Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Dec 1995

Vol. 459 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sanctions Against Nigeria.

Peadar Clohessy

Ceist:

7 Mr. Clohessy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will raise with the EU Council of Ministers the possibility of a boycott by the EU member states of Nigerian oil and other exports from that country to encourage a return to democratic civil government in Nigeria consequent on the much condemned execution of nine people in Nigeria recently. [18343/95]

Eric J. Byrne

Ceist:

16 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations at EU level for the EU to impose a comprehensive oil embargo on the Nigerian military regime in view of the deteriorating human rights situation in Nigeria and, in particular, in Ogoniland; the representations, if any, he has made to the Nigerian authorities seeking clemency for those prisoners currently on death row; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18297/95]

Ray Burke

Ceist:

23 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the action, if any, he intends to take, at national and European level, to express this nation's revulsion at the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates by the Nigerian authorities; the position taken by Ireland on this matter at the Council of Ministers; and the degree of consensus among the Council of Ministers to take action against the Nigerian authorities. [18304/95]

Michael P. Kitt

Ceist:

38 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the action, if any, to be taken against Nigeria following the execution of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his fellow campaigners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17658/95]

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

48 Mr. O'Malley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will break off diplomatic relations with Nigeria and close the Embassy in Lagos until such time as the democratically elected President of that county is freed and restored to office and an elected civilian government takes over following the execution of nine people recently in Nigeria on very dubious grounds. [18339/95]

Eoin Ryan

Ceist:

63 Mr. E. Ryan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the action, if any, Ireland has taken regarding the executions in Nigeria; the level at which this issue has been raised; and the Government's response to the proposed oil embargo. [17804/95]

Tom Kitt

Ceist:

64 Mr. T. Kitt asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will impose economic and trade sanctions against the current oppressive regime in Nigeria following the murders of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight Ogoni campaigners who had led peaceful protests in defence of their people's human rights. [18198/95]

Batt O'Keeffe

Ceist:

66 Mr. B. O'Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will urge his EU colleagues to impose a trade sanction against Nigeria. [18398/95]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 16, 23, 38, 48, 63, 64 and 66 together.

Ireland, both bilaterally and along with its partners in the European Union, has consistently expressed its serious concern to the Nigerian authoriies about the case of the late Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants. The Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Joan Burton, gave a comprehensive account of the Government's repeated efforts and appeals to the Nigerian Head of State for clemency in their case during her statement to the House on the Adjournment on 9 November. As Deputies will, unfortunately, be aware, these appeals, along with those of the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and numerous other members of the international community, were subsequently ignored. It was with great sadness and personal disappointment that I found myself expressing the Government's deep sense of shock when the sentences of the Ogoni Civil Disturbances Tribunal were carried out.

The executions of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants have provided renewed impetus to Ireland and its partners in the European Union to determine what further measures need to be adopted against Nigeria in view of the human rights abuses of the military regime and its failure to demonstrate convincingly its intention to return to democratic rule within a credible and democratic timeframe. This is reflected in the fact that within the past fortnight two meetings of the General Affairs Council adopted Common Positions on measures against Nigeria.

In its Common Position of 20 November, which Ireland called for and keenly supported, the European Union strongly condemned the execution of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight co-defendants which took place on 10 November. It deemed this to be a clear failure by Nigeria to honour its commitment to human rights as enshrined in a number of international instruments to which Nigeria is a party.

In general terms, the European Union used that Common Position to condemn the human rights abuses perpetrated by the military regime, including capital punishment and harsh prison sentences, implemented following a flawed judicial process and without the possibility of recourse to a higher court. It expressed particular concern at the detention without trial of political figures and the suspension of habeas corpus. It recalled its deep concern at the annulment of Nigeria's 1993 elections — which were considered free and fair — and the installation of a new military dictatorship at that time.

Among the measures adopted or reaffirmed in the Common Position of 20 November are the following: an embargo on arms, munitions and military equipment; the suspension of development co-operation with Nigeria with the possible exceptions of poverty alleviation and support for human rights and democracy; visa restrictions on members of the Provisional Ruling Council and the Federal Executive Committee or their families; suspension of military co-operation and visits of members of the military; visa restrictions on members of the military or security forces and their families; cancellation of military training courses; suspension of all high level visits that are not indispenable to and from Nigeria.

In adopting these measures Ireland strongly supported the inclusion of a review clause in the Common Position. We did this in order to convey to the Nigerian authorities that further measures would continue to be considered by the European Union and that the situation in Nigeria would be kept under close review. We also wished to underline that current measures could be increased and strengthened if the situation fails to improve.

Along with other EU Foreign Ministers at the General Affairs Council last Monday, I gave Ireland's support to a further Common Position on Nigeria which adopted additional restrictive measures against Nigeria. These provided for: the non-admission to EU countries of persons already in possession of long-term EU visas who are members of the Nigerian Provisional Ruling Council, the Federal Executive Council, the military or security forces and their families; the expulsion of military attachés serving in Nigerian embassies in the EU and the withdrawal of their EU counterparts from Nigeria; the interruption of all contacts in the field of sports through the denial of visas to official delegations and national teams; the adoption of a resolution on Nigeria at the 50th UN General Assembly; the inclusion of Nigeria on the agenda of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

This latest Common Position is framed in stronger terms than its predecessor, clearly stating that further measures, "including sanctions", will be considered if specific steps are not taken by the Nigerian authorities towards an early transition to democracy and full respect for human rights and the rule of law. Renewable at six-monthly intervals, the Common Position will be monitored by the Ministerial Council to which the Presidency and Commission will regularly report.

The measures adopted in the EU Common Positions of 20 November and 4 December clearly express the EU's intention to keep the situation in Nigeria under close scrutiny for the foreseeable future and to take such further action as may be required in response to developments. More restrictive measures, including an oil embargo or assets freeze which I would support, will be considered by the Government and our EU partners accordingly.

At Monday's Council meeting my own view that we should introduce an oil embargo and a freezing of Nigerian assets was shared by a number of colleagues, but the majority was in favour of adopting the measures I have listed. The feeling was that the time was not yet right, and that an embargo would need to be global to be effective. The same consideration would apply to any other envisaged sanctions.

It is extremely important that if these or similar options are adopted, they get the full backing of the international community and are not undermined by a lack of cohesion in their observance at international level. The Government, therefore, strongly supports EU consultation with like-minded states on the question of an oil embargo and other measures to ensure that this will be the case.

We are very concerned by reports that 19 more Ogoni activists have been charged and are due for trial by the Ogoni Civil Disturbances Tribunal in connection with the murders upon which the case against the late Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues was based. It is partly in the context of this regressive and most deplorable development that Ireland has urged, within the EU, the review and strengthening of existing measures. The Government will closely monitor such events in Nigeria and will give its full support to those measures which will put strong political and economic pressure on the Nigerian regime to bring about an early transition to democracy and respect for human rights.

At Ireland's instigation, the EU sent a fact-finding mission to Ogoniland in November 1994 to assess the damage caused by the very serious civil disturbances in the area. As a result of the findings of the mission in which Ireland, Austria and the EU Commission participated, a substantial grant was approved under the EU Commission's ECHO programme for the reconstruction of villages and community facilities in Ogoniland. The implementing agency for that programme was Trócaire. Bilaterally, Ireland has provided a grant of £14,000 for the restoration of fishing activities in a number of Ogoni villages. This year, we have stepped up our funding in support of human rights activities in Nigeria with a grant of almost £15,000 for the Nigerian Civil Liberties Organisation. We have also provided funding for another Nigerian NGO in the amount of £7,000 for the provision of free legal aid for prisoners being held on long-term remand — this can be for anything up to ten years. In addition to funding for human rights activities, £467,183 has been allocated so far this year under the Government's NGO cofinancing scheme in support of poverty alleviation programmes throughout Nigeria.

Officials at my Department are in consultation with the Irish Ambassador to Nigeria whom I recalled from Lagos immediately after the Ogoni tribunal executions were carried out. This was followed by the recall of almost all EU Ambassadors for consultations over an indefinite period. The Nigerian Ambassador to Ireland was recalled to Lagos a short time later. The Government has not yet decided on the question of the Ambassador's return and is actively discussing the matter with EU partners. The return of our Ambassador will have to be carefully evaluated in view of ongoing developments in Nigeria, the need to continue to express our views to the Nigerian Government through diplomatic channels and the need to protect the interests of the substantial number of Irish citizens residing in Nigeria.

The Minister said that he personally and, presumably, the Government would support the imposition of an embargo on oil exports from Nigeria, but that this is not the majority view within the European Union. Is Ireland in a position, as a gesture at least, to do so unilaterally or must this be done by all 15 member states acting together? If it is the argument of the majority in the European Union that there would have to be a universal or global ban, does the Minister agree that the refusal of the European Union to buy any oil would have a serious effect on Nigeria and, perhaps, bring it to its senses and lead to the restoration of the democratically-elected President who won what was universally regarded as a free and fair election in 1993 against the military regime, but who is now in jail without a proper charge or conviction? Will the Minister call for his immediate release and reinstatement as President of Nigeria?

It is fair to say that a unilateral imposition of an oil embargo by Ireland would be an empty gesture. The Deputy knows much about the oil industry but, to the best of my knowledge, virtually all of our oil is supplied from the North Sea. An embargo would therefore be pointless. I argued strongly that we should seek an international oil embargo as well as asset freezing. The general view within the European Union is that further action may be necessary depending on developments in Nigeria. It would be for the United Nations to impose these sanctions if they are necessary. The EU would probably not have as much impact as would be hoped if it acted on its own. Obviously, these matters will be considered.

The Irish Government would like to see the release and reinstatement of the President who was elected following what were deemed by the free world to be free and fair elections and the end of the military regime. The civilised world made its views known over recent weeks and will continue to do so. I believe we will have a long and difficult battle with the Nigerian regime to establish the rule of law and respect for democracy.

Would the Minister agree that the only action and language these murdering thugs who are in control in Nigeria will understand is an oil embargo because their concerns are cash and assets? Even if one leaves aside the support of America, the main purchaser of Nigerian oil, the imposition of an embargo by the EU on the purchase of Nigerian oil would be a major gesture given its size. I am a little taken aback by the Minister's reference to "depending on developments in Nigeria." How many more people must be hung or how much more environmental damage must there be in Ogoniland and elsewhere?

Will the Minister refer to the role of Shell International in this and the environmental damage caused there? The cancellation of visas and embargoes on arms imports are meaningless. This is about cash into the bank accounts of the generals and civil service in control in Nigeria. The only thing they will understand is the drying up of that cash.

As I said in my reply, I was one of a number of Ministers who argued unsuccessfully with our European colleagues that we should have a total oil embargo. I agree with the Deputy that that would have an impact and let the Nigerian regime know they will be cut off from trade. Some 98 per cent of their overseas earnings come from oil and I will continue to argue for a total embargo and the freezing of assets. Everything must be done to bring these people to their senses. The prospect of further executions is worrying. The trials will take place in January and that is what I meant by future developments. I will continue to argue with my European colleagues and I will probably have an opportunity to do so at the European Council meeting in Madrid next week.

The view of the Government on Shell International was set out by the Minister of State in my Department, Deputy Burton. Multinationals such as Shell should consider carefully the human rights aspects of their business operations. There is onus on the Nigerian Government and State parties to do likewise. There is one difficulty when one sets out to impose sanctions. While we want to impact on the military regime in Nigeria, there is always a danger that the stricken population in Nigeria will be hurt severely. In that respect we are trying to co-operate with the NGOs and the many Irish missionaries doing great work there to ensure that work can continue.

Would the Minister agree that the argument he made about affecting the population was also made in relation to South Africa and that the people of Nigeria are entitled to the same right to self determination? Would he agree that the EU has only given a gentle warning about an oil embargo? As Deputy Burke said, oil revenue is keeping those people in power. Is it true that Shell International has continually involved itself in joint ventures with the Nigerian regime and that they are strengthening those joint ventures? Will the Government and the EU take up that issue against Shell International?

I am not aware of the extent of Shell International's involvement with the Nigeria Government. A strong message should go to Shell International to examine its involvement in Nigeria and in what is happening. It may be in a position to assist the world in calling for the reinstatement of a democratically elected Government, respect for human rights and the establishment of total democracy in that country. They may be in a position to exercise more influence than all of the Governments in the world.

Will the Minister take independent action at UN level to call for an international embargo on oil purchases from the Nigerian regime?

In terms of the adoption of a resolution by the UN, the views of the Irish Government, as expressed by me at the EU Council of Ministers meeting on Monday, will be reflected at the UN.

Barr
Roinn