Gay Mitchell
Question:3 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Kosovo. [8855/99]
Ceisteanna – Questions. Priority Questions. - Kosovo Crisis.
The situation in Kosovo is extremely grave, giving rise to the most serious concern for the Albanian civilian population. I unreservedly condemn the latest atrocities reported from Kosovo. Since the outbreak of hostilities in Kosovo last year more than 500,000 people, more than one fifth of the population of Kosovo, have fled or been displaced from their homes. Up to 100,000 people have been driven from their homes in the past month and this tragic exodus is continuing today.
Since the withdrawal of the Kosovo Verification Mission it is hard to get accurate or comprehensive information but it is clear that the civilian population continues to be the target of aggression by Serb forces. These attacks have sharply escalated following the action undertaken by NATO. There are new victims every day, with reports of summary executions and other atrocities and a continuing exodus to neighbouring countries. Because of the extremely dangerous conditions the delivery of aid to people on the move has become extremely difficult. All of this means that once again we are facing a large-scale humanitarian disaster as bad, or even worse, than that which arose last September, when tens of thousands of Kosovars fled as refugees to neighbouring countries.
In previous statements to the House, I set out the development of the crisis over the last 12 months. I would recall, in particular, the decisions taken by the UN Security Council. On 23 September 1998 the council, acting under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, adopted Resolution 1199 calling for a cease-fire; the start of meaningful dialogue between the sides and the withdrawal of Serb security forces to pre-crisis levels. These demands were intended to stave off the humanitarian catastrophe facing those displaced from their homes.
In the absence of any compliance by the Serb side, NATO threatened air strikes. These did not occur because President Milosevic reached agreement with US envoy Holbrooke on measures to implement Resolution 1199. This agreement was subsequently endorsed by Resolution 1203 of the Security Council.
Under the auspices of the contact group, negotiations at Rambouillet sought to advance a pol itical solution acceptable to both parties. It was understood that when these talks were suspended there was acceptance by both sides of the political elements. The Kosovo Albanians were prepared to accept, ad referendum, the implementation measures. However, when the talks resumed in Paris on 15 March, the Serb side tried to reopen a number of other issues. In the interim, they had also built up their security forces both within and on the borders of Kosovo, in violation of the terms of Resolution 1199 and the Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement. With no prospect of further progress at Paris, the contact group decided to adjourn the talks, but not before the Kosovo Albanian side had signed the full text.
I am deeply disappointed that further last minute efforts to persuade President Milosevic did not succeed. His flagrant violation of the provisions of Resolution 1199 and the threat of a new humanitarian catastrophe led directly to NATO carrying out its threat of air strikes. The international community simply would not tolerate a repetition of the horrors of Bosnia.
There has been debate as to the legal basis for the action by NATO. The Government shares the view of a number of others that it is always preferable to have explicit Security Council authorisation for the use of force. In Berlin, I had a meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the other EU neutral states – Austria, Finland and Sweden – and it was evident that our views on this and other aspects of the Kosovo crisis were very close. Realistically, however, given the divisions among the permanent members of the Security Council, it was clear that it was most unlikely that any furthermore explicit decision would have been agreed. The Secretary General of the United Nations spoke for many when he said: "It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed, but there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace". I agree with Kofi Annan.
The European Council, meeting in Berlin last week, considered the developments in Kosovo as they unfolded. At the forefront of our concerns was the new humanitarian crisis emerging in Kosovo. Following the commencement of the air strikes, the Council concluded that the responsibility lay with President Milosevic, who was facing the severest consequences about which he had been repeatedly warned. The European Council also made it clear that the international community would not tolerate crimes against humanity. It stated:
Those now persisting with the conflict in Kosovo should not forget that the mandate of the Hague tribunal covers Kosovo. They and their leaders will be held personally accountable for their actions.
However, together with our EU partners, we have made it clear that our policy is not directed against the Yugoslav or Serb population or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is directed against the irresponsible Yugoslav leadership under President Milosevic.
The latest developments also involve enormous risks, not only for the Kosovar population but for the stability of the region. There are dangers of escalation and of overspill. The Government is committed to working in international fora – the United Nations, the OSCE and the EU – to ensure that these risks are minimised and that the way is facilitated for a return to the political process which alone can provide an acceptable outcome for all concerned.
We are also actively involved in the provision of humanitarian assistance. Since the crisis in Kosovo began, the Government has provided a total of £200,000 to the International Red Cross for Kosovar refugees in the region. This has included assistance in the form of clothing, food, shelter and health care for the most vulnerable. The Government is monitoring the situation closely and is in regular contact with the international agencies involved in the relief effort, notably the UNHCR which is the lead humanitarian agency in the region. A contribution of £400,000 was announced yesterday by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to the UNHCR to allow it meet the needs of refugees fleeing from Kosovo.
In addition, Ireland is contributing assistance through the European Community Humanitarian Office – ECHO – which has in the past few days approved further emergency aid to address the needs of both refugees and the local populations in neighbouring regions. The situation in Kosovo has now entered a new and highly dangerous phase. NATO air strikes are not an objective in themselves but are a means to an end. However, there was always the risk that they might prove counterproductive. I sincerely hope that this does not prove to be the case.
I do not believe that prolonged hostilities, with mounting casualties on all sides, will contribute to peace and reconciliation in the Balkans. The focus of attention must now be to get back to the negotiating table and re-establish an international presence in Kosovo, acceptable to all. This can best be achieved under the auspices of either the United Nations or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We will continue to work to achieve the objectives on which there is broad international agreement.
In this context, I welcome the initiative of Prime Minister Primakov, who is currently in Belgrade. I understand he will make contact with the German Presidency of the EU subsequent to his visit. The Government has been supporting the maintenance of close contacts between the EU and Russia on this issue, following the discussions which the Taoiseach had with Prime Minister Primakov in Shannon last Tuesday. I also understand from contacts in the EU that the Troika – Germany, Austria and Finland – is seeking a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov.
No situation is black and white. It is clear – I hope the Minister would agree – that for more than a decade now one man, Slobodan Milosevic, has contributed to mayhem in the former Yugoslavia and in the Balkan region generally. Would the Minister agree that, notwithstanding good intentions on the part of all sorts of organisations, including the European Union, NATO is the only organisation capable of getting Mr. Milosevic's attention and that no other approach from any other organisation has ever been heeded by Mr. Milosevic or his cohort?
Would the Minister agree, and, so far as the Minister is aware, would others who are advocating an end to bombing agree, that should the bombing end ground troops should be sent in? Is it the Minister's or the Government's intention that Irish troops should be part of the ground troops being advocated, or are we again expecting that this will be looked after by some other organisation or some other state?
In regard to the refugees, the Minister mentioned that a contribution of £400,000 was made yesterday. I welcome that and I hope the Minister will keep the situation under review. Will he confirm that Ireland will take its share of refugees from Kosovo if and when the situation arises and if this becomes a particular necessity?
I will answer the last part of the Deputy's question first. The Deputy is asking whether the Government is prepared to accept Kosovar refugees in our country. The primary objective of international effort remains to search for a lasting settlement in Kosovo which would allow refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes. The resettlement of refugees in third countries would be a last resort. The refugees see it as a last resort, despite the enormous obscenity, tragedy and stress to which they have been subjected. It is critical that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees which is working in the region continues to be given support to carry out its mandate. The Government has to date given more than £600,000, and a tranche of £400,000 in recent days.
In reply to the first part of the Deputy's question, our position as outlined by the Taoiseach and others is, and remains, that the use of military force against another state other than in self-defence should be authorised by the United Nations Security Council. In the case of Kosovo the Security Council has agreed the objective, which is to protect the human rights of the Kosovo Albanians against the repressive actions of the Belgrade leadership. However, the permanent members of the Security Council have been split on the question of the action necessary to secure that objective. Within the Security Council, of the co-called permanent five – that is, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States – three have said that UN Resolutions 1199 and 1203, passed last September and October respectively, cover this air strike. On the other hand, the Chinese and the Russians say they do not.
Deputies have called on me to go to the United Nations. I have no problems about any of those matters and I am not critical. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, including the newspapers. I must accept their right to hold opinions but I do not have to agree with them. I do not agree with the view expressed that I should go to the United Nations and raise the matter there. The UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has this situation under control and if the United Nations passed a resolution, it appears to me, in the current circumstances and condition of the permanent five, that we would get nowhere. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that to follow that advice would be an exercise in futility.
The problem that has arisen, however, is that in the case of Kosovo, as the Deputy quite rightly points out, a State practising murder and other appalling human rights abuses against its own population is effectively immune from intervention unless explicitly authorised by the United Nations Security Council. I have no doubt that this dilemma will be a major challenge for the international community as we enter the new millennium.
There are clearly some aspects of international law, particularly the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, which need to be viewed not as an absolute but in the context of ensuring respect for human rights and averting human catastrophes within states as an effective basis for concerted action by the international community. I would wish for consensus in the Security Council when faced with situations of human catastrophe. However, I am afraid that in this regard they have been found particularly wanting.
There has been criticism, justified or otherwise, of my position on the matter. I will set out what I said in Berlin when I was interviewed for some ten minutes by a very pleasant young man on that programme. I have not seen a recording of the programme since but, as I understand it, I said our position was that we would prefer to have had a UN mandate, but in the meantime I asked whether the international community was supposed to stand by and see hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes? I concluded by saying that I would like to see the bombing stopped as soon as possible and the parties getting back to the talks.
I saw a situation where one fifth of the Kosovar Albanian population has been put out of their homes by this terrible obscenity in Belgrade – the leadership of Yugoslavia. In one month, up to late in the evening of the Thursday before the bombing started, 65,000 people had been put out of their homes. Up to the previous Friday, 25,000 people had been put out of their homes. That is what I was remarking upon. We did not initiate, nor were we a party to, the decision to go in and strike Belgrade. We are not members of NATO and we will not be as long as this Government is in power. Due to our neutrality, we cannot be a party to military alliances. If there is to be a change in our neutrality we have to put that to the people by way of referendum and they will decide.
The Secretary General of the United Nations said, "It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed, but there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace". I said that in my substantive reply to the Deputy's question.
The Austrian Chancellor said that "in view of the drastically sharpening situation there was effectively no other option than to stop the behaviour of the Yugoslav army and the Serbian paramilitary groupings by aerial attack. It is not a question of taking sides but rather forestalling a deterioration in the absolutely unbearable humanitarian catastrophe".
The Swedish Prime Minister said, "From the point of view of international law it is difficult to find a clear and unequivocal basis for the military operations which are now taking place. NATO's decision to proceed with air strikes has clearly been taken with the aim of preventing a new humanitarian disaster and to re-establish peace in the region. I concur with the Swedish Prime Minister on that point.
There has been some misleading information on the Austrian position as a neutral country. Mr. Wolfgang Schussel is the Foreign Minister and Vice-Chancellor. He is a conservative who wants to ditch Austrian neutrality, while the Chancellor, Mr. Victor Klima is a socialist who wants to retain Austrian neutrality. Interestingly, the Austrian constitution does not allow overflights in this or any other context.
This question was commenced in Priority Time and under the rules of the House the Chair cannot call any Deputy other than the Deputy in whose name the question is tabled.
On a point of order, surely we have now finished time for priority business and the Minister is answering questions in ordinary time.
No, this question could not have been taken in ordinary time. It was the third question.
I have put down a number of requests under Standing Order 21 and clearly—
That is not a point of order. The Deputy will resume his seat. Only 20 minutes are allowed.
When will those of us with a different point of view get a chance to express it?
That does not arise. The Deputy is being disorderly and should resume his seat.
Perhaps the Minister will revisit my question about refugees. Will we or will we not accept refugees if that situation arises?
Is it true that the NATO bombing has taken place because there is no other plan? If the bombing stops now, what proposals do the Minister and his EU colleagues have? Is there a plan B? If the bombing can be stopped, are there any other plans to try to bring Mr. Milosevic to account?
What steps has the Minister personally taken to influence events in the former republic of Yugoslavia, particularly in Kosovo? Will he tell the House not what members of the Security Council are saying in relation to UN Resolution 1199 or 1203 or any other resolution, but whether in the opinion of the Irish Government this action is legal in international law? Far from Mr. Milosevic shaking in his boots at the prospect of being brought before an international crime tribunal, there are others in Bosnia such as Ratko Mladic who should be brought to justice. Why are people like that being allowed to run around?
Following discussions here last week with the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Yevgeny Primakov, is the Government aware of whether Mr. Primakov has some compromise proposals that might solve the problem if the bombing ends?
Mr. Primakov had discussions with the Taoiseach on his way to the United States. I understand he left Shannon for the United States but when he was two hours from the US coast he turned back, for obvious reasons. I understand that up to the night the bombing began Mr. Primakov was talking to Mr. Milosevic, who still refused to listen to sense and to call off the dogs of war. I was there. I was on the point of doing a number of television and radio programmes when a man called Brunsen from one of the British broadcasting companies told me that he had this information. I accepted what he said because he belongs to a reputable profession. Mr. Primakov at this moment is talking to Mr. Milosevic and there is hope that, while he was not successful the first time, he may be successful now. As the Deputy quite properly says, the stakes are too high. War could spread with a ripple effect in the Balkans and the question of refugees and their overflow into neighbouring countries is of immediate concern. I have already indicated the Government's position in relation to Kosovar refugees coming to Ireland. The primary objective of international efforts remains the search for a lasting settlement in Kosovo so that refugees and displaced persons can return to their homes. That would be the first post-war objective of any settlement. The resettlement of refugees in third countries at this time would be a last resort. It is critical that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees which is working on the ground in the region continues to be given support to carry out its mandate. In this regard, the Government has given a contribution.
The Deputy has asked if I am saying the Government will not offer to bring Kosovar refugees to Ireland and that is a fair question. I will not avoid it. I do not say we will not take in Kosovar refugees. I am saying that our clear preference, at this stage, is that a solution to the present crisis be found which would allow refugees to return to Kosovo to whatever has been left of their homes. Should the need arise, Ireland would naturally be prepared to play its part.
Since the crisis began the European Union has given 9.06 billion ecu towards the relief effort through ECHO, the EU humanitarian agency. These funds were channeled through the various UN agencies and the NGOs operating in the region for the provision of food, health care and shelter. In response to the latest developments a further 2 million euro in emergency assistance has been allocated to the UNHCR, the International Federation of the Red Cross and NGOs to distribute emergency supplies of food and domestic items. Refugees, host families and the most vulnerable will benefit from this assistance.
The Deputy has asked about troop movements. Being the week it is, I do not intend to wash my hands of this matter, as has been suggested. However, we were not part of the organisation which carried out these air strikes. If and when a UN mandate is given and when the OSCE comes into play after the war, we will play our part as we have already done. Our Army and gardaí played a decent and honourable role, as always, in Bosnia. We were prepared to be part of the verification mission in Kosovo. That remains our position.
We will continue to monitor the position with regard to humanitarian aid, taking account of our obligation in this enormous human catastrophe. As for decisions about army movements, we are not part of a military alliance. We would not be party to any decisions taken by NATO in that regard nor, as a result of our non-membership, would we be informed of them.
Is the action legal?
That is a very interesting point.
Does the Minister have an interesting answer?
I will do my best to answer the Deputy's question. I may not have the right answer but I will certainly give him an answer.
Perhaps I should sit down and allow the Deputy to ask a question if he wishes. I do not wish to take up the Deputy's time unnecessarily.
We may get some more information on the next question.
I thought I gave the Deputy as much information as I could on this one.