Vol. 571 No. 2
109 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps which have been taken bilaterally through the EU and the UN to bring pressure to bear on the illegal dictatorship in con trol in Burma and to support the position of the pro-democracy leader, Aung Sam Suu Kyi; if progress has been made towards the restoration of democracy; and if there are further proposals to achieve this. [21059/03]
137 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the contacts he has had with the Government of Myanmar-Burma regarding the continued house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21150/03]
143 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Amnesty International report, Myanmar - Justice on Trial. [21119/03]
179 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on a troika visit by the EU to Burma in order to ascertain the present position in relation to the circumstances in which Aung San Suu Kyi is being held and such progress as might be possible to create opportunities for a democratic dialogue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21065/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 109, 137, 143 and 179 together.
I am gravely concerned at the situation of Nobel Prize Winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, in Burma. Deputies will be aware that she has been in custody since her re-arrest earlier in the summer. Deputies will also be aware that I issued a statement on 4 September 2003 in which I called for her release and reiterated our belief that this was essential to the process of national reconciliation in Burma. Reports over the past weekend have stated that Aung San Suu Kyi has been moved into house arrest at her own home. I welcome this as a first step towards her full release.
The United Nations Secretary General has condemned the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. His Special Representative for Burma, Mr. Razali Ismail, began his latest visit there yesterday. Mr. Razali hopes to meet with the new Burmese Prime Minister, Khin Nyunt, and other Government leaders, and he also expects to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi to ascertain the conditions in which she is being detained. We fully support his mission and maintain regular contact with him.
Officials of my Department met with Dr. Sein Win, head of the Burmese Government-in-exile in September, and were briefed by him and his delegation on the current situation in Burma, and on the roadmap the Government-in-exile has produced. This is the latest in a series of meetings my officials continue to have with parties concerned with Burma. In addition to the road map prepared by the Burmese Government in exile, two other plans have been produced, one by the present Burmese Government in August 2003 and another by the Thai Government in July 2003. They are being studied by all interested parties.
The EU common position on Burma, which provides for a visa ban on members of the regime and a freeze on their financial assets in the Union, is due for review later this month. Ireland and its EU partners will then discuss the further revisions that may be necessary in light of recent developments in Burma.
The Council of Ministers decided in April to make an exception to the ban on official visits to allow an EU troika, at political level, to travel to Burma to convey the EU position to all interested parties in that country. Concerns about the level at which the troika would be received after the events of 30 May, as well as worries about the effectiveness of such a mission at that time, led EU partners to decide that the visit would not go ahead. The possibility of a future troika mission has not been ruled out.
The EU carried out a series of démarches in June and July in the capitals of ASEAN member states and other regional players, such as China, Japan, India and Korea, to urge them to use their influence in Burma to effect the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. The issue of Burma was also discussed at the ASEM Foreign Ministers meeting in Indonesia in July. In their conclusions, the Ministers called on the Government of Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi immediately and to resume efforts towards national reconciliation and the restoration of democracy.
In recent discussions with China at official level in New York, the EU troika in which Ireland participated expressed its concern at the downward spiral perceivable in Burma, the deteriorating economic situation there, the political stalemate, human rights violations and the worrying humanitarian situation. The EU also conveyed its disappointment at the consistently negative Burmese reaction to events and the lack of credible commitment to change from the regime there. No progress has been made towards the restoration of democracy in Burma, unfortunately, despite the many efforts.
I am aware of Amnesty International's report, Myanmar – Justice on Trial, which was published on 30 July this year. I pay tribute to Amnesty International for this very comprehensive survey of the human rights situation in Burma. Ireland will continue to take every opportunity to register its serious concern at the practices of the Burmese regime and, with its EU partners, monitor events in Burma closely.
Does the Minister share the sense of helplessness I feel when I encounter problems such as those in Burma?
Yes.
The people of that country have been ground down by those who took power by means of a military coup and who have retained it through 15 years of military repression. The international community is excellent at producing strongly-worded resolutions and démarches, but it is achieving nothing.
Yes.
Does the Minister accept that a strong and effective United Nations is needed in the interests of international order? We do not have a UN that is effective in dealing with appalling situations of this kind. We need to be able to declare military gangsters such as those who are in control in Burma to be outside of international law and they should be treated as such. Apart from resolutions and démarches, does the Minister believe there is anything further we can do to try to help the people of Burma and their pro-democracy leader who has been treated so badly by the military gangsters who are in charge there? Should we continue on our helpless way?
I share the Deputy's frustration that the flagrant violation of human rights under the Burmese regime, which has been taking place for so long, is continuing with relative impunity. The violations are taking place despite the efforts of the international community, which has used sanctions and all other instruments it can devise to put pressure on the regime to change. Minimal efforts have been made by the regime to react to the need to try to democratise Burma. I clearly accept that such efforts have been very little and very late, without a real commitment to the ultimate objective. The circumstances in Burma are precisely those about which the UN Secretary General was speaking when he said, at the General Assembly last week, that certain problems need to be addressed more effectively by the UN. If we want multilateralism to work, we need a more effective means of operation. It is unacceptable that there is insufficient consensus within the Security Council at present to discuss this issue. It is not good enough.
We need to deal with problems such as those in Article 2(5) of the UN Charter. The question of how one devises and creates an effective means of dealing with gross and flagrant violations of human rights in a sovereign state should be revisited. Methods such as economic sanctions, diplomatic démarches and political pressure are sometimes successful, but we need to consider what more needs to be done when one has exhausted all those avenues. What parameters can be devised within international law? The Secretary General has asked an expert group to advise him on these questions because he knows we need to engage in this form of thinking.
It is clear that the problems with which we are dealing are not necessarily those upon which the UN Charter was predicated, in the main, in 1945. It was considered that there may be aggression between states, but the gross violation of rights is now found within states. Does the international community have to wait until refugees start to stream across borders in order to avoid genocide before it can legally take measures to deal with certain situations? The Secretary General is putting these questions to the UN. The United Nations is made up of us – the international community – and the Governments of the international community.
We have to take up the Secretary General's challenge. Serious philosophical, political and legal issues have to be examined. We have to address the possibility that to hide behind the supremacy of sovereignty, in all circumstances, is to deprive the international community of the option of intervening in a humanitarian way where necessary. I agree that the failure to address effectively issues such as this dwindles the support for multilateral action, which is the only way we can deal with these problems effectively.
I do not want to get into the sound and fury of the Iraq debate. The problems in Burma represent the other side of the coin, to a certain extent. The UN has been entirely helpless in the sense that nothing other than resolutions and démarches has been achieved in the last 15 years. The people of Burma have groaned under suppression and have been killed by their own people during that time. There has been a huge loss of human rights and economic well-being. Under the UN, which I consider to be helpless, all we can look forward to is a continuation of more of the same for the Burmese people. There seems to be a similar problem in Zimbabwe, where people are being repressed by the dictators who are in charge of them. Can we, as a people, make any contribution to the development of policies that will lead to positive action on the part of the United Nations when dealing with situations of this kind?
As I have explained, these issues need to be addressed in the next 12 months. The Secretary General plans to put some proposals to the international community at the next session of the UN General Assembly. He intends to suggest how we might improve the legal basis for dealing more effectively with these problems, or to devise new ways of doing so. While we should acknowledge our frustration, we have to be careful not to provide a general and widespread licence to deal with matters which may be regarded as arbitrary, depending on the part of the world one is dealing with. It is not easy to get a consensus on these problems.
The Deputy asked me to outline the contribution we can make. The EU common position will be revised later this month. Given that the level of trade and economic activity that exists between EU countries and Myanmar is low, the results we want would not necessarily be achieved by imposing further economic sanctions. One has to target those involved in the regime, for example, by impeding their ability to travel or by determining where their finances are going. One needs to decide how one will deal with matters such as corruption. We have to stand up for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We should support people such as Aung San Suu Kyi, who is a wonderful woman, and the thousands of nameless people in Burma who are trying to stand up for their rights. The international community should support such people in every way it can.
Many people thought that apartheid would always be present in South Africa, but circumstances there changed when the will of the people eventually overcame the most repressive regime. There have been many similar examples. While we acknowledge the problems that exist in Burma, we should take inspiration from those places where real change has taken place. We should try to apply our minds to dealing more effectively with the problems in Burma.
I will be brief because I know time is scarce. Will the Minister use Ireland's Presidency of the EU and his good office to highlight this vital issue during the first six months of next year? The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was recently addressed on this issue by the Burmese group. Will the Minister use the Irish Presidency to prioritise it?
Our job during the Irish Presidency is to articulate the common position of the Union. There will be a chance next month to see how we can strengthen the common position in a way with which wider public opinion would be happier. We will do that.
In relation to meetings between EU and ASEM and EU-ASEAN, this is an issue which is up for discussion. I have attended meetings where representatives of that regime have been told they must sort their game out. People can look to the limits of diplomacy but it is the basis of our international relations and we must use every forum and bring every pressure to bear. During the Irish Presidency I hope I will not falter in my responsibilities.
In his concluding comments the Minister has partly addressed the issue I wish to raise. I attended the first meeting of ASEM with the then Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and I am aware that the Asian heads of government and foreign ministers do not like to be lectured on human rights. They do not object to discussing them but they take the view that Europeans should not lecture or hector them. That is not the best way to influence them.
When will the next meeting of ASEM take place and will the Minister confirm that this item will be on the agenda? If we do not maintain pressure on this issue we will not bring about what happened in South Africa. Apartheid ended in South Africa because the international community would not tolerate it and the regime eventually fell. We must bring about the end of the regime in Burma. The recent Amnesty International report, Burma on Trial, sets out the reasons why that should be done.
I do not have the date of the ASEM meeting but I will give it to the Deputy. I am sure the issue will be on the agenda. It is on all ASEM agendas.
I accept Deputy Mitchell's point regarding varying views about the nature of human rights. For our part, there are inalienable rights that go to the central dignity of every person on earth and which we seek to uphold. Those rights are economic and social as well as political. We do not live in a just world but in a very unequal and unjust world. Our job is constantly to meet and give expression to the values we hold dear and to try to ensure that they have a wider application throughout the world. Our common humanity transcends whatever political or cultural systems under which we live.
We must continue to engage in dialogue. This is true in the case of China, Russia and countries that have come out of systems or are reforming systems in a way which gives greater credence to the individual as against the State. We must continue with that. The fact that we do not succeed, immediately or over a long period of time, does not mean the intrinsic value and truth of what we have to say must not continue to be articulated. It has been articulated by the oppressed people themselves within their countries. If they can do it under far more difficult circumstances I do not see why we should stop.
I accept the general principle – the tension between vindicating human rights and sovereignty – which the Minister suggests as an invitation to dialogue. Dr. Sahnoun the UN representative in Somalia, started this debate over a year ago by drawing a distinction between human rights protection and human rights intervention.
It is deeply disappointing that the unanimous request of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that a troika from the existing Presidency should visit Burma so as to enable advances to be made during the Irish Presidency, is not likely to be granted. When we met the head of the Burmese Government-in-exile he specifically requested that an action be taken now.
It is not acceptable that in our bilateral negotiations with China on different matters the opinion of the Irish Government on the Burmese problem was not made clear.
I believe it has been made clear. I will convey the request from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that a troika meet with the Myanmar authorities to the Italian Presidency and see what, if anything, can happen in that regard. I am not sure what the final position is.
Since the EU is to debate the issue in an effort to arrive at a common position, what suggestions will the Minister put forward for actions? For example, people in Burma have suggested further sanctions against the produce of Burmese state owned industries. Has thought been given to asking those countries, such as Russia, with whom the EU is negotiating bilateral agreements and who are still supplying military equipment to the regime, to end that trade forthwith?
If the EU arrives at a common position this will set the agenda for the UN and could have a major effect. Can the Minister outline his ideas for Ireland's action on this issue?
The EU already has a position, which is coming up for review. We periodically review common positions on political issues regarding countries such as this to see how circumstances have changed in the interim and how we might be able to improve the pressure we are trying to bring to bear.
This issue will come up for review at the next GAC meeting. I will be discussing the matter with my officials but I have not discussed it with them yet.
I am not proposing further economic sanctions against Burma. They only affect ordinary people and I opposed sanctions against Iraq. Is there some way of having outlawed regimes condemned and dealt with internationally? Can we, through the EU, get changes made at the United Nations that will allow such a system to be established so that these people will be treated as the international gangsters they are?
In the international diplomatic vocabulary the terms failed states and rogue states are used to describe situations which are less than adequate.
There are those who disagree with them.
Yes, there are those who disagree with them. These are political definitions. When one is trying to devise a context in international law for something beyond what is currently permissible one requires international consensus and one must also decide how to define that. These are deep questions to which I do not have answers, and neither does the Secretary General. However, he is raising the questions because he wants to defend multilateralism and to ensure that it continues to be the means by which we collectively solve problems in the world. We have seen from recent experience that we need to have this debate and to have it in a way that will get the support of everyone for the mutilateral way.
