Due to the short notice to take this debate, the Minister is unavailable to attend. He is on his way to England and sends his apologies.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Statements.
Today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was initiated as a reaction to the Holocaust. To this day, in reality and folk memory, the horror of the Holocaust still haunts us. The lesson learned was that something had to be done which ensured that, based on a universal mandate, human dignity and life would be respected for all time.
Unfortunately, there is still a theory doing the rounds that human rights do not necessarily apply equally to each race and culture. However, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, has made it clear that the declaration of human rights is intended to be universal. He said there is not an African mother who does not weep when her children, boys or girls, are tortured, maimed or killed, nor an African father who does not worry or who is not concerned when his son is arrested and imprisoned. Therefore, it does not matter in which part of the world human rights are abused, it is important that all nations which love freedom lend support to such rights.
The most basic of all human rights is the right to life. It is clear that is not respected in any country, and certainly not in Ireland. One has only to listen to the news on any day of any week to be saddened and outraged at the many terrible deaths. We have witnessed some of these in the past few days and there is a feeling of helplessness when this happens. One can cry for new legislation and ask for new draconian measures but they do not, of themselves, bring any help or relief to those suffering. Therefore, the attitude to life generally must be examined.
At the moment, people suggest euthanasia should be legalised and is centre stage in debates. We watch assisted suicides on television which shock many people, yet the argument grows. It must be asked if respect for human life is inherent in that development. There is also the life of the unborn. That debate has raged through society with many angry words being spoken. One must have an open heart and mind and compassion for all aspects of this subject. However, if human life is demeaned by suggesting the unborn are not entitled to life and to develop to the fullest potential, the sacredness of human life, the most basic of all human rights, is automatically weakened.
I recently read a statement by Pope John Paul II in which he said that, in human society, one's natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty to others of recognising and respecting that right. He further stated that to claim one's right and ignore one's duties or only half fulfil them is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other. None of us can command life and death in that manner. However we can give moral guidance to the rest of the world in the matter of respecting all human life.
I am sure we all rejoice as John Hume and David Trimble receive their peace awards. In the background of that is human rights. Throughout the Northern troubles, we have all been horrified by the tragedies, excesses and brutalities which happened on our doorstep. I am sure many of us would be prepared to admit that, to some extent, we became immune to those reports on the news. However, that is not what happened. We closed our minds to the horror. In doing that, it allowed a fertile ground for those excesses and brutalities to develop. Each excess, in Ireland or abroad, brutalises us all and we must emphasise that fact.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights grew out of the abhorrence of the Holocaust and the desire to do something to ensure it would never happen again, but it has happened again and we have all witnessed it on television. The media, the medium of television especially, have brought home to us what has happened in other parts of the world. Again, we might have closed our minds to it but we still saw the results of the terrible tortures which took place. They happened because people held different opinions, and often no more than that. We see mothers and fathers on television every week crying for their lost sons; wives crying for their lost husbands, people they will never see again. In that context, it is right to refer to the debate here yesterday about the people missing as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland. Parents are appealing for the return of the bodies of those people so they can give them a Christian burial and mourn them. That is part of human rights. We do not have to look elsewhere for excesses, they are available on our own doorstep.
What about the holocaust? What about world hunger? Is there anyone whose heart is not moved by the sight of defenseless babies dying in their mother's arms not because there is no food in the world — there is, it is stockpiled — but because it does not fit in with the international balance sheet. What do we do about that? If we are celebrating the promulgation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights we should respond to that need. Ireland should be to the fore in that regard.
We experienced that type of almost genocide during the famine. Human rights come in different forms as does their denial. We have always had the courage to tackle whatever came our way. We have always given international leadership. I hope this is not an empty celebration or commemoration of the promulgation of human rights universally, but that we commit ourselves once more to doing something definite and urgent in that regard.
I am conscious we are holding this debate on the 50th anniversary of the recognition of problems in the human rights field. We all remember what happened here more than 150 years ago during the famine. We must respect what the Irish, old as a people but young as a nation, have done in the human rights arena not just throughout Europe but throughout the world. We have sent people to many countries to protect the rights of individuals and we should take credit for that. At the same time, we must also consider what we have allowed happen on this island in the last 30 years. We have made a fine contribution by way of sending missionaries and dedicated men and women to Africa and elsewhere to assist people. We discussed the rights of individuals yesterday. We cannot stand over a situation whereby people are unable to locate members of their families. It reflects badly on us in a modern society.
There is a shortage of food in many parts of the world, while we are stockpiling it in Europe and paying people not to grow foodstuffs. The world has become a small place. We hold a strong position in the United Nations; our former President, Mary Robinson, is High Commissioner for Human Rights and Mr. Boland, an Irishman, was one of the first leaders of the United Nations. We should be conscious of that. We have always been to the fore and should not be afraid to seek further recognition of the rights of the individual.
We wonder about what people are prepared to do to each other in Bosnia. We must also consider what we have done to each other on this island. The rights of man, woman and child must always be to the fore. It is not good enough on this, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the declaration, to say we are on top of the problem. We have gained respect and recognition for it, but millions of people still depend on the few to provide for them.
There have been many horrific wars. Massive bombs have often been dropped to wipe out people. The lesson we learned from the 1940-5 war in Europe is that we should never allow it to happen again. Yet, we allow people who live on opposite streets to shoot each other. We should always be to the fore in saying that is unacceptable.
Senator Ó Murchú spoke about how easy it is to eliminate life, even in Irish society, and to take away the right of individuals to go where they want, when they want. We must watch our own house. People often believe they have divine rights, but they do not. It is our duty to ensure our house is in order before we speak about people of other nations or societies. During his visit, President Clinton said "If the people of Northern Ireland can get together, why is it that the Jews and Pakistanis cannot?" That is questionable and a sad reflection on us as a people.
I welcome the recognition Ireland has given, not just for the last 50 years but for more than 100 years, to human rights even when we had very few ourselves, but we can do a great deal more.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am disappointed the Minister is not present.
This is the 50th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and we should have had a full scale debate on it. I am disappointed we did not prepare properly to ensure such a debate. I am sure many other Members would have contributed if they had known it would be taken today, although it was not tabled on the Order Paper.
The year 1948 came after World War II and the Holocaust in Europe when genocide was perpetrated on the Jewish community throughout Europe. It must be noted that Ireland's track record in the way it treated Jews at that time was not exemplary. However, in 1948, the Communist states of the east and the democratic nations of the west took an important decision to establish a body called the United Nations — a more apt title could never be found — a major function of which would be to oversee human rights. As a result, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated at 3 p.m. on this day 50 years ago.
It is interesting that John Hume and David Trimble will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in a matter of moments. It is no accident that it was decided to confer the peace prize on those two Northern Irish leaders on 10 December 1998 because they have made an enormous contribution to the process of reconciliation and to the British-Irish Agreement which contains the basic principles, structure and framework to bring about lasting peace. The Agreement is based on the principles of democracy, solidarity, community and justice, which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also interesting that yesterday we discussed the legacy of the events of 1798 which, to a large extent, were inspired by the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity and the ideas which Thomas eloquently espoused in The Rights of Man, which had also inspired American and French Revolutions. When seen in the context of these two events, it is clear that the issue of human rights is crucial to the proper, just and democratic order of societies throughout the world.
In recent months Amnesty International collected in excess of one million signatures to mark Human Rights Day and the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is a remarkable achievement. I acknowledge Seán McBride, joint founder of Amnesty International, for his great work in this area. I applaud Amnesty International for the strides it has taken throughout the world, particularly in Ireland where it is more vibrant than in other countries and where it has focused people's minds on removing the death penalty.
That leads me to my next point, namely, that the 500th execution since the death penalty was reintroduced in the United States in 1976 will take place there tomorrow. It is perverse that the US portrays itself as the great defender of civil liberties and democracy throughout the world while many of its states retain the death penalty on their statute books and are using it far more than they did earlier in the century. It is terrible that such an example is being shown by a country which believes itself to be, and is seen by other states as being, the world leader in terms of upholding the basic principles we regard as appropriate in a just and humane society. A major campaign should be put in train, perhaps under the auspices of Amnesty International, to try to eliminate this grisly and inhumane form of sanction throughout the world.
I am pleased that the British Home Secretary, Jack Straw, yesterday decided to allow extradition proceedings against General Pinochet to begin. No one is prejudging General Pinochet but it is important that proceedings should be put in train him on foot of substantial allegations of his involvement in murder, torture and genocide. It is vital that the people who made those allegations will see General Pinochet appear in court to outline the activities in which he engaged when he was in power in Chile.
I acknowledge the role Ireland has played on human rights issues in the past. Our former President, Mary Robinson, is serving as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights while Amnesty International is extremely active in this country. Senator Norris is deeply involved in matters relating to East Timor, where human rights have been brutally suppressed, and there are many organisations operating in Ireland which defend human rights, such as Ireland Action for Bosnia. We must recognise that human rights are at risk in many European states at present.
I am pleased we have been given this opportunity to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. I regret that human rights continue to be abused in many countries and I hope that by marking this anniversary we can renew our determination to eliminate the abuse of human rights throughout the world.
I welcome the debate and the brief opportunity it provides to discuss human rights. This is an important day. This morning I addressed a meeting at St. Brendan's Hospital, Grangegorman, which was organised by some of the nursing staff who have taken courses in further education. The meeting focused on the human rights of patients in psychiatric hospitals, travellers, asylum seekers, etc. It is important that this kind of development is being initiated from within the community. Before coming to the House I attended a meeting of the subcommittee of the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs which deals with human rights. Present was the head of the newly established human rights desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
We have a great deal of work to do in this area. It is all very well to mouth platitudes about human rights but we must ask if they exist objectively in a vacuum. In 1941, theoretically and academically, the Jews, the gypsies and the homosexuals who were obliterated in the Holocaust had human rights. What use were those rights? Human rights are of little use unless a moral contract exists which allows people to exercise those rights. We are beginning to move towards developing such a contract but, even in Ireland, we still have some way to go.
Ireland has not yet ratified a number of protocols, the principal ones being the Convention Against Torture and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. These conventions were signed but not ratified. At this morning's meeting, the head of the human rights desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs indicated that a timetable for signing them has been put in place but that a number of technical difficulties exist. For example, to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Ireland was obliged to pass two items of legislation, namely, the Employment Equality Act, which was passed in June, and the Equal Status Bill, which was initiated by Mervyn Taylor in this House but which ran into constitutional difficulties. However, I understand legislation is being prepared which will permit us to ratify this important convention.
There is another matter which must be addressed. I was involved in litigation at the European Court of Human Rights, which was called into being by the European Convention and our membership of the Council of Europe. In the first case which started in the High Court, one of determinations made by the judges was that no Irish citizen could rely on the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, even though we were a signatory to it, because it had not been incorporated into Irish domestic law. I understand this is being reviewed at the moment and I urge the Government body which is carrying out that review, urgently to incorporate this convention into Irish law. This is particularly important in terms of the Agreement signed on Good Friday last.
I am glad the question of East Timor has been raised. This matter has been raised in the House by Senator Ryan, by myself and by former Senator Mary Robinson. We can be extremely proud that a former Member of this House is now the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights. I am sure the House supports her in her very difficult and onerous work.
Human rights are affected by finance and by the decisions of the International Monetary Fund. The structural adjustment programmes for the repayment of debt by poor marginalised countries often work to the detriment of the inhabitants of those countries. We need an international code of conduct for transnational corporations because even though countries are covered by certain conventions, huge multinational conglomerates are often the principal parties in initiating human rights abuses or collaborating with dictatorships in such abuses.
A briefing document from Trocaire which was presented this morning quotes Leedum Mitee of the movement for the survival of the Ogone people saying:
The absence of an effective international machinery and the reluctance to fashion one for sanctioning transnational corporations who operate in collusion with and provide the revenues to finance regimes which violently repress their indigenous populations tests the very basis of our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dictatorships whose disregard and lack of respect for human rights and democracy mean that they choose to sacrifice the lives of their citizens and their countries' resources to keep themselves in power should not be tolerated. Neither should the actions of corporations which collude with them. As we have heard, this raises the question of the seriousness and credibility of the international community's commitment to human rights, especially where profitable economic resources are involved.
If a choice must be made between cash and morality, unfortunately cash always seems to win out.
I mention another psychological inhibition. There is a feeling that if we grant human rights to one group, perhaps one which does not profess our realities or which we do not particularly like, we diminish our own stockpile of human rights.
I paraphrase the noble sentiments of Daniel O'Connell who addressed this argument in the 1820s when he was fighting for Catholic emancipation. He made the point that human rights and dignity do not consist of a finite cake which is diminished every time a piece of it is distributed. Instead, the award of human rights and dignity to other citizens enhances the dignity of those who make it. By granting human rights we gain rather than lose.
Human rights abuses are found throughout the world. I received the most astonishing piece of rubbish in my post the other day from the Sudanese government. It gloated about the wonderful human rights effort of that government as though we do not know it is involved in cultural and religious genocide.
We must not become vain about our international stand on human rights. We must have regard to our own citizens, including travellers who are discriminated against, and prisoners. I learned this morning of a report which is going to the European Parliament and which shows that, although we have abolished the death penalty, we have the highest rate of prison suicide of any country in Europe. In a sense, we have found an Irish solution to an Irish problem. We have got rid of the death penalty officially but we have what amounts to a death penalty. People are brought into the prison system so depressed and in such difficult circumstances that they commit suicide.
We must look at the report of the UN development programme. We have the second highest concentration of poverty, after the United States, of the 17 nations surveyed. Levels of illiteracy and long-term unemployment are among the highest recorded and women are worse off, relative to men, than anywhere else. We could speak for the entire period of this debate about discrimination against women. This is a minority which is actually a majority.
We must examine the record of our friends such as the United States. This year marks the centenary of the independence of Cuba. The impact of US sanctions on Cuba has been very damaging and who was it but the CIA who installed Sadam Hussein in Iraq? The United States have established and supported dictatorships throughout Latin America. Both Britain and the United States supported the regime of General Pinochet. I am delighted General Pinochet is being extradited. This is a benchmark which shows that people such as he will be held accountable for their crimes and I hope the next extradition will be of Margaret Thatcher to Argentina to answer the charge of sinking the Belgrano when it was not in the exclusion zone established by the Royal Navy and was steaming away from the area of conflict. Two thousand children had been press-ganged into the Algerian navy by Mrs. Thatcher's erstwhile friend, General Galtieri, whom she had been supplying with arms until the very last minute before that war.
Let us see the clear establishment of an international court of justice where international criminals from all countries can be brought to book. While the small players are sometimes caught, others who take upon themselves the status of international statespeople get away with criminal acts. I hope the message will go out from this House that no one is above the consideration of human rights.
Mr. Ryan
Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuilimíd ag plé na ceiste seo ach, cé go dtuigim go bhfuil deacrachtaí ann, is trua nach bhfuil Aire Rialtais anseo chun an cheist a phlé. Is trua freisin nach bhfuil aon mholadh os ár gcomhair. Níl morán spéise agam i bheith ag ceiliúradh rudaí a tharla 50 bliain ó shoin gan féachaint éifeachtach a dhéanamh ar an dul chun cinn atá déanta againn agus ar chonas mar atá ag éirí linn.
We are not doing very well and we must be extremely vigilant. Only three European states have had a longer period of continuous democracy in this century than ourselves — Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. All other European states have had their democracy interrupted either by invasion or by civil war. We take democracy for granted in western Europe and assume it is part of our natural experience. Democracy is a limited and frail growth because it severely inhibits the exercise of power. So does a legislatively secure and enforcible charter of human rights. There is, therefore, an inevitable conflict between the exercise of power and the defence of human rights. Europe learned a difficult lesson this century. Even though it claims to be the centre of civilisation, the Continent engaged in two bouts of slaughter on an unparalleled scale.
We stood back with smug superiority and quite correctly condemned what happened in Rwanda. We correctly condemned what occurred in Kampuchea and Cambodia, and we also condemned Stalin. Let us remember, however, that civilised Christian Western Europe — which we claim as the source of enlightenment, the centre of the French Revolution with its vision of liberty, equality and fraternity — has still managed to slaughter more of its citizens per capita than anywhere else on the planet.
The construction of a regime of human rights is very fragile. That is why it is a pity that we have not ratified certain UN conventions, such as the Convention on Race Discrimination and the Convention on Torture, to mention two. There is no reason we should not ratify them and I know there is no political resistance towards doing so. I am not suggesting that the Government is in favour of torture, but a lack of political priority is being given to these matters. It shows up in the fact the Equal Status Bill seems to be on the back burner again. That is regrettable because it is an important matter of great concern.
We must also realise that one cannot build a human rights structure without understanding that there must be some base of fundamental social rights. You will not get the sort of human rights we believe in — all the things we take for granted, such as free speech and freedom of association — in a country that is built on injustice. It is easy to give lectures on free speech to people who cannot feed their children. It is absolutely ineffectual, however, when a billion people cannot read a book or sign their own names, when half that number go hungry and when millions of children are still dying from ailments, such as diarrhoea or chest infections, that we do not worry about because they are of such minor concern to us. The same ailments kill millions of children around the planet every year. We cannot build human rights on that sort of misery.
A particularly regrettable development occurred in recent years in this State, that was when the review body chaired by former Senator, Mr. Ken Whitaker, rejected the idea of incorporating into our Constitution basic social rights, such as the right to shelter and an income. The review body said these were not fundamental rights, but matters to be discussed politically. The tragedy is that that essentially undermined the one social right that is explicit in our Constitution, which is the right to primary education. If it was not for that fundamental right in the Constitution, children with severe profound mental handicap would have been refused such an education. It was not done out of generosity but because the Constitution said we had to.
When it comes to human rights we must always look forward while learning from the past. We should be glad of the degree of transnational jurisdiction concerning human rights, however inconvenient it may be for countries sometimes. We must remember, however, that human rights grow out of justice. If we are to have a world that is based on human rights it must be based on justice. It must be one in which people have a right to food, shelter, basic health provisions and education. Those are the sort of things which, if provided worldwide, can create a structure in which the more enlightened views of human rights can flourish.
I would like to add my voice to the sentiments already expressed. Before contributing to the debate proper, I would like to explain to the House that, because of the short notice I received on today's Order of Business — although Senator Costello mentioned the matter to me yesterday — it has proved impossible for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to attend the House for this debate as he is on his way to London. I hope, however, that some time in the new year we can resume the debate on human rights. I apologise to the House but this is totally beyond my control.
We are not blaming the Senator.
The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights arose from the terrible Holocaust of the Second World War. Two years ago I was part of a delegation from this House to the former concentration camp at Auschwitz in Poland. It is a horrible place where educated people deliberately set out to exterminate a section of the human race.
History has never been my strong point, but when we visited Auschwitz the fact really sank in that this was a factory that had been specifically built to exterminate people. The present Cathaoirleach led the delegation. When leaving that place we agreed that we had witnessed a monument of man's inhumanity to man.
From Auschwitz we travelled to Lithuania, a lovely country with a population of approximately four million. Ordinary Lithuanians told us that since 1946 over half a million people had disappeared from the country. Educated people, including priests, teachers and doctors, were taken to Russia. We were informed that was part of a deliberate effort to keep the remaining population uneducated and suppressed. That was happening in Lithuania up to five years ago. We met some people there who had escaped from Russia. Three of them, whom we met over lunch one day, told us what was happening in Russia. We knew nothing about this, apart from rumours. They had escaped from work camps in Russia and lived in terrible conditions in order to make their way home to tell their story.
The issue of human rights embraces everything and one can start by discussing it in this House. Discrimination occurs for one reason or another. People are being oppressed in different countries and, to this day, efforts are being made by the powers that be to exterminate people.
During our visit to Auschwitz we learned that the parents of our guide had died in that terrible camp. Having finished our visit we reflected upon the camp. We told our guide how horrified we were to feel so close to death there. In a quiet voice, the guide said: "Gentlemen, the same or worse is happening today within a thousand miles of here". Obviously, it must be true and we have seen it.
Senators Ryan, Norris, Costello and others have made great efforts by raising their voices almost continuously in the House concerning atrocities that are occurring all over the world. As Senator Norris said, everyone should accept responsibility. It is only right that heads of state are judged for what they have done, regardless of the country from which they come. Senator Norris was talking about General Pinochet, but no one, no matter who they are, is above the law. It was only right that the judges were judged on their actions at the Nuremberg trials.
Recent newspaper reports have branded the people as racist and discriminatory. There will always be one rotten apple in every barrel who will shout his or her mouth off about travellers, etc., but that does not happen generally.
I pay special tribute to a former Member of the House, Mrs. Mary Robinson, for the work she is doing as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is appropriate that today, on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, the Nobel Peace Prize is being presented to Mr. David Trimble and Mr. John Hume. I congratulate them and I hope they continue their good work.
Sitting suspended at 1.50 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.