asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the protest, if any, made to the Czechoslovak authorities to express our abhorrence at the lack of recognition of judicial procedures prior to the trial of the Czechoslovak dissidents.
13.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Czechoslovak-Romania Dissidents.
12.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if a protest was lodged with the Czechoslovak authorities expressing our abhorrence at the lack of recognised judicial procedures in the sentencing of the Czechoslovak dissidents.
14.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he has taken on behalf of the Government and in his capacity as President of the EC Council of Foreign Ministers in indicating to the Government of Czechoslovakia our concern over the violation of human rights in defiance of the Helsinki Final Act in relation to the jail sentences passed on the members of the Charter 77 Group.
15.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if any response has been received from the Czechoslovak Government to the protest lodged on the grossly unfair "trial" of the members of the Charter 77 Group and the further steps planned to highlight the denial of human rights in that country.
16.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has satisfied himself that Ireland, as a signatory to the Helsinki Agreement, has adequately expressed its abhorrence at the Czechoslovak Government's treatment of citizens engaged in the monitoring of the civil rights and industrial freedom clauses of the Helsinki agreement.
As Questions Nos. 12 to 16, inclusive, all relate to the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, by Czechoslovakia, I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take them together.
I welcome the opportunity afforded by these questions to express again publicly the Government's deep concern at the detention of Charter 77 members in Czechoslovakia and at the trial and sentencing of some of them recently. We believe that this action by the Czechoslovak authorities is inconsistent with their commitments under the Helsinki Final Act by which Czechoslovakia and all the other signatory States solemnly confirmed their respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties in this field.
Deputies will be aware that on the day after the sentences were passed I deplored both the action of the Czechoslovak authorities in bringing Charter members to trial and the summary nature of the judicial proceedings, in the course of an address to the European Parliament.
Our concern at the Czechoslovak action is shared by our partners in the Nine with whom we have consulted closely on developments since members of Charter 77 were arrested at the end of May of this year. Already following the arrests the Nine made known their views to the Czechoslovak Government in co-ordinated approaches. Moreover, after the announcement of the sentences I issued, in my capacity as President in office of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine, a joint statement in which the Nine pointed to the serious implications of the actions of the Czechoslovak Government, and set on record once again the great importance they attach to the full implementation of all aspects of the Final Act.
In November 1980 the second CSCE follow-up meeting will open in Madrid. This meeting will provide the opportunity to review the extent to which the provisions of the Final Act have been put into effect. In the run-up to the meeting Ireland and her partners in the Nine will continue to stress the view that respect for the principles of the Final Act and compliance with its provisions cannot fail to have a positive influence on the outcome of the meeting.
As my reply has indicated, the Czechoslovak authorities are fully aware of our views on these issues. We do not, however, anticipate any formal response.
Bearing in mind the problems that have resulted in attempting to have recognition of human rights in these countries, can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be some positive result from the Madrid meeting as opposed to the fiasco that occurred in Belgrade?
The Deputy can take it, having regard to the views unanimously expressed by various countries, that there will be positive progress in relation to the matters the Deputy has raised.
Can the Minister give any indication of the lines along which he hopes progress can be made?
I hope that we will continue to press the Czechoslovak authorities, having regard to the size of our country. As the reply states, the President in office, in the joint communique made the statement which I have outlined. I imagine we will continue to make that kind of statement, both as a member of the EEC and as an independent country with a very deep concern for the Charter 77 people.
A final supplementary, please.
Will the Minister be more specific in regard to the Madrid conference? His response can only be summed up as being vague generalities. Have we any positive concrete approach which we intend to pursue so that some progress can be made?
My reply has not been in vague generalities. Ireland's approach to the Madrid meeting will be influenced both by our long-term CSCE objective of creating secure and peaceful relations between all the states and people of Europe and by the extent to which the participating states have already implemented all aspects of the Final Act. On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I stress our belief and respect for the principle of the Final Act. In compliance with its provisions we have a positive influence in the prospects for the success of the Madrid meeting.
A final supplementary, Deputy Bruton.
Is the Minister aware that Czechoslovakia has a relatively favourable trade balance, from their point of view, with this country and that in the context of EEC negotiations in the trade field we should draw attention to breaches of human rights in Czechoslovakia, because they will be seeking access for increased numbers of products to European markets?
I accept that but it is an extremely delicate area. It is a question of whether the Government should go public in relation to the sentencing of these people or whether they should negotiate privately for their release. I imagine that private negotiations would be the more correct in all the circumstances. The Deputy can take it that the Government in their negotiations under the heading we are speaking about have taken the action we have mentioned and will continue to do so.
I am aware of the dilemma between the public and private approach to these cases. Will the Minister accept that there is widespread dissatisfaction here and elsewhere at the failure in Belgrade to make any progress on this issue of human rights and at the climb down in those negotiations? We are concerned that the same thing will not happen in Madrid.
Concern has been expressed, and although I cannot anticipate it, we can certainly work hard towards the success of the Madrid conference.
17.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, on the basis of the information available to him, he has satisfied himself that the imprisonment of George Calciu in Romania and Vojtech Srna in Czechoslovakia for religious practice is contrary to the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act of which Ireland. Romania and Czechoslovakia are signatories; if so, if he will make diplomatic representations on their behalf, if not, why; if he has made representations on behalf of any people similarly imprisoned under the provisions of the Final Act since he took office and, if so, if he will give details.
This question relates to the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act which was signed by 35 Heads of Government of Europe and North America including Ireland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, in 1975. The Final Act has two main elements. First of all, it contains a series of ten principles to guide relations between states, one of which is the principle of respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. It also contains a series of agreed measures designed to improve co-operation between the participating states. Although the Final Act is not a legal instrument, it is a political commitment which the participating states solemnly reaffirmed at the end of the Belgrade follow-up meeting last year.
From the outset the Irish Government have attached great importance to the implementation of the Final Act and especially the observance of its human rights principle. On many occasions, both publicly and privately, we have stressed the view that if the process begun by the Final Act is to be effective it must be based not only on the relaxation of tensions and growing co-operation between states but also on respect of human rights within states.
Certain individuals have been mentioned whose treatment, according to my information, is contrary to the provisions of the Final Act. I recognise—and I believe that the Deputy will accept this—that inevitably there are limits to the extent to which a country such as ours can make effective representations to other countries with very different social systems on issues which do not involve our own citizens. However, I can assure him that in consultation with our partners in the European Community we have on numerous occasions made our views known on these issues and the Governments concerned are in no doubt about our concern. Beyond referring to this clear public position we have taken, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into detail on other representations which might be made in particular cases.
The Deputy will be aware that a further CSCE follow-up meeting will take place in Madrid next year in order to examine the extent to which the undertakings arising from the Final Act have been carried out and to discuss measures for improving implementation and developing the scope of the co-operation between the participating states. In the run-up to the Madrid meeting Ireland will continue to press for full implementation of all aspects of the Final Act and in particular its human rights and related humanitarian provisions.
Is the Minister aware that Fr. Srna was sentenced to one year in jail for saying Mass without authorisation in Czechoslovakia and that Fr. Calciu was sentenced for operating an orthodox religious seminary in Romania? In view of the fact that I drew these cases to the Minister's attention some months ago, has the Minister made any representations in either of these cases and, if not, why not?
We received a letter from the Deputy who has shown concern for the two individuals mentioned. I would assure the Deputy that we made representations in relation to the cases and are continuing to do so. We will continue to do so and will keep the Deputy informed. The Deputy will have received a reply from the Department in which it was clearly stated that with regard to the specific cases of the two gentlemen referred to it appeared from the information available that their treatment was contrary to the Final Act's principles on human rights and fundamental freedoms which includes the right of free expression of a religious belief and so on.
It was clear to me from the reply that I received that no representations had been made at that time in respect of these two cases. It now appears from what the Minister is saying that representations were made. Will the Minister say categorically if diplomatic representations were made in respect of these two priests who were imprisoned for normal religious activity?
Representations are being made in relation to the specific cases the Deputy has indicated and there are also other representations in relation to the general treatment of the Charter 77 people.
Would it be a good idea if the Department of Foreign Affairs had a small section specifically devoted to watching the human rights dimensions of the CSCE and to spotting well ahead of time possible opportunities for making our country's feelings felt on such matters?
A number of sections in the Department of Foreign Affairs are engaged in monitoring human rights. What the Deputy is seeking is a specific section of the Department to monitor the human rights matter.
It does not arise out of this question.
It is a very good idea. We will have it examined.
Has any response been received to the representations made?
No formal response has been received.
Is it usual that they should be ignored?
What influence have we with the Governments of Czechoslovakia and Romania? Have we any influence at all with them?
We have a very strong moral role to play in world diplomacy. As an independent nation with no colonial past, we can be seen as being neutral in regard to world affairs. I should imagine that our role in the Nine, and our present Presidency, would give us a fair bit of clout in relation to the matters raised on this question.
Whom do we contact in a case, like this? Is it the Foreign Minister of Romania or the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia? How do we go about it?
That is a separate question.
Will the Minister ask his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to consider raising in Madrid the specific question of religious persecution as distinct from other forms of breaches of human rights as a special category of discrimination? I believe there are a number of categories under which human rights can be considered. I would ask the Minister to ensure that, without prejudice to any of the others, this should be mentioned specifically.
I will give the Deputy the undertaking that his request will be examined.
Whom do we contact in such cases?