Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The now six year old conflict in Syria is the world's gravest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. The numbers are easy to throw out but difficult to grasp: 8 million displaced people inside Syria, 4.5 million people under siege or inaccessible, 4.5 million refugees beyond the Syrian borders, 1.5 million people injured and 250,000 people killed.

Syria has become a free-for-all, in an open house. Parties involved in the war there have received political, military and operational support from Russia, Iran, North Korea, Algeria, Iraq, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others. We have seen the Syrian Administration's barbaric treatment of its own population. We are seeing large-scale breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law. In particular, we see civilian populations exposed to indiscriminate attack, loss of life and the destruction of essential infrastructure services and basic medical care. This breaches all of the rules established well over 100 years ago, by the Red Cross and Red Crescent. It breaches all of the basic rules of humanity's treatment and what we know about these kinds of situations and how to help, in particular, the civilians caught in this war.

The Labour Party joins other parties in the Dáil in calling, at a minimum, for compliance with the humanitarian rules of warfare and for aid agencies to be allowed reach civilians in desperate need of help in Aleppo. There has been some progress with the announcement from Russia to the United Nations that it will stop bombing eastern Aleppo for 11 hours a day for four days, but that is not nearly enough. There needs to be time and space to organise a full-scale medical evacuation and the provision of medical support, and a deal is needed to permit UN aid convoys to move from western Aleppo and from Turkey, to get food into the besieged zones.

Syria is rightly understood as being one of the cradles of human civilisation, particularly in the western world, the known world and the pre-Christian world. One is talking about a country with a great ancient civilisation reduced to rubble and laid low.

Apart from the immediate humanitarian aspects of this crisis, it has another dimension I want to mention because it touches us all in Europe. I refer to the fact that the mounting tensions between the US and Russia have stymied United Nations and other efforts to broker a ceasefire. Worse, even if the US and Russia are not on the brink of direct conflict over Syria, the world seems to be well on the way towards entering a new Cold War. Indeed, relations between Russia and the United States have not been so bad in a generation, since the end of the Cold War. Both countries now have a vital role in resolving the Syrian conflict, but they are at odds in their analysis and they profoundly mistrust each other's motives and intentions. There can be no dialogue between them without some basic level of trust and understanding.

In truth, the dispute between them has little enough to do with Syria. Russia believes that it has been treated unfairly since the 1990s, that, unlike its smaller neighbours, it was never welcomed into a new community of nations but remained instead the principal focus of Western distrust. One can put it down to US over-reach and insensitivity, to Russian nostalgia for Soviet greatness or, most likely, to a mixture of both. Russia still claims Washington betrayed a promise when German unity was being negotiated that NATO would not take advantage of this opportunity and expand eastwards. We know that the West Germans made such a promise to Gorbachev, and that when President George H. Bush heard about this, he said, "To hell with that!", and "We prevailed, they didn't. We can't let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat."

Whatever about who promised what, the facts are that NATO has added 12 eastern European countries since then, in three rounds of enlargement. In 1999, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined against strong Russian opposition. Then came Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The three new Baltic states had formerly been part of the USSR itself. Most recently, Albania and Croatia signed up to NATO membership. NATO has also officially recognised four aspiring members: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro.

This incorporation into NATO of countries formerly in the eastern bloc has been a major cause of increased tension between East and West, as we knew it would be back in 1990.

Arguably, the subsequent aggression against Georgia and Ukraine, and now Syria, was fuelled at least in part by ongoing resentment about continuing NATO expansion to the very borders of Russia. Although Russia was left on the periphery of a post-Cold War Europe, it has fought its way back. For a time it retreated from the world stage, but now it is back with a vengeance, and eager to restore a global role. It is extraordinarily knowledgeable and has very deep ties with countries like Syria and the whole region. On the other hand, the West prefers to focus on current Russian revanchism, on the stance of Mr. Putin, who described the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.

I quoted earlier the analysis of George H. Bush, whose reputation is as one of the more thoughtful members of his family, and the quality of analysis deteriorated subsequently. The "end of history" people, on both sides of the US congressional aisle, trumpeted the victory of western ideology and economics - they seemed incapable of distinguishing between the two. There was the simplistic notion that, when it came to the Middle East, all the West had to do was to guide the aims and goals of the Arab Spring, directing it towards an inevitable western style liberal democracy. That analysis has proven to be totally disastrous. Looking at Syria, it is a country very rich in resources, with an enormously well-educated population, as we know from the stories that have been recounted of the different refugees. I am sure all of us have met people from Syria, many of whom now live in my constituency. We can also look at Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

At this stage there is not much point in allocating blame between the initial strategic errors of the West and Moscow’s more recent aggression in Georgia, Syria and Ukraine. At this stage people are displaced, disappearing and dying in their tens of thousands. It seems clear that Russia can and will use its role to shape a variety of conflict zones around the world.

I would like to be able to assert with some confidence that the leadership in Russia and in Syria will some day be called to account for their war crimes against civilians but in an increasing bipolar world is there any point in claiming such a thing when the United States has yet to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court?

In a world where all onlookers are again being herded into taking sides in the conflict between these two superpowers and where many in the EU are again stressing their connections to NATO, our function as a neutral country is to remain unaligned and to insist that the EU's foreign and security policy is framed and acted on in a genuinely independent way, highlighting the shared values of European countries and of European civilisation historically with all the countries of the Near and Middle East and rejecting any siren call to become involved in the struggle between two hegemonies for global dominance. We must use all available diplomatic means and forums to raise this issue. We have to co-operate with like-minded states in the European Union and in the UN. We have to work towards an end to aerial bombardment, a genuine cessation of violence, an internationally enforced no-fly zone and humanitarian aid access throughout that country.

I worked in many post-conflict zones long before I became a Deputy. I worked with people who worked in refugee camps, particularly in Africa, following what happened in the Horn of Africa 20 and 30 years ago and what happened in Rwanda. Ireland has played, and is playing, a very significant role and is being of significant help in designing humanitarian relief that will bring relief to the people who need it. We are doing that quite proudly as a non-aligned, neutral country, being neutral militarily but a member of the European Union. Neutrality does not mean we are indifferent but it puts us in a fairly powerful position to be an influencer for the good in what is truly a dreadful situation, notwithstanding the fact Ireland is a small country.

I was very happy that the previous Government, of which I was a member, reached agreement with the Taoiseach last year - he has confirmed and upheld this on a number of occasions - that over a few years Ireland would receive approximately 4,000 people who have been driven out of their country and have become refugees as a consequence of the conflict. I reiterate something the people often do not understand. Almost all the people who are refugees from a war zone want to go back home, provided they have a home to return to. It takes time to pick up the pieces in a post-conflict situation but most people go home, provided they have some place to return to.

In offering protection and shelter to 4,000 people, I said at the time, and I say it again now, we should offer assistance to families with children, in particular. Children are very vulnerable. A great number of people are living in tents along various borders in different parts of Europe. We have taken on a responsibility in regard to people in Italy and in Greece. Through various agencies, such as Goal, Trócaire and other development agencies with a strong presence in Ireland, a good deal of work is being done but, clearly, it is nearly enough.

In fairness to the Ministers involved, they have been working to identify the people who will come to Ireland but what is wrong that it is not possible to identify these people who are facing into a very cold winter? Many people have walked hundreds of miles. They are not in good shape. Members with medical backgrounds will know it is not a great recipe for avoiding pneumonia, whether among small children, older people, pregnant women or people who have previously been ill. Just as we have seen the Naval Service reach out in the Mediterranean and do a job of which we are all very proud, we can encourage the people in the EU in this regard. The bureaucracy appears to most right thinking people to be pretty monstrous. There is much politicking involved in that bureaucracy but it is our job to try to solve it.

It is possible to expand the aid budget further. I am sure the Minister would be willing to do that. There was only a very minor change in the budget but if we can identify and bring some of the people out of the difficulties they are in, in turn many of those people will return home when this conflict has ended to rebuild what we all hope to see, a new and peaceful Syria.

See this speech in context