John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with Prime Minister Goh of Singapore; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15754/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
I met Prime Minister Goh of Singapore in Dublin Castle yesterday. His visit, the first to Ireland by a Prime Minister of Singapore, represents a deepening of our relations with Singapore, as it follows visits to Ireland by both of the Singaporean Deputy Prime Ministers during 1999 and the Tánaiste's visit to Singapore earlier this year.
The Prime Minister and I held discussions on the development of bilateral relations between our two countries. The Prime Minister welcomed the recent opening of the Irish Embassy in Singapore, as we look forward to the appointment by Singapore of an honorary consul in Dublin later this year. We also discussed the potential for the further development of trade between our countries. I briefed the Prime Minister on the development and the strengths of our economy and emphasised to him the attractiveness of Ireland as a location for inward investment by Singaporean companies seeking to access the European market.
We also discussed the potential for multilateral co-operation between Europe and Asia and Prime Minister Goh informed me of his hopes for the ASEM III Summit in Seoul which takes place in October. Singapore was one of the founders of the ASEM process and I was pleased to remind the Prime Minister that Ireland is hosting the fourth ASEM Young Leaders Symposium in Limerick next week. We were pleased to note that the EU-ASEAN dialogue is set to resume later this year and both look forward to the continuing development of this channel of communication and co-operation between our two regions. I also briefed the Prime Minister on my visit to East Timor earlier this year and we briefly dis cussed the upcoming UN Millennium Summit and the outlook for UN reform.
Did the Taoiseach hold any discussions with Prime Minister Goh about the very large arms build-up in East Asia generally where several countries, not just China and Taiwan, are spending a very large amount of money on armaments and did he discuss the considerable instability which seems to exist in the Philippines, for example, as a result of which a number of tourists have been kidnapped by a secessionist group?
We discussed those issues although we did not discuss all of the countries involved. We discussed the China-Taiwan relationship and the difficulties experienced since the recent election of the president in Taiwan. Prime Minister Goh outlined his views on how he sees matters developing in this area.
We also discussed North Korea and South Korea and the Prime Minister seemed satisfied with progress in that area. He emphasised that these countries have finally started to engage in dialogue with other countries. Indonesia is the Prime Minister's particular concern and we spoke at some length about the uncertainty there. The Prime Minister outlined his best assessment of the situation which – without going into too much detail – was that Indonesia is still quite unsettled and that a very difficult period lies ahead there.
Do the problems in Indonesia relate to secessionist moves in various parts of the country such as Aceh or do they relate to the relationship between the native Indonesian community and the very large ethnic Chinese community? Which is the more difficult issue from Prime Minister Goh's perspective?
Both of those issues pose difficulties but one really needs to talk to somebody dealing with the region; sometimes one forgets, in spite of what has happened in recent years, that Indonesia is a country with a population of 200 million people. The situation in the country has still not stabilised and while there is support for the President, a number of substantive groups are still vying for positions of strength and that is creating many difficulties. The Minister for Defence briefed me on his trip to East Timor where the situation has stabilised and where much progress has been made. Owing to the size of Indonesia's population – Singapore only has a population of 3.2 million which is not very substantial in relation to a number of other countries – when there is uncertainty and potential political unrest, it creates great instability for the region.
In regard to ASEM, I had the honour of attending the first such summit. Does the Taoiseach believe that concrete practical results of a significant nature have arisen from this or has the focus mainly been on simply developing contacts and attending meetings at different levels, which can be made to sound very significant but which may have no great significance beyond the actual event itself?
Deputy Bruton was in Bangkok. That started off the process and then it moved to London. London was really taken up with the Asian financial crisis and did not get really anywhere further than that. Amazingly and miraculously the economies have restored and revived themselves and have now redeemed themselves. This time around there are some practical issues that can be discussed. They would centre around trade and trying to build up trade relationships, and building up memorandums of understanding of substance.
The concern of European countries would be to set up a trade relationship of a substantial nature and to see if they can get agreement on that. The concern of the ASEAN countries is that they are not just plagued with questions of human rights, where they believe they are doing their best but Europe believes that there is a lot more to be achieved. Around that there is great pressure.
Prime Minister Goh would be happy enough to deal with their development of human rights, although accepting that there is much work to do, but other ASEAN countries are not prepared to discuss these issues so openly and feel that Europe has just a one item agenda and that these meetings are not for that purpose.
The forum at ministerial level, which was set up as the Deputy will recall, ran into trouble over the Burma/Myanmar issue. I hope that will revive itself. The Foreign Minister who is travelling with the Prime Minister said he hoped to see that up and running later this summer. I have read independently that that might not be so clear but certainly that is the intention. It still has not got down to a fixed agenda but if it does, it will on one side see an improvement in the human rights situation and definitely try to deal with substantive trade issues.
On the question of human rights, clearly there is a different perception as to what are human rights between those who come from the European tradition of the French Revolution and Tom Paine, etc., and Asian societies where they look more at collective rights than individual rights, the rights of families and matters of that nature. Would the Taoiseach see any value in an intensive dialogue within the ASEAN structure on the idea of human rights and what are the rights and the remedies which are most appropriate?
I would, and that is why yesterday I got into discussion with Prime Minister Goh about his coming to prominence. He came to prominence in his country through a reform package from his predecessor, who – I think he would not disagree – at the time – I was there some years ago – was seen as hardline and dictatorial. There were not too many freedoms. That has changed substantially.
Many of the other countries' leaders – I suppose the Singapore Prime Minister would believe this also – believe that European countries demand too much of them. They do not disagree that the level of human rights should work its way and bring itself forward to European levels, but it will take time. Sometimes making too much an issue of criticism is not the best way of bringing them forward. The case of what Europe considers is democratic, what is democratisation and what are proper standards of human rights should be put, but in some ways they must be helped and convinced of those moves over a period of time.
At least a number of the countries accept – this came up at the last ASEAN meeting – that they are a long way behind; they are 50 or 60 years behind in their own view. However, since they are wealthy countries, maybe some of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is fair enough to argue that they should be moving on these issues at a greater pace.