(Laoighis-Offaly): This is the third occasion in the past two days we have had an opportunity to consider aspects of the problems of this region of Africa. Yesterday morning the Dáil approved a motion allowing for the participation by members of the Defence Force in the UN force which will, belatedly but thankfully, intervene in the current crisis in Rwanda and eastern Zaire. Yesterday afternoon the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs considered a Supplementary Estimate to allow the Government to make an extra contribution to humanitarian emergency relief operations in that region. This morning we resumed the debate which began last week on the wider aspects of the position in the Great Lakes region.
While I agree with most of the comments of contributors on this issue in recent days, it is unnecessary and inaccurate for Members such as Deputy Smith and Deputy Burke, who spoke yesterday morning, to criticise the Government for lack of action in this area. The Government has been extremely active in this region of Africa since the humanitarian crisis began in 1994. It is a region with which we have no historic or missionary connections, yet the great response of the Irish people and NGOs has been reflected in the Government's response since 1994.
From my knowledge of the work done by Ministers and officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs, their efforts in this regard are not confined to the periods when CNN relays aspects of the emergency on television screens around the world. There has been a sustained political effort over a period which supports initiatives such as that of President Nyerere of Tanzania and led to the appointment by the European Union of Mr. Ajello as special envoy to the region. I compliment him on the work he has done in this area.
From experience, we are aware that the painstaking, behind the scenes work which eventually leads to political agreement does not attract the public eye. It is much easier to respond to pictures of dying children, starving mothers and deserted refugee camps than to the less attractive activities of diplomats, politicians and others. I defend the record of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, particularly during our EU Presidency. It is not correct to say that we have not used the Presidency to advance progress on this issue. We have taken a lead to the extent that it has been open to us to do so.
When this renewed crisis came to the world's attention the Irish Presidency took the initiative of convening in Brussels last month an emergency meeting of the EU Development Council, a second rank council in European terms, at which for the first time representatives and heads of all major UN and international agencies gathered to co-ordinate a response. That was a major achievement. The visit to the region by the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, and her colleagues in the European Union, including Commissioner Bonino, was very useful in informing Europe of what is happening. It shamed the United Nations, which had dragged its heels for a long period, into taking action. Similarly, in the past two to three years the Irish Government has been extremely active in the international arena in trying to secure agreements to tackle the international trade in arms. If there is anything which has been pointed to over the past three to four years as being one of the root causes of the problems in this part of Africa it is the almost unlimited access to arms all sides in the conflict have had, even when such trade was banned by the United Nations and many governments around the world. The documents found in the Mugunga refugee camp showing trade by British companies is only one example. If that evidence can be found on the side of the road in a refugee camp, one can imagine the hidden evidence that must exist of this most vile trade. The Irish Government has taken the lead in general in combating the international arms trade and in particular in the area of landmines control and I appreciate the efforts made by the Minister and the Minister of State in these areas. Accusations of inaction and ineffectiveness are incorrect.
Ireland has the Presidency of the European Council and it is our job to oversee a common foreign and security policy, but anyone familiar with the terms of that policy will realise it is extremely weak. The capacity of the European Union to act as a body in a singular fashion internationally is limited and member states have shown great reluctance to give up any freedom of action they currently have as sovereign states. They have shown a reluctance to pool that in any way to the extent that the European Union could be seen to have a position to which all members subscribe. We have seen that in their attitude to this region of Africa and some Middle East countries where member states insist on implementing their own foreign policy in their own interests rather than agreeing that the Union should act independently.
To the extent open to it the Government has tried to ensure there is a common European Union response to this crisis and that the European Union makes its voice heard as one body internationally, but it cannot compel member states to go in a particular direction when it does not have the power to do so. Many of our so-called partners in the European Union have a damning record in relation to their activities in this part of Africa.
The carving out of the entities of Rwanda and Burundi was initially done by the Germans as part of their participation in the scramble for Africa in the last century. When the Germans were defeated in the First World War the Belgians took over the area. King Leopold had carved out the state of the Congo as his own personal fiefdom and the record of the Germans, the Belgians and latterly the French in this area is despicable. It would make one ashamed to be called a partner of any of these countries, particularly when there is evidence that the French and the Belgians did not play a benign part in the history of Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire since those countries gained independence in the 1960s.
The evidence of those who have investigated the position in this part of Africa is that the Belgians had a large part to play in the type of conflict that developed in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s and again in the 1990s. They agreed with the superimposition of Tutsi dominance over the Hutu majority which the Germans had used to install a colonial regime in the last century. They belatedly decided they had to switch sides before independence and assisted the Hutus in rising up against the Tutsis. There is evidence that in the events leading up to the genocide in 1994 and the assassination of President Habyarimana, all part of a wider effort to undermine the Arusha accords, both Belgium and France played an active part in those destabilisation efforts. The rapid intervention of the French in Rwanda during that period to give cover to the retreating Hutus is in stark contrast to the slowness of the international community to respond to this crisis.
These matters present problems internationally, to us as a small member state of the European Union and to any Presidency trying to lead the European Union in a particular direction in the area of common foreign and security policy. It is ironic to hear Members of this House who criticise efforts to strengthen the common foreign and security policy element of the European Union calling in the next breath for an EU military intervention in this part of Africa or anywhere else when the EU does not have such a capacity. It does not have that capacity because member states have chosen not to have it. Those who criticise cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot say that we must have progress in this area of European Union affairs while criticising the EU and the Irish Presidency because we are not sending a European army to the area. However, that is a debate for another day.
I am sure members of the public who have seen the various images from the region on their television screens in the past five or six weeks wonder if this is just another African disaster, one of many which seem to unfold before our eyes at regular intervals. That is not the case. Most of these disasters occur for political reasons and only a political response will ensure problems are dealt with and that they do not surface again. We are familiar with the slowness of peace processes and the public should be told that such efforts take time. This crisis was not created by an act of nature, nor did it arise because of any innate incapacity on the part of these peoples to handle their own affairs. They are the result of a complex series of political manoeuvrings, many of which have their basis in 19th century colonialism and are supported by ex-colonial countries.
The public appreciates that the problem we face now is not the same as the problem in 1994. People realise that while humanitarian aid is needed it is not enough. The public have begun to understand that this genocide did not just happen; it was organised and carried out for political reasons to keep a certain political clique in power. The international community's intervention has in part contributed to the ongoing conflict by setting up massive refugee camps in eastern Zaire in which the necessary work of caring for starving people and meeting their medical needs is carried out. In doing that, however, we also set up a system whereby the perpetrators of the genocide in 1994 were allowed to continue their operations under cover.
