in its work. I am fully aware of the degree of interest in the House on this important question and I intend to keep the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs informed of developments in the discussions in New York.
Of course, the question of reform goes beyond the issue of the Security Council. The General Assembly too is engaged in a process of reform and revitalisation. Progress has been made in the rationalisation of agendas and in the restructuring of certain main committees of the Assembly. In addition, the Assembly has asked the Secretary-General to implement specific measures for revitalising the role of the United Nations in the economic, social and related fields starting in 1994. Ireland supports this.
On the question of peace enforcement and peacekeeping, I consider that Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter provide an adequate framework for UN operations and I do not feel that Charter amendment in these areas is an urgent necessity. However, significant improvements can and should be made in the application of these provisions by the Security Council. In particular Ireland is emphasising the need to maintain peace enforcement and peace-keeping operations within an overall political framework; the need for the Security Council to pay particular attention to issues of command and control; the need to improve military planning at UN Headquarters and the need to improve co-ordination with humanitarian and civilian aspects of peacekeeping operations both at UN headquarters and in the field. In a Resolution co-sponsored by Ireland, the General Assembly has asked the Secretary-General to thoroughly review these areas and to take urgent steps to strengthen present arrangements.
The safety and security of UN peace-keepers is a matter of particular concern. At the last session, we supported proposals to promote an international convention which would declare attacks on peacekeepers to be a criminal offence. An ad hoc committee has now been established to widen an international convention dealing with the safety and security of UN and associated personnel. Our delegation will be playing an active role in this committee, whose work is due to begin on 28 March.
In the area of human rights, a major priority for Ireland was to have a post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights established. We were closely involved in all stages of the negotiations which were difficult at times. In the end the proposal secured unanimous support and the Secretary-General's nominee as first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was recently approved by the General Assembly.
The financial situation of the UN remains critical and I have continued to argue the need for all member states to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time. Unless that obligation is complied with by the membership as a whole, the organisation will continue to experience severe difficulties in carrying out the many tasks assigned to it, some of which, particularly in the peace-keeping area, are extremely costly. I will also continue to press for recovery of the arrears owing to Ireland by way of reimbursement for our participation in the UN operations in Lebanon and Cyprus, in respect of which we are currently owed around £11 million.
As I already mentioned, 1995 marks the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the UN. A number of countries, including Ireland, have announced their intention to establish national committees to prepare a suitable programme of activities to mark the anniversary, which also marks the 40th anniversary of Ireland's membership of the UN. I propose to invite Members of the Oireachtas to participate in the Irish national committee, which will comprise representatives drawn from a variety of backgrounds. I intend to make a further announcement about this question shortly. While the committee will not have specific functions in the area of policy, proposals and ideas for reform which result from its work will, of course, receive careful consideration.
In relation to advisory bodies that may from time to time be established abroad to address issues in the area of UN reform, I believe that suitably qualified Irish people can play a useful role if invited to participate in the work of such bodies.
I thank the Tánaiste for his very comprehensive reply. In view of the amount of work he appears to have done in putting forward suggestions for reform, will he say what areas were worrying the Government when it made the decision not to allow an eminent Irish person to serve on a UN reform committee? Can he elaborate on the areas in which he thought the Government might be embarrassed by the committee?
I appeal to the Deputy not to bring the eminent person to whom she has referred into the discussion or controversy in this House.
I did not mention the name.
The Deputy heard me.
Will the Minister outline the issues which might give rise to disputes in regard to proposals for reform of the United Nations presented by any of the advisory bodies mentioned? Does he envisage proposals that the General Assembly be allowed to make recommendations about disputes around the world even if the Security Council is involved? The Minister has said he will nominate the members of the national committee soon. Will he outline in more detail its terms of reference?
A range of policy matters from the Security Council, the General Assembly, peacekeeping, human rights to financing will have to be addressed and will keep many of the committees busy for a long time. It can be difficult in a constituent body consisting of 185 sovereign governments to achieve consensus or an efficient working arrangement. It can be a complex matter. The Government will participate in the process leading up to the 50th anniversary celebrations. Suggestions have been put forward about the Security Council and the General Assembly which are concerned to ensure that it will have a role in policy formulation. The meetings of the General Assembly are addressed by each country and continue for a number of weeks. This is a cumbersome process. Both the General Assembly and the membership of the Security Council are in need of review. I hope the membership of the national committee will be representative and that it will consist of Members of the Oireachtas and others who are involved with the United Nations. It is important that Ireland celebrates its membership of the United Nations and its 50th anniversary in a manner which reflects the service we have given to the United Nations and the important role it plays in pursuing a wide range of objectives.
Does the Minister agree that in the course of a long reply he did not, apart from saying that the permanent membership of the Security Council could be expanded, state a single concrete proposal for the reform of the United Nations? Does he further agree that he has conceded the permanent membership is not the subject of any proposal from Ireland, in terms of changing its identity? The post-colonial powers at the end of 1945 individually have a veto over Security Council resolutions. Has the Minister considered the possibility of reforming the Charter of the United Nations to provide that only two permanent members of the Security Council will have a veto? Does he agree, given the emergence of the European Union onto the international playing field, that a different approach to permanent membership of the Security Council is required and it is no longer satisfactory that the United Kingdom and France are both permanent members?
The time for dealing with priority questions is exhausted.
The Government's policy on United Nations reform is realistic, appropriate and active. I refute the remarks made by the Deputy who may not be satisfied with Government policy. The Government has not shown any lack of commitment in the pursuit of its policy objectives.
We do not know what the Government wants.
We will have to address the question of the European Union and permanent membership of the Security Council as the current membership does not reflect the post-Cold War position. The question of European Union representation has been debated within the Union during the past few years. Having spent 30 hours at the enlargement negotiations, nothing happens quickly in seeking agreement within the European Union.
We never hear what the Government's point of view is at international negotiations.
Let us hear the Minister.
The Deputy raised the question of the veto. During the years this has been a necessary instrument in relation to the United Nations Charter. Should it be abolished, for example? This may not be a practical option in present circumstances. The more general question of voting rights at the Security Council has to be considered in the context of procedural reform. Although the veto has been abused in the past there is a positive aspect in that a resolution adopted by the Security Council will have the approval, if not the acquiescence, of all five permanent members.
I am taking Question No. 6 in ordinary time.
