Standards for supporting asylum seekers ‘have to be maintained', says UN high commissioner
Europe
should 'open up' so people can legally move to countries like Ireland for work rather than 'obstructing asylum channels', the
United Nations
high commissioner for refugees has warned
.
The lack of 'broad and well-regulated' migration channels for people seeking work and a better life in Europe is 'taking away the credibility and capacity' of asylum channels needed for people who are legitimately fleeing violence and human rights abuses, Filippo Grandi said on Wednesday during a visit to Dublin.
The high commissioner acknowledged Ireland had dealt with a recent influx of international protection applicants, using 'tools designed for much smaller arrivals', but said standards for supporting
asylum seekers
'have to be maintained'.
Speaking at the Institute of International and European Affairs, Mr Grandi warned that Europe's focus on increasing security and defence spending, while simultaneously cutting foreign aid assistance, was 'myopic, short-sighted' and a 'strategic mistake'.
READ MORE
'Defunding and decreasing aid is not only morally wrong but also strategically very risky,' he said, expressing particular concern for the African countries neighbouring Sudan who are dealing with huge population movement.
Europeans should also be concerned about aid cuts in the 'belt of crisis' surrounding this continent, he said.
'We already estimate 350,000 Sudanese have moved to Libya, so what will that mean for Europe? It's not that aid automatically stops people moving but it has a stabilising function.
'Europe should see this as investment in its security. There are areas that Europe should be mindful, if not properly resourced, may turn into liabilities for the European continent. Making those crises worse can only weaken your own security.'
The decision by countries like France, Germany, Spain and Italy to slash their aid budgets and increase defence spending – following a trend set by US president Donald Trump, who has frozen nearly all US foreign aid assistance – is having a 'devastating' impact on the food security, health and education of millions of people, he said.
In 2024, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) received more than $2 billion in donations from the US, making up 40 per cent of its total donations. The agency, led by Mr Grandi, now receives 0 per cent support from the Trump administration. UNHCR has now cut nearly a third of its personnel and activities worldwide, said Mr Grandi.
In 2024, the agency distributed $700 million in cash support globally. This is forecast to drop by more than half by the end of 2025, he added. Vital education and gender-based violence programmes, which are not deemed 'life-saving', have been cut as a result.
[
Israel not yet fully implementing Gaza aid agreement, EU says
Opens in new window
]
'I consider education life-saving but one has to be realistic,' said Mr Grandi. 'We simply do not have enough money and we have to keep people alive. Foreign assistance is very small compared to defence spending so is it really strategic to cut this spending? Is it really necessary?'
Mr Grandi commended Ireland for being 'one of the few remaining champions of the UN 'rule based system' in a world where international diplomacy is increasingly 'under attack'.
His comments followed a commitment by Taoiseach Micheál Martin on Wednesday that Ireland would continue to financially support UNHCR's work.
The high commissioner said people were losing trust in the UN's system of multilateralism – where countries work together to solve global conflicts and challenges through co-operation.
This 'explicit loss of trust' is resulting in 'disengagement from international debate and co-operation', particularly around trade, climate and forced displacement or migration of refugees, he said.
Asked to comment on the ongoing blockade of UNRWA-led aid into the Gaza Strip, Mr Grandi said humanitarian support must reach Palestinians in a 'legitimate manner' and not in a way that is 'manipulated by other interests, military interests'.
The 'unprecedented, provoked' displacement of Palestinians continues to be a 'major violation of international humanitarian law', said Mr Grandi, who is also the former commissioner general for UNWRA.
'On Gaza, what is there left to say. When we say what's happening there is unspeakable I'm tempted to stop. Because if it is unspeakable, you can't even speak about it any more.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
5 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
A rules-based order - but who makes the rules?
Earlier this month the Taoiseach Micheál Martin made a four-day trip to Japan to strengthen bi-lateral ties between the two countries. During a speech at the opening of the new Ireland House in Tokyo the Taoiseach said: 'The Ireland-Japan relationship is built on a solid foundation of shared and longstanding commitment to the rules-based international order. We share a vision for a future of peace and prosperity for all, built through international co-operation, democratic values and peaceful resolution of disputes.' He went on to note that 'these shared values were already evident in 1974, the year that Ireland established its first embassy here in Tokyo. In that year, Ireland's former minister for foreign affairs, Seán MacBride, and the former Prime Minister of Japan, Eisaku Satō, shared that year's Nobel Peace Prize for their work on disarmament.' To underline the importance of Ireland-Japan collaboration on disarmament the Taoiseach also visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park during his trip. There he met with hibakusha, survivors of the US's atomic bomb attacks. The Taoiseach spoke to journalists about the harrowing testimony he heard from Teruko Yakata, who was eight years old when the bomb was dropped on her hometown, and about the legacy of trauma still suffered by Yakata and other survivors. As he was leaving Hiroshima Mr Martin was asked if he believed the world was a more dangerous now than in 1945. 'I believe it is,' he answered, 'it is in a very dangerous place.' The Taoiseach was right to highlight Ireland's proud tradition of international leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. This is a particularly important history to underline whilst visiting Japan, which remains the only country to have suffered attack with nuclear weapons. The United Nations' landmark Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), signed in 1968, had its origins in the 1950s when then Fianna Fáil foreign minister Frank Aiken introduced the first of what became known as the 'Irish Resolutions' which eventually led to the NPT. Aiken was the first to sign the NPT in 1968 in recognition of Ireland's crucial role in advancing the cause of disarmament. The Taoiseach Micheál Martin was right to highlight Ireland's proud tradition of international leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. File photo: GIS Press Office Yet, at the very same time as the Taoiseach was in Japan promoting Ireland's commitment to international diplomacy and disarmament, he is leading a government that is trying to fundamentally re-orient Ireland's foreign policy away from disarmament and international peace building towards militarization and war-fighting alliances. In doing so Mr Martin and his government are betraying the foreign policy achievements of Aiken and his own party, Fianna Fáil, but more importantly they are betraying the will and trust of the Irish people who remain deeply attached to active neutrality. Opinion polls consistently show a large majority of the Irish public support maintaining neutrality. A poll conducted in January by Uplift found that 75% were in favour of maintaining neutrality. In April another poll, conducted by The Irish Times and Ipsos, found that 63% of people wanted to keep Ireland's neutrality as it is. The Government's revolution in foreign affairs In his speech to the Global Ireland Summit on May 6 this year the Taoiseach said that even in newly volatile geopolitical conditions 'Ireland will maintain its role as a strong advocate for the rules-based international order, with the UN at its centre.' Yet, his government is actively undermining the UN in its quest to remove the Triple Lock, legislation that requires a UN mandate for more than 12 members of the Irish Defence Forces to be deployed overseas. The government justify this change on the basis of false claims that Russia and China enjoy a veto over Irish peace-keeping missions in the UN Security Council. It is not only the UN Security Council that can authorize peace-keeping missions. File picture: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton This is not true because it is not only the UN Security Council that can authorize peace-keeping missions. The UN General Assembly also has the power to do so. Further, this is a hypothetical. China alone has exercised such a veto, and then only once regarding the extension of an existing UN peace-keeping mission. That was in 1999, before the Triple Lock existed. Why is the government making these false claims? Removing the need for a UN mandate on deploying Irish Defence Forces personnel overseas would allow this government - and any future Irish government - to commit Irish troops to EU and NATO military operations. Remarkably the government insist that removing the Triple Lock will not impact Ireland's neutrality, but participating in western military alliances would clearly mark the end of neutrality. Participating in EU and NATO military operations overseas without UN backing is certainly not compatible with what the Irish public understand neutrality to mean. Further, states around the world, including those that the government claim are already hostile, will understand that Ireland is no longer to be regarded as a neutral state. This will only serve to increase the security risks Ireland faces, not defend against them. Whilst the government continue to pay lip service to neutrality it is clear they aim to abandon it in order to explicitly 'take sides' with the US, EU, and NATO in international conflicts, even when this is manifestly against the wishes of the Irish people. Ireland is in effect undergoing a quiet revolution in foreign affairs imposed from above, even as the government lacks a mandate to fundamentally reorient the state's place in the world. All those interested in Ireland's future security and in world peace, should be extremely concerned by the government's backdoor erosion of neutrality. 'Rules-based international order' vs The UN Despite the Taoiseach's insistence that Ireland remains committed to a 'rules-based international order, with the UN at its centre,' his government is actively trying to depart from a world in which the UN is the body tasked with defining, governing, and sometimes policing the 'rules-based international order'. In attempting to remove the requirement for a UN mandate to deploy Irish troops overseas, Mr Martin and his government have been arguing that the UN is not the international guarantor of international order but rather an obstacle to it, on the basis that Russia and China might hypothetically veto peacekeeping missions. Likewise, the government are arguing that the role of these states within the UN Security Council is an obstacle to the exercise of Irish sovereignty. This might make sense if Irish sovereignty were defined by the capacity to join EU and NATO military operations overseas without a UN mandate. This might make sense if the rules of the 'rules-based international order' are set not by the UN but by the US, EU, and their allies. However, it is incompatible with a commitment to a 'rules-based international order' governed by the UN. It is interesting to note that western governments, including our own, are increasingly using the terminology of 'rules-based international order' rather than reference the UN or 'international law'. Whilst a majority of the public no doubt understands the 'rules-based international order' to refer to the UN and the existing institutions of international law the sudden popularity of this term amongst western states indicates that it may mean something quite different. It seems clear from the Irish government's maneuverings around the Triple Lock that the 'rules-based international order' they have in mind is at very least not principally defined by the UN. This is extremely concerning given that we can see the type of 'rules' western states adopt beyond the frame of the UN. The active material and diplomatic support given to Israel's genocide in Gaza by the US, the UK, and the EU (notably Germany) indicates that the 'rules-based international order' these states have in mind has no regard for international law whatsoever, at least not when it applies to them or their allies. It is right and reasonable then that the public ask who defines the 'rules' of the ''rules-based international order' and whose interests these 'rules' might serve. America first 'America should write the rules. America should call the shots. Other countries should play by the rules that America and our partners set, and not the other way around.' It may surprise some that these are not the words of President Trump but of former President Barack Obama, writing in the Washington Post in 2016. Obama was writing about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement designed to constrain China's increasing influence over Pacific trade, but regardless of the context, the quote is indicative of a fundamental set of assumptions about the role of the US in the world - assumptions common to US liberals and conservatives alike, Democrats as well as Republicans, and shared by most European states, certainly those that are also members of NATO. The Taoiseach and his government like to argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine marked the beginning of a new world and that Ireland's foreign policy must adapt to meet the changing times. According to the government this means abandoning neutrality (in everything but name) and massive increases in military spending to prepare Ireland for future conflict with Russia, or even China. Former US President Barak Obama wrote in the Washington Post in 2016: 'America should write the rules. America should call the shots'. File photo: Chris Jackson/PA The EU White Paper on European Defence published in March makes the direction of EU foreign policy travel and expectations of military spending for member states very clear. Yet this breakneck European militarization is not only a reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine but responds to a longer term strategic shift of US resources and attention away from European security towards Chinese containment. This move was first announced in 2009 with Obama's 'Pivot to Asia' but was pursued more aggressively since under both Trump and Biden administrations. Hence, it is crucial that we understand European militarization not simply as a collective response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, but a development dictated by the shifting geostrategic priorities of the US. I am hardly alone in wondering if Obama's upcoming visit to Dublin in September is partly timed to smooth public concerns about militarization ahead of a Dáil vote on the Triple Lock, by presenting an image of US leadership more acceptable to the Irish public than the current occupant of the White House. Government fog It is reasonable that there be a frank and honest discussion of the changes the government are trying to implement to Ireland's foreign policy, that the real drivers and consequences of these transformations are acknowledged, and that the policy changes proposed are open to serious democratic scrutiny and challenge. Currently, this is not the case. The nature and stakes of the changes the government are trying to implement are shrouded in a technocratic fog and most media coverage platforms anti-neutrality partisans, advocates of militarization, and arms lobbyists as the relevant 'experts'. Government parties protest that they are being honest with the public, but in reality they are trying to ensure their plans are subject to as little democratic oversight as possible. The government know that a great majority of Irish people do not support the changes they are attempting to ram through and that insulating them from transparency is the best path to success. The government's gamble is that if the public don't know about - or understand – that removing the Triple Lock means the end of Ireland's neutrality then they won't mount any meaningful opposition. By the time Irish troops are being sent to take part in multiple EU 'Battlegroups' overseas and the public spending needed to address pressing crises in housing, health, care, and climate is being used to buy fighter jets it will be too late. Such a scenario is not a conspiracy but a plan, and it lies just on the other side of a successful vote on removing the Triple Lock. The coalition have promised a vote when the Dáil returns from summer recess. Merrion Square Just opposite the Dáil in Merrion Square Park stand two memorials marking the horrors of war. Facing government buildings is the National Memorial to members of the Defence Forces who died in the Service of the State, a pyramid-shaped structure by the sculptor Brian King, unveiled in 2008 by then President Mary McAleese. Close by a small plaque marks the spot where a cherry tree was planted in 1980 by the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament 'in memory of A-bomb victims'. Just metres away from each other, these memorials offer a stark reminder of the distance the Irish government has already gone in weakening the foreign policy positions that have been Ireland's strength on the world stage. The principled stand Ireland has taken against militarization, imperialism, and great power conflict have ensured this country enjoys a positive international reputation and outsize diplomatic influence, particularly in the Global South. The Irish public are rightly proud of and deeply attached to this legacy. Pursuing a foreign policy based on international diplomacy, the peaceful resolution of conflict, and independence from military alliances has not always been an easy path and it has often displeased friendly states on whom Ireland is economically dependent. Then-Taoiseach, Brian Cowen and Then-President, Mary McAleese at the ceremony in 2008 at Merrion Square to mark the Dedication of the National Memorial to Members of the Defence Forces who have died in the service of the State. File photo: Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland However, it has not only been the right thing to do - upholding the state's values, as expressed in the Constitution - but it has also served the country's interests well. A lack of enemies has been, and remains, Ireland's best defence. The Irish public remember the lessons of our own history, and the terrible costs of war, even as the government seem determined to forget them. Opinion polls show that a very large majority of the Irish public are deeply attached to a vision of Ireland that is opposed to imperialism and war. However, active neutrality is not simply a popular policy position but something that people strongly identify with, that touches on the core of what they understand 'Irishness' to be. The government's attempts to remove the Triple Lock threatens to undermine this crucial connection between people and State. Betraying the public on this issue risks sowing alienation, suspicion, and resentment - sentiments already providing fertile soil for the growth of anti-democratic and far right forces across the country. The government is right that the world is changing. It is up to all of those invested in democracy, peace, and international co-operation – best expressed in the existing institutions of the UN – to ensure they make the right response. Read More Government proposal on triple Lock gives an Irish solution to an Irish problem
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
US government offered to use spy satellites to verify IRA arms dumps were decommissioned
The US government offered to use its satellite surveillance systems to verify whether IRA arms dumps had been concreted over during discussions about decommissioning. According to new government files released by the national archives in London, a White House official put forward the idea to the British in 2000 when the issue of putting arms beyond use was one of the most contentious topics between all sides. In a phone call with Bill Jeffrey, the political director of the Northern Ireland Office, the idea was put forward by Dick Norland, a senior US diplomat. 'Norland said that he had raised with [Irish civil servant] Dermot Gallagher whether US satellite surveillance could conceivably have a part to play in verifying that IRA weapons dumps had been sealed, eg by concreting over,' said Mr Jeffrey in a memo of the call. READ MORE 'This might be a bit off the wall, but seems worth exploring.' At the time, Mr Gallagher had also raised the idea of using satellites to replace surveillance from security towers in south Armagh. 'We were pretty clear that would not work. Norland agreed,' wrote Mr Jeffrey. 'When Gallagher had raised the idea with [deputy national security adviser Jim] Steinberg, 'Jim laughed it out of the room'.' The newly released documents contain substantial correspondence about decommissioning and illustrate how the British became increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of the process. About 14 months after the Norland call, the British ambassador to Ireland, Ivor Roberts, said he was sceptical of decommissioning and 'wish we had never got into the game'. 'As Sinn Féin have reminded Fianna Fáil, the latter never decommissioned, they merely buried their arms and stood down their army,' he wrote in a memo. Republican graffiti in east Belfast referring to IRA decommissioning. Photograph: Paul Faith/PA 'I actually believe that it would be more productive if we had been on that tack and if we, the Irish government and the US had been at one in getting the IRA to transmogrify themselves into a retired serviceman's league.' His note came in February 2002 when there were worries that a failure of the IRA to make a move on decommissioning would prompt another crisis in the peace process. 'We do indeed seem to be drifting towards the shoals without a clear idea of how to keep ourselves afloat,' wrote Mr Roberts. British civil servants had argued that they needed to see a significant move towards decommissioning by the IRA in response to demilitarisation in Northern Ireland. John Sawers, prime minister Tony Blair's foreign affairs adviser, wrote in another memo the British had to retain the ability to crack down on racketeering and smuggling, and highlighted the role that prominent republican Thomas 'Slab' Murphy played in it. 'The Irish are better placed to pursue the Al Capone route against PIRA and RIRA on their side of the border (though whether they would ever put Slab Murphy in the dock on smuggling charges is doubtful),' he wrote. Murphy, whose farm at Ballybinaby, Hackballscross, Co Louth, straddles the Border with Northern Ireland, was found guilty in 2016 of nine charges of failing to comply with tax laws in the Irish Republic for the years 1996-1997 to 2004. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Michael McDowell pushed for British amnesty for IRA members without trial, UK files reveal
Michael McDowell argued as attorney general in 2000 that the British government could avoid a struggle to pass Westminster legislation to give 'on-the-run' IRA members an amnesty. Instead, Mr McDowell, who is now a member of Seanad Éireann, repeatedly suggested that the British could use a centuries-old law to grant pardons without prosecuting any of them. This seems to have been met with astonishment by British officials. The difficulties posed by Sinn Féin's demands for 'on-the-run' IRA members – some of whom were sought for offences such as murder – to be given guarantees features in British archive files released on Tuesday. The treatment of the IRA 'on the runs', better known simply as 'OTRs', became a major controversy in 2014 when it was revealed that nearly 300 IRA members had been given so-called 'comfort letters' saying they were not then wanted by British police. READ MORE The issue emerged in February 2014 when John Downey, an alleged IRA member, faced trial in London for the July 1982 Hyde Park bombing, which killed four British soldiers and seven horses. His Old Bailey trial collapsed when it emerged that he had received his comfort letter in 2007 even though there was an active warrant for his arrest. The trial judge halted the trial after ruling this was an abuse of process. Under Mr McDowell's proposal in 2000, which went farther than the comfort letter tactic later used, the British government would have been able, he said, to avoid bringing strongly opposed immunity legislation before Westminster. The idea 'first surfaced' at a meeting between Irish and British officials in Dublin in early November 2000 when the British side was told Mr McDowell believed London could grant 'pardons before convictions' to IRA members. The proposal was outlined in greater depth to the British side in November 2000 at 'a hastily arranged' meeting, where Mr McDowell was described in a British note as being 'quite a student of the English legal system, and admired its flexibility'. However, British officials doubted the idea from the off, saying a royal pardon could be used only after sentence, while a free pardon could expunge the effects of a conviction. Mr McDowell came back to his idea when he was included in the Irish delegation, which included Bertie Ahern , then taoiseach, which travelled from London with British prime minister Tony Blair for an EU meeting in Zagreb, Croatia, shortly afterwards. Here, Mr McDowell again argued that wanted IRA members could be given 'a prosecution amnesty', citing the decision by the British not to prosecute Soviet spy Anthony Blunt for treachery. 'His basic thesis seemed to be that our legal system was sufficiently flexible to allow immunity to be granted without the need for primary legislation,' the Northern Ireland Office's political director, Bill Jeffreys, told an official in the British attorney general's office. He said he had told Mr McDowell his proposal ran counter to the views of the British attorney general, who was 'unwilling' to give immunity to individuals on general public interest grounds. However, if Mr McDowell was arguing that the Northern Ireland secretary of state could 'pre-empt prosecution in a whole class of cases' then that would be 'an entirely new departure'. Widening the grounds for immunity 'seemed to me to run entirely against the trend, and would be very difficult to justify in today's conditions, when we would be expected to seek the necessary powers from parliament', Mr Jeffreys also said. Separately, the files also show the efforts Sinn Féin made to ensure leading IRA figures in the United States such as Gabriel Megahey would not be deported. Now, 25 years later, they are now facing fresh expulsion attempts by Donald Trump's administration. Bill Clinton , US president at the time, had wanted to 'tie off the loose end' created by the six men's issues before he left office, fearing the incoming George W Bush presidency would be less sympathetic. In 1997, US secretary of state Madeleine Albright 'persuaded the US attorney general to suspend deportation action' against the men on 'the foreign policy grounds that it would contribute to the NI political process'. The importance of the OTR issue to Sinn Féin is evident throughout the files, with the party's Gerry Kelly 'grumbling' to Northern Ireland Office officials 'that the lack of movement was causing Sinn Féin great difficulties'.
