Vol. 443 No. 5
14 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation with regard to a peace pact in Bosnia-Hercegovina; and if Ireland will support a peace plan against legitimising ethnic cleansing.
24 Mr. McGinley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the peace pact in Bosnia-Hercegovina; and if he will confirm that Ireland will not support a peace plan legitimising ethnic cleansing.
31 Mr. Hogan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the peace pact in Bosnia-Hercegovina; and if he will confirm that Ireland will not support a peace plan legitimising ethnic cleansing.
48 Ms F. Fitzgerald asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the publication Bosnia Report produced by the Alliance to Defend Bosnia-Hercegovina; and if he intends to support the position outlined therein at the next UN meeting.
57 Mr. Callely asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the decisions and measures taken by the European Union to address the problems in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and other areas of former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement on the present situation.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 24, 31, 48 and 57 together.
The Government's overall approach to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia has been, and will continue to be guided by three essential aims, first, to maintain and develop the search for a peaceful settlement of the conflict on the basis of the European Union's peace plan; second, to prevent the spread of the conflict and, third, to ensure the supply and delivery of humanitarian assistance to the victims. Our actions at the United Nations, in the European Union, and bilaterally, have been directed at achieving these objectives.
Since I last reported to the Dál on the situation in the former Yugoslavia there have been some significant developments.
On 11 May in Vienna the Muslim and Croat parties in Bosnia agreed on a series of measures to enable the new consitutional arrangement agreed in Washington in March to come into effect. These envisage the creation of a Federation of Bosnia and Hercegovina which will be associated in a confederal arrangement with Croatia. The Washington and Vienna agreements brought an end to the heavy fighting between Croat and Muslim forces which had been under way in Bosnia for almost a year, and they pave the way for a settlement that will permit access to the sea — a key requirement for the people of Bosnia.
On 13 May Ministers from the European Union, the United States and Russia met in Geneva together with the co-chairmen of the International Conference, David Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg. They confirmed that the conflict in Bosnia cannot be resolved by military means and must be settled through negotiations. They also underlined their support for a settlement that preserves Bosnia as a single union within its internationally recognised borders. Ministers called upon the parties to conclude a comprehensive cessation of hostilities and an unconditional resumption of serious efforts to reach a political settlement.
There are some prospects for a general cessation of hostilities. The Bosnian parties are to meet in Geneva tomorrow, under UN auspices. The EU, UN, Russia and the US are also working for an early resumption of the negotiations within the framework of the International Conference. I do not wish, however, to underestimate the difficulties which lie ahead, particularly with regard to the negotiations on territorial issues. Under the EU's plan, these require the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from almost one-third of the territory which they hold. The negotiations on the relationship between the Bosnian-Croat Federation and the Bosnian-Serb territories will also be extremely difficult.
Ireland and the other members of the European Union have condemned ethnic cleansing and rejected it as the basis for a settlement in Bosnia. The refusal to accept the acquisition of territory by force is a central feature of the European Union's peace plan. That plan also envisages important and detailed provisions on the protection of human rights and the reversal of ethnic cleansing; the right of refugees and displaced persons freely to return to their homes and the nullification of all statements or commitments made under duress, particularly those relating to the relinquishing of rights to land or property.
It is envisaged that a comprehensive list of human rights instruments will be incorporated in the settlement. There is provision for ombudsmen to ensure that human dignity, rights or liberties will not be negated, and that ethnic cleansing will not be pursued. In addition, the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia will have a critical role in the prosecution of those who have violated international humanitarian law.
I have seen the most recent issue of Bosnia Report published by the Alliance to Defend Bosnia-Hercegovina which contains a series of articles on various aspects of the Bosnian conflict and proposals for its resolution. Several of the proposals are already part of Euoprean Union policy and have been acted on, such as raising the siege of Sarajevo and Gorazde, the creation of aid corridors, the opening of Tuzla airport. Others concerning human rights guarantees, the reversal of ethnic cleansing and the return of displaced persons and property, are central elements in the European Union's plan. There are several elements in the proposals which I could not advocate, in particular, the lifting of the arms embargo, the arming of the Bosnian Government and the threat of widespread military intervention. Such actions would be tantamount to saying to the parties that the international community had given up hope of a negotiated solution. They would spell the end of UNPROFOR and its vital work of humanitarian assistance and could lead to a more intense military conflict involving Serbia itself, with the risk of a spread of fighting elsewhere in the Balkans.
Will the Minister agree that as long as the Serbs continue to shell and bomb their way to the peace table their actions should not be sanitised by allowing them to discuss a peace pact? Does he agree the time has come for the international community to say enough is enough and for sanctions to be increased if they do not cease their genocide of the Bosnian Moslems? That point will be reached sooner or later and would it not be better if it were reached sooner rather than later when more lives will have been lost?
We are trying to achieve a negotiated settlement to an extremely complex and difficult problem. We make progress at times only to see it undermined in a matter of days. The attitude of — and aggression by — the Serbs has not been helpful in seeking a resolution of the problem. The EU has attempted to lead the efforts of the UN, the US and Russia and will continue to do so on the basis of the peace plan which was devised. Some progress has been made since we last discussed the matter and, despite the difficulties, I am hopeful we will make further progress.
The Deputy raised the question of the threat of use of military force.
Further sanctions.
Sanctions proved effective where they were applied and it is important that they be maintained at the highest level. The threat of air strikes was effective as regards Sarajevo and Mostar. That was extremely important. The work done recently by the UN, the US, Russia and the EU most recently in Geneva will be helpful and I hope the meeting which takes place tomorrow will record further progress.
Does the Minister agree in restrospect that he was foolish to concede about four days before the air strikes that they would not be helpful? Regarding the outcome of any possible settlement in Bosnia Hercegovina does he agree that it appears territorial and ethnic issues come ahead of redressing the individual wrongs done? Would he agree that the notion of having a war crimes tribunal in respect of rape and genocide is being put to one side and it is likely, as a matter of realpolitik, to achieve a settlement that there will be an amnesty in relation to such matters? Will he indicate the Government's attitude to proposals for such an amnesty and how we propose to ensure in future that those who use genocide and rape as a means of achieving their political ends will not be rewarded in the last analysis with a geographic status quo?
As regards the prosecution of war crimes, I am sure the Deputy is aware that the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violation of international humanitarian law in the territory of former Yugoslavia since 1991 has been established. It held two sessions in its seat in the Hague, one in November 1993 and one in January-February 1994. It adopted rules of procedure and evidence and a third session began on 25 April. The tribunal continues to make the necessary preparations for its future operations tasks such as arrangements for the tribunal, UN detention centre and the translation of evidence. On 14 April the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution authorising the spending of up to $11 million for the tribunal. Obviously these matters will have to be pursued. As the Deputy suggested, I do not see where people would be allowed to profit or gain from the dreadful and abhorrent acts highlighted in the House during the earlier part of the conflict. The work must be continued. Ultimately, it is a question of negotiation in relation to the territories and former Yugoslavia. Progress has been made in many areas and I am hopeful further progress will be made tomorrow.
The Minister's answer regarding the war crimes tribunal was fuzzy. Will he give an undertaking that it is the Government's position that there will not be peace in former Yugoslavia unless it is accompanied by justice? Rather than talking about negotiations in a vague way, it is absolute that we support the prosecution of people involved in the most serious and horrible war crimes the world has seen in recent times and that would form part of any settlement within former Yugoslavia? Will the Minister confirm that is our foreign policy on this matter?
Yes, of course. We contributed to the establishment of the tribunal——
And we will not negotiate any of that away?
——so that crimes could be prosecuted. That is the intention of the EU. We are trying simultaneously to bring the parties to the negotiating table. Despite the atrocities and horrendous background to this conflict we had some success in recent months. Ultimately, we must arrive at a negotiated settlement acceptable to all parties which will bring about lasting peace.
The Minister outlined three points at the beginning of this reply — the pursuit of a peace settlement; the prevention of the spread of the war and the supply of aid and defence of the civilian population. Is he aware of the threats made by some participants in the current peace process, France in particular, towards withdrawing troops and cutting back on aid unless certain things were done? Does he consider that is self-defeating and that it is a mistake to assume threats of that kind will ever bring about reconciliation of the peoples of Bosnia?
I am aware of the threats of the French Government and Foreign Minister. These were discussed at our meetings. It is my view that this statement was made as a result of frustration by the French troops at the lack of co-operation on the ground. The troops in former Yugoslavia have been working in very difficult and testing conditions for many months. They want greater co-operation. The British, Spanish and French troops acting on behalf of the European Union and the United Nations have made an enormous contribution. I believe at this stage the threat will not be carried out and that the troops will remain to see if they can help to resolve this conflict.
I am anxious to facilitate the other Deputies who have tabled questions. I will call Deputy McDowell and Deputy Connor for a final question.
Will the Minister agree that the jurisdiction and enforcement procedures of the war crimes tribunal to which he referred must be sustained and built into any peace settlement and that, as a matter of Irish foreign policy, there will be no retrenchment or giving in on this issue? It must be a central and integral part of any European Union support for a settlement in Bosnia that that jurisdiction survives and effective enforcement measures given to the tribunal to prosecute and bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and rape.
I understand that that is the intention of the tribunal, which will remain in existence——
I am asking about the European Union's intention, not the tribunal's intention.
The Minister, without interruption.
The views expressed by Deputy McDowell and others will be reflected during the course of our discussions at European Union level. It is essential that the tribunal remains effective and that prosecutions are brought.
Does this apply to everyone, including leaders, so that nobody is left out?
The Minister referred to a negotiated settlement, implying that everything is on the table. Will he give an undertaking that the role of an international war crimes tribunal will not be compromised in any way? Naturally Serbia will seek a compromise on this issue and say if there is an amnesty for something they will give way on something else. Is it our foreign policy that there should be no compromise in terms of the role of an international war crimes tribunal?
As stated on many occasions in this House, we want to see those responsible for these reprehensible crimes and atrocities brought to justice. That is our aim and we will continue to pursue it. The views expressed by Deputies on this matter will be reflected in my contributions at European Union meetings.
