Policy in Cambodia: Motion.

Mr. Lanigan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann —

(1) Concerned to ensure that the Cambodian people are given the right to self-determination through participation in free and fair elections in peaceful conditions.

(2) Concerned at the continuation of civil conflict in Cambodia.

(3) Noting the efforts that have been made at international level to bring about a peaceful settlement in Cambodia.

(4) Urges the Government to make every effort to:

(a) bring an end to the civil strife in Cambodia,

(b) ensure the non-return to power of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime, which has been guilty of heinous crimes against the people of Cambodia,

(c) encourage the resumption of international efforts aimed at creating the conditions under which the Cambodian people can exercise their right to self-determination through participation in free and internationally-supervised elections.

I call on the Minister to make a statement on this matter.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

First, let me thank the Seanad for giving me this opportunity to outline the Government's position on the motion before us. The issues raised in the motion are serious ones, which are of deep concern to the Government. The Government fully realise the depth of feeling on the subject of Cambodia among Members of this House and of many ordinary Irish people. The Seanad's concern that Ireland be seen to behave honourably, and in accordance with the principles that Ireland stands for in the world, is laudable.

Let me first set out some of the fundamental principles that Ireland — as a small, democratic country — upholds in the international community. I am sure Senators will agree that first among these principles is the right of every nation to self-determination. A first requirement of this principle is that a country be rid of foreign invaders. A second principle is that a country, once independent, should be allowed to live in peace and to run its affairs without outside interference. In supporting these two principles, we are part of an international consensus because the Charter of the United Nations spells out clearly the right of every people to self-determination and clearly rejects interference in a country's internal affairs.

There are other principles which, though not shared by all the countries of the world, Ireland upholds as a modern parliamentary democracy. First among these is the principle that the rulers of a country should be chosen by the people in free and open elections. Second is that universal and fundamental human rights — above all, the most basic right to life — are a matter of legitimate international concern, and an exception to the general rule of non-interference in a country's internal affairs. Having outlined these general principles which we uphold, let me now explain how we have applied them in the tragic case of Cambodia.

Cambodia is a small country with a larger and more powerful neighbour, Vietnam. It obtained its independence from France in 1953, and from then until 1970 was governed by Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who combined the functions of monarch and head of government. Arising from the upheaval in the region caused by the Vietnam war, Prince Sihanouk was ousted by Lon Nol in 1970. Lon Nol was in turn ousted by the Khmer Rouge in 1975, following a lengthy guerilla campaign against his US-backed administration. Prince Sihanouk was briefly restored to power but was later ousted by the Khmer Rouge. As we all now know — but, sadly, did not know at the time — the Khmer Rouge, in the name of a fanatically distorted ideology, engaged in a programme of mass collectivisation and population dislocation, using methods so indescribably brutal that over a million Cambodians died. Among the many victims were close family members of Prince Sihanouk.

Border clashes between Cambodia and its larger neighbour, Vietnam, culminated in Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia early in 1979, the ousting of the Khmer Rouge, and the installation of a government, first led by Heng Samrin, and subsequently by the current incumbent, Hun Sen, both of them former Khmer Rouge commanders.

In this very brief account of the recent history of this tragic country, the issue that I am sure Senators are most disturbed about — and I fully share this concern — is the massive and flagrant violations of human rights which took place under the Pol Pot régime. Sadly, it was only after the Vietnamese invasion — itself a violation of a fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter — that the full horror of the Pol Pot "Killing Fields" were revealed to a shocked world. Unfortunately, we were also up against the "non-interference" doctrine which despotic governments continue to use to avoid international scrutiny of their human rights records.

Applying the principles I outlined earlier to the present situation in Cambodia, the Government firmly believe that a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement must be based on the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cambodia. It must include the withdrawal of all foreign forces under United Nations supervision. We also insist on the absolute right of the Cambodian people to determine their own destiny free from outside interference. The exercise of this right must find expression in the holding of internationally-supervised, free and fair elections. And, of course, any settlement must ensure that the people of Cambodia are never again subjected to the inhuman barbarities which they suffered under the Pol Pot régime.

The Government have been deeply concerned at the recent intensification of hostilities in Cambodia in the wake of the announced Vietnamese withdrawal of troops. I say "announced withdrawal" since, unfortunately, the withdrawal was not effected under the supervision of the United Nations, which has given rise to controversy regarding the extent of the withdrawal. It is regrettable that the Hun Sen Government and Vietnam did not agree to UN supervision of the troop withdrawals — if they had, doubts on this issue would not be entertained. We have been particularly concerned by the reported successes of the Khmer Rouge forces on the ground, since a central plank of our policy on Cambodia has always been that everything must be done to prevent the return to power of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime which is guilty of so many terrible crimes against its own people.

Let me now address a question which — as I know from comments made by Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and by private representation to me — has been seriously misunderstood. This is the issue of the representation of Cambodia at the current session of the General Assembly. I repeat again here — as I stated in the Dáil on 2 November and as the Minister repeated in the Dáil on 14 November — that the issue of the representation of Cambodia at the General Assembly is not due to be voted on during the current session of the Assembly. In the past, this issue has been raised in the form of a challenge to the credentials of the delegation of the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea. Such a challenge has not been made at the current session of the General Assembly. The assembly decided on 17 October last — without a vote — to accept the credentials of all delegations, including those of the delegation of the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea. This issue is therefore closed for this session of the General Assembly. It will in no way be affected by the outcome of the vote on the resolution on the situation in Cambodia, which is to take place later today in New York.

Whenever the credentials of the Cambodian delegation have been challenged in the past, Ireland — in accordance with the general principles I outlined earlier — has abstained in the vote, on the grounds that neither the Democratic Kampuchea coalition, nor the government of Mr. Hun Sen in Phnom Penh, has received any form of endorsement from the people of Cambodia. The last time that such a challenge was mounted was in 1982, when Ireland was one of the minority in the Assembly who did not vote in favour of the credentials of the delegation of Democratic Kampuchea. It is our sincere hope — and I know that I speak also for all parties in both Houses of the Oireachtas — that, at the next session of the General Assembly, the Cambodian seat will be held by a delegation which truly represents the people of Cambodia, following the exercise by them of their right to self-determination through participation in free and fair elections.

The issue that the General Assembly is facing is the general situation in Cambodia and especially the urgent need for a settlement to the conflict. The Assembly has been debating the question of Cambodia since yesterday. It is due to complete its consideration of the question later today, with a vote on a resolution which will set out the Assembly's view of the situation. I have already arranged to circulate a copy of the resolution, which has been tabled by the ASEAN countries, with the co-sponsorship of 75 countries — about half the membership of the United Nations. I hope that Senators will have had an opportunity to examine it, particularly its operative paragraphs. I should add that our delegation to the United Nations has been actively involved in efforts to persuade the ASEAN countries to table a resolution which would embody the fundamental principles for which Ireland stands, as well as being even-handed in its presentation.

The draft resolution of the situation in Cambodia has been carefully examined to ascertain the extent to which the fundamental principles espoused by Ireland have been included in the text. I hope Senators will share my view that the draft resolution contains all of the points which Ireland should regard as fundamental, notably: withdrawal of all foreign forces under UN supervision; restoration and preservation of the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral status of Cambodia; the right of the Cambodian people to determine their own future through internationally-supervised free and fair elections and the incompatibility of a return of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime with the achievement of lasting peace in Cambodia.

As a result of the inclusion of these fundamental points in the draft resolution, our delegation at the United Nations will vote in favour of it when the voting scheduled for later today takes place. However, our ambassador has been instructed not to co-sponsor the resolution — despite having co-sponsored the corresponding resolutions in previous years — because there are some points in the draft resolution with which we are not entirely satisfied. For example, we would have preferred a stronger emphasis on the need for an immediate ceasefire and a return by all parties to the negotiating table. We also believe that the references to the non-return of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime could be more explicit. Therefore, in voting in favour of the draft resolution, our ambassador will deliver a statement in explanation of Ireland's vote, which will state clearly the fundamental principles on which our policy is based and which will particularly emphasise our total opposition to a return to power of the genocidal Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime.

The occupation of Cambodia by foreign forces was a fundamental stumbling block to progress towards a settlement, as well as being a transgression of one of the basic principles of the United Nations Charter which Ireland fully supports. The Government consider that the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces provides a valuable opportunity to move towards a comprehensive political settlement. We therefore strongly urge an immediate end to hostilities by all sides in Cambodia, as well as an end to all foreign military aid to the parties to the conflict. Our delegation at the United Nations has already made a plea at the General Assembly, as recently as last month, that all sides to the conflict resist the temptation to seek to advance their objectives by force of arms and instead devote themselves to the search for a solution by peaceful means. Our ambassador will repeat this in the course of the debate on the situation in Cambodia later today.

The window of opportunity provided by the Vietnamese withdrawal must not be allowed to be closed by the forces of intransigence. The Government believe that the recent international conference on Cambodia held in Paris in August, under the chairmanship of France and Indonesia, managed to make worthwhile progress towards a settlement. The conference had to be suspended before a number of important issues could be resolved. It is now time to resume the conference and tackle these issues in a spirit of flexibility and compromise.

It is the Government's sincere wish that the suffering of the people of Cambodia be finally brought to an end and that they be given the opportunity to put the past behind them and to elect a government which can lead the country on the difficult path to national reconstruction. To achieve this aim, the international community must prevent a return to power of the discredited and barbarous Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime but it must also assist the government of the new Cambodia, which we hope will be elected in the near future, in the major task of recovery and development which faces it.

As the Minister announced in the Dáil on 14 November, the Government have decided to make available the sum of £50,000 for emergency humanitarian relief inside Cambodia. While such emergency relief is the immediate priority, we hope that, when peace has finally been restored in Cambodia, the international community will join in assisting the democratically-elected government in the massive task of reconstruction which they face. I can assure Senators that Ireland will fully support such an international effort to assist the people of this small and long-suffering country. Because, in the final analysis. we must remember that, in this case it is the Cambodian people who matter to us in Ireland.

In conclusion, may I again thank the Members of the Seanad for their interest in this vital issue and to say that the Government fully endorse the motion that is before us. I hope all Senators will unite around this motion which expresses the deep feelings of all of us on the tragic situation in Cambodia.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Hussey)

Does the Leader of the House have a statement to make?

Mr. Lanigan

Yes, it has been agreed between the Whips that 15 minutes will be the maximum time allowed to each speaker in this debate.

Mrs. Doyle

I was delighted with the news brought to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges by Senator Michael Lanigan, the Leader of the House, concerning the pairing arrangements for Ministers on business here. It is an enormous contribution to the efficient running of this most important Assembly and we welcome it heartily. I would like to thank both the Leader of the House and, through the Leader of the Opposition here, the Fine Gael Whip in the Dáil, Deputy Higgins, who co-operated 100 per cent with our suggestion that this should be the case.

I would also like to thank the Minister of State here present this morning, and through him the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for forwarding us a copy of the statement that will be made today explaining our voting position in the UN Assembly later on today in New York. We will be commenting on that and perhaps our views will be slightly different from those of the Minister but I thank him for his courtesy. It certainly makes this debate more relevant when we know exactly what is being said on behalf of all of us in the UN Assembly today. It is another sign of efficiency and it is the way I believe this House should be treated. I thank the Minister, and also for his very considerable contribution this morning on this issue.

The motion before us today is an extremely important one. I do not believe any words from us on any side of this House this morning heaped upon this issue will really do justice to what is a most complex situation in the small country of Cambodia. The whole issue of the advancement of the democratic procedures in Cambodia and the right of those peoples to self-determination really demands a national response from us in the Houses of the Oireachtas rather than a party political response of any kind. It underlines the urgent need for an all-party Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs.

There have been differing views within parties as well as among parties in relation to our stance, how we will vote today and the way this matter has been handled. If we could set up an all-party Oireachtas committee on Foreign Affairs, that would be the forum for all of us, no matter from what political stance we approached this issue, to thrash it out and come to a national view as to what our representatives and ambassadors and what the Community should be doing and should be saying in relation to the whole Cambodian issue.

At the outset I make a plea that Senators from all sides support the case for an all-party Oireachtas committee on Foreign Affairs, and let us use that as our forum to debate our views and to come to an unanimous view in terms not only of the issue of Cambodia but the many other complex issues in the foreign affairs field which will be coming before us and which I feel we should approach from a national perspective rather than a party political perspective as far as Ireland is concerned. We will not do much justice to the complex Cambodian situation but we must try to influence the outcome of the vote later on today in New York at the UN General Assembly, as best we can.

As we talk, the UN is preparing to debate yet again today this issue. At the end of that debate there will be a vote by the General Assembly on a draft resolution tabled by the ASEAN countries, as the Minister has pointed out to us. The Minister detailed the main points of that resolution. As far as it goes we would appear to be able to support the points as he pointed out. However, it is rather startling that, notwithstanding the points in the motion that will be before the UN Assembly today, a Save Cambodia press conference issued a different statement on 3 November last. That press conference was representative of TDs from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, The Workers' Party, the Labour Party and there were probably some Independents represented also and it also represented the views of Oxfam, Trócaire, Christian Aid and individual academics. Their views differ considerably from those of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and indeed the news of the Minister of State's views expressed this morning in relation to the motion that will be voted on later today. We have a very representative view of Oireachtas Members and notable people outside the Houses who feel that we should not support the motion today. Yet, the Minister is pleading with us to understand the reasons why we are supporting it. Having said we are supporting it, we perhaps heap more confusion when we say: "We are supporting it but we must make a statement of explanation in case we are misunderstood". The Minister for Foreign Affairs circulated that statement of explanation last night.

The views of the all-party press conference on 3 November last was that this motion must be rejected by Ireland, as it is, in fact, allowing support for the Prince Sihanouk led force which speakers in the other House referred to as "a puppet for the Khmer Rouge". We have used that expression before. The benefit of a Foreign Affairs committee must be obvious, with such different views as to what is in the best interest of this small country. Cambodia is a country that has endured much suffering, and we must ensure, above all else, that whatever we say or do will help to bring about an end to the civil strife and the non-return to power of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge régime, to allow the Cambodian people the right to exercise their own self-determination and, as the Minister said today "to get on with living their lives in peace, free from outside interference". So say all of us. Ultimately that is the whole objective.

The Minister referred to UN recognition of the present Cambodian coalition which will not come before the UN General Assembly today or in the immediate future. Perhaps we could ask the Minister for assurances — I refer to his speech this morning — that the Irish delegation will initiate a challenge at the next session of the UN Assembly in relation to the right of these people to be seated at the UN. The Minister said: "The issue of representation of Cambodia at the General Assembly is not due to be voted on". We accept that now. He also said: "In the past this issue has been raised in the form of a challenge to the credentials of the delegation of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea".

I accept that this challenge has not been made. It was not made on 17 October and perhaps the Minister could explain to us why Ireland did not challenge these credentials on 17 October? Can he give us assurances today that before the next full meeting of the General Assembly, Ireland will initiate such a challenge if, in the meantime, we have not got absolute evidence and assurances that the Cambodian people are on the road to self-determination through free and fair elections? Can the Minister give us an assurance that that is the Irish view and that between now and the next meeting of the UN General Assembly that is how the Irish delegates will behave? That is the view of the Irish people. We accept that today it will not arise.

One of the points in the motion to be voted on today is the withdrawal of all foreign forces under UN supervision. That has not happened. The coalition refused to allow UN supervision for the withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces in September. Already, they are not holding to the four points that are before us today. It is inexplicable that before 17 October there was not a challenge to the credentials, to use the Minister's words, of the Cambodian delegation of the UN when they have failed to comply with the first item on the motion that will be voted on today. Yet, we will be supporting a motion today, albeit with our explanatory statement, and one of the first issues on that motion is the withdrawal of all foreign forces under UN supervision. The Cambodians did not allow UN supervision of the withdrawal of the Vietnamese, so how can we support this motion today? The very first issue here should be thrown out of court and should be reason enough for us to reject the motion today, notwithstanding our explanatory statement, which I accept and welcome.

We should not be supporting the motion today. Other countries such as Sweden will not be supporting it. I welcome the French ambassador's reported statement to the UN yesterday, as reported in our media today, on behalf of the EC Community, when he pointed out the absolute necessity to ensure the non-return to power of a Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge regime under any guise. The Minister said that Ireland was not satisfied that the motion was strong enough in its emphasis "on the need for an immediate ceasefire and a return by all parties to the negotiating table". Of course, the motion is not strong enough on that. We should not be supporting the motion. We should not be voting for it on the one hand and then rushing in with an explanatory memo as to why we voted, knowing full well that our support of the motion will give rise to enormous international misunderstanding and confusion.

It has been suggested, and it is worthy of serious consideration, that only the State of Cambodia should be seated at the UN at the moment pending free and fair elections, if we have to wait any length of time for them. Perhaps both sides could have UN observer status and leave the seat vacant for the moment? That seat which should represent all the Cambodian people, it should represent their democratically elected Government, and it should be occupied only by a delegation following properly run democratic elections. It brings into disrepute the whole principle of the UN General Assembly to have the representation that is there at the moment from the coalition in Cambodia. The delegation are sitting at the UN General Assembly representing a government who have refused to allow UN observation of the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops in their own country. What are they afraid of? What have they got to hide?

Apart from differences of opinion in this country — they are not party political differences, they are within as well as between parties, highlighting again our urgent need for a foreign affairs committee — there are also differences of opinion in relation to the outcome of the Cambodian Peace Conference in Paris in August. The Minister gave the impression in his speech this morning that it was a relatively successful conference. Oxfam consider it to have been a failure. A statement from Oxfam dated 3 November 1989, said they were concerned because of the failure of the Cambodian Peace Conference in Paris in August. The Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Dáil on 14 November said it managed to make worthwhile progress towards a settlement. That is an enormous divergence of view within our small country as to the contribution of the Cambodian Peace Conference last August.

We cannot seem to agree on what is our best stance on this whole vital issue. We talk about democratic elections, the atrocities that have happened and the niceties as to whether they should be seated at the moment at the UN General Assembly but the bottom line is we are talking about the most fundamental human right of all for the Cambodian People, the right to life. We cannot fool around herewith words. We cannot bounce political views off one another, we cannot refer to niceties and explanatory memos as to why we do this and that. We cannot do any of this without understanding that we are basically talking about the right to life of the Cambodian people with their tragic history of suffering in the immediate past.

I agree that the Cambodian Peace Conference should be reconvened as soon as possible. Perhaps the Minister could indicate to us what moves are afoot if any, in relation to it? It has been suggested in other fora that this should be done, that this may be done or that this will be done. I am not quite sure of the strength of the verb used. Could the Minister tell us if it will be done and, if so, when?

I welcome the Minister here today and I welcome his comprehensive statement. I disagree still with the stance we will be taking on the ASEAN motion today and I have given my reasons. I do not think we can be in a position to vote for a motion on the one hand and, on the other hand, feel we have to stand up with a rather detailed explanation as to why we did what we did lest there be any international misunderstanding. I would much rather we had the courage of our convictions and voted against this motion today no matter what international economic niceties, delicacies or toes might have been stood on. If we do not do this today, can the Minister assure me that, as I requested at the outset, the Irish delegation to the UN will initiate a challenge before the next session of the General Assembly to ensure that we do not have misrepresentation of the Cambodian people at the UN, which is effectively what we have today, when the delegates there are not representing all the people of Cambodia and do not represent the State of Cambodia, only a nondemocratic Khmer Rouge-led régime with Prince Sihanouk as the puppet-head coalition at the moment.

Professor Conroy

I would like to welcome this all-party motion. I would also like to welcome the Minister to the House. It is very good that we are having this debate before the vote takes place at the United Nations. I would like to agree with some of the points which Senator Avril Doyle has made. Unfortunately, if one were to follow Senator Doyle and some of her points there might perhaps not be quite so many nations represented at the United Nations. It is not a requirement in the United Nations that the regime represented there be a democratically elected regime. The People's Republic of China and many others are rightly represented at the United Nations and they are far from being democracies. It is not either a requirement for representation at the United Nations that the regime should behave towards its citizens in a civilised manner.

Sadly, we have had, and still have, many regimes at the United Nations who torture their citizens, who commit genocide against their citizens and Cambodia is perhaps a particularly flagrant, barbaric, horrific and obscene example. Nonetheless under the rules of the United Nations it is just as entitled as many other states to be represented there. The query really arises as to whether the regime, ousted by invasion by another totally non-democratic group, should be unseated and that other regime installed with probably as little or even less validity than the previous one. Indeed, the leaders of the present regime are ex-members of the Khmer Rouge. It is not just as simple as Senator Doyle is suggesting.

Cambodia is a very ancient state indeed. The Minister has mentioned some of its history. I have been in south-east Asia, I have been on the Cambodian border, but I have never been into Cambodia. It is, by all accounts, a very beautiful country. I have met many Cambodians and despite the atrocities that have occurred there, those people I have met were very pleasant and by all accounts were nice people who, throughout most of their history, lived a very peaceful existence, had a very prosperous and very beautiful and, by the standards of that particular area, a relatively civilised and advanced existence. Cambodia was dragged into the Vietnam war almost by accident. The Vietnamese were using Cambodian territory as a way of supplying their troops in South Vietnam. The United States moved in to prevent this and indeed had been bombing Cambodia and killing many civilians there for a long time before they actually moved in. Cambodia became involved in a situation, which still exists, of being torn between big power pretensions. Let us be clear about this. I do not think it has been mentioned so far, not even in the Minister's speech, although he has implied it that the Khmer Rouge is not some sort of isolated group. It is a left wing Communist, Marxist organisation openly supported by the largest country in the world, the self-same People's Republic of China who do not apologise for that support. They openly support the Khmer Rouge.

The Vietnamese who invaded Cambodia, on the other hand, were supported by the Soviet Union and as the United States were on a period of friendship with China or anti-Soviet union policy one finds the situation is that the United States effectively has also been supporting the Khmer Rouge. We may find this appalling but we are here as are the unfortunate Cambodian people, right in the middle of big power politics with very little, whatever they may protest, real concern for those unfortunates who happen to get in their way. It is not at all a simple situation. Even in terms of local South-East Asian politics it is not such a clear-cut situation. Perhaps some speakers here in the Oireachtas, and people in the media, have tended, very understandably, because of our horror at what has happened in Cambodia, to underestimate the complexities of the situation even in South-East Asia.

Thailand, the one and only country in South-East Asia which is not and never was an ex-colonial country — it managed somehow or other to maintain its independence — for very good reasons has given support and succour to this same Khmer Rouge because of the fear of the military might of Vietnam which is the fourth or fifth largest military power in the world, even though it may seem a relatively small country. The other ASEAN countries which are referred to here also have their grave reservations about Russian backed Vietnam countries like Malaysia. The Philippines are trying desperately to pull themselves out of the morass left by President Marcos and they have the gravest reservations about attempting to suggest that a simple condemnation of the Khmer Rouge — and then we walk away from it — will solve the situation. The unfortunate reality is that the Khmer Rouge are a large, highly disciplined and extremely effective military group who, if we cannot find some compromise solution, will take over Cambodia again. That will be the reality of it. We may be very happy at having passed resolutions saying we will refuse to recognise them, that we condemn them, and so on, but effectively we will not have done very much to moderate or reduce the likely return of the sort of genocidal brutality which they previously exercised. There is a very slender hope, but a hope nonetheless, in Prince Sihanouk.

We are talking here about the horrors of the Khmer Rouge and in these particular terms, as a medical man, I think of what they did in the hospitals when they took over in Phnom Penh. They turned all the people out of the hospitals irrespective of their condition, whether they had been operated on that morning or whether they were dying. No matter what their condition they were just forcibly removed from the hospitals. The relations, if they could, tried to carry them and many of them died literally as they were being carried out of the hospitals, an appalling situation. Sons and daughters of anyone, not just prominent people, who had, for example, a university education, or even third level education of any sort, were executed, usually in a very barbarous manner. Prince Sihanouk, as the Minister mentioned, lost several members of his family. He has no love for the Khmer Rouge but he, nonetheless, in an attempt, however slender, to bring peace to his country has entered into what is effectively a coalition with the Khmer Rouge.

I greatly sympathise with the idea that we should simply go into the United Nations and condemn this horrific regime, but if one stands back for a moment and thinks, as Senator Doyle rightly said, and as the Minister said, that really we are concerned about the people of Cambodia, these very nice and lovely people who have gone through these horrors, then perhaps we have to take a more difficult attitude but nonetheless an attitude in which we hope somehow or other to play some small part in actually giving them a chance of that peaceful existence that we would like them to have.

I agree with the Minister. I do not think this United Nations resolution is sufficiently strong but I do not think we should vote against it. With regard to the withdrawal of all foreign forces under United Nations supervision, this is a fundamental point of Irish policy right down the years from when we first joined the United Nations. If we come away from that now, we are certainly entering into a very new, very difficult and very dangerous situation.

It is true, however, that the full horrors of the Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot and his henchmen were not revealed until the invasion of Cambodia by the Vietnamese took place. A similar situation existed in Europe in the Second World War. The sheer horrors of the concentration camps, the executions and tortures were not revealed until after the invasion. Only today are we beginning to realise that in the Soviet Union even greater horrors were taking place.

I cannot see an Irish Government voting at the United Nations against a resolution for the withdrawal of all foreign forces. It will be difficult for us to vote against the restoration and preservation of independent sovereignty, territorial integrity and the neutral status of Cambodia. I wish we had territorial integrity for this country. Another point in the resolution is the right of the Cambodian people to determine their own future through internationally supervised, free and fair elections. We have just succeeded in Namibia in what seemed at first a totally intractable situation in playing a part in ensuring free elections which have now occurred. Is it too much to hope that we will somehow or other manage the same in Cambodia?

The difficulty is in the last part of that resolution, the incompatibility of a return of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime with the achievement of lasting peace in Cambodia. Passing resolutions against the Khmer Rouge will not make one whit of difference in a positive sense regarding that. The only possible way in which we can hope for anything is by trying to bring together all the other groups there. Prince Sihanouk has shown great personal courage and sacrifice in joining, in an effort to find peace, the ASEAN countries who are very anxious to see a return to peace in the whole South-East Asia region. Now, we have the removal of the expansionist Soviet threat, a much chastened Vietnam and a China, which, unfortunately, seems determined to revert to its previous horrific attitude towards its own people and still be imperialist in the region, but which nonetheless, is showing obvious signs of change.

It is up to our delegation to vote for this resolution but to make it clear that we would like to see it even stronger. It would be irresponsible of us to vote against it.

Mr. B. Ryan

With the permission of the Chair, I propose to share my 15 minutes with my colleague, Senator Norris. I appreciate that international politics put pressures on governments that people like myself do not have to deal with. I know the Minister of State very well by now and I know that nobody would dispute his considerable concern and desire to do what is right and good on many issues of international politics.

Let us reflect briefly, and I do not think it will take a lot of time, on the realities. The first reality is that the Khmer Rouge were perhaps the greatest genocidal regime since Hitler. They rank with, perhaps, Hitler and Stalin. One thing needs to be said about that, namely, that I resent the way news management seems to operate when the main morning news on RTE this morning talked about the alleged massacres of the Khmer Rouge. Can one imagine the outrage there would be if RTE said, "the alleged massacres of Hitler"? Who manipulates news to even cast the slightest doubt? They are not alleged. We have all seen to our horror the piles of skulls all over Cambodia that are the consequence of this mass murderous regime.

The second thing that needs to be said is that while we posture about non-interference and the will of the people of Cambodia we are actually telling them who their leader is going to be in that resolution. The resolution specifically refers to the Cambodian people under the leadership of Samdoch Norodom Sihanouk. We cannot carry on with these postures. We are actually not saying to them, "you must choose freely". We are saying, "we are telling you who you will be led by and after that you can decide what you like but we are giving you a leader". He happens to be a person with no army, no influence and no power. He happened to be a despot himself 20 years ago but has actually found a use for himself and been found useful to camouflage the real power in so-called democratic Kampuchea which is the Khmer Rouge and which still is Pol Pot.

No amount of rhetoric and no amount of verbal niceties can get away from that. The subsequent reality that follows directly from that is that it is ten years since the Khmer Rouge were driven out of Cambodia by the army of Vietnam. I have always watched with amazement the two standards of the western world which stood up and cheered when Tanzania invaded Uganda and drove out Idi Amin and then stood up and deplored the action of the Vietnamese army in driving out a regime that was incredibly and enormously more offensive than Idi Amin's dangerous and maniac regime, a regime which killed a huge proportion of its own people and which destroyed the economy of its own country. Yet, because we all liked and the international community approved of Julius Nyerere, we saw the moral worth of what he did but when a Government that had the misfortune to have defeated the greatest military power in the world in a war did the same thing in Cambodia we struck moral positions about armed intervention and about the sovereignty of individual countries.

Mr. O'Toole

Because the Yanks did not know when they were beaten.

Mr. B. Ryan

What needs to go on the record is that the problem that the misfortunate Cambodian people have is the same problem that the misfortunate people of Vietnam face. It is an unfortunate fact that they are allied to and linked to a country which beat the United States in war. The United States will not forgive them and has spent 20 years getting its own back on the people of Vietnam for that fact. That is the most profound moral disgrace of the whole issue that we, and other western democracies, should allow ourselves to be seduced into striking what we pretend is a moral position, but which is nothing more than the continuing attempt of the United States to gain retribution against the one small country that beat it in a war. It is morally reprehensible.

It is a fact that there would be no Khmer Rouge in existence today if the United States and China had not kept it in existence. It had no physical, moral or political base. It had no money and very little weaponry when it was driven out ten years ago. China and the United States, with the connivance of other countries including ourselves, have rebuilt, reequipped, reformed, rearmed and put together again what was a dead, discredited, murderous regime. It is on our consciences if that regime comes back.

I raised the issue of our recognition of Pol Pot eight years ago in this House and at that stage no member of the then Government, which had a Fine Gael Minister for Foreign Affairs, was prepared to even contemplate the barbarity of what we were doing. We have had ten years to realise what is going on. Let it be said that it was Vietnam who told us the truth about Pol Pot. It was Vietnam who told us the truth about the Khmer Rouge. I cannot understand the moral position of our Government, given as I said, the hypocrisy of this motion deploring foreign armed intervention and occupation in Kampuchea which is the cause of continuing hostilities. The cause of the problem in Kampuchea today is the Khmer Rouge, not foreign intervention. The motion recognised that the assistance extended by the international community has continued to reduce the food shortages and health problems of the Kampuchean people.

All the UN aid is not going to the people of Campuchea but to the refugee camps. It is actually bankrolling the Khmer Rouge army.

A motion which contains that level of hypocrisy, deceit and double-talk does not deserve the support of the Irish Government. The very least we can do, given our attempt to strike a position of some consistency and of some morality, is to abstain on the motion. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to realise how outraged Irish public opinion is on this matter. There is no doubt that Irish public opinion is outraged that we would in any way contaminate ourselves by any type of implicit support for that most barbarous regime. Therefore, the very least we should do now is abstain on that motion because by voting for it we are conniving in a total fabrication of the rewriting of the history of the past 20 years.

The fundamental problem is that the people of Cambodia are absolutely petrified that the murderous, barbarous regime of Khmer Rouge will land back on them. If it does they will know who did it, China and the United States, with our connivance.

Mr. Norris

I should like to say how grateful I am to Senator Ryan for giving me these few minutes. I concur with what has been said and I have a practical suggestion to make to the Minister which I hope he will take on board. I have had discussions with the Leader of the Fine Gael group about it and I would hope that by consensus it might be possible actually to do something because, as Senator Ryan has said, our position in the United Nations currently is absolutely fatuous, hypocritical and morally revolting to the mass of the Irish people. It is clear that the foreign policy decided in Iveagh House, without consultation with the Parliament, is something that is offensive to the majority of Irish people. We can, however, do something. I am suggesting that the House adopts the following amendment to this motion which is signed by myself, Senators Brendan Ryan, Avril Doyle and Michael Howard:

That in the light of this universally welcomed motion, and in the light of the French Ambassador's statement on behalf of the European Community, and of this morning's decision by the Swedish Government to instruct their delegation to abstain on the vote, that Seanad Éireann requests the Minister to contact our delegation at the United Nations in New York and instruct them to abstain on the vote on the Kampuchean Resolution.

I would like the Minister to consider this. I would like the Government party to consider whether it is possible that it would be agreed by consensus that an instruction issue from the Parliament in Dublin that our delegation to the United Nations should retrieve our honour, because it is a question of retrieving our honour. I would like to quote in support of this from a book called Punishing the Poor The International Isolation of Kampuchea by Eva Mysliwiec.

The introduction to the book was written by a British General, Commander Sir Robert Jackson. In it he makes it clear that the United Nations was set up in the aftermath of the Second World War in order to ensure that there should be no further holocaust among the peoples of the world and that in the case of Cambodia it has signally failed so to do. He concludes:

One can envisage certain political changes that could lead to new initiatives, but the tragic fact remains that Kampuchea remains a very valuable tactical pawn in the strategic game of chess which the super-powers continue to play, and thus imperil the lives of the people they claim to protect.

It is clear that this is what is happening. It is clear that the Irish people know that this is what is happening. I introduce further into evidence one of a series of letters that I have received from people all over this country expressing their horror at the position adopted on our behalf at the United Nations. This lady, from the inner city of Dublin, recognises the facts, even if the Department of Foreign Affairs does not, and she concurs with the analysis by a military strategist whom I quoted. Her letter stated:

I am ashamed to be Irish, ashamed that our Government have allowed the Khmer Rouge to sit in the United Nations; horrified that our Government have allowed these mass murderers to return to power in Kampuchea so that they can begin another holocaust. I cannot understand why we never helped the innocent people of Kampuchea. They received no United Nations development aid, no World Health Organisation aid; nothing at all. It is a disgrace. These poor people are caught up in a political game between America and China. I am lost for words to describe the horror and revulsion that I feel.

The United Nations was expressly set up to prevent a repetition of the holocaust of World War II yet here is the UN actively supporting the Khmer Rouge.

It is astonishing to me that it could be suggested that there is any place for the Khmer Rouge at the UN. In the aftermath of the Second World War, would the then Department of External Affairs have supported a resolution for a Coalition government in Germany led by one of the contenders for the leadership of that nation under Nazi domination, Heinrich Himmler? The real situation equivalent to that in moral terms is that this country is being asked to support a situation in which Heinrich Himmler would have been appointed as a legitimate element in a post-war German Government. I cannot believe that the people in the Department of Foreign Affairs are unaware of this or that they are unaware of the strength of feeling of the Irish people.

What are the consequences of the situation? The consequences are clear to this woman in the inner city of Dublin. It is clear that United Nations development aid is being deliberately withheld from the suffering people of Kampuchea. No later than last night on RTE television was shown a film which recorded the fact that in recent weeks the Khmer Rouge had once again been attacking hospitals and destroying medical supplies. Tuberculosis, which had been eradicated before the genocide in the seventies, is again endemic throughout Cambodia as a result of the lack of medical supplies and the bombing of hospitals. One must ask why? I have got to agree with Senator Ryan.

There is no question of doubt about it that we are lick spitting to the United States imperialism and their motives of revenge against not just the Vietnamese people, but also the Cambodians. Let us remember that the Americans bombed Cambodia illegally in the seventies. The Americans caused one million casualties. We are not just talking about the Khmer Rouge, we are also required to consider what is the position of the United States of America.

I regret there are not people in attendance from the American Embassy because they are the people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes. Why are we doing this? Is it not an unholy alliance between the United States of America, on the one hand, and China on the other? Are we satisfied that those who have committed acts of aggression against their own people unblushingly in Tiananmen Square are disposed well towards the interests of the unfortunate Kampuchean people? There are certain things that we can do. I urge the Minister not to be involved in fatuous moral posturing.

The statement of the Minister, Deputy Collins, issued on 14 November, states:

The memory of the deaths of over one million of their fellow citizens caused by the Pol Pot regime is etched irreversibly on the collective consciousness of the world.

Yet, the impact of the resolution of the United Nations is to invite a kind of collective amnesia in the people of Kampuchea. How can they possibly be asked to forget?

There were four recommendations made at the end of this stringent analysis of the situation. The first is that the Governments, and the international community should: (1) provide reconstruction and development aid independently of political considerations; (2) withdraw all forms of support for the Khmer Rouge leaders responsible for acts of genocide; (3) resolve the ThaiKampuchean border situation and the plight of displaced people and, (4) pursue new diplomatic initiatives, support and facilitate all efforts towards a negotiated political settlement. This is the kind of thing I believe the Irish people wish to see our Minister for Foreign Affairs support, and support actively.

It is clear to me that Senator Doyle is absolutely right; nothing could indicate with greater clarity and force than this appalling situation, a tangle into which we have been led, the need for the establishment of a full and official committee on foreign affairs. May I just end by saying that organisations which we all respect, organisations like Trócaire, like Oxfam to which, particularly in the Christmas season we pay such eloquent but easy tribute, are clear in their position on this. I have before me a letter from the campaigns organiser of Oxfam in Ireland which states:

I am writing to you, and a number of other public representatives whom I know to be concerned about the situation in Cambodia, to raise with you the question of the seating of the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations as a major part of a coalition.

They are worried, so should we be. I appeal to the Minister to contact the delegation and instruct them at least to abstain.

Mr. Foley

I wish to make a brief contribution on the very serious position in Cambodia. Firstly, I wish to welcome the Minister here this morning. I also welcome this all-party motion. Last September we had the announcement of the withdrawal of the Vietnamese occupation forces and immediately fears were expressed that the forces of the Khmer Rouge could come back again and in doing so use every means at their disposal to seize power by force. One must consider the terrible suffering the people of this small country have endured over a long period, especially between 1975 and 1978, and the dreaded killing fields. It is documented that during this three year period more than one million people were slaughtered in most terrible circumstances by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. I fully agree that this outrageous act must never be repeated and that everything must be done to ensure that the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime, the guilty party and the instigators of these horrible crimes, will never be given a chance to return to power.

No doubt the Cambodian people are of the same frame of mind. They have for many years endured civil strife and the terrible tragedy of foreign occupation. They now look to the outside world for help and assistance to ensure an end to this long suffering and the restoration of peace and harmony. I hold like previous speakers, that any settlement made will not last unless it includes the withdrawal of all foreign forces under the supervision of the United Nations.

I should like to refer to the statement made by the Minister this morning. He stated:

Let me first of all set out some of the fundamental principles that Ireland, as a small democratic country, upholds in the international community. First among these principles is the right of every nation to self-determination. A first requirement of this principle is that a country be rid of foreign invaders. A second principle is that a country, once independent, should be allowed to live in peace and to run its affairs without outside interference. In supporting these two principles, we are part of an international consensus because the Charter of the United Nations spells out clearly the right of every people to self-determination and clearly rejects interference in a country's internal affairs.

Mr. Lanigan

May I interrupt the business of the House for one minute. Apparently, an amendment has been tabled to this motion. I do not accept an amendment to this motion because it was an agreed motion by all sides of the House. I would like to have it recorded that it was an agreed motion by all sides and I will not accept any amendment to it.

Mrs. Doyle

May I respond to the point in the absence of Senator Norris? In the interest of the good order of the House, we will have to accept the view of the Leader of the House but the amendment was really in response to developments since the actual wording of the motion had been agreed and put down. Perhaps the Minister will respond to the intention of the amendment when he is replying. We will have to accept the view of the Leader of the House. I wish Senator Norris was here to respond, but we understand the position.

Mr. Lanigan

I accept what has been said by Senator Doyle. The leader of the group which put down the amendment agreed to the wording of the motion. I have no doubt that the Minister will reply to points raised by any Member in this debate.

Mr. Foley

I support the point made this morning by Senator Avril Doyle when she called for the establishment of an all-party committee on Foreign Affairs. The time is now opportune for such a committee. As a nation we must continue to play our part to ensure that the Cambodian people are given the right to self-determination through participation in free and fair elections in peaceful conditions. I welcome the Government's contribution of £50,000 to the people of Cambodia for emergency relief within that country. I am confident that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, and our Irish delegation at the United Nations, with their personal interest in this sad situation, will continue to work at international level to bring about a peaceful settlement within Cambodia.

Mr. Howard

I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate. Let me say at the beginning that I have a difficulty with the Government's position in this matter. The reason for this difficulty with the position as outlined by the Minister is that to me that most important issue in Cambodia is the tragedy and suffering of the people of that unfortunate country. Reading the Minister's contribution, and looking at the Government's position on the issue, it appears that there is far more importance being attached to getting the structures of government in Cambodia right first before tackling what is to me the more serious and deeper problem of the suffering of the people of that country. This is a position that the Government share with a number of other nations. What makes me more concerned is the fact that the majority international position, if I might put it that way, as expressed on occasion at the United Nations, is the product — I hesitate to use the word "conspiracy"— certainly of an understanding between two conflicting ideologies, that is of China on one hand, working hand in glove as it were with the policies of the United States, and other nations of the West.

The people of Cambodia have been victims of war, genocide, terror and, over the decades and particularly at the present time, of starvation on a grand scale. Our response to that is a token gesture of £50,000 to be divided among and to ease the burden of a population of something like 6.7 million people. If we were to attempt to calculate per head of the population what the contribution that the Government propose to make to relieve suffering there will mean, one would find it difficult to express the exact fraction that it represents to the unfortunate people of Cambodia.

The position of the Government in relation to the vote taking place at the United Nations on this resolution sometime this afternoon is to me at best weak and, perhaps more correctly, cowardly. There are aspects of that resolution that represent hypocrisy of the highest order. The Minister outlined the Government's reasons for the stand they are taking in relation to this vote. They are peripheral reasons. They ignore what are the blatant untruths that this resolution of the United Nations seeks to advance in relation to Cambodia. I want to quote very briefly from the Minister's document because the time constraints on this motion prevent any Member from doing justice to this topic. It states:

Deploring foreign armed intervention and occupation in Kampuchea.

It ignores the fact that apart from the Khmer Rouge, in the last decade or so, the greatest damage inflicted on that unfortunate country was by the bombing of the United States on the Ho Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam war, when something like over 1.1 million people were killed in Cambodia by United States bombing. That is being ignored in this.

The document further states:

Recognising the assistance extended by the international community has continued to reduce the food shortages and health problems of the Kampuchean people.

That is absolute nonsense because, as a result of the organised failure of the United Nations to recognise the present government, international aid organisations are unable to supply aid to the Cambodian people. As far as I am aware, the only aid of any size or substance being supplied in Cambodia at present is through the Catholic aid organisations, particularly an organisation called CIDSE, to which Trócaire have made a very useful contribution. Trócaire have 17 workers in Cambodia and they have reported time and time again on the inadequacy of the aid they can provide in relation to what is needed. They have condemned the failure of international aid organisations to come to the assistance of the people there. They have identified the reason why these international aid organisations cannot play an effective role in Cambodia as the refusal to recognise the government there. I will return to the point I made at the outset, that our Government, in alliance with so many other governments, are more concerned about getting structures of government in place rather than dealing with the more pressing human problems that exist there.

Cambodia has a history of invasion and occupation, by the French, by the Americans during the Vietnam war, and then the desolation inflicted on that country by the Khmer Rouge. The condemnation that the Minister has made of the Khmer Rouge is shared, of course, so often by other countries. It is well to put on record that, the remnants of that organisation camped on the Thailand border and, with an army of 40,000 men, are being supplied, financed and trained by a number of nations, including China, the United States and the United Kingdom. I would like the Minister to deal with that.

The question has been raised about fair and free elections. Let us look at the reality of the situation. Here is a country that for the past two to three decades has been devastated, where there has been practically no infrastructure, where the population is highly illiterate, where there is inadequate water. As far as professional people there are concerned, I saw a report recently from Trócaire which said that in the population of 6.7 million people there are 22 doctors and seven solicitors. We busy ourselves today and other days talking about the need in that war-torn country, in that set of circumstances, of ensuring the installation of a western-style democratic government. It is desirable, but we are looking for it to be installed in conditions which do not apply in countries where western-style democratic governments exist.

There is a government in Cambodia. There have been complaints that the withdrawal of the Vietnamese from Cambodia has not been supervised by the United Nations. The assistance the United Nations have given to the people of Cambodia is questionable. They have conspired at many of the injustices that have been inflicted on these unfortunate people. The present Prime Minister in Cambodia has indicated that he is in favour of free and fair elections. He has indicated, furthermore, that the Red Cross and Amnesty can have access to that country's prisons. Therefore, I would suggest that substantial progress has been made in the most difficult set of circumstances imaginable.

I am disappointed that our Government have not taken a stance which would identify their first and major priority to be the relief of the suffering and the starvation of the people. We tend to ignore that and say that the sufferings of the 6.7 million people must wait until we get western-style government structures installed first. That is prolonging the agony and it does not do us very proud.

I will conclude by emphasising a couple of points made by Senator Doyle. She stressed the need for an all-party Oireachtas foreign affairs committee on matters such as this. I would appeal to the Leader of the House and to the Minister to give early consideration to that objective. Had we such a body it would enable the development of a consensus which would give a national approach to this unfortunate problem rather than the party political approach we have at present.

The Minister spoke about the credentials of the Cambodian representative at the United Nations and he indicated the circumstances in which a challenge to the credentials of that representative could be put down. I want the Minister in his reply to promise this House that at the first available opportunity the Government of this country at least will provide that challenge to the credentials of that representative.

One other matter this resolution refers to is that it calls for the coming together of the parties representing the people of Cambodia under Prince Sihanouk. This man, by his own admission, has said he is a puppet of China. His famous phrase at the Paris peace talks earlier this year was "The Chinese own my clothes". That man's links and identification and participation with the Khmer Rouge is enough to reject him as somebody who would have the competence and authority to provide leadership for the Cambodian people. In so far as this resolution at the United Nations would commit that body to support his nomination, in the circumstances of his background and his activities over the past decade, that alone is sufficient to justify this country rejecting and voting against that resolution this evening.

Miss Keogh

I welcome this all-party motion in relation to the rights of the Cambodian people. As we heard so eloquently here this morning, for too long they have endured deprivations, which have more to do with international gun boat diplomacy than a genuine desire to improve the lot of those very hard-pressed peoples who endured the genocide which is second only to the Nazi holocaust of the Second World War. In using that analogy I refer to the fact that in post-war Europe, and after the cessation of hostilities, then, at least the world had an immediate reaction to what had occurred. That has not happened in the case of Cambodia. We should have learned from that awful holocaust, but it seems that we have not learned any lesson at all.

The tragedy of the Cambodian people has been extended by the manoeuvrings between the super powers and they are still threatened by the very elements, the Khmer Rouge, who carried out such wanton destruction in their country. The coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea is dominated by these very same Khmer Rouge. I hate to trivialise it by calling it an anecdote, but we all have our favourite anecdotes about what happened during those awful years of the Killing Fields. It is on the record that the people of Phnom Penh would not wear glasses because it was decreed by the Pol Pot regime that those who wore glasses would be summarily executed. That is indicative of the type of regime we are talking about. We should clearly reject the recognition of this coalition by the United Nations as having a legitimate role as being representative of Cambodia.

There has been some misunderstanding about the nature of the vote in the United Nations today. I thank the Minister for coming along and for giving us this lengthy and very comprehensive statement. As he said, it does not relate to the representations of Cambodia at the General Assembly and, therefore, the recognition of the validity of the Khmer Rouge. If this were the case I would today be calling on the Government to vote to unseat the Khmer Rouge from that coalition.

I support the call to ensure self-determination for the Cambodian people through free and fair elections under international supervision and the call for a return to the Paris peace negotiations. I also welcome the decision of the Government to contribute aid directly to groups within Cambodia, however small that amount may be, and hope that in the future more funds may be made available. For one million people it is now too late, but for many more of the Cambodian people there is hope. They have suffered 21 years of depredation, of bombing, genocide, starvation and finally isolation. In 1983 the World Bank listed Cambodia as the poorest country in the world — the result of the appalling embargo on aid at that time in addition to the sufferings of war.

The words of warning about the danger of the upsurge of activity of the Khmer Rouge within Cambodia, from their safe bases on the Thai border, are not based on speculation about their capabilities but are based on the actuality recently reported over the overrunning of two towns near the border with Thailand, sadly inevitably in the wake of the Vietnamese withdrawal. There is a certain irony that aid which should have been supplied to the starving peoples of Cambodia during the years 1980 to 1986, a total of $85 million supplied by the US Government, was given direct to the Khmer Rouge and their supporters on the Thai-Cambodian border, thereby building up their health and strength and helping them to renew their fight against the Vietnamese and against their own people. The withdrawal of the Vietnamese from Cambodia is helpful in enabling the democratic process and empowering the Cambodian people to decide their own destiny and I would like to see us being in a position to ensure that this truly happens.

I support the calls from both sides of the House this morning for an all-party committee on foreign affairs to address issues such as this.

Mr. O'Toole

In dealing with this issue before us today, the question of Cambodia, one of the great problems with a country like this is trying to get access to information, to the political process, and trying to understand what is taking place there. Where there is some confusion about the present position there, there are certain facts which one can be absolutely sure about. The first thing is that one of the main players in this particular scheme, play or drama at the moment is Prince Sihanouk. I would like to dispose of his position in the history of the development of Cambodia. His record as a dictator, a despotic record indeed, which finished some time in the seventies, was nothing that anybody in the West can be proud of either. It was an oppressive, suppressive regime and it was as well that it finished. I think it is important to see that Prince Sihanouk at that point left Cambodia and took refuge in China and he has been in and out of the country ever since. He is now, in a sense, trying to develop his authority and the authority of his regime and that group.

But following on the Sihanouk regime was the murderous and barbaric regime of Pol Pot. It was astounding to hear on RTE this morning a reference to Pol Pot as being the "alleged perpetrator" of the crimes at that time. There is no allegation. It is an accepted fact of history at this time, and it is important to call a spade a spade. The only reason I make that point is that it is often very difficult to get at the core issue when it is buttered up in the language of diplomacy. This is not the stuff of diplomacy. The murderous, barbaric regime of Pol Pot is a very definite aspect of history. It is as well to remind ourselves of some of the things that he did or which took place under that regime.

First of all, the cities were effectively depopulated. People were kicked out of the cities because they were too close, too organised, too difficult, and he attempted to force the country back to a peasant régime. He killed the educators. He dismantled the education service. He killed the medical people. He dismantled the medical service. He left a country, which was in the first place poor, almost without leadership of any description, almost without direction of any description, almost without education of any description. This is the regime we are now speaking about. These are the people who are now in one of the opposition groups in Cambodia at the moment — an uneasy alliance between the Sihanouk group and the Khmer Rouge. It is significant that earlier this year Pol Pot resigned from his last remaining official position within the Khmer Rouge — I have no doubt a fairly artificial, shallow and transparent attempt to buy some sort of credibility or respectability for the Khmer Rouge regime.

Without doubt, what we are doing in the world at the moment is that we are facilitating the return to power or power-sharing of the representatives of two former discredited regimes who ruled Cambodia in the past. That is precisely what we are about. I am saying this directly to the Minister because I know well the Minister's own views. I have discussed this with him on many occasions and he has shown himself to be a man who cares about developments in countries like this and, indeed, on a specific issue. I would just appeal to him to peel back the layers of diplomacy and the structural layers of administration and to get at the core issue, and the core issue is the fact of the return to power of the Khmer Rouge regime. Under any guise that cannot be given respectability. In any form it is unacceptable, and we have a duty to state that. We have a duty to go further than the separate note which was issued by the Irish Government representatives at the UN in order to distance themselves slightly from the position of the Twelve.

I want to say, as somebody who very often has to deal with negotiations of different kinds, that I recognise inches of progress when I see it and I do recognise that as an inch of progress. I would just ask the Minister that the Department, the representatives of the Irish people, should take their courage in their hands now and make it absolutely clear that they will not only not sit silently by but that they will oppose any proposal or any development which will give respectibility or power to the Pol Pot successors.

It is impossible to consider the debate that is taking place here today without referring in some way to the need for a foreign affairs committee of the House. It is significant, in fact, that one of the Government speakers this morning also made the same point. I do not know how many times we have to say this, that there is all-party agreement on the need for a foreign affairs committee and, let me throw in a new word in case it is a threat to the Government, a foreign policy advisory committee. That is all it would be; that is all it can be, constitutionally or any other way. But there is a need for it.

What we are seeing here this morning is actually the teasing out of positions of policy on one aspect of South-East Asia. It is the type of thing which would, perhaps, develop a bit better in committee. Without casting aspersions on the speakers on the far side of the House on this motion, I believe that there was a certain element of defensiveness, which I can well understand, because there was a certain element of offensiveness from this side of the House. That really is perhaps not the best way of dealing with this type of situation. It is better that positions should be described, should be responded to in an attempt to find a middle line and perhaps we could all move forward that way. For that reason more than any other I welcome this discussion. It does raise issues. I also welcome the fact that we will have a similar debate about another part of the world this day next week.

We are about to participate in what can only be described as an abomination. Sihanouk and China and the US cannot wash their hands of their responsibility in this area. What we see in this motion for the UN is that we are seeking for an interim Government under the leadership of Sihanouk. Sihanouk is the puppet of China and the US. In this particular set of circumstances China and the US are really the patrons of the murderous Khmer Rouge regime in various forms. So we have Sihanouk, who is in the pocket of the people who cannot be trusted in this particular area, and is also extremely closely connected with the Khmer Rouge is now being called on by the UN in a motion to which we at least are showing support. In all these circumstances we are not in any sense acting honestly, correctly or with any sense of conscience. There is no balance here and there will be no balance.

It is significant that in this month's issue of the Economist what we actually see is a building up of the war régime in Cambodia, that the people who are now running the Khmer Rouge are people who led the murderous assault on the people of Cambodia a short time ago. One of them was known as Tamok but was better known as The Butcher during the years 1975-78. These are the people to whom we are adding and giving respectability. In any sense it cannot be an acceptable position.

It is important that we would also consider the position of the representation at the UN. The Minister quite rightly said in his speech that there is no vote on this particular issue. I accept that point; I was quite aware of that point. But it is also clear that, and I quote:

The Assembly decided on 17 October last — without a vote — to accept the credentials of all delegations, including those of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea...

— for which read "Khmer Rouge." We are now saying that instead of addressing this issue we should stand back from it and pretend it is not there. This is ostrich diplomacy. It is no way to run foreign policy. If we have to stand on people's toes, if we have to tread on people's corns, then that is what we must do. We need to grasp the nettle in this issue. An ostrich policy of head in the ground, not recognising anything but allowing the world to go by, is not acceptable. The Minister may feel that that may be somewhat unfair in the light of the attitudes and perspectives taken by the Irish Government, but that is what it comes down to because, with no decision on representation being taken this time, it means that the issue is, in fact, not being addressed by the UN. Everybody knows it must be dealt with.

The idea of accepting the credentials of both parties, or all parties might be a better description of it, is a cop-out. It is an abrogation of international diplomatic responsibility. It is an abrogation of the duty of care to the people of Cambodia. It is unacceptable that we should be left without a diplomatic initiative in this matter. I would certainly take the view — and it certainly is the view which until recently and perhaps still which was endorsed by Trócaire, one of the main international aid agencies — that it would be better that the seat be left vacant in the UN until such time as the democratic process has thrown up a representative. I will quote from a document from Trócaire:

A third option is ... namely the de-recognition of the Coalition and the decision to leave the UN seat for Kampuchea vacant until its people can determine their own representative. This option would not only signal the genuine concern of the international community for a people which has already suffered intolerably, but help create conditions for negotiations in a defused atmosphere. Although the non-aligned countries have left the Kampuchean seat vacant in their own assemblies, there has been no real precedent for such a move at the UN.

I would like to hear the Minister's reponse on that issue. I do not put myself forward as an expert, but it is a matter to which I would like to hear a response. I believe that what we are doing at the moment is a denial of all sides of the democratic struggle, because we are giving credence to people who have turned their backs on democracy and are determined to make progress through an armed struggle. We would find ourselves in an impossible situation in that case.

Ireland is apparently opposed to giving support either to the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea, that is the Khmer Rouge Government, or to the Hun Sen Government. We are not prepared to support either. I would ask the Minister why? The Minister has spoken to us at some length, but we have not heard why. The most threatening thing of all is to be answerable for the policy. I look forward to hearing the reason of not being prepared to take a decision one way or the other. We know why there would be objections to going one way; we are not quite clear why there would be objections to going in the other direction. It seems to me that we cannot justify supporting a resolution which calls for support for a Prince Sihanouk Government administration which would be no more than a puppet for the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge have set this up over the past number of years. They have set it up by trying to clean up those people who represent them publicly. They have set it up by allowing Sihanouk to, in some sense, distance himself from all that has been happening in that country.

It seems that, no matter which way we go about it, the people of Cambodia are now going to suffer. But if they are condemned to such a future, will we be back here in ten years time saying we were the ones who stood idly by when the Government might have done something? Will we be the ones who are going to have to explain to another generation that we knew about Pol Pot, the successor of Stalin, the successor of Amin, the successor of Hitler, the successor of all who have oppressed people down through the centuries, that not only did we know about it but that we stood back and allowed him have a second chance to steamroll over, to oppress, to suppress, to raze, to devastate the country and the people and the administration of Cambodia. It just is not good enough.

The main players who are supporting the puppet Khmer Rouge initiative would need to have their credentials very closely examined. The money that has come from the US, which has been a disgrace in the way it has been used, is simply fuelling the fire, worsening the situation. According to this week's Economist, they are now getting arms instead of money or they are now using the money to buy arms. They are now moving forward. One of the Khmer Rouge is quoted as saying in regard to the new anti-tank weapons they have: “This will do for us what the stinger did for Afghanistan.” We are into a war situation. We are handing over to the war mongers. Diplomacy steps aside and lets the country go back on a war footing. It is the reverse of what I know about diplomacy. It is the reversal of what we would all wish to see taking place and it is a denial of the democratic process.

Mr. Ross

I have never stood up in this House on a debate on foreign policy in front of this Minister without, first of all, being interrupted and, secondly, without making the same plea as I am going to make now. That is, that on foreign policy issues, and particularly under this Government, it seems to me that Ireland's neutrality and Ireland's independence is constantly something which we ought to question, because we have had debates in this House on numerous countries, on numerous stances taken by Ireland in overseas matters, and I have never failed to see a ministerial speech which does not run for cover under the umbrella of a bigger body. We have had it before where they ran for cover mostly under the European Community's stance on particular issues like Nicaragua and Libya and other issues which have been before this House. Today, although I approve — I think everybody approves of the wording of the motion, even if it is far too weak — we again seem to have from the ministerial speech some very high principles pronounced and also a statement from him which, once again, really hides behind a UN resolution.

Whereas many of the sentiments expressed in this motion are worthy, they are absolutely no more than sentiments. It is high time that we saw from this Government — this may sound strange coming from me — a far more aggressive, independent and moral foreign policy. I fail to see any signs of independence either from this Minister or from his senior Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What I am saying really is that we are always taking the easy way out without establishing any identity of our own. I do not think we have anything to fear by taking a stance on Cambodia, or on any other issue, which is different from that taken by other members of the UN, or which is different from that taken by other members of the EC. The great benefit of being a member of a large body like that is being able to influence it and not be influenced by that body itself.

The UN resolution is obviously one with which the Minister, for some reason, can live and with which this country can live. But he says, quite rightly, that we are issuing an explanation for our vote today because we disagree with part of that resolution. It seems contradictory to say we are voting for it but that we need to issue an explanation because we are unhappy with it. As I understand it, the Swedes have already stated that they are voting against this resolution. Sweden is a country with a proud, independent and neutral foreign policy. It seems to me that there is no reason whatsoever, apart possibly from all sorts of pressures and alliances to which we are not privy, why we cannot for the same reason not take this attitude this afternoon in the Assembly.

I would again like to make a plea to the Minister that it is time that Ireland's voice was heard in foreign affairs, was heard as an individual voice and not as a collective voice with other countries. The Minister's speech begins by stating that whereas we wish to encourage peace, democracy and the end of strife in Cambodia, there are sacred principles to which this country and the United Nations adhere and those principles, quite obviously, take priority over the specific issue of Cambodia. I do not know whether those principles should stand in this particular case. The two principles which the Minister enunciates here are the principles of self-determination for a country and non-interference in another country's internal affairs.

Where those principles are very high-minded, and whereas they are principles with which we can all agree in theory, I wonder whether we can any longer use them as an excuse to stand idly by in situations of mass slaughter and genocide. While no one is suggesting that we should suddenly interfere physically in the affairs of Cambodia, because it is not a practical proposition, we should now question those two sacred principles of the United Nations and ask whether, in certain circumstances, we can respect the principles of self-determination and the principles of non-interference any longer. Where people are being slaughtered is it right to say, "Sorry, we cannot do anything about it and we cannot encourage anybody else to do anything about it"?

What happens if there is a repeat of what happened in Germany in the thirties? What happens if Pol Pot is reelected in what appear to be free and fair elections in Cambodia, by the Cambodian people, and after his election he goes on a programme of wholesale slaughter and genocide? Are we, as a Government, going to stand idly by and say, "Well, we are sorry we allowed them the right to self-determination but we cannot interfere in the affairs of another nation".

Had we interfered earlier, or had the powerful nations of the world interfered earlier in the affairs of Nazi Germany, we would possibly have stopped a world war and the slaughter of many people. Whereas these are great principles it is time that Ireland as a nation — a nation which is not expected to interfere personally or physically because of our weakness as an international nation — raised its voice in questioning these principles in certain circumstances.

The Minister said that the credentials of the Kampuchean delegation in the United Nations are not an issue today. If they are not an issue today I want to know, first of all, why they are not an issue today, why Ireland does not make them an issue today and raise them as an issue today? Finally, why did we abstain on that issue in 1982? It seems to me that this motion is worthy but it is weak. It is a way of expressing sentiments while saying exactly why we can do nothing. It is time that, as an independent nation, we raised our voice much louder to embarrass those who indulge in wholesale genocide.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

Let me first thank all the Senators who contributed to this debate. I thank them for their contributions and especially for the quiet obviously sincere tones of those contributions. I will start, first of all, with Senator Ross and say that I very successfully resisted any temptation to interrupt him, that I made a resolution for the rest of my stay that I would no longer interrupt Senator Ross. In relation to the point he raised as to our fundamental principles, I would refer him to my speech and I quote:

Second, is that universal and fundamental human rights — above all the most basic right to life — are a matter of legitimate international concern, as an exception to the general rule of non-interference in a country's internal affairs.

I hope that that alleviates his fears. Senator Ross has a phobia about the foreign policy of the Government and particularly about my own explanations to the Seanad and to, as he says, the present Ministers. There seems to be a misunderstanding that foreign policy is decided by people or by civil servants in Iveagh House as distinct from a Government. This is incorrect. Foreign policy is decided by the Government of the day, not only this Government but by all their predecessors. Whereas advice will certainly be given by diplomats from all around the world, and it comes in regularly, the country's position is adopted by the Government and not by the Civil Service.

Many points have been raised. The one raised most often is the question of a foreign policy committee. I regret that I am not in a position to be able to state to the House what the exact situation is on that. I do not think the House would, in reality, expect me to be able to answer that. That is a matter for other people, it has been raised by other people and will be decided in due course.

Mr. O'Toole

Would the Minister offer personal views?

Mr. Calleary

I do not feel like offering personal views, Senator. I do not have any personal views, as Senator Ross will tell you.

Mr. O'Toole

The Minister does not do himself justice.

Mr. Calleary

My personal views are private. Many Senators raised the question of credentials. As Senator Ross and others have said, the last time there was a challenge to those credentials was in 1982. At that stage we did not go along with the majority. Contrary to what Senator Ross might say, we abstained and we were part of a very small minority that did abstain because the challenge to the credentials was massively beaten. I think that deals with Senator Ross's argument, that we tend to hide behind larger groups. I am sure he will also be glad to hear that we have broken also from our partners in the Community — I know that is another problem he has with me in particular. Let me quote from The Independent— I mean the London paper

— of 16 November 1989:

Inconsistencies in the resolution which was drafted by the ASEAN group of countries were too much for Ireland and Belgium. These Governments which had to contend with the vociferous humanitarian aid lobby —

May I intervene there to say that when officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs met a deputation from the NGOs approximately six or eight days ago, we were able to tell them at that stage what our stance was going to be and explain that stance to them. Rather than reacting to that the NGOs have said to us, we had a decision made before that. I will continue with the quotation:

— they decided to break ranks by declining to co-sponsor the resolution.

I am sure Senator Ross will be glad for that little break from what usually happens.

Mr. Ross

Hear, hear.

Mr. Calleary

Britain, which came under equally intense domestic pressure in the run-up to the debate was keeping a low profile and not scheduled to speak despite the high degree of its involvement in the conflict made public recently by its training of the non-Communist guerillas.

Mr. Ross

If the Minister will take his hand off his back I will join with him in clapping.

Mr. Calleary

Senator Howard, in particular, made the point that he felt that the UN and Ireland were more anxious to have installed successful western-style democratic elections or governments. I do not honestly feel this country wants to instal or see installed a particular type of government. We are anxious that whatever government is installed be installed under supervised free and democratic elections. I think we can point to what has happened in Namibia where the UN quite successfully were able to supervise a western style, if you like, election. That is an indication of what can be done by the UN and it is also the answer to those who feel that the present Cambodian Government were justified in not allowing the UN in. It is a point that has been made here, it has been made on radio and on television over the past few days, that the country somehow was justified by the stance that has been taken by the UN on certain issues in not allowing the UN to supervise the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops.

Another point was made by Senator Ryan, reiterated by Senator O'Toole and again by Senator Ross, on this question of the use of the phrase "alleged genocide". Let me say that the Government have no compunction in not using the word "alleged". We hold quite firmly that what happened was genocide.

Mr. O'Toole

Hear, hear.

Mr. Calleary

Senators Ryan and Norris, in their contributions, quite correctly pointed out that the super powers have a very important role in the issue that surrounds Cambodia. I agree with them, but what I cannot agree with and will not agree with is their suggestion that Ireland's behaviour is hypocritical on this issue and that we are kow-towing to one super power or another. On the contrary, as I think I have already clearly outlined and explained, our vote on this resolution is based on the fundamental principles which we have spoken about and which underline our foreign policy.

I would regret if there was bipartisan, political point-scoring on this issue. It is something we cannot afford. I would like to point out that since 1982 there have been different Governments in office in this country, all of whom have adopted mainly the same principle we are adopting now. We have moved away from our stance in the past in that we are not cosponsoring the resolution and, while it may appear to Senator Ross that there is a contradiction in the fact that we are voting for a resolution but at the same time seeking to clarify our reasons for it, I do not think there is anything contradictory in that. I believe the resolution contains many good points that all of us in both Houses of the Oireachtas and many organisations right throughout this country can accept. There are, as I have already tried to explain, some portions of the resolution that we are not quite happy with and because of that we are, as is our right, giving an explanation of that vote. I tried to help the House, with the Minister's consent, by having that explanation circulated to Senators for their information.

A point was made by Senator Doyle in relation to the resumption of the peace conference. May I assure her that our main priority will be to get the parties to realise that it is through negotiations and not on the battlefield that a settlement can be found. I understand that the cochairmen of the Paris conference, France and Indonesia, and indeed countries in the region especially the Thai Prime Minister, are actively working behind the scenes to get the parties back to the negotiating table. It is important to say that both sides walked away from the peace conference in Paris, not just one side or the other but both sides walked away from the negotiating table. Our position is that we insist that they should go back to the negotiating table because we will do nothing to support people who are trying to pursue battlefield objectives by diplomatic means.

I tried to take note of all of the points made and I have tried to respond to them. I certainly will take on board the various suggestions that have been made, but could I repeat that the Government only reached their decision to support this resolution after very careful thought. While I accept the points that have been made by many Senators, we will still be voting for that resolution on the grounds that having considered all aspects of the situation we feel it is in the best interest of the Cambodian people to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O'Toole

For the record, on a number of occasions we spoke about participation in debates. In this morning's debate there were two Fianna Fáil speakers, two Fine Gael speakers, one PD speaker and four Independents. The matter was raised and we are on resolutions——

Acting Chairman

That is not in order.

Mr. Lanigan

I am not too sure what is the relevance of the Senator's statement. We will adjourn until 3 p.m. For information of the House, on Wednesday next we will conclude the Committee and Final Stages of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Bill. We have the Trustee Savings Banks Bill on Thursday and the general debate on the Middle East — an agreed motion.

Mr. O'Toole

We will conclude the Criminal Justice Bill and begin the Trustee Savings Banks Bill next week. Is that right?

Mr. Lanigan

The Trustee Savings Banks Bill will be on the Order Paper next week and we will conclude the Criminal Justice Bill; on Thursday we will have the debate on the Middle East.

Mrs. Doyle

Could I ask the Leader of the House by way of explanation to me as a new Member, how is that we had two hours for lunch today but got only ten minutes last Thursday until we challenged it and managed to get an official half hour? Is there a reason for a two hour sos at this stage? An hour might suffice unless there was a good reason for it of which I am not aware.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 16 Nov 1989

Policy in Cambodia: Motion.

Acting Chairman

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Nov 1989