John Lahart
Question:52. Deputy John Lahart asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 10 May 2021. [24134/21]
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
EU Meetings
This question concerns the European Council meeting but I have two questions and I am quite prepared to cede the rest of my time to the Minister if he wishes to develop the theme. The Minister mentioned that he called in the Israeli ambassador today and outlined what he said to him. Will the Minister give us some flavour of the ambassador's response?
I understand the Minister had some online dialogue with a former US Senator, Mr. John Kerry, about climate action. Will the Minister inform the House of the fruits of that discussion or what came up?
The Israeli ambassador is able to speak for himself and he will come before the foreign affairs committee tomorrow, potentially to give the Israeli perspective. He will do as the Deputy might expect, which is to give an Israeli perspective on security and the reason the Israeli Government felt it had to respond the way it has to protect its population against rocket fire from Gaza and so on. That is part of the story that we cannot ignore, of course. There is a broader story as well in terms of what has driven the tension that has resulted in this cycle of violence and how we respond to that. That is in addition to trying to create a ceasefire as well.
Influential and connected countries are trying to work on a ceasefire and people involved with the Middle East peace process know who they are. They include Egypt, Qatar and others, and the efforts have been unsuccessful so far. I fear we will see an escalation before we see an end to this cycle of violence. I hope I am wrong but I suspect we may well see many more innocent civilians and children dying as a result of this latest cycle of violence, which is the worst we have seen in a number of years.
I am glad to say the conversation with Mr. Kerry was a much more positive discussion. The exchange with the presidential special envoy, Mr. Kerry, focused on preparations for COP26 and measures that must be taken to ensure success, including bringing along least-developed countries and small island developing states.
My contribution on behalf of Ireland was to focus on the practical co-operation required between the EU and the US in a number of areas. These include climate finance, as we must spend more money and commit more financial resources to climate finance, particularly around adaptation for developing countries, small island developing states and countries that desperately need to invest in infrastructure to adapt to the new realities they are facing on the basis of climate change that is already happening. That is as well as planning for further change in future, whether it arises from desertification, more violent storms in places like the Caribbean or flood risk to small island states in the south Pacific.
Mr. Kerry agreed on much of that. The other area on which I would like to do more work concerns the oceans. We cannot have a credible global climate action agenda without a very serious discussion around oceans from a mitigation and adaptation perspective. The area on which we focused most in terms of transatlantic co-operation, and where we got a very good response from Mr. Kerry, was funding for climate adaptation and resilience. There is much focus on mitigation and potentially not enough focus on adaptation and resilience. There is also the question of oceans, in which I am very interested and something in which Ireland can become a global leader through the combination of good policy decisions and research.
We should not forget that the programme for Government means Ireland is one of the few countries in the world committed to designating 30% of our ocean territory to marine protected areas at different levels. We must develop that policy in the context of COP26.
The conversation seemed to reflect a complete change in attitude, tone and temperature from the United States on the Paris accords and climate action in general.
I thank Deputy Lahart. We are finished with that question as the Deputy conceded his time.
Four minutes are allocated for the interaction and we have only had three of those.
I have just come in.
I know but I was following the clock.
Do I make two contributions?
I ceded all my time to the Minister but he only took three minutes when he should have four minutes.
I will make a quick reply with the indulgence of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Okay. The Minister can take a minute.
It is like chalk and cheese. Essentially, we have gone from an American Administration in Washington DC that really denied there was a climate emergency at all to one that wants to be a global leader with the ambition around the required response to deliver the targets of 2030 and 2050, which are dramatic.
The truth is that if the US and EU combined are not effectively a force for change, this cannot and will not happen. This is not the first time Mr. Kerry has reached out to the Foreign Affairs Council and it is the second time we have had a nearly two-hour discussion with him on the level of ambition that comes with both the US and EU working together trying to deliver global action.
Tourism Industry
James O'Connor
Question:53. Deputy James O'Connor asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the return of North American international travel (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24018/21]
Will the Minister give a report to the House on the status of international travel between the United States or North America as a whole and the Republic of Ireland? The Minister appreciates there is much confusion both in the media and among the public, especially those working in tourism and aviation, arising from the Tánaiste's comments as reported by Mr. Philip Ryan in the Irish Independent on the status of US-Ireland travel. When will this return and when will travel return for other countries in North America?
I do not believe there is any confusion. There is no clear decision from the Government yet on moving away from our current approach to international travel, which is very restrictive. There is hope, of course, that as we move through summer that position will change as more people are vaccinated and society becomes more protected with the shield of vaccination. Other countries across the European Union will create a level of protection, along with the United States, and there is hope that the public health risks linked to international travel - specifically importing or reseeding Covid-19 and new variants - will lessen. The hope is that will happen as protection for our citizens increases and the protection for those likely to travel increases as well.
The Government has not agreed a timeline or dates around a change to international travel policy.
I hope that by the end of this month the Government will have had an opportunity to consider this seriously and to give a line of sight on the timelines that people can plan and prepare for. We know the European Commission will have a new green passport system ready for June but that is a system that is primarily designed for the EU. Whether or not a similar system gets extended to facilitate transatlantic travel is something the European Commission has hinted at but it has not delivered any papers on it to date that I am aware of.
I thank the Minister for that information. I have come here with my own research and having spoken to many people working within aviation and tourism. I regret to inform the Minister that there is much confusion. I ask that as Minister for Foreign Affairs, because this is critical to his role in his Department, the Minister would engage on a Government level as soon as possible with people working in aviation and tourism on how the digital green certificate will be implemented and on how such a system could potentially work with US travel. There was much concern about the Tánaiste's comments today that there may not be the potential for US travel to return in full until next year, which came as news to many people working within tourism and in aviation. That is why I wanted to highlight that particular point. I accept that this has to be taken with the benefit of public health advice but there is a dire need for clarification on this and I am happy to hear that the Minister will be reporting back to the House and that there will be discussions on this during May. I want to stress the point on stakeholder engagement again. I ask the Minister to comment on that very important matter.
I take the point that there is much concern in the travel industry generally and in the tourism sector around wanting to understand, plan for and prepare for timelines around facilitating international travel again. As of yet, the Government has not given a clear timeline around that issue. The Tánaiste said today that he hopes to see travel between Britain and Ireland facilitated to become much freer over the summer months. I hope that is the case. We have a valuable common travel area which we carefully protected through the Brexit process but we are still guided by public health advice on the travel restrictions that are in place. For the EU more generally, the green passport system will be in place in June but it is a policy decision for the State to then decide how and when to implement it here. That system gives a database for us to make policy decisions on the back of.
From my understanding, much of the reporting has been that many of the negotiations on US-EU travel were with the Schengen area and Ireland is not part of that because of the common travel area. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me and the people who are listening as to whether Ireland will move in lockstep with the Schengen area if there is to be a full reopening of US travel. This is in the context of the fact that there are more than 160,000 people, which is an incredible number, employed by US foreign direct investment in our country. Even in our shared county of Cork we can clearly see that level of investment, whether it is in places such as Carrigtwohill, Little Island or in the Minister's constituency in Ringaskiddy or in Apple in Cork North-Central. There are tens of thousands of people in our county working in US companies. Not only is it important from a leisure point of view to have US visitors coming to Ireland and spending money in our local economy but there is also the foreign direct investment aspect to this. It is deeply damaging to our economy and to aviation in Ireland, which is critical to the economic recovery in the post-Covid era.
The Minister is right that there is a legal and a public health dimension to this but there is also a purely practical dimension to it. The reality is that we will be opening up travel with the United Kingdom and there are transatlantic planes, which used to service Shannon Airport, that are now flying from Manchester to North America. The Minister is acutely aware of this, having an airport in his constituency. Once we have an open and common travel area with the United Kingdom, it is simply senseless if planes are taking off from North America and coming into the United Kingdom for us to not allow planes to go from Ireland to North America. People will simply travel via the United Kingdom and via Belfast if necessary. All we are doing is strangling our economy to no public health benefit if people are travelling anyway, which they will do sooner rather than later. I urge the Minister to keep the practicalities in mind as well as the public health concerns because sometimes some of the public health advice seems to be completely devoid of practical effect. It is not always so but sometimes it is, including the example of the advice on antigen testing, given the European Union position on it.
I can understand the frustration, particularly for those who have airports in their constituencies, but for everybody. It was not too long ago when many Members were calling on us to put anyone who was coming from anywhere into mandatory hotel quarantine. I am not saying the Deputy was saying that but many Members were saying that. We are trying to get the balance right in managing risk and taking the advice from our public health teams and then making decisions with as much pragmatism as we can have in those decisions. We have one of the most conservative and restrictive international transport policies of any country in Europe. I would defend that and if one looks at the impact of that in the non-importation of variants of concern in recent months, that policy is working. The dynamics around that decision are changing, however, because of the impact of vaccines, both at home and abroad. As that risk changes, the policy will change too and I hope we can do that as soon as we safely can from a public health perspective.
International Relations
Michael Creed
Question:54. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the initiatives that Ireland is pursuing unilaterally at European Union level and through Ireland's membership of the UN Security Council to protect the interests of the Uighur Muslim population; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23991/21]
Michael McNamara
Question:112. Deputy Michael McNamara asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has raised the issue of correction camps for the Uighur minority in China with the Chinese authorities; if it is proposed to take a common EU position on the matter; the use that has been made of Ireland's current position within the UN systems to raise the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24204/21]
Is Deputy Stanton taking this question?
Tá sé sin ceart. Deputy Creed has asked me to take this question on his behalf and he sends his apologies for not being able to be here this evening.
Deputy Creed was interested in what initiatives Ireland is pursuing unilaterally, at European Union level and through Ireland's membership of the UN Security Council to protect the interests of the Uighur Muslim population. I ask the Minister to make a statement on that matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 54 and 112 together.
Ireland, along with our EU partners, remains deeply concerned about the treatment of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in the province of Xinjiang. We are closely following the situation, including on reports of systemic abuse, torture, arbitrary detention, forced labour, forced sterilisations and restrictions on freedom of religion and belief.
In response to the situation and under the EU global human rights sanctions regime, the EU adopted sanctions on 22 March 2021 against one entity and four individuals in China due to their involvement in human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The EU global human rights sanctions regime allows the EU to target serious human rights violations and abuses by state and non-state actors worldwide. It enables the EU to respond rapidly and in a more tangible and direct way to human rights, one of the fundamental values of EU foreign policy.
Ireland and the EU raise our concerns with Chinese authorities in both bilateral and multilateral contexts. Over the course of 2020, the EU raised its concerns regarding the human rights situation in China with Chinese authorities during its high-level engagements at the EU-China summit and the EU-China leaders' meeting. More recently, Ireland raised concerns regarding the situation in Xinjiang in our national statement at the UN Human Rights Council in March this year. Prior to this, we also reiterated our concerns in our national statement at the UN Human Rights Council in September last year, which urged China to allow unrestricted access to the region for the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ireland has also supported a number of joint initiatives in the UN system. We joined a statement at the UN third committee on 6 October 2020 that reiterates our grave concern regarding the situation in Xinjiang, and recalls the exceptional letter of concern issued by 50 UN special procedures mandate holders. This letter called on China to respect human rights and to allow immediate, meaningful and unfettered access to Xinjiang for independent observers.
Ireland’s approach on the UN Security Council is informed by our record as a country with a consistent, principled and independent foreign policy. We put forward our perspectives on all issues on the UN Security Council agenda, and engage with and listen carefully to the views of all UN Security Council members, including China.
Although the treatment of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang is not on the UN Security Council agenda, the Government will continue to monitor and assess the situation and engage with the Chinese authorities bilaterally and in multilateral fora, as we have been doing to date.
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree with the US view that this is genocide? Does he further agree that the reports from the region are absolutely shocking, appalling and deplorable? Has unrestricted access been granted to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? Is there any sign of this happening? What further action can the State take in this regard?
I would also like to know whether the Minister would use the word "genocide" to describe what is happening in Xinjiang province. If not, would he at least use the phrase "cultural genocide"? This is what it appears to be. It is designed to wipe the Uighur culture of the face of the planet, or at least of the face of Chinese territory and thereby off the face of the planet. Has the Minister raised this bilaterally with the Chinese mission to the UN or with the Chinese representation in Ireland?
This has come up in engagements with the Chinese ambassador here. Obviously we have raised this, and I outlined a series of instances where we have raised it, in international fora, whether at the UN Human Rights Council or other fora.
The term "genocide" has a particular meaning in international law, and recognition of events defined as genocide involves an analysis of facts and law. Ireland follows the practice of recognising genocide where this has been established by a judgment of an international court where there is international consensus on the matter. Some parliaments have passed non-binding motions labelling the situation in Xinjiang as genocide. In my opinion, such resolutions have mainly served to harden attitudes on the Chinese side but have not improved the situation for the Uighur population. An approach whereby the EU, its member states and other like-minded states continue to press for better access to the region and to better establish the realities on the ground seems to me to be a more effective one to follow at this time.
Will the Minister respond on the comment about unrestricted access of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? Is this likely to happen? Is there any reason it should not happen? If the Chinese say there is nothing to hide why not let the high commissioner visit and inspect the region, as happened in Wuhan and other cities where Covid-19 erupted.
If the Minister will not use the word "genocide" will he use the term "cultural genocide"? He spoke about the judgment of a court but that always follows many years after a genocide and consensus is developed years after the event. We can see what is happening before our eyes. There is considerable evidence from reputable media and other governments that have more advanced capabilities to monitor what is happening in China. We do know what is happening.
We know some of what is happening, and I have been very critical of it, as has the Dáil and Seanad. A very strong motion was tabled by Senator McDowell and others, which was supported by all parties, a number of months ago. Ireland has not been quiet on this issue. We have raised it. With regard to the issue of how we define it legally, certainly the advice I have from the Department is that we do not have sufficient legal certainty to be able to categorise it as genocide. I am not going to use emotive language for the sake of it. To call something genocide is a very serious accusation and we need to be able to back it up in terms of the legal consequences of the term. That is all I am saying.
To respond to what Deputy Stanton raised, my understanding is that access has not been granted. The EU has been raising the temperature on this issue. This is why it has applied targeted sanctions through the human rights system of sanctions now available to the EU. There were retaliatory sanctions, by the way, from China immediately once they were announced. A number of Members of the European Parliament are on the sanctions list. The decision to apply sanctions stung. There is no doubt this issue is a cause of tension between the EU and China. The challenge is for us to have a good relationship with China and, at the same time, to be able to raise real concerns when we have them in a way that is appropriate and in a way that is listened to and lands. Getting that balance right is an ongoing debate within the EU on China.
Humanitarian Access
David Stanton
Question:55. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the work of his Department to ensure that the remaining international crossing between Turkey and Syria stays open, given that more than 2.7 million people are reliant on assistance arriving via this crossing with regard to the humanitarian crisis in Syria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24021/21]
This question concerns what I understand is the one remaining international crossing between Turkey and Syria and ensuring that it stays open given the fact that 2.7 million people are reliant on assistance arriving via this crossing, with regard to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. I understand that people are now returning from Turkey to Syria because of the clampdowns and restrictions in Turkey. I ask the Minister to comment on this and on the UN resolution that governs this particular issue.
As the civil war in Syria enters its 11th year, humanitarian needs remain extremely high. Across Syria, 13.4 million people need humanitarian assistance, including almost 3 million people in the north-west of the country, which is the population served by this crossing.
On the Security Council, Ireland acts with Norway as co-penholder on the Syrian humanitarian file. In this role, we have strongly advocated for humanitarian aid to be able to reach all of the people who need it. We are undertaking extensive engagement with all relevant parties, including Council members, countries in the region, the UN system and civil society.
Since 2014, the UN Security Council has recognised through successive resolutions the importance of ensuring humanitarian access in Syria including, where necessary, across borders through UN mandated crossings. In July 2020 , the council extended the mandate for the UN to use the border crossing at Bab al-Hawa, between Turkey and north-west Syria, for the delivery of humanitarian aid for a period of 12 months. I visited Bab al-Hawa in January, and saw first-hand the scale of the operation, as well as the professionalism and transparency of the operation. Humanitarian need in the north west is even greater now than when the existing mandate was agreed last summer. The spread of Covid-19, and a deteriorating economic situation, have further exacerbated the humanitarian situation.
As we move towards the date of expiry of the current mandate on 10 July, it is clear that it would not be possible to meet the extensive humanitarian needs in Syria without the renewal of the cross-border resolution. This includes the border crossing in the north-west. The resolution should be renewed for as long as is necessary to meet the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people. It is not easy to get agreement on keeping that crossing open and we are doing everything we can to try to make sure that we get a successful outcome in a few weeks.
The Minister is to be commended on visiting and seeing for himself what is happening out there. Will he give us an account of what he saw, what his concerns are and how he sees this developing? This has been going on for quite a number of years, as he outlined. Millions of people stranded in no man's land depend on 1,000 lorries of food a month going in to feed them and look after them. What is the future? Will the Minister give us an idea of this? It is not a very safe area. Perhaps he will give us an outline of what he saw and what are his ideas for the future.
The reason this is so complicated is that north-west area is essentially Idlib province. The strategy within Syria in terms of the conflict there has essentially been to push the resistance and opposition to the regime in Syria into the north-west.
Some of those who support the Assad regime see aid flowing in a structured way from Turkey into north-west Syria essentially as feeding the resistance and prolonging the war and so the politics and the military decisions around aid. Some of them would also accuse that crossing of facilitating weapons as well as aid. I have to say from what I saw there - we were fairly robust in our conversations with the UN agencies that were there - that there is a very transparent process of ensuring that what should be crossing into Idlib for humanitarian reasons is what is crossing in. The focus now has to be to try to manage the politics of this in the context of the politics of Syria on the UN Security Council, which is about as divisive as it gets, to try to find a way of ensuring this crossing stays open. I believe it can be done but it will not be easy.
My final question is about the UN resolution which expires on 10 July 2021, which is not far away now. Can the Minister give us an understanding of whether this resolution will be extended and whether there is agreement that it should be extended?
At present, there is not agreement that it will be extended. We are working on that and speaking to the key actors. Clearly, Russia is an absolutely key actor here, as is Turkey, as is Iran. Of course, some of these countries are not on the Security Council but are influential over countries that are.
The reason I am so exercised about this is that if one speaks to the NGOs that are providing daily humanitarian assistance, in some cases into tented villages or makeshift homes, one will learn that they are desperate to keep this supply chain open. The alternative to having a UN-monitored, UN-managed and transparent crossing where huge volumes of humanitarian assistance can be brought to close to 3 million people is to have unaccountable border crossings where sporadic aid will get in, but with such levels of aid certainly not being anything like sufficient to deal with the numbers who need it. In such circumstances, one will see mass movement of people - some of them coming across the border into Turkey - and all the tensions that will cause. From a humanitarian point of view, we will be appealing to all of the countries that are involved in this process to find a way of agreeing a resolution that can allow this aid to continue to flow.
Historical Conflicts
John Brady
Question:56. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will formally recognise that genocide was committed against the people of Armenia during World War 1 by the Ottoman Turkish Government. [24131/21]
Jim O'Callaghan
Question:105. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the events that befell Armenia and the Armenian people in 1915 merit the description of genocide; his views on the statement issued by the President of the United States on 24 April 2021 in relation to same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23940/21]
Will the Minister follow the lead that was taken by the US President, Joe Biden, on 24 April 2021 to formally recognise that genocide was committed against the people of Armenia during the First World War by the Ottoman Turkish Government?
The Government views the terrible events which saw the deaths of a large number of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire as a tragedy. We have previously expressed deepest sympathy for the enormous suffering of the Armenian people during this period and I do so again here this evening. The Government has not taken a stance on whether those terrible events should be described as a genocide because we believe we are not in a position to adjudicate on this matter. To reach a conclusion that any events amount to genocide involves the consideration and determination of a number of complex legal issues, and an assessment of the actions and intentions of many parties. Ireland is not in a position to do this with regard to these events.
As I said in one of my previous answers, Ireland follows the practice of recognising genocide only where this has been established by a judgment of an appropriate international court, or where there is international consensus on the matter. There is no such consensus on this issue. I am aware of the positions of other countries on the matter, including the recent statement released by the United States. However, neither the EU nor the UN has adopted a position on this question and there is no international consensus on whether these events amount to genocide. I wish to be clear that our position on the description of these events does not diminish our recognition of the terrible and shocking nature of what occurred to the Armenian people between 1915 and 1917. We continue to carefully monitor developments on this issue and will keep our position under regular review.
The massacre of over 1.5 million Armenians certainly was an act of genocide and the campaign of genocidal massacre that was inflicted on the people of Armenia was a crime against humanity also.
I hear that the Minister is saying we are not in a position to adjudicate on the matter. However, I have made reference to the US. I will make reference to numerous other countries that have taken a stand also. It least another 30 nations have described it as genocide, including 16 EU members. I note the Vatican has also taken a strong position on it. The fact is the State was not in existence in 1915. There are not too many lawmakers that were in existence in 1915 either. We should take the lead from other countries that have formed a position on it using the information they have to hand and make a formal declaration as well.
It is important to point out that the massacre of the Armenians in 1915 and 1916 is not only a matter of historical interest. It also is, notwithstanding its antiquity, an issue that requires a political response. That is why, I suppose, I put down this question. We recently saw a political response from the new President of the United States who, on 24 April, which is the date upon which Armenians mark the commencement of the genocide, issued a statement on behalf of the United States indicating that they recognise it as genocide.
I note what the Minister stated but I have to ask how we can ever recognise this as being genocide if we are dependent upon awaiting the outcome of an international court decision or international consensus. There will not be any international court decision in respect of this. Notwithstanding that, there are significant commentaries from journalists and contemporary observers of the genocide who have written tracts on the evidence of it. That needs to be taken into account by the Government.
We regularly review this issue. It might be helpful to outline why it is a difficult question to answer. In December 1948, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide described genocide as carrying out acts intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The dispute about whether these events were genocide centres on the question of premeditation - on the degree to which the killings were orchestrated. Some histories believe that in this case they were but there are many who offer the other argument also. The 1948 UN Convention sets out a clear definition of genocide and the legal process to be followed if disputes arise. There has been no ruling in regard to this matter by an international court and neither the EU nor the UN has recognised these events as genocide. In the absence of such a ruling, the Government does not feel Ireland is in a position to determine whether these events were genocide.
I thank the Minister. I hear what he is saying. Six million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis in the Second World War and the latter half of the 20th century witnessed further genocidal campaigns in places such as Cambodia, East Timor, Bosnia and Rwanda. It is important that we learn from the past to ensure that genocide is called out as it is and that we try to ensure that acts of genocide will not happen in the future. I call on the Minister to look at the issue again, follow the lead of America and 30 other nations that have done the same, including 16 European nations, do the right thing and take the lead. We have a position on the UN Security Council and it would be a poignant important step to take to recognise it as it is.
When President Biden was making his statement on 24 April, he said the reason American policy had changed was not for the purpose of trying to cast blame but in order to ensure this would not happen again.
We need to recognise that regrettably, there will be efforts at genocide again in this century as there were in the last century. The purpose here is not to try to hold any country to account. In fairness, there is no country today that represents the Ottoman Empire of the past and nobody is suggesting that a country should be held liable. However, if acts of genocide happened in the previous century, no matter how far back, it is important that we as a State face up to our responsibility to assess it and figure out whether it was genocide. We should look at it again. If we are going to just leave it there and say that we will not come back to it until there is a ruling by an international court, we are not going to face up to the fact that this is an injustice that needs to be responded to, notwithstanding its antiquity.
I would make the point that we call out international crime for what it is for the same reason we call out domestic crime for what it is. It is not just to punish or as an act of retribution but also to deter its recurrence. We should recall that in the week before Poland was invaded in 1939, the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler said "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" These things recur until they are dealt with, which buttresses the points made by the previous speakers. It is also relevant to what is happening in China, of course.
My Department examines this question on a regular basis. What we see from the available data is that there continues to be no consensus and little clarity on this. The tragedy of the Armenian people was recognised as genocide by parliaments of over 20 countries, including 16 EU member state legislatures and by the European Parliament but recognition at the level of government amounts to a much smaller number. As I mentioned in my reply, the Department's briefing notes on this are simply about trying to be consistent. When we are assessing something as serious as genocide at an international level, we have to apply a methodology in terms of how we make that assessment. That methodology at the moment is based on Ireland following a practice of recognising genocide only where it has been established by a judgment of an international court or where there is international consensus on the matter. That said, I take on board what members have said.
Question No. 57 replied to with Written Answers.
Northern Ireland
Brendan Smith
Question:58. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the outcome of discussions he had with members of the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government on the need to implement the Stormont House and the Fresh Start agreements in full. [1573/21]
Peadar Tóibín
Question:73. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the status of the implementation of the legacy provisions of the Stormont House Agreement. [39931/20]
The Stormont House and Fresh Start agreements need to be implemented to deal with legacy issues. I welcome the coroner's report today on the Ballymurphy massacre. A sense of relief was so evident as I listened this evening to the families of those innocent people who were murdered by state forces. The anguish and suffering those families were put through as a result of the heinous crimes committed by the British army was horrific. Unfortunately there are many other families still grieving the loss of a loved one who have not gotten the truth and in some instances, they have been subjected to appalling lies and smears. Legacy issues must be dealt with.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 58 and 73 together.
The position of the Government with respect to the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland has been clear and consistent for a number of years now. The Stormont House Agreement framework was reached collectively by both Governments and the political parties after intensive negotiations. To be completely accurate, the UUP did not support it but the other parties did. It is vital that we make progress on this for the victims and families who have been waiting for so long and for society as a whole, as we seek to build deeper reconciliation. The Government has continued to engage on this issue since the Stormont House Agreement was reached in 2014 and to work for that important progress. We want to see the agreement implemented.
In March of last year, the UK Government issued a written ministerial statement that proposed to significantly depart from the Stormont House Agreement. Since then, I have spoken regularly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to express our strong concerns and to reiterate the importance of a collective approach consistent with the Stormont House Agreement, and one which is compliant with international human rights obligations. I reaffirmed those critical principles to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when we met last week in Dublin and strongly advised him against any unilateral action on these very sensitive issues.
Media reports last week of possible plans to introduce a statute of limitations have caused significant upset, shock and concern in Northern Ireland. In my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have met with many victims and survivors from both communities. I know how hurt they are at the idea of being denied a route to pursue justice on behalf of their loved ones.
As per the Stormont House Agreement framework, there is a need to take a comprehensive view of how to achieve progress and reconciliation for society as a whole but the needs of victims and families must be at the heart of the process.
I join Deputy Smith in welcoming the report released today on the Ballymurphy massacre. I have had the privilege of meeting the families who have been involved in decades of campaigning for justice. Today's ruling was hugely significant and important, making it absolutely clear that none of the ten people killed over that three-day period nearly 50 years ago was guilty of anything. They should not have been killed in the way they were.
I thank the Minister for his response. I remember meeting the Ballymurphy families in the Dáil in 2014. If memory serves me, a motion was passed unanimously in the House in 2015 in support of the families. I very much welcome and do not doubt the Government's commitment to dealing with legacy issues but the British Government must be equally committed, which has not been the case so far, unfortunately. The Minister used the phrases "strong concern" and "critical principles" and referred to the unacceptability of unilateral action by the British Government. I am glad that the Minister has reiterated those comments in the House this evening; it is extremely important. I mentioned that there was an agreed motion on the Ballymurphy massacre and he will recall that there were also agreed motions on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 2008, 2011 and 2016. In those motions we called on the British Government to give an independent legal expert access to papers relevant to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Sadly, the British Government has not responded to the request of a sovereign parliament. We must pursue that vigorously again because we will soon reach the 47th anniversary of those terrible atrocities.
On Ballymurphy, the significance of the report that was released today should not be underestimated. This happened over a three-day period almost five decades ago. The families involved are representative of many families across Northern Ireland from different backgrounds and communities who have been tortured for decades because they have not been believed, understood or listened to and they have not managed to establish the truth. In order for reconciliation to be as powerful as it needs to be in the context of Northern Ireland and its future, we must ensure that we have a structured system that can establish the truth where possible and pursue justice, where possible. Many victims' families recognise that the pursuit of justice in a court may not be possible in many cases but they certainly want that opportunity. That is what the Stormont House Agreement delivers and we will continue to support that.
I agree with the Minister. I know families who have lost loved ones and who have never gotten justice. They have never gotten the truth regarding who carried out the atrocities. In December 1972 in my own home area of Belturbet, County Cavan, two young teenagers, Geraldine O'Reilly and Patrick Stanley, were killed by a bomb. RTÉ will broadcast a programme tonight about the bombing of Belturbet. Last year I brought information to this House that had been passed to me by senior academics from the University of Nottingham. Their research showed clearly that there was collusion with state forces in Northern Ireland regarding the transport of that bomb from County Fermanagh into County Cavan on that tragic night. The Minister for Justice is pursuing that matter with the northern authorities at my request.
In every opportunity the Minister has to meet with members of the British Government, and when working with members of the Northern Ireland Executive, it is absolutely important that it is emphasised that we must get the truth. These families have said to me that they are getting older and that they need to get the truth as soon as possible.
For legacy to work, the approach must be built on consensus. That is the real challenge here for politicians to deliver. We must work closely with the British Government and work with all parties in Northern Ireland, so that we can bring all the communities in Northern Ireland with us. If we are going to establish the truth, people will have to come forward and speak about things which they may not have spoken about for decades. We will have to ensure PSNI files are made available. We will have to do our part on this side of the Border also. We have passed legislation to allow members of An Garda Síochána to contribute to inquests in Northern Ireland, which is legally a different jurisdiction.
Both Governments must work together to deliver a structure that can manage the legacy of the past in a way that contributes positively to reconciliation in the future. That is why I have been so direct in saying that neither Government should take unilateral action. We must work through this together. Most importantly, we must bring along political parties in Northern Ireland and victims’ groups and their families have to be at the heart of everything we do, first and foremost. No other issues should be prioritised over those objectives.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.