Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes with deep concern the appalling security, humanitarian and human rights situation in the Darfur region of Sudan and calls for an immediate end to the ongoing violations of human rights and international law, especially those affecting women and children;

recognises the serious implications of the situation for regional security, in particular as regards Chad, and for the stability of Sudan itself;

condemns all violations of the 2004 N'djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement, of the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1591 and of the May 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement;

calls on all parties in the strongest terms immediately to halt the violence, to protect civilians and to ensure full, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance to all those in need in Darfur;

praises the continuing outstanding work of Irish and other NGOs to fulfil their humanitarian mission in extremely difficult conditions;

notes that Ireland has contributed more than €16 million in support to Darfur over the period 2004-2006;

reminds the leadership of the Sudanese Government of its collective and individual responsibility to protect all its citizens from violence and to guarantee respect for human rights;

fully supports UN Security Council Resolution 1706 (2006) of 31 August 2006 and urges the Government of Sudan to give its unambiguous consent to the implementation of this resolution and the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force, in order to ensure the protection of the civilian population and support the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement;

welcomes the decision of the African Union's Peace and Security Council to extend the mandate of AMIS, the African Union's Mission in Sudan, until 31 December 2006, in order to avoid a security vacuum in Darfur; and urges the council at its meeting on 29 November 2006 to extend the mandate of AMIS into 2007;

welcomes, in the absence to date of the consent of the Government of Sudan to a UN mission, the agreement in principle on the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping operation in Darfur, reached at the high-level meeting held in Addis Ababa on 16 November 2006, and urges the Government of Sudan to reach agreement without delay on the outstanding issues;

acknowledges that long-term security in Darfur can only be guaranteed by full implementation of the May 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement and welcomes current efforts to bring non-signatories into this agreement; and

supports the efforts of the Government to highlight the situation in international fora, including the United Nations and the European Union, and to encourage all those with influence over the Sudanese Government to persuade it to meet its obligations and respond to the wishes of the international community and commit itself to taking such other measures as may be appropriate for advancing a peace process.

I wish to share time with Deputy Carey, whom I thank for first suggesting an all-party motion on Darfur.

Deputies:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to move the motion, which allows Dáil Éireann to have a unified voice to express its concern at the continuing crisis in Darfur. The motion itself sets out the range of issues which makes the situation in Darfur so grave and complex. I wish to focus on a few key points and to bring the House up to date on the latest developments. While the situation is very complex, the conflict has since 2003 caused huge social upheaval and human suffering, which I witnessed when I visited Darfur last July. We cannot forget that basic point.

Estimates vary but we believe at least 200,000 people have lost their lives as a direct and indirect result of the conflict. Furthermore, more than 2 million people have been displaced from their homes and livelihood. Currently, 4 million people, two thirds of Darfur's population, are in continuing need of humanitarian aid. Faced with so serious and dangerous a situation, the international community has focussed on three main challenges, first, bringing aid to the millions who need it, second, trying to encourage the parties to the conflict to cease their violence and reach a political settlement, and, third, creating and deploying an international peacekeeping force that is sufficiently robust, large and well-equipped to provide the basic security which is essential if the first two goals — the delivery of humanitarian assistance and working towards a political settlement — are to be achieved.

As regards humanitarian assistance, Ireland has provided more than €16 million in aid to Darfur since 2004. Total Irish Aid funding to Sudan in the same period exceeds €32 million. I salute the courage and dedication of the UN agencies and NGOs, including those from Ireland, who work so tirelessly there. The dedication of the mostly young people who work in Darfur is an inspiration to us all. However, continuing violence and attacks on humanitarian workers are making it very difficult for agencies on the ground. Mr. Jan Egeland, the UN humanitarian relief co-ordinator, warned the Security Council on 21 November that large parts of Darfur are seeing a meltdown of law and order. He cautioned that the rampant insecurity was taking its toll on the delivery capacity of an increasingly beleaguered humanitarian community and warned that, if that trend continued, the situation in Darfur would spiral out of control.

The shrinking space for humanitarian delivery is of great concern to the Irish NGOs. Attacks that affect humanitarian workers are in direct contravention of international humanitarian law. We are concerned about the safety of our own people, about the NGO community in general and about their capacity to deliver the assistance they are there to supply.

The collective efforts of the international community to restore peace and security have not succeeded. Successive ceasefires have been broken by all sides. The Sudanese Government has failed to implement its pledges to disarm the Janjaweed. A recent report by the UN's panel of experts monitoring the arms embargo indicates that it is being blatantly violated by all parties.

While the Darfur peace agreement was rightly hailed as providing a comprehensive framework for the restoration of stability, it has been seriously undermined by the fact many major rebel groups have not signed it. Little has been achieved in terms of implementation. Both signatories and non-signatories have been intensifying their military activities. AMIS has done a reasonable job in the areas in which it has operated but has been hampered by its small size, logistical and command and control shortfalls, lack of enforcement capacity and refusal of co-operation by the parties.

Due to concerns about AMIS's ability to fulfil its role, the international community, including the AU itself, agreed earlier this year on the need for transition of this force to a UN mission. On 31 August the UN Security Council authorised the sending of 17,300 UN troops and 5,300 civilian police to Darfur to support implementation of the peace agreement. However, the resolution invited the consent of the Sudanese Government. Since President Bashir remains firmly opposed to the implementation of this Security Council decision, it has not been possible to deploy a UN peacekeeping force.

In an effort to unravel the current difficulties, the UN Secretary General and the chairperson of the commission of the African Union co-chaired a meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and a number of African states, including Sudan, in Addis Ababa on 16 November last. It was agreed at the meeting that the UN and the African Union should within 15 days organise a meeting of the signatories and the non-signatories of the Darfur peace agreement with a view to reaching agreement before the end of 2006 on the amendments to the agreement which would enable the non-signatories to adhere to it. The African Union's chief mediator for Sudan, Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, is visiting Khartoum to move the process forward. The 16 November meeting called on all parties to commit immediately to a cessation of hostilities. In light of the regional dimensions of the conflict, Chad and Sudan were urged to stop the fighting along their common border in Darfur and to respect previous peace commitments.

The meeting agreed to expand the UN's support to the AU mission in Sudan, taking into account the Secretary General's proposals for a phased approach to the strengthening of the peacekeeping operation in Darfur. More significantly, agreement in principle was reached on the deployment of a hybrid AU-UN force in Darfur. Some important issues remain to be resolved, however, including the size of the force and its command, control and reporting arrangements. I welcome these developments, especially the agreement in principle on a hybrid UN-AU force. Early acceptance by Sudan of the outstanding issues is essential, however. Sudan will give its considered response at tomorrow's meeting of the AU peace and security council in Abuja.

Although recent signals from Khartoum are not encouraging, I appeal in the strongest terms to President al-Bashir to endorse the agreement. The UN Secretary General's proposals meet Sudan's criteria that the peacekeeping force in Darfur should be basically African and that the African Union should maintain a strong leadership role in it. While there have been too many false dawns in this conflict for us to be foolishly optimistic about the present situation, we must never despair. We owe it to the people of Darfur and their suffering to continue to support them and to work for a solution to their plight, no matter how long or difficult the path. The Government will continue to offer major financial assistance to Darfur for as long as it is needed. It will also continue to use all avenues and opportunities to highlight the crisis and to urge concerted action to resolve it.

Last July, I was the first EU Foreign Minister to visit Darfur since the signing of the peace agreement. I met the Sudanese Foreign Minister in July in Khartoum and again in September in New York. Through bilateral meetings and letters, I have urged the leaders of key states such as Egypt, South Africa and Ethiopia to use their influence with Sudan. It is essential that efforts to resolve the situation in Darfur remain at the top of the international agenda. Ireland will continue to play a full and active role in these efforts. I will continue to explore every avenue open to us. In doing that, I know I carry with me the strong support of the House and the Irish people. I am pleased to commend the motion to the House.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased this motion has been tabled in the House. I thank my colleagues, especially Deputies Woods, Michael D. Higgins and Allen and the other members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, who have contributed to the formulation of this motion. It is an important milestone. This all-party motion sends a clear message to the Sudanese regime that the people of Ireland are at one in their opposition to the war and the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Regardless of our political differences, we are uniting in opposition to the deaths of 400,000 people; the systematic use of rape as a tool of war; the displacement of 2 million people, 50,000 of them in the past four months; and the failure of the Sudanese regime to meet its clear responsibility to protect its people.

In supporting this motion, I hope it will be followed by motions from all European national parliaments. After the motion is passed, I will ask the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to contact its counterpart committees in the parliaments of our EU colleagues with a view to seeking the ratification of similar all-party motions across Europe. I accept that our voice is a small one, but we must play our part. A larger voice can grow from our small voice, expressing the anger and opposition of the people of Ireland and across Europe to the appalling crisis in Darfur.

The United Nations and the African Union signed a memorandum of understanding on Saturday, detailing the additional assistance the UN will provide to the AU force in Darfur. The UN support includes staff in public information, civil affairs, administration, finance, humanitarian co-ordination and mine action, as well as military staff officers and police advisers. Communications and night vision equipment are also being provided. The hybrid UN-AU operation will have about 17,000 troops and 3,000 police officers, which represents progress. We wish the force well. We hope its work translates to real peacekeeping action locally. Mr. Kofi Annan has called the agreement a "turning point". The world will hope he is right because the under-funded and under-resourced AU mission in place is not up to the job.

I urge everyone who wants a real and credible assessment of the crisis in Darfur to read the monthly reports of the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, to the UN Security Council on the crisis. The reports are available on the UN website. The most recent report tells an appalling story, which is that the humanitarian crisis is worse than ever. Humanitarian workers are being targeted for theft and attack, systematic rape is taking place and thousands of civilians are being displaced. According to the Secretary General, the displaced civilians find little protection in camps where members of armed groups are committing rape, robbery and murder.

The World Food Programme says that 355,000 people in northern Darfur were without food aid in July and August. Humanitarian access is severely limited. More than 100,000 people in the Jebel Marra area have been denied access to humanitarian aid as a result of militia attacks. Aid agencies are providing assistance to 2.6 million people despite these outrageous attacks. The International Criminal Court has stated in recent days that it is close to launching prosecutions against war crimes suspects in Darfur, which is welcome. Just as we must hunt down the killers in Srebrenica and Rwanda, we must send out a message that those who commit similar crimes in Darfur will face punishment.

Ireland has taken a tough position with the Sudanese regime. I applaud the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who has raised this issue time and again and is personally committed to doing all he can to relieve the plight of the people of Darfur. He has visited the region, met his Sudanese counterpart and spoken to countless other governments about it. As Members of the national Parliament, we must play a part by urging our constituents to lobby and be advocates for the voiceless innocents in Darfur. Ordinary Irish citizens can play a role by writing to the Chinese and Russian ambassadors to pressurise Sudan. If people want to write to the Sudanese President or to the various embassies, they can get the addresses from their local Deputies or from Amnesty International. This motion sends a clear message that the Irish people are appalled by what is going on in Darfur. This crisis is bringing shame on the world because we are watching while thousands die. We must make our voices heard. This motion is part of that process.

I do not have time to speak in detail about the commendable report on the Sudan divestment task force, which was produced by the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa. The Irish nation might look at how it can withdraw pension investments from companies like Total which are involved in Sudan. Such actions will not change the world, but they will send a clear signal to the rest of the world that we stand for certain principles in the area of human rights. This country should take a lead role in the well thought-out and strategic campaign of intelligent economic pressure. I commend the campaign in question, just as I commend this motion to the House as part of that process.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Allen for facilitating me, as I have another engagement. I am happy to support this all-party motion on behalf of the Labour Party. I commend the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to visit Darfur so early and to remain engaged with the tragedy that is taking place there. It is important that we recognise what is at stake in Darfur. An enormous tragedy is unfolding in front of us. It is a real tragedy of a scale that involves a significant level of loss of life, as we heard in the Minister's speech and in Deputy Carey's contribution.

I would like to make some points that are equally challenging. When people use the term "genocide", they usually define it in terms of what is the intention. In this case, the intention is about occupation and dispossession. What is happening meets nearly all of the characteristics of genocide in international legal discourse. The issue is also raised of the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities and the lacunae that exist in international human rights law on such protection. Human rights law is challenged by our action or inaction on Darfur. The media and the public in many countries are interested in seeing, reading and hearing about the number of victims, but they sometimes do not see these minorities as the carriers of rights.

The next important challenge is in regard to the United Nations. The UN, moving in the direction of being active in the vindication of international human rights, has been stressing the nature of the concept of human rights protection. Human rights protection is crucially different from human rights intervention. In the case of human rights protection, it is the need of the indigenous people or the minority that defines the case for protection. Human rights intervention has been abused over many decades as it is the intention of the invading force which is the defining moral justification. We cannot accept any longer the suggestion that sovereignty can stand as a veil between the rights of people who are minorities or indigenous people. Neither can we accept the suggestion that people can participate in horrific crimes with any sense of impunity.

The proposal for the enhanced peacekeeping force, strengthened as it is by the most recent UN resolution, needs to be better resourced in the short term. It is probably the best prospect for acceptability if increasing numbers are drawn from African neighbours. It also needs logistical and financial support if it is to be able to sustain its activities. There are other important issues and I do not want to underestimate the depression people feel now that both the signatories and the non-signatories of the southern Sudan agreement have factionalised, sometimes on personality grounds. That is deeply depressing. The international community must take a clear and unequivocal stand on the external context of this conflict. Interested parties that seek to put their economic and commercial interests above the rights of those whose rights are so grievously being trampled upon, need to be shamed internationally. The position of China on Sudan is simply unacceptable for a member of the international community that has begun to acknowledge, through its notional acceptance of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the concept of international responsibility.

The Darfur case shows the importance of accepting an indigenous definition of the notion of governance. Governance must mean something that is rooted in people's experience and in people's memory. There was a tragedy in Somalia, where the clan system was the best prospect of providing a mechanism that would stand against the two warlords in Mogadishu. The clan system was rejected at the time of the Somalian famine. It has been recommended by international scholars since then, but it has never been accepted. If we are to see past the tragedy of Darfur, it will require addressing of regional issues, as the Minister's opening speech stressed. It will also mean taking the concept of governance as something that is not to be imposed from outside, but something that is to be amplified from within acceptable local structures. This is always more difficult and is slower to bring about, but it has a much better prospect of being accepted.

At this stage, there have been calls for immediate sanctions on the Sudanese Government, including the divestment mentioned. However, we must remember that the attacks on civilians, with the clear intention of dispossession and removal, qualify as genocide and justify intervention. I regret to say that, but it is the case. I also believe that the UN refugee camps for internally displaced people are no longer safe havens. Women are in danger of being raped and appalling decisions must be made, such as sending older rather than younger women to collect firewood, in the desperate hope that they will be safer. The duplicity of the Sudanese Government, which has clearly been involved with the Janjaweed in the attacks on villages, should be exposed for what it is. Those people who have been captured and exposed are clearly operating with the direct and indirect support of the Sudanese Government.

It is clear from population movements that have taken place that a kind of ethnic cleansing has occurred. Half of the 6 million population has been devastated since December 2005 and 2 million people are in camps, and I do not know of any aspect of a definition of genocide or displacement that is not being met by these statistics. I wish it was true that the May 2006 agreement was not in tatters. However, it is sometimes suggested in the media that this is a religious conflict, but it is not that simple. It is a conflict about resources and about the relationship and use of resources for different peoples with different identities in an international context. That is why there are such powerful interests refusing to act or acting malignantly in regard to the conflict itself.

It is important to state that the Minister and the Government have the support of all of us in the Dáil in seeking to take such steps as may be necessary. There is a UK proposal for a regional meeting which would involve all of the interests, conditional on the acceptance of the President of Sudan. In the preparation for such a conference, which would address all of the issues on a regional basis, if some prospect is offered as the first phase of a desperate movement towards a peace process, it should be taken.

There is no doubt that there have been crimes against humanity. The UN can only have credibility if we support it internationally, giving it moral and political support, but also by making contributions and granting resources. The UN is also being tested because following the reviews of its powers and future functions, its future seems to involve a greater regional activity. If it is to involve a regional activity, it will involve the transfer of resources. It will also be important that the previous colonising powers get out of the way and allow countries with a record in peacekeeping and peace building to put genuine initiatives in place.

I am seriously concerned about another feature that is revealed by the Darfur experience. Issues of identity within state borders are increasingly the source of the most desperate conflicts. Therefore I come back to the point I have suggested, namely, that no longer can we regard the sovereignty argument as an absolute that stands in the way of making human rights universal. We are tested by that because whenever we have appeared to loosen before as regards the concept of sovereignty, we were accused sometimes of having changed ideologically on issues of colonisation and decolonisation. The reality is that if human rights is to be universalised and become a major perspective, we must accept the need for its protection and we must be seen to be willing to have it vindicated. This is true for the source of and impulse to rights as well.

The media, in covering Darfur, must invite their readers and viewing public to move again from seeing people as just the victims of a humanitarian crisis. They should see them rather as people with differing identities and positions on land and resources who are being deprived of their rights. They should be seen as people who are rights carriers, whether Palestinians, Afghans or, as in this case, the different groups that comprise Darfur. What we need to stress therefore is that the new type of rights we must enable are within as well as between countries.

For all these reasons relating to the invasion, occupation, dispossession, appalling loss of life and extended rapes that have taken place as well as the cynicism in which members of the international community have viewed these matters, it is very important that we should act together. Indeed, I very much welcome the suggestion that our motion, having been passed, should be communicated to equivalent assemblies in Europe and committees such as the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am proud to be a member, to advance such views. In this way we shall be able to say that even though we knew it was going to happen, we did not remain powerless to act, as has often happened before. However much it takes, by whatever different means, we must act, and I believe the Government, in taking such steps as will either build peace or put an end to the massive abuse of human rights in the failure of peace, will have the support of all Members of the House. It certainly will have the support of the Labour Party.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This timely debate comes in a week when the Sudanese President, Umar Hassan al-Bashir, rejected a proposal for the United Nations to assume joint command over a peacekeeping force in Darfur and said that he would only accept UN assistance to African Union troops. He addressed a press conference yesterday, according to Bloomberg, which was televised throughout eight cities in Sudan and surrounding countries, to the effect that he was rejecting the hybrid force. He was quoted as saying there was no question of accepting the hybrid force because it was being rejected. He said, "Our troops in Darfur should be part of the African Union and under the command of the African Union".

If those reports coming from the coalition from Darfur are correct, it is a serious rebuff to the United Nations. It is a timely debate, coming at a time when it seems there has been a rejection of the hybrid force. President al-Bashir has laid down conditions that any peacekeeping force should be part of the African Union and under command of the African Union only. This is a serious rebuff to the United Nations which has proposed, in conjunction with the African Union, the creation of a hybrid force of about 20,000 soldiers and police that would operate under joint African Union-UN leadership.

In addition, the Sudanese President has described the Darfur crisis as a media creation and declared that only 9,000 people have died in the violence. In fact, this figure is 1,000 less than he quoted at a 25 September press conference. The United Nations has estimated that as many as 200,000 people have died in Darfur since the war erupted in February 2003, and that the region is the scene of the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said on 16 November that Sudan's Government had agreed in principle to allow the United Nations to provide $21 million in aid, advisers, equipment and logistics to help strengthen the 7,000-person African Union peacekeeping force.

However, President al-Bashir has claimed that there is an international attempt to recolonise Sudan, and part of this attempt is the campaign to publish false information about genocide and mass rapes in Darfur. The Sudanese President has also denied that his Government is rearming pro-Government militia in Darfur, describing them as bandits that his police force was pursuing. We all know that this posturing from the Sudanese Government is unacceptable and is seriously undermining peace efforts in Darfur.

We must support the African Union's Peace and Security Council's efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the human rights crisis in Darfur. We must be alarmed at the situation there, and also in eastern Chad, given the recent increase in hostilities. The volatility on the Sudan-Chad border and the escalation of militia attacks on civilians in both countries as well as the increasing security risk to humanitarian aid workers in the region are unacceptable. I want to pay tribute to the brave talented people who operate under appalling conditions in that area.

Despite all diplomatic efforts, the situation is clearly deteriorating. Therefore, renewed and stronger action is urgently needed to protect civilians and end human rights abuses. Given the recent proposal of a hybrid UN-African Union force for Darfur which was agreed in Addis Ababa on 16 November, the subsequent rejection of that proposal by the President of Sudan is most disappointing for those seeking peace. This is based on reports from Bloomberg released last night. Whether our lines are crossed I do not know. I am just going on those press releases from last night and I hope they are wrong.

We must condemn unreservedly the Sudanese Government's indiscriminate attacks on civilians and other war crimes, but we must push for a strengthened international protection force that has the requisite mandate and capacity to provide effective protection to civilians. We must again call on both the Sudanese and Chadian Governments to accept such international deployment immediately.

Since February 2003, at least 200,000 Darfurians have died as a result of the armed conflict. The Government's counter insurgency operations have been characterised by war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Some 4 million people, more than half of Darfur's population, are now dependent on some form of international food relief. Widespread killings, rapes and attacks by Sudanese Government forces and militia have forced 2 million people into camps. Even these camps are not safe and the killings and rapes continue unabated.

Unfortunately, civilian access to humanitarian assistance is at its lowest point since 2003-04. With 13 aid workers killed in Darfur since May of this year and much of the region too dangerous for overland travel due to continued attacks on staff and convoys, humanitarian agencies are unable to reach hundreds of thousands of people in need across Darfur. It is an understatement to say that the current situation in Darfur requires urgent action. In the first week of November alone, it has been documented that the Sudanese Government has indiscriminately bombarded from the air civilians in Sudanese and Chadian villages on both sides of the border. Water points in Darfur — essential for the survival of displaced civilians and their livestock — have also been attacked. There is photographic evidence available of these incidents as well as countless eye witness accounts.

The killing of children, including at least 26 who died in a place called Jebel Mun, and the systematic slaughter of livestock is blatant evidence that civilians and their property continue to be targeted in violation of international humanitarian law. It is questionable whether the proposal of a hybrid African Union-UN force, as outlined at the meeting in Addis-Ababa on 16 November, would have met the needs of the Darfur people or the neighbouring Chadians. It is obvious that the Sudanese Government continues to delay and weaken any further international deployment to the region and wishes to continue with its dirty work.

I support the Human Rights Watch demands that call on the Government of Sudan to cease offensive military flights, as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1591 and defined in the UN panel of experts report of October 2006, and to end its support, mainly funding and arms, to the Janjaweed militias and other paramilitary groups. I also support Human Rights Watch in its demand for an immediate Sudanese Government consent to a strengthened international force in Darfur; its request that the African Union mission in Sudan, AMIS, force and any strengthened international force monitor the Government of Sudan's commitment to cease further support for ethnic militias; and its call on the Sudanese Government to accept international support and extend the mandate of the existing African Union force.

Moreover, I support the application of targeted UN sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, as authorised under UN Security Council Resolution 1591 of March 29 2005, on senior Sudanese Government officials, should they continue to fail to consent to the deployment of a stronger international force in Darfur; sanctions on those individuals or groups responsible for human rights abuses or violations of the May 2006 Darfur peace agreement; and the expansion of the arms embargo provided for by UN Security Council Resolution 1591 to cover all of Sudan, not simply Darfur and the establishment of a nationwide mechanism for monitoring and enforcement. I call on the Government of Chad to cease support for abusive Darfur rebel groups and to consent to a strengthened international force in Darfur and along the border with Chad to deter further attacks on civilians, monitor the existing UN arms embargo and help to implement the Tripoli agreement of February 2006 between Sudan and Chad.

The African Union's Peace and Security Council should unanimously support a robust international protection force with the capacity to protect civilians in Darfur and along the Sudanese-Chad border. I hope the Council members of the African Union will so do at its meeting tomorrow in the Nigerian capital of Abuja. The African Union's slogan is "Africa Must Unite" and this is exactly what its member states must do tomorrow in Nigeria. Darfur is a critical test for the union's Peace and Security Council and its members must unite behind the people of Darfur and eastern Chad, rather than behind governments that abuse these populations.

While the appointment of Andrew Natsios as United States special envoy for Sudan and the recent tougher talk coming from Washington is welcome, it is likely that even more could be achieved by implementing and expanding the reach of some of the measures that have already been agreed by the Security Council and elsewhere. I believe the United States, United Nations, African Union and European Union, acting together to the greatest extent possible, should now apply targeted sanctions; authorise, through the Security Council, a forensic accounting firm or a panel of experts to investigate the offshore accounts of the Sudanese National Congress Party, NCP, and NCP-affiliated businesses, to pave the way for economic sanctions against the regime's commercial entities, the main conduit for financial NCP-allied militias in Darfur; explore sanctions on aspects of Sudan's petroleum sector, which is the NCP's main source of revenue for waging war in Darfur, to include at least bans on investment and provision of technical equipment and expertise; and obtain consent of the Chad Government to deploy a rapid reaction force to that country's border with Sudan and to plan on a contingency basis for a non-consensual deployment to Darfur if political and diplomatic efforts fail to change government policies and the situation worsens.

A United Nations panel of experts has recommended that sanctions be imposed on those who continue to abuse civilians and violate the arms embargo and clearly Khartoum policy makers should be top of this list. Therefore, the European Union and its governments must apply targeted sanctions on the President and other senior Sudanese officials who are responsible for the ongoing military offensive.

What can Ireland do alone? Deputy Carey has already referred to the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, AWEPA. Ireland can do much as a nation and AWEPA has put forward proposals regarding the impact of Irish pensions' divestment in Sudan. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, who is a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, has the opportunity to set a European precedent by divesting the National Pensions Reserve Fund from companies operating in Sudan. This has worked before because a campaign that persuaded major oil firms to divest from Sudan in the late 1990s was one of the decisive factors that forced Khartoum to negotiate an end to its civil war with south Sudan.

There is a clear link between Khartoum's oil revenue and its spending on weaponry used to devastating effect in Darfur. As Sudan is an indebted economy, a major Human Rights Watch report has shown that foreign direct investment in oil makes the all-important difference to Khartoum's military spending. This would be a campaign of intelligent economic pressure. It does not call for blanket divestment or for divestment from industries such as agriculture which would directly affect Sudanese civilians. Instead, it calls for targeted divestment from industries that contribute to Khartoum's war machine.

This would also be a pragmatic, strategic campaign. In respect of the company in which Irish pensions are most heavily invested, namely, the French company Total, the campaign does not call for immediate divestment. Instead, it calls for the Government to use the threat of divestment first and for Total, in turn, to use its leverage on the Sudanese Government to stop the killing in Darfur.

Ireland has signed up its National Pensions Reserve Fund to the UN's principles for responsible investment, which constitutes a real commitment to ethical investment. The US states of Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and California have given this campaign momentum by divesting billions of dollars from Sudan. In Europe, Norway is one of the Scandinavian countries that is said to be considering divesting from Sudan.

Divestment is only one of a number of tactics that might apply intelligent pressure on Khartoum, first to accept a UN peacekeeping force and then to implement the Darfur peace agreement. Further economic sanctions that would target Khartoum's interests abroad and further sanctions remain possible.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá mé sásta m'ainm féin agus ainm mo pháirtí a chur leis an rún seo, rún ó chuile pháirtí sa Teach. Tá sé tábhachtach anois agus arís go labhraíonn gach duine sa Teach seo le guth amháin, go háirithe ar cheisteanna a n-aontaímid leo, ceisteanna idirnáisiúnta. Is féidir linn seo a dhéanamh amach anseo arís ar cheisteanna móra eile faoi áiteanna ina bhfuil slad agus ár á ndéanamh thar lear.

Dhá bhliain ó shin, ag Ard-Fheis an pháirtí, rinne an ballraíocht trí rún a rith i dtaca le Darfur. Ag an am sin, ghlaoigh muid ar an Rialtas anseo agus Rialtas na Breataine gníomhú go práinneach ar mhaithe le muintir an réigiúin a bhí ag fulaingt cogaíochta agus an foréigean a tháinig as. Luíonn an rún anseo inniu leis an méid sna rúin sin ach amháin go bhfuil sé dhá bhliain níos déanaí.

Is coimhlint dhearmadta í an choimhlint seo i nDarfur, le fócas na meán agus an fócas polaitiúil dírithe ar an chogadh san Iaráic agus san Afganastáin. Cuireadh an slad i nDarfur i leataobh in a lán aigní. Tá, áfach, ár ollmhór á dhéanamh sa tSúdáin, le breis is 30,000 duine marbh, os cionn 1 milliún brúite óna dtailte agus breis is 200,000 teifigh lonnaithe sa tír chomharsanach, an Sead. De thairbhe ionsaithe ar oibrithe a bhí ag tabhairt cúnaimh daonna sa tír, tharraing siad siar as an tír agus, dá réir, tá curtha leis fulaingt an phobail.

The report of the United Nations Secretary General to the United Nations Security Council on children and armed conflict in Sudan that covers the period from May to July 2006, details incidents of grave abuse of children's rights. It outlines "the killing and maiming of children and, their recruitment and use as soldiers, grave sexual violence, abductions and denial of humanitarian access to children". That recent report "indicates that these violations continue in the Sudan largely unabated". A number of parties to the conflict in Darfur are explicitly identified as committing these abuses and these include the Sudanese armed forces, the popular defence forces, the Sudan Liberation Army, the Janjaweed militia and the Chadian opposition forces. All members of the international community must make every appropriate effort possible to protect all vulnerable children in areas of conflict such as this and to bring an end to these grave abuses.

The Darfur Peace Agreement outlaws the recruitment and use of children by rebel forces, however that agreement has had little effect because many of the rebel groups are not signed up to it. The motion before us recognises this shortcoming and welcomes efforts to bring the non-signatories on board. The importance of these efforts must not be underestimated. We must also be careful not to focus on the atrocities of the Sudanese Government to the exclusion of those of the rebel forces. There is a concern that the rebels have been emboldened by the relative lack of scrutiny to commit further and graver atrocities, and to hold out for an agreement that better favours them.

While backing today's motion which condemns the appalling security, humanitarian and human rights situation, calls for all parties involved to immediately halt the violence and to ensure the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid and calls on the Sudanese Government to consent to a UN mission, I also want to commend the work that has taken place thus far, particularly that of the African Union. It is essential that this work is continued, built upon and bolstered by the UN.

Ultimately while much of the focus of the motion is on security and this is crucial, particularly in the immediate term, there is also a real need for the international community to focus on assisting the political resolution of the conflict. This is crucial if a sustainable peace is to be built. Every appropriate effort should be made to realise the power-sharing provisions of the Darfur Peace Agreement in a meaningful way.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is worth remembering that the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the conditions in Darfur as little short of hell on earth. That is probably a mild enough description of what has occurred there. In 1994 the world stood by and watched as the Rwanda genocide claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, yet we are witnessing the same today in Darfur. I wonder what we have learned from previous experience in Rwanda.

This genocide began in 2003 when the Sudanese Government initiated brutal attacks against civilians in Darfur after rebels in the region rose up to demand a greater role in Sudan's leadership. The goal of the killing is ethnic cleansing and the Sudanese are carrying out the genocide to wipe out the ethnically distinctive Darfurians and take over the region. The Arab militia or Janjaweed — the riders from hell — is the primary perpetrator of most genocidal acts in Darfur and is armed and equipped by the Sudanese Government. The Sudanese Government often attacks Darfurian communities with bombers and ground troops in co-ordination with the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed continues to attack black Darfurians who have fled to refugee camps. They wait for the refugees to leave the safety of the camps for desperately needed supplies like firewood. Then they torture and kill the men and women and rape even pregnant women — there are no barriers here.

More than 400,000 civilians have lost their lives in Darfur and maybe this would focus our minds on how we distribute humanitarian aid in the Third World. No doubt getting aid to the targeted need is the big issue. Quite often, as has been mentioned, one is dealing regularly with corrupt people and governments, and it is quite difficult. Rather than trying to deal with every corrupt government, we should concentrate our aid on one country. While there always will be flash points, like Darfur, the tsunami or Hurricane Katrina for which we will need a special reserve fund, we should concentrate our Third World aid. The developed countries should adopt an underdeveloped or Third World country. This is the way forward. Then we can target aid and see where it goes.

I gather that of €1 given in charity, 10 cents is hitting the target. That is not good enough and the position will not improve if we try to change the entire African Continent. We should pick or adopt one of these African countries because we are pumping in hundreds of millions of euro — a certain amount of our GDP — into Third World aid. If we did so, we could take on education, health, infrastructure and food aid projects in that country and monitor them with full-time staff, rather than try to dot our administration across Africa, which cannot work. I would like the Government to foster that idea amongst the developed countries. This notion of providing a little here and there is no good. It does not provide any way of policing the vast amount of money we will be giving and the increased amount we will be asked to give. This would also help to reduce our administration costs. I realise the staff must do their work out there but when one considers all the administration for which we are paying in the Third World, it is not morally right. We should ask ourselves whether we are getting value for money.

We are institutionalising children in Romania. The type of institutional policies that we abhor in this country are coming back to haunt us here. We are funding and recommending the building of orphanages in Romania and it is not the right way forward. We should sit back and examine policies which we now see as wrong. The fruits of that will only come to haunt us in 25 or 30 years time. We should be taking a more critical look at the money that we are giving to Third World countries.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important that we debate this issue and I am glad that the Government has put forward this motion. My colleague, Deputy Boyle, has previously suggested that we use our pension funds in ethical ways and this may have been alluded to earlier, but certainly the suggestion that has come from our AWEPA group is worthy of consideration. What AWEPA has suggested, and what the Green Party has previously suggested, is that we look at the pension funds in a creative and constructive way and that we should not use our pensions money to invest in harmful products such as tobacco, alcohol and armaments. AWEPA is suggesting that we divest Irish pension funds from Sudan. It is a suggestion which the Government Deputies ought to consider. AWEPA states clearly that while the diplomatic deadlock persists, this is a means of applying extra pressure on Khartoum now that President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has rejected the plan to allow the African Union UN force to be deployed in Darfur by 1 January next. If we were to take the action AWEPA is suggesting, it would be a small step, which perhaps some would regard as insignificant but which would set the ball rolling for a much wider campaign at European Union level. We can light that torch. If that is done and all of the European Union countries were to act together on this, the effect would be significant. That is why it is important that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, takes that initiative to his colleagues in the European Union as a way forward.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, has a role to play in this. He is a former Minister for Foreign Affairs. He could set a precedent within the European Union by divesting the National Pensions Reserve Fund from companies operating in Sudan. This has worked previously, as AWEPA has stated. We persuaded major oil firms to divest from Sudan in the late 1990s and it was one of the decisive factors that forced Khartoum to negotiate an end to its civil war with southern Sudan.

There is a clear link between Khartoum's oil revenues and its spending on weaponry which has been used with devastating effect in Darfur. As Sudan's is an indebted economy, a major Human Rights Watch report has shown that foreign direct investment in oil makes "the all important difference to Khartoum's military spending". This could be regarded as a campaign of intelligent economic pressure. It does not call for a blanket divestment or for divestment from industry such as agriculture, which would directly affect Sudanese civilians. Instead, it calls for targeted divestment from industries that contribute directly to Khartoum's war machine. It is also a pragmatic and strategic campaign. The campaign does not call for the immediate divestment from Total, the French company in which Irish pensions have most heavily invested; rather, it calls for the Irish Government first to use the threat of divestment and for Total, in turn, to use its leverage on the Sudanese Government to stop the killing in Darfur.

Ireland had signed its National Pensions Reserve Fund up to the UN's principles of ethical investment, which is a real commitment to ethical investment. My colleague, Deputy Boyle, has also tabled an ethical investments Bill for debate in the House.

The American states of Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and California, which have the largest pension fund in the United States, have given this campaign momentum by divesting billions of dollars from Sudan. In Europe, Norway is one of the countries that is said to be considering divesting from Sudan. Divestment is only one of a number of tactics that might apply intelligent pressure on Khartoum to accept a UN peacekeeping force first and then to implement the Darfur peace agreement. Further economic sanctions targeting Khartoum's interests abroad and further military sanctions also remain as possibilities.

When replying to the debate, the Minister of State should take this constructive suggestion into account. I hope he will lead the way.

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, I welcome this all-party motion requesting urgent action at international level to end the crisis in Darfur. I welcome the efforts of the African Union through its 7,000 to 8,000-strong AMIS, or African Mission in Sudan force. The decision of the UN Security Council to send a 23,000-strong peacekeeping force to Darfur is also welcome. In this case, people cannot complain about the UN, which is anxious to send in this force in numbers. The UN is doing everything it can to get people in on the ground. I deplore the continuing refusal of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan to allow the deployment of a UN force in Darfur, which the president reportedly reiterated today at a press conference in Khartoum. I note that Sudan is to give its considered response at tomorrow's meeting of the African Union's peace and security council in Abuja.

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs had a full and intensive discussion on Darfur in October. A delegation from the committee, comprising Deputy Michael D. Higgins, Senator Mooney and me, highlighted the need for more immediate UN efforts at conflict prevention at a recent UN meeting we attended in New York. I condemn the brutal and inhuman treatment of the people of Darfur, as well as the fact that those in desperate need of food aid have risen from 1 million two years ago to more than 4 million this year. I commend the work in Darfur of Irish missionaries and Irish NGOs, through which more than €16 million in official aid has been provided by the Government, bringing the total to €32 million.

Ireland is doing everything it possibly can in this respect. The House can rest assured that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will take up the proposal by Deputy Carey to contact all the foreign affairs committees in the other 24 EU member states.

Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome many of the contributions that have been made to this debate. Members of the House will be aware that tomorrow is a landmark day when the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, will hopefully see something through in terms of this hybrid force that has been spoken about. I do not wish to minimise the situation or say things that may be inappropriate, but Ireland has contributed €16 million towards this effort and cannot be criticised in this regard. We cannot praise enough the role of our NGOs, including GOAL and Concern, and many others that operate in the most difficult environment in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan. They are doing great work, which is supported by the Government and the people.

As regards the investment issue, the Government is hamstrung by legislation in that the pension agency has statutory independence. However, it has adopted the principles of proper investment, as dictated by the UN. I agree with Deputies Gormley, Boyle, Woods and Carey that we need to use this leverage in the future. It is imperative that we should have control over this matter. When other humanitarian disasters and denial of human rights occur, we cannot be left exposed on this issue. I totally agree on those matters.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State was not here when I spoke about it also.

Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Members who articulated this point, particularly the Green Deputies and my own party Members, have done so from well thought out idealism rather than a knee-jerk reaction to what has happened on the international landscape. It is hugely important that we should have a coherent response. As a country and as a people, we should not be placed in a position whereby a State investment agency is investing in companies that are facilitating genocide, as we have seen in Darfur. I share that concept totally.

As a journalist, I reported on the active Irish-American campaign on the MacBride principles. I saw the British Government's attitude to fair employment in Northern Ireland change. This was precisely because the financial controller of New York, which has the largest pension fund in the world, arrived in Downing Street and indicated unhappiness with the situation. That is one of the main reasons the fair employment legislation came into being in Northern Ireland — because the financial controller of New York applied a higher ethical standard than the British Government and others with regard to fair employment in Northern Ireland.

Pension fund investment has a real impact, so we should be strong enough to say that we are not prepared to stand over certain practices. I am glad to say that our pension fund has adopted the UN principles on responsible investment. If the Government needs to go further, it will do so. I will speak to the pension fund representatives directly in my capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation and human rights. I intend to take this matter up directly with the agency concerned. At the moment, I am not convinced that it is doing anything wrong because it is a signatory adhering to the principles of responsible investment. However, if we need to go further I assure all Members of the House, including Deputies Woods, Carey and the Green Party Members, that we will do so. The lesson to be learned from the horrible and disgraceful genocide that has occurred in Darfur is that we will go the extra mile, if necessary.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate.