Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I am grateful for the Minister's reply and the fact the Government supports an independent inquiry. A number of issues arise as a result of the recent events in Sri Lanka, one of which is language. The language used at the time of this particular assault by the Sri Lankan army included the phrase "the elimination of the terrorist threat". This phrase was used also by the Pakistan Government in regard to what it perceived as a terrorist threat in one of its regions. This has immense implications for diplomatic practice. Even if one accepted it in terms of a movement against terrorism, the elimination of terrorists is moving military actions outside any responsibility in terms of international law.

There has been a systematic failure at United Nations Security Council level in regard to a number of its fundamental principles. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's decision to fly over the area after the events had taken place and to seek access after access had been systematically refused raises a number of issues, including, for example, the obstacles placed in the way of Rule 2, Rule 3 or Rule 34 by which the UN Secretary General can bring a matter to the Security Council. The exclusion of the international press, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Programme and a number of international agencies from the scene causes concern.

Does the Minister agree that seeking an equivalence of responsibility after such a disproportionate number of deaths of civilians, including children, is wrong and that one must reach a conclusion even before one conducts an investigation that the actions of the Sri Lankan military were entirely disproportionate?

See this speech in context