Vol. 631 No. 2
6 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position of the EU accession negotiations with Turkey; the most pressing issue needing to be addressed before accession; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3942/07]
204 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which positives steps have been taken to resolve the Cyprus issue in the context of EU enlargement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4561/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 204 together.
Negotiations regarding Turkish accession to the European Union commenced on 3 October 2005. An extensive screening process is ongoing which closely scrutinises the compatibility of Turkish legislation with that of the EU. In all, there are 35 negotiating chapters in the accession process. After a chapter has been screened, the EU can decide, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, whether the negotiations in that sector should proceed. In June 2006, the European Council welcomed the provisional closure of the science and research chapter with Turkey. To date, this is the only chapter to have been provisionally concluded.
The European Commission published its annual enlargement package on 8 November 2006. In its assessment of Turkey's progress, the Commission stated that reforms have continued but have slowed during the past year. Improvements are needed on freedom of expression, the rights of non-Muslim religious communities, women's rights, trade union rights and civil control of the military. Further progress in aligning its legislation with that of the Union is also required in a range of areas, including agriculture, taxation, state aid and the free movement of goods, workers and capital.
It is difficult to prioritise particular issues as all the points identified in the Commission report require Turkey's active attention. However, it is clear that Turkey's continuing failure to implement the Ankara Protocol fully by opening its ports and airports to vessels registered in the Republic of Cyprus is complicating the accession negotiations. As a result, the Council of Ministers on 11 December 2006, acting on a recommendation by the Commission, decided, first, that negotiations on eight negotiating chapters be suspended and, second, that no other chapter be provisionally closed until the Commission has verified that Turkey has implemented the protocol. The Commission will report further on Turkish progress towards meeting its obligations, including implementation of the Ankara Protocol, in its annual reports to the Council, in particular in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
At its meeting in January, the Council of Ministers noted progress to date in implementing its approach on the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. It called for work to continue on agreeing a Council regulation on special conditions for trade with the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.
Will the Minister indicate whether adequate emphasis is being placed by the European Union on the need for Turkey to accelerate its programme to bring its institutions into line with EU norms? Will he indicate whether there is reluctance on the part of the Turkish authorities to accelerate this programme or whether they are taking their cue from the diverse opinions sometimes expressed within the European Union? For example, the Presidency of the European Union could always be deemed to have a leading, influential expression in this regard. To what extent has that manifested itself at this time? Is there likely to be progress on the sharing of the ports and on the acceptance of vessels from Cyprus into Turkish ports?
Finally, does the Minister think it is a good idea to allow the negotiations to drag on for 12 to 14 years? Is it the intention to stabilise the European Union and bring conditions related to human rights, including women's rights, in Turkey into line with the Union? Would it be better to proceed as intended or would it be better to have a clearly defined pattern whereby recognition could be available for all groups within a reasonable time, which would motivate them in their attitude?
When it was originally agreed to open discussions and negotiations with Turkey, it was accepted agreement would take a considerable time and this was accepted by the Turks. Negotiations have been tortuous, not least because of the Ankara Protocol, which concerns the issue of the opening of ports and airports. This is a divisive issue for both the Turks and people from the Republic of Cyprus. I experienced this divide when I tried to travel from Ankara to Nicosia during my time as envoy. I was unable to travel directly and had to stop off in Beirut or somewhere else before going to Cyprus. Direct travel from either country to the other was impossible because of the embargo on airports and ports. As a member of the European Union, I found it difficult to understand why I could not fly from a country hoping to become a member of the European Union to one that was a member and mentioned that to the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Gul, many times.
There has been some slowing by the Turks on what had previously been a rapid move towards fulfilling the requirements for EU membership under the various chapters. This may well be due to the fact elections are due to take place in Turkey. Being a politician, Deputy Durkan will understand there are issues the Turks must deal with within their country. To be fair, the Turkish Government has been proactive in its efforts, but there has been a slowdown to some extent.
This country supports the accession of Turkey, on the basis that it is necessary in the greater scheme of stability for the region, but at the same time it must come up to the mark on all the issues, human rights including women's rights, trade union rights, civilian involvement in the military etc. The country has made progress, but much more must be made. It is a little like our slogan in the last general election, "A lot done, more to do".
One would favour the admission of Turkey if the Cyprus issue and human rights issues could be resolved. I put it to the Minister there is another issue, namely, the acknowledgment of genocide in the past history, which would be compatible with squaring up to the truth.
That said, is it not true that some countries in the European Union are using these issues and the delaying of the process to mask the fact they are totally opposed to Turkey's entry to the European Union?
It is fair to say some countries are not particularly enamoured with the position. Some countries have indicated they would require a referendum at the end of the process. This causes some difficulty and clearly demonstrates they are saying to the rest of the European Union that no matter what the Union agrees, they plan to have a popular vote on the issue.
Much of the concern relates to general uneasiness in the European Union about further enlargement. It is felt the Union has enlarged too rapidly over a short period and that given we cannot reform the structures, as per the draft constitution, any further enlargement must wait until we have those structures in place. We have a commitment with regard to Turkey and Croatia and further commitments with regard to the Balkans in general.
We are conscious there is within the Union a feeling that we should pause and reflect on the issues. This feeling comes via the political systems in member states which hear the message from their people, as exemplified by the votes in the referenda in France and Holland with regard to the constitution. There is no doubt, however, that some countries are using the Turkish issue to slow the process.
7 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position of the Government in relation to the vindication of Irish entitlements under the law of the sea and related instruments to the seabed. [4307/07]
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that a coastal state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea, which is the belt of water located immediately adjacent to its land territory. Every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles. Sovereignty extends to the bed and subsoil of the territorial sea. Ireland ratified the convention on 21 June 1996 and has established a territorial sea 12 nautical miles in breadth.
The convention also provides that a coastal state exercises sovereign rights over its continental shelf for the purpose of exploiting its natural resources. Each coastal state is entitled to a continental shelf 200 nautical miles in breadth regardless of whether the shelf naturally extends this far, subject only to the same rights of neighbouring states. Where the shelf naturally extends beyond 200 nautical miles, this must be established to the satisfaction of the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf before a coastal state can exercise its sovereign rights there.
Ireland's shelf naturally extends beyond 200 nautical miles both to the west and the south of the country. Scientific and technical data must be submitted to the UN Commission to satisfy it that all claims are valid. For the purposes of our claims we have divided our shelf into three sectors.
The first sector is to the south west of the country on the edge of an area known as the Porcupine Abyssal Plain. This sector, which is approximately half the size of the State's land territory, is not disputed by any other state and was therefore the subject of Ireland's first submission, made in May 2005. The UN Commission is expected to make its recommendations concerning the limits of the claimed area in March of this year. The Government will then designate the additional seabed enclosed by these limits as continental shelf belonging of the State. Ireland is likely to become the first state in the world to establish a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from shore. Once this sector is designated, hydrocarbon prospecting and exploration can be licensed there.
The second sector of claimed extended continental shelf is in the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay. This was the subject of a joint submission made together with the UK, France and Spain in May 2006 and covers an area of approximately 80,000 square kilometres, which is slightly larger than the State's land territory. The UN recommendations are also expected shortly on this sector and the question of delimitation of the zone established on the basis of these recommendations will be finalised thereafter.
Finally, we claim shelf on the Hatton-Rockall Plateau in the north-east Atlantic where there are overlapping claims by Iceland, Denmark and the UK. Despite meeting regularly since 2002, the four states have as yet been unable to agree on the making of a joint submission or co-ordinated national submissions. These consultations are continuing.
I welcome this information which I have been seeking for some time. I have also submitted a parliamentary question for a written response on an issue which is a rather sad affair, namely, about Irish oil and gas companies that have announced they are taking up licences off the former territories of the Spanish Sahara that are in fact the property of the Saharawi people. While other international companies have withdrawn from those waters by arrangement with Morocco, the EU has illegally granted mining rights just off the shores of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic's territory, which is currently under occupation. That is scandalous. I presume that such companies might be more assured of moving into our waters if they become available. Does the Minister anticipate legislation being prepared quickly to implement results likely to come under UN consideration in March? I am not sure whether it took 30 or 40 years for decisions to flow from previous conferences on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Second, it will obviously require an entirely new minerals and resources legislative regime. Does the Minister envisage that? If the UN report, as is expected, rules in our favour, will he institute bilateral talks with the UK and Denmark to establish the basis of the UN recommendation on Rockall?
It is not yet known whether legislation will be required. It will obviously depend on the determination of the UN commission. The first application was made during my tenure as Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and I have now taken it over to a certain extent. What was the second question?
I referred to a later written question on the illegal actions of an Irish company. The second question was whether the Minister would introduce a new marine and natural resources Bill.
That is a question for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and it would very much depend on the UN commission's determination.
What about bilateral talks?
That does not arise regarding our claim to Rockall. Negotiations took place leading to the adoption in 1982 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Ireland successfully resolved the issue of Rockall by ensuring that the convention provide that "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf". While neither we nor the British recognises each other's claim to sovereignty over Rockall, the issue no longer has relevance to the delimitation or extension of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
This issue arose at the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources as well as at meetings on energy. If it transpired that a very profitable zone containing minerals, ore, oil, gas or something else were discovered in that region or nearby, or in some other similar region, how would we resolve the problem of rights, entitlements and ownership in terms of what the Minister has said? I recognise that he dealt with the matter before, but similar circumstances could arise, as referred to by Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
That too is a matter for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and I would not like to comment on it. As it stands, there is an agreement to disagree regarding Rockall. The Deputy is talking hypothetically when he speculates about anything being discovered there.
It was hypothetical.
In anticipation of the vindication of our rights and sovereignty over an extended area, which would be very welcome, should we encourage Irish companies to respect such sovereignty elsewhere? Perhaps the Minister will write to me about this. I am raising it now, but my later question was transferred to written answer for various reasons. I would be concerned if the European Commissioner facilitated an illegal act off El Aaiún in former Spanish Sahara. The Council of Ministers agreed by a qualified majority to go along with the Commission.
Did the Deputy say that the question had been transferred?
It was a supplementary priority question transferred to written answer so I will have to wait for a reply. It would be worthwhile to face up to the fact that the Commission, in a flagrant breach of law, granted exploration and fishing rights off the shores of an occupied country. Some Ministers at the Council felt that it prejudiced a solution in the dispute between Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
There are situations where the EU negotiates with African coastal states on fishing rights and oil exploration. As Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, I have had some difficulty with those agreements over the years. However, that does not have much relevance to the question. One must deal with each situation on a case-by-case basis.
8 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measures considered practical to address the ongoing genocide in Sudan; the progress by the UN or EU to try to find measures that will impact on the Sudanese Government; if targeted sanctions have been discussed and other such measures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4204/07]
27 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the political and security situation in Darfur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3926/07]
79 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the latest diplomatic efforts being made by his Department to ensure that the Government of Sudan deals adequately with the United Nations in securing peace for the people of Darfur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3939/07]
92 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent diplomatic initiatives the Government has made in terms of the ongoing conflict in Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4281/07]
107 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in Darfur; and the information he has available as to the deployment of an international force in the region. [4309/07]
197 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding Sudan; if there are improvements in Sudan’s human rights record; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4486/07]
202 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which the international community can address the issues in Darfur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4559/07]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 8, 27, 79, 92, 107, 197 and 202 together.
The Government is making use of all avenues, both bilaterally and through the EU, to focus urgent international attention on the crisis in Darfur and work towards a resolution, and it will continue to do so. Most recently, in my meetings in Cairo on 1 February, I discussed the situation with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Aboul Gheit, and the Arab League Secretary General, Amr Mussa. I know that the Oireachtas is also deeply concerned, as reflected in the all-party motion passed on 28 November.
The UN and the African Union are co-ordinating international efforts to revitalise the May 2006 Darfur peace agreement and strengthen peacekeeping. The two organisations' special envoys for Darfur, Mr. Jan Eliasson and Dr. Salim Salim, are actively trying to get negotiations under way between the parties to the agreement and non-signatory rebel groups. The African Union's ceasefire observation mission in Darfur, AMIS, is being strengthened in a phased manner with UN support and is aimed at the deployment of a strong AU-UN hybrid force later this year. Already 100 UN military, police and civilian personnel are in place under the first phase of UN support. In December 2006 President Bashir of Sudan gave his approval in principle to that phased approach to strengthening AMIS. However, regrettably, he has not as yet specifically endorsed the deployment of the AU-UN hybrid force.
Since 2004, Ireland has provided over €16 million in emergency aid to Darfur, including €3 million for AMIS. A further €2.1 million in humanitarian support has been approved to date in 2007 and more financial support for AMIS is being considered. Three members of the Permanent Defence Forces serve in support of AMIS.
The security situation in Darfur remains very unstable. Ceasefire violations by all parties, including the unacceptable bombing of civilian sites by the Sudanese airforce, banditry and inter-tribal conflicts, are undermining efforts to revitalise the peace process and having dire humanitarian consequences. Currently, humanitarian access is at its lowest level since 2004. During 2006, some 500,000 more Darfurians were displaced and in January alone a further 25,000 were forced to flee. In that overall context, the work of the UN human rights assessment mission due on the ground in Darfur within days is of great importance.
I strongly condemn the murder of an AMIS police officer on 1 February and the recent increase in violent attacks on humanitarian workers, including international aid workers. If current efforts to revitalise the political process are to succeed, it is essential that all parties immediately halt the violence and abide by their ceasefire commitments.
The international community must, in particular, present a united front in demanding that the Sudanese Government and rebel groups negotiate without preconditions and co-operate fully in implementation of all three phases of the UN support for AMIS. The EU, for its part, has implemented a comprehensive arms embargo against Sudan since 1994 and applies individual sanctions against four individuals designated by the Security Council in Resolution 1591(2005). On 22 January, EU Foreign Ministers expressed their readiness to consider further measures, notably in the UN framework against any party that obstructs implementation of the phased approach to strengthening AMIS and to establishing the AU-UN hybrid force.
Sudan's 2005 interim national constitution guarantees respect for fundamental human rights, but implementation of its provisions is very uneven. The EU maintains regular dialogue with Sudan on human rights issues in an effort to address the situation.
I will continue to avail myself of every possible opportunity to emphasise the urgent need for unhindered provision of humanitarian support to all those in need in Darfur and the speedy deployment of a well resourced peacekeeping operation under UN auspices with a strong mandate to protect civilians. The current situation is simply unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.
Will the Minister indicate how effective is the peacekeeping arrangement? Can any means be found to co-operate with peacekeepers and are there sufficient deployments to clearly convince opposing factors that the violence and atrocities which have taken place must come to a halt?
How effective is the arms embargo and how well policed is it? To what extent has it been breached and the breaches identified? There is a degree of violence in the region and arms embargoes should apply to everybody if they are to be effective in cutting off supplies.
To what extent has the Minister, either directly or through the EU or UN, attempted to influence a settlement or recognition that violence must come to an end in the region?
The AMIS supply is insufficient, as I saw for myself when I travelled to El Fasher, one of the major towns in Darfur. I met with the commanders of the AMIS and saw that it was too small a force for too large an area. The area in question is approximately one and half times the size of France. This was one reason I very strongly urged our EU counterparts to use all our influence, even if it meant a plan B. In conjunction with the Danish Foreign Minister, I stated that we should consider other options against the Sudanese Government.
Thankfully, events have moved on since then as the UN, and Kofi Annan in particular, has been instrumental in at least getting an acknowledgement and understanding from President al-Bashir with regard to the three-phased approach. The UN is already looking for personnel from various countries and a number of nations have indicated they would be willing to participate in the second phase, provided they are allowed in.
It is not an easy issue with which to deal. I saw for myself a demand by the international community to send in the UN, but it is not that simple. Out on the ground one can see why it is not as easy as sending in troops from Ireland or anywhere else in the world. There is incredible suspicion there not just from the Sudanese Government, but also from a broad spectrum of people, that this is in some way an effort by the international community — specifically some countries — to destabilise the Sudanese Government.
One reason I stopped in Egypt for six hours on my recent visit was as a result of discussions I had here with President Mubarak and Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit when they visited Dublin. I got the general feeling from President Mubarak in particular that this issue needed to be handled sensitively and in such a way that rather than the issue being forced and not getting the desired result with the Sudanese Government, it was better to discuss it with like-minded countries who understand the psyche of the Sudanese Government. The Egyptian view was confirmed by a number of countries, including South Africa, representatives of which I spoke to in New York in September.
The process is moving ever so slowly but it is going in the right direction. Before I travelled I spoke to Jan Eliasson, a good friend of Ireland who is the former Swedish Foreign Minister and current special representative of the UN Secretary General. He appreciated our strong support on the issue and our strong articulation of the difficulties in Darfur. He stated that his job and that of the special envoy of the EU was to try to bring the non-signatories of the peace agreement into the fold, which might require some additional assistance from the international community. As long as those parties are outside the deal, it would appear that the violence will continue.
That may even mean the international community will have to put money on a plate in order to deal with the issue of compensation, a significant matter for those who have been displaced.
The Minister's reply was comprehensive. It has been pointed out by some of those interested in advancing peace in the region that there is some progress when there is an international presence which stays on at the talks. In that regard, is there a possibility that some structure could be put in place towards advancing the peace process?
The point has been made with regard to those who are outside the southern Sudanese agreement that when there is an international presence, it stops people moving back into their absolute dispositions of non-co-operation.
I entirely agree with the Deputy about the international presence. That is a reason the UN assessment mission is going on the ground in the next few days, following on from visits by Jan Eliasson. Much progress was made at the recent African Union meeting in Addis Ababa.
I exhorted our colleagues at the EU table, long before it was first mooted, that it was perhaps incongruous that President al-Bashir would be the chairperson of the African Union from 1 January this year while this difficulty was occurring within his own country. He was part of the solution and his government part of the problem. I welcome the position of the African Union, which is dealing with this difficult and sensitive issue. People here think the Iraqi problem is bad but this could flare up in all our faces if it is not dealt with properly and could become another war on another front in the African continent.
The Minister yesterday stated he was not into gestural politics. What concrete action is being proposed by the Government to tackle the Darfur crisis? In particular, does the Minister still believe we should be backing tougher international action against Sudan, including a British proposal for a no-fly zone over Darfur, which he earlier supported? Will the Minister elaborate on the type of sanction he believes would be effective, or how such a no-fly zone would operate?
Has the Minister considered that Ireland has, via the National Pensions Reserve Fund, unethical investments in Sudan? According to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, which had a letter printed in this week's The Irish Times, Ireland has invested €460 million in companies operating in Sudan, including an Indian energy consortium and Chinese oil firm PetroChina. All of these have documented complicity with those directing the terror against Darfur.
Will the Minister speak to the Minister for Finance on the issue, or would this not be a concrete action? Is this not the type of action to be proposed by the Minister instead of the gestures of which he accuses others?
As usual, Deputy Gormley must be a little divisive.
Concrete action is €16 million in humanitarian aid. Every time there is a request, whether to help AMIS or people on the ground in need of humanitarian assistance, the Government has been forthcoming. That is concrete action, apart from any political involvement.
I would safely say there has been no Foreign Minister as vigilant and busy on this issue as I in that I was the first Minister to go into Darfur after the peace agreement. I think I am the only Minister to go into a displacement camp, which I saw for myself was hell on earth, so that I could articulate clearly to the rest of my colleagues the type of difficulties these people faced. As I stated, I went out of my way to go to Egypt to continue my discussions on the ground with the Egyptians, who have a particular point of view given that they are neighbours in this area. Those are not gestures but work by us, as a small nation within the EU and within the UN, through which we endeavour to articulate a crisis happening on our doorstep.
The divestment of Irish funds from Sudan is an issue we raised with the National Pensions Reserve Fund. Deputy Gormley would be the first one hopping up and down complaining about involvement by us in the independent statutory obligations of the National Pensions Reserve Fund board.
Quite the opposite, I call on the Minister to do it.
We passed legislation which gave them the authority, independent of Government, to control and manage the fund of investment. The fund is a founder signatory to the principles of responsible investment launched by the UN Secretary General in April last. It is committed to a process of change that would enable it to take account of ethical questions in its investment decisions.
The fund is now going to considerable expense to ensure scrutiny and oversight when it comes to these particular issues. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, met with the Sudan Divestment Campaign on 9 November and with the National Pension Reserve Fund on 14 December 2006 to give a political view on this issue.
Are they listening?
They are listening. They are bringing their internal procedures up to speed. Shareholdings previously managed by external fund management companies are now being brought back under the direct supervision of the National Pensions Reserve Fund. That means it will have greater control and it will be spending considerable amounts of money to ensure it is present at shareholder gatherings such as AGMs where these issues may arise. The fund is trying to act not merely in accordance with the spirit, but in accordance with the letter of the principles the UN. It is taking on considerable cost to ensure that such is the case.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
