Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Human Rights Issues.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 23 April 2009

Thursday, 23 April 2009

Ceisteanna (6, 7, 8)

Joan Burton

Ceist:

6 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the recent expulsion of aid organisations from Sudan; his further views on the way Ireland can help influence matters in order that agencies can continue to meet the needs of the vulnerable; the work that has been done to be of assistance in this light; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15371/09]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Jan O'Sullivan

Ceist:

13 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the actions his Department is taking to ensure the safety of aid organisations, humanitarian groups, and other non-governmental organisations that are working to relieve the suffering of the people of Darfur. [15382/09]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pádraic McCormack

Ceist:

66 Deputy Pádraic McCormack asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the expulsion of international organisations from Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15855/09]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (9 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 13 and 66 together.

The humanitarian situation across the enormous expanse of Sudan continues to be tragic and complex. Although rich with oil, Sudan is placed 146th out of 179 on the UN's human development index. Despite recent talks between the Sudanese Government and rebel groups, hostilities on the ground in Darfur continue. As a result of the ongoing violence, there has been forced movement of civilians, increasing the number of internally displaced persons, which currently stands at more than 2.7 million.

In early March the Government of Sudan announced its decision to expel 13 international humanitarian organisations and to suspend the operations of three Sudanese non-governmental organisations, NGOs. The 13 agencies expelled accounted for 40% of all humanitarian aid in Sudan. Between them, they provided food and safe water to 1 million people and basic health care to 1.5 million people. At the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 16 March, European Union Foreign Ministers called on the Government of Sudan to urgently reconsider the decision to expel these organisations and to ensure that the most vulnerable people in Sudan are guaranteed humanitarian assistance. The European Union has emphasised this position to regional and international partners who may be in a position to influence the Sudanese Government.

There are continuing difficulties in responding effectively to the humanitarian needs of so many people. Vital supplies are not being pre-positioned ahead of the rainy season, which starts in June, and this will make the distribution of aid significantly more difficult. There is a grave risk that the situation could further deteriorate in the months ahead. Aid organisations working in Darfur face dangerous working conditions on a daily basis. The threat of armed attacks, banditry, theft and kidnapping are a constant menace which has a direct impact on their ability to carry out successfully their life-saving work.

My officials are in regular contact with the agencies that the Department supports in Darfur and have discussed security matters with some of them on several occasions. The Department is in discussions with a number of NGOs with regard to facilitating their staff to attend the security training offered to the members of the rapid response corps. It will continue to liaise with those agencies present in Darfur to provide whatever support it can in helping them carry out their work in the safest way possible.

I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I share the Government's concern regarding the safety of personnel. I wish to ask a number of directly-related questions. It appears to me that both the present Minister and his predecessor laid great stress on the evolution of thinking at the United Nations, particularly in respect of the duty to protect. The duty to protect was a key block in the thinking of the former United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, whereby sovereignty could not be used to frustrate the right of a vulnerable population to life itself. It posed a great number of questions for those who had, for example, revised views on neutrality, sovereignty and so forth. I articulated the policy of the Labour Party to the effect that sovereignty could not be used as a shield to prevent the implications of the duty to protect. Does the Minister agree this has been fundamentally challenged by events in Sudan?

Two matters have been set in tension in this regard. I refer to the decision to refer President Bashir to the International Criminal Court, which is regarded by the representative bodies in the region as possibly unhelpful and which is being used as a trading pawn with regard to the question of allowing humanitarian organisations to return. One is left with a terrible choice, which is that to save 1 million people directly, 1.5 million people from immediate threat and 2.7 million displaced people, one must either suspend the conclusion of the International Criminal Court or resile from a commitment regarding a duty to protect at the level of the United Nations.

I understand fully the Deputy's remarks underlying the question he has put and the dilemma he has highlighted. One would hope the choice was not so stark. I agree with the clear view of the international community and the European Union that one cannot pull back from the decision of the court or indeed pressurise the court to rescind or reverse its decision. Therefore, the alternative is to put as much pressure as possible on the Sudanese Government to facilitate the return of the NGOs and to facilitate the unhindered activities of those NGOs which still operate at present and which have not been expelled.

I believe the Deputy is correct to identify the issue of the duty to protect and the degree to which Governments can hide behind sovereignty, whereby unspeakable atrocities are committed against people, people die of starvation and so forth. The dilemma arising from the two issues the Deputy has put against each other is not easily reconcilable. In my view, there must be full respect for the international process regarding war crimes and bringing people to justice ultimately. On the other hand, at what stage should the international community intervene in the best interest of the people involved?

The Minister's response has illustrated the point that when developing this concept, Kofi Annan developed a parallel notion of devolving certain functions of the Security Council to regional bodies, including the African Union. The Minister's reply has revealed that the idea of a movement from an absolutist version of sovereignty has not been accepted fully either by the African Union or in the region. Therefore, the flaws in respect of that practice flow back and raise a fundamental question as to whether anything was achieved regarding this fundamental concept in human rights or United Nations reform.

Regarding the International Criminal Court, there is a grave danger it is seen as an institutional spin-off that has no connection with the realpolitik of the security council.

I take Deputy Higgins's point on the African Union. In the context of Zimbabwe there were elements of this, where the situation was allowed to continue in an unacceptable way and the regional power, the African Union, did not do enough to ensure the right outcome. It did not intervene effectively in that situation. The outcome was appalling as a result.

We have urged all parties to engage with the UN and the African Union mediator to achieve a sustainable peace. The political will does not exist to make the peace and the civilian population is suffering to a horrific degree. I am not in disagreement.

I do not necessarily accept that the International Criminal Court is an irrelevant spin-off or a spin-off that is becoming increasingly distant from the realpolitik of the UN Security council. There may be some positives in that if it worked in an independent way in calling certain situations. That has implications but it has achieved significant outcomes in other parts of the globe, not least in the Balkans.

Deputy Higgins has raised a general problem with the application of international law and adherence to it. The obligation on the African Union regarding Darfur is enormous but the political will or impetus is not there.

Nor is the capacity.

Nor is the capacity. The will is significantly lacking and there is a role for the EU. Perhaps the Council of Ministers with responsibility for foreign affairs could discuss this at the next GAERC meeting.

We have discussed it, and it will be discussed at the next GAERC meeting. I am not in disagreement with the points articulated by the Deputies. The international community is endeavouring to put as much pressure as possible on the Sudanese Government to move on the situation. We have applied a range of UN sanctions, including an arms embargo, a travel ban and an asset freeze on certain individuals but these are of limited value in certain respects. A general embargo would affect civilians more than anyone else. Short of intervention, there are limits to what the international community can effectively do.

Barr
Roinn