I understand that agreement has been reached in regard to the employment of time allocated for this debate. I understand that the motion will be moved by Deputy Michael Higgins and that the speakers will be Deputies Peter Barry, Geraldine Kennedy, Liam Hyland and Proinsias De Rossa, with the Minister to conclude. I understand that the Minister is to be called at 6.40 p.m. I see Deputy Kemmy looking at me and I am sure that, though I have not mentioned his name, through the consideration of other Members he may get an opportunity to make a brief intervention.
Central American Peace Accord: Motion.
I am looking at the Chair in a very benign way.
Such looks have not failed in the past. I am sure there will be agreement in regard to the Deputy making a contribution.
Deputy Higgins and I are under a misapprehension about this because we thought the Government would be opening and closing the debate.
I move:
"That Dáil Éireann welcomes the present regional initiative for peace represented by the peace accord known as ESQUIPULAS II signed in Guatemala by the leaders of the Central American States:—
—In so far as this development has been regarded as the most hopeful prospect for peace in this region;
—in so far as a response has already been forthcoming from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Costa Rica, in relation to democratic rights, civil liberties and press freedoms, in response to the terms of the peace accord;
—and noting the actions of the Government of Nicaragua in particular, in complying fully with the spirit and the letter of the peace accord ahead of time; and
—noting that the Nicaraguan response contains inter alia the inclusion in its national and local Reconciliation Commissions, many of those who have been most critical and opposed to the Nicaraguan State since the revolution:—
Dáil Éireann now commits itself to actively supporting nationally and internationally this peace initiative leading up to its valid date for implementation on 7th November, 1987 and supports the call to all States with an interest in the region to honour the spirit and letter of the peace accord. And Dáil Éireann urges that we advance this view within the European Community and that it transmits this resolution to the Governments of Central America, The United States, The Soviet Union, Member States of the European Community and the EC Commission and Council."
I am very pleased that a consensus has emerged in the House to support what is now regarded as the last and best prospect for peace of a political kind in the region. There is a precedent for this. The House in 1981-82 adopted a consensus position in relation to developments in El Salvador which was extremely important and at a difficult time when there were important meetings at San Jose to discuss the relationship of the European Community to the Central American region. It was very important that that consensus had been established.
I am afraid that there is an urgency about our motion which represents a consensus view. Obviously, most of us will have our own views on what has taken place. If people had been watching television yesterday evening they would have seen in one of the reports from John Snow, who has produced many reports in Central America, a very moving sight. It was of the efforts by the Nicaraguan Government to try to build on the process of reconciliation. Tens of thousands of Nicaraguans have been moving towards the Honduran border to make contact with the members of their families who had either left to join the Contras or had been in Honduras for other reasons. It was clear in the programme that the period of the cease fire, which had been introduced in selected areas by the Nicaraguan Government, had been used by the Contras to extend their activities. That programme showed the Contra troops with new uniforms which they claimed were given to them in the last 14 days, new weapons and so on. In other words some of the best efforts of the Nicaraguan Government had been met by a response from the agents of death, as I call them in the United States and elsewhere who formally and informally are providing funds to buy weapons to send to organisations which are trying to destabilise the Nicaraguan Government.
My views are heavily influenced by that part of the motion which stresses the efforts the Nicaraguan Government have made to comply with the spirit of Esquipulas II. There have been an extraordinary series of concessions by a country that has suffered badly in recent years. For example, few people realise that over 60 per cent of domestic production in Nicaragua has to be spent on defence, dislocating the internal economy enormously. Few people realise that tens of thousands of people have been injured and murdered, including foreign workers who assisted Nicaragua.
Members of the House representing all parties attended the Nicaraguan elections in November 1984 and we saw free democratic and open elections. The Government of Nicaragua is a sovereign Government. It has been elected properly but it is under siege from hired mercenaries funded by an outside State privately and, on and off, publicly. That is unacceptable because what is at stake is the sovereignty of a nation and its independence as it has to compensate for the dislocation of the economy which is being visited in terms of food shortages and other hardships which the people have to bear. The Nicaraguan Government find themselves in the unique position of having to state a case before the International Court of Justice. That case was based on the mining of its ports and the threats to international shipping that took place.
The Government in Nicaragua have gone along with a great number of peace initiatives. The history of the peace initiatives began with the formation of the Contadora in January 1984 and involved Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, Panama, Latin American and European nations which then supported the Contadora process. However, whatever Nicaragua has agreed it finds, as the Vice-President, Dr. Sergio Ramirez stated, that the goal posts are continually being changed, something else is being looked for. The Nicaraguan Government in honouring the spirit of this latest initiative have gone beyond the letter and the requirements of the agreement. The five presidents of the Central American countries signed the procedure for the establishment of a firm and lasting peace in Central America in Guatemala, an agreement referred to as Esquipulas II on 7 August. On 10 August the President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega Saavedra, organised a presidential commission to watch over the implementation of this accord. The commission was initially presided over by President Ortega and when the subcommittee was established it included Dr. Ramirez and Miguel D'Escoto but, more importantly, when on 21 August the commission for reconciliation was appointed the Catholic bishops submitted its list of three which included His Eminence, Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, Archbishop of Managua; Monsignor Salvador Schlaeffler, Bishop of Bluefields and Monsignor Bosco Vivas Robelo, Auxilliary Bishop of Managua.
It was open to the Nicaraguan authorities to pick a person who was less a critic of themselves than Cardinal Obando y Bravo but the Cardinal was chosen to chair the commission for reconciliation. On 24 August a group of five opposition political parties, the Popular Social Christian Party, the Conservative Democratic Party, the Marxist-Leninist Popular Action Movement, the Nicaraguan Socialist Party and the Revolutionary Workers Party, submitted a list of candidates for inclusion. The point I am anxious to make is that the Nicaraguan Government have included in their institutions, which are mechanisms for achieving reforms within Nicaragua itself, many of the people who have been their greatest critics.
Much has been made from time to time in the European press of the censorship of La Prensa. I very much appreciate the concession the Nicaraguan Government made. I was in Nicaragua at a time when La Prensa published some material which suggested that a plague was taking place in the northern part of Nicaragua. I assure you that such material would not be published here in conditions of war. Nevertheless, the censorship on La Prensa has been lifted and it has been appearing regularly.
A whole series of concessions have been made by Nicaragua. In addition, as I mentioned, there have been ceasefires in certain areas. There have been dramatic and moving visits by people to the Honduran border to meet their relatives. Some of the sons of the families have come home, some husbands have also come home but some have not. What is very clear is that Nicaragua, from the time of the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship in 1979, has moved from being a country in which there was very little participation, where over 40 per cent of the total arable land was owned by the extended Somoza family, where there was very little opportunity for participation, where there was a high degree of illiteracy, to a country that has put its people's needs first. There have been dramatic increases in the reduction of illiteracy. It has established communal health clinics, it has allowed greater participation in society, it has held elections which have been witnessed by 1,000 observers and 1,000 journalists. It is a country which has been under siege. A country that has suffered as much as Nicaragua, that has been attacked not only by the continuing threat of military aggression which has dislocated its economy but in terms of trade and tacit and overt attempts to isolate it and has had obstructions placed against it in relation to the raising of loans internationally, has also been the victim of a massive campaign of disinformation in Europe and elsewhere.
It gave me no pleasure a few months ago to draw attention to those papers which had become available which showed that at the very time the elections were taking place in the United States and in Nicaragua, meetings were taking place on how to vilify the electoral process in Nicaragua among significant European intellectuals. It has been to the great credit of the Irish people that they have very quickly seen the issues at stake in the case of Nicaragua. They know that the issues are of a people who have been struggling for independence, a people who simply want bread, freedom and participation. They are people who have been attacked, not so much because of what they are but because of the example they offer in relation to the path of development in Central and Latin America.
There are three models historically available for changes that have taken place in the Central and Latin American Continent. One was the bouncing in and out of dictators from time to time with the occasional heave of the army. The other was some kind of transition from military to puppet régime. However, the transition that took place after Somoza had left Nicaragua was one that offered participation to all the citizens. It did so in extraordinarily difficult conditions and it is that kind of large, popular participation and choice given to build a civilisation of simplicity, to meet basic needs and then move on, that has drawn the harangue against Nicaragua. The people I have heard described as the equivalent of the Contras, for example, the so-called freedom fighters of the past, who are in the camps in Honduras, were closely associated with Somoza's national guard and many of them have blood on their hands. Every single condition of Esquipulas II has been met by Nicaragua but sometimes the downright mischievous insistence on the condition that the Nicaraguan Government have to enter into direct negotiations with murderous mercenaries who have slaughtered its citizens, placed ambushes and mines for foreign aid workers, means that they must be precluded from direct negotiations from those who are paying the bills in Washington.
If there are negotiations, they should be in the context of strengthening this regional initiative and, if other negotiations are needed, they should be between the United States and the sovereign Government of Nicaragua. It is very interesting to think of Nicaraguans being reconciled on the Nicaraguan-Honduran border. In one ambush, two weeks ago, as a result of mines, 40 Nicaraguan soldiers were killed because the Contras had penetrated beyond the Honduran border, using the period of a ceasefire to try to consolidate their position and to represent a greater threat to the Nicaraguan Government. The principles of the treaty which we are discussing in relation to international reconciliation, dialogue and amnesty, means that the dialogue is an internal one in Nicaragua. It does not include talking to the Contras.
The ceasefire has been implemented with great risk by Nicaragua. In relation to the calendar of democratisation, I have given examples of where it has been extended. I believe that free elections to the Central American Parliament can be achieved. The suspension of military aid to irregular and insurgent groups is the challenge and one to which we must lend our voice. We want those insurgent and mercenary forces — and the assistance given to them — ended. In relation to the non-use of other territory for destablisation attacks, the countries involved in the region do not want to attack each other but want to live as a region in peace. They are in favour of arms reduction and there is a necessity for refugees and displaced persons to be returned as quickly as possible. There are statements in the accord for co-operation and development and there are procedures for international verification and monitoring.
I welcome the fact that this House has lent its voice — and is willing to lend its voice — to the importance of Esquipulas II.
I am particularly pleased to be speaking on an all-party motion supporting the peace accord known as the Esquipulas II Agreement. The core concept of this agreement is the notion of States settling their disputes by peaceful means, and without external intervention.
The accord represents the hope that the countries of Central America — whose continuing political experience is of revolution and violence — can now work together for the peaceful and democratic development of their countries. The Esquipulas II Agreement signals the consolidation of the struggle for democratic freedom and political structures. The full scope and intention of the accord is stated in very positive terms:
—to fully take up the historic challenge of forging a destiny of peace for Central America;
—to commit ourselves to the struggle for peace and put an end to war;
—to ensure that dialogue prevails over violence and reason over rancour;
—to dedicate this peace effort to the youth of Central America whose legitimate aspirations for peace and social justice, freedom and reconciliation have been frustrated for so many generations;
—to make the Central American Parliament a symbol of freedom and independence, and of the reconciliation we aspire to in Central America.
This is a very powerful assertion of regional solidarity, which provides the most feasible and potentially successful basis for ending the different conflicts in the region and tackling the fundamental causes of instability. It is also the best possible option for setting out on a sound course for instituting economic growth and development in the region by tying it into the process of building political stability.
The individual states realise and accept the urgent need to restore a Central American Common Market. The seventies saw the end of three decades of rapid, if badly distributed, growth, with falling commodity prices, Latin debt problems and the collapse of the Central American Common Market all contributing, in a context of violence and instability, to negative growth rates while the region's population doubled over a period of 25 years. This is truely a recipe for desperation and despair.
At this stage, I would point out that our concern on matters in the Central American region is based on three main elements, the furtherance of respect for human rights, the promotion of essential social and economic reforms, and the necessity to have a political, as opposed to a military, solution to any conflict there.
Our attitude to Central America is generally shared by our colleagues in the European Community who have supported initiatives such as the Contadora Initiative of 1982 and the Costa Rica Declaration of 1984 and who have publically stated that the problems of Central America cannot be solved by military means, but only by a political solution springing from within the region itself, and respecting the inviolability of national frontiers. That is why I hope that this House will very warmly support this latest and, I hope successful effort to find that solution.
The European Community has been granting economic assistance to the Central American countries. It is now essential that we forcefully underline our continued support for European aid to the region. In the preamble to the Accord, the political leaders specifically appeal for support from the international community, when they say:
We ask for the respect and assistance of the international community in our efforts. There are Central American ways to achieve peace and development, but we need assistance to make them a reality. We ask for international treatment which would guarantee development so that the peace we seek will be a lasting peace. We firmly reaffirm that peace and development are inseparable.
I subscribe to that.
The Esquipulas II Accord is an extended approach to a series of wide-ranging and seemingly intransigent problems. The plan provides for all five countries to hold "dialogues", which would allow for popular participation with "full guarantee in authentic political processes of a democratic nature based on justice, freedom and democracy......the corresponding governments will initiate a dialogue with all unarmed internal political opposition groups and with those who availed themselves of the amnesty." This amnesty will be extended to all those in the broad category of "irregular forces."
Democratisation is assured by the commitment contained within the Accord that:
The governments commit themselves to promote an authentic, democratic, pluralist and participatory process that includes the promotion of social justice, respect for human rights, [State] sovereignty, the territorial integrity of States, and the right of all nations to freely determine, without outside interference of any kind, its economic, political and social model, and to carry out in a verifiable manner those measures leading to the establishment, or in their instances, the improvement of representative and pluralist democratic systems which would provide guarantees for the organisation of political parties, effective popular participation in the decision-making process and to ensure free access to different currents of opinion to honest electoral processes and newspapers based on the full exercise of citizen's rights.
We would all subscribe to that.
The commitment to hold free elections is seen by the architects of Esquipulas II as a central element of the process. The document envisages elections being held for a Central American Parliament, proposed in the 1986 Esquipulas Declaration. These elections are envisaged as taking place simultaneously "in all countries throughout Central America in the first half of 1988, on a date mutually agreed by the Presidents of the Central American states. These elections will be subject to vigilance by the appropriate electoral bodies."
Prior to commencing the electoral process, Esquipulas II provides for the establishment of national reconciliation commissions. I quote:
In order to verify the compliance with the commitments that the five Central American governments subscribed to by the signing of this document, concerning amnesty, cease fire, democratisation, and free elections, a National Reconciliation Commission will be established whose duties will be to verify the actual carrying out in practice of the national reconciliation process, as well as the full exercise of all civil and political rights of Central American citizens guaranteed in this document.
The Chair will notice that I am repeating the words, justice, freedom and democracy. I do so because these are so essential to bringing about a solution in Central America. We encourage everybody to take part in that.
The provisions of Esquipulas II are intended to be symmetrical and simultaneous. Regrettably, the circumstances in each of the countries are not so streamlined. A range of different factors characterise the internal balance of power in each of these states.
Honduras, for example, does not have regular forces of any major size or significance, nor have the authorities there yet established a national reconciliation council. The Honduras administration has not yet adopted a realistic approach to the political consequences of the continuing Contra presence on its territory, and the impact of this presence on the Esquipulas process.
In Guatemala, there exists a quasi-civilian government under Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo, which is currently preoccupied with pushing forward tax reforms against the establishment. The breakdown of talks between the authorities and resistance movement leaders in Guatemala, held in Madrid, has been followed by the inconsistent resorts to violence by both authorities and rebel leaders. This pattern of behaviour bodes ill for the prospect of establishing a joint committee for reconciliation.
Costa Rica enjoys an altogether more comfortable, and developed social structure, a Welfare State mechanism and a free education system. However, it also struggles under the yoke of a masssive national debt — almost 4.5 billion dollars — which will make this State very vulnerable indeed to the continuing social and political instability of the region.
In El Salvador, the efforts made by President Duarte, and his continuing and courageous commitment to secure peace and progress in this country are worthy of salute. The arbitrary and inconsistent response of the FMLN is regrettable for the prospects of a successful implementation of the contents and provisions of Esquipulas II. This plan offers the best possible and available mechanism for building a lasting peace and there must be more whole-hearted response from the FMLN in respect of the efforts of the Duarte Government to find a common-ground for all groups to engage in this process.
In Nicaragua, the rate at which the society, its social, economic and political structures have been transformed has been rapid, to say the least. But fundamental and lasting economic progress is not possible without equal recognition and protection of human rights and the full official acceptance and endorsement of a legitimate role for democratic parliamentary opposition. Again, continuing absence of progress on this matter will impede the realisation of those objectives set out in the Esquipulas II Accord.
Throughout the whole region, there has to be an acceptance and active promotion of the essential link between economic development and the introduction of democratic institutions with full public participation. This feature is, characteristically, the cornerstone of any acceptable system of human rights.
If the Arias Plan, as it is also termed, is to have any real chance of being actualised in the Central American region, there must be a clear understanding among all the parties involved in this region as to the responsibilities which are imposed by acceptance of its terms.
On the resistance movements in each of the countries involved, the plan imposes a responsibility to make a genuine transition from armed resistance to the political process proper, and an acknowledgement that this is the only acceptable manner in which to effectively secure and underpin peaceful and democratic progress. This is simply not achievable if these groups continue to act with the ballot box in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other.
On each of the Governments in the different states is imposed a responsibility to develop a unified position which effectively established the conditions where a ceasefire may be secured prior to any commencement of talks aimed at building up a lasting and a genuine peace settlement for the region.
On the Government, and indeed the President of the United States, there is imposed a duty to avoid, at all costs, introducing an artificial and an unhealthy rigidity into the actualisation of the
Esquipulas II Accord. The frame of reference which the US administration is using to judge the success or failure of the accord is not one which gives any weight, or which appears not to give sufficient weight to the fact that the individual governments within each of the states in the Central American region are trying to operate in a highly sensitive and extremely volatile situation. The consequences of even a minor wrong move are so serious that these governments must be given a full and positive scope to pursue the peace process without unhelpful pressure distorting the timescale within which progress is possible.
All parties involved in the Esquipulas II process, including the Soviet Union and Cuba, must acknowledge and appreciate that establishing peace, securing democratic development and the promotion of human rights is a complex process, and a process which will inevitably take a long time. The emphasis currently being placed on the so-called "November 7th Deadline" and references to a vital "simultaneity" of progress must not be used by any external state as offensive weapons in a dangerous diplomatic battle. This is not just playing politics, it is playing with people's lives, because the well-being and indeed the lives of many people in the Central American region are inextricably bound up with the success or failure of Esquipulas II. It is essential that there be a sane, rational and mature approach taken by all those involved in the process. Hard-line rhetoric and artificial posturing for the sake of attracting media attention cannot be permitted to interfere with or impede in any way the vital objective of ending bloodshed, repression and despair.
It often seems that the business of conducting foreign policy is a mysterious art, cloaked in an obscure series of rituals. Its procedure and its objectives may be seen at times to be complex and its results hard to determine, identify or quantify. Nonetheless, the basis of foreign policy is, and continues to be, concerned with how nations and people live and work with each other. Our foreign policy in this country must reflect the idealism of our people and must mirror the values which we in this country cherish. At all times we must seek to reflect our passionate opposition to violence and war, as unacceptable instruments for promoting any view in a national or international forum. Furthermore, Irish foreign policy has to be based on a shared belief that human rights around the world are the vital concern of every nation and of every individual.
I welcome very much the debate which we have here today, and I would urge all my colleagues to support the proposal to increase the amount of Dáil time which is allocated to debate and discuss matters relating to foreign affairs. A policy best serves and reflects the nation when it is based on public awareness, involvement and knowledge of the issues.
In terms of the Esquipulas II Accord, we know that it represents the most hopeful prospect to date for peace in the region — and I agree with Deputy Michael Higgins on that. In so far as there has been a positive response from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Costa Rica in relation to democratic rights, civil liberties and press freedom, we know that there is a realistic hope of real progress being made towards the objective of peace. As a political body, Dáil Éireann must commit itself to actively supporting Esquipulas II both at a national and at an international level. In particular, we must use our voice at European level to secure the maximum level of support for this process, and to ensure that the established channels of communication and support which currently exist between Europe and Central America are enhanced sufficiently to allow this support to have a positive impact on developments over the next few months.
There are 12 separate sections contained within Esquipulas II. The provisions of these sections cover reconciliation, cessation of hostilities, democratisation, free elections, cessation of assistance to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements, the non-use of territories to attack other states, negotiations on matters relating to security, verification, control and limitation of armaments, refugees and displaced persons, co-operation, democracy and freedom for peace and development, international verification and follow-up, acceptance of a calendar for implementing the agreement. Each of these elements must receive full attention and full consideration by all of the parties involved, but we must be careful to avoid a situation where all possible progress on the individual headings is jeopardised by unnecessary or artificial restraints. This is not a simple process. We must avoid a simplistic approach or an unrealistic insistence on compliance by all states without reference to the individual conditions which obtain within each state.
The possibility for peace, free and democratic development and the safeguarding of human rights is within the grasp of the peoples of Central America. Let no nation, no individual, be responsible for destroying this precious opportunity.
I support the motion.
I welcome this opportunity, on behalf of the Progressive Democrats, to discuss the present regional initiative for peace represented by the peace accord signed in Guatemala by the leaders of the Central American States. I welcome also this opportunity — the first since this Government came to power earlier this year — to discuss a particular aspect of foreign affairs policy in this House.
At a time when the Anglo-Irish Agreement is being thrown into sharp relief by the unique demands made on the British and Irish Governments, it is particularly appropriate for the people of Ireland to be reminded of the spirit of compromise and community and a new awareness of political realities which has grown in the five Central American States covered by this peace accord.
Mr. Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary General of the United Nations, summed up the significance of this peace accord when he referred to it as "an event of great importance which provides an unprecedented opportunity to establish peace in Central America". The motion before this House, which has been signed by representatives of all of the parties, welcomes the initiative in so far as it is regarded as the most hopeful prospect for peace in the region; in so far as a response has already been forthcoming from the Goverments in relation to democratic rights, civil liberties, and press freedoms; noting the actions of the Government of Nicaragua, in particular, in complying fully with the spirit and the letter of the peace accord ahead of time; and noting that the Nicaraguan response contains inter alia the inclusion in its national and local reconciliation commissions, many of those who have been most critical and opposed to Nicaragua since the revolution.
On this basis, I am pleased to give the endorsement of the Progressive Democrats to this peace accord this evening.
The Presidents of the five Central American States who signed the accord three months ago in Guatemala asked for the respect and assistance of the international community in their efforts. We are pleased, by passing this motion, to add Ireland's voice to those of the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Parliament and, in a more qualified way, the American Government in supporting the peace plan.
Like the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the peace accord marks a very significant and large step on the road to peace and stability, but it would be naive to think that the problems of a region like Central America can be solved overnight. A number of aspects of the accord are worthy of particular attention. It is particularly heartening to see the extraordinary way in which the Presidents of five Central American countries have come to terms with their changed circumstances and have determined, in this agreement, to overcome their obvious differences for the sake of peace and stability.
Up until the recent past, the States which have signed the accord were bitterly divided internally and against each other. Nicaragua, in particular, was noticeably isolated from her neighbours and all countries were highly suspicious of each other. This isolation and hostility has now been replaced by a spirit of trust and community, a new awareness of the need to be co-operative and to overcome the troubles which have beleagured Central American for so long. This sense of community and co-operation is demonstrated particularly by the proposal in the accord to establish a regional parliament for Central America. This parliament would have a pivotal role to play in ensuring that the process of interregional reconciliation is advanced and in guaranteeing real stability in the region. If we cast our minds back not too far, we will be reminded of the similar role which the creation of the European Economic Community played in this area and of the success it enjoyed in putting an end to the climate of hostility and division which had plagued Europe after many wars. We can only hope that the parliament for Central America, if it comes about, will enjoy similar success to the European Parliament and the EC.
The commitment of the signatories to the accord to "free pluralist and honest elections" and to ensure that, as they say, "dialogue prevails over violence and reason over rancour" are also commendable provisions of the accord.
That the leaders of El Salvador and Nicaragua, in particular, should commit themselves to such aims is what makes this peace plan so significant.
This commitment, in itself, will not ensure the success of the Agreement and I would urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan, to bring pressure to bear, on behalf of a neutral country like Ireland, in all fora to ensure that the five Presidents follow through on the implementation of the peace accord from next Saturday.
While the aims of the accord are laudable in the extreme, it could be said that the provisions of the plan are high on aspiration while lacking in concrete proposals. The determination of the International Community to implement the plan, therefore, is extremely important. This is where Ireland can play a large role on the world stage.
While supporting the proposals in the plan, there are some signs that events in Nicaragua and some Latin American countries have not been in full compliance with the plan since it was signed in August. Some of the countries, for example, have not even commenced talks with their opposition parties and the fact is that the five Presidents who were signatories to the plan have asked in the last week or so for an extension of a further two months of the period within which the plan will be implemented. I am just putting down a marker in this regard and in doing so I do not wish to take away from the significance of the achievement of the accord and what it represents for the Central American region.
I am pleased, as I said earlier, that all parties in this House have agreed to support the Peace Accord in the motion before us this evening. I would be a much happier person, however, if I knew that some of the smaller parties who are so willing to get involved in problems in Nicaragua, were as willing to condemn the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. That, I think, is a point worth noting for a country which is supposedly neutral.
Our so called "traditional policy on Neutrality" was — and is — the most important instrument of Ireland's foreign policy if this country, as a smaller nation, is to play a meaningful, independent role in the EC and the world at large today. I would be happier, as I said earlier, if The Workers' Party, for example, were as willing to condemn the USSR's interest in countries like Afghanistan as they are to condemn America's involvement in countries like Nicaragua.
By and large, apart from the peace plan itself, which I welcome, there are several noteworthy features about this evening's special debate. The most important thing is that it is happening at all. This is the first debate on any aspect of Foreign Affairs which has occurred in this House for all of this year. I draw to your attention, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the fact that it is taking place outside of normal sitting hours. This debate only came about because a few members of this House offered to sit longer hours today to discuss such an important international development. To that extent, no provision was made, in normal Government time, for a Foreign Affairs debate.
Since this is the first debate on foreign policy since this Government came to office, I would again appeal to the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan, to actively pursue the proposal from the Opposition parties to set up an all-party committee on Foreign Affairs. The Taoiseach appeared to be in favour of such a committee before the Dáil summer recess. When asked if any progress had been made on the matter last week, however, he had nothing to report. As was evident in the debate and referendum on the Single European Act, the Irish people have a special interest in foreign policy issues and I believe that they would like to see such subjects being debated more often in this House.
The Progressive Democrats believe that we practise a bogus neutrality in this country for the world of the eighties. I stated this some months ago. Our neutrality was inherited, in large part, from the Second World War when the circumstances were quite different. In other words, the ground rules which applied then are not relevant in the world of today.
The case can be made now for a major change in Ireland's attitude to neutrality so that we can help create the climate for, for example, disarmament between West and East in all fora in which we are involved.
The practical manifestations of a truly neutral policy has not been pursued by our political leaders in the recent past mainly, in my opinion, because politicians are afraid to lead public opinion by opening up a debate on what we, as a people, mean by neutrality. It was for this reason that the Progressive Democrats, in the name of Deputy Martin Cullen, tabled a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday asking him if the issue of disarmament was being pursued by this country in the context of European political co-operation, and I must say that I was very pleased when the Minister reported that matters relating to disarmament are raised and discussed by all partners, including Ireland, in the context of the meetings which take place in this area within the framework of European political co-operation. I welcome this development.
If as appears to be the case, we are now actively pursuing a positive policy on disarmament through European political co-operation, I would welcome that development. In the same way, I welcome this opportunity to debate the Peace Accord for Central America in the House today and commend its contents. My hope now is that all points of view will be heard at the negotiating table in Nicaragua and the other four Central American countries, in order to move towards the true democratisation of the region.
It is the peace accord which we are commending to the House this evening and I earnestly hope that the Governments of Nicaragua, Guatemala and the other three Governments will support and implement the letter as well as the spirit of its aims.
At a time when we here face so many social and economic problems, it is heartening that we have made time available in the House to debate the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves, mainly in the Central American countries. In so doing we are displaying that old Irish characteristic of concern for our fellowman. I am glad that that characteristic is still very healthy and alive here.
We are of course also demonstrating that when it comes to matters of civil rights and injustice in any part of the world there are no political divides. I am pleased to be associated with this motion and to stand solidly with my colleagues in helping to find a final solution to the problems of the Central American countries.
It is significant that we are debating this motion almost on the eve of November 7 which is the deadline set for the implementation of the conditions of the peace accord. There are conflicting reports about the progress of that accord. The fact that the Presidents of these countries have tried to find common ground for peace and dialogue is progress in itself. The fact that we are debating the issue here this evening will I hope be regarded nationally and internationally as an indication of the solidarity of the Irish people with any group of parliamentarians anywhere in the world seeking to bring about peace.
As a follow-up to this debate we must forward to the Presidents of these countries indications of our goodwill and solidarity with them in their efforts. We must also express our disapproval of and disappointment with any country putting obstacles in the way of finding a final solution.
The subject of peace is particularly significant at this time. The world breathed a sigh of relief at the report of progress in discussions between the Presidents of America and the Soviet Union. These two leaders of the world's most powerful States must at the end of the day reflect in their decision-making the yearning for peace within each of the countries they represent and we in Ireland fully support them in their efforts.
History, however, has taught us that the threat to peace does not always come directly from the actions of the so-called super powers. It has in the past come, and is more likely in the future to come, from small developing nations in the shadows of these two super powers who are prepared to manipulate them as pawns in their quest for power. It is in that context that the Central American peace plan is important and it is in that context, too, that I fully support the initiative taken independently by the Governments of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The plan represents the best hope in years of bringing about peace and of ending the bitter conflict between Central American countries which has existed for perhaps over 20 years.
Attempts were made in the past by some of the Central American countries to bring about unity and peace. Indeed, many of us had hopes that the Contadora Agreement would have been the basis on which unity and agreement would have been eventually reached. We watched with disappointment at the manipulation of some of these small nations, mainly El Salvador and Honduras, which led to the collapse of the Contradora proposals. It was, again, a further example of the old maxim with which we in Ireland are very familiar, "divide and conquer."
I have had the honour and opportunity of representing this House as a member of the all-party delegation which supervised the first democratic elections in Nicaragua. Our report on that election is in the Library of this House and is testimony to the efforts of the Government and the people of that country to secure their freedom as an independent nation and their right to self-determination. I have been also to El Salvador and have experienced at first-hand the terrible plight of the people as they search desperately for a say in deciding their own future. I had hopes that the new Administration there under President Duarte would have brought about desirable changes and I am disappointed that the good people of that country continue to live in an atmosphere of desperation and, indeed, very little hope.
I have no doubt that the full implementation of the peace accord could, and it is hoped will not only be the foundation on which world peace can be assured but will also be the turning point in the economic, social and political development of the Central American region. We in this House, because of our close relations and affinity with the United States of America, are slow to question or be critical of the decisions of the United States Government. We acknowledge the role and the commitment of successive administrations in that country in negotiating for world peace. We record the help which we ourselves have received in the past in our own struggle for independence. The above fine record of international commitment to peace and economic development makes the role of the United States in relation to the peace accord all the more difficult to understand.
I am happy to record that in recent times the American Administration have acknowledged that there is potential in the peace accord and their commitment to allow it to develop is very much welcomed. Any other action by the United States Government would, indeed, be a source of disappointment to me and I am sure also to the Members of this House. Any other decision would be all the more regrettable when one recalls that the President of Nicaragua was one of the first signatories to the accord and also was the first to announce the members of the country's national reconciliation committee which is very much part and parcel of the structure of the accord and will play a major role in relation to achieving peace which, it is hoped, can be achieved in that region.
The choice of people to serve on that committee must also be noted and regarded as satisfactory evidence of the Sandinistas' desire to restore peace in the region. One must recall also the statement of Bishop Obando y Bravo who was appointed to the reconciliation committee, a man who was regarded as being sympathetic to the Contras but who expressed the view that the accord is the first step towards peace in the Central American region.
The accord, with the deadline set for November 7, is ambitious. If it is over ambitious it reflects only the desire on the part of the participating countries to find a solution to the conflict. If all of the objectives are not attained, we should not be discouraged. There seems to be an abundance of goodwill which in time will be translated into action and, it is hoped, will bring about a final solution. It is for that reason that I join with my colleagues in solidly backing the peace accord. We are making history in this House tonight when an all-party delegation can come in here to debate a matter which is significant in relation to world peace but is also significant in relation to human rights and civil rights in some of the smaller nations which we always should strive to support and to back in every way we can. I am proud and pleased to have been associated with it and with my colleagues' efforts in that regard.
I call Deputy De Rossa.
We have agreed among ourselves that some spare time which is available will be given to Deputy Kemmy, so I give way to Deputy Kemmy.
I thank Deputy De Rossa for giving me time. In return, I shall be as brief as possible, having been allowed to come in before the Minister speaks.
I, too, welcome this motion and also welcome the consensus which has emerged in this House. Unfortunately, we have been getting a consensus here in recent months but it is a consensus with which I do not agree, involving three parties. Tonight's consensus straddles all the parties in the House so in that sense it is unique and I would agree with Deputy Hyland. I am glad to be involved in this consensus. The motion is long overdue and it is only right that such a motion should be discussed here in the House of Parliament of our country, the Dáil. The motion represents a civilised response of our people and of our parties here to the present Central American peace initiative, something with which we should be concerned.
Considering the killings, bombings, kidnappings and disregard for life in this country, in this island in fact, some people might very well say that we should mind our own business and that we should put our own house in order first before we interfere in problems as difficult as the Central American one. I disagree with that attitude because it is mistaken. Not only should all Governments in our country support the present peace initiatives in Central America, but we should also advance our views in the EC and the United Nations and not be ashamed to do so.
Five Central American countries are involved in the present peace plan. That in itself is a remarkable event, given the different backgrounds and political structures of the five countries involved. It should also be said that the development of the plan has come about in a most unusual and convoluted way. No matter what genesis it had, it is to be welcomed for all that. Of course, the peace plan, if it is to succeed, will need the goodwill and the benevolence of the American Government. We have not heard much about this apart from Deputy Hyland's references and he is rather naive in this respect. I do not want to sound acrimonious or divisive in this debate but the United States has shown very little goodwill and benevolence towards Nicaragua in recent years. The Deputy must know that very well; he has visited that country. By the American Government's support for the Contras they have done everything they could to torpedo and destroy the Nicaraguan economy and also to topple its lawful and democratically elected Government, as he has said. He must know that very well. By its economic policies, by its military policies and by imposing a blockade on that country it has done everything possible to bring down the economy and the Government of that country. If he travels to Central America he will find that out. While he has come some way for his party in this House tonight I would like to see his views being more enthusiastically endorsed by that party because you cannot have it both ways in this regard. You must stand up here and see it as it is in Central America. You cannot play both sides. I believe the Nicaraguan people have heroic qualities and that they have shown these qualities in recent years in standing up to the physical intimidation and economic pressure that has been applied by America. These people have shown themselves to be a brave and resourceful people, a people, as Deputy Higgins has said, under siege and they have stood up to that siege remarkably well.
What I am saying here tonight does not amount to propaganda. We see on our television screens almost nightly, certainly weekly, the situation which is unfolding in Nicaragua. Again, Deputy Higgins has remarked on the work of the journalist Jon Snow. I have commended his work in this House previously and I do so again tonight. We can read reports in our daily newspapers from correspondents and journalists in Nicaragua who give accurate accounts daily of the situation there. Let me say that one journalist writing from Nicaragua, who also writes for some of the Irish newspapers which include the Sunday Tribune, is a Limerick man, Paul O'Driscoll. While he is not a supporter of mine, he is personally known to me and I can confirm that he is a most reliable and honest newspaper man, among the last of those people in the world. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of the reports he has been sending back from Nicaragua.
I am satisfied that the Sandanista Government are fully committed to the peace plan and I am also satisfied that they dearly want peace and justice to rule in their country. In setting up the National Reconciliation Commission in Nicaragua it is clear that the Government have been leaning over backwards to be fair and just to all sides, including their opponents. Indeed, we in this country could learn a lot from the spirit of compromise and reconciliation shown by the Nicaraguan Government. We could certainly benefit from a study of how they have been able to do their best to accommodate disparate views in this regard but in the final analysis, as I have said, much will depend on the success or otherwise of this plan and on the attitude of the American Government. There is plenty of scope for America to undermine and destroy the peace initiative. It has the power and the money to do so.
That is why public opinion is important in this regard. It is why public opinion in this country and throughout the world must come down firmly in favour of this peace plan. That is why public opinion must be mobilised in favour of peace not only in Nicaragua but throughout Central America. As both Deputy Hyland and Deputy Higgins have stated, in 1984 this Parliament sent a delegation to Nicaragua to observe the general election which was taking place in that country at that time. As Deputy Hyland has said, a report was prepared and may be seen in the Library by anybody who wishes to see it.
The report states very clearly that the election at that time was fair, open and democratic. This cannot be denied by anybody. In this country we talk a lot about the need to preserve democracy and about the value of democracy both here and throughout the world. It is also important for us to demostrate the principle of democracy in practice and to speak out loudly and clearly in favour of peace, human rights and democracy in Nicaragua. It is important for us to support the present peace initiative in Central America and, above all, it is important for us in this House to ensure that this motion is passed by all parties.
In rising to support this motion I would like to say that I am very pleased that it is an all party motion and that we are engaging in what is a significant event in the history of this Dáil and of previous ones, also. It is only on rare occasions that this House has managed to agree on matters on an all party basis, particularly in regard to international affairs. That is not to suggest that the positions of the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrats, the Labour Party, The Workers' Party and the Fianna Fáil Party would match in all respects. Indeed there have been references to one item or another during the course of the contributions of Deputy Kennedy and Deputy Barry which I do not propose to follow but which clearly indicates that there are differences of opinion and emphasis in how we would see a solution being arrived at ultimately in Central America and in other parts of the world.
I would like to thank all those Deputies who responded to the original proposal for an all-party motion which was put forward by Deputy Michael Higgins and I. Of course, we agreed to make alterations to our original proposal in order to accommodate the sensitivities of the other people who have put their names to it. That in no way denies the value and the excellence of the motion which is before us. It amounts to a genuine statement of goodwill from this House which is united in support of peace, democracy and justice and an end to hunger and terror in Central America. The House can be proud of the fact that we are about to approve a motion in the terms we have put before it today in which we are urging the international community to support the Esquipulas II peace initiative.
There has been much concern throughout the world for many years about the situation in Central America. Apart from the horrific death toll, injuries, suffering, misery and destruction caused by the conflicts, the operation of Government-backed terrorist squads in countries like El Salvador and Guatemala, and the US Administrations support for the Contras and their activities in trying to destabilise the democratically elected Government in Nicaragua have brought terror to the civilian population in the region. The world has also been conscious that a major flare up in Central America could lead to a far more dangerous and wider world conflict.
It has to be said and said clearly that the single greatest threat to peace and stability in Central America is and has been deriving from the repeated attempts by the Reagan administration in the United States to overthrow the democratically elected Government in Nicaragua. That is not just my view or the view of the left wing in this country or other parts of the world but it is also the view of Senator Edward Kennedy in the United States and of the people of that country. In an opinion poll which was carried out in August of this year before the present peace initiative was signed by the Central American Presidents some 59 per cent of those polled said they did not support the giving of aid to the Contras. Clearly, there is a majority of opinion in the United States against what the Reagan administration are doing.
Since the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980 US policy has been characterised by a shameful campaign of aggression against and interference in the internal affairs of Nicaragua. During President Reagan's terms of office the United States has armed and financed anti-government forces, participated in mining the ports of Nicaragua, armed and financed right wing Contra groups and encouraged them in a policy of assassinations, kidnappings and acts of terror against the civilian population. In addition, an attempt has been made to strangle the Nicaraguan economy by trade and economic sanctions.
This has continued despite protests from many countries and international organisations and despite the ruling of the international court that the US activities were contrary to international law. It has continued despite the clear outcome of the democratic elections held in Nicaragua in 1984. These elections, which were observed by some 400 international observers — including Members of the Oireachtas of whom Deputy Liam Hyland was one — were judged to have been fair and democratic. Indeed, it is worth mentioning that in those elections Daniel Ortega was elected to the position of President of Nicaragua with the support of 68 per cent of his electorate — a higher proportion of the vote than President Ronald Reagan received from his American electorate. Yet we are told by the Reagan administration that the Nicaraguan Government are undemocratic. I speak specifically about the Reagan administration, not about the American Congress or the American people. I have already indicated that generally the American people are opposed to the policies of the Reagan administration in Nicaragua.
Against this background the regional initiative for peace known as Esquipulas II, signed by the leaders of the Central American states, has been greeted in Central America and throughout the world as a great opportunity to bring peace to the region. The agreement has imposed obligations on all Central American countries to undertake certain initiatives and reforms and, while it is still early days, the results so far have been encouraging. It is equally encouraging that, despite the fact that the date set for implementation of the various accords in the initiative is 7 November, there is now a clear indication that that may be extended for two months in order to make allowances for the difficulties which various countries which have signed the agreement are having and may have for the time being.
It is important to read remarks made by, say, the President of Guatemala when he spoke, having signed the agreement. He said:
All five governments had to make many concessions, but we put the interests of Central America collectivity above all else... We know there will be many complaints, that these accords will unleash many pressures and much discord, but we demand that our will to build peace be respected.
There is no doubt that he was talking about demanding of the international community that their will to build peace be respected. The quotation is from Envoi, the monthly magazine of analysis on Nicaragua, volume 75. Managua September 1987.
The President of Costa Rica said:
We request the respect and assistance of the international community in our efforts. We have Central American ways towards peace and development, but we need help to make them a reality. We ask the international community to guarantee development so that the peace we seek can be lasting. We firmly reiterate that peace and development are inseparable.
The source of that quotation is the Trócaire production Special Brief on a Central American Peace Plan.
In that regard it is important that we urge strongly on our Government to provide development aid in greater proportion than has been the case to date to Central America and to reverse the decision made already by the present Government to reduce that aid, which decision is deplorable. I do not wish to introduce acrimony into this debate, but I urge the Government to reconsider their decision to reduce development aid internationally, particularly to the Central American region.
The reaction of the Nicaraguan Government has been positive and encouraging. It is worth noting that since the agreement was signed in August the following initiatives have already been taken in Nicaragua. They have implemented a unilateral ceasefire in many areas where the Contras were active. Unfortunately, according to recent reports, the generous initiative by the Nicaraguan Government has resulted in enabling the Contras to move deeper into Nicaraguan territory causing further untold death and hardship to the people of Nicaragua. For no other reason we should demand that the US cease their support and aid for this vicious group.
The Nicaraguan Government have lifted an 18 month ban on the opposition newspaper La Prensa and reopened Radio Catolica. On 1 September the Nicaraguan Government appointed Cardinal Obando y Bravo as President of the National Reconciliation Committee and two expelled priests were allowed back into the country. Talks with the opposition parties were held on 5 October. Local commissions of peace and amnesty have been set up in every town in Nicaragua and 4,000 armed men have turned themselves in and accepted the amnesty. Nicaragua has permitted anti-Government demonstrations and allowed Jean Kirkpatrick, former US ambassador to the UN, to give a pro-Contra speech in Managua to several hundred anti-Sandinistas despite the fact that Nicaragua is in a life and death struggle with the Contras.
Unfortunately, the reaction of the US Administration has, on the other hand, been almost entirely negative and begrudging. At the same time many courageous politicians and groups within the US, including the US bishops, have spoken out against the Reagan military aggression against Nicaragua. The US Government will have to learn that they cannot dictate the manner in which other countries conduct their affairs or which social system is or is not allowed to any country. Attempts being made by the US to dictate to the Nicaraguan people what sort of governments they can elect should be no more acceptable then would attempts by the same country to dictate to the Irish people what sort of government we should elect.
In passing this motion we are making an important gesture of support for the people of Central America and the leaders of the Central American states who have shown considerable courage in signing this agreement. However, I do not think that anyone should consider this motion on its own to be sufficient. As a small nation we have a duty and a direct interest to take a stand against outside interference in the internal affairs of small countries. I hope that in the new climate created by the signing of this agreement the Government will look again at the recommendations contained in the report from the Irish observers at the 1984 Nicaraguan elections. In particular I call on the Government to agree to the establisment of diplomatic relations between Ireland and Nicaragua. This could be done at minimum expense on a consular or non-residental basis but would be seen as a significant gesture of support for Nicaraguan sovereignty and independence. Indeed, it would demonstrate our independence also.
The report also listed a number of practical ways in which we could be of assistance to Nicaragua, such as the provision of food aid and financial and technical assistance and the encouragement of contacts and exchanges.
It has to be said that while we have an all-party motion and are very glad that the presidents of the five Central American countries have reached a peace accord and are actively pursuing its implementation, the mere signing of that accord has not eliminated very many human rights violations in some of those countries. "Human rights violations" is a term which cloaks the horrific reality of what is going on in El Salvador, Honduras and other places where parents find the bodies of their sons and daughters or children find the bodies of their brothers and sisters on rubbish tips, horribly mutilated. The very basic human right to life is not one which is recognised in some of those states.
If the peace accord which has been signed by the Central American states will lead to an end to that kind of horror this Government should do everything possible to help. While this House can pass the motion, it is in the hands of the Government to promote the accord internationally within the European Community, at the United Nations and on other international platforms. We must try to ensure that those who have an interest in the region — other third countries, let us say — will not interfere in the process which has been initiated.
I should like to acknowledge the assistance which I and other Deputies have received from various organisations in Ireland who support freedom, justice and democracy in Central America. I refer to organisations such as Trócaire, the Irish Nicaraguan Support Group, the El Salvador Support Group and many others. I pay tribute to the many hundreds of Irish men and women who are working in Central America in a peaceful way, trying to assist the development of those countries. Were it not for these people, we in Ireland might be unaware of what is going on. These committed people who have returned home have raised the consciousness of Irish people in relation to our brothers in Central America and the terrible pain they are suffering.
I recommend the motion to the House and thank all the Deputies and parties who have put their names to it.
I am very glad that the Dáil has had this opportunity to express positive support in terms of all-party backing for the Guatemala Agreement of 7 August. I should like to emphasise one very happy parliamentary coincidence which is of some significance and which I will certainly use to good effect, namely, that the actual agreement comes into implementation today, 90 days after the signing on 7 August. Reference was made to a later date but 5 November is the actual date of implementation. It is a very happy coincidence that this Parliament is debating the matter today.
I intend to follow on what has already been said by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Kennedy and Deputy De Rossa, by promoting the terms of the motion with the various governments concerned. We will inform the Central American governments and the interested Contadora governments which are not in Central America such as Mexico, as well as all the South American countries, the United States and Canada so that the whole American continent will be aware of our feeling on this matter. The terms of this motion will be presented tomorrow to the various governments I have mentioned. I give this undertaking to the House and we will actively promote through our embassies the point of view expressed in the House. It is a point of view about which I feel very strongly.
These are highly articulate people with an ancient civilisation who have been harmed by the vagaries of history and opportunism, on the part of various states and organisations. They have not been allowed to express themselves fully. This area of the world is very deserving of support. I am certain that if the whole Central American area, with its rich civilisation and cultural background is given a real chance in terms of peace and harmony and allowed to pursue its own destiny by attracting investment in a civilised way, it is capable of great growth and of promoting very real prosperity. It is sad in 1987 that we have a situation of the kind which exists there. There is enormous potential in terms of cultural capacity and capability, yet the area is rent by trouble, violence and tension, largely imported. It should not happen and if put in order it is an area capable of very rapid growth in its own interests and in the interests of the world at large.
I am very glad that the Dáil has had an opportunity to support the agreement of 7 August, which is to be implemented today. The Government welcome the agreement which we regard as the most encouraging development in Central America in a long time. There have been fragmentary influences there over a long period and this accord binds the countries concerned to some degree, which is a first and basic step. Violence and political instability rooted in the whole area of economic development, social injustice and lack of respect for human rights have characterised the area for too many years.
There can very easily be a turn around in that area towards real economic development, real social justice, and above all, a respect for human rights, a point emphasised by Deputy Barry, Deputy M. Higgins and others. Human rights are fundamental to the economic and social development of that region because unless there is a recognition by whatever government is there — I will not digress into what kind of government there should be — whether national or federal government, of the problem of human rights and unless that problem is addressed there will never be the social and economic developments we would like to see there. If people think human rights are irrelevant in the pursuit of power and if that idea continues to be held in that area, there will be no real progress. I see respect for human rights as a very important aspect of the Guatemala agreement.
The people in Nicaragua have made a democratic decision which should be respected. Right across the area there is a need to respect human rights and President Arias of Costa Rica has in his country an example of an area where human rights have been acknowledged and safeguarded. At the moment, there is no effective judicial machinery to investigate or punish allegedly politically motivated people who commit human rights violations. Under the umbrella of this or that political idelogy there are blatant and flagrant violations of human rights. That is happening in the countries I have mentioned, particularly El Salvador and Guatemala.
The perception of neighbouring countries that the coming to power in Nicaragua of the Sandinista Government was a threat to their security and the intensification of insurgent activity in El Salvador and Guatemala, as well as in Nicaragua, greatly increased tensions. That perception arose from a democratic decision in Nicaragua and any threat to human rights following from that type of perception has to be repudiated and rejected. Military interference in Central America by outside countries on both sides of the ideological divide exacerbated the situation and diminished any prospect of a peaceful solution to the complex problems of the area.
The first sign of hope appeared at a meeting on the Panamanian island of Contadora in 1983 when the Presidents of four countries bordering Central America — Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela — agreed on joint proposals for a settlement which they presented to the five Central American States in the form of a draft "Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central America". The proposals were well received but differences on important elements emerged in the subsequent negotiations. Nevertheless, what came to be called the Contadora process continued with the active support of other Latin American countries, particularly Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay.
Ireland and our European partners also support the Contadora process. It conformed with our common view that the conflicts in Central America could best be resolved in the context of a political agreement emanating from the region itself, an agreement based on the Contadora principles, such as refraining from the threat or use of force, noninterference in the internal affairs of other States, the equal rights and self-determination of peoples and, above all else, the promotion of respect for human rights.
Early this year when progress in the negotiations in a Contadora context seemed to be coming to a halt, President Arias of Costa Rica put forward proposals designed to reflate the process and to restore momentum to the peace process. These proposals were fully supported by the European Community, and in particular by the process of European Political Co-operation, a process which has come in for a lot of criticism lately. I was at a number of Political Co-operation meetings of Foreign Ministers where President Arias was welcomed by the President of the Council. His proposals were examined in depth and full backing and advice were given to him. The European Community has given President Arias practical help and I am aware he appreciates it. The drive he made to rehabilitate the Contadora process received total support from the Community within the framework of European Political Co-Operation. I mention that because some times European Political Co-operation comes in for criticism here. I want to emphasise that fact that on this occasion there was unanimity among the Twelve. This success is furthering these proposals has resulted in the diplomatic and moral support of the Community for the Arias initiative.
President Arias's proposals, modified in some respects in response to the wishes of other Central American States, constitute the agreement entitled "Procedure for the Establishment of a Strong and Lasting Peace in Central America" which was signed in Guatemala in August by the Presidents of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. The accord is sometimes referred to as "Esquipulas II" to differentiate it from a declaration of 25 May 1986. The Guatemala Agreement to which we are giving support is based on the principles of the draft Contadora Act. President Arias wanted to give impetus to that Act. A provision of the agreement is the creation of mechanisms for dialogue with unarmed internal political opposition groups. That is important in the area. There must be some mechanism for dialogue with them because they exist. Other provisions are for amnesties and ceasefires; a commitment to promote authentic democratisation — that is important — free elections, including elections to a Central American Parliament in 1988. I regard the latter as an important commitment to a regional dimension which should be successful. Other provisions are the cessation of aid to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements and the prevention of the use of one state's territory to destablilise the government of another. That is fundamental in regard to Nicaragua. Other provisions concern attending to the needs of refugees and displaced persons; seeking economic support from the international community — that has been given by the EC — setting up national reconciliation commissions and an international verification and follow-up commission and the continuation of negotiations on points in the draft Contadora Act which remain to be agreed.
The agreement does not require that ceasefires be negotiated. The commitments pertaining to amnesty, ceasefires, democratisation, cessation of assistance to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements and non-use of territory to destabilise other Governments were to enter into force simultaneously in 90 days from 7 August; that is today. That is one reason why it is appropriate that we are debating this motion. The Government very much welcome this agreement which has greatly enhanced the prospects of reconciliation nationally and within the region. It should make for an impetus towards peace and the strengthening of democracy in the region. It has raised hopes of urgently needed improvement in the area of human rights which are fundamental to the whole matter. I agree with Deputy Barry that that is basic to the matter.
There is a need to regenerate a feeling for human rights because if that does not happen there will be an escalation of violence. Social justice is an aspect of human rights which must be acknowledged across the board wherever a sensible democratic system is adopted. President Arias deserves commendation for his work. He has already recieved recognition for that by being awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. The other Central American Governments have helped to get this very significant agreement through. Steps have been taken to implement it. We are all keenly aware of the extent of the difficulties that remain to be overcome. It is a question of getting all Governments in the area and the involved Governments in North and South America mobilised in an effort to facilitate this peace process. We will continue to express our support for the agreement and seek to promote it by forwarding this resolution to all relevant countries. I will send the Irish Ambassador's on the American continent to express our support for it and, above all else, our support for the implementation of its conditions. I have expressed the Irish Government's support for the agreement at the UN and it is important that the terms of our resolution are brought to the notice of all the government's concerned.
It is important to remember that this is not a problem that is easy of resolution but given the support that is forthcoming for the Contadora process by reason of the Arias initiative from the European Community, and very substantial sectors of public and political opinion in the United States, I am certain that the process can succeed. Anything that we say, or statements in the US or the Eastern World, should be positive and supportive rather than negative. We should not be concerned with apportioning blame. There has been too much of that over the years. What is needed is a positive and supportive attitude to the agreement with the minimum of outside interference, if any at all. We support that positive aspect of the agreement.
A basic principle in the agreement is the cessation of outside aid to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements and the prevention of the use of territory to destabilise other Governments. That is fundamental. There is a Government in place and so be it. There must be an approach that works within the framework of existing states, seeking to bring them together and they must set on foot a political process in which they will cooperate in a positive and sensible way observing human rights as a basic factor in any such process.
It is heartening that on 7 October the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution expressing its firmest support for the agreement and that the US too has welcomed it. It is important that the international community by endorsing the Guatemala agreement encourages and supports the continuing efforts of the Central Americans to resolve their problems peacefully. The Government will continue to use every opportunity to further that endeavour.
I should like to thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It showed that an Irish Parliament is concerned in seeing that the right thing is done to people who are, in culture, civilisation and background, basically Europeans who are seeking to establish themselves. Our support for them is very important and significant. I have always been struck, on meeting Central and South Americans — and previous occupiers of my office have also been struck by this — by the high regard in which we are held by reason of the contribution of Irishmen in these countries towards the achievement of independence. The very high regard in which we are held is unfathomable and is not fully recognised here. I will not go through the litany of names involved but it is appreciated, understood and is something to which we have rightly responded this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.