Bernard Allen
Question:3 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the humanitarian, political and security situation in Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30503/04]
View answerWednesday, 24 November 2004
Questions (3, 4)
Oral answers (14 contributions)
The political and humanitarian situation in Sudan, particularly the Darfur region, remains a matter of the deepest concern for Ireland. The Government has used and is continuing to use all avenues open to it to urge action in addressing the humanitarian, security and political challenges that exist there.
Despite all the considerable international attention focused on Darfur and some recent political progress, the security situation there has deteriorated in recent weeks. This was confirmed in the most recent report of the UN Secretary General's special representative, Jan Pronk. Mr. Pronk reported increased violence impacting on civilians. Of particular concern have been reports of Government attacks against camps sheltering internally displaced persons and of clear attempts on the Sudanese Government's part at forced resettlement, contrary to earlier agreements.
Humanitarian aid delivery has also been jeopardised in recent weeks by the escalation in security incidents across many parts of Darfur. Sustained international pressure, therefore, needs to be maintained on all the parties in Darfur to honour their commitments and work to improve the security situation there. The Government of Sudan must be pressed to accept its responsibility for security and the protection of its citizens by disbanding the Janjaweed militia and bringing all those responsible for serious human rights violations to justice. There must also be an end to attempts at forced displacement of internally displaced persons.
The rebels, for their part, must cease all attacks and ceasefire violations. All sides must co-operate fully and constructively with the international presence in Darfur, including the UN, the African Union and all engaged in the humanitarian effort. The African Union is performing a crucial role in efforts to resolve the Darfur crisis, both through its ceasefire monitoring mission and its mediation of the peace talks between the Government and the rebels taking place in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria.
Ireland and the EU have welcomed the African Union's plans to strengthen its mandate and substantially expand the size of its mission in Darfur to about 3,320 troops by the end of next month. It is hoped that this expanded mission can help to improve the security situation on the ground and create suitable conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons.
The UN Security Council is continuing to follow closely the situation in Darfur and held a special session in Nairobi on 18 and 19 November to discuss the crisis. I welcome the Security Council's continuing close involvement and the adoption of Resolutions 1556, 1564 and 1574. It is clear that sanctions remain an option if the Sudanese Government fails to meet its obligations.
Ultimately, there must be a political resolution to the crisis in Darfur. I welcome the recent progress achieved in the Abuja talks and urge all sides to work for a speedy, final political agreement when these talks resume on 9 December. The commitment signed in Nairobi on 19November by the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement to conclude a comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan by 31 December 2004 is also to be welcomed. Such an agreement can only facilitate a resolution to the conflict in Darfur.
Everyone has been appalled by the television pictures we have seen, particularly the reports by Fergal Keane, on the awful situation in which the people of Darfur find themselves. Does the Minister of State agree that at this stage the helpless people of Darfur not only need humanitarian aid but also military protection? Does he agree that the UN Security Council seems unable to take effective action? It is nice to hear rosy words contained in resolutions but the situation in Darfur demands effective action. Will the Minister of State explain why the UN resolution of July this year stated that 30 days would be given to the Government of Sudan to disarm the rebel groups terrorising people in Darfur when no such objective is contained in the most recent UN resolution? Will the Minister of State explain why that element of the July resolution has been dropped? Will he also explain what steps are being taken by the United Nations? It is obvious that the Security Council is paralysed by the threat of a veto by China on this issue. Are the people of Darfur to be abandoned because of the physical checks and balances within the Security Council?
I do not wish to be drawn into making too much commentary about how the UN system operates and, particularly, the operation of the Security Council. However, the Deputy and others are aware that the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has initiated a high level group that is examining the Security Council's balance of power and how it should be exerted. In the meantime, pending that report and any reforms it may produce as to how the Security Council works, we must live with the current rules. Deputy Allen has outlined some of the issues arising from the current rules governing the operation of the Security Council.
I was happy to discuss these matters with Mr. Annan during his recent visit to Iveagh House to meet the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Some interesting proposals have emanated from the high level group examining reform of the Security Council and its membership.
The UN Secretary General's special representative, Jan Pronk, presented to the Security Council on 4 November his latest 30-day report on the situation in Sudan. In summary, Mr. Pronk told the Security Council that the situation on the ground had regressed and was more tense than at any time since July. While there had been some progress on the political front, it was too slow and might come too late to stop the situation in Darfur from becoming unmanageable or ungovernable. Mr. Pronk said the character of the conflict was changing and it was possible that Darfur would soon be ruled by warlords if this negative trend was not reversed. More efforts needed to be made, he said, both at the negotiating table and on the ground.
Mr. Pronk outlined three steps that need to be taken to prevent Darfur from descending into complete and outright anarchy: the African Union force needed to be deployed speedily in all insecure areas; the negotiating process in Abuja, Nigeria, must be speeded up; and all political leaders must be held responsible for ongoing violations of the ceasefire and of international humanitarian law and human rights. Mr. Pronk also added that the international community needs to ensure that momentum is sustained and should consider what further steps it should take if the parties do not make more progress.
We must proceed to the next question.
The issue of sanctions has not been ruled out but the situation is sensitive in that we are dependent on the Sudanese Government and others living up to the commitments into which they have entered.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:4 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the International Red Crescent was impeded in its task and refused access to persons needing food, water and medicines in Falluja; his further views on the statement of interim Prime Minister Allawi that there were no civilian casualties; the measures he has taken to inquire into compliance with the Geneva Conventions in the course of the recent assault on that city and elsewhere in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30500/04]
View answer
I am sure all Deputies share the concerns about large-scale military operations being launched in a built-up area. The decision to launch the operation to regain control of Falluja was taken by the Iraqi Government, which made clear its view that regaining control of such areas is a vital prerequisite to holding elections and restoring stability to that country. Although most of the population is said to have left the city before the operation began, it seems clear from the scale of the fighting and from initial reports that there will have been civilian casualties.
It is essential that any military operations in Falluja or elsewhere should be conducted in conformity with international law and with full and careful regard for the presence of civilians, that the use of force be kept to the minimum necessary and that every possible effort be made to avoid civilian casualties. We hope that all such operations are quickly brought to an end. This position has been expressed by the Government on more than one occasion.
While it is evident that the insurgent forces show no regard for international law, it is essential that the forces of the Iraqi interim Government and those of the multinational force assisting the interim Government under a mandate from the UN Security Council should operate according to the highest standards.
We are therefore concerned about reports from Amnesty International and others alleging possible violations of the Geneva conventions during the fighting in Falluja. It is still too early to be certain of the basis in fact for these allegations. While the reports coming out of Falluja are mixed and unconfirmed, it is clear that serious questions need to be answered. I would repeat the Government's call on the multinational force to take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties to the maximum extent possible and to ensure that operations are conducted in full conformity with their obligations under international law.
My understanding is that the US military authorities are investigating an incident, which occurred involving a wounded Iraqi militant. At this point, we look forward to a full investigation by the US authorities of the allegations made about the conduct of some of their forces. Deputies will recall that the Government earlier this year made strong public statements and representations to the US authorities about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq.
I urge all responsible authorities to take every necessary action to address the humanitarian needs of the population of Falluja affected by the fighting. We would like to see the International Red Crescent and other aid agencies allowed access to the city as soon as possible. I understand that the Red Crescent is holding discussions with the multinational force on this issue. While we are aware of reports that the Red Crescent has not been allowed to enter Falluja, we are aware also of reports that it has acknowledged that the city is still too dangerous for it to enter. I hope that it will be able to do so as soon as possible to assist the local population.
That response, which purports to answer my question, fudges most of the fundamental issues which I will outline clearly and, I hope, succinctly. Did the forces in Falluja impede the Red Crescent or not? It is not a matter of hearing reports from both sides; it is a matter of the Red Cross and the parallel organisation, the Red Crescent, being allowed to function under the Geneva Convention. Have we made any representations on that matter?
I have asked a straightforward question about interim Prime Minister Allawi's statement that there had been no civilian casualties in Falluja. Does the Government accept this ridiculous statement when photographs have been taken of children lying on stretchers within Falluja?
On the other matter of compliance with the Geneva Convention, it seems the Government has not made any inquiry through any international agency as to the conditions under which prisoners are being held under the Geneva Convention. For example, prisoners involved in combat are affected by the Geneva Convention and non-combatants are affected by international law. With respect to the Minister of State, who knows I mean nothing personal in this, his answer might as well have been written by the United States public relations office in Falluja. In reality, the Red Crescent was blocked.
The Minister of State said the Red Crescent was in discussions. What proof does the Government have that Zarqawi was ever in Falluja? The Minister of State might remember that the assault on the city had been justified on the basis that it was Mr. Zarqawi's headquarters, that those who supported him were principally the people inFalluja and that no citizens were left in the city. What about the conditions in the refugee camps? The people who managed to get away have their own set of problems. Does the Government seriously believe that no civilians remained in Falluja, that the Red Crescent imagined that people had been injured and that it would be acceptable to wait some weeks before distributing emergency water, medicines and food?
In his answer the Minister of State referred to "assisting the interim Government under a mandate from the UN Security Council". No mandate exists to justify this action. I presume the Minister of State was referring to the UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, the logic of which is to raze the city to the ground and then appeal internationally for money to build it up again with US and British contractors fighting over who will get the job. It is quite scandalous. We either accept Prime Minister Allawi's statement or not. By the way, Mr. Allawi does not represent the Iraqi Government but the interim Iraqi Government.
I will first deal with the Deputy's second supplementary question. The United States authorities are well aware of the Government's view, which we have expressed many times, including in answer to previous parliamentary questions, that all military operations in which civilians are at risk in Falluja or elsewhere should be planned and conducted to keep the use of force to a minimum and make every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties. In the case of Falluja where material damage has been extensive, reports are conflicting as to the possible extent of civilian casualties. The priority now is to bring the remaining fighting to an end and ensure that the humanitarian needs of the population, whether in the city of Falluja or the surrounding area, are met. Many people are in tented villages in the surrounding area.
The question concerns the compliance or otherwise with the Geneva Convention.
As I said in my reply, some reports from Falluja, if confirmed, would give serious rise to questions about possible violations of international humanitarian law. I understand the specific case, which has given rise to so much public comment, is under investigation by the US authorities and the soldier in question has been removed from the area.
The Deputy also asked about——
I did not build my case on that incident at all. There are several others.
I will address each point individually and will do my utmost to answer as clearly and as openly as possible. The Deputy asked about the Red Crescent. I have seen the report that Red Crescent supplies were allowed into the outskirts of Falluja but not into the centre. However, I have also seen reports in which Red Cross spokesmen accepted that conditions were still too dangerous to enter the city of Falluja and they could only do so when US forces could guarantee their safety. As the fighting dies down, this problem should become less severe and we hope that the Red Crescent, on behalf of the International Red Cross, could enter the city of Falluja as quickly as possible to assist the local population and give them all the humanitarian aid possible at this sad and difficult time.
Is it compliance with the Geneva Convention to say that the Red Crescent will only be allowed to distribute medicines, water and food to those in need when the United States forces declare it to be safe? That is clearly a breach of the convention. The Geneva Convention on behaviour at times of war affects combatants and non-combatants, which means that the relationship of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent is entirely with the wounded. It is entitled to have access to those who need medicines. I have received descriptions from people who were in Falluja and have written about those lying waiting for the medicines and about the doctor who was delivered new desks by the forces invading Falluja. She said she did not need a new desk but the right to distribute medicines. It is not reliant on one of the sides in a conflict to decide the terms under which the Red Cross or the Red Crescent can function under the Geneva Convention. In reality, the Government does not have the courage to tell the United States and Britain they are breaking the Geneva Convention right, left and centre, and especially in Falluja under the gaze of the world.
With respect to the Deputy, the Government has both courage and respect. We have the respect of the international world in all our diplomatic dealings, all our political statements, all the negotiations we conduct and all the representations we make. We have raised this issue with the United States on a number of occasions. This is a crisis situation within a conflict. We must respect the professional judgment of the Red Crescent on behalf of the International Red Cross. We must be guided by some people who are in charge there at least as regards the safety of those going in to assist the unfortunate people involved in this conflict. Ultimately we must have a balance and be reasonable to ensure that there are no civilian casualties and, in particular, that those who come to assist civilians are not victims of their own efforts.