Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17368/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings on the margins of the European Council meeting in Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18237/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki. [18250/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans undertaking during the remainder of 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19553/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the President of the European Com mission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19554/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has been in contact with the Italian Government regarding the Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19555/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if a date has been fixed for the next meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19564/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the next meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19565/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Turkey; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19686/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 17 July 2003 with the Turkish Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19687/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Madrid with the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr. Aznar; the conclusions reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19698/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:12 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visits to Slovenia and Austria on 24 July 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19699/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Spain on 22 July 2003. [19701/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with Prime Minister Aznar of Spain on 22 July 2003. [19711/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:15 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the main features of the memorandum of understanding signed by him on 7 July 2003 with the Clinton Foundation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19714/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his launch of the 2003 Human Development Report in Government Buildings on 8 July 2003. [19715/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:17 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his official visit to Slovenia on 24 July 2003. [19716/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:18 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his plans for official visits abroad up to the end of 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19719/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:19 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's preparation for the EU Presidency. [19720/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:20 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the Government's priorities for the extraordinary meeting of EU Heads of Government and State due to be held in Rome on 4 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19725/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:21 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the other EU leaders he plans to have bilateral meetings with in advance of the Irish Presidency in the first half of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19849/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:22 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations. [20221/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:23 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on discussions he had with other political leaders during his visit to the United States to address the General Assembly of the United Nations. [20224/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:24 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his priorities for his role in the Irish Presidency of the EU up to June 2004. [20274/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:25 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20393/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:26 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on bilateral meetings he had on the margins of the Thessaloniki summit. [20394/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:27 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the French President, Mr. Jacques Chirac, in September 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20397/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:28 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the official visits abroad he plans to make before the end of 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20408/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:29 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his speech to the United Nations in September 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20466/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:30 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his address to the United Nations General Assembly. [20546/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:31 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20740/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:32 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will elaborate on his address to the UN General Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20741/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:33 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Paris with the President of the French Republic, Mr. Chirac; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20742/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:34 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the October EU summit in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21029/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 34, inclusive, together.
On the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki on 19 and 20 June, the House will recall that on Wednesday, 25 June, the earliest opportunity following the Council, one hour and 20 minutes of Government time was allocated to statements on the Council, including a question and answer session. I refer Deputies to my comprehensive statement on that occasion.
As I indicated in my statement, I made clear that the Council was a major success for the European Union. It marked a further milestone in the enlargement of the European Union with the Heads of State or Government of the ten accession states attending a full European Council as observers for the first time; it warmly welcomed the outcome of the European Convention and it accepted the work of the convention as a good basis for the start of the Intergovernmental Conference; it set out a detailed work programme in the area of justice and home affairs; and, it approved the appointment of a new governor of the European Central Bank. I also reported in my statement to the House on my meetings with President Papadopoulos of Cyprus and with Prime Minister Blair en marge of the Council.
Over the summer months I continued my structured series of engagements with my European counterparts in the context of the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the Union and the ongoing business of the Union with visits to Turkey, Spain, Austria, Slovenia and France.
On 16 and 17 July, I visited Turkey where I met with Prime Minister Erdogan. The issues discussed included Turkey's application to joint the European Union and the possibility that the European Council, in December 2004, will set a date to open accession negotiations with Turkey. I encouraged the Prime Minister to continue with his extensive reform programme and I indicated a willingness, in particular during the Irish Presidency, to do everything possible to help. I also referred to the EU ambition for a united Cyprus to join the Union on 1 May next. I pointed out that this issue could influence perceptions in the lead up to the Council decision in December 2004. During the course of my visit, I attended a lunch hosted in my honour by Prime Minister Erdogan. I also laid a wreath at the tomb of Kemal Ataturk and paid a courtesy call on President Sezer.
On 22 July, I visited Spain where I held talks with Prime Minister Aznar. On 24 July, I visited Austria where I met with Chancellor Schussel. Later that day, I travelled to Slovenia for a meeting with Prime Minister Rop. I also paid a courtesy call on President Drnovsek while there. On 12 September, I had a meeting and working lunch with President Chirac in Paris. While in Paris, I also fulfilled a long standing commitment to visit the newly renovated Irish College there.
In each of these meetings, discussions focused on matters of mutual concern in the European context, including the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference and Ireland's Presidency of the Union in 2004. A range of international issues was also discussed.
I stressed at each meeting that the effective and efficient conduct of the Union's business is central to Ireland's Presidency preparations. I said that we are currently developing our Presidency programme and that I was eager to hear the views of member and accession states and factor these into our planning. There were exchanges of views on how best to advance the Lisbon Agenda despite the challenges of economic slowdown and global uncertainty and in the context of the enlarged Union.
The European Convention draft constitutional treaty was also discussed and while all agreed that it is a good basis for the Intergovernmental Conference due to start on 4 October, each country has issues of concern which it will wish to see addressed in the Intergovernmental Conference. I set out our concerns in this area. In addition, our discussions touched on international issues including the need to strengthen EU-US relations.
I will be continuing this series of engagements with my counterparts in the coming months. Meetings are scheduled in October with Prime Minister Balkenende of the Netherlands, to take place in Rome, Prime Minister Van Hanen of Finland, to take place in Dublin, and Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg, in Luxembourg. In November, visits are scheduled to Slovakia, Cyprus, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Denmark and Latvia. The Prime Minister of Lithuania will also visit Dublin in November.
I will, of course, attend the meetings of Heads of State or Government in Rome on 4 October to formally launch the Intergovernmental Conference. At that meeting, I will be making it clear to my colleagues that the draft treaty prepared by the convention offers a good basis for discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference. While there are, of course, a number of key issues of concern to Ireland, particularly the issue of taxation and some justice and home affairs issues, Ireland will fully support the Italian Presidency in seeking to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference by the end of this year. I am confident that a constructive approach on all sides will ensure a successful conclusion to the Intergovernmental Conference in December.
I will also attend the European Council meetings in Brussels on 16 and 17 October and on 12 and 13 December. While the agenda for the Councils have not yet been finalised, I understand that the October Council will focus on a limited number of issues which is likely to include the re-launching of the European economy; strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice; and, external relations matters.
Preparations are continuing satisfactorily in my Department for its role in the Irish Presidency of the Union. As I mentioned earlier, the effective and efficient conduct of the business of the Union is a key priority for our Presidency. We will seek to move the agenda of the EU forward during our term. There is ongoing contact between officials involved in the preparation for our Presidency with their Italian colleagues and there is also ongoing contact with the Netherlands, which will succeed our Presidency in July 2004, and with the European Commission and the secretariat of the European Council. The President of the Euro pean Commission, Romano Prodi, will visit Dublin on 22 October to discuss the Irish Presidency and, in particular, the spring economic Council. I will also discuss the Presidency with Pat Cox, President of the European Parliament, at a meeting in November.
On 7 July, I signed an agreement along with the former US President Bill Clinton providing for co-operation between the Government's aid programme, Development Co-operation Ireland, and the Clinton Foundation on fighting HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The co-operation will focus initially on the provision of HIV/AIDS treatment, namely, access to life-saving drugs for poor people in Mozambique in co-operation with its Government. This will be a pioneering programme, developed by the HIV/AIDS experts recruited by the foundation and provided for in Ireland's bilateral programme in Mozambique. Ireland will commit $50 million to this programme over the next five years. The funding will come from the HIV/AIDS budget within Development Co-operation Ireland, which I initiated at the UN HIV/AIDS summit in June 2001.
Every year since 1990, the United Nations development programme has commissioned a report from an independent team of experts to explore major issues of global concern. The 2003 report focuses on progress by poor countries towards the achievement, by 2015, of development goals on poverty, hunger, education, child mortality and HIV/AIDS, agreed by all of the world's leaders at a UN millennium summit in September 2000.
Ireland is committed to reaching the UN target of 0.7% of GNP to overseas development aid by 2007. The level of funding required to reach this target will depend on patterns of economic growth and levels of GNP. In 2003, Ireland's overseas development aid will reach €450 million, or 0.41% of GNP, placing Ireland seventh in percentage terms among global donors. The report indicates that Ireland has advanced by six places up the human development index to twelfth in the world.
I addressed the UN General Assembly on Friday of last week. I availed of the opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated and experienced staff of the UN, led by Sergio Vieira de Mello, who were killed by an act of terrorism in Baghdad on 19 August 2003.
My statement to the General Assembly addressed a number of issues, including the need to reform the workings of the UN. I believe it is incumbent on all its members to renew our approach to the UN so that a viable system of global governance is created that can ensure international peace and security. My remarks also addressed several of the other issues of concern to the international community, where collective action is required to achieve progress. A copy of my statement to the United Nations General Assembly has been laid before both Houses. One will note that it is my intention to seek Dáil approval for the deployment of a sizeable contingent of Irish Permanent Defence Force personnel to the UN peacekeeping mission in Liberia. The proposed deployment of some 430 will be the largest since UNIFIL in Lebanon.
When in the United States, I met President Vicente Fox of Mexico. The primary purpose of this meeting was to discuss the arrangements for the EU-Latin American-Caribbean Summit which the President and I will co-chair in Mexico on 28 and 29 May 2004. I also had bilateral meetings with the President of Serbia and Montenegro and with the President of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur chuig an Taoiseach agus an Rialtas thar n-ais anseo tar éis saoire an tsamhraidh. I would like to deal with one element of the replies given by the Taoiseach in respect of the Iraqi situation. It now appears as if it is going horribly wrong and that there are daily instances of further aggression against American troops and weekly deaths.
Given the Taoiseach's contribution to the United Nations General Assembly last week, will he explain why he has belatedly criticised a policy of pre-emptive strike action by the American Government in the case of Iraq, given that Ireland supported it fully by offering the use of Shannon Airport as a transit point for military aircraft and personnel? Can he state whether he has had any discussions with either UN or American personnel on the supply of troops from Ireland to Iraq in respect of the conditions and criteria associated with reconstruction, peacekeeping and peace enforcement? Could he state if he is uneasy about American foreign policy in that other countries allegedly harbouring either weapons of mass destruction or intending to develop them might be on a pre-emptive hit list of the current American Administration?
I thank the Deputy for welcoming me back to the House. He has raised three questions. The question of whether there will be discussions on a United Nations mandate with the Americans or anybody else does not arise and has not arisen because there is no UN resolution in this area. It has been made clear outside of the House that we would not be in a position to discuss it until that was the case. If it is the case that the UN agrees a mandate for Iraq it would be a matter for the Government to consider. As I have stated in my reply to other questions, we have made a large commitment of troops to the UN mission in Liberia, so regardless of what requests may arise, it is unlikely that we would be able to provide any additional troops.
My statement last week to the United Nations is consistent with what we have said throughout, which is that we should adhere to the policy of the UN. We have adhered faithfully to the UN position throughout the campaign and debate on this issue in the past year and we have outlined that position from start to finish in this debate. When Ireland was a member of the Security Council we worked at ministerial level and with Ambassador Ryan and did much to achieve an agreed UN position, but unfortunately that did not maintain into the early part of last year.
The Taoiseach means the United States position.
I hold a similar view on the question of pre-emptive strikes. It is far better that the multilateral and UN position is maintained in these areas and the people do not take first strike action, in Iraq or elsewhere.
This is the first time the Taoiseach has said that in the Dáil.
That continues to be my position.
Deputy Kenny perhaps forgets the position regarding Shannon Airport. After America decided with Britain to take action, we facilitated landings at the airport in line with long established criteria. This was also in line with many other countries, who facilitated in different ways.
Is it not the case that the Taoiseach has now, belatedly, criticised the policy of pre-emptive strike, as followed by the current American Administration? He did not criticise that policy last February when the United Nations position was effectively abandoned and when, more formally in the Dáil, full consent was given to the American position when America and Britain decided to invade Iraq on a pre-emptive basis. In view of his speech to the United Nations last week and given that he is the incoming President of the EU Council of Ministers, does the Taoiseach intend to make an issue of the fracture that now exists in European foreign relations between Britain and France, Germany and Russia? Does he intend to use his Presidency to focus on that aspect of foreign policy? Does he also intend to make proposals to change the structure of the UN Security Council, given that the current structure was designed on the basis of a world order created after the Second World War but that no longer exists?
The Deputy raises two separate issues. With regard to the first, in view of our historic position one of our priorities will be to endeavour to improve a fractured relationship between the European Union and the United States. We will use our good contacts in Europe and the United States to improve what is a difficult position. In this respect, some months ago the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, presented a paper on this issue to the General Affairs Council which I believe, on the basis of what has been said by Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, was well received. It set out why action should be taken in this area and how he believed we could work to achieve it. It is an important development and we will continue our efforts in this area. Much depends on whether the parties concerned seek improved relations. I get the impression they do so but we will have to wait and see. A number of recent meetings involving the French President, the German Chancellor and President Bush have indicated that efforts are being made to mend some of the fences that were broken over the past 12 months or so and to make progress in this area. However, there continue to be grave differences of opinion.
On the second issue concerning the UN, we will not use our Presidency of the European Union to follow that up, but we will play our part. Last week, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, indicated his intention to immediately establish a small group of prominent experts who will seek to progress over the next 12 months the agenda of reform of the United Nations. Mr. Annan has endeavoured since he became Secretary General to reform and make changes to the UN. The structure is outdated and is insufficiently flexible to deal with the types of issues that arise these days. There is an argument about membership and about there being too many European seats, arguments that have continued for a long period.
In September 2000, Kofi Annan set out his reforms and what he required based on the Brahimi report. They have not yet been implemented and, unless members, especially the permanent members, change their attitude, it is unlikely that they will be implemented. That is what Kofi Annan said last week. He will now use his position to bring forward a more focused report to highlight the areas in the Brahimi report and the longer document of September 2000 that he believes should be dealt with.
We will make our submission to that group, although it is unlikely we will be a member. It will comprise a small number of prominent people. We will make a submission to the group and I have discussed this with our ambassador, Mr. Ryan. Given the experience of our membership of the Security Council and because many of our diplomats have been involved with that council over the years, they feel well placed to make a submission with the Government, and that should help. Anything we do in this regard would be intended to assist Kofi Annan.
I join Deputy Kenny in welcoming the Taoiseach and all the party leaders and Members back to the Dáil Chamber. However, it would be remiss of me if I did not record the fact that I am sorry one party leader cannot be with us today through no fault of his own, namely, Deputy Joe Higgins.
Hear, hear.
The proposed constitution for the European Union will obviously be central to the Irish Presidency which commences on 1 January next. What is the Taoiseach's view of the recent statement by the European Commission President, Romano Prodi, that under the proposed new EU constitution, each state should retain the right to have a Commissioner with full voting powers? As the Taoiseach will recall, the Government defended the loss of this right during the Nice treaty debate and people voted on that basis. Does the Taoiseach recognise that this U-turn on the part of the Commission is a vindication of the arguments presented by those of us who opposed the adoption of the Nice treaty? Will the Government maintain its opposition to the abolition of the requirement for unanimity on taxation matters?
My party requested before the end of the previous session that a special debate opportunity be afforded in the House to address the draft constitutional treaty. We had hoped that would have been dealt with before the commencement of the Intergovernmental Conference which is due, as the Taoiseach indicated in his response to our questions, at the end of the week on October 4. We have had no debate and have no indication yet of the Government's position on the draft constitutional treaty. When will we, as elected representatives in this House, have access to the Government's position in advance of the commencement of the Intergovernmental Conference, given the extreme importance of this proposition both in terms of Irish sovereignty and neutrality or whatever is left of it, a subject which the Taoiseach has skirted around for the past few minutes?
Yes, it has been agreed to have a debate which I understand will take place early in the session.
That will be after the event.
It is only the commencement of the Intergovernmental Conference. As regards the position of the Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and I have made numerous speeches setting out our position in various areas. I could ask for the documents in question to be given to Deputy Ó Caoláin if he so wishes. They are extensive documents which were put out over the summer and prior to that and a document issued when the Convention concluded in May.
On the two questions the Deputy asked regarding President Prodi's recent speech, the position agreed in Nice was that when the Community reached 18 countries there would be no further increase in the number of Commissioners, a smaller number of them would be full members of the Commission and there would be strict rotation – sometimes one would be in and other times one would be out. We supported the system agreed in Nice.
Since then, there have been two further proposals. The proposal in the Convention is that each country would have a Commissioner but there would be voting and non-voting members. This proposal is in the current Convention document. The third proposal, on which President Prodi outlined his views, will, I understand, be put forward by the Commission in a formal document.
What would be the Taoiseach's response to it?
We will wait until Mr. Prodi publishes the document before responding to it. I understand from his speech and from the Commission's statement earlier in the Convention that the Commission would rather see a position where every country would have a post of Commissioner and a vote. This was strongly resisted by the larger countries earlier in the Convention.
The larger countries gave up their right to a second Commissioner which was a major concession at the time. I do not agree that the Nice position was a victory for those who opposed the treaty because the larger countries made major concessions in giving up their second Commissioner and agreeing to the strict rotation method. If the matter of each country having a full Commissioner comes up for discussion again, I will look favourably on it.
As I have said previously in statements outside and inside the House, I envisage a lot of difficulties if people do not have a vote or clear jobs. This is the difficulty with the draft in the Convention. It was stated at the time that this would be fleshed out in detailed discussions. We have to await that position. In communications with the Presidency during the summer we made the point that it would be far more transparent for Commissioners to have posts and votes and a that this position would be far easier for the public to understand.
What is the position on the Government's opposition to the abolition of the Community requirement regarding taxation?
That is still our position.
I ask the Taoiseach to be clear. Does he accept that it would be entirely inappropriate to commit troops to Iraq in current circumstances unless there is a clear, prior, specified lead role for the United Nations? Does he agree that to do otherwise would be to legitimise the doctrine of pre-emption? Did the Taoiseach read newspapers at the weekend which suggested that he confused the United Nations, which could not make head nor tail of the Irish position? While he refused to condemn the doctrine of pre-emption in this House, he apparently condemned it in New York. Does he condemn the doctrine and accept that it is a breach of the UN Charter and, if so, why did he not state this to be the case at the time it mattered?
On European matters, I note the Taoiseach stated the efficient management of the Union's business is central to Ireland's Presidency. In the interests of the Union, let us hope management of the Union's business is more efficient than management of our domestic business.
What arrangements is the Taoiseach putting in place to provide a critique of the outcome of the Convention? Is he making any arrangements to report back to the House on the Intergovernmental Conference? Did the Taoiseach say that he expected the Intergovernmental Conference to conclude its work during the Italian Presidency? Is there any basis for that view? Does the Taoiseach accept that one of the lessons of Nice is that there ought to be regular reports to this House from the Intergovernmental Conference?
I have already answered the first question asked by Deputy Rabbitte. There is no question of putting troops into Iraq without a clear resolution from the UN. Even if there were such a resolution, it is unlikely we would be able to contribute because of manpower arrangements. However, there are no negotiations on this issue and there are unlikely to be any until all matters are concluded at the United Nations and that might or might not happen in the next few weeks.
I do not believe Ireland created any confusion last week. There was no basis for any of those comments. We set out our unchanged position to the UN, where we are held in high regard. Ireland is seen as a country that has done an excellent job over the years, particularly during its recent term on the Security Council, and it did much to try to help relationships during a difficult period. That is appreciated by Kofi Annan and the staff of the UN. There is no question about that. I was warmly received by the United Nations last week.
With regard to European issues, it is the stated position of the Italian Presidency, a position that is supported by the vast majority of countries, that the Intergovernmental Conference complete its work by December. The Presidency set out a timetable with a demanding workload, particularly for the General Affairs Council and the European Council. The Italians are using various methods, including weekly and fortnightly questionnaires, to try to short circuit some of the work. When countries send in their detailed views they try to synopsize them in an effort to do the job quicker. It is the intention of the Italians, the Commission and the vast majority of countries to complete it before the end of the year. We will have to wait and see whether that will be achieved.
There will be a debate in the House in which we will set out our position going into the Intergovernmental Conference. It has already been put in the public domain but we will do so again on the basis of discussions that took place in the General Affairs Council during September and the replies we sent to some of the questionnaires. I intend to go to the European forum shortly to set out where things are. I will do that in a detailed paper.
What about pre-emption?
The Deputy knows where we stand.
We have no idea. I am asking about the pre-emptive strike doctrine.
On pre-emption, both the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and I stated throughout last year that we wanted an agreed UN mandate. We held that position to the end. We did all we could, clearly and unambiguously, and more than most others, to try to achieve a UN mandate. That was our clear position and there was no doubt about it. When the US and Britain finally decided to go ahead we gave the support of Shannon Airport, but no other support. We never said we agreed with pre-emptive strikes. We wanted a UN position and that remains our view. With regard to other issues, such as what might happen with Syria or Iran, our position will remain the same. We do not favour pre-emptive action.
Is the Irish Government now opposed to the doctrine of pre-emption and does the Taoiseach now disagree with the action taken by the Americans and the British in Iraq?
Deputy Rabbitte has good powers of recall and he will remember that all our efforts were directed at securing an agreed UN position. We were certainly not trying to get an agreed UN position on pre-emptive strikes. There was never any doubt about that.
Where does the Taoiseach stand on that? Does he agree with pre-emption now?
I will inform Deputy Rabbitte what we are doing now, for he was obviously not following matters over the summer. We will endeavour to work—
I was following a great deal.
Please allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
—to ensure that the United Nations agrees a position that will allow us to move forward in Iraq with an international agreement. Many countries are working to try to achieve that, and we agree with that line. Other countries worldwide should try to agree conditions under the powers and leadership of the United Nations to deal with the ongoing difficulties in Iraq.
Does the Taoiseach think—
I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Rabbitte, but he has had three supplementary questions, and Deputy Sargent has submitted a question.
The Taoiseach did not answer them.
Deputy Rabbitte, please allow Deputy Sargent to speak.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur romhatsa, a Cheann Comhairle, agus roimh gach duine eile atá ar ais. Perhaps I might correct the Taoiseach on one point. Is it not the case that we also gave airspace—
The Deputy should ask a question.
I am doing so, by way of a correction. Did we not provide airspace as well as facilities at Shannon Airport for the American invasion of Iraq? Regardless of whether there is a UN resolution, does the Taoiseach accept that Ireland's compliance with US policy in attacking Iraq has debased Ireland's credibility as a peacekeeper and that it will be extremely difficult for our troops to serve in that capacity in Iraq, especially at this time?
Since discussion on the final constitution being ironed out by EU Governments at the intergovernmental conference is behind closed doors, in the interests of transparency, does the Taoiseach recall that, on 25 June 2003, before the summer recess, he told the Dáil that the Government would be pursuing specific concerns, including unanimity on taxation, certain issues in criminal law, and some issues relating to security and defence?
Regarding pre-emptive strikes, on that basis, will the Taoiseach accept or reject on behalf of the Government a number of inclusions such as Title V, Article 40.3 of the draft constitution, involving Ireland in increased arms spending? Will he accept the solidarity clause, which countenances pre-emptive strikes in a blank cheque for military co-operation, including for the purpose of countering the threat of terrorism, which was the United States' argument for attacking Iraq? Does he accept that, if the Government's neutrality is to be taken seriously, it must assert that such military inclusions in the constitution are unacceptable? The European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency, for example, is to be established with a strong mandate to boost "the industrial and technological base of the defence sector".
Is the Government prepared to accept such inclusions in the constitution? As it is aware, the Green Party was fighting alongside the Government to ensure that the constitution was in accordance with what we believe to be Ireland's wishes.
I reaffirm my statement that there will be a debate, and we should try to have it at an early date to plot where we stood at the end of the convention and where we stand now at the commencement of the Intergovernmental Conference. Some matters have moved on a little, though there has not been any great change. Our position still holds. It mentions common law, where we have a similar position to that of Malta and Cyprus, which is different from most of the other countries on justice and home affairs issues. We still want to follow what we said in the convention on those issues. Those views are shared by one or two other countries. The issues will have to be thrashed out in discussions, but not much has changed in that area.
On the issue of taxation and qualified majority voting, I have already explained the position to Deputy Ó Caoláin. Some of the institutional issues are still being debated but there has been no change from the position we held earlier.
I repeat we can accept the idea of a solidarity clause that would assist the EU's response to emergency situations and threats arising from terrorists and non-state entities directed against civilian populations and democratic institutions situated within European Union territory. We do not consider that this would extend to pre-emptive military action. That has been the position we have stated in the convention. I understood that the Green Party also agreed to that position. As has been underlined previously, the idea that in the event of an emergency the Union would be in a position to mobilise all its assets and call on its member states, both civilian and military, is very much in keeping with our traditions. A number of partners, including Austria, Finland and Sweden, which have always been considered neutral, also support a solidarity clause along these lines. We have kept close to that position. Nobody has an alternative view and all the strongly neutral countries hold that view.
The position on the agency is that the Thessaloniki Council gave the appropriate bodies of the European Union the task of undertaking the necessary actions towards creating, in the course of next year, an intergovernmental agency in the field of defence capabilities, development and research and the acquisition of armaments. The modalities for the establishment of this agency are under consideration by the European Union and will be advanced between now and the end of the Netherlands Presidency at Christmas 2004. We will meet our responsibilities which will fall on us during our Presidency in progressing the work in this area. We are satisfied that participation in the agency is voluntary in nature so it does not create a difficulty for us. It is anticipated that the agency will contribute to eliminating the wastefulness which characterises spending on defence in the European context. This would be welcome. Many of the issues arising are ones which the European Union was not in a position to deal with successfully when there was trouble in south-eastern Europe and the western Balkans, when Europe was strongly criticised that it did not have its act together, did not have an armaments agency and was not capable of dealing with these issues. Those are the issues being brought forward for which there is general support.
Staying on the subject of the Intergovernmental Conference which is to commence at the weekend, will the Taoiseach agree that in the past under the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty and the Nice treaty, claims were made that a common defence was being shaped in the European Union but that was not the case then? There were elements of a common defence policy but a common defence is a different matter. Will he agree also that on this occasion, common defence is on the agenda and if we are to carry the people with us in a referendum it is time to be up front, honest and open? Will he agree that if Ireland does not participate in the making of rules on common defence the rules will be made by those who join from the beginning, rather like the EMU, and those who join later will do so based on the rules made by others? Therefore, will he agree it is time to negotiate those rules and for Ireland to join on its own terms from the beginning?
Before the Taoiseach replies I will take a brief question from Deputy Rabbitte.
The Ceann Comhairle will not permit me to quote at Question Time but the Taoiseach told the United Nations: "My Government is deeply concerned at the widespread acceptance of pre-emptive strike." If that is the same as renouncing the doctrine of pre-emptive strike what is the position of the Government on the doctrine of pre-emptive strike and does the Government consider it to be in breach of the UN Charter?
I will take the second question first. Our position is that pre-emptive strikes are out of line with UN policy. That is why we endeavoured to get the UN to an agreed position. We will continue to try to get it to a fixed position. The legal arguments will go on forever and, as happened last year, one will never satisfy the legal arguments. The argument is being fought all over. We stand for the UN position that there should be a multilateral system where the world and the 191 members of the United Nations should agree within its membership and the Security Council to achieve this position. That is what we fought for and we are held in high regard for holding that position. We are highly thought of for taking that position and making that contribution.
Pre-emption is a breach of the charter therefore.
Allow the Taoiseach to answer Deputy Mitchell's question.
We will never get agreement on the legal position. There is no point in asking —
What about our position?
Allow the Taoiseach answer the question please.
There will never be agreement on the legal position. For the third time, our position is that we agree with the multilateral system of the United Nations which should have one voice in these matters. The position should be agreed and there should be Council resolutions for that. There is no doubt about it. That is our straightforward, clear position and is also the majority view held in the UN.
The speech at the UN was wrong then.
In regard to Deputy Gay Mitchell's question, the issue that created so much argument and debate, and on which so many of us who were on the "Yes" side in the last debate spent a lot of time, was not so much about common defence but about mutual defence issues. Time and again people want to complicate those arguments. We have continued, since Maastricht ten years ago, to play our role in these areas. However, the issue of mutual defence, of which we are not and will not be part, continues to create a difficulty. This time I think the debate for all of us will involve keeping a clear position between what is common foreign security policy and the European security defence policy, and to try to make those issues as simple as we can. We have spent quite a lot of time in our papers on this treaty – we are not the only party to do so as members of the Convention from other parties have done so also – in trying to state the different arguments in the case. I will do so again when I address the meeting in Dublin Castle shortly.