Vol. 680 No. 4
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]
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]
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]
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.
7 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the supply of cluster bombs by Israel, the Russian Federation and Pakistan to the Sri Lankan military. [15383/09]
There have been a number of allegations by NGOs relating to the supply of cluster munitions to the Government of Sri Lanka in the conflict with the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam, LTTE. In February this year, press reports cited UN sources in Sri Lanka in reporting that cluster munitions were used in an attack on a hospital in which 52 people were killed. However, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs later confirmed that it had no evidence of the use of cluster munitions in this incident.
There is no evidence currently available to confirm the possession or use by Sri Lanka of cluster munitions. The Government of Sri Lanka has denied that it possesses or has used cluster munitions. What seems probable is that we will be able to ascertain the full facts only when the conflict is over and technical experts can be deployed to the scene.
In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government, the Government has worked to achieve a complete ban on the use of cluster munitions. The diplomatic conference in Dublin in May 2008 adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions and Ireland ensured it was among the first to ratify the convention when it opened for signature in December 2008.
The convention has to date been signed by almost 100 countries. Signatories commit themselves to an immediate and unconditional ban on all cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. Each State party undertakes never in any circumstances to use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions, or to assist another party in doing so. I urge all states that have yet to sign the convention, including Sri Lanka, Israel, the Russian Federation and Pakistan, to do so.
I was very happy to attend the signing ceremony of the international convention banning all forms of cluster munitions but the relevance of that to the question I asked is not so clear. The three countries to which I referred, Israel, the Russian Federation and Pakistan are not signatories.
Regarding the NGO reports, the Minister says it is only when the conflict is over that we can establish the facts. What is taking place in Sri Lanka is almost in the category of genocide, a phrase I use carefully. The Government there has announced that a military conclusion to the conflict is now possible and has given an ultimatum of 24 hours for civilians to leave the area of Vanni. What is happening is appalling and is an indictment of the international community. Cluster munitions are being used. I am not a spokesperson for the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam but the human loss of life in Sri Lanka is outrageous and is an indictment of the international community. We know these three countries produce and sell cluster munitions and I believe they have supplied them to the Sri Lankan army.
I agree with Deputy Higgins on the horrific nature of the conflict in Sri Lanka. We brought that to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government. I spoke to the ambassador, who is based in London, in Dublin and we conveyed our views on the undesirable nature of a purely military solution to this situation. Equally, the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam and their methodologies are to be condemned in their use of civilian populations as shields. It is an appalling situation and a humanitarian catastrophe has arisen as a result of the conflict. The UN has a presence on the ground and has accepted the denial of the Sri Lankan Government that it is using cluster munitions. No victims have come forward with injuries consistent with cluster munitions.
No media is allowed in the area, these are only Government statements.
The problem is that in conflict zones claims are made and propaganda is used. Establishing the truth can be a slow process. We must establish the truth and, in the spirit of the convention, along with the EU we will seek to establish the truth of the use of cluster munitions and to provide humanitarian and development assistance to the civilian population. Some €12 million was allocated in 2008 from the UN central emergency response fund. Ireland is the seventh largest contributor to that and has contributed some €5.3 million for humanitarian needs in Sri Lanka.
8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make funding available to a group (details supplied). [15861/09]
39 Deputy Damien English asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the assistance he has given to Gaza since the ceasefire; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14693/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 39 together.
The conflict in Gaza has had devastating humanitarian consequences for the civilian population. It should also be recalled that, even prior to the recent conflict, Gaza was experiencing a serious humanitarian crisis due to the economic blockade by Israel and the effective isolation of the territory from the outside world.
At the international conference in support of the Palestinian economy for the reconstruction of Gaza, which was held in Egypt on 2 March, I pledged €2.5 million in funding to meet immediate humanitarian and recovery needs of the people of Gaza. Some €500,000 of this pledge was disbursed at an early stage of the conflict to a humanitarian response fund administered by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Since the beginning of the year, this fund has supported 19 emergency response projects in Gaza, operated by both non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, in sectors such as health, food and psychosocial support. Following the ceasefire and in response to a flash appeal co-ordinated by the UN, Irish Aid provided a further €1 million in support of the humanitarian activities of the UN Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA. UNRWA is the UN agency charged with responsibility for the welfare of all Palestinian refugees and it has been at the centre of the response to the Gaza crisis, where over 70% of the population are refugees.
I have earmarked a further €1 million in support of Gaza's recovery and reconstruction. The timing of disbursement will depend on the extent to which recovery programmes can be adequately implemented. Unfortunately, the closure of Gaza's border crossings continues to impede recovery and reconstruction programmes — a concern I have consistently highlighted, including to the Israeli authorities and in discussions with EU colleagues.
The support I have outlined is in addition to Irish Aid's broader programme of assistance for the Palestinian people. This includes support for a number of partners working specifically to promote and protect the human rights of the people of Gaza, including the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Gisha, an Israeli NGO which seeks to protect freedom of movement for Palestinians. Total Irish Aid funding to the Palestinian people in 2008 amounted to over €8.6 million. During the first four months of 2009, more than €6.2 million in assistance for the Palestinian people has already been disbursed or allocated.
Irish Aid has taken a deliberate strategic decision to support the people of Gaza in the current challenging circumstances through well-established and experienced partners. Working through organisations with existing field capacity, a comprehensive understanding of the local context, and a proven track record in delivering assistance to the most vulnerable is the most effective way of ensuring that aid can reach those most in need.
Officials from my Department have already met with representatives of the group under reference by the Deputy and have explained to them the strategic rationale for providing assistance to the people of Gaza through our pre-existing network of partnerships.
I welcome the aid given by the Government and acknowledge the Minister's statement. I congratulate others who have tried to ensure aid gets to Gaza, which is still under a siege imposed against international law. There was a humanitarian crisis in the area prior to the recent onslaught by Israel, which the attack has worsened.
Does the Minister agree that it would be appropriate for some government to make a gesture towards a group such as the Free Gaza Movement, which has organised siege-breaking trips from Cyprus on boats, one of which was rammed in December to a great cost for the charitable organisation? Would it not be appropriate for the Government to fund the fuel for one of those trips or even encourage the Irish Naval Service to escort the vessels when they go in a flotilla in May? When I and a colleague of the Minister's, Deputy Chris Andrews, travelled on one such boat, the Israeli navy shadowed us most of the way in.
I have already indicated that it is not the core programme of Irish Aid to support such a movement. In essence, it seems the Free Gaza Movement is an advocacy group that engages in very high-profile events such as the flotillas identified by the Deputy.
The preponderance of our aid goes through the Palestinian Authority, with aid supporting its governance functions in the West Bank and Gaza. Much of our aid goes to UNRWA, which targets education and health centres in Gaza itself. There are also a number of NGOs, which I outlined.
We must be careful that we allocate aid in a strategic and focused way and do not spread our wings too far, giving out minute grants to everybody. We must get greater value for money and better outputs and outcomes by working with strategic partners.
Will the Minister indicate before we finish how the Government is advancing what I feel is a consensus on the investigation of war crimes in the recent conflict on both sides? In a recent visit by Mr. John Ging, the leading UNRWA specialist, to the foreign affairs committee, he mentioned that in the pledging conference that took place, the issue was not money but rather that less than 10% of what had been pledged could get through.
With regard to the Minister's reply on aid which has been facilitated by Ireland, it is right to use the word "siege". UNRWA has stated the need and secured commitments and pledges. UNRWA has cement and so forth but it is being denied a border crossing. What is that if it is not a siege?
I did not pick up the Deputy's first question.
It concerned investigation of war crimes.
My first point concerned where we are on what I believe is a common demand for an investigation — as made by the Secretary General of the United Nations — as to whether war crimes had been committed on both sides in the recent conflict.
He set up a panel of inquiry, as the Deputy knows.
Where are we in that regard?
I do not have an outcome to the best of my knowledge. I will check on it and come back to the Deputy. The conference referred to by the Deputy pledged a significant amount and I met with Mr. John Ging on his recent visit. The issue for UNRWA is access.
Mr. Ging is one of my most distinguished students.
Is that right? The Deputy deserves considerable credit.
I am very proud.
I spoke with Javier Solana yesterday, the European Union official responsible for European security and defence policy. He spoke very highly of Mr. Ging and the role he played during the Gaza conflict.
I am very proud of him.
He was very courageous and principled and he is a man of great integrity. He was a very important touchstone for us during the conflict as he was on the ground. The investigations are ongoing with regard to the shelling near or approximate to the UNRWA schools.
What he and Karen Koning AbuZayd of UNRWA have raised is the fact that in some instances, even stationary has not been allowed into schools, which defies any comprehension in my view. I do not understand any of this logic which prevents badly needed materials for schools. It is not in anybody's long-term or strategic interest. There is no excuse for that. The Deputy is correct in that the issue is not so much the volume of aid but getting the aid in.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
