James Bannon
Question:61 Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland has ever had diplomatic relations with Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29329/07]
Other Questions.
Human Rights Issues.
Ulick Burke
Question:94 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position of the Government regarding the reported restrictions on journalists and dissidents in Burma; the situation regarding the visit of Mr. Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, the UN human rights envoy to Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29390/07]
Brian O'Shea
Question:111 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the current position in Burma; the initiatives Ireland has taken in order to establish the whereabouts of those detained following the recent demonstrations; the progress made in establishing such meaningful talks as would lead to a transition to democracy; and if the European Union is expected to redraft its sanctions regime in relation to Burma. [30874/07]
John Deasy
Question:112 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the situation in Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29340/07]
James Bannon
Question:114 Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason the UN Security Council will not agree a formal arms embargo on Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29330/07]
Joan Burton
Question:122 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the refusal by the ruling junta in Burma-Myanmar to co-operate with the UN envoy, Mr. Pinheiro, to facilitate talks between him, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and the military junta. [30875/07]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:328 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an updated report on the situation in Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31223/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 61, 94, 111, 112, 114, 122 and 328 together.
The Government welcomes the second visit by UN special envoy Dr. Ibrahim Gambari to Burma on 3-8 November, and his report to the UN Security Council on 13 November. Dr. Gambari has been able to point to some progress, with the regime's continued co-operation with his mission, particularly its appointment of a liaison minister to meet with Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, and Ms Suu Kyi's own firm commitment to constructively pursue negotiations with the regime. We understand that a role for the UN in later substantive talks has not been ruled out.
Ms Suu Kyi has now had three meetings with the government's liaison minister, which are said to have been productive, and that is welcome. The regime has also allowed Ms Suu Kyi meet with other figures from the National League for Democracy and ethnic groups. However, she remains under house arrest, which is unacceptable, and it is vital that all restrictions on her be lifted to assist her in preparing for talks. Ireland's full commitment to Dr. Gambari's view that the burden is now on the Burmese Government to show it is moving in a positive direction has been made time and again by the Minister and me recently at the ASEAN conference.
The Government welcomes the visit to Burma by the UN special rapporteur on human rights, Mr. Pinheiro, on 11-15 November, after four years of refusals by the regime. The situation there is still unacceptable. While the special representative appears to have had good access to the authorities, we regret that limitations were placed on his meetings with non-government figures and arrests continued during his visit. We urge the Burmese authorities to co-operate fully with Mr. Pinheiro to develop the process.
The EU continues to follow closely developments in Burma. EU Foreign Ministers adopted a further set of conclusions on Burma on 19 November. At last week's ASEAN meeting in Singapore nine EU ministers took the floor to lead with comments on Burma and Ms Suu Kyi. Relevant EU bodies are doing more work to elaborate further restrictive measures, should they be necessary. While EU measures are important, the Government believes wider international measures are also needed. Regrettably, there is insufficient consensus in favour of such action among Security Council members, though we welcome the fact the Council continues to be engaged on the issue.
It has been the Government's consistent position that no steps will be taken to develop diplomatic relations with Burma until Ms Suu Kyi is released. While the issue was examined in 2004, on the basis of promised political and human rights progress by the Burmese authorities, including the release of Ms Suu Kyi, the lack of progress on these issues saw the process quickly stopped. Given the current situation, it would be unimaginable that, even were Ms Suu Kyi released, we would establish relations without significant and sustained improvements on the ground.
Did the special envoy Mr. Gambari meet Ms Suu Kyi?
He did.
The Minister of State said that Ireland initiated contact in 2004 with the Burmese authorities. What was the extent of that contact? Would he now agree that on reflection it was a very unwise decision because it gave legitimacy to a regime that clearly does not have the support of the people and has been involved in many human rights violations and atrocities, particularly in recent months?
The point I was making with regard to the latter was that no further activity would be dealt with on the terms of diplomatic relations until there are substantial and sustained improvements on the ground. On whether it was wise to make contact in 2004, the benefit of hindsight is always great. However, the reality is that our ambassador designate went and met Aung San Suu Kyi and caused the Burmese authorities some angst. Last week, I was very pleased to make the same point that this House, if we unite on very few other points, unites on the issue that the behaviour of the Burmese junta has been totally unacceptable.
Did the Deputy ask about sanctions?
Just——
I call Deputy Higgins and will come back to the Deputy.
It is important to note that the Government's actions in 2004 were opposed. It was pointed out at the time that the assumption that constructive dialogue would change the Burmese junta's actions was unlikely to reach a result.
I wish to ask about the mandate of Mr. Pinheiro which differs from the mandate of Dr. Gambari. Will Mr. Pinheiro's mandate in practical terms be able to ascertain the location of those arrested, particularly those who have left their monasteries and have not returned?
I believe the latter item is covered. However, whether he will be successful is another issue. As the Deputy has repeatedly and correctly pointed out in the House, we are dealing with extraordinarily obdurate people in the Burmese junta, who care little for the international view of them, whether it is positive or negative. The reality is that in the Security Council and in that region large states adjacent to this country will have a significant role to play in bringing the peace and democracy that the people of Burma so urgently require.
Róisín Shortall
Question:62 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the Government will ratify the international conventions prohibiting trafficking in human beings. [30881/07]
The House will be aware from answers to previous questions, most recently on 23 October 2007, that the struggle against the heinous crime of trafficking in human beings is a matter of grave concern at national, EU and international level.
On 11 October, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform announced a programme of measures on human trafficking that will lead to Ireland ratifying all relevant international instruments. The Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill 2007 is currently on Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann. The primary purpose of the Bill is to criminalise the trafficking of persons into, through or out of Ireland for the purposes of their sexual or labour exploitation or the removal of their organs. Enactment of the legislation will ensure compliance with the criminal law aspects of the various international instruments.
It is intended that the proposed immigration, residency and protection Bill will provide a framework whereby a victim of trafficking can be afforded an immediate period of recovery and reflection in the State. This is a requirement of the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings. In addition, the Bill will, in certain circumstances, provide for a further period of residence for victims of trafficking.
As well as the legislation on criminalisation and reflection periods, many other provisions are required under the Council of Europe convention, particularly regarding victim care. These will be implemented administratively rather than legislatively.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is establishing a new high-level group on combating trafficking in human beings. This high-level group will oversee the development and drafting of Ireland's first national action plan to prevent and combat human trafficking. It is envisaged that the national action plan will be developed under four main headings: prevention and awareness raising; prosecution of traffickers; protection of victims; and child trafficking. As stated earlier, all these measures will enable Ireland to ratify all relevant international instruments in the area of human trafficking.
It is clear from the reply that four quite separate categories of action are required to satisfy the international convention. It would shorten the period in which ratification would be possible if the protection and care of the victim were included in the fundamental Act prohibiting trafficking, that is, the one directed at the criminal law. If one must wait for the immigration, residency and protection Bill followed by ministerial order followed by administrative practice, one is talking about a timescale of potential ratification, particularly of the European convention, that is unnecessarily delaying and cumbersome. Would the Minister of State consider making a recommendation to Cabinet and his colleague in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to facilitate the amendment on Committee Stage of the basic Bill outlawing trafficking so as to achieve an earlier ratification?
As the Deputy mentioned the possibility, it struck me that it undoubtedly has some merit. However, I do not know of any technical problem that might arise. I will certainly draw the Minister's attention to the suggestion, which is helpful.
Does the Minister of State have details of the extent of human trafficking in this country? I concur with my colleague. It is important for us to review the criminal law in order to put in place the protection of the victims of human trafficking, as they have no such protection at the moment.
I do not have any details. I note the Deputy's point about Deputy Higgins's suggestion.
Arms Trade.
Ciaran Lynch
Question:63 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on breaches of the European Union code of conduct that have led to the export of arms by member states of the Union to regimes guilty of gross violations of human rights. [30868/07]
The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which dates back to 1998, is a politically binding document which governs the handling by member states of export licence applications for military goods and technology. The code contains eight criteria against which each application must be assessed before a licence can be issued. The EU has established best practice for the interpretation of each of the criteria under the code and member states consult regularly on the application of the code.
In Ireland, the licensing authority is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which acts in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Under criterion 2 of the code, member states evaluate the current and past record of the country concerned regarding its respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. They are required to exercise special caution and vigilance, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the nature of the equipment, where a licence is requested to export arms to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or the European Union. An export licence must not be issued if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression. Among the other criteria are internal stability, regional stability and the risk of diversion. It should be borne in mind that the nature of the equipment concerned is relevant in determining whether its export would be in breach of one or more of the criteria.
As implementation of the code of conduct depends on the exercise of judgment by member states regarding the application and interpretation of the criteria in each specific case, there can be differences of view. However, while we would take seriously any allegation of breaches of the code, we are not aware of any major difference of approach among member states in its application.
Separately from the code of conduct, there are specific EU arms embargoes in regard to Burma, China, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. Following a review of the code of conduct, there is general support within the Council for certain changes to it, most importantly its conversion into a legally binding common position. Ireland strongly supports this approach. However, it has not yet been possible to reach final agreement.
Does the Minister of State acknowledge the hypocrisy of moral suasion being regarded as the means for implementing such a code, for example, sticking with the area we were just discussing, German exports to the Burma junta, which are clear to everybody? Equally, for example, having listened to the statement we might regard it as having become a piece of wind, considering that the National Pensions Reserve Fund has invested in companies that produce cluster bombs. I gather from the reply given by the Minister of State that he would favour a legally binding code. Is the Government in favour of an end-use regime, in other words, a system of sanctions built on identifying end use? Second, can he tell us when this code was last examined? Where can I find a published document that looks at the massive breaches of human rights, in several different places, on the part of the German, Italian, French and British Governments? Is it not quite dangerous for one to say one would like all of this to happen, but it will not be implemented? The foreign ministers are aware of many of these breaches. At the next meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, can some of those who were in charge of these major breaches be confronted about what has taken place?
I cannot give the Deputy details of when the last review of the code took place. There is a process of keeping the operation of the code under review. I do not disagree that there is something extraordinarily hypocritical about nations arguing about weapons of mass destruction when they are involved in the trade of small arms, which are the biggest weapons of mass destruction on this planet in that they kill more people than any other type of weapon. I firmly believe that a common approach represents the best way forward. I agree with the approach advocated by Deputy Higgins, who said the EU should confront its internal demons in this regard by putting in place a code of which we all can be proud.
Human Rights Issues.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:64 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the difficulties being placed in the way of the opposition in Zimbabwe to organise, the deteriorating economic situation affecting the ordinary people and the apparent unwillingness of neighbouring countries to express adequate concern at the breaches in human rights occurring in that country. [30880/07]
Damien English
Question:87 Deputy Damien English asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Zimbabwe officials the Irish ambassador accredited to Zimbabwe met in Harare in September 2007; the concerns outlined to these officials; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29327/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 64 and 87 together.
The Government continues to be deeply concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. The disastrous economic policies of that country's government have led to severe hardship for ordinary people. Those who seek democratic change in Zimbabwe are facing enormous obstacles. The efforts of opposition parties in Zimbabwe to organise are being hampered by the selective enforcement of harsh security laws, restrictive media laws and government efforts to politicise aid distribution and access to state services. The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum stated this month that politically motivated violence has increased throughout 2007. Opposition activists and supporters, including those from the Movement for Democratic Change, continue to be intimidated and harassed. International efforts must focus on pushing for a level playing field for the March 2008 elections to allow the people of Zimbabwe to decide who can best lead their country out of its economic and political crisis.
Ireland and the EU strongly believe that African leadership is the key to encouraging progress towards economic and political stability. We support the talks between the government and opposition in Zimbabwe which are being mediated by President Mbeki of South Africa under the mandate of the Southern African Development Community, SADC. Agreement has been reached on making certain constitutional changes and updating the electoral register. It is hoped that such changes can be made. When the EU Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in Zimbabwe in October, they agreed they might need to follow up the SADC initiative when it has been completed. At a meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 19 November last, it was agreed that President Mugabe will hear a tough and clear message on the EU's abhorrence of his policies if he travels to Lisbon for the EU-Africa Summit next month. The EU is ready to respond substantively to any positive change in Zimbabwe. It regularly raises its strong views on Zimbabwe's internal situation with that country's neighbours and with the SADC.
The Irish Embassy in Pretoria monitors allegations of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe on an ongoing basis. It raises issues of concern with the Zimbabwean authorities at every opportunity. During his visit to Harare in September 2007, the Irish ambassador and other EU heads of mission met the director for Europe and the Americas of the Zimbabwean Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Our strong views on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe and our concerns about poor governance in that county were restated at the meeting. The ambassador again outlined these concerns to the Zimbabwean ambassador to South Africa on 5 November. The Government, through Irish Aid, has provided assistance of €17.8 million to the people of Zimbabwe since the start of 2006 in partnership with NGOs, missionaries and UN agencies. These programmes have a direct and positive effect on the lives of thousands of unfortunate Zimbabwean citizens.
Although there is very little time remaining, I will allow Deputies Higgins and Deasy to ask a couple of brief supplementary questions.
The consequences of Britain's decision to walk away from its commitments under the Lancaster House Agreement, which are rarely highlighted, should be mentioned during the Lisbon Summit. Is the Minister of State disappointed that the leaders of the South African Government, which we all support, have stayed unacceptably silent for so long about the human rights breaches in Zimbabwe? Given that more that 75% of electoral abuses tend to take place during the registration process, would the Government be in favour of establishing an early process of observation of the Zimbabwean elections?
President Mugabe has indicated he will attend the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon. I understand the British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, has said he will not attend the summit if President Mugabe is there. What is the Government's stance on President Mugabe's attendance in Lisbon? If he shows up at the summit, will an official delegation from Ireland be in attendance?
Deputy Higgins is right to argue that the silence of a neighbouring country, particularly a neighbour like South Africa that has significant influence in the region, is regrettable. The Deputy also suggested that EU member states which have some power in the region should use it.
I also suggested that we should start to monitor the electoral process at an early stage.
I will mention that point to the Minister. While it has not been considered, it has significant merit. On Deputy Deasy's point, I do not think the merit of the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit should be assessed on the basis of the attendance of any given individual. It should go ahead regardless.
Therefore, I take it the Government will be represented.
Yes. We will be represented at the summit because we appreciate its significance. Relations between Europe and Africa are not determined by the actions of an individual.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.