Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Snodaigh was in possession when the debate adjourned. The Deputy has 18 minutes remaining.

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

Yesterday I began my contribution to the debate on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) Bill which aims to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1999 protocol to that convention by stating that my party supports and welcomes this Bill. As was mentioned earlier, it is ten years since we signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and we have not yet ratified it. The UN Convention which is the subject of the Bill before us today is even older. I know that of the 124 states that are a party to it, only four have signed it but not yet ratified it and Ireland is one of those. Last night I noted that similar legislation was passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly at the behest of my party colleague, Ms Carál Ní Chuilín when she was Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure in the Six Counties and it is timely that we are now following suit. Hopefully this legislation will have good effect.

We have seen throughout the world the effects of some of the most recent wars on UNESCO cultural institutions and heritage sites. We have seen how different groups have specifically targeted the historical wealth that exists in this world that helps to explain to the public where we came from and to some extent, where we are going. We have had our own history of that here. Giraldus Cambrensis, also known as Gerald of Wales, wrote about Ireland long ago. He denigrated the Irish and set out that they were a different race who should be set aside. In today's parlance, his suggestion was that the Irish were second class, or even third class and somewhat akin to the caste system that operates in India, that we were worthless. As we saw subsequently with the Statutes of Kilkenny and the Penal Laws, the conqueror often tries to destroy the identity of the conquered, to deny them their language, their history and their traditions.

In those days, there would not have been as much built heritage. In the past couple of hundred years, however, there is much more. As we have seen from recent wars in the Middle East, some of that region's built heritage is much older than that in northern Europe. Ireland has some built heritage, however, such as Newgrange, Knowth, Dowth and other major graves. Structures such as Dún Aonghasa are built heritage, but built heritage of its era is not as common as it is in other parts of the world. This is the type of built heritage we want to protect.

We want to protect the heritage of whole civilisations that no longer exist and that have left us a legacy. The legacy might not be in writing but in the graphics on the side of caves. The civilisations have left us a heritage of artefacts. That is what this Bill is trying to capture, such that during a war the combatants do not target specifically for destruction artefacts that are 1,000 years old or regard them as the spoils of war to be robbed and expatriated to their country. We have some expatriated artefacts in our museums here. In England, there was a fight over the years to have certain artefacts repatriated to the countries from which they were stolen in the first place. Artefacts were often taken when soldiers were pillaging, or there was a systematic attempt to rid countries a wealth, perhaps through an imperialist power taking all the gold, be it in the form of an artefact or otherwise, and expatriating it and melting it down. The Spanish and Portuguese did this with the wealth of the South Americans. They destroyed gold material that was more than 1,000 years old at the time just to satisfy the greed of an empire. It was melted down to make coins.

In preparation for this debate, I read Fintan O'Toole's article about the Reclining Buddha, a beautiful Buddha now in the National Museum of Ireland, where my father worked years ago. It is imperial loot; that is specifically what it is. Mr. O'Toole names the person responsible. He states:

Col Sir Charles Fitzgerald, an Irishman in the British army in India, stole it while on a punitive military expedition to Burma in 1885-6. In 1891, Fitzgerald sent it, along with other looted Burmese statues, to the museum.

What else is in our museums that should be repatriated or at least offered up to some of the countries in question? In some ways, while we possess the objects we hold them illegally. In this day and age, we could make facsimiles which would be just as good as the originals. We could say that, for years, we held the original and that in some ways we held it in trust because we were not imperialists. The Irish Government did not set out to rob the artefacts or pillage and plunder in other countries, but because our territory was part of the British empire, some museums and stately houses in Ireland have plundered artefacts as a consequence. We should consider that. If we are passing legislation such as this, it would be appropriate to have an audit of our museums to ascertain what we hold.

There was a long dispute over the Elgin Marbles in London. The Egyptians were demanding their return. It is an ongoing battle of which I am aware. In the past, there have been requests to return many of the Korans held in museums in this State, such as the Chester Beatty Library. Rather than holding on to artefacts that are not only religiously very valuable but also historically very valuable to the areas from which they originated, they might be returned. Before doing so, we could make facsimiles. There was an example of this in this House only recently. The last portrait that was erected in this House is a facsimile of one from Westminster, a painting of the Irish parliamentarians in Westminster entitled "The Men who made Home Rule". We do not have the original, yet the facsimile conveys the same message. It is appropriate that we consider that when examining this matter.

Over the years in Ireland, we have not been as respectful as we should have been to our own built heritage. I remember the controversy over the demolition of Frascati House in Blackrock when I was very young. It became a Roches Stores supermarket for a while. The house was the summer house of the Fitzgerald family, the family of the Earl of Kildare who owned Leinster House, yet it was demolished just to facilitate the building of a supermarket.

We all remember, with the possible exception of those younger than me, the destruction at Wood Quay. The State is not always as protective as it should be. This was in peacetime. Think of what could be done during war. With regard to Wood Quay, I remember my own brother going to the city dump and coming back with coins and a sword from the Viking period. That was the scale of the destruction. We cannot undo that. In passing this legislation, we should not be hypocrites either. We should make a bigger step to protect what we have.

It is welcome news that there is some progress on Moore Street. There was a danger that the street, which is part of our built heritage, would be destroyed. Maybe there is a greater understanding of the benefit of history to future generations, especially given the considerable interest last year in the history of the events of 1916. People understood their importance and wanted to be associated with them. We can build on that in regard to our history. The same was true when we were commemorating the Famine of 1845 to 1850. When we should never bulldoze history.

As I said, we should have an audit. We should also ask the other signatories to audit what is held in their libraries and museums. Many of the pillaged books that were in monasteries in Ireland ended up in the British libraries and were used as the covers for books. The hardback covers were made up of old manuscripts or parchment from the works of monks throughout Ireland who transcribed and decorated religious works and also medical books. They ended up being squashed together with glue and made into the hardback covers of many of the books in some of the most famous libraries in England. Former imperial powers would probably understand better than most what they have done in war. I hope that, in signing up to this instrument, as they have, they understand the consequences of the wars they wage.

Occurrences such as the blanket bombing in Yemen, for example, can have consequences if there are heritage sites in the affected areas. We have seen what is happening in Iraq and Syria. We saw what happened in Afghanistan, where various groups set out specifically to target the historical artefacts to try to change the outlook of the world. The same was also true when the crusaders roamed Europe and the Middle East. There is much that is still contained in libraries here that should be considered in this regard.

We should remind the English in particular that they pillaged not only Ireland but also other countries during different wars. There are materials in British museums which were taken as loot or the spoils of war during 1916 and afterwards and which should be returned to Ireland, and not on loan. We got the Fianna flag back last year. The British ambassador was very accommodating in getting the English Queen to allow us to have that flag, which was confiscated by the British, back on loan for a few months. That has now been extended to a lifetime loan. It should be granted back to us in perpetuity, but a loan is better than nothing. It is part of our heritage. The same goes for Roger Casement's trunk. It was taken when his house was raided. It had nothing to do with his trial for treason, but it has never been returned to his family. It is on display in the British Imperial War Museum. It never belonged to them and should be returned. There are other museums in this country which have materials from other periods and wars. Those institutions should consider what do with the materials in question.

I support the Bill’s intent and, hopefully, it will have the desired effect. It can only have that effect if countries partaking in a war are willing to abide by it, however. That is one of the biggest problems with many of these international covenants. In the case of the destruction of cultural properties, the biggest transgressors do not care less what convention is in place. How do we impress upon them the need to protect the history of the world? Those are the major cultural properties that need to be protected under this legislation. If a transgressor specifically targets the archaeological or built heritage of a country, what are the sanctions? Who will make the complaint against the transgressors and who will impose sanctions in the middle of or are after a war? Sometimes, it is too late and the damage is done. Hopefully, there should not be a need to have to be recourse to this legislation but I am also enough of a realist to accept that there could be.

I remind Members that in war the priority must be to protect civilians and get them out of harm's way. Often, the protection of cultural property comes second to this. That is a pity, but the priority we set is that life is more sacred than property. The world is worse off when things are lost as a result of such events. Thankfully, in the modern age we have, at the very least, photographs, films, records of the dimensions of buildings, etc. Some 200 years ago, when destruction was wrought upon the built heritage of a country, there might have been nothing left after a week or two. As there were no photographs, buildings, etc., were destroyed and gone for ever more.

I wish the Bill well and support it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This debate on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) Bill 2016 is important in and of itself. It also raises several issues about our role in conflict, however. While I support the Bill, I will consider tabling amendments to it on Committee Stage. I am also concerned about the motivation behind this Bill and why the Government is introducing it now. There is no question about how good it is that we should sign up to a convention where we commit to protecting humanity’s cultural and artistic heritage from destruction in war. However, when the Minister set out the case for supporting this legislation, not surprisingly, he referred to Palmyra and recent events in Syria. Of course, those events should be mentioned. Any discussion of the destruction of cultural artefacts and heritage in conflict could not but include mention of the appalling scenes we saw of Daesh deliberately destroying an absolutely irreplaceable part of humanity's cultural heritage in Syria. We witnessed the remains of one of the great ancient civilisations being systematically destroyed.

What is incredible is that the Minister only referred to what happened to the Arch of Triumph in Palmyra. That is a pretty extraordinary one-sidedness when we are debating the rationale behind signing up to a convention about the protection of cultural property. Why would the Minister not talk about the destruction of the National Museum of Iraq and the damage done to ancient site of Babylon during the US-led war in Iraq? According to those people and organisations charged with the protection of humanity's cultural heritage, the worst act, bar one, of cultural destruction and vandalism was the destruction of the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad and the damage done to the ancient site of Babylon, one of the most ancient locations of early human civilisation, during the US-led war in Iraq. At these sites, there were three different fires. Ancient documents were looted and burned. Contamination and destruction were visited up on the ancient heritage site of Babylon. The latter was done explicitly by the US forces which, incredibly, used that site as their military headquarters during 2003. All of this happened, despite warnings from universities and organisations - in the US itself and other countries - representatives from which with Pentagon officials on several occasions before the war was launched. These individuals pleaded with the American authorities to do nothing that would lead to the destruction of that heritage site and the museum and cause irreversible damage to our human heritage.

The Pentagon ignored them and did absolutely nothing to protect the Baghdad museum, even though they were pre-warned. It is not as if this just happened and they were not warned in advance. They were warned again and again that this was going to happen if they went ahead with their planned invasion and bombing without taking some measures - setting aside the debate about the war itself - in terms of having specific measures to protect that heritage but they ignored those warnings. Donald Rumsfeld who was questioned about this at the time after the first looting began, completely dismissed it. They maintained the military base on the Babylon site and then handed it over to the Polish forces afterwards. They used the soil and sand there, which was packed with archaeological artefacts, for sandbags for the US soldiers, which they set up around the site. They brought in diggers and tractors, dug up the ground, contaminated the site and removed soil containing artefacts which will never be recovered. The Baghdad national museum was completely looted.

I will tell the Leas-Cheann Comhairle something even worse about all this. At the time all the serious and respectable cultural institutions and universities met collectors, museum directors and so on who were lobbying the Pentagon prior to the war. If the Minister remembers back to 2003, as anti-war activists our biggest concern was about the human destruction that was going to be visited on the population of Iraq but we also warned, as did many, about the cultural destruction that would take place in one of the most ancient civilisations in the world bar none. At the time another small group called The American Council for Cultural Property was founded in late 2002. That group, which had very close contacts with the Bush Administration, started lobbying the Administration for a different approach to the cultural property that might fall into US hands when the war started and it said that as soon as they got into Iraq, they should relax the laws on the collection, export, sale and the putting into the market of artefacts, documents, heritages pieces and that might fall into US military hands. When the Baghdad museum was looted - although some of looting was done by common thieves and some of it involved Iraqi people who were trying to protect their heritage and took artefacts away until after the conflict - the reports were clear subsequently that much of what went on involved people who were organised and who knew exactly what they were looking for and that such artefacts found their way into the market and were sold for profit. This had been well organised in advance by outside forces. We can put those two things together, namely, the failure of the Bush Administration, despite warnings, and the military forces under its auspices to protect these artefacts and then an organised theft of much of those artefacts taking place. Nobody stopped them and this was at the time that the world was screaming about what was happening. When the first looting started Rumsfeld and his gang said there was nothing to see there. It was only weeks later that they eventually put in some tokenistic protections when the horse had already bolted, the destruction and fires had happened and all the looting had taken place. I will tell the Minister what I believe. I believe our friends, The American Council for Cultural Property, founded months before the invasion in late 2002 and with close contacts with the Bush Administration, had a well-organised plan, which was facilitated - or at least a blind eye was turned deliberately - by the US forces. Is that not what they went on to do to the rest of the country - to its resources and its oil? They went in to loot the country and, of course, most importantly, kill 1 million people while they were doing it. I find it amazing that the Minister did not mention this.

I would also mention in passing what Israel has done in Gaza. Does the Minister know how many mosques were destroyed by Israel in Gaza during its recent assaults? A total of 203 mosques were attacked during Operation Protective Edge, 73 were completely destroyed and two churches were also extremely badly damaged. These include, for example, the Al-Omari Mosque in Jabaliya, Gaza's oldest and largest mosque built in the seventh century and named after the second caliph, Umar bin Al-Khattab. It dates back to 649 AD, making it 1,365 years old and it was totally destroyed by Israel. The time available does not permit me to go through the rest of them on the list but systematic deliberate destruction of ancient Palestinian heritage, and also human heritage, part of the ancient civilisations of this area, took place.

I wonder why the Minister does not mentioned these matters. They are recent events. Why do we not talk about that? Why do we talk only about Palmyra and the crimes of ISIS, which, of course, must be mentioned and roundly condemned? I suspect, like everything else, that we are completely one-sided in our apparent concern about these matters. When one side that is deemed to be the enemy, the adversary or the problem engages in such destruction, we will condemn it but when our allies do it, we keep shtum, even when they are signatories of this convention. The US signed the first protocol. Israel is probably not a signatory, I am not sure about that - the Minister can probably confirm that - but the United States certainly is a signatory. Why does the Minister not mention those matters? I suspect it is because there are two different standards, particularly when it is applies to the United States.

This brings me on to another point I want to make. I welcome the fact that the Minister or Fianna Fáil are supporting the Hague Convention-----

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

Or Sinn Féin.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----or Sinn Féin, of course, but there is also the Hague Convention of 1907, which defines neutrality. It is very clear in its definition of it. Article 2 of that convention states "Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power." That convention also states "A neutral power must not allow any of the acts referred to in [Article 2] ... to occur on its territory." That is the internationally accepted definition of neutrality. I should read into the record Article 29 of our Constitution which deals with neutrality. It states:

1 Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2 Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

3 Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other State.

I wish to refer to what Mr. Justice Kearns said when Ed Horgan took his case about the goings on in Shannon Airport through which 2 million US troops passed on their way to conduct the war in Iraq, which has claimed 1 million lives and which opened the door to the destruction of the cultural heritage of Iraq that I have outlined. In fact, ISIS would not exist were it not for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and I do not believe any serious commentator would suggest otherwise. ISIS is the bitter fruit of that assault by the United States.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has five minutes remaining but we must now proceed, by order of the House, to Questions to the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality.