Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputies for their remarks. I take this opportunity to say a few words about the Taoiseach and his involvement at European Council meetings for the past 11 years. I have been with him on each occasion for the past four years. Suffice to say he was held in great affection and gave great support to all his colleagues. It was often a private joke between us that he was, in effect, the elder statesman of the European Council. I saw for myself the benefit of person-to-person contacts, and no better person than he in this regard. If there was ever a crisis or a big issue, he was always the one they looked to to try to assist in negotiating out of an issue. While Ireland may not have been specifically involved in the issue or did not have an interest, the Taoiseach was always heavily involved in the discussions.

I want to put on record my personal thoughts in this regard. Quite apart from all of his constituency work and national work, the incredible amount of work the Taoiseach did on the European stage is often not understood by the wider public. The European Council will be a different place for his going.

With regard to Deputy Timmins' question on the Olympics, the situation in Tibet is very difficult. Two years ago when the Darfur issue was very much on the agenda, I indicated to my colleagues that the closer we got the Olympics, the more difficult an issue participation in the games would become, and that we needed to discuss the issue in order to adopt an attitude on a bilateral basis with China but also with regard to an EU-China position. It is fair to say that people recognise that if it is not Darfur, it is something else, whether Burma or Tibet. We did not realise at the time that the Tibetan issue would come to the fore as much as it has.

I thank Deputy Timmins for the view he takes on my personal stand. I was asked for my personal opinion of a boycott. I have always been a strong believer that one should keep politics out of sport. No more than anyone else of my age who has lived through Olympic Games and other major sporting events, I have seen how politics has intervened to a certain extent. At the end of the day, however, it does not further the situation other than by making a protest. When the games are long over, we will have to sit down with these people in a much more concentrated and long-term way.

Leaving aside the fact that our own athletes would not thank us for using the Olympics to make a political point, I do not believe a boycott of the games would be appropriate because, when they are over, we will have to sit down again with the Chinese on a bilateral basis, in an EU-China context and in the UN arena. We will have to deal with them not just on this issue, but on a myriad of issues that affect the world, including the issue of climate change, about which the EU obviously has something to say, namely, that China must get its act together on this issue. Quite apart from the issue of human rights and the difficulties in certain parts of China, it is very important we engage with the Chinese on a constant basis.

People make the point that this has something to do with economics. That is not the case. We have been very forceful in this regard but we must also accept that China has come a long way. We used to raise all sorts of issues with regard to the one-child policy in China. It was easy for us to do that in the context of populations that are on a downward trend, particularly in the rest of the Western world, whereas in China there is a very significant increase in population. Aside from the issue of sport and looking at matters from a sporting perspective, it would not be good to use the Olympics to make a political point.

There is also the issue of whether Ireland should participate in the opening ceremony. First, we have not been invited by the Chinese to participate. I understand that the Prime Ministers of some other countries have been directly invited because their Prime Minister, President or whoever has been in China or the Chinese have been there. These ad hoc invitations to certain Prime Ministers were personal invitations to a certain extent. We have not received a direct invitation.

The only member of Government to receive an invitation is the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Brennan, and his invitation is from the Olympic Council of Ireland. Obviously it is up to him to decide whether he will go. I understand he will make a decision based on the advice he will receive from my Department and, if necessary, from Government in regard to a boycott of the ceremony. A number of our EU colleagues have indicated whether they are going; some are going but others are not while others still are undecided. To a certain extent it may be very much a pyrrhic move in that later on we will have to meet on a bilateral basis with the Chinese. No decision has been taken in that respect.

It is not a significant issue but there is no doubt that we have to very strongly condemn what has happened. Anyone who read the recent statement by the Dalai Lama could not disagree with a word he said. He is asking for an autonomous, not independent, Tibet. He is clearly not asking for a boycott of the Olympic Games. It was wrong of the President of China to recently suggest that the Dalai Lama was in some way exhorting violence. From everything we have picked up, that is not the case.

It is not appropriate for the Government to invite the Dalai Lama because he is not a Head of State, he is a religious leader. Similarly, the Government cannot invite the Pope to Ireland; this invitation must come from the bishops and the clergy. It has never been the case that Governments have invited religious leaders to Ireland. Obviously, if the Dalai Lama came to Ireland he would receive the normal courtesies and, if necessary, meetings that would be given to any religious leader coming here. The Dalai Lama was on the island of Ireland — in our country as it were — a number of months ago. I was due to go to Derry to meet him but, unfortunately, on the occasion I was out of the country so the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, met him.

We are very worried about Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that the situation is going from bad to worse. The fact that we are not getting full information regarding the election very much raises the question of whether the count was free and fair. Going on the facts we have, it is clear that the democratic will of the people of Zimbabwe is not being adhered to. I was personally disappointed, as were most of my colleagues in Europe, that we were not allowed to send EU observers to these elections. Many Deputies in this House, particularly Deputy Barry Andrews, exhorted me to send observers there. Unfortunately, if one does not have an invitation from the host government, it is impractical to send in observers because, in effect, one is sending them into a situation where they could be very much in danger and where they would not get access.

We worked with our colleagues in SADEC and other countries that might have some influence with the Zimbabweans to ensure that there was some monitoring of the vote. That happened to a certain extent and observers were reasonably happy that people were allowed to vote reasonably freely. The question arises in regard to the counting of votes. We instructed our ambassador to South Africa, who is also accredited to Zimbabwe, to be present there during the election period. He sent us constant reports on what was happening on the ground. That was part of an effort by the EU to have at least some presence on the ground to which the Zimbabwean Government could not object. We are examining this issue closely and putting as much pressure, separately and collectively, on the Zimbabwean Government and, through the Government, on the electoral commission to issue the results as quickly as possible.

See this speech in context