Vol. 518 No. 6
2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to attend the Millennium Summit organised by the United Nations in September 2000; if he has received an agenda for this event; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10422/00]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the communication, if any, he has had with the new Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Yoshiro Mori; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10558/00]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the former President of South Africa, Dr. Nelson Mandela; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11347/00]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has prepared an agenda for his forthcoming meeting in Dublin with the Vice-Premier of China, Mr. Li Lanquing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11348/00]
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of the engagements he will undertake on his visit to Poland in May 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12386/00]
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Vice-Premier of China, Mr. Li Lanquing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12644/00]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the communications, if any, he has had with the President of the European Commission or other EU Heads of Government about the implementation of sanctions on Austria as announced by the Portuguese Presidency on 31 January 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12647/00]
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which his Department officials have turned down bilateral official contacts with Austrian officials in view of the sanctions on Austria as announced by the Portuguese Presidency on 31 January 2000; the invitations, if any, which he or any of his officials or Minister of State, have declined from the Austrian ambassador, Austrian agencies or representatives of the Austrian government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12648/00]
10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will have in Ireland prior to his visit to Poland in May, the itinerary for the visit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12650/00]
11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the official overseas trips he has planned between now and the end of July 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12675/00]
12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the heads of State of Government who are expected to visit Ireland between now and the end of July 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12676/00]
13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the next summit of EU Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12680/00]
14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed at the meeting in Dublin with the Chinese Vice-Premier, Mr. Li Lanquing; if he raised with the Vice-Premier the question of human rights in China; the response, if any, he received from Mr. Lanquing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12748/00]
15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the proposals he has for official trips abroad up to the end of June 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12749/00]
I propose to take questions Nos. 2 to 15, inclusive, together.
Last August I accepted an invitation from the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, to attend the United Nations Millennium Summit, which is set to take place in New York on 6-8 September next. In my letter accepting Secretary-General Annan's invitation, I indicated my hope that the outcome of the summit might be a serious and realistic programme to renew, revitalise and strengthen the UN for a new era.
On 15 March 2000, the General Assembly decided that the summit's overall theme will be "The Role of the United Nations in the Twenty-First Century". It also decided that the summit will be composed of plenary meetings and of four interactive round-table sessions. The themes for the round-table sessions will form the agenda for our discussions at the summit and have yet to be decided.
The Secretary-General presented his report for the Millennium Summit to the General Assembly on Monday, 3 April. Mr. Annan wrote to me on 24 April enclosing a copy of his report which is entitled "We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century". He advised me that he prepared his report to facilitate the preparations by member states for the summit. The report identifies some of the pressing challenges faced by the world's population and proposes a number of immediate priorities for consideration at the summit itself. Heads of State or Government are urged to take action in areas such as poverty, water, debt relief, education, HIV/AIDS, slum clearance, youth employment and information technology. The Secretary-Gen eral also urges the summit to make special provision for the needs of Africa, and to fully support Africans in their struggle to overcome the continent's problems. In addition, the Secretary-General calls for a renewed focus on conflict prevention and disarmament and respect for international law. The adoption by national governments of a new ethic of conservation and stewardship of the environment is also identified as a priority.
The report offers a broad and challenging agenda for consideration in the lead-up to, and during, the summit. Ireland is working to ensure the success of the summit through the participation of my personal representative, Mr. Noel Dorr, in the group of 16 which has already contributed significantly to identifying issues for consideration by the summit. Preparations for Ireland's participation at the summit are being handled by our permanent representative to the UN in New York and by relevant officials, primarily in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
On 6 April, I wrote to the new Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Yoshiro Mori, congratulating him on his appointment and wishing him well for the future. I also took the opportunity to express, both to Prime Minister Mori and to Mrs. Obuchi, the sympathy of the Irish people on the illness of Mr. Obuchi, the previous Prime Minister, and our hopes for his recovery.
I was very happy to welcome former President Nelson Mandela to Government Buildings on 12 April during his private visit to Ireland. We had an interesting meeting. I enjoyed once again hearing his views on conflict resolution, arising from extensive experience. In particular, we discussed the Northern Ireland peace process and he emphasised the need for generosity on all sides to achieve progress. I thanked him for the help which South Africa has given in the peace process. We discussed developments in South Africa, and spoke about my visit there earlier this year. I mentioned the trade delegation which accompanied me and we spoke briefly about trade matters. We discussed the recent Africa-Europe Summit and Mr. Mandela briefed me on the progress of his work as facilitator of the Burundi peace negotiations. He thanked me for Ireland's support for South African reconstruction and development and asked that Ireland continue its commitment to development, not just in South Africa but also in other parts of the African continent.
I received a courtesy call from the Vice-Premier of China, Mr. Li Lanquing, at Government Buildings on 19 April last. The Vice-Premier has particular responsibility for trade, investment and education, and was in Ireland as the guest of the Tánaiste. My discussions with him dealt mainly with trade and economic matters. We discussed points of mutual interest, including the development of Ireland's Asia strategy and other aspects of bilateral and multilateral relations. These included the preparations for the forthcoming ASEM III Summit in Korea and negotiations with the EU regarding China's accession to the WTO. We also had a brief discussion of political issues, in the course of which the Vice-Premier outlined the current Chinese position on Taiwan and said that China's desire was to achieve reunification with Taiwan through peaceful negotiation. I described developments in Northern Ireland including human rights.
The next meeting of the European Council will take place in Feira in Portugal on 19 and 20 June. The agenda has not yet been finalised. However, I expect it to focus on issues of current interest to the Union, such as the Intergovernmental Conference and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Both issues will be progressed further by the French Presidency in the second half of the year. Given the very successful Lisbon Special European Council on Employment, I also expect discussion to ensure the implementation of the conclusions agreed.
With regard to the position concerning bilateral relations with Austria, I have received no communications from the Presidency or other EU Heads of Government since the announcement of the agreed position of the 14 member states on 31 January last. We did, of course, discuss this matter at the EU Council in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March. In common with other EU Heads of Government, I have received a copy of a letter issued by the Presidency to President Klestil following the Lisbon Council confirming the position of the 14 as expressed at Lisbon. I also understand that the measures of the 14 against Austria were raised during the course of an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in the Azores at the weekend. Several partners, including Ireland, were of the view that there is a need to reflect on how this issue has developed, and to consider possible ways of resolving it. Clearly, we must continue to monitor closely developments in Austria.
Official level contacts have been maintained with Austrian officials through meetings between officials in my Department and officials in the Austrian Embassy. No requests for such meetings were declined. Neither myself nor the Minister of State has had political level meetings with the Austrian Ambassador. I received an invitation, forwarded to me by the Austrian Ambassador, on behalf of the organisers of the European Economic Symposium in Alpbach which is taking place from 30 August to 1 September in Austria, which I have declined on diary grounds.
I will undertake an official visit to Poland from 24 to 26 May. Preparations for the visit are ongoing involving officials from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Irish Embassy in Poland. Accordingly, the programme for my visit is still being finalised. However, I will be meeting with the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Jerzy Buzek, the President, Mr. Alexander Kwasniewski, and the Speakers of the Polish Parliament and Senate. I am pleased to say I will be accompanied by a large business del egation of 45 companies. During the visit I will meet with them and their Polish partners as well as perform the official opening of new facilities for some Irish companies expanding their operations in the Polish market. I will also host a reception for the Irish community and business interests in Poland.
Apart from Poland, the only confirmed overseas visits in my diary between now and the end of July are my attendance at the European Council Meeting on 19 and 20 June in Feira and an official visit to Norway on 25 and 26 June. Prime Minister Goh of Singapore and Prime Minister Patterson of Jamaica are scheduled to visit Ireland during June and I look forward to meeting them during their visits here.
Is the Taoiseach aware of an article published in the Irish Law Times which suggests that the Irish Government and other EU Governments acted illegally in the sanctions they imposed on Austria in that they did not respect or use the treaty provisions to deal with sanctions of this nature and acted instead in a bilateral fashion which evaded the treaty obligations under which Governments ought to have acted and that, therefore, the Government action was illegal?
I am not aware of the article but the comments have been made elsewhere. As I said previously, this was a decision made by the Portuguese Presidency at the time, following consultation and the agreement of all the other countries. As I said in the House on a number of occasions, I am satisfied the measures taken as a result of the situation which developed during November, December and January, were appropriate. I am reassured by the new Government's commitments to Europe and their common values with other member states. As the Deputy is aware, there were discussions in the Azores during the weekend and I hope progress will be made on the issue in the period ahead.
I ask the Taoiseach to read the article in question. Will he agree that it is one of the fundamentals of the rule of law which applies in Europe and under which the European Union operates, as does this State operate internally, that a person against whom a sanction is proposed to be taken should be heard before the sanction is imposed? Is the Taoiseach aware that, if the treaty provisions in regard to the sanctions on Austria had been followed, that would have happened? Is he also aware that by acting outside the treaties and acting as individuals in a concerted way, but not in accordance with the treaties, the Irish Government and others conspired to ensure that the nation against whom sanctions were imposed was not given an opportunity to be heard, as any accused person ought to be in a normal democracy, before the sanction was imposed? Would he agree that this principle of law is of great importance and should not be modified simply to comply with considerations of political correctness or fashion?
To reiterate what I have said, it was the consideration of the Presidency, and agreed by others, that not to take any action would be in breach of the treaty provisions – I previously quoted from Article 6 – and that it was necessary to take some action because of the involvement of the party in Government and its stated position. That was considered to be the minimum that the Presidency should do.
Why did the Taoiseach not act in accordance with the procedures laid out in the treaty? Why did he not use the treaty?
It was an initiative of the Presidency. There was far more pressure to go further than this, but that did not happen. Time has moved on. I hope some progress was made at the Azores meeting where the Austrians set out their position following the Lisbon Council. The Austrian Chancellor set out his position and he hopes to make progress in the months ahead.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the EU is telling eastern Europe that to be eligible to be members of the EU, applicant states must comply with the rule of law, that one of the principles of the rule of law is that an accused person should be heard before they are sanctioned and surely the EU should, therefore, follow its own principles and its own procedures where it applies sanctions and hear the accused before it sentences them? Does he not agree that in this instance the accused was not heard before sentence? Regardless of whether the sentence was right or wrong, to have proceeded in such a fashion was to corrupt the treaties and is not something the Taoiseach should have done or should have agreed to.
Will the Taoiseach re-examine the juridical basis of the procedures followed in this case? There will be cases in the future where we will need again to sanction member states for doing things which they ought not to do or being of a composition or holding a political opinion they ought not to be. However, if that is to be done it is very important it be done in an exemplary fashion in accordance with the rule of law and that those who are laying down the principles about the rule of law follow them.
The view of the Presidency was that to do other than what it did would have been in breach of the treaty.
What about the Taoiseach's view?
I supported the Presidency. As I have advised, I discussed the matter over the telephone on numerous occasions with the President during that weekend and I supported—
The Taoiseach should not blame him. He took the same position.
No, I supported the Presidency. I discussed the matter over the telephone with the President on numerous occasions during that weekend and I supported his position, as did everybody. He was pressed very hard to go much further but he did not do so because he believed it might be in breach of the treaty. He followed a course of action he believed to be correct, legally and otherwise.
With regard to the recent visit of the Vice-Premier of the People's Republic of China, did the Taoiseach raise with him the issue of human rights and China's application to join the World Trade Organisation? Did he impress on the Vice-Premier the interaction between human rights, democracy and access to free global trade conditions, that one side was the other side of the same coin and that China cannot expect to have access to the rest of the world's markets on equal and fair conditions if it continues to oppress its own people in general and its workers in particular?
I discussed both issues and the Deputy can be satisfied that I reflected his concerns. The Vice-Premier is primarily responsible for trade and was anxious to emphasise China's position on the WTO. He was one of the negotiators of the original WTO rounds. I raised these issues at my meeting in China 18 months ago. The UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary Robinson, was also in China at the time. I went back over some of the ground covered. In the interests of fairness, the Vice-Premier did inform me that the two key UN human rights instruments which I was raising at that stage in support of what Mary Robinson had been arguing during her high profile visits, namely, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, would be ratified at an early stage and that further progress would be made on the ground in this regard. Visits were also received from the working group on arbitrary detention in addition to the visit of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson.
The main channel which has been developed since then is the EU-China human rights dialogue which was recently reiterated at the 56th session in Geneva at which the position of the EU countries was outlined. We fully associated ourselves with the EU countries' statement. As China has finalised negotiations with the US, it is suspicious that Europe is saying that more remains to be implemented. I restated that this was a separate European position and that it had nothing to do with China's negotiations with the US. I do not really know why that view exists because I recall studying the briefs carefully at the time and, to my recollection, they were not linked to the US position. The EU-China human rights dialogue and the ongoing discussions must continue on the basis set down by the EU.
Does the Taoiseach agree the consolidation of the world's global economy and the triumph of capitalism will be sustained only if it is civilised in the same manner as social democracy civilised capitalism in Europe? Does he agree that we will witness a very unstable and, consequently, very dangerous project if EU member states and prime ministers such as the Taoiseach do not reinforce at every possible opportunity the point that civil rights and democracy are the other side of a functioning market economy and that one cannot have a functioning market economy in real terms without the concomitant parts of free elections, civil rights, functioning democracy and the rule of law?
And tolerance.
Does he agree that the short-term gains made by multinationals which make commodities at extraordinarily low prices for purchase by consumers in the developed world will soon be destroyed by the turbulence which will be wreaked upon the world economy, including our own economy, unless we consolidate the global market economy at the beginning of this century in a manner which we significantly failed to do at he turn of the last century?
I agree that all of those elements are essential for the proper ordering of a democracy. Aside from the discussions which were previously held in the US category, the EU has been pursuing a programme of human rights dialogue. The most recent meeting was held on 25 February. The last agenda related to individual human rights cases, death penalties and the conditions of detention in Tibet. Such dialogue is now occurring in a structured manner in the EU.
What about the number of death penalties in Texas?
Let us try to deal with China first.
We should not be selective about this issue.
I am not being selective; I am answering a question on EU-China dialogue.
More than 100 death sentences have been signed by the current Governor of Texas since he took up office.
No question on Texas has been tabled.
It is relevant if one is in favour of the death penalty.
In case there is confusion, I am against it everywhere. The concern about the lack of progress in dialogue led to the EU recently agreeing to review it, with a more focused and result orientated approach. The dialogue on human rights will result in some action in this area. People will only come around if they get to the table and face up to it. There is some evidence that these issues, which would not have been taken seriously a few years ago, are at least on the agenda.
Is the Taoiseach aware that at a recent meeting of the Oireachtas sub-committee on human rights it was alleged that there is evidence to suggest that those executed in China may, in some cases, have had their organs removed in advance and that there may be a market for their sale, as horrific as that seems? Given China's human rights record and the concerns expressed by the European Union, did the Taoiseach raise the continuing executions there or the removal of organs from those executed, with the Vice-Premier?
I did not raise those issues and I am not sure of their validity. However, I discussed the individual cases, the death penalty and the issues on the EU agenda. I also asked about religious expression, the Internet and the marches but I am afraid there is no sympathy for those gatherings among the authorities.
Some time ago I asked the Taoiseach about his visit to China and he intimated that business would increase for many companies travelling with him. What did the Vice-Premier say about the balance of trade? Has it changed and has the Taoiseach's plan worked? Has there been an increase in the sale of intellectual property and goods of that nature to China? What has happened since the Taoiseach visited China?
The Deputy should put down a question to the Ministers with responsibility for that issue. However, trade has improved and the Asian strategy will further improve it in the future, with the follow through in the embassies, the foreign affairs initiatives and the work of the additional staff of Enterprise Ireland. A number of the companies on the visit have done extraordinarily well and have won contracts.
They complain they have not been given any assistance.
I would be surprised if that was the case with Enterprise Ireland. The companies involved in the Asian strategy are doing a good job.
The Taoiseach referred to the United Nations and the invitation he has received, and apparently accepted, to speak at the special millennium 2000 assembly in the autumn. Does he intend to outline, preferably in advance of the speech, the role of Ireland in the reform of the United Nations, particularly the reform of the Security Council? Is he satisfied Ireland is on track to secure its objective of obtaining a non-permanent representative seat for one of our diplomats on the Security Council?
In reply to the last question, I hope so but the voting is competitive. I and all Ministers, led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, have been working at every level and taking every opportunity to canvass. At a recent meeting in Cairo I had the opportunity of canvassing a large number of countries. I will take an opportunity to outline what we would like to achieve regarding the reforms.
The Taoiseach might discuss them here before he goes to speak on our behalf.
Yes, I have no objection to doing that. Most of the work I am taking to the meeting is from Noel Dorr and the group of 16 which I mentioned and which has done an enormous amount of work which I will be supporting.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the proposal that the EU should have in its own right a permanent seat on the Security Council, and if necessary this should be at the cost of France and Britain, and that membership of the Security Council should be expanded? Does the Taoiseach have a view on this?
At this stage we are trying to ensure we will be on it in the next term. It would clearly be helpful if the EU, as a significant player on the world stage, had a seat on it, although I do not know of such a recommendation having been made by the group of 16.
Does the Taoiseach have a view?
We have strongly supported the recommendations of the group of 16. At no stage at the council meetings has there been an effort—
Does the Taoiseach have a view?
If it is put forward in discussions, as it may be, I will certainly support it. However, at this stage I am anxious to concentrate on the work done on our behalf by Noel Dorr in the group of 16. Last summer I addressed the group when it was here and I wish to take its initiatives and progress them. If the issue raised by the Deputy becomes one of those initiatives then so be it, but a number of excellent reforms have been put forward and it will be a challenge to even get those passed.
I put it to the Taoiseach that this is another example of the Government going along with a consensus on a foreign policy issue rather than having a policy of its own.
Absolutely.
It is following either the Portuguese Presidency, the group of 16 or whatever, rather than thinking foreign policy issues out for ourselves. After such a period of independence we should have reached a stage of maturity to allow us form our own views.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the pace of EU negotiations for Polish accession? Does he expect that the CAP will extend in more or less its current form to Poland once Poland becomes a full member of the EU? How will Polish agriculture be dealt with in the context of EU membership?
Regarding the first question, we have tabled our own proposals, but if we are to get major change in the UN it will have to be on the basis of consensus. We participated in the group of 16 and more or less have a permanent person on it, along with our own ambassador, to formulate proposals which by and large have been successful and which have been taken on board by Kofi Annan in the document I mentioned. If we pursued things on our own without reference to others we would not have had a chance of having the proposals taken on board. We can have success in terms of genuine reform though our input in groups such as the group of 16.
Regarding Poland, the CAP will have to apply to the Polish. It is a very difficult matter for Poland as it has an enormous number of very small farmers. So far in economic discussions they are falling behind somewhat which is causing them grave concern. Countries which will be in the first wave of accession want Poland to be included, as does the EU, and compromises will have to be extended to them in terms of transition arrangements to help the enormous population of what they term "peasant farmers". I think Poland is on track in terms of the time scale of 2002 or January 2003.
Given that agriculture represents about 50% of the EU budget, how will it be possible to extend the CAP to Poland while remaining within the current ceiling which sees the CAP set as a proportion of GDP in the EU budget?
The headline figure for the proportion of the GDP for the EU budget is 1.27% and it is not being used; it is well below that figure at present. It will become a bigger problem in a few years' time but certainly in the first few years member states will be able to provide the 1.27%. Difficulties will arise after 2006. I have already stated my view on that to farming bodies here and we should not lose time in addressing it. The resources available for existing members under CAP just will not be there after 2006. The report that was prepared on Irish agriculture recently has identified that. I am meeting IFA representatives later to discuss other matters but every time I meet them I raise this issue because it would be a grave mistake to believe that in some way we can all blink in 2006 and get the same resources under CAP after that. That clearly will not happen. It will for Poland but not for us and it is something we need to address. We are addressing it but it is something that people must understand over the next few years, otherwise we will get a rude awakening in 2007.
(Dublin West): I refer to Question No. 14 in the name of Deputy Quinn. Will the Taoiseach be specific in regard to the matters he raised with the Chinese Vice-Premier about the infringement of human rights? Was he specific or did he merely tut, tut and pass quickly on to the cocktails? For example, did he ask the Vice-Premier why freedom of expression is routinely brutally repressed, religious groups are routinely incarcerated and political opposition is routinely crushed? The question of executions has already been raised. Did he raise these issues specifically and what response did he get?
Does he agree that the WTO, in which he seems to be encouraging China to be involved, is the last organisation we should look to as a model of democracy and human rights, despite the delusion of Deputy Quinn, who thinks it has been civilised by the social democracy which has capitulated to world capitalism?
The Deputy did not—
(Dublin West): Does he further agree that the WTO legitimises exploitation by multinational companies and will not in any sense facilitate or enhance the human rights of the people of China?
The Deputy is the only left wing politician left.
The only left over voice.
Most of the human and civil rights issues were raised. All the issues mentioned by Deputies Higgins and Quinn were raised at the recent 56th session in Geneva and they were set out in an explanatory statement. The EU/China human rights dialogue group is discussing these issues. With regard to the WTO, it is not a question of me promoting China's application. I outlined the difficulties for Europe in conceding the concessions that China has sought. China's view is that it has discussed these matters already with the Americans and, therefore, it should not have a difficulty with the EU. However, that is not the position and the discussions will start again next week under Commissioner Lamy. He will travel to Beijing for a further round of discussions on the WTO and all the human rights issues that were raised during the 56th session will again be discussed.
