Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Molaim an rún:

That Seanad Éireann unanimously supports the Irish Government in calling on the military junta of Burma to stop their violence, to respond constructively to the wishes of the Burmese people, and to release Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners and further calls on all member states of the UN, especially China, India and the ASEAN countries, to stand with the people of Burma.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, on his first visit to this House, congratulate him on his new position and thank him for making time available to participate in the debate.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chair for his kind words and am glad to address this important issue in the House. I welcome this all-party motion on Burma and the further opportunity to set out the Government's views, which I know are widely shared across both Houses of the Oireachtas and throughout the country.

Although a semblance of calm has returned to cities and towns in Burma and the military regime there talks about a return to normalcy, the situation remains completely unacceptable. In recent weeks, the people of Burma made clear on the streets their unequivocal demands for democracy, national reconciliation and an end to military dictatorship and the Irish Government and people stand firmly behind them. The regime tried to quell the voices of monks, nuns and unarmed civilians who were peacefully demonstrating in the streets through bullets, beatings, tear-gassing, widespread arrests and brutal repression.

The numbers killed, injured, arrested or missing are not yet, and may never be, known precisely. While the regime has tried to cut off communication with the outside world in the hope of covering up its actions, it has not been able to hide the evidence of its brutality or the strength of discontent and opposition to its rule among the people of Burma.

The Government has long taken a strong position on Burma, including the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. It has spoken out firmly on the issue for many years at the UN General Assembly and in all other appropriate fora. It raises its concerns consistently in meetings with the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, and other Asian countries. In international meetings at which Irish Ministers and officials have encountered Burmese Ministers or delegations, they have always used the opportunity to make clear in a forthright manner the views of the Government and people of Ireland.

Through the Irish Aid programme, the Government has provided support for humanitarian causes and for the democratic process. It maintains close links with Burma Action Ireland and the small Burmese community in Ireland and offers some assistance for their activities. In addition to regular meetings between Ministers and Burma Action Ireland, President McAleese met representatives of the group and the Burmese community yesterday. The Government has always worked proactively to ensure Burma remains high among the priorities of the EU and the UN and is discussed at the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. For example, Ireland proposed and circulated a joint EU ministerial statement on Burma that was adopted at the Council in April.

As the crisis escalated in recent weeks, the Government has stepped up its action in support of the Burmese people. On 24 August, during the early days of the popular demonstrations, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, issued a statement calling for the release of key democracy activists and for the initiation of inclusive dialogue with opposition parties. As the situation intensified, he followed up this with a statement on 24 September in support of the demonstrators and appealed to the regime to exercise restraint, release all political detainees and initiate a process of dialogue and national reconciliation. Immediately after the widespread attacks on the unarmed demonstrators on 26 September, he condemned forcefully the use of force and called again for restraint, dialogue and reconciliation.

All these statements called on ASEAN and other Asian countries that may exercise influence with the Burmese regime to do all in their power to protect the people of Burma, encourage restraint, dialogue and reconciliation, support the role of the UN and, in particular, to facilitate an immediate visit to the country by the UN Secretary General's special envoy, Dr. Ibrahim Gambari.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, followed up these statements by writing to the foreign ministers of China and India to call on them to use their influence to stop the violence in Burma and to encourage positive change. These messages were delivered to the ambassadors of China and India in Dublin and by the Irish ambassadors in Beijing and New Delhi. At his request, the Irish ambassadors in the ASEAN region made urgent démarches to the governments of Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Equally, the Irish ambassadors at the UN in New York and Geneva have been active in conveying these messages to Security Council members, as well as to ASEAN and Asian neighbours of Burma. The Government is pleased these representations have received encouraging responses.

In his address to the UN General Assembly in New York last week and in his bilateral meetings there with the UN Secretary General and international foreign ministers, including the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, the Minister again highlighted Irish concerns. He also had a detailed discussion on the issue with US Secretary of State Rice in Washington and, on Monday, with Foreign Secretary Miliband in London.

While the situation in Burma is deplorable, we believe the events of the past few weeks represent a possible turning point. For the first time, ASEAN, as an organisation, as well as many of its members, have spoken out in condemnation of the brutality of the Burmese regime. They have expressed revulsion at the violence used against unarmed demonstrators and have called for national dialogue and reconciliation. Similarly, the Government of China has been working behind the scenes with the military leaders and has spoken out more clearly than ever before in calling not only for calm and stability but also for reconciliation and progress towards democracy. The significance of these statements and actions by Burma's neighbours should not be underestimated as the influence of the EU and the US is comparatively limited and such regional pressure, while it may not be as forthright as one would like, is essential.

Chinese and ASEAN involvement made it possible to achieve agreement to hold a special session of the UN Human Rights Council on Burma and to adopt a strong resolution there by consensus. They also helped to force the agreement of the Burmese regime, headed by Senior General Than Shwe, to grant a visa to UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari to visit the country to meet General Shwe personally, and to allow him to meet democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi twice during his visit.

The agreement of the members of the UN Human Rights Council — including China, Russia and some of Burma's neighbours — to accede to a request from the EU to hold a special session on Burma last week was in itself a highly significant move forward, but the outcome, a tough resolution adopted by consensus, is unprecedented in terms of Council action on Burma. Among other provisions, the resolution deplores the regime's violent repression of peaceful protestors, calls for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Burma to be fully respected and demands international access to the country to allow investigation of the situation. In this regard, the Council called on the Burmese authorities to co-operate fully with the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, including urgent facilitation of a visit by him to that country. We believe this sends the clearest of signals to the Burmese regime that the international community is prepared to stand together to ensure the days of impunity are over.

As regards the UN Special Envoy's visit to Burma, Dr. Gambari briefed the Security Council last Friday on the three objectives of his mandate, which were to assess the situation on the ground; to deliver clear messages from the Secretary General to the Burmese authorities at the highest level; and to promote dialogue between the Government and the opposition as the best path to ending the current crisis and achieving national reconciliation. In his assessment, Dr. Gambari admitted that the circumstances and duration of his trip had not made it possible to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of recent and current events. However, he was quite clear in his view that "since 1988, the democratic aspirations of the people ... have been systematically denied by the Government in the name of stability and security", and that the exclusion of key stakeholders from the Burmese Government's National Convention, which was supposed to pave a way for the return of democracy, "undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the process". He also expressed concern that reports were still coming in of abuses being committed by the security forces and others, including raids on private homes, beatings, arbitrary arrests, disappearances, and mass relocation of arrested monks.

On the second point of his mandate, Dr. Gambari confirmed that he had succeeded in delivering clear and strong messages on behalf of the Secretary General, which included calls on the regime to respond constructively to the demands of the international community and its neighbours. He stated, "No country can afford to act in isolation from the standards by which all members of the international community are held". In addition to the release of detainees and other immediate measures demanded by Dr. Gambari, he called on the regime to address the political and socio-economic factors underlying the demonstration, including, from a political point of view, the initiation of a process of dialogue and national reconciliation. Dr. Gambari admitted it remained unclear how responsive the authorities would be to the list of messages he set out, but he felt he had succeeded in increasing the regime's understanding of regional and international perceptions of the situation in the country.

Finally, with regard to his task of promoting dialogue, Dr. Gambari described himself as being "cautiously encouraged" by what he described as the "potentially welcome development" of Senior General Than Shwe's offer to meet Aung San Suu Kyi. It should, however, be noted that despite the specific demand from the UN Secretary General that any dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi be unconditional, the Burmese authorities have imposed a number of conditions which, unsurprisingly, have been broadly criticised by the NLD and many Burmese. After so many years of ruthless repression of viewpoints other than its own, scepticism about the regime's bona fides is inevitable, and fully justified. However, it is important that some way be found to exploit the opening which now seems to exist — no matter how slim it may be — for the dialogue for which we have long called. It is our hope that the UN Secretary General and his envoy will succeed in having these conditions removed and that Dr. Gambari's wish for the dialogue to resume as soon as possible will be realised. It remains to be seen whether the regime's appointment of a minister to liaise with Aung San Suu Kyi represents a serious willingness on its part to engage in genuine dialogue.

Dr. Gambari has also suggested the creation of a broad-based grouping to examine the work done to date on a new constitution. In addition to this, he suggested that a poverty alleviation commission be set up to identify and address the country's major socio-economic needs. The Government believes Dr. Gambari's recommendations, if implemented, offer the best way forward for the people of Burma. It is important that Dr. Gambari, who will return to Burma next month for a follow-up visit, receives strong support from the international community, particularly from Burma's neighbours. It is also the Government's view that Dr. Gambari's proposals for a constitutional review commission and poverty alleviation commission make sense, and I would like work on these to advance as soon as possible.

While we wish to encourage all possible constructive initiatives, Ireland and its EU partners are also considering an extension of sanctions against the regime. We already apply a range of sanctions and restrictive measures to Burma, and options for toughening them are currently under urgent consideration. Ireland has taken a leading role in this regard. It is expected that EU Ministers will take up this question at the next General Affairs Council on 15 October. A priority for us is to ensure that any new measures are targeted against the regime in order that they will not cause further suffering to the people of Burma.

The Government continues to stand firm with the people of Burma at this time, as do all Opposition parties and the people of Ireland. News about Burma may have faded from the international headlines, but we in Ireland have not forgotten and will not forget the demands for freedom and justice so clearly expressed by the people of Burma. We will continue to monitor very closely developments in Burma, to work unrelentingly with the EU, the UN and the countries of Asia on this issue, and to keep the focus of the world on the plight of the people of Burma. We will continue to demand that the Burmese military regime desist from further violence against it people, release all recent and long-term detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi, initiate inclusive dialogue with the democratic opposition and ethnic minorities, prioritise national reconciliation, and co-operate in full with the UN and the demands of the international community.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. He was a Member of this House in the last Seanad, and I congratulate him on his elevation to the position of Minister of State. I wish him well in his duties.

As the Minister stated, this is an all-party motion — which is to be welcomed — supporting the oppressed people of Burma in their quest for democracy. I read with interest the speech of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to the UN, and I compliment him on its content. All right-thinking people abhor the violent reaction of the military junta to the peaceful protests of the Burmese people, especially the Buddhist monks.

Burma remains one of the world's tragedies. A brutal dictatorship has been allowed to enslave the country for almost half a century, hold its democratically elected leader prisoner, pocket the country's resources and violently repress all attempts to demand freedom and justice. The tolerance shown to Burma contrasts with the desire of some countries for regime change in other parts of the world. Burma continues to be a prisoner of its military while the world looks on in horror, and up to recently, silently. The country has suffered with brutal regimes for most of its existence, under British rule, Japanese occupation during the Second World War, and a series of brutal military dictatorships since 1962. It is a sad fact that democracy existed in Burma only between 1948 and 1962. The military has held the democratic leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest or worse for almost 20 years, and refuses to accept the results of a democratic election which saw her win by a landslide in 1990. I applaud Senator Norris, who raised the issue of Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi in this House many times, long before the current crisis.

The Burmese people, peacefully protesting not only about their standard of living but also about the lack of democracy and repression by the military regime, were savagely cut down by the military, whose members used live rounds, tear gas and baton charges and arrested thousands of people. The regime acknowledged 11 deaths but other estimates put the figure at more than 200, with hundreds badly injured. In the 1988 attempt at peaceful revolution the then government claimed the dead numbered only a few dozen when, in fact, more than 3,000 persons were massacred. We do not know the death toll for the current situation but we can be sure that the suffering of the Burmese people, and the Buddhist monks in particular, continues daily outside the glare of the world media.

What can we as a nation do? The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has written to his Chinese and Indian counterparts appealing to them to use their considerable influence with the military regime to end violence against peaceful protestors, to release the detainees, to set about national reconciliation and democratisation, and to co-operate with the UN. I commend the Minister also for involving our ambassadors and officials who have already made démarches to the governments of Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam seeking to address the immediate, and indeed long-term, problems of Burma.

No doubt the best way to find a sustainable solution to the crisis in Burma is to seek to maintain international focus and pressure on the issue, particularly on Burma's neighbours. The UN Security Council should be more actively involved and the Government should ensure that the EU as a body exerts as much pressure as possible also.

Ireland has no diplomatic relations with Burma and it is the Government's position that no steps will be taken to develop diplomatic relations with Burma until such time as Aung San Suu Kyi is released from detention. My party fully supports the Government's stance in this regard.

I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, and his officials on the diplomatic offensive which they have undertaken to help redress this dreadful situation. I would urge the Minister of State to continue his efforts and to leave no stone unturned in assisting the Burmese people to achieve their goal of a democratic Burma free from the tyrannical dictatorship which continues to inflict so many human rights abuses on its citizens.

Senator Jerry Buttimer attended the 117th meeting of the Interparliamentary Union in Geneva on Wednesday of this week where legislators from 125 countries adopted an emergency motion calling for the urgent need to immediately stop the widespread human rights violations and to restore democratic rights to the people of Burma. This motion received comfortably the two thirds majority which was required. I would hope that this type of international pressure will yield the desired results.

I urge the Minister of State to continue his efforts in having diplomatic pressure placed on Burma and to continue his efforts with the Burmese neighbours, China in particular, to ensure that we will see a democratic Burma in the not too distant future.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach inniu chun an ábhar tábhachtach seo ar Myanmar a phlé. Cúpla mí ó shin bhí an tAire Stáit anseo mar Bhall den Seanad agus ba mhaith liom aontú leis an méid a dúirt an Seanadóir Cummins agus comhghairdeas a ghabháil don Aire Stáit i dtaobh an phoist tábhachtaigh atá aige anois. Go n-éirí go mór leis sa phost agus sa Rialtas.

Molaim an tAire, an Teachta Dermot Ahern, as ucht an suim atá curtha isteach agus an iarracht atá déanta aige chun imeachtaí i Myanmar a chur i bhfeabhas, go mór mhór go mbeadh na gnáthdaoine sa tír sin páirteach sa Rialtais i Myanmar.

Burma is a large country of some 50 million people, which reflects the large populations in many of the Asian countries. It has a long historic tradition and it is sad to think that the military junta has been running the country since 1962. To some extent it perhaps shows the inability of the international community and the international organisations to get to grips with serious situations around the globe. The fact that it should be allowed continue for so long must be a matter of great concern.

All of us will be aware that increases in oil prices for the regime led to the current serious situation in Burma and the peaceful protests which emanated as a consequence. However, it was the built-up hostility to the repression that people have suffered over the past four and a half decades that gave rise to this expression of hostility. It is fair to say that it quickly changed from a situation where people were protesting against the fuel price increases, which impacted severely on the poverty of many people in that country, to one of condemnation and a seeking of the end of suppression by the military regime.

It is interesting that the protests were led by the Buddhist monks. Those of us from Wexford would be familiar with the 1798 rebellion where the Catholic priests and the Protestant leaders led the campaign to free the people of the yoke of tyranny which suppressed them for centuries, and this has a similar resonance with what is happening with the Buddhist monks. There are approximately 500,000 Buddhist monks in the country. I have also learnt that there are also approximately 500,000 Buddhist monks inculded in the army and that many people feel the fermentation of resistance may well come from that group of monks. Buddhism promotes a peaceful disposition to society and to governments generally, but the fact that the peaceful protests were put down with such cruelty will generate its own reaction in time.

The regime has acknowledged that there were approximately 11 deaths but most independent commentators believe that the number is probably in the hundreds. In addition, many people have been imprisoned, not least many of the monks who were involved in the protests.

There is a lesson in the fact that many of the activists who were involved in the 1988 protests have been re-imprisoned, presumably, as the regime would see it, as a precaution against further protestation. That protest occurred 20 years ago and very little has changed. While calm has been restored we must be clear that the diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation in the Burma in the interests of the people of that country should be intensified.

Ireland has taken a strong position consistently on this issue and it is correct that we should seek that the military junta accept the genuine democratic aspirations of the people of Burma and engage meaningfully with the opposition, and particularly with the ethnic groups. Some 30% of the population is made up of ethnic groups and that mirrors the position in other Asian countries. It may well be in their interest to ensure a peaceful transformation from the current oppression to a state of greater democracy and respect for human rights in Burma because other Asian countries will be susceptible to protests if there is not a move in that direction.

I join Senator Cummins in complimenting the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who has shown great consistency and leadership in the manner in which this and other issues have been tackled. In particular, the fact we engaged our ambassadors in Asian countries, particularly the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, to ensure the voice of the free world was reflected was a good response. The strong condemnation of those nations was unprecedented. While the Minister stated he would perhaps like to see further moves in this direction, it is unusual for Asian countries to in any way adversely comment on the internal affairs of other countries. It is significant it happened and needs to be encouraged. There will be a further opportunity for Ireland and the EU in this regard when the ASEAN countries meet on 22 November.

It is fair to acknowledge that China has played a constructive role behind the scenes in encouraging the military regime to respond and to allow the United Nations representative, Dr. Gambari, to visit the country with free access to opposition leaders and to examine the situation. I realise there is criticism that China, with Russia, vetoed the United Nations Security Council debate and formulation of a resolution in this regard. However, we all remember the manner in which the Security Council was used with regard to the invasion of Iraq. The human rights section of the United Nations might at times be a more appropriate vehicle to address such issues.

When he visited Burma, Dr. Gambari had access to Dr. Tan Shwe, the leader of the military junta, and to Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy, the opposition party. I believe the solution is to be found in the agenda set by Dr. Gambari, which suggested, first, the establishment of a constitutional review group within Burma and, second, the establishment of a poverty alleviation commission.

There is talk of sanctions but, as is generally the case when dealing with people, we need the carrot and the stick. The carrot in this situation can be the financial and economic support of the international community to create the transition that is necessary in Burma. A huge element of the population is in deep deprivation and poverty. This incentive must be part of the solution.

The third change sought by Dr. Gambari was that there would be international access to Burma, which is essential. Part of the reason the regime has been allowed to continue with impunity has been that there is little access to the country, which for long periods of the past 45 years has been more or less ignored. The intensification of interest must be sustained. It was interesting to note that the Red Cross, a body not noted for condemning particular countries or regimes, denounced in very strong terms the Burmese regime, particularly when it refused entry to the prisons in that country.

The Minister of State referred in his speech to sanctions, some of which are currently in place. I am glad there is heavy emphasis on targeting and focusing those sanctions to adversely affect the regime, not the people. This is a very difficult circle to square. To again return to the example of Iraq, when the UN and the international community applied sanctions over a long period, it had the most serious effect on the population, particularly children, from a medical and economic perspective. We should learn a lesson from this, namely, that sanctions which hurt the people of the country, who we claim we are endeavouring to assist, are ridiculous in the extreme. I urge caution. We must ensure any sanctions are carefully constructed and used to protect the people of the country.

The House is ad idem on this issue and that is how the international community should be. We must continue along the lines we have set out and, in particular, we must follow the agenda set by Dr. Gambari and promote dialogue, reconciliation and mutual respect. We must not just do this when the issue is a nine-day wonder in the newspapers due to the protests, but continue to do it month in, month out, when the situation in Burma is calm and not highlighted so much in the media. It behoves us as a Christian country and a respected member of the international community to do so, particularly as we ourselves suffered over a long period. We are in an ideal position to play a constructive role as an advocate in encouraging others to play their part to ensure we change what is an appalling situation in that country.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senators Ivana Bacik and Rónán Mullen.

Senators:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to welcome the Minister of State to the House. I know of his interest in this matter. I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for his work in New York. Other European countries have also played a positive role. The British Prime Minister was very clear in this regard, as were both the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, and his Foreign Minister, Mr. Kouchner, who even went so far as to suggest they would try to get the French oil giant, Total, to pull out of Burma. I am not sure such a move would be appropriate because it would simply open the way for China to further colonise the country.

This is a point that needs to be put on the record. Burma is in fact an economic colony of Beijing. China has the key, as demonstrated when it vetoed the resolution at the UN Security Council. The tragic situation in Burma highlights clearly the truth of what President Ahmadinejad told the United Nations, namely, that the entire organisation still reflects the situation at the end of the Second World War. If we want effective work from the United Nations, we need to examine the permanent membership of the Security Council and the disproportionate power given to permanent members by the use of the veto.

Burma is a very beautiful country, rich in natural resources and with a gentle and lovely people. It is ruled by a vicious and inward-looking regime. While the present turmoil was sparked by the enormous rise in commodity prices, the small ruling elite was insulated from its impact and continues to live in considerable luxury. The members of the elite have not had experience of the rest of the world and have not travelled or been educated abroad and so on. However, they are quite capable of inflicting serious damage upon their own people.

This happened in 1998, when there was great repression and at least 3,000 people were killed. The difference between then and now is the advance in technology. Whereas in 1988 the regime was able to conceal the situation and the outside world did not know until it was all over, we now have contemporary reports. I followed events in Burma on television and radio in Cyprus. I saw in a newspaper blurred images, taken on a mobile phone, of the bloodied faces of monks. We also know of attacks on pagodas and monasteries. The events in Burma could not be concealed.

The murder of a Japanese tourist while taking footage of the protests was disastrous for the Burmese authorities and raises the question of whether Japan, one of the main donors of assistance to Burma, will cut off aid. The most interesting aspect of the initial phase of the protests was that they consisted exclusively of monks and were entirely peaceful. A gentle revolution led by monks who had made clear to civilians that they should not get involved as it would mean exposing themselves to danger was brutally attacked. It was at that point that ordinary members of the population became involved in the protests to a significant degree.

Buddhist monks in Burma are representative of the population because entering a monastery for a period is almost a form of national service. Virtually every young Burmese male becomes a monk for a time before rejoining civilian life. The question arises as to what are the feelings of soldiers who may have experienced being a monk. We have entered the end game for the Burmese regime and while it may take a long time, the skids are under the junta. I am glad that is the case.

In terms of Buddhist culture, it was significant that the monks refused to accept offerings from members of the military. This is tantamount to an excommunication of the government agencies. The role of the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, is significant because these states have been mealy-mouthed previously. We have listened to calls for constructive engagement but this means sweet damn all. The economic interests and vulnerabilities of these undemocratic regimes mean they were unwilling to apply pressure on the Burmese regime.

China is the key to this issue but I would not hold my breath in that regard. I appeal to the Government to apply greater diplomatic pressure on the Chinese Government. The Chinese ambassador should be told in unambiguous terms that it is perfectly clear that China could have the violence switched off tomorrow if it wished, given its absolute control of what is an economic colony of China.

A question also arises with regard to the attitude of the West. Tragically — Senator Walsh alluded to this point — while President Bush and his wife may have said all the right things — their comments were bang on — they are a busted flush with no moral authority because the United States is involved in the kidnap, torture and bombing of civilians. Who are they to lecture the Burmese regime? On the other hand, a small country such as Ireland still has some moral authority, despite the ongoing use of Shannon Airport for military purposes. Complaints emanating from the United States about the undemocratic nature of the regime are justified but what about Palestine where a government returned in a proper election has been subverted? A similar process took place in Algeria. In other words, from the point of view of the West, democracy only works when it produces the result we want. This approach leaves our moral authority elided.

Senators should start a debate on whether it is appropriate to support holding the Olympic Games in Beijing in the light of the consistent and gross violation of human rights by the Chinese authorities in Burma and Tibet. I say this despite hearing Jung Chang, the author of Wild Swans, in a discussion of her interesting and analytical biography of Mao Tse-tung on the wireless in recent days, state the staging of the Olympic Games in China has put pressure on the authorities to open up a little. She also stated, however, that it would be no harm to send the Chinese authorities a warning. If we are to stand in solidarity with the people of Burma, we must raise these issues with China because we only have one chance to use the Olympic Games for this purpose. Now is the time to demand that China take real, constructive action on Burma or face the prospect of the debate heating up and protests taking place against the Olympic Games.

I thank Senator Cummins for his kind words but the real praise should be directed towards the Burma action group.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish my fellow parishioner, the Minister of State atthe Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, every success. He will apply his undoubted talents in the service of the country in the coming years. I do so on a sad occasion, one on which we reflect on a very tragic country. On 26 September the Burmese Government lived up to its reputation for brutality and its threats to act against protests. It showed yet again that it was not afraid to spill the blood of innocent people to protect its interests.

It is worth recalling the recent history of this tragic country. In 1990 Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy decisively won elections which the junta had allowed in Burma. Under normal circumstances, she would have been sworn in as Prime Minister but, as we know, the military set aside the results of the elections and refused to hand over power, despite international denunciation and representations. In recognition of her bravery Aung San Suu Kyi has been awarded the Sakharov Prize and Nobel Peace Prize and remains under house arrest to this day.

To give an example of the inhumanity of the regime, for five years between 1995 and 2000 some of the restrictions placed on Aung San Suu Kyi were removed. However, even when her British-born husband, Michael Aris, was dying from cancer in 1999, the regime would not allow him to visit her. The couple never saw each other again and Aung San Suu Kyi remains separated from her children who live in the United Kingdom. While we know she is currently in reasonably good health, she is often refused access to her doctor and visitors are not generally permitted to see her.

Aung San Suu Kyi represents the sufferings of her people who continue to suffer every imaginable depredation. Mass murder has been committed in Karen State where events can only be described as genocide in the technical and legal sense of the word. Often, groups of villagers are forced to clear landmines and act as human shields. Recently, people from 12 villages were forced to act as human shields around a bulldozer clearing a road of potential landmines. The Burmese army forced one person from each of the 55 households of a village to become human landmine sweepers. Elsewhere, 850 villagers were forced to carry supplies for the Burmese army and to act as human mine sweepers. The regime has a callous disregard for the lives of the people it enslaves. This year, the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain was commemorated, but a system of slavery persists in many parts of the world, not least in Burma.

As a small country, Ireland must ask what it can do to try to play a part in undoing such cruelty and tyranny. To begin, we must ensure that the plight of the Burmese does not slip from our minds in the way such issues slip as soon as the media moves on and the circus moves to another town. The suffering of the Burmese will continue.

We must examine how the UN is functioning, as I agree with my colleague's comments on its ineffectual role. China and Russia blocked attempts by the UN Security Council to impose Western-led global sanctions. Instead, it made a watered down press statement urging restraint. Ireland must use its pester power and not be blinded by the economic attractions of dealing with large countries such as China, as I mentioned in another context. We must be a moral voice to ensure China and Russia place pressure on the Burmese Government to allow democratic reforms.

We must examine the European Union and the role played by the so-called democratic countries of western Europe in this story. I acknowledge Senator Norris's comments on the possible undesirability of Total, the French oil giant, withdrawing from Burma and leaving the field to China, but such arguments are an easy cop-out for the selfish interests of western governments. The EU has been divided in that some countries such as Britain and Ireland want to step up pressure on Burma by varying degrees. Other countries have opposed increasing pressure, not only for selfless reasons, but also selfish reasons. It behoves us to make every possible effort at UN and EU level to try to ensure a consistent and persistent response based on a common vision for the protection of human rights and dignity.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With this motion the House speaks with one voice in expressing its strong support for the efforts of the Government to date. We are in line with most free-thinking countries regarding what should happen, but we wonder what will change. After the headlines fade away, there is a danger of slipping back into the same situation as that seen after 1988 when the Burmese people tried to make their feelings known and after the 1990 elections. Burma has a closed and clandestine society where the junta performing government tasks has existed since 1962, all of my life. There is little sign that the efforts of the international community can bring about the necessary changes.

We should be grateful for the way in which this motion has been worded. It does not refer to the Government of Burma, rather it refers explicitly to the military junta. Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with Burma and will not until Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners are released and some semblance of democratic normality is achieved. The motion refers to the wishes of the Burmese. As Senator Norris stated, the main difference between this year's events and those in 1988 is technology, which allows us to see the nature of the repression. The longer those of us in the outside world allow the repression to continue, the greater the onus on us to bring about necessary changes.

Reference has been made to the stronger commitments made by organisations such as ASEAN and the EU and comments from China, to which Burma is a client state. However, they are just words. Senator Mullen referred to the weak position of the EU in implementing effective economic sanctions due to the French Government's role and the Total situation. If Ireland wants to exert moral authority as a small country and as a part of the international organisations of which it is a member, we cannot stand over a double standard of discussing what must happen while facilitating less than effective action. There is an onus on us to ensure talk stops and effective action begins. We must consider how this Chamber and country can do so.

Many people should give ongoing support and commitment to the work of Burma Action Ireland. Efforts have been made to inform elected representatives of events in Burma. Last year, the prime minister in exile visited Ireland and was met by many Members. Such avenues should be further strengthened. Unlike the Middle East and Tibet, Burma is not the subject of an Oireachtas parliamentary support group. That simple action would not only ensure debates of this nature and the monitoring of the Burmese situation, but also effective interparliamentary action in trying to bring about possible changes. For example, Senator Cummins referred to Senator Buttimer's attendance of last week's meeting of the International Parliamentary Union. Ireland is a member of the EU and the Organisation for Security Co-Operation in Europe. Each body at which there is parliamentary representation should receive an Irish input via Members to ensure Burma's cause is heard and to alleviate its situation.

Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest has been referred to. She has witnessed appalling deprivations in terms of the military junta's abuse of her country and her personal situation, namely, her family's absence and her husband's death in exile. In political terms, she represents someone akin to Nelson Mandela and is an embodiment of democratic values who deserves and needs the support of we who describe ourselves as democrats. Often, such support is discussed and not readily given in physical and practical terms. If this debate is to have any purpose, as well-worded as the motion is, we should continue to identify with Aung San Suu Kyi's personal situation. Through the efforts of our Government not only should we use the international arena available to us, we should also identify practical means by which her situation, and that of her people, can be changed. I would not like to see us return to issues of this nature regularly because we would be letting her and the Burmese people down by engaging in some type of looped debate which does nothing to change the plight of Burma and its people. I appeal to Senators to work collectively to identify those means.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This morning, The Independent of London reported the following voice from Burma:

There were about 400 of us in one room. No toilets, no buckets, no water for washing. No beds, no blankets, no soap. Nothing ... The room was too small for everyone to lie down at once. We took it in turns to sleep. Every night at 8 o'clock we were given a small bowl of rice and a cup of water. But after a few days many of us just couldn't eat. The smell was so bad.

Some of the novice monks were under 10 years old, the youngest was just seven. They were stripped of their robes and given prison sarongs. Some were beaten, leaving open, untreated wounds, but no doctors came.

The Independent has published a stunning report comprising fresh information and eye-witness accounts of the horror taking place in Burma. Nothing could be more eloquent than the voices of the people facing that horror.

I welcome this motion and the Labour Party joins our colleagues in this House in supporting it. I concur with what Senator Boyle said in the conclusion to his contribution. I do not wish to say this debate is not valuable or important but its value is limited if we are unable to do anything of practical import.

I commend the Government on its actions thus far and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on raising the issue in various international fora. However, without detracting from what has been done, I would expect nothing less than a robust position from a sovereign Irish Government and the Minister who represents it abroad. To the extent the Minister has done that, I welcome his intervention.

I find it difficult to explain to my children the hierarchy of concern that applies to international relations. I do not say international public opinion because that is not always the same as relations between countries. If we take in particular the US and the great powers, including China, this hierarchy often relates directly to the financial and strategic interests of the countries concerned. They are not predicated often enough on the issues themselves. We have seen interventions being made by the US and supported by others where the interests of the great powers are perceived to be affected by events in certain countries. However, this has not occurred in respect of Burma.

I listened to the contributions of Senators Boyle and Walsh. I welcome that this is an all-party motion and we are largely in consensus in our discussions, but I prefer the emphasis given by Senator Boyle to the issue. Senator Walsh quite reasonably referred to sanctions and the constructive engagement and behind-the-scenes efforts of China. However, what is the point of so-called constructive engagement or behind-the-scenes work when it has been seen to achieve nothing over the past decades? There is no point in attempting to persuade the junta to change its mind when we know it will not do so. The junta will only understand forceful and robust action by way of sanctions. A recent statement by the American Government warned that if certain actions are not taken by the regime, it would face sanctions. The day has passed when we could have any confidence that any request by the international community to Burma would be met. I understand Senator Walsh's intention when he speaks about the carrot and the stick but I am not sure whether the carrot belongs in this debate any longer. I remain to be convinced that such an approach has any value.

Another individual is reported in The Independent as stating:

My friend was taken away for clapping during the demonstrations. She had not marched. She came out of her house as the marchers went by and, for perhaps 30 seconds, smiled and clapped as the monks chanted. Her face was recorded on a military intelligence camera. She was taken and beaten. Now she is so scared she won't even leave her room to come and talk to me, to anyone.

The article continues:

Another Rangoon resident told the aid worker: "We all hear screams at night as they [the police] arrive to drag off a neighbour. We are torn between going to help them and hiding behind our doors. We hide behind our doors. We are ashamed. We are frightened."

These are the most recent reports available and we are indebted to The Independent for bringing them to the attention of the world.

One cannot disagree with the calls made by Senators for more stringent sanctions and for the Government to insert itself into the debate at an international level in the most robust way possible. Numerous references have been made in this discussion to Aung San Suu Kyi, as is right given that she is the democratically elected leader of the country despite being kept under house arrest by the generals for so many years. She wrote a speech in 1991 which speaks to the horror of the situation, even today, and describes the fear we cannot appreciate in this country. She stated in the speech: "The effort necessary to remain uncorrupted in an environment where fear is an integral part of everyday existence is not immediately apparent to those fortunate enough to live in states governed by the rule of law". We may congratulate ourselves on the consensus we have reached regarding the depth of the problems facing Burma's people but we cannot truly appreciate the horror of what they are enduring.

I will quote further from Aung San Suu Kyi's piece of 1991 because I feel it is very powerful.

Saints are the sinners who go on trying. So, free men are the oppressed who go on trying and who, in the process, make themselves fit to bear the responsibilities and to uphold the disciplines which will maintain a free society. Among the basic freedoms to which men aspire, that their lives might be full and uncramped, freedom from fear stands out as both a means and an end. People who would build a nation in which strong democratic institutions are firmly established as a guarantee against state induced power must first learn to liberate their own minds from apathy and fear.

In conclusion she said

Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights fear tends to be the order of the day: fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again for fear is not the natural state of civilised man.

Could there be a more eloquent statement to the world that the daily fear on which this regime is based, recounted as recently as today and yesterday in newspapers, cannot be allowed to continue by the international community of nations? We can no longer stand back and must use any means available, including sanctions and strong pressure on countries such as China to desist from supporting the regime.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senator Mark Daly.

Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, to the House. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael P. Kitt, was obliged to attend another meeting but it is encouraging to see that should a Senator depart this House the next logical step is to become a Minister.

In 1990 the opposition National League for Democracy Party won the general election in Myanmar-Burma but the military junta refused to honour the result and placed the party leader and Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest. Recently 100,000 people began to openly protest against the military dictatorship. The timing is crucial because the eyes of the West are now on the East due to the impending Olympic Games in China.

Myanmar has a long history of close association with China, its largest trading partner and a heavy purchaser of Myanmar's rich natural resources. The Chinese influence in Myanmar is powerful and, to date, it has protected Myanmar from UN sanctions and other attempted action because of the junta's refusal to recognise the elected government and other civil rights violations.

UN sanctions do not always work and they were counter-productive in Iraq where the general population, including children, suffered as a result. This provided a salutary lesson for the future because severe deprivation was caused by UN sanctions. Sanctions are a blunt instrument and those against whom they are aimed often become even wealthier through the use of limited natural resources while the rest of the population, who we seek to protect, end up worse off.

It is important, however, that we recognise spheres of influence. They were evident in the Monroe Doctrine the United States applied to South America, in Tehran and when the great powers divided eastern Europe into spheres of influence. There is no doubt that Myanmar lies within the Chinese sphere of influence. There are severe civil rights violations in Myanmar and China has an obligation to ensure the military junta there at least stops its crackdown on innocent, peaceful protesters. It would be difficult to request a full, democratic government in a country under the influence of China, a one party state. Notwithstanding this, it operates in Hong Kong under two systems and there is no reason why, in an enlightened atmosphere, Chinese influence should not be brought to bear to ensure an element of democracy or at least that this repression stops.

We have a long history of bringing people to account for crimes committed during terms of military dictatorship and this is evident now in the Hague where crimes committed in Kosovo and Croatia ten or 20 years ago are being tried. It was also the case with the Nuremberg trials. The military junta should be made aware by the international community that there is a price to be paid and that it will pay it. During the Second World War one of the factors that limited the maltreatment of prisoners of war were leaflets dropped by the allies stating in German that any maltreatment would be dealt with subsequently by the allied powers with justice brought to bear.

With regard to Burma, we should take into account different proposals made by different groups. The Ethnic Nationalities Council in Burma has specific proposals, many of which I support, including, given the extreme suffering of the people of Burma, the need for the violence to stop in the cities and the countryside in the seven ethnic states. The Ethnic Nationalities Council has a particular interest in the ethnic groups. It calls on parties in the conflict to withhold aggressive action and seek a political solution through dialogue. It also seeks support for the UN General Assembly resolution of 1999 that calls for a tripartite dialogue between the military, the 1990 election winners, led by Aung San Suu Kyi and the ethnic nationalities to solve Burma's problems and build a sustainable democracy.

The Ethnic Nationalities Council calls for no further action on talks for a parallel government because they may be counter-productive and it also urges the international community to address the situation in the Union of Burma to assist the national reconciliation process through the good offices of the United Nations, multi-party talks, a UN Security Council resolution under chapter 6 and under chapter 7. There are many suitable, peaceful and diplomatic solutions available to us.

The international community, including our Department of Foreign Affairs, must make it clear, especially through the Chinese, who have a strong say in their sphere of influence, that any violations of civil liberties and human rights will be brought to account sooner or later. The world will hear about these violations and people will be made answerable.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Hanafin for sharing time with me and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I was amazed that on the second day this House sat a Member of the Opposition spoke aross the floor on the subject of Burma. The Member said the Seanad discussing the situation in Burma would have the same effect as us discussing the situation in Russia in the early 1900s. We must remember that advocacy and lobbying are powerful tools for change around the world. I agree with Senator Bacik in that regard.

It is difficult to understand a defeatist attitude from a Member. The Oireachtas presides in Leinster House, which faces onto Merrion Square where the great liberator, Daniel O'Connell, resided when in Dublin. He is regarded around the world as the founder of the modern day civil rights movement which has been a force for change of minds, attitudes and governments. His example was followed by Mahatma Gandhi whose actions and leadership led to the independence of the sub-continent of India. It was followed by Martin Luther King, whose protests brought about improved civil rights for African Americans in the United States. It was also followed by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association in 1968 when its members marched in Derry. The actions of these people led to great change, but change did not come about in a matter of days, weeks, months or years. Sometimes, as in our case, it took centuries.

The junta in Burma could be on its last legs and it is important the Government and the United Nations keep up the pressure on it. Even on a small scale, lobbying and government pressure can be a great force for change. For example, the brother of a man sentenced to death in Pakistan said his family was indebted to the people who campaigned for the release of his brother, Mirza Hussein. He said the actions of those who wrote letters and stood in the rain with placards meant his death sentence was commuted and he was released. If people took the same attitude as some Opposition Members, that man would have died. If people in the House believe we can do nothing, we will do nothing.

Lobbying was also effective in Haiti and China. Over a period of five and a half years, more than 100,000 letters were sent to the Chinese Government calling for the release of Rebiya Kadeer. When she was released, she thanked all those who lobbied on her behalf. When we see how effective the lobbying of individuals around the world has been, it beggars belief that a Senator would have the attitude that anything we might do would be a waste of time.

Robert Kennedy spoke of apartheid in South Africa on 6 June 1966. He stated:

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

While we on our own will not change the situation in Burma, I commend the Government on its actions and on bringing pressure to bear, not only on the Burmese military junta, but also on the Chinese Government. I also commend it on its work with the United Nations and the European Union. We in the Seanad should add our weight to these calls and demands for change in Burma.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue and to follow what Senator Mark Daly has said. We do not fool ourselves that passing this motion, even on an all-party basis, will have the slightest effect on the Burmese junta. It does not listen to the United Nations, the European Union nor its regional neighbours in the ASEAN community. It certainly will not listen to the views of Seanad Éireann. This makes it all the more important for us to continue passing resolutions such this and not to lose sight of the important need to bear witness against injustice. Everybody in the House who has spoken on the issue agrees with that. We must continue passing resolutions, even when bearing witness has no immediate prospect of achieving tangible results. As long as injustice continues, we must continue to lobby against it.

In the case of Burma-Myanmar, we have no problem with maintaining a policy of opposition to what is taking place there. We can maintain this policy because we have no commercial relationship with the country. We have nothing to lose, therefore, by offending the junta. I cannot help but reflect on the difference between that attitude and our attitude to China in this respect. I visited China in July for the first time after many years. China is moving away from a regime of personal intimidation towards the individual, but at a very slow pace. However, the size of our commercial interests in China mean we are quite reticent about encouraging China to move at a swifter pace. This is somewhat ironic because China is one of the two large states — the other being India — fighting over Burma's natural resources. They are also the only two states to which the Burmese junta has any incentive to listen. It would be quite bizarre if we ended up thanking the Chinese for persuading the Burmese junta to make changes and see some sense.

When the ASEAN community invited Burma to join it in 1997, there was a feeling that it should not be allowed join because it was not seen to be a democratic state. The argument then for its admission was that it was better to be able to influence Burma from within rather than from without. Look, for example, at what happened in the case of Libya. A case was made to try to persuade it to change and it did. There are also signs of North Korea moving to a more acceptable level of recognition of rights.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been supported worldwide in what she has done. The Dalai Lama supports her, as does Bishop Tutu and others who recognise there is a challenge to be faced. We must continue to condemn the junta and what it is doing. Our voice may not be loud but it will add to the continuous drip of criticism. If we can manage to influence other countries, including Japan which has interests in the area, and particularly China and India, and convince them to use their pressure to influence the junta, it is possible we can achieve some success. This may seem impossible when we see what has happened recently, but I urge the Seanad to continue to make these efforts and to put the spotlight on Burma in the hope that even small steps forward will prove successful in the long term.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Cuirim fáilte freisin roimh an rún seo a chruthaíonn cé chomh seasmhach atá an tír seo maidir le cearta daonna, saoirse agus dínit an duine. Thaispeánamar cheana gur féidir linn a bheith cumhachtach nuair atáimid sásta ár dtuairimí a nochtadh go hoscailte agus go neamhspleách. Tugann sin dóchas domsa mar tá sé soiléir gach lá go bhfuil daoine sa Teach a seasann chun labhairt ar son na daoine go bhfuil cos ar bolg á dhéanamh orthu. Tá súil agam go leanfaidh an traidisiún sin ar aghaidh. Beidh na daoine atá i gceist agam buíoch amach anseo go ndearnamar amhlaidh.

In welcoming this motion I am particularly conscious of the power of the steadfast individual and the small nation, especially when accompanied by perceived moral authority. There is no doubt that Ireland has that perceived moral authority, which it exercises on many occasions independently and courageously. As a small nation, we have often led the bigger nations on the road to justice, of which there are many instances.

What we are dealing with in Burma is typical of what we have seen from malign military juntas which were not prepared to recognise the rights or democratic will of the people. When the people demand those rights in a peaceful but powerful manner, of which there are many instances throughout the world, they are oppressed and killed. Every effort is made to ensure their cause will be misrepresented, misunderstood and unreported. Burma is a typical example. We need only look at what has happened in that regard. Something that has given me great hope is that from day one our Minister stepped into the breach and in an unequivocal manner demonstrated clearly what the Government expected from Burma and the United Nations. The motion before us is unequivocal. That is important. This has been the position of the Government during the years.

At the time of the unilateral invasion of Iraq — some Members will know this — a few of us put our heads above the parapet and made it clear that we considered the invasion, without the imprimatur of the United Nations, to be unjust and immoral. We continued to make that point here, even at a time when 75% of the American people were satisfied with what was happening. The current position is that less than 30% are now prepared to condone or endorse what has happened in Iraq. We made that point at the time and went out on a limb for no reason other than to give a voice to logic and democracy because it was clear that the invasion represented the wrong step and would leave chaos in its wake, such as we had seen in Vietnam. Many would say we were like dwarfs speaking through a megaphone, which I never believed. I have always believed every word we utter in this House is read by some agency of government, including the Burmese. We should have no doubt about this. I know because I made a comment in the past 12 months recently in a particular case and a renowned judge queried subsequently who I was to have made it. The same is true internationally. It can be taken for granted that somebody, on behalf of the Burmese, is sifting through what we say. Therefore, we should not regard this as an exercise which will lead nowhere.

What is important — I believe another Member touched on this — is that when media interest has lessened in this issue, we should endeavour to keep it alive. That is the only hope for the democratic movement in Burma. A dictatorship such as the one in Burma cannot exist, continue, expand and ignore so many other democratic principles unless it is receiving succour from bigger nations. In every single instance of conflict the vested interests will always be found on the periphery.

China has been mentioned. It is gradually emerging into the light of democracy, for which it should be praised and saluted. The Olympic Games should not be used as a pawn in this game because the games in China will be a watershed in the emergence of that nation emerging into democracy. There is a possibility, however, that Ireland could exert greater influence on China than any other large country because to this day the Chinese remember the support they received from the Government when they sought the United Nations status they now enjoy. I have been to China on several occasions and the name of Frank Aiken has come up on many occasions. When they wanted our vote to secure a seat at the Security Council, they got it. It must be borne in mind that that is the way powers work and Ireland, undoubtedly, will be in a position, diplomatically and otherwise, to exert an influence.

The same is true of India because one only has to consider the number of leaders in India, both military and political, who were educated by the Irish Christian Brothers. Recently, a group in India were celebrating the centenary of the Christian Brothers in India which was attended by the chief-of-staff and the Deputy Prime Minister. The same is also true of South Korea where the Columban Fathers continue to enjoy a status today because of their education system. That is the road to travel. We must use that influence and call in that to which we are entitled. We have one major asset in that regard. We never colonised any other country. All we ever did was send peacekeeping forces to help in areas experiencing difficulties. We sent missionaries to help where the provision of education services was required. Many of our emigrants were the architects of the new legislatures in those developing democracies. If we bear all of this in mind, we have huge power which we should never underestimate.

Nothing has given me greater satisfaction in the House than to see a joint motion being tabled and Members not being partisan or scoring political points on intrinsic issues such as human rights. That will not be lost on observers outside the House. We often talk about expanding its role. I genuinely hope several more cross-party issues will come before the House on which we will not be looking for kudos but rather trying to demonstrate solidarity with those who will be vulnerable at a given time. Burma is one example. There will be many others.

Dominic Hannigan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State. Many of us will have travelled to Asia and seen at first hand the dignity and serenity of Buddhist monks but when they become the enemy within, as they have become in Burma, we know there is something seriously wrong with that state. These peaceful people are protesting for their dignity and it is up to us to show solidarity with them in their fight. Burmese campaigner and political prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi, summed up the spirit of the monks when she stated: "The only real prison is fear, and the only real freedom is freedom from fear". The BBC news agency recently reported that 4,000 monks had disappeared from Burma. Internet access has ceased. This reminds me of a situation 20 years ago when communications from Rangoon ceased. It reminds me also of the protests in Tiananmen Square when news reports ceased. It is impossible in such situations to know the exact number who have been imprisoned, killed or injured but we know something very serious is happening.

The motion must be a statement to the Irish people to support the campaign against the junta and defend the actions of the oppressed people in Burma. It must also be a statement to the European Union and the nations of the world. However, it is all very well passing motions; we must see action taken on foot of them. I want action taken by the House and the Government.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I tend to agree with the Burmese campaign groups which state a carrot can be used, as well as a stick. Since 1988 many investments have been made in the country. The major trading partners are Asian countries, with Japan purchasing timber in exchange for transport goods and commodities and China investing heavily in the country.

Some Senators have mentioned a boycott of the Olympic games. I remember the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 over the invasion of Afghanistan. The Russians blithely ignored the protests but, having been in China several times, I know the Chinese are less likely to want to lose face on this issue. There is a window of opportunity because the threat exists that the Olympics may be boycotted. I would not like to see it happen but we should use the threat to make the Chinese Government take action in Burma.

We should take action in other countries that are closer to home. Natural gas accounts for 90% of fossil fuel production in Burma and the French oil company Total has invested heavily in the country. The French Government should introduce economic sanctions. In Ireland we could identify companies trading with Burma to put pressure on them to cease trading.

Wholesale change is vital in Burma but it will not come easily; it will certainly not come from motions passed in western Parliaments. We must encourage them to change, however, because the outside world can help a new Burma develop from the deplorable regime currently in power. We can do this by offering additional investment to a new Burma, by providing debt relief and increasing aid packages. That should only be done, however, if change comes. It must be contingent on a new Burma emerging from the present system. We have seen repressive regimes change in the past, South Africa being a notable example. By sending a clear message to the regime hopefully we will see change in Burma.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá a lán rudaí ráite sa díospóireacht seo, rudaí atá tábhachtach. An rud is tábhachtaí ar fad ná go bhfuil díospóireacht againn sa Teach seo. Dúirt Seanadóirí Daly agus Ó Murchú cé chomh tábhachtach agus atá sé go mbeadh daoine sna tíortha beaga ag cur a gcuid machnamh isteach in ábhair thábhachtacha mar seo. There is a long tradition of recognition of the importance of the influence of representatives of smaller countries. This is an incremental debate happening in small countries throughout the world so that in international fora such as the United Nations it is not left to the huge nations of the world to influence this decision. The Irish representative, whether he be the Minister for Foreign Affairs or an ambassador, can state that the Houses in our Parliament unanimously supported movement on the matter. That is important.

I cannot add much to what has been said about Burma but I would like to raise the issue of China. It is the most important player in this area. When I look at Asia, two things stand out. India is a democracy of 1 billion people who have been voting in democratic elections for 60 years. No other country with such underdeveloped regions has managed to do that. China, however, is blatantly in breach of every regulation we hold dear in the civilised word, be they regulations related to environmental or health and safety standards or civil rights. That is the reality.

I do not agree with Senator Norris that we should use the Olympic games as leverage in this area but I also do not agree with Senator Ó Murchú nár chóir dúinn iad a úsáid in aon chor. Caithfidh go dtuigfimid seo — fad agus atásportspeople from all over the world involved in activities in China, down the road there are harmless, innocent, non-violent groups, such as Falun Gong, that have no interest in undermining the Government, or causing difficulties to the state, that are not even religious in nature but simply oppose violence, that are being persecuted, imprisoned and used for medical experiments and organ harvesting. We in Ireland should bring that to people's attention.

Next week the Olympic torch will pass through Ireland and I will take that opportunity to remind the Chinese Government what it is doing in the same way that we are reminding the Burmese Government. We must make our views known on these situations. Over 100,000 people went out on the streets of this country to show their abhorrence at the invasion of Iraq. None us expected that number of people, they came out of nowhere. We thought the usual crowd would turn up but it was multiplied 1,000 fold. It is important to know that represented people's views. We must incrementally put together the views of others like us who are not world powers to influence developments.

As we look forward to a debate on Europe next year, this will be an important issue. We have never had a real debate on neutrality. I come from a left wing position on this but I have argued with members of both the left and the right about the meaning of neutrality and what we should do when we see something wrong. Should we be proud that we stood back while Hitler was killing millions of Jews? Should we be proud that we did nothing while Pol Pot killed off hundreds of thousands of intellectuals? Can we tell our grandchildren that we were pure, virginal and neutral? Is that what we mean by our neutrality? I do not think so. Neutrality has an active imperative that requires us to act to express our feelings. I would like to see that debate take place next year in a way that will recognise, protect and respect Ireland's sovereignty. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This debate was important and I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for responding so quickly for requests from this side of the House for such a discussion, in spite of what Members on the Government side said this morning. It is important that we state our views on these issues.

Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 17 October.