Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 1992

Vol. 424 No. 9

Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Former Yugoslavian Republics.

Jim O'Keeffe

Ceist:

5 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs Ireland's policy in relation to Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia; whether any proposals have been made directly, or through the UN or EC, for a resolution of the conflict there, or to assist the inhabitants of Sarajevo and elsewhere who face a winter of death and starvation; whether the Secretary General of the UN has requested a supply of peace-keeping troops for service there; and if so, the response, if any, given to such a request.

The Government's policy in relation to former Yugoslavia continues to be based on the main elements which I set out in my replies on 7 July, namely: support for the peace process, now underway within the framework of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia under the auspices of the European Community and the United Nations; support for and involvement in efforts on the ground in the region to establish the conditions for a negotiated settlement; support for international action against Serbia and Montenegro and support for humanitarian action to assist displaced persons or refugees and for besieged communities in Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

I advocated, and very much welcomed, the establishment of the International Conference of Former Yugoslavia, which had its inaugural meeting in London at the end of August 1992 and which has been meeting continuously in Geneva since then. The international conference is co-chaired by the United Nations and the European Community. The conference is representative of the wider international community. It aims at a comprehensive settlement, both of the problems between the former Yugoslav republics and also those which are internal to those republics. It is guided by a clear set of principles which we agreed in London.

The UN Security Council, with our encouragement and support, is also fully involved and is assisting the efforts of the international conference. Some 5,000 additional peace-keeping troops are being deployed in Bosnia-Hercegovina to protect humanitarian convoys. This is in addition to the 1,500 troops already in Bosnia and some 15,000 UN personnel already deployed in Croatia. Military flights over Bosnia have been banned by the Security Council, though there have been disquieting reports of such flights continuing. The last Yugoslav army units in Croatia have recently been withdrawn. A commission of experts has been established by the UN Secretary-General to investigate violations of human rights.

We condemn utterly the violence and so-called ethnic-cleansing which has continued in Bosnia-Hercegovina, but the international conference has made some progress, particularly towards the normalisation of relations between Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that is Serbia and Montenegro. In addition, the conference made proposals on 28 October for a constitutional structure for Bosnia-Hercegovina. However, it is clear that the peace process will be long and difficult, as has been demonstrated by the negative reaction of some Bosnian Serbs to these proposals. We will continue to use our influence to ensure that the momentum is maintained.

We are making a practical contribution to activities on the ground which support the peace process. In response to a request from the Secretary-General, Ireland agreed to provide six military observers and 20 gardaí to the United Nations peace-keeping force in the former Yugoslavia — UNPROFOR. In addition, there are six Irish military personnel serving with the European Community Monitor Mission in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and in Bulgaria.

The members of the European Community have not recognised the federal entity of Serbia and Montenegro. These republics bear primary responsibility for the tragedy in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We believe that the economic sanctions imposed by the European Community and by the UN Security Council must be maintained until commitments made by Serbia and Montenegro have been realised. We are, therefore, supporting the joint EC-CSCE programmes in countries bordering on the former Yugoslavia to tighten the economic and arms embargos. Serbia and Montenegro have been denied the seat of the former Yugoslavia in the UN General Assembly and they now face exclusion from other international fora.

The Government are gravely concerned at the human tragedy unfolding in the former Yugoslavia, which is being exacerbated by the onset of winter. This was a major preoccupation for the European Council at its 16 October meeting in Birmingham. The Council agreed that steps should be taken urgently to provide winter shelter and to ensure the prompt delivery of relief supplies. Community assistance is being accelerated; further staff and resources are being deployed to strengthen UNHCR's capacity and an EC task force has been set up.

Ireland is contributing to the vital effort. In addition to the £100,000 given to UNHCR in July 1991, £200,000 has now been allocated for humanitarian aid to the region. Ireland will also supply up to four logistical officers to assist the UN High Commission for Refugees in order to strengthen the effectiveness of humanitarian aid operations in the Yugoslav region. Following the admission to Ireland of a group of 178 Bosnian refugees in September, consideration is also being given to the admission of close family members of this group. I apologise for the length of the reply.

Far be it from the Chair to deprive Members of the maximum information. However, we are dealing now with priority questions for which only 15 minutes is provided in Standing Orders and brevity is of the essence in dealing with these questions.

This is a very serious matter on our doorstep. Would the Minister accept that the European Community has been divided and ineffective in the face of naked aggression, particularly from Serbia? There is also evidence of clear breaches of human rights by Croatians and others involved in this conflict. Would he accept that the European Community has been relatively helpless in view of the prospect that tens of thousands of our European neighbours may die of starvation and cold during the coming winter? Is there anything further that can be done at this stage at national level in terms of taking a more open approach to increasing the number of refugees who come here or at European Community level in terms of providing food and fuel supplies? Could further steps be taken within reason at EC or UN level, particularly considering the danger of an extension of the conflict into Kosovo where the Albanian majority are under severe pressure from the Serbs?

I can understand the Deputy's concern. It is a concern that motivates European Community partners at this time. As the Deputy is aware, Cyrus Vance and David Owen are doing their very best in difficult circumstances to bring about a resolution to this ongoing obscenity. As the Deputy quite properly suggests, the events on the doorstep of Europe are disgraceful. It is difficult to give a full answer to the question but much has been and is being done. I take note of the Deputy's suggestion in relation to providing relief aid to ensure that tens of thousands of people do not die during the winter.

Arising from the London conference at which I represented the Government, one item moved me, that was the proposal to remove the heavy guns overlooking Sarajevo, but tragically that has not happened. The battle continues. From time to time relief aid gets through the airport at Sarajevo with the "goodwill" of the fighting groups. In those circumstances the Deputy will realise that the European Community and the United Nations continue to do their best, albeit without much success, to bring a resolution to this dreadful situation.

Will the Minister——

Regrettably, time for priority questions is fast running out.

Will the Minister commit this country to being more generous in relation to taking more refugees from Bosnia, in the light of the appalling situation there?

That is a fair question. We have responded relatively well to the intake of refugees, bearing in mind — and I am not offering this as an excuse — the distance involved and the wish of refugees to remain as near as possible to their own homeland, based on the proposition that when the dreadful war ends they will be nearer home. The Government and I are aware of the need to take further refugees, particularly relations of the refugees who are already here.

We now come to Question No. 6.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 11 and 37 together.

Is it the Minister's intention to take No. 8 also as it is a related matter? Will he take it separately? I do not object to either course.

I understand that Questions Nos. 8, 36 and 44 will be taken together.

If Deputy Higgins's question is to be dealt with it must be taken now.

I would prefer the Minister to take my question, which deals with overseas development aid, within the period allocated to priority questions.

The time for priority questions is exhausted.

Will the House agree to extend the time by five or ten minutes?

They are very important questions.

Will that exclude Members who are not named in the priority questions from contributing?

The Chair cannot win in these situations.

I am trying to assist Deputy Higgins, but not to the exclusion of Deputy Flaherty.

Is it agreed that the time for Priority Questions will be extended? Agreed.

Barr
Roinn