I would now like to call on the Leader of the House in relation to statements on the boat people and the arrangements for that.
Vietnamese Boat People: Statements.
It was agreed this morning that short statements would be made in connection with the repatriation, if one could call it that, of people from Hong Kong to Vietnam. This is as a result of a decision made in the British House of Parliament that these people should be sent back to Hanoi. It could be said that we should not be interfering in the business of other countries. Nevertheless, on humanitarian grounds we should express our concern that people who fled from a country which had been torn by war for many years, who left because they were not satisfied that the new regime in that country would be a regime that they would like to live with, who fled to what they considered the relative safety of places like Hong Kong, should be forced back again, to live in a country which they do not want to live in. It is important to state that — it is a country that they do not want to go back to.
We have seen in the past the British Government take steps to repatriate people after the Second World War to countries in Eastern Europe and, it has to be said with horrific consequences for the people who were so repatriated. Even though a court case in Britain recently disagreed with people who had stated that actions taken by senior British army officers were reprehensible and the case was lost, nevertheless the people who were sent back were in actual fact killed.
I do not think we should allow the Vietnamese to be sent back against their wishes to a country without adequate safeguards. If the international community would have some means of monitoring what happens these people when they go back there just might be some justification. However, it is stated that they will go back, that they will be kept for a few days in Hanoi, that they will be issued with identification papers and will be repatriated to the places from which they had come originally. There is no international safeguard involved in the transfer of these people. If they are to be sent back at least the United Nations, the Red Cross or some other body should monitor what happens to them. I would prefer that they would not be sent back.
I appeal to the British Government and the British people to ensure that regard will be had to the safety of these people rather than the reverse which, I think, is happening. After any conflict there are people who wish to leave the country of conflict and if they do that and look for asylum in some other place that asylum should be sacred. It would seem Hong Kong is bearing the brunt of the numbers because of its situation geographically, but there are places in the world which could accommodate these boat people. Every effort should be made to place these unfortunate people around the world in countries which can afford to take them rather than repatriate them to a land to which they do not want to go.
All we can do here is express opinions as to what should happen. We are expressing them, with feeling, on humanitarian grounds because we are very worried as to what will happen to these people once they get back to the country from which they came.
Could I ask the Leader of the House if there has been an agreement on the duration of the debate and also on any time limit on the contributions of Members?
The length of the debate is half an hour and it has been agreed that no more than five minutes will be taken by the speakers.
First, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for having so readily facilitated the House in allowing this debate to be taken today. It does in one sense point to the absence of a foreign affairs committee which all sides now agree would be in a position to readily accept and debate at greater length motions of this kind. Nonetheless, I want to place on record my thanks to the Leader of the House.
This is not an anti-British motion. We are faced with a complex, difficult problem on a scale which, happily, we in this country have never had to face. It is very clear that the British Government have adopted a solution which is morally indefensible, which has shocked the world and which raises the nightmare of so many of the shameful incidents which have scarred the 20th Century. The most recent one, as the Leader of the House pointed out, was the fate of the Cossacks sent back in large numbers to certain death at the end of the Second World War. I am not saying there is any suggestion that those who are going back in this case will face death or imprisonment but there is something wrong and indefensible about a situation where people are being forcibly repatriated on such a major scale.
On this issue I do not think any of the countries involved can claim the high moral ground. There is a great deal of shared responsibility all round. The Government of Vietnam itself have succeeded in creating a climate in which many people felt their lives were endangered, in which very many people felt that the risk of dangers on the open sea, of pillage, rape, murder, robbery was preferable to continuing to live in Vietnam. There has not been sufficient evidence of a desire on the part of the Government of Vietnam to rebuild and to try to heal the wounds of that country's terrible war memories.
Likewise, the Government of the USA must shoulder a great deal of responsibility because of their vindictive policies of ensuring that Vietnam remains isolated. The efforts to rebuild the economy and the country have been greatly damaged by the policies of the USA. I certainly hope that in that country there will now begin an appraisal of their attitude to Vietnam. Certainly, the Americans cannot walk away from this issue. They are responsible for much of what happened and must share the responsibility. There are others who are responsible, the Government of China especially, in view of the recent activities there, the massacre in Tiananmen Square and the general policy of repression on which that country's Government have now embarked. That Government have also succeeded in creating in Hong Kong itself a climate of fear and uncertainty about the future of Hong Kong once it become part of mainland China after 1997. That, in turn, has made more difficult the possibility of the boat people being assimilated into the economy and society of Hong Kong. In this matter the Government of Great Britain have behaved in a way which reflect no credit on them. The attempt to get away with the implementation of this policy was carried out in a sneaky, mean and hamfisted way. It is to the great credit of the politicians in all parties in Great Britain that the reaction in the House of Commons was so spontaneous, immediate and so comprehensive that I now believe there is a major policy reappraisal underway.
Even here we must ask ourselves whether even in a time of high emigration we could not provide some haven or sanctuary or place for people who would bring very different skills. For some small group, at least, we could do our share in trying to provide a home for people who clearly do not want to go back to Vietnam. We could show our sincerity in this regard by seeking if there are ways in which we could bring some of these people here and help to integrate them into this country.
All of us do share a certain responsibility in this. When I asked for this motion to be taken I did so because I know there are strong feelings in this country on the matter. I know that the position of our Government is the view which we would all express here today. I know our Government through its Presidency of the European Council and other ways will be exerting pressure that this problem be tackled in a way fundamentally different from what has gone before. The position of any Government is strengthened if it has the backing of all parties in Parliament.
That is my reason for asking that the motion be taken and I am sure the message will go to the Government as to the views of all parties.
First, I want to thank the Leader of the House for facilitating this acceptable brief but very necessary statement. I do not want to say much about the British Government because the issue is one which would be difficult for any government. I want to a certain extent to speak in defence of Vietnam, not because I agree with the government that is there but it is important to put on the record that the people of Vietnam suffered almost 40 years of continual war by a succession of foreign powers, and that has put an enormous burden on Vietnam. It has produced thousands of orphans, to whom have been given the best that country can provide within its enormously limited resources. As any international aid agency will tell you, they have struggled desperately to provide for their orphans, to provide for the thousands of severely handicapped people that are a consequence of war, to provide for the thousands of acres of sterile agricultural land that has been bequeathed to them, where there are still huge numbers of unexploded bombs and which land has to be excluded from use for generations.
All of that is part of the story of Vietnam. There are very peculiar double standards obtaining. I am not accusing anybody in this House because it has not arisen here. People become refugees in one breath when they are walking out of east Germany but they become economic refugees when they are leaving Vietnam. We did not have this nicety of distinction about the people who were leaving east Germany.
The real tragedy here is that we claim to be part, and we are part, of the western democracy and democracy is not a stick one uses to beat other people. It is a standard by which one invites others to measure one's behaviour: to suggest that, on the one hand Vietnam is such an appalling country as to justify the economic warfare that is being conducted against it since the end of the war, that it is such an appalling country that it is virtually a pariah in terms of international aid, of any sort of contact with its neighbours, and in so many ways and, on the other hand, to say to the people in Hong Kong that they should go back to Vietnam because they are not really going to do them any harm because we did not mean what we were saying about them for the last 20 years or so since the war ended. That is at the core of the issue.
If the western Governments were prepared to allow reasonable amounts of aid, relative to the degree of need in Vietnam to reach that country, if there was international solidarity on the scale that is beginning to emerge towards eastern Europe in order to help a tragic country to rebuild itself after 40 years of war and if in that context we were then to say to people who are Vietnamese after all that we now believe their country is developing, growing and that it needs them then, perhaps, some of these people would go back voluntarily.
The other side is that the three powers, Britain, France and the United States, have meddled in that country's affairs in a most unpleasant and warlike way over the last half century and they all have a particular obligation to those citizens of Vietnam who, for one reason or another, identify too closely with the various forces of occupation and are now unacceptable or feel they are unacceptable and that they have no future. Colonial powers, such as France, Britain and the United States cannot simply walk away and look over their shoulders and say goodbye. They created problems and they manipulated people. I believe that the obligation still rests firmly on France, Britain and the United States to restore some sort of economic vigour to Vietnam and to provide refuge for those who are in many cases the direct and most tragic victims of their quite unjustifiable interference in another country's affairs.
I would like to compliment Senator Manning and thank the Leader of the House for allowing this limited debate on a matter I consider to be a blemish on all democratic countries. I have seen in the media unfortunate young children and young mothers being forcibly put on planes against their will at the demand of countries who were responsible for the original carnage that struck Vietnam 20 years ago. Children and widows had to suffer the napalm bombs, as well as remember so well. Now nobody wants them and, as Senator Brendan Ryan indicated, the countries that are responsible are turning their backs: America, France and Great Britain are greatly responsible for what is going on.
I watched the debate on television in the House of Commons during the week and I was amazed and appalled at the insensitivity of the British premier. One would think we were talking about a bingo game by the way she described how so many were being transferred from A to B, not taking into account the sufferings and the anxieties of those unfortunate people. I would appeal to America, France, England and to the United Nations, of which organisation we are proud to be a member to consider the matter urgently. I would remind the House that 100 years ago when we suffered as a small country, we were happy that thousands of our people were taken into other countries as refugees. If the small countries like Ireland are not seen to support the plight of these unfortunate people I do not know what countries such as America or England will do.
I support the motion. I hope that from our Ambassador at the United Nations, our people in Brussels and wherever we can influence the powers that be in the matter, Ireland, as a small country, should be seen to support the people of another small country in their dreadful plight.