Vol. 631 No. 2
1 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent visit to the Middle East; the topics raised with the Israeli Foreign Minister during his recent meeting with her; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4444/07]
5 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action the Government or the European Union propose to take in the short term to advance the achievement of peace in the Middle East in view of his recent visit to the region; the meetings he held with representatives of the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority and others; and the issues he raised at such meetings. [4495/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 5 together.
A comprehensive settlement in the Middle East is more urgently needed now than at any time over the past 60 years. During my visit last week, I held discussions with political leaders in Israel, Palestine, Egypt and Lebanon. I outlined the role which the Government is playing, directly and in co-operation with our EU partners, to promote a lasting and just peace in the region. I found broad agreement that there can be no unilateral or military solutions and that the opportunity must be taken now to revive a credible political process. At its heart must be a negotiated, viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I had a detailed discussion with Foreign Minister Livni on the need to build on the meeting in December between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas and to deliver in full on the commitments made. I urged the Israeli Government to seize the opportunity offered by the US Secretary of State's plans to open trilateral talks in Jerusalem and by the determination of the EU to ensure the international Quartet becomes more actively engaged, on a sustained basis.
I raised the Government's strong concerns regarding the expansion of settlements, the proposed construction of the E1 corridor east of Jerusalem, the construction of the security barrier on Palestinian land, house demolitions in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and the effects of security measures on the Palestinian population. I stressed that Israel had an obligation to act in accordance with international law, and the requirements of the road map and argued strongly that settlement expansion and other measures increasingly threaten to undermine the viability of a two-state solution.
Furthermore, I suggested that if Israel wished to strengthen the position of President Abbas, it was in its own interests to demonstrate readiness to act on his concerns for the welfare of his people. I also asked that the total amount of tax and customs revenues which Israel has withheld from the Palestinian Authority be transferred as soon as possible.
During my visit to Bethlehem, I announced a 27% increase in funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for its services to Palestinian refugees. This will amount to €11.4 million over the next three years. It will involve a further significant increase in the Government's assistance to the Palestinians in 2007, which increased by 40% last year to €6.4 million.
I had very positive discussions in Ramallah with President Mahmoud Abbas and emphasised the Government's strong support for his efforts to negotiate the early formation of a national unity government.
In Cairo I met with the Foreign Minister and other Cabinet Ministers, and with the Secretary General of the Arab League. I travelled to Beirut for a meeting with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. I emphasised the Government's strong support for the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, as underlined at the international conference in Paris, at which Ireland pledged a further €2 million in humanitarian assistance. I also visited the members of the Defence Forces serving with great distinction in the strengthened UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon.
Did the Minister obtain a flavour of the extent to which his remarks and suggestions to the various factions were received? Was there acceptance of the position he put forward? Was there recognition of the need on the part of the Israelis and Palestinians and both Palestinian factions to proceed in a constructive way in the future? Was there a recognition that the present impasse cannot continue indefinitely and that the longer it continues the more serious the problem becomes, the more imbedded the issues become and the more dangerous and precarious the situation and peace becomes?
The general feeling in the area is that the situation is extremely difficult but that there is a window of opportunity between now and at least the end of this year. I was in the region when the Quartet was meeting last Friday in Washington. It gave strong support to the efforts to have tripartite talks which President Abbas informed me are due to be held on 20 February when Condoleezza Rice travels back to the region. These tripartite talks will be held between President Abbas, Condoleezza Rice and President Olmert.
I understand from President Abbas he expects that a government of national unity would be put in place within days of my visit and they are meeting as we speak in Mecca and I am delighted with some of the soundings that have come out. They recognise the seriousness of the situation and they recognise that there needs to be a government of national unity. The manner in which the international community responds to this will be very important and this was the subject of the discussion I had with my colleagues not just in Palestine and in Israel but also in Egypt.
There is a general feeling and understanding that this situation in Palestine and Israel must be dealt with as it is the core reason for instability in that region. I pledged Ireland's support both on a bilateral basis and on an international basis through the EU and otherwise. We will support it from a humanitarian point of view and we will support the political process.
Arising from the Minister's reply, does he agree it would be valuable to have a secretariat established to solve the road map? For example, with regard to the peace process in Northern Ireland, the fact there was continuity and a continuing interest from the major participants was invaluable. It is one of the singular features of the road map proposals that it lacks such.
I noted from the press accounts of the Minister's visit that he visited Bethlehem. I am sure he and I agree there has been a destruction of the economy of Bethlehem on foot of the wall which the International Court of Justice has condemned. Does he condemn that wall and its effects on the communities surrounding Bethlehem, Beth Sahour and Beth Jala?
With regard to East Jerusalem, would it have been valuable if the European Union had held off a confrontation with the Hamas Government? Would it not have been valuable if more attention had been paid to the expansion of settlements beyond East Jerusalem? The housing permissions granted illegally totally exceed the number of people who withdrew from Gaza and at the same time in the Occupied Territory there is widespread demolition of Palestinian homes.
Hear, hear.
The suggestion of a secretariat for the road map is an interesting idea. I am not certain if those people who have been involved in the Quartet would be interested in putting that together. Those of us in the EU and in Ireland are underwhelmed by the progress of the Quartet with regard to this. We have exhorted our EU colleagues to be extremely vigilant from now on with regard to a re-invigoration of the Quartet process which includes the tripartite talks which will take place later this month.
I have a sense that both in Israel and in Palestine, through speaking to President Abbas, there is a better understanding. These people are now talking to each other on a constant basis and this is progress.
I roundly condemn the wall and have done so in this House many times. I saw for myself how it is being expanded even since my previous visit. I visited a school in Bethlehem and saw the difficulties that young children encountered in their schooling. I was delighted to be able to say to those involved in the project with us that the Irish Government is prepared to increase funding over the next three years by a substantial amount and by 27% this year.
On the question of East Jerusalem I made the point strongly to the Foreign Minister Ms Livni, about the proposal for the E1 complex in East Jerusalem that if it proceeds it will effectively mean the end of a two-state solution and rule out the possibility of an agreement.
Ms Livni stated candidly that she was disappointed the proposal would not proceed. Despite that, we were shown a photograph of a relatively new police station which had been built in the location in question and it was pointed out by the Palestinian side that police stations are always built first because it entails building all the infrastructure required to facilitate settlement. They are then followed by housing and so forth. We must be vigilant and maintain pressure at Quartet level regarding the expansion of settlements.
During my visit I sensed a feeling that the coming months offer a final chance to try to come to some understanding as to what is meant by a two-state solution. The feeling within the general Arab community was one of abhorrence that Arabs were fighting Arabs. The fear of such conflict is manifested in the fairly good soundings we are hearing from Mecca, although the delegations have been meeting for two days. Speaking privately to President Abbas, he indicated how much progress had been achieved in forming a national unity government. I believe the two sides are not far from reaching this objective. At that point, it will be necessary for the international community to take a reasoned, balanced response to this type of government being established.
2 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position Ireland proposes to take at the next meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in relation to such amendment of the guidelines as would facilitate the US-India agreement on nuclear material; if his attention has been drawn to the position taken by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on this issue; his views on this position; and the issues that have been raised to date by Ireland at meetings of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in relation to the agreement. [4494/07]
4 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has discussed the US-India nuclear agreement with his counterpart in the US Administration or the Indian Government; the views of the Government on this agreement and on the way it impacts on nuclear non-proliferation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4445/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.
In July 2005, President Bush and Prime Minister Singh agreed to establish a new strategic partnership between their two countries. One element of this partnership was a proposed agreement on civil nuclear co-operation. In March 2006, the two leaders announced that agreement had been reached. On 9 December 2006 the US Congress adopted the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Co-operation Act, which was subsequently signed into law by President Bush. The Act effectively gives India a waiver from current US legislation prohibiting the transfer of nuclear material and technology.
A number of further steps remain, however, before civil nuclear co-operation can commence between the US and India, including the conclusion of a formal bilateral agreement between the two countries which must also be approved by the US Congress, negotiation by India of a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, and a decision in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, NSG, to exempt India from its export guidelines. We expect the decision by the NSG will be the final step in this process.
We have been closely following developments in the US-India proposed agreement and have had useful contacts with both countries on the issue. Three separate discussions on the proposed agreement have been held at the NSG since the March 2006 announcement and Ireland has played an active role, with several other countries, in seeking to clarify a number of issues. The concerns raised have included the potential impact of the deal on the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime established by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, the type of safeguards agreement which will eventually be agreed with the IAEA, the issue of possible future nuclear tests and whether the contentious question of enrichment and reprocessing is to be included.
In the margins of the NSG meeting last October, representatives of the Indian Government briefed NSG participants. On 18 October, I received the Prime Minister of India's special envoy on civil nuclear co-operation, Mr. Shyam Saran. In the course of our discussions I conveyed to him Ireland's deep-rooted commitment to the NPT and reiterated our disappointment that India remained outside it. While recognising India's energy needs and its great and growing economic and political importance, I stressed Ireland's concerns about the potential impact of the US-India deal on the NPT. Useful technical discussions were also held at official level. Mr. Saran also met the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs during his visit.
I am aware of the position taken by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on this matter and have taken careful note of it. I have met with the committee to discuss this issue, most recently last November. At that time, I explained that we were carefully analysing the proposed US-India agreement in the context of Ireland's commitment to the NPT and the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. I indicated that the issue of whether nuclear co-operation with India would undermine its core principles and obligations would be a fundamental consideration for us. I also made clear that this is not a simple process and it is made more difficult by the fact that all the elements of the proposed agreement are not yet in place. I indicated that we are consulting like-minded countries. These consultations are ongoing.
The next NSG plenary meeting is scheduled for mid-April in Cape Town. The timing of any decision by the NSG will be determined by the pace and outcome of India's negotiations with the IAEA on safeguards and the US on the bilateral agreement. Our current sense is that these two elements are unlikely to have progressed to the extent necessary for the plenary in Cape Town to take a decision. Such a decision is likely to be delayed until a meeting of the NSG later in the year.
As to the position we will take, not all elements are yet clear and we would wish to have the fullest possible information in order to make a considered judgment when the time comes. Ultimately, our final view will depend on our assessment of the potential impact of the deal on the global non-proliferation regime, the approach taken by normally like-minded countries and the overall balance of views within the NSG.
The Minister will agree that there is no disagreement on some matters, one of which is that the Nuclear Suppliers Group, of which Ireland and 44 other countries are members, operates by consensus. This means that to stop the agreement coming into effect Ireland need only refuse to agree to a waiver. The Minister will also agree that the IAEA is not a secretariat to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. One of Ireland's most glorious achievements at the United Nations was its sponsorship of the NPT, of which another small country, Finland, was the first signatory. Given that the Nuclear Suppliers Group will decide whether the proposed US-India agreement on nuclear material will proceed, is it not a matter of a parallel process being established which will operate alongside the non-proliferation agreement? Will the agreement not make it impossible to hold the NPT in place or, as like-minded countries, universalise it and eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons? A comparison of the number of nuclear weapons in 2007 and 1945 shows that the danger to the planet is now 1.5 million times greater than it was in 1945.
Is it not the case that India proposes to offer 14 of its 22 nuclear installations for civil nuclear energy and that a further eight installations will not be subject to inspection and are being reserved for military purposes, with the result that there would be no control over the traffic of material? Is it not also the case that the military establishment in the United States stands to gain $100 billion from the transfer of nuclear capacity to India?
I, too, met the special representative of the Prime Minister of India and, as a friend of that country, I believe it has taken the wrong road. I am glad the Minister has taken note of the views of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. He will be aware that the joint committee decided unanimously to stand by the non-proliferation treaty. Most Members take the view that Ireland should not facilitate a treaty which endangers rather than advances the universalisation of the movement towards peace.
While I empathise with much of what the Deputy said, the strong advice I have received indicates that there is no sense in taking a position on this matter until all elements are known and on the table. A great deal of water must flow under the bridge. No other country has taken a position opposing the deal, although a number of countries have spoken in its favour.
It is disgraceful that France and other countries have done so.
Several members of the new agenda alliance which hold similar views to Ireland on non-proliferation and disarmament have given soundings that they are in favour of the deal.
That is not impressive.
Obviously, we have to see why and that is one of the reasons we are having discussions with them. Much remains to be done concerning this matter. Even people such as Dr. ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA and Hans Blix have signalled they believe that while there may be negative aspects there are also positive ones. I am relating what they have said, although I am not saying so.
I know but there are differences between them, as well.
Last September, when Dr. Blix appeared before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, he indicated his view that there did not seem to be an obstacle in the NPT to this particular deal. I am fully conscious of what the House feels about this matter but at the end of the day I must go along with the strong advice from experts in my Department who are centrally involved on a day-to-day basis. To a certain extent, Ireland is making a nuisance of itself on this deal. That was exemplified by a recent report in a German paper which stated the Irish representative on this body was asking the most pertinent questions and was trying to tease out why there are so many nuances concerning the deal. Why are some countries, which would normally be vehemently against this type of deal, coming out in favour of it?
Has the Minister posed questions about the extent to which this deal might impact upon the existing treaty and whether it might encourage breaches of the treaty? Might it be an example to friendly or unfriendly nations to breach or ignore the treaty in view of the fact that this particular deal is in place? Following his discussions with the American and Indian authorities, has the Minister formed an opinion on the extent to which damage might be done to the NPT as a result of the deal? Does he consider that other countries may take that as an example and proceed in a manner that may not be helpful either to the NTP or to world peace?
I can go no further than what I said earlier to Deputy Michael D. Higgins. I await the response from my officials concerning their discussions at the various meetings of the NSG. They have indicated strongly to me that there is no sense in coming to an informed view as to where we stand on this matter until we have all the information and all the elements are on the table. A number of significant countries, including China, have already indicated that they have difficulties with this. So far, however, no country has come down one way or the other. It may very well be that countries will assent to the deal in such a way — by inserting so many conditions or qualifications — that it would be impossible for it to go ahead. There is a lot to play for but I assure the House that the Government is absolutely rock solid behind the principles of the NPT, which we will defend irrespective of whom it discommodes. We will defend the principles of the NPT even if it means going against this agreement.
Is it not the case that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been weakened by countries that have indicated support for the US-India agreement? Countries such as France have supplied others with a nuclear capacity. The weakest part of the treaty was the clause concerning the elimination of nuclear weapons because those countries which have insisted on retaining their nuclear weapons are now lining up to expand their nuclear capacity. I hope the Minister will be guided by considerations of international security rather than by any trade relations.
Absolutely. Trade does not enter into it in the slightest fashion.
Come on.
We have made that quite clear in dealing with any queries on this. We will defend the situation from a global security viewpoint and nothing else, even if it means going against our strategic interests. A surprising number of countries are adopting unusual positions on this matter and that is one of the reasons we want to have the full facts on all aspects of it. Some people say the NPT is no longer relevant but I totally disagree.
I agree with the Minister.
In the 1960s, it was predicted that there would be over 20 countries with a nuclear capability but due to the NTP that is not the case. I accept there are moves in this respect by quite a number of countries, including Iran and others, but the fact is that the NTP has stood the test of time. Of course, it needs to be reviewed and we strongly support such a review mechanism, as we have said at all UN fora. This deal is yet another element of the ongoing review of the NPT. It could possibly have a significant impact on the treaty despite Dr. Blix's view, as expressed here last September, that he saw no obstacle in the NTP to this deal.
3 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will highlight the nature of terrorist groups based in and around Miami, Florida, which have been involved in terrorist actions against Cuba, whose actions have led to the deaths of almost 3,500 people, including tourists, the maiming of over 2,000 in the past 47 years and outrages that have included the first mid-air bombing of a civilian aircraft in history; and if he will raise these issues at UN and EU levels. [4447/07]
Ireland, along with its EU partners, condemns all acts of terrorism, regardless of their target or motivation. Terrorism can never be justified by any cause, reason or ideology. It places the lives of innocent people at risk and undermines tolerance, openness and respect for fundamental freedoms in society.
With regard to the general thrust of the Deputy's question, and as I have made clear in my replies to his many previous parliamentary questions on this matter, I am not in a position to comment in any substantive way due to the imprecise nature of the allegations. However, with regard to the mid-air bombing of a civilian aircraft, I assume the Deputy is referring to the 1976 bombing of Cubana Airlines flight 455, in which all 73 people on board died. Two individuals, Mr. Orlando Bosch and a Mr. Luis Posada Carriles, were detained and charged in Caracas with the bombing of flight 455 in 1976. Neither was convicted. Mr. Carriles escaped detention in 1985, while Mr. Bosch was released two years later.
Since May 2005, Mr. Carriles has been detained in US custody, charged with illegally entering US territory. The US Government has decided not to grant the extradition requests for Mr. Carriles submitted by the Venezuelan and Cuban authorities. It is my understanding that this decision was based on the principle of non-refoulement. This principle, which is contained in article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture, requires states not to expel, return or extradite persons to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
These cases are legal, bilateral matters between the countries concerned and are not cases on which it would be appropriate for the Government to take a position. Consequently, I do not intend to raise these cases at UN or EU level.
The overriding objective of Ireland and our EU partners in our relations with Cuba is to encourage a process of transition to pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as set out in the European Union's 1996 common position on Cuba. The validity of the 1996 common position was reaffirmed by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 June 2006.
The European Union believes that critical engagement with the Cuban Government, alongside dialogue with wider Cuban civil society, is the most effective way to promote peaceful change in Cuba. The European Union has emphasised its willingness to co-operate with Cuba on the basis of a dialogue with the Cuban Government and Cuban civil society, as soon as the Cuban Government shows the political will to engage in a dialogue aimed at tangible results, especially in the field of human rights and political freedom, the restriction of which remains a matter of deep concern to us in Ireland and in the EU generally. In this regard, I again urge the Cuban Government to release all prisoners of conscience and to respect internationally acknowledged principles and practices.
I am absolutely appalled by the Minister's response. Cuba is a small island nation like ours, sitting beside a major international power. For over 47 years, Cuba has suffered and over 2,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks. A further 3,500 have been maimed and injured, including tourists, and a civilian aircraft carrying Cuban citizens was bombed. It is not good enough for the Minister, or for Ireland, an independent, neutral country, not to have a strong voice on this issue, particularly as this is a small island nation. May I also say——
The Deputy should put a question.
They are getting like Fidel.
I am so annoyed at the response that I had to make a statement on that aspect of the issue. Does the Minister share my abhorrence at the hypocrisy of the US authorities when they lecture the world about terrorism yet have nothing to say about the 2,000 people killed and the 3,500 people maimed by terrorists based in Miami, Florida? Will the Minister call on the US Government to investigate the terrorist activities of groups infiltrated by the five Cubans known as the Miami Five with a view to ensuring there will be no repeat of these actions?
Does the Minister agree with Amnesty International that the denial of family visits is a form of torture? Will he call on the US authorities to permit Olga Salaneuva and Adriana Perez O'Connor to visit their respective husbands, Rene Gonzalez and Gerardo Hernandez, who are both incarcerated in the USA? Does the Minister consider this a bilateral issue beyond his competence to address? Why was his predecessor willing to comment on another bilateral matter when 75 so-called dissidents were arrested for mercenary activities in Cuba? This is not about politics. It is a simple matter of the denial of the human rights of five prisoners. Can the Minister not bring himself to acknowledge the injustice involved and call for the wives to have permission to visit their husbands?
In May 2005, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion finding that the USA had failed to guarantee the Cuban Five a fair trial. I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to support the UN working group on this issue. I urge the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, to raise this case, about which many people have major concerns. The Minister and the Minister of State should support the Miami Five campaign in Ireland. We are joined in Leinster House today by Eleanor Lanigan and Simon McGuinness, who are very active on human rights issues. I ask the Minister to assert Ireland's authority as an independent, neutral country and campaign for the human and civil rights of these five people.
With regard to the question of unfair detention to which the Deputy refers, in a report of 2005 the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated that its determination does not imply consideration regarding the innocence or guilt of the concerned persons and that the working group does not substitute itself for the domestic courts. It is my understanding that a number of appeals have been lodged on behalf of the defendants and these remain under active judicial review within the framework of US domestic law.
Of course we condemn all abuses of human rights but it is fair to say that the Cuban regime has left much to be desired in regard to the issue of human rights over the past 50 years or so. This is one of the reasons the EU, as far back as 1996, adopted a common position in this regard.
The US has not done so.
We are willing to act in a balanced way. It is not all "Cuban, good; US, bad". Let us be fair. On a case by case basis, there must be a clear raising of issues.
We do not have any standing in this matter. It is a bilateral issue between the US and Cuba. However, through the various instruments at our disposal as a small island nation within the EU, we raise issues of human rights abuses, whether they occur in the US or Cuba. Over the years we have voted at the UN Assembly against the US embargo of Cuba.
Rightly so.
We are prepared to stand up with regard to the effect on the general community. The Cuban position on human rights must be put right. Thankfully, some more reasonable soundings are coming from the replacement, for the time being at least, of the President of Cuba. Perhaps there will be more opportunity for the international community and the US to liaise with the Cuban Government in that respect. It remains to be seen.
I visited Cuba, where I met the Vice President. There is a major interest there in dialogue with the rest of the world. There seems to be a fudge by the Minister with regard to the 2,000 people killed and the 3,500 injured over 47 years. This is the core issue. A small country is being attacked by groups based in Miami and we have nothing to say about it. That is unacceptable.
When we go on to the international stage, both at EU and UN level, we must highlight this fact and the case of the five people involved. In Cuba they are treated like the Birmingham Six. When one goes into pubs, restaurants and hotels, one will see pictures of the Miami Five on every wall. This is a major international human rights issue and the Minister should do his best to address it.
I do not want in any way to imply that we do not have sympathy for anyone who is incarcerated. That applies equally to those incarcerated in Guantanamo and prisoners of conscience held by the Cuban authorities. However, we have no standing with regard to the case referred to by the Deputy. As I said, I do not propose to raise the issue at EU or UN level.
Question No. 4 taken with QuestionNo. 2.
Question No. 5 taken with QuestionNo. 1.
