Vol. 437 No. 7
9 Mr. Sargent asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's views on whether pressure should be put on the Bosnian Government to accept the most recent peace proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
28 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, Ireland is taking at European Union level to bring about re-negotiations in relation to Bosnia; whether Ireland supports the retention of Lord Owen as a mediator in the dispute in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
45 Mr. Clohessy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Ireland's attitude at European Union and UN level in relation to the possibility of the use of force, especially by aerial bombardment, on Serbian artillery positions in Bosnia, to aid civilians who are exposed to artillery barrages daily; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
49 Mr. Cox asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has communicated to the British Government Ireland's concern that UN troops should not be withdrawn from Bosnia in the absence of adequate security arrangements being made for the protection of the civilian population there; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
53 Mr. Molloy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, Ireland is taking at European Union level to bring about re-negotiations in relation to Bosnia; whether Ireland supports the retention of Lord Owen as a mediator in the dispute in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
58 Mr. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the action the EU and the United Nations should take to bring the war in Bosnia to an immediate end; and his views on whether the murderous regimes in Serbia and Croatia should be isolated and punished while a new UN mandate administers all of Bosnia for a number of years.
59 Mr. Sargent asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the efforts, if any, the Irish Government has made to seek the opening of Tuzla airport in Bosnia for flights carrying aid.
60 Mr. Sargent asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government supports the seizures of all overseas assets of Serbia and Montenegro as long as they continue to aid the war in Bosnia.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 28, 45, 49, 53 and 58 to 60, inclusive, together.
The continuation of the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and the killings and wanton destruction there, are matters of the greatest concern to the Government. Ireland is fully engaged with our European Union partners in promoting a settlement. We participate in the International Conference under the auspices of the European Union and the United Nations; we contribute to the UN Force, UNPROFOR, and to the European Union's Monitor Mission; we are implementing the UN sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro; and we support the victims of the conflict. At a national level we have recently made a further significant financial contribution of £500,000 to the international relief effort.
The Government continues to believe that the best hope for a peaceful settlement to the Bosnian conflict lies in the negotiations underway in the International Conference. The Co-Chairmen, David Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg, enjoy the full support of the Irish Government, and of the other members of the European Union who have expressed the hope that they will continue to offer their valuable services to the conference.
Some progress has been made in the negotiations. Last summer under the auspices of the Co-Chairmen the Bosnian parties developed a peace package acceptable to all three sides. This included the concept of a Union of three constituent republics. However, the subsequent detailed negotiations reached an impasse last autumn, particularly over the amount of territory to be assigned to the Muslim majority republic.
Since then Ireland and the other members of the European Union have been working to unblock this impasse. To this end the Union has developed a plan of action with three key elements: first, a settlement in Bosnia, building on the package already accepted in large measure by the Bosnian parties; second, interim arrangements in Croatia which would serve as a basis for a peaceful settlement there; and third, the improvement of the delivery of aid as envisaged under the European Union's joint action.
In return for co-operation in the peace process, the EU indicated that it would be prepared to support a phased suspension of UN sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. These sanctions, the most comprehensive set of measures ever imposed by the UN, include measures under which the assets of Serbia and Montengro have been frozen. The Union has made it clear that this phased suspension will not be supported by the EU until Serbian implementation of a peace plan in Bosnia has been verified. It has also been made clear to Croatia that lack of co-operation in the peace process would result in the imposition of sanctions on that State also.
To underline the seriousness of its concern the Foreign Ministers of the Union met the parties to the conflict as well as the leaders of Serbia and Croatia on 29 November last and again on 22 December. We explained the plan in detail to the parties and pressed them to negotiate, within the conference, on this basis. In particular, we pressed the Serbian side to make the necessary concessions to meet the demands of the Bosnian Government that one-third of the territory of Bosnia be assigned to the Muslim-majority republic. This is now agreed in principle but the precise location of the territory has still to be settled. The Union also demanded that the Bosnian Serbs should permit the immediate opening of Tuzla airport to enable relief supplies to get through.
However, the elements of agreement and the pressure exerted by the European Union have not been sufficient to persuade the parties to end the war. Fighting continues in central Bosnia and Sarajevo continues to be shelled by the Bosnian Serbs. The delivery of humanitarian aid continues to be blocked in certain areas and the Serbs refuse to allow Tuzla airport to be reopened.
Faced with this situation there have been calls for the UN to use force, in particular air power, in Bosnia. The relevant Resolutions of the Security Council authorise UNPROFOR to take all necessary measures, including the use of force, to achieve certain objectives in Bosnia. Clearly, however, the UN bears a particularly onerous responsibility in deciding on military action. It must address several difficult and complex questions. For what purpose should force be used? Should it be used to get humanitarian aid through for more limited objectives, such as opening Tuzla airport, or only in self-defence? What of the likely outcome? Would military action result in an escalation of the conflict? Would it provoke attacks on UNPROFOR forcing its withdrawal? Could it break the consensus which has operated in the Security Council up to now? I believe that these and other serious questions will need to be weighed carefully before any decision is taken on the use of military force in Bosnia.
In addition to the calls for military action, there have been suggestions that the UN should pull out of Bosnia. I could not advocate such a course. UNPROFOR has, through its determined work in difficult circumstances, performed a vital function in Bosnia. I hope that its mandate will be renewed in March when it is reviewed by the Security Council.
The negotiations between the Bosnian parties are to resume early in February. Given that the military option is being pursued on the ground, no one could be overly optimistic about the possibilities for an early settlement. I hope that this valuable opportunity for peace will not be lost and I believe that the European Union and the international community generally must continue to maintain political pressure on all the parties to arrive at an agreement. To do otherwise would consign the suffering people of Bosnia to further misery and destruction.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as an freagra fada a thug sé dúinn. Ba mhaith liom a rá freisin go n-aithním an obair ilghnéitheach atá déanta go dtí seo chun síocháin a bhaint amach.
In the midst of all the background information I am anxious to know if the Minister accepts that Bosnia has suffered greatly. I would argue it is the most injured party in the conflict and will have to relinquish the most territory in this three way plan. In pursuing the peace process, would the Minister indicate whether the Government is considering the proposal to withdraw food aid to bring pressure on the Bosnians, particularly to accept the plan envisaged? Does the Minister accept that Tuzla airport is not as endangered as some say given that UN flights are apparently able to get in and leave? The suggestion has been made that food aid would not be able to get in. Is the Government clear, in pursuing the peace process, that it will not do so at the cost of humanitarian aid and it will not be used as a weapon to bring pressure, particularly on the Bosnians?
In a very difficult situation it is extremely important that all our efforts, and the humanitarian efforts of the international community, should be maintained despite the difficulties, the frustrations and the blockages, for example, in various locations of getting humanitarian relief through. I do not believe that should be used as a weapon of war which is what it would amount to.
In regard to who is carrying the most onerous task of the warring factions, for the past 12 months I have been involved in many discussions at European level and, indeed, at international level in relation to this conflict. The parties are not very far apart in relation to the territorial divide. We had a meeting on 22 December in Brussels with the leading parties and there was a prospect in the course of that day's negotiations that further agreement could be reached to bring the negotiations to a conclusion. Unfortunately, that was not the outcome of those discussions. The question of Tuzla airport was very much on the agenda that day because there is a strong feeling at both UN and European Union level that the opening of that airport would be of enormous benefit in relation to the provision of humanitarian aid. We continue to press for access to Tuzla airport but it has not proved possible to date.
Since the conflict began the European Union has allocated a total of 690 million ECU in humanitarian assistance for relief operations. The total amount in 1993 is 400 million ECU. The European Union, and its member states, has been the largest contributor by far to assisting the international relief effort. We have contributed between 60 and 70 per cent of aid and despite the difficulties and frustrations and, as Deputy Durkan said the aid falling into the wrong hands at times, we have an obligation to ensure that relief is brought to the many people in the former Yugoslavia who are suffering.
First, would the Tánaiste agree that the European Parliament's apparent doubts about Lord Owen are not helpful and that if we are to make any progress continuity is preferable to changing jockeys at this late stage in the proceedings? The Tánaiste said that the three parties were not far apart on the territorial issue. Second, would he indicate whether it was conceded that the Muslim majority area of Bosnia was to have access to the Adriatic coast? Third, in relation to the use of force, is he aware that the apparent position of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutrous Boutrous Ghali, is that he will only use force when called upon to do so by his envoy in Bosnia? It would appear a consensus has not been in operation in the United Nations Security Council; the only consensus is to do nothing.
I will try to deal with the three component parts of Deputy McDowell's question. First, in relation to the call from the members of the European Parliament on Lord Owen's position, on the one hand I can understand a certain sense of frustration, one we have all felt in dealing with this problem. At the same time, in regard to my dealings with him at meetings and briefings and his reporting back to the European Union, who employed him on this mission which is not easy at the best of times, I believe he has discharged his duties in a tireless and exemplary manner with his colleague, Thorvald Stoltenberg. As far as I am concerned, certainly arising from our last meeting in Brussels in December, the European Union at ministerial level will support Lord Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg in their efforts. Despite setbacks they continue to try to start negotiations and will continue to do so. Ultimately, it is a question of arriving at an agreement between the parties. They have negotiated in very difficult circumstances. At times it is like negotiating on shifting sands — you think you have an agreement between all the parties on a Saturday but it is gone by Monday because of internal pressures between the various factions.
The question of access for the Bosnians to the Adriatic is an important factor and at the most recent discussions in Brussels it was not a question of agreeing access but where the port access would be. Many opinions were offered.
In regard to the question of the call for air strikes, my understanding is that the Secretary General, and the members of the Security Council, are currently discussing the specific modalities of the authorisation of air strikes. The Security Council has the responsibility under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter for deciding what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Security Council Resolution A.36 provides for the use of all necessary measures through the use of air power in and around the designated safe areas to support UNPROFOR in the performance of its mandate. It stipulates that measures such as the use of air power can be taken under the authority of the Security Council and subject to close co-ordination with the Secretary General.
That is the position. It has been discussed, as the Deputy will be aware, on many occasions. There are conflicting opinions as to the use of air power in the first instance. By attempting to use air power one is then effectively saying that one is taking out the United Nations troops, the UNPROFOR mission, which would exacerbate what is already a very difficult situation.
We all realise that this is a very difficult situation. The reason the military option has not been exercised up to now is the difficult terrain involved. Would the Minister accept that this conflict and the impotence of the European Union in dealing with it and obtaining results to date is damaging the Union itself? Would the Minister also agree that this frustration expressed by the vote in the European Parliament is very far from being helpful to the cohesion of the European Union, particularly in relation to issues such as common foreign and security policy? Can the Minister give the House any indication of the likely unanimity of the United Nations if a military intervention policy option was exercised? In particular, would he comment on whether there might be a Russian veto at the Security Council in this matter?
With all due respect, I think Deputy Hogan is moving ahead of the position obtaining. Having attended at least one meeting per month, in some months two and three meetings, at which this has been on the agenda, I have to say there is a palpable feeling of frustration and anger that the Yugoslav crisis seems to be interminable. Obviously there are limits to what one can do. In deciding on strategic options one must be very careful not to render a bad situation worse. I have heard colleagues express views that, had they a number of days available, they would solve the problem themselves, that is at the highest level. I politely suggested that I could recommend some other place after they had finished with former Yugoslavia. More than anything else, it was an expression of frustation.
I do not think there is an understanding of the efforts of the European Union and of the United Nations in what we have been endeavouring to do in terms of humanitarian aid, UNPROFOR and the presence on the ground of many troops. We see the various conflicts that have taken place, evidenced by recent discussions at military level in the former Yugoslavia. We must endeavour to assist the peace process. Ultimately the parties themselves, the leadership of the various factions within former Yugoslavia, must arrive at a settlement. The European Union is the main contributor to humanitarian aid. We are available to assist in any way possible and will continue to do so.
Air strikes are a double-edged sword, if I may use that expression. The same view has been taken by the United States administration, the European Union administration and the Russians. There appears to have been a fair degree of unanimity between the European Union, the Russian Parliament and leadership and the United States. We want to be helpful but we want to ensure that our help does not cause more problems.
Would the Minister agree that, unfortunately, it is not possible to turn the clock back and undo the horrors that have been prepetrated in the former Yugoslavia? Would he agree that the question of either ending the arms embargo on some of the groups involved, or the use of air strikes, would have to be weighed against the possibility that the net result could be an extension of the conflict into other areas in the Balkans? Would he agree that the last thing we would want to do is widen the war and engage other ethnic groups in conflict?
Would the Minister indicate whether the Irish Government has taken a position on any arrangement that may evolve from negotiations between the three groups involved? Have we made it clear that any states established as a result of these negotiations would be firmly based on the United Nations Charter on the recognition and defence of human rights and pluralism within such states?
I must agree with Deputy De Rossa in relation to one's attitude to the lifting of the arms embargo on which there has been widespread discussion. There are those, and I would be one of them, who believe that if one succumbs to that option, effectively one is telling the combatents to fight out the war to the bitter end. That is an option that has to be avoided. Obviously the same applies in relation to the air strikes. I would be very slow to support the idea of air strikes. Then there is the whole question of increasing the conflict. There is a widespread view that the whole of the Balkans could very easily become caught up in this conflict. I do not want to use the term "containable conflict" bearing in mind the men, women and children we have witnessed in recent days being killed in the conflict. We must pursue our efforts for a peaceful resolution. There has not been a great opportunity for spelling out how we would react if, for example, three new republics were established. Obviously, we would want them to be established on the basis of the United Nations Charter. Certainly that would be our aim, what we would be working toward and supporting.
May I bring the Minister back to the evacuation of seriously injured people in Sarajevo to western countries? I believe that 2,000 beds have been made available by the international community under the United Nations MEDIVAC Committee's arrangements for the transfer of seriously wounded people from Sarajevo and that, to date, only 231 people have actually managed to get out? No doubt the Minister is aware that last week the Bosnian Health Minister appealed to the European Union to endeavour to speed up this evacuation process. Would the Minister say whether this Government has responded positively to that appeal? Is he not concerned that the United Nations MEDIVAC Committee meets quite lethargically once a month to discuss this matter? What is his response to that dilemma?
We would want to be as helpful as possible. The question of getting people out of the former Yugoslavia for medical assistance is on the agenda of the European Union Ministers and will be discussed on Monday week. Certainly I shall be urging all of our partners to co-operate and assist where possible.
It is my understanding that Tuzla airport is open to certain military flights. If I am correct in that assumption, would the Minister say whether Tuzla airport is open to humanitarian aid in general, since the importance of humanitarian aid cannot be over emphasised? Would the Minister say whether it is clear to all involved that humanitarian aid does not include arms? Where does the definition of "humanitarian aid" begin and end?
It would be my understanding also that humanitarian aid certainly does not include arms and, in relation to this conflict, I am not aware of arms having been included. The question of the reopening of Tuzla airport is on our agenda. Enormous pressure was exercised at the meeting held in Brussels on 22 December last to get agreement on the reopening of the airport for humanitarian use. Operational decisions will be taken by UNPROFOR and people on the ground. I understand people are reluctant to use the airport because of the conflict. The UNPROFOR contingent are very anxious that Tuzla airport be reopened. Apparently it would render the delivery of humanitarian aid a great deal easier because of the distances that must otherwise be travelled. It is a proposal we shall certainly pursue in the hope that somebody will realise that humanitarian aid is for the benefit of all communities.
While appreciating all the difficulties in this matter, would the Minister agree with me that one thing the European Union powers certainly can do is reiterate to the Serbians acting in Bosnia that anybody who uses aerial bombardment of a multi-ethnic city, such as Sarajevo as a tactic in this matter will be held to account, that it is a war crime to bomb civilians? Should this continue I suggest that the European Union make it clear to the Serbian Government that sanctions will remain in place until the Serbian community produce for trial those who are authorising and conducting that savage bombardment of civilians. Is the Tánaiste aware that during the so-called Christmas ceasefire 50 people were killed and 300 injured? Is it not abundantly clear that until those who are firing the mortars and shells into Sarajevo believe that one day they will be caught and put on trial they will keep the Bosnian Government under pressure? Will the European Union make lifting of the sanctions conditional on bringing to account the people who are engaged in that barbarous campaign?
Obviously, the continuous shelling of Sarajevo is something we all deplore and the European Union has taken a very strong position in relation to it. There are difficulties in relation to the proposals on Sarajevo. I am sure the Deputy is aware of the Geneva invincible package in relation to the proposal to have Sarajevo and Mostar under UN and European Union supervision. Obviously that is unacceptable to the Bosnian Serbs but at the same time there is absolutely no justification for the bombardment we have seen in recent days. This matter will be on the political agenda of our European meeting on Monday week. There is no question of sanctions being lifted. Perhaps the Deputy is suggesting that more strenuous warnings should be given in relation to the conduct of the shelling.
