Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Jun 1999

Vol. 506 No. 1

Human Rights Issues: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): When it comes to human rights and the discussion on it, there is scarcely a subject which involves more hypocrisy on the part of those taking part. Human rights, as far as international politics and the major political forces are concerned, is really a badge of convenience. It is something with which to belt one's political opponents in different parts of the world in order to secure ends which are far from human rights but rather economic, military or political advantage.

At present NATO is engaged in a bombing campaign in the Balkans. The human rights of the Kosovars is the only reason given for that action. The brutal regime of Milosevic is correctly demonised but that demonisation is the sole excuse for the campaign. This is absolute and utter hypocrisy on the part of the major NATO powers when, at the same time as paying lip-service to human rights in the Balkans, they are blind to other grotesque abuses of human rights equal to those of Milosevic happening in other parts of the world and, even worse, being perpetrated by members of the very organisation, NATO, claiming to take a stand for human rights in the Balkans.

Turkey is one of the most prominent members of NATO and is valued by the United States, Britain and other countries. Yet, for decades, particularly in the south-east of the country, it has waged a vicious, prolonged and brutal war against an entire nation of Kurdish people within the borders of Turkey. About 15 million people have lived for a long time under a vicious state of emergency. As Amnesty International, Helsinki Watch and other human rights groups have documented repeatedly, Turkey has been guilty of grotesque abuses of human rights against the Kurdish people and those who are opposed to what is currently happening in Turkey. Not only is there a military campaign within the borders of this NATO country, but the rights of the Kurdish people to enjoy freedom of culture, language and national expression are brutally repressed. Even their language is not recognised; it is forbidden and repressed in the education system, broadcasting and publishing under the diktat that everything in the country must be Turkish.

This is an incredible state of affairs. Equally incredible is the silence of the leaders of western countries in NATO which claim to stand for and respect democratic and human rights and the silence of the Irish Government and the main political parties in the House. I am sorry Deputy Gay Mitchell could not remain in the House – like me he has many commitments. The last time we discussed this matter, which was only a few weeks ago, Deputy Gay Mitchell on behalf of Fine Gael denounced Milosevic and stood up for the actions being taken against the Milosevic regime. However, he shifted uncomfortably in his seat when I reminded him that NATO was turning a blind eye to Turkey and said that issue was for another day. It is not for another day and it is outright hypocrisy that this issue is not being highlighted. If the Government and political parties are serious about standing up for human rights, it is issues such as this that should be raised.

The other day I questioned the Taoiseach about the attitude of the Government towards the bombing campaign, in particular the appalling and growing casualty list of innocent civilians, both ethnic Albanians and innocent Serbs, resulting from the NATO bombing. The Taoiseach got quite impatient and narked when I suggested the Government had a certain moral responsibility for this appalling damage, injury and death being inflicted on innocent civilians by virtue of the signing of a declaration by EU heads of state to the effect that the bombing campaign was inevitable. Successive Governments have followed the leading countries of NATO slavishly, particularly the diktats of the Pentagon and US Administrations, when it comes to international foreign policy, and have slavishly refused to condemn anything that is done by them even when it is absolutely indefensible. For example, the US fired rockets into the Sudan, allegedly to take out a terrorist organisation. Subsequent evidence showed that what was bombed was an innocent factory. We did not utter a word of condemnation against that particular violation of human rights. I am afraid that when people stand up and condemn human rights abuses in this country it is done quite selectively and in line with the interests the Government has, or believes it has, in remaining friends with the leading countries of NATO.

According to a reply by the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, to a parliamentary question tabled by me on 26 May 1999, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has given licences for dual goods, that is, goods which could be used for civilian or military warfare. Of these, four licences have been granted for integrated circuits for products sold to Turkey while one licence has been granted for the sale of aircraft related equipment. Does the Government or the Department know or have they taken steps to see if any of this equipment is used in the campaign against the Kurdish people? Similarly, in the context of other countries which have deplorable records in human rights, have successive Governments taken measures to establish, or do they care, whether the products for which licences are issued are used to quash human rights or bolster the positions of regimes?

The history of western powers in the context of human rights, which has been followed by the current and previous Governments, is one of double standards in the extreme. There is example upon example of this. The US thought it should go to war in 1990 when Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Kuwait. Of course, a few years earlier when Saddam Hussein poisoned the people of Halabja village with a monstrous gas attack the US turned a blind eye. Why would it do otherwise when it had been arming and supporting the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and other dictatorships? It was not until the US oil supply was threatened by the dictator it had helped create and who was getting too big for his boots that the US took action.

The hypocrisy of developments over the past 20 or 30 years is evident. The result is that, unfortunately, the peoples of the world cannot rely on these powers to defend their human rights because the defence of human rights is strictly secondary to naked economic and military interests. We had the extreme example in 1973 of a democratically elected Government in Chile being overthrown brutally and tens of thousands being murdered with the direct connivance of the US Administration and its agencies. This shows that the peoples who are repressed and downtrodden must rely primarily on their own resources and secondarily on international solidarity between the peoples of other countries, but they may not rely on the military and political establishments which have double standards.

In the course of two months the plight of the unfortunate people of Kosovo has been disastrously exacerbated by the appalling miscalculations of NATO's bombing. This has allowed the dictator Milosevic to do in two months what he could not have achieved in years. With the encouragement of the Serb opposition – the people who hate Milosevic – who stand for democracy and human rights in Serbia, Milosevic would be overthrown before he could succeed in doing anything to the extent to which he has succeeded under the cover of NATO bombs.

The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, is here representing the Government. I want her to take this opportunity to condemn the use of cluster bombs by NATO in residential areas in the Balkans. It is surely a crime to use bombs which are designed to inflict death and maim personnel, including civilians.

Other matters relating to this country have been mentioned. There is the question of the few thousand people seeking asylum here, many of whose cases have been in the pipeline for many years, who are still being denied the right to work in the State. The right to work, the dignity which comes from work and the economic rewards from work are fundamental to the enjoyment of life and to having the means to live in reasonable comfort. To continue to deny to those few thousand people this fundamental right is a gross denial of a basic human right. The Minister of State or whoever will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government should specify why the Government is continuing to deny this at a time when FÁS is sending recruiters around Europe looking for 10,000 people to fill positions which it cannot fill. That is deplorable, to say the least.

The plight of children over many decades in institutions run by the religious has been dramatically highlighted of late and that is as it should be. We have seen the perversion of State institutions which put a terrible burden on a generation of people who went through them and we must pay the cost. Happily, at last restitution is about to be made and that is as it should be.

However, VOCAL Ireland, which stands for Victims Of Child Abuse Laws, is a small group of people who allege that they have been falsely accused of sexual abuse of children often in the background of the context of bitter matrimonial or partnership separations, etc. Were anybody to be so accused it would be a monstrous perversion of his or her human rights and of any standards of justice and decency, but the group feels quite isolated at present because, naturally and correctly, the impulse of the vast majority in society is to protect children and to expose child abuse and bring it out of the closet where it was hidden for so long and nothing must cut across that. However, if there are cases, as is alleged by these people who are passionately convinced that they have been falsely accused, then they must be heard also.

In documentation which VOCAL Ireland sent to me and many Members of the Dáil in recent months, the group included the notes of a meeting between one of the groups representing these people and a principal officer of the Department of Health and Children. The principal officer's minute states:

I am conscious of the possibility that an injustice may have been done in one or more of the cases raised by the Group, most of which relate to the mid-1980's when our services for investigating allegations of child sexual abuse were not as developed as they are today.

The official further stated that this raises the question of restoring individuals' good names and/or providing compensation for distress, etc. The minute further states:

Short of establishing a Statutory Inquiry, it would be impossible for us to have the original evidence reviewed . .

An inquiry should be set up to examine the serious grievances of this group of people who are a small minority. It would establish the truth, allow them to tell their story and resolve what may be a serious miscarriage of justice.

Human rights touch on all aspects of human life. People have referred here to the situation in prisons, the fact that prisoners come from the deprived sections of society and the implications of that.

People have referred to the housing problem. That is quite correct except that when it was being raised by the main political parties they failed to draw the conclusion that the economic system which dominates society, that is, capitalism, is responsible for a systematic denial of human rights in that regard.

Mr. Durkan

The other system was not such a shining light in that regard either.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Any totalitarian system is an abomination. The denial of the basic right to shelter and to live in comfort is a denial of human rights, but it is the existing system and the profiteering and racketeering by a small cabal of respected people in society, house builders, landowners, etc., which is bringing this about. Correcting that abuse of human rights means changing and challenging the system of greed and profit of a few in society. I doubt the parties, which are paid large contributions by those individuals, will rise to that challenge.

Mr. Dennehy

Deputy Higgins is consistent in his approach to this and other debates, that is, if America is involved, then the opposition is right regardless of the facts.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): That is not true.

Mr. Dennehy

That is not a helpful approach and we have seen it in the past from him and other individuals. In the past they had a clear option, it was East versus West, but that is not an option since the collapse of the Russian inspired regime. Now it is the case that anyone the Americans are against, must be right. That blinkered approach has not helped anybody. It has not helped the various factions throughout the world fighting different wars and it has not helped to curb the real causes of trouble. Whichever side one takes, a knee-jerk reaction is unhelpful.

In contrast there is Deputy O'Kennedy's call, which I support, that the Parliament and the Government should speak out against our partners in Europe for their involvement in the horrendous arms trade. That is the approach which we should take, criticising the wrong regardless of where it is sourced. Wearing blinkers and assuming the Yanks are the big bad boys or vice versa, is to lose ground.

I strongly support Deputy O'Kennedy's call. The European and other industrialised countries involved in this trade are the real criminals. They provide arms which create mayhem throughout the world. In a debate such as this we tend to focus on the latest flashpoint. Many wars are ongoing throughout the world to which the people referred to by Deputy O'Kennedy are providing ammunition. Will the Minister inform the House of the steps being taken by Government to support Deputy O'Kennedy's call?

It is necessary to break into various segments any discussion on human rights. We must discuss local issues such as housing and the plight of the elderly who are unable to leave their homes for fear of attack. We must also consider the situation in the North. We must seek solutions to the various issues involved. The arms trade is a serious factor in the denial of human rights throughout the world and I would like to know what we are doing to address that.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Nothing.

Mr. Dennehy

If Deputy Higgins had his way, we would probably shift the country a bit further east. He was one of the people who came into the House in recent days and suggested Ireland was doing nothing about the football match which was due to take place this weekend. Even prior to 11 May our Ministers had taken action on the issue. Last week in this House people were reacting to the latest newspaper headlines. On 11 May the Minister for Foreign Affairs urged that UEFA would reconsider its decisions to proceed with matches involving the Yugoslav regime.

Having participated in a range of sports over the years, my gut feeling is that politics should be kept out of sports. However, that is impossible to achieve at this level. We saw the manner in which the campaign against apartheid was assisted by the decisions of various countries not to participate in sporting events with that regime. Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the decision taken in 1978 not to participate in the golfing world cup. That cost Ireland dearly.

The possible loss of points and revenue in regard to the football match was referred to. That is small change where human life is concerned. I am glad we took the decision not to grant visas. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation made his position on the matter very clear a while ago, as did Deputies O'Kennedy and O'Donnell, and it was unfair for Members to state otherwise in this House.

We tend to deal with issues which are removed from us. We are experts on problems and situations on the other side of the world and are tot ally committed to seeking solutions to them. For a long time, we were unable to grasp the difficulties in the North. The Good Friday Agreement is the most successful political achievement ever made on this island. An issue which successive Governments failed to tackle has finally been tackled. People were murdered and maimed but very little was done about that. It was suggested that the matter was too sensitive and that it involved people's traditions and rights. All manner of rights appeared to take precedence over human rights. I welcome the fact that we are now moving in the right direction on this issue although a great deal of work remains to be done.

We must look after the home patch. We tend to focus on macro issues. I am not comparing the problem of homelessness with people being murdered or bombed. However, there are issues here at home which should be tackled. We are particularly failing to tackle the plight of the elderly who live in fear. In spite of the availability of security alarms and other devices, we are failing to highlight the dangerous conditions in which elderly people live, having built the State for us. People are not being asked to become socially involved in their communities and we are not stressing the hard-earned rights of the elderly. Many elderly people do not enjoy the full range of human rights. Various categories of people, such as lone parents, have been referred to and the deprivation they suffer has been highlighted. Some people would assert that they are being ghettoised. However, the rights of the elderly is the issue which troubles me most.

Rape is one of the greatest infringements on human rights in this State. We have been very slow to recognise the seriousness of the crime and the trauma and difficulties experienced by victims. Rape victims have been forced through the legal system, people who have suffered horrendous attacks have had to go into court to fight their cases. The judicial system has tended to lean towards the perpetrators rather than the victims.

Cases can arise in which people feel they are victimised. As Deputy Higgins stated, fathers may feel they have been wrongly accused of crimes against their children. However, I feel the scales are often unfairly tipped in favour of the criminal and of more affluent and articulate people who can highlight their cases. That occurs to the detriment of smaller groups in society who are less capable of speaking up for themselves.

The Minister of State is doing an excellent job representing this country internationally. However, I would like to see increased emphasis on the national situation. It is easier in some ways to play on the world stage than to deal with situations which arise under our noses.

Deputy Higgins talked about people such as builders making money – his usual hobbyhorse – but the other side of that argument is the failure of councillors to rezone land and to take decisions that should have been taken many years ago. That failure to make land available affects young people trying to build homes, but that is a separate issue which can be dealt with elsewhere. A begrudging approach is often taken towards a person who becomes very wealthy because his or her family owned a farm in a particular location. As a result of that begrudging attitude, people failed to take action.

We are all culpable. I like to think I am playing a role because I happen to be chairman of a community council. I also try to get my family involved, but that is not always the answer. I have to react to suggestions and ideas put forward by articulate people in pressure groups or other organisations, and I am conscious we are leaving out the elderly. The new organisation, Parliament for the Elderly, is beginning to fight its case but those individuals will be left behind if we are not conscious of their needs. Human rights are not about the world stage, they are about each individual person.

We are probably widening the debate by talking about housing needs, etc. but we have taken a blinkered approach to this issue. We tend to focus on the macro issues. Every time we have statements in this House they are about the latest conflict in the world; we tend to forget about events that occurred three, four or five years ago. People have said to me that the world will never see another Hitler. That is rubbish. We have seen, not too far from home, how people are capable of carrying out any atrocity and, if they had the wherewithal, they would be like Hitler. We must always be vigilant in that regard. We must be conscious of the other person's needs while being prepared to act, regardless of how small the issue.

Considering the size of our country on the world stage, our record is impeccable. As a neutral country we are respected because we have spoken out in the past on various issues. I have total confidence in our team of Ministers who travel abroad. They are respected because they speak out on issues. I am proud of that but I ask them not to forget the micro issues that affect the people at home, the elderly, who gave us what we currently have.

I welcome the debate and I wish the Minister of State well in her endeavours.

Mr. Durkan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject which covers a wide spectrum and affects the quality of life of so many people throughout the world. Listening earlier to our good friend and colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins, I tried to reach a conclusion on the number of sentiments he expressed with which one could agree. This proved that regardless of how much one might disagree with somebody on ideological grounds, that person is sure to say something at some stage with which one agrees, and that happened in the case of Deputy Higgins.

One of the more ridiculous notions put forward by him, however, was that exports have alternative uses. He mentioned circuit boards but one could mention a variety of items such as the roller bearing or the oil retaining seal, crucial items in the war machine. The microchip is another item with which everybody identifies. It is remarkable the way people identify an item manufactured in this country, which has a positive use throughout the world, as something to be treated with suspicion because it has alternative uses. I will never understand the logic of that argument.

The Deputy's suggestion could be extended to include the export of the wheel, which can be used as part of a war machine. One could also mention the axe. It was not necessary to import any high technology for use in the war in Rwanda because the genocide there was perpetrated in a very basic manner. One of the reasons for that genocide was the incitement to hatred by people who were allowed spew out their message of hatred until the situation eventually exploded. This applies not only to Rwanda but to every country. The question of allowing people to use the airwaves or other platforms to get across their messages of hatred or narrow-minded attitudes, which are directed at their enemies, should be addressed in all abuses of human rights that take place throughout the world.

Deputy Higgins could have also mentioned the internal combustion engine, an important item in a war machine. However, all the items referred to are equally effective in terms of a peace machine. That part of the Deputy's argument is not sustainable.

Deputy Higgins appeared to adopt an anti-American attitude which tends to cloud the judgment of many people, particularly in this area. Virtually every Member would have had reservations from time to time about American foreign policy in various regions of the world, and spoken about it at the time, but we should not allow our vision to be clouded. There were very few alternatives to the intrusions, in more recent times, by NATO and various American influenced agencies over the past number of years.

Deputy Dennehy said earlier that, until recently, he believed there could never be another Hitler. There have been many Hitlers on a smaller scale since 1945 and we should not forget that the free-thinking people of the world could have called a halt before the Holocaust occurred, but no one did anything about it. Deputy Higgins mentioned American involvement today. Americans refused to get involved on that occasion because there was a strong anti-war campaign at that time in the United States. Domestic policy kept them out of that area. The result was not that several hundred thousand people were killed, as is happening today, but 60 million people died because someone carried out an experiment and no one shouted stop. In the beginning everyone thought there were reasons for this, and of course there are reasons for and reactions to everything. The Treaty of Versailles and its consequences were cited as one of the fundamental causes – so what? Did that justify the killing of 60 million people?

Some say that Ireland is a neutral country which should stay out of this issue as our neu trality has stood us in good stead for all these years. I often wonder what would have happened if one of the powers in World War II had decided that Ireland was a strategic location which should be invaded. Would we have been able to defend ourselves? The answer is no. We would have protested for a short while but those protests would have been snuffed out. Our civil rights would have been pushed aside. The idea of invading Ireland did occur to some of the powers and considerable plans existed to do so.

Some suggest that we would have achieved different results at the end of the war. I shudder to think of what would have happened in that scenario. At this time in our development as a nation we must take a stand, speak our minds and follow that up by committing ourselves in a European and worldwide manner to preventing the erosion of human rights. We cannot afford to sit on the fence any longer and pretend that the rest of the world is passing us by and that we have no involvement in or responsibility for it.

Human rights abuses are abundant in various locations throughout the world. Deputy Joe Higgins mentioned Turkey as the primary abuser of human rights. I am sure abuses occur in Turkey, but the Turks would argue that their case is not always heard and that may be the case. Turkey has different traditions and, perhaps, sees its case somewhat differently.

However, considerable levels of abuse are taking place in many other regions, some of which the Minister of State visited recently. These regions include East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda, Algeria, Nigeria, China, Pakistan – the list goes on. There is no point in pretending that only one nation, group or ideology is responsible for all the abuses. There are many groups responsible, including some in Latin America.

Deputy O'Kennedy referred to housing which I have spoken about for many years. This is a serious issue in my constituency as too many people are looking for too few houses and there is no way to meet the demand. Some people argue about how this should be resolved, but one cannot house people unless there are houses in which to put them.

Given our economic prosperity we must ask ourselves whether the conditions in which many people are housed are compatible with what we would expect at this stage of our development. The answer is no. One sees deprivation, not poverty, in various locations where people are deprived of the means of achieving a reasonable quality and standard of life. Conditions such as overcrowded housing may have been acceptable at the turn of the century but they are not acceptable today. The human rights of such people are being seriously eroded. If people are treated in this way one cannot expect them to achieve any quality of life or get a job in a competitive market as they are stigmatised by where they come from and their unfortunate conditions.

We have come to accept the erosion of these people's rights because such conditions were acceptable in the past. However, they are not, nor should they be, acceptable in the current economic climate. We must tackle this problem. We must ask whether these people have the right to aspire to good quality homes in reasonable surroundings. We have a serious question to answer if we are not providing them with such conditions.

Some single income families living on a reasonable income of, perhaps, £35,000 per year cannot afford to buy a house. What should such people do? What are we offering them? How can they achieve their rights? It used to be said that leasing and renting were the answers to all our problems. That was nonsense as the reverse is the case – the more property that falls into the hands of landlords the greater the tendency for rents to increase and the greater the difficulty people have in gaining access to property. I cannot understand why we are going around in circles in attempting to address this issue.

Some speakers referred to human rights and sport. Sport can be regarded as an exercise in public relations. Our sports people are our PR people when they go abroad and the sporting achievements of other nationalities also represent a PR effort for those countries. The sneers coming from sporting opponents in the past few days to the effect that Ireland was afraid to play a football match sound hollow coming from such a source and given the atrocities perpetrated by those countries in Kosovo. It is hollow for such countries to expect to be able to indulge in a PR exercise in sport while continuing to apply that kind of regime at home. What do they think this is about? It is time these countries and individual sports people were brought to their senses as they have their own views on what should apply to themselves and, particularly, to those they might see as lesser human beings.

FIFA has a great deal to answer for. What does FIFA think about the atrocities in Kosovo? Does it think it should take one side or that sport is above such events? Does it think there is nothing it can do about this situation? I do not accept that view. FIFA has an involvement and it should not pretend that these things are not happening. It should have taken action long ago but it did not do so.

Reference was made by a number of other speakers to asylum seekers and refugees. We need to examine our behaviour in that regard also. As Deputy Joe Higgins said, it is ironic that this country, which currently has approximately 4,000 asylum seekers and refugees seeking admission and determination of their status, has failed to come to a clear-cut decision about their future, while at the same time, institutions of the State are obliged to go outside the country in an effort to recruit people to fill employment positions that cannot be filled otherwise. That is daft; it is time we copped on to ourselves.

When discussing human rights, one must also ask about access to vital, life saving services, such as hospital and general health services. What about the person who is vulnerable or suffers from a life threatening illness who needs access to surgical or other medical facilities in what they and their consultant consider to be an emergency? To what extent do we address their fears, concerns or worries with reasonably ready access? We can, perhaps, suggest that they be dealt with in two or three years time if they are prepared to be put on a waiting list. However, that attitude might have been fine at the turn of the century when there were no waiting lists, for different reasons, but it is no longer acceptable. I do not understand why we cannot simply address an issue that obviously affects the human rights of a large group of people, whether young, old or middle-aged. This is a matter we should examine seriously. Those people's rights are being eroded.

I wish to conclude by referring to the abuse which took place in institutions either controlled or funded by the State and which has occupied the minds of people in this country in recent weeks. Many have thrown up their hands in horror, saying this should never have happened and claiming that nobody knew anything about it. The latter claim is not correct. Such abuses were known and many people mentioned them. Many people, inside and outside the institutions, brought the abuse to the attention of the authorities at the time. Some even raised it in this House. However, nobody wanted to hear about it. That is the reality. Bearing this in mind, we should always be extremely careful about pointing the finger. We have a tendency to point the finger at somebody else when we should be ready to point it at ourselves from time to time.

We should consider the institutions throughout the country which catered for many categories of people. I will never forget a visit to one such institution about 16 years ago. I met an elderly lady there who had spent 17 years on the one floor of the same building. I am sure some people thought that lady's human rights were not being eroded, but I must admit to having been shocked. It must also be pointed out that hers was not an isolated case.

I will finish where I started. With regard to the erosion and potential erosion of human rights, incitement to hatred and unbridled outbursts of hatred by people who are often in pivotal positions of authority is, and will continue to be, the largest single threat to human rights.

Mr. O'Malley

I wish to deal first with an aspect of human rights on this island before referring to the issue with an international perspective. When people in Ireland discuss human rights, we appear to be under the impression that it is a foreign problem. However, we need only look at certain places in this country to realise that it is not. I would draw attention to two places in particular.

The first is the streets of Belfast where, almost on a nightly basis, republican and loyalist thugs administer what they describe as justice to innocent people, who have not been convicted of any thing, by mutilating them for life. We are, in a sense, almost comparable to the people of certain countries who have seen appalling atrocities and have learned to live with them. We barely comment on these occurrences. This House has the privilege of having, among its Members, somebody who speaks for those who perpetrate these deeds. However, it is apparently impolite to raise them.

Another sight in this country which has become common over the last six days is that of gardaí digging for the bodies of people murdered by republican thugs. In some cases they are digging within view of the relatives of the person who is believed to be buried at the site. Day after day these relatives must watch. The return of these bodies was described, by no less a person than the great one himself, Mr. Gerry Adams, as a human rights issue. How right he is. It was also a human rights issue when those people were murdered 25 or more years ago. It has been a human rights issue that their relatives have been deprived of their remains for more than a quarter of a century. However, it is only recently that Mr. Adams and his cohorts became concerned about it.

I call on the so-called republican movement to end the nightmare of the families of the disappeared whom it murdered. These families have been singled out for terrible treatment by the IRA and its political wing. Their relatives were abducted and murdered, they were denied information about their whereabouts for 25 years or more, they were not allowed to give them a Christian burial and they were never given the chance to grieve properly as bereaved relatives.

Not content with that, Sinn Féin-IRA is now, apparently, determined to cause further pain to the relatives. It is grotesque in the extreme that the IRA is unwilling to provide the information necessary to locate the bodies of the people whom it murdered. There is a strong moral obligation on the current Sinn Féin leadership to help the relatives. Some of those leaders may well have ordered the murders in the first place. Some of them may have given instructions for the secret disposal of the bodies.

This Parliament and the British Parliament, in order to assist the families, gave immunity to the murderers. With the benefit of hindsight, and if the locations of the bodies are not revealed, one must ask whether that was wise. Either the so-called republican movement accepts the values of a civilised and democratic society or it does not. It signalled in recent years that it wanted to make the transition from paramilitarism to parliamentarianism. There must be serious doubts about that unless it is willing to resolve this situation.

Many decent men and women will seek election to various institutions on 11 June. These people would have too much respect for the law and for human rights to engage in the type of "community activities" that are the political trade mark of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin and the IRA have never had anything but contempt for the State, its institutions and police force, several of whom they murdered. The people should remember this when they go to the polls on Friday week. Before they consider voting for Sinn Féin, they should think of the relatives standing in a lonely vigil in different locations around the country while the Garda tries to locate the bodies of their loved ones. The only crime of at least one of these loved ones was that she tried to comfort a dying solider. I am not yet convinced that the self-styled republican movement is capable of graduating from gangsterism to government.

I am delighted the Government decided yesterday to refuse visas to the Yugoslavian international football team which was due to play Ireland next Saturday. It was right to do so. To have allowed those people to use the match as a means of propaganda would have been appalling when the head of that state has already been indicted as a war criminal for grave breaches of human rights, as have many of his colleagues and strongest supporters, such as Arkan, Mladic and Karadzic. None of them has been brought before the war crimes tribunal at The Hague, but I hope they, along with Milosevic, will soon be tried there for the crimes they committed, not just against the Kosovan people, but also against the Bosnians and many others within the former republic of Yugoslavia.

I heard the news at lunch-time which suggested there was a ray of hope. We were told, not very explicitly, that it appears President Milosevic has accepted the G8 proposals in respect of Kosovo and that the Serbian Parliament has endorsed that decision overwhelmingly. I am not sure this means very much. Past experience suggests that this is a ploy to gain time to regroup because of the pressure under which Milosevic and his regime have been put by the actions of NATO over the past two months or more. I will believe their willingness to leave Kosovo when I see them go. As it was put this morning by the UK Secretary of State for Defence, a resolution of the Serbian Parliament will not encourage one Kosovan refugee to return to their homes. They would be very foolish if they did so before an international force was in place to guarantee their safety. However, the situation is not without hope. If the truth is being told on this occasion by people who did not tell it in the past, perhaps there is some hope.

The action which had to be taken to achieve this was taken by a regional force in the world and was not taken by the United Nations. This should be a cause for great regret to us all. The world finds itself in something of a dilemma. If the United Nations cannot cope with the type of genocide we witnessed in Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, the former Zaire and Kosovo, the free world, which does not want to see tyranny rise again, must have some means of ensuring that in accordance with international law. Such law will have to develop independently of the United Nations and its charter. It is that charter which is the root of the problem for the United Nations and of the frustration of its distinguished Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan.

The question Members must ask, as must people around the world, is why the UN Charter should be so difficult to amend and modernise as to cause the UN to be legally stultified and sterilised and, as a result, politically paralysed? It does not make sense that an institution formed in San Francisco in 1945 to reflect conditions in the world at the end of the Second World War should, almost without change, be expected to cope with the very different conditions which exist in the world in 1999, 54 years later. The root of the problem is the almost impossible task of amending the charter. It has been amended only seven or eight times in 54 years and all those amendments were procedural; none was substantive or political.

No country would impose on itself a constitution which was incapable of amendment, reform or updating. Why, therefore, should the world impose on itself an institution which is incapable of amendment or reform? It is badly in need of reform. This arises because the UN is dominated by the five permanent members of the Security Council. They were thought to be the five appropriate countries in 1945 and perhaps they were at the time. They were the United States, the then Soviet Union, now represented by the Russian Federation, the then China of Chiang Kai-shek, now succeeded by communist China, France and the United Kingdom. The last two countries were perhaps powers of world significance at the time. They had large empires and they were also on the winning side in the Second World War, thanks to the help of their allies, especially those across the Atlantic.

How can permanent power in the world for all time be justified for those five countries to the exclusion of countries such as Germany and India – the largest democracy in the world and which has preserved it for over half a century against all the odds in a huge and diverse place – Brazil, Japan and, even on population terms, a country such as Indonesia? How can we ban an entire continent such as Africa, which has a huge population and faces the greatest need, from the seat of power for all time? Why should African people have no say? Why can they not be represented by a country such as Nigeria, which will hopefully again become a democracy, or the Republic of South Africa, which has just held its second set of free and fair elections?

The Minister of State provided a good summary of the situation earlier when she stated:

No less a person than the Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has criticised the "hopelessly divided Security Council" and the "capricious" way that members of the Council, including members with permanent seats, have used their votes and thereby failed to live up to their responsibilities.

She further stated:

He reminded the world that when people are suffering through war, and the cruelties and mass terror inflicted on civilian populations by military forces, they must have a forum which will be responsive to their calls for defence and assistance.

I fully agree with that and with the views of the Secretary General. However, I must ask the following question. Why should it be that the world can come to the aid of people who are maltreated in the way described by the Secretary General if that maltreatment is inflicted on them by the forces of another country but that it must stand by powerless if such maltreatment is inflicted on them by the rulers of their own country? What is the moral difference? Is the world not, in a sense, stultifying itself morally if it states that a difference exists? How can one say to a Kosovar woman who was raped ten times last night by members of Milosevic's forces that the crime is excusable because it was carried out by the rulers of her country but that if it had been perpetrated by members of a Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian or Italian invasion force, the world would pay attention and go about redressing the wrong? That is ridiculous, but it is the reality to which the international community must face up.

I do not believe we can proceed in the same way we have done heretofore. We cannot allow people to make excuses for those who would seek to perpetuate the system to which I refer. It sickens me to have to listen to the hypocritical comments of some members of the left who state that the United States Government, NATO and the democracies are always wrong in seeking to enforce or vindicate human rights. Instead we are supposed to hanker back to the days when certain Members of this House who had friends in the Kremlin believed that the Soviet Union should stand up for the rights of the poor and the oppressed.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms O'Donnell)

I listened carefully to what has been said in this debate and I appreciate the detailed and reflective contributions made by Deputies, a number of whom are former Ministers with experience in this field.

It is important to give the House as full a picture as possible of the most recent developments in the region, particularly in relation to the situation of the refugees. I will briefly outline the initial findings of the UN inter-agency visit to Serbia and Kosovo. The UN Co-ordinator for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. De Mello, who led the delegation, met yesterday with UN member states' heads of mission, en route to New York, where, I understand, he is to brief the Security Council later today.

As regards Kosovo, while access was restricted, Mr. Mello did confirm "beyond any possible doubt" the pattern of human rights violations presented by Mrs. Robinson. Civilians had been subject to displacement using threats, shellings and executions. Private property – homes, shops, land, vehicles and livestock – had been systematically destroyed. He foresaw that a primary need in the post conflict phase would be protection, Kosovo would have to be "saturated" with an international presence.

In relation to Serbia, he said the team was well received by Government and the public in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He had not requested a meeting with Mr. Milosevic, perhaps conscious of the cancellation of a meeting between Milosevic and Mary Robinson. There was clearly a lack of understanding by the Serbian civilian population of what is happening. The media is tightly controlled and only a small elite is aware of the context and scope of events in Kosovo. Civilian casualties in Serbia are at deplorable levels. Unemployment levels are very high and a preoccupation for all. The health and environmental impact of attacks on some chemical facilities are a cause of great concern as is the extent of damage to water, electrical and telecommunications facilities. The education system has been paralysed since mid-March and stress levels among the young appear to be very high. Damage to the industrial and agricultural infrastructure is high. Problems posed by unexploded ordnance in Serbia and Montenegro will need attention as a matter of priority.

Before moving on from the refugee situation, I would like to say a few words about winterisation of the camps. Activity on this issue is being carried out mainly within the UN system. It is clear that the focus on winterisation will concentrate on reinforcing the host family concept, supporting and developing collective centres and developing and, where necessary, relocating camps. I understand that initial "brainstorming" in Geneva has thrown up some doubts with regard to ultimate responsibility for what many feel is a challenge so daunting that it sets a test for the UN which it cannot pass. It will be a matter for all our consciences if we fail this test.

As I speak, the House will be aware that important negotiations are taking place in Belgrade to find a political solution to the Kosovo crisis on the basis of the principles agreed by the G8 countries, including Russia, in early May. The EU is represented at these negotiations by its special envoy, the President of Finland. These negotiations are extremely complex but their objective is clear, namely, an unambiguous and viable agreement which will bring an end to the violence by the Serbian forces, a withdrawal of these forces from Kosovo and the setting in place of secure conditions which will allow for the return of the refugees.

I am sure the House will support me in wishing every success to the international negotiators, particularly in light of the magnitude and complexity of their task. We should not be under any illusions about the reality and seriousness of the task they face. In view of the best case scenario and given the early start of winter and the devastation on the ground within Kosovo, the number of refugee returns this year would be extremely limited. In addition, the implementation of any agreement, given the track record of unreliability and broken promises on the part of Belgrade, is something that will have to be carefully pursued and closely monitored. Nonetheless I hope that we will hear of positive results by the international negotiators in Belgrade.

In regard to the continuing tragedy of the disappeared, I join in deploring the agony being visited upon the relatives of people who were murdered by the IRA. It has been a harrowing experience not only for the relatives but also for everyone closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process. We have finally acknowledged the suffering of these people who for so long were ignored by everyone, not least by the republican movement. I welcome the fact that information has been passed on but I appeal to the IRA and anyone in possession of information to come forward with more explicit details in order that these people will be put out of their misery. It is time the republican movement lived up to its stated commitment to embrace democracy and justice. It is ironic that those who advocate justice and who frequently call for it are so slow to admit responsibility for these murders and apologise unequivocally not only for the delay but for the original crimes.

I am glad the Government decided to refuse to issue visas to the Yugoslav football team which was an important symbolic gesture in terms of the Government's commitment to human rights and its unequivocal stance in relation to these matters.