Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the crisis in Burma. I join with others in offering my sympathy to the Burmese people. It is, however, much more important we offer them our solidarity.

I welcome the Minister and wish him well in his new portfolio. I also congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, on his appointment. It is important to point out that the Minister has started well in delivering a good speech on Burma. His speech has the merit of considerable directness and I congratulate him on it — may it continue.

I have a couple of fundamental proposals to make as we move on. Also, I would like to pick up on some of the points made. In the most recent discursions on United Nations reform, in which the Minister's predecessor participated as a special representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, the concept of humanitarian intervention was brought to the fore. It is referred to in the Minister's speech as humanitarian protection. This is crucial for us in the Dáil and challenges those of us who are spokespersons for foreign affairs. As the Labour Party spokesperson for foreign affairs, I title our policy "towards an ethical foreign policy" and this is important.

With regard to where the concept of humanitarian protection comes from, some of the most original work at the level of the United Nations came from Dr. Sahnoun, the representative of the United Nations in Somalia during the now neglected tragedy there. Dr. Sahnoun addressed a contradiction in the United Nations charter. Countries sign up to the charter in an act as a sovereign country. Therefore, the moral dilemma one faces is whether such sovereignty can be used as an obstacle to the defence of human rights.

One could take the discussion which took place in Vienna a number of years ago on whether human rights can be made universal. A great deal of work must be done on whether this should be on the basis of rationality, revelation, conflicts or sources of origin between the western world and Islam. More immediately, Dr. Sahnoun continued his work and raised the question as to whether sovereignty can ever be used to deprive people of the right to life and protection. Those of us who call our neutrality "positive neutrality" must accept that humanitarian protection overrides any extreme version of sovereignty. This is the position I advise for my party and is the position contained in our documents.

I am delighted the Minister raised this issue in his speech. It is something for which there is a legacy that moves on from Rwanda, goes through Darfur and is now present with regard to Burma. What were the alternatives? At the time of the Irish Presidency, another predecessor of the Minister in preparing for the ASEAN conference used the concept of constructive dialogue. The suggestion was that through constructive dialogue the Burmese military junta which represses its people could be turned around. The argument was that if they were at the table they would listen to the arguments and their neighbours in ASEAN would be able to influence them.

At the time, I stated this policy was wrong. I did not believe the Burmese regime would shift and indeed it did not. The conditions in which Aung San Suu Kyi is held and the democratic choice of the Burmese people have not fundamentally changed. We now have the obscenity, to which the Minister and Deputy Timmins rightly refer, of a constitution, which is far from it, being imposed on the Burmese people even at the worst time of tragic loss of life and great threats.

One is left to consider what can be done. Two matters are important in the analysis. One is to construct a strategy which will continue past this crisis and the other is to handle the immediate crisis. With regard to the latter, we must remember a second cyclone is threatened which may happen within 24 hours. Therefore, while people refer to loss of life through disease and contaminated water, the absence of shelter, malnutrition, various forms of hypothermia, the real danger exists of a second cyclone visiting the region.

Where is there a glimmer of hope in the short term? It is probably through the initiatives of the Thai Prime Minister. The latest statements from the Burmese regime were that it would accept personnel as well as aid from neighbours such as India, Bangladesh and Thailand. The reality for those of us who may have briefly visited the region in the past is that the main bridge which connects Burma to Thailand is entirely silent. Aid could roll over that bridge at any time. The action of the Burmese generals in not allowing aid to move from Thailand is literally a savage act visiting death on their own people. It should never be forgotten.

With regard to humanitarian protection, the need for reform of the UN is pointed out in the absolutely indefensible actions of China, with which I sympathised earlier in the week on its own disaster which also threatens to get worse. Its use of the veto to stop a significant resolution being taken by the Security Council on humanitarian protection is indefensible. We are left in an incredible position which is unacceptable to the international community whereby even the number of dead, threatened and at risk cannot be calculated. A wide division exists between the number of dead acknowledged by the regime and figures which pass 120,000 or 127, 000 from respectable bodies such as the Red Cross.

The way in which issues such as this are handled is important. Statements made by the United States may not have been couched in the most appropriate language but any person who is regularly critical of aspects of the United States foreign policy must acknowledge they are the most important people with regard to air delivery of disaster relief. The suggestion that a ten person US disaster management team has not been allowed entry to Burma is outrageous. They are crucial with regard to logistics and the practical delivery of aid to remote areas.

With regard to the world food programme, disturbing reports are flowing from ground level staff on the misappropriation of commodities such as high-energy biscuits. One set of news reports suggested the army took prime emergency food and replaced it with other food.

It is important we have an immediate response. I accept the Government's commitment of €1 million which it immediately stated was a first contribution. I welcome this and it is appropriate. With regard to where our major contributions are made which was referred to in the Minister's speech to the multilateral agencies, I am not obsessed with the detail of where Irish aid goes. I am totally in favour of the programme and I would like to make a suggestion. A debate on project expenditure led by NGOs versus State expenditure will bring us nowhere. A large resource of people could be assisted by giving short-term fellowships from Irish Aid to economics and engineering departments and particularly to postgraduate development studies and human rights departments. I confess my interest as I am an adjunct professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUI Galway.

Short-term fellowships do not constitute an increase of the public service so they are not a continuing cost. It would provide practical experience in different cultures of issues such as operating food response and emergency, food security, recoveries of rural communities, for example after the tsunami, housing, governance at local level, political participation, enhancing civil society and post-disaster recovery. One could put people there for a year or two, thereby providing a combination of the best theoretical and academic work, for which others have responsibility, with practical experience. It would sit well with the welcome response unit on disaster relief. I make these suggestions in an attempt to be positive about how we can proceed.

Where do we stand on moral suasion, which was suggested by way of, for example, the thimble full of honey and the bucket of vinegar? I believe we are past that point. It is very significant that Ireland's international response is in partnership with Norway, which spends approximately 1.1% of its GDP on overseas development aid and is in the top three in the world. Norway has published an interesting White Paper on development, which is as near as we have been to a rights-based approach to development. Norway and Ireland are uniquely positioned to take initiatives in making a new demand relating to humanitarian protection.

Two issues arise in this regard. Is there a human right to development, which is general? Is it possible to combine civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural rights? That debate will run on, but if the concept of the global community is about the right to live without threat, be that physical or related to food security, it can be grafted easily on to social and economic and cultural rights as the work of Professor Amartya Sen and others show, as well as the right to participate in one's world without shame, which is emerging from studies in India and Bangladesh. Norway and Ireland could and should take an initiative. Parties in different parts of the world favour the strong unmitigated version of sovereignty and that debate must be pushed on. I have said repeatedly that it is an abuse of sovereignty to put up a shield and prevent rights from being vindicated.

The same is also true in Zimbabwe and it is particularly true in Burma. An immediate multi-skilled demand, probably spearheaded by Burma's neighbours, is needed before the weekend. A medium-term strategy is needed that considers a way of enhancing our institutional capacity and, more important, at international diplomatic level we need perhaps to take a new departure in making sure that we can respond not only to the likes of the Burmese tragedy but to any other equivalent scenario that might emerge.

See this speech in context