Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Hungary and Slovenia. [22377/99]
Ceisteanna – Questions. Oral Answers. - Official Engagements.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Irish troops serving with KFOR in Kosovo. [22378/99]
Gay Mitchell
Ceist:3 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Hungary, Slovenia and Kosovo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22405/99]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Eastern Europe. [22446/99]
John Gormley
Ceist:5 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent three day visit to Hungary, Slovenia and Kosovo. [22449/99]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:6 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Hungary, Slovenia and Kosovo. [22586/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Hungary, Slovenia and Kosovo. [23331/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the forthcoming EU Summit in Helsinki; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23388/99]
John Gormley
Ceist:9 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach the Government's approach to the upcoming EU summit in Helsinki. [23665/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.
I visited Hungary, Slovenia and Kosovo from 2 to 5 November. My visit to Hungary and Slovenia had the objective of strengthening bilateral political and economic relations with two countries that will shortly be members of the European Union. It was highly successful in this respect.
My visit commenced in Hungary where I met the Prime Minister, Mr. Viktor Orban; the President, Mr. Arpad Göncz and the Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Janos Ader. In Slovenia on 4 November I met the Prime Minister, Mr. Janez Drnovsek and the President, Mr. Milan Kucan. While inevitably the main focus of my discussions was bilateral issues and Hungary's and Slovenia's early accession to the Union, which I support, I also discussed a wide range of issues including the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, the Balkan Stability Pact and the OSCE Summit in Istanbul.
In Hungary, following my meeting with Prime Minister Orban, I signed an agreement on combating serious crime which provides for co-operation, information exchange and expertise sharing in this area between our two countries.
In addition to the political meetings I have mentioned, I hosted a working breakfast in Budapest for top Hungarian business leaders, including the Governor of the Hungarian Central Bank, to discuss Ireland's recent economic performance and the further development of trade between Hungary and Ireland. I also made an address to the Budapest Economics University entitled "Ireland from the Periphery to the Centre of Europe."
The visit to Hungary and Slovenia came at an important time, given the European Commission's recent progress reports on the state of preparations of the accession countries for membership of the Union. In addition, the Helsinki European Council due to be held next month will consider the future conduct of the negotiation process. Hungary and Slovenia are among the most advanced of the EU accession candidates for membership of the Union and it is therefore important to build upon our already strong relations with them prior to their accession to the Union.
On 4 November, I commenced a visit to Kosovo to meet with and express thanks to the 104 Irish Defence Forces personnel serving with KFOR and to reinforce the European Union's solidarity with the local communities. My visit included a tour of the First Irish Transport Group's area of operations. I also met the senior UN, KFOR, EU, police and OSCE representatives to learn at first hand of the situation on the ground in Kosovo. I met local Kosovar Albanian families and representatives of Irish NGOs, Concern and GOAL, operating in Kosovo. I extend my sympathies to the family of the young GOAL aid worker, Andrea Curry, who died tragically during last weekend.
I held a lengthy discussion with the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo, Bishop Radosavljevic. In the course of the discussion, we were joined by Mr. Momcilo Trajkovic, a leading Serbian political figure who had been injured in a shooting incident some days previously. The Stability Pact for the region will be reviewed at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul this week and, given Ireland's role as chair of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe, my visit to Kosovo was timely.
The next European Council will take place in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December but no formal agenda has been circulated for the meeting as yet. The issues and how the Presidency plans to approach them will gradually become clearer as Helsinki approaches and, in particular, after my meeting with Prime Minister Lipponen on 30 November as part of his tour of capitals. However, on the basis of preparatory work so far, I expect the issues to include enlargement and, in particular the scope, pace and nature of the negotiations, economic, employment and taxation measures, preparations for the intergovernmental conference to be launched under the Portuguese Presidency and consideration of the Trumpf-Piris Report on the operation of the Council.
As regards security and defence, the European Council will consider a progress report by the Finnish Presidency on the progress made in implementing the Treaty of Amsterdam's provisions on Petersberg tasks. This will be a follow-up to the Cologne European Council conclusions of last June. As indicated at Cologne, the process is likely to result in final decisions by the end of next year. The Union's Millennium Declaration is also set to be discussed at Helsinki.
Unfortunately, a number of questions have been grouped together and, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like to ask questions about Hungary first and return later to the Helsinki Summit which has little or no relation to the visit to Hungary.
When did the convention start that Taoisigh would wear military flak jackets abroad? Is this a new development? I thought there was a separation between the armed forces, as a professional group, and civilian politicians. What was the thinking or reason that allowed the Taoiseach to wear the flak jacket? Was it a security arrangement or is it a new type of garb we wear when we go abroad?
It is a separate question.
Sorry, Sir, the question arises specifically from the Taoiseach's visit to Kosovo. It is legitimate. There was a banner front page photograph. President Clinton and John Major have done this and Mrs. Thatcher would like to have done so, if she did not already do so.
The Deputy must put down a question specifically on that subject.
The issues are related to the question. Since 1922 we have prided ourselves on the clear separation between military and civilian activities.
The Deputy should not make a statement on it; he should ask the Taoiseach a question.
My question, Sir, which you attempted to rule out of order, was when did this new convention commence and why did the Taoiseach do so?
I do not know when the convention commenced. It was the second occasion the Army gave me a flak jacket to wear in locations I visited. I also wore one in south Lebanon last year when I toured the missions there. On this occasion, I also wore a flak jacket on our tour when the Army presented me with one, which had the Taoiseach's name on it. I did not think too much about it and did not believe it upset anybody. I was honoured to wear it, and I still am.
It will not be long before the Taoiseach has to wear one at parliamentary party meetings.
The Taoiseach was not wearing an anorak.
It is a type of one.
Does the Taoiseach regard ethnic cleansing as universally reprehensible regardless of the ethnic group against whom it is committed? Is he aware of the systematic mistreatment of the Romany community by Kosovar Albanians in Kosovo and that 450 Romany have had to leave Kosovo because of the activities of the UCK and now find themselves in a refugee camp previously occupied by Kosovar Albanians outside Kosovo? What stand are the Taoiseach and the Government taking on the mistreatment of the Serb, the Romany and the Turkish minorities in Kosovo?
I condemn and deplore ethnic cleansing from whatever source. One of the things I learned in Kosovo was that the Romany community is attacked by all sides. The Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs have taken action against them in several instances. Many of them have been killed or pushed out of temporary locations and I condemn that totally. Before I went we debated the matter in the House and it was suggested that I talk to leaders of the Serbian community. I met religious and political leaders and they highlighted the position of those Serbians who have been forced out of Pristina and the surrounding countryside in great numbers, although some have returned of late. While hundreds have been killed, the religious and political leaders I met felt that KFOR was doing a useful job. They also raised the issue of violence against the Roma community with me.
After I met those Serbian leaders I met the KFOR, UN and OSCE groups and I raised these issues with them as they had been presented to me. While they disputed some of the facts and would not agree with every detail, I highlighted the fact that the Roma community was having a tough time.
If it is possible to follow up—
I will return to the Deputy. We must take Deputy Ó Caoláin's question.
But the follow up will be lost.
I said I will return to the Deputy. I want to give an opportunity to all Deputies to ask a supplementary question.
That is not reasonable.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the comments of the US State Department deploring the Russian bombardment of civilians in Chechnya? If the Taoiseach agrees, as I suspect he will, does he therefore agree that the same standards should be applied to the equally deplorable NATO bombing of Belgrade and the ongoing brutalisation of the people of Iraq through continuing bombings and sanctions, particularly now we have influence through Partnership for Peace?
The Government fully condemns all acts of terrorism, including all the acts perpetrated against the people of Chechnya and the bombing of Russian cities in September. We recognise the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and the need for the federal authorities to take measures to deal with terrorism. However, it is essential that universal human rights and the principles of international humanitarian rights be upheld and respected. There can be no military solution in Chechnya. I have met Mr. Putin in the past and I hope to raise the issue of what is happening under the umbrella of the OSCE with him in the next few days. They need to find a lasting political solution and the EU has spelt out very clearly how this should be done. Ireland supports that position.
Does the Taoiseach agree—
I am calling Deputy Gormley. I have given the Deputy the opportunity to ask one question. If there is time I will return to him.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question.
Before the Taoiseach left he gave a commitment to raise the issue of depleted uranium weapons. Did he raise that matter? What was the response? Is the Taoiseach aware that the UN Environment Programme's Balkans task force is now examining the terrible environmental catastrophe that has taken place in this area because of the war? Does he agree with Mr. Pekka Haavisto, the leader of that group, who says we need to change the rules of war as a consequence? Was that matter raised in any context? Did the Taoiseach get the opportunity to talk to anyone about Ireland's possible participation in PfP manoeuvres in the area?
I told Deputy Gormley I would raise those issues and I did so. I raised the task of reconstruction in several meetings with UNMIK and other organisations about refugees, the health and safety of the population and landmine clearance. Most of the danger zones have been marked out by KFOR and UNMIK has been trying to deal with the depleted uranium shells.
On the second question, I am aware of the health and environmental concerns raised in some quarters outside Kosovo about the use of depleted uranium shells. It is still an issue and UNMIK is putting a great deal of resources into treating them. I do not claim to be a military expert but I think it will be a long haul because enormous stretches of farms and other land are fenced off. A great deal of that land will be out of bounds for harvesting next year until this matter is dealt with. It seems to be a major issue. In reply to the last question, nobody raised PfP.
(Dublin West): Did the Taoiseach raise military matters or any aspect of military co-operation or armaments in his discussions in Hungary and Slovenia? In the context of the EU summit, did he discuss with representatives of the Russian military in Kosovo, the indiscriminate shelling of villages and residential areas in Chechnya, which is allegedly being carried out in a fight against terrorism, despite the fact that thousands of innocent civilians are being killed and injured? Does the Taoiseach regret the carte blanche he extended to the Russian Government in its campaign when he visited Russia, about which I previously questioned him? NATO took a stand in Kosovo, allegedly for the civil rights of the Kosovar Albanian people. What did the Taoiseach say in his discussions with KFOR about the fact that innocent Serb civilians and Roma people, to whom the leader of Fine Gael alluded, are being persecuted and their civil rights thwarted daily? Did the Taoiseach have a concrete discussion about their plight? Just as he identified with the suffering of the Kosovar Albanians and their persecution by the Serbian military, what practical steps did representatives of NATO say they were taking to protect this other group of innocent people who are now so put upon in Kosovo?
As I already said, the Government condemns all acts of terrorism in Chechnya, including those which have taken place recently. The EU has taken a strong position on this. From our point of view, and that of the EU, it is essential that universal human rights and the principles of humanitarian and international law are respected. The EU has urged a political solution to the difficulties in Chechyna. This issue will feature largely at the OSCE in the next few days. The chairman in office of the OSCE and the head of the OSCE mission to Chechnya has made clear to the Russian authorities the readiness of OSCE to help find a political solution in Chechnya, which should be reached regardless of the acts perpetrated against certain elements. It is our view, and that of the EU, that this issue should be dealt with by the Russians with the President. Whatever difficulties he may have, he is an elected President and they should try to find a political resolution with him.
I spoke at length about the difficulties with the bishop, who is the much respected leader of the Serbian Orthodox community. He is under siege and is unable to leave the monastery. He has lost 85 of his churches in the past few months and has seen 150,000 of his people flee to Serbia, although some are returning. He outlined the position as he saw it and I relayed that to the various forces as he requested me and I agreed to do. He and the political leader acknowledged that KFOR troops are working to the best of their abilities. They are protecting each of the churches individually, which is much appreciated by the religious leaders. There are 54,000 troops in the area, which is smaller than Munster. There is an enormous concentration of military. It almost seems as if the military are on every corner. There are heavy patrols at night in the villages, but some people are still active. It is said that some of them are from outside the area but I cannot be certain that is the case.
Although it will be difficult, attempts are being made to try to settle matters between the Kosovar Albanians and remaining Serbs. There are efforts to deal with the situation on the ground but, from what I gleaned from the Serbian side, I understand the reason the number of attacks on Serbs has fallen is because there are not many Serbs left in the area. Others would say they have been enormously successful but I am trying to give a balanced report to the House and if people are gone, they cannot be attacked.
NATO backed one ethnic group against another. That is the situation.
The KFOR troops, UNMIK and other groups are endeavouring to encourage people to return to the area and to enable them to live in peace and harmony.
When I drove through the area, there was little or no damage to most of the Serb villages. However, the Kosovar Albanian villages were gone. They were burned to the ground or wrecked; only the odd house was still standing. Most of the people were living in cowsheds or other animal sheds. Some were living in dykes while others were living in dwellings in hedges in fields. Few have homes and the Irish troops have been involved in a small humanitarian operation to try to assist them. GOAL and Concern are involved in projects such as mending tractors and helping them with basic matters. The Serbs have been driven out and I hope they will return. Kosovar Albanians have been burned out and are trying to live beside their former homes. It is a sorry position but 54,000 troops are trying to protect all sides.
What does the Taoiseach consider will be the ultimate constitutional settlement in Kosovo? Is it not the case that the military and political objective of the Kosovo Liberation Army is Albanian majority rule in Kosovo of the type practised by Unionists in Northern Ireland from 1921 until 1970 which had no good consequences? There is no will among the Kosovar majority in Kosovo to share power and there is no political consensus within Kosovo underlying the objectives of KFOR. Its objectives will not be achieved because there is no underlying political consensus.
From what all the groups told me, including the Irish military authorities who are doing an excellent job and who have their own assessment of the situation on the ground – they are involved in transport so they travel throughout the region – there is no common ground at this stage. This is not surprising given that most of the atrocities against the Albanian Kosovars took place in late April when there were mass executions of their people. To put it at its mildest, they are not in the frame of mind of trying to be logical about the future. UNMIK's role is to try establish a system of local government. It is trying to establish a police force and some type of administration because there was no system of administration in the region when they arrived. The Serbian leaders would like UNMIK to protect the Serbian people and allow them some autonomy within their communities in the short-term while they try to stabilise their position and entice people back. They believe that if KFOR gets on top of the situation, and if there is intense security, their people will return. In reply to Deputy Bruton, I do not see integration taking place at this stage.
Will the Taoiseach agree that there was, and remains, a fundamental contradiction between the strategic objectives of KFOR and NATO and the military methods they used in the sense that the strategic objective was that Kosovo should remain an integral sovereign part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Will he also agree that the methods used on both sides have had the effect of rendering that absolutely impossible without any semblance of consent by the people of Kosovo and that there is no hope now of achieving the NATO objective of reintegrating Kosovo into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
A few months on, it is difficult to see this being achieved. However, the KFOR mission and the UNMIK brief is to try to establish an administration which will allow Kosovan Albanians and Serbians to live side by side in the territory where they lived quite peaceably in the past. It is horrendous that people who lived side by side in the past cannot now do so. Unfortunately, when one reaches a Serbian village, one is informed that it is 98% Serbian – non-Serbian houses can be easily identified. When one reaches the next village, one is informed that it is a Kosovan-Albanian area.
It is not the only place in the world that has happened.
I am aware of that. These issues can arise anywhere. However, communities can be easily identified in that region. When Milosevic's forces invaded, they knew exactly the areas to attack. This situation has now been reversed but it is easing substantially all the time. The UNMIK forces must establish a new administration and there must be intense security by KFOR forces to try to bring about peace. There are no warring groups but small gangs attack Serbian houses at night and drive people out. Unfortunately, we are not unfamiliar with issues such as this in parts of this island. If KFOR can solve this problem, perhaps people can try to rebuild the country. Confidence is now being built up with the Serbians and churches are being protected. Unfortunately, some 13th and 14th century churches were attacked. This did not reassure the Serbian people about the troop deployments but relationships now appear to be improving. While the bishop was quite critical in his remarks, he was happy to give some credit. KFOR is now listening more carefully. I endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to put the Serbian side to all the representative bodies. They did not agree with everything I said but I think what I said was of some benefit.
On a related matter, will the Taoiseach inquire about the effect NATO bombing has had on basic infrastructure for the preservation of heating, for example, and other necessities of life in Serbia proper? Is anything being done to provide humanitarian assistance in Serbia proper? In particular, is the Taoiseach aware of the exceptionally severe effect in Montenegro of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, given that Montenegrans did not support ethnic cleansing or were not involved in the Serb military effort in Kosovo? They are suffering grievously as a result of the sanctions and the only people who can do anything for them are Mafia gangs who are able to breach sanctions. Sanctions create a criminal state in places like Montenegro because only criminal gangs have the effectiveness to feed the people.
Unfortunately the same applies in many parts of the region where outside gangs use these circumstances for their own evil activities, to generate ill-gotten gains and to make a substantial killing with resources. Many of the attacks are from people who do not want KFOR to operate as a peacekeeping force and who are endeavouring to increase tensions.
I have raised the matter of sanctions against Serbia on several occasions. As I said previously, we have attached importance to the successful implementation of the projects which have been considered. In particular, the energy for democracy programme is using heavy fuel, which originally was not being used anywhere, on a pilot basis in the cities of Nis and Pirot. On the basis of that experience, the intention is to extend it rapidly to other parts of Serbia and that is already happening.
Effective sanctions should be targeted at the regime; the people of Serbia should not be punished because of these issues. We have stressed that ordinary citizens should not suffer, as is usually the case. It is on the basis of this deep con cern about the well-being of the citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that the EU has discussed the possibility of providing further assistance to the Serbian population. Again, that is to be discussed shortly. Some 56 million euro has been provided for the community under the European Community Humanitarian Office to provide for the kinds of issues about which Deputy Higgins asked on another occasion, to provide basic food stuffs, medicines and repairs for the most vulnerable groups of the population, the sick, the elderly and displaced people. This month plans have been made for accommodation and vaccination campaigns, to provide assistance for food and heating to social institutions and for water, sanitation and returning refugees. I am not saying these plans will solve every problem but they are ongoing and hopefully they will at least improve matters.
I want to ask three separate but connected questions. Will the Taoiseach refer specifically to Chechnya at the OSCE conference which will take place later this week in Istanbul? Will he condemn what appears to be the indiscriminate bombing of civilians by the Russian authorities? On his visit to Slovenia, was the question of a residential embassy raised with the Slovenian authorities on the basis that Ireland has only three residential embassies with the five plus one applicants for EU membership? Regarding the Taoiseach's initial reply, when does he expect early membership of the EU to take effect? Is Hungary and Slovenia on a fast track ahead of the other four states, including Cyprus? On what date does he expect the decision to be made to agree that they qualify for full membership and when will they become full members following that decision, allowing for referenda and other decision making processes across the 15 member states?
Yes, I will raise the issue of Chechnya at the OSCE conference. I have not finished my text yet, but I will say something along the lines of what I have said here.
Will he condemn the Russian bombings?
Yes, I will, as I have done here, and I did so when I was there. An embassy in Slovenia is not on the list at this stage. It is purely a matter or resources. However, our interests are being well catered for by our ambassador.
Did the ambassador raise this matter?
No. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is continually seeking resources but there are priorities. The Minister established a number of embassies during the past two years, but one has yet to be established in Slovenia.
With regard to future membership of the EU, I cannot be certain but I will attempt to give as comprehensive an answer as possible in terms of what I believe will happen in Helsinki. The process of moving forward will be extended not merely to the "five plus one" but to all aspirant countries, and it will be based on their fulfilling the criteria. When will that happen? The assessment work will proceed and the chapters are well advanced in both Hungary and Slovenia. Slovenia is in an extremely good position – based on the technical assessment it is probably best placed for accession – and it is followed by Hungary which has achieved an enormous level of compatibility with the various regulations since 1989. The Hungarians have passed and implemented an extraordinary amount of legislation and regulation in recent years. Further difficulties have arisen in respect of Poland's accession and its application has been adversely affected, which concerns people in the region.
A decision on increasing the membership of the EU will be made in 2002. It is unlikely that there will be an accession before January 2003. The question is whether the EU will adhere firmly to the criteria or whether it will begin to move away from them? Difficulties will arise if the Union moves away from the criteria and, therefore, it should stick rigidly to them. However, we will have to wait to see what happens at Helsinki and during the next 12 months.
Following the St. Malo and Cologne declarations, to which the Taoiseach appended his name, the appointment of Javier Solana not only as "Mr. CFSP" but also as Secretary General of the Western European Union and yesterday's meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers, does the Taoiseach agree that the security and defence matters raised by and discussed at these declarations and meetings will be on the agenda in Helsinki? Does he further agree that it would be a service to members of the public if the promised White Paper on Defence aimed at addressing these various issues was brought forward? Is it the Taoiseach's intention that they should be addressed in the White Paper?
Will the Taoiseach be agreeing to the full integration of the Western European Union into the EU at the Helsinki Summit?
I am not sure whether that matter will arise at Helsinki. However, the White Paper is due shortly. I am not certain of the exact date for its publication but I will raise the matter again with the Minister for Defence.
Will the Taoiseach reply in respect of the other issues I raised?
I do not know whether they will be debated. Mr. Solana has only recently taken up his post. I do not know if he will have a report ready for the Helsinki Summit, I do not believe he will. The summit will concentrate on enlargement.
Is the Taoiseach saying that these matters will not be raised at Helsinki?
They may not.
They may not be raised?
The meeting will concentrate on enlargement.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin
The Taoiseach said that the Petersberg Tasks would be dealt with at Helsinki.
I need to revisit the thrust of my question because the response I received did not answer that question.
May I interrupt, a Cheann Comhairle, to reply to Deputy Bruton's point?
Yes.
There will be an initial report by Mr. Solana but it is not expected to go into great detail. Important decisions will not be made.
I purposely posed my question in the way I did because I believe it is the acid test of the Taoiseach's claim and that of his Government that Irish neutrality continues. The Taoiseach spoke of being opposed to all acts of terrorism. Can one construe from that, that he views the bombing of the civilians of Chechnya as an act of terrorism? Whatever his answer, is he prepared to take an equally strong position in relation to the NATO bombing of Belgrade and the ongoing brutalisation of the people of Iraq, to which I referred, by the continuation of bombings and sanctions? This country has a responsibility not only to make claims to neutrality on the world stage but to actually put it into practice through the utterances and actions of its representatives and its forces.
I hope it is not necessary for me to state my position 22 years on in the House. I am opposed to all violence, from anti-drugs gangs to bombing Chechnya. I am against violence in every form, regardless of where it takes place, who is responsible and the reason behind it.
What about the NATO bombing of Kosovo and Iraq?
The Taoiseach was between a rock and a hard place when it came to Kosovo.
(Dublin West): He had to keep looking over his shoulder to what Bill and the United States wanted.
What will the Taoiseach do in practical terms at EU level to end the sanctions which are causing crippling suffering to millions of innocent Serbian people? Will he bear in mind that there are millions of innocent people in Serbia who actively oppose Milosevic and his dictatorship?
Does the Taoiseach accept that during his visit to Russia, in giving the Russian Government all embracing support in a fight against terrorism, he, with other international leaders, encouraged the type of indiscriminate campaign against civilians which is seen at government level as constituting the fight against terrorism? Does the Taoiseach regret giving Russia carte blanche support?
The Taoiseach did not answer the question. Were there any military undertones or overtones in his discussions with Hungarian and Slovenian representatives during his visits to those countries touching on military co-operation or armaments?
There were not. Deputies ask this question about many places. These undertones or overtones do not exist. They are only ever mentioned in this House.
Monotones.
People should not worry about them. No one in the world believes that Irish forces will solve the world's problems by attacking someone and saving someone else. That is not the way of the real world.
When I was in Russia, I condemned the blowing up in the middle of the night of 530 working class people in their beds—
(Dublin West): Absolutely right.
—by elements purported to be from Chechnya. I am not sure where they were from but that was the view of Russian intelligence. In no way did that offer Mr. Putin or President Yeltsin support for the blowing up of innocent civilians somewhere else. I am opposed to both and will continue to be so.
(Dublin West): What about the sanctions?
I answered Deputy John Bruton's question about sanctions. A network at EU level is trying to help the democratic opposition. It met in Luxembourg and we supported that initiative.
While the Taoiseach was in Hungary, did he have any discussions about the situation of the Hungarian minority in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
Yes, I discussed this with the Hungarian Prime Minister. He is concerned about that issue and it is one of enormous interest to the Hungarian people. Hungary is going to use the OSCE meeting to state strongly its position on the matter. It would have a different view to most EU countries because there is a sizeable Hungarian minority in the former Yugoslavia.
Around 600,000 people.
That is a sizeable proportion of the population. The Hungarian Government opposes Milosevic but is concerned about the handling of the matter because of the dangers for its own people.