Vol. 472 No. 7
22 Mr. Hilliard asked the asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, in view of hopes expressed at the outset of the Irish EU Presidency that Ireland could broker a lasting solution to the Fatwa imposed on Salman Rushdie by Iran; the progress, if any, which has been made in this regard; and whether he raised this matter with his Iranian counterpart when they met at the UN. [23977/96]
During Ireland's Presidency of the EU we have continued with the negotiations with Iran during the last three Presidencies on this issue and have worked to arrive at a satisfactory resolution with the Iranian Government. While some progress has been made and Iran now understands the EU's position better than ever, we have not reached the stage where we could claim there has been any breakthrough. As Presidency, we have also availed of other opportunities to raise the issues — for example, the critical dialogue session which took place here on 29 November provided an opportunity for us to put forward the Union's view to the Iranian side in a full and frank way.
The meeting in New York in September with Foreign Minister Velayati focused predominantly on other aspects of EU-Iran relations. However, I know from the meetings I have had with Foreign Minister Velayati over the past three years that he remains fully aware of our concerns on the matter and the priority we attach to it. The Government also regularly raises the matter in our bilateral contacts with the Iranian authorities, such as during the visit of the Speaker of the Parliament, Natek Nouri, to Dublin in November of last year. More recently I raised the question with Deputy Speaker Rohani during his visit last month.
I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Rushdie in Dublin yesterday. He naturally remains extremely concerned at the continuing threat to his safety posed by the fatwa. I reiterated to him the European Union's firm view that it was unacceptable that a threat is made against the life of an EU citizen in this way and that the fatwa remained an obstacle to the development of relations between the EU and Iran. I stressed to him Ireland's and the Union's commitment to the pursuit of a resolution of the issue through negotiations with Iran. I hope that if it remains impossible to resolve the matter during the remainder of the Irish Presidency the work we have done will help bring a solution closer during the Dutch Presidency.
That answer is a classic example of "judge me on what I say rather than what I do". The Tánaiste wrote to Mr. Rushdie in July suggesting a meeting and it was not until yesterday, effectively the last week of the Irish Presidency, that they met. Europe has done nothing about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie not only during this Presidency but successive Presidencies. It is a question of trade and, as Mr. Rushdie said, he is deeply unimpressed with the efforts of Europe. The blame does not lie totally on the Tánaiste's shoulders; this matter has continued through successive Presidencies. It is typical of the Irish Presidency that while the Tánaiste contacted Mr. Rushdie in July he did not meet him until what is effectively the last week of the Presidency. That amounts to words, not action.
I am amused at Deputy Burke's intervention. The fatwa was imposed in 1989 and if Deputy Burke is insinuating that nothing has been done or that efforts have not been made, he is either ignorant of the facts or refuses to recognise them. A great deal of work has been done throughout a number of Presidencies in trying to lift the unacceptable fatwa on the life of Mr. Rushdie. An invitation was issued to him to have discussions in July but it was not taken up until about a month ago. A meeting was arranged for a month ago but it had to be cancelled at short notice. I met him yesterday in Dublin and we had a long discussion. Needless to say he is unimpressed due to the fact that there is trade between Iran and the member states of the European Union and the lifestyle he has to lead because of the continuing death threat. We have made efforts in this regard, however, and we will continue to do so. In fairness to Deputy Burke he is not putting all the blame on me on this occasion. The threat has existed since 1989, the Deputy's party held the Presidency in that time and I would like to compare notes as to the work done in the background during that time and what has been done in recent months.
Will the Tánaiste agree that what is needed for adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights is to publicly state, if necessary by way of Protocol, a collective rejection of the notion that any state can effectively impose a death sentence to be carried out by a person in the territory of another state? Would there not be some merit in having a formal repudiation of this threat enshrined by way of Protocol in the European Convention on Human Rights so that the adherent member states of that convention could collectively wave in the face of the Iranians on every occasion the fact that it is now effectively part of the law of the new Europe that such behaviour is unacceptable? That would give far greater moral force to threats to take retaliatory economic measures to ensure such fatwas are stopped. If it became part of the fabric of European law that this threat was unacceptable, it would give moral force to the European Union in particular to tell the Iranians that we are now under pressure to uphold this law and to impose sanctions if it is not withdrawn.
The Deputy's suggestion has merit and I will consider it. I am not sure of the value of having further moral authority in relation to the position being adopted by the Iranian government but its actions are contrary to international law. It has been told this and we are looking for a way to resolve this difficulty.
