Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Feb 2009

Vol. 674 No. 3

Other Questions.

EU-Israel Relations.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

6 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the upgrading of relations between the EU and Israel in view of the fact that according to the Israeli non-governmental organisation, Peace Now, 1,257 new structures were built in settlements during 2008 at a time when Israel was supposed to be freezing all settlement activity under the Annapolis peace process compared to 800 in 2007, an increase of 57%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5239/09]

Brian O'Shea

Question:

64 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions held at the most recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council regarding relations between the European Union and Israel in terms of economic and trade dealings. [5202/09]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 64 together.

I have repeatedly expressed my serious concerns regarding the construction and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As I have stated on several occasions, continued settlement construction has a direct and negative impact on the political process. It also prejudges the outcome of final status negotiations and threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution.

The total settler population is now fast approaching half a million people in 121 settlements in the West Bank, 12 settlements in the hinterland of East Jerusalem and 100 or more other outposts and unrecognised smaller settlements. According to an estimate by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the Jewish settler population in the West Bank continues to grow three times faster than the population in Israel and has risen by 42% since 2001. The reports of new structures being built in the settlements tally with this population growth.

The construction of settlements anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law. I have seen at first hand the damage wrought by these settlements and the associated regime of settler only bypass roads and the separation barrier on Palestinian society and economy. The EU has repeatedly called on Israel to honour the commitments it made at the Annapolis conference and, in accordance with the roadmap, to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth and to dismantle outposts built since 2001.

I am deeply concerned at recent reports that the Israeli authorities have approved the construction of what is essentially a new settlement in the West Bank. I have conveyed my serious concern about settlement expansion directly to the Israeli Government at every opportunity, most recently in a meeting with Israeli Minister for Education, Yuli Tamir, on 20 January.

As Deputies will be aware, Ireland has taken a cautious approach to the upgrading of EU relations with Israel, which was agreed in principle in December. I made it clear to my EU colleagues at the recent General Affairs and External Relations Council that what happened in Gaza means that there cannot be a business as usual approach to proceeding with the upgrade at this time. I have consistently argued that account must be taken of overall developments in the peace process, including the approach taken by the new Israeli Government to be formed following Tuesday's elections, in determining how to proceed. Such developments should in my view include Israeli Government policy on settlement activity and expansion.

I welcome the Minister's statement regarding the illegal occupation and annexation of land in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and his endorsement of the calls for a reversal of settlement construction. Will he demand that the EU not only park the proposed upgrading of EU relations with Israel but oppose any discussion on an upgrade in the present climate? Rather than take the cautious approach, I ask him to demand at EU level the suspension of the Euromed agreement at this juncture given what has occurred in the past two months.

Our position has consistently been to link any upgrade of relations with Israel with progress on the political front towards a resolution of the regional conflict. More recently, we have sought a dual-track approach which includes an upgrading in relations with the Palestinian Authority. We have consistently made that argument.

In the aftermath of the Gaza offensive, I have written to the Presidency to state that from Ireland's perspective relations cannot be a case of business as usual. Our view is that the situation is not being progressed at present, although proposals may be returned to the table at some stage. An upgrade in relations must be linked with the issues raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh and settlements in particular.

Does the Minister accept that the State of Israel is out of control following the recent slaughter in Gaza? Will he take action to deal with this rogue state? I ask him to argue more strongly for the Palestinian people at EU and UN level. Does he accept that Israel was in breach of Article 59 of the Geneva Convention, which maintains that occupying powers shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the occupied population and shall facilitate them by all means at their disposal? Israel has not only failed to adequately supply the population of Gaza but also deliberately blocked and otherwise impeded emergency relief and humanitarian assistance. Israeli attacks have struck aid convoys and killed UN personnel, while its forces have obstructed medical personnel trying to carry out their duties.

We have actively promoted the Palestinian cause at EU and UN levels and will continue to do so. Ultimately, a two-state solution will be required and all parties will have to live in harmony.

I am pleased to report that UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, this week informed the UN Security Council that he intends to appoint a panel of investigators to examine certain incidents which occurred in Gaza during the recent conflict and to report to the Security Council. Although the terms of reference of the panel are not yet available, it appears the investigators will focus on three separate attacks on UN facilities, namely, the shelling of areas adjacent to two UN schools on 6 January and of UNRWA headquarters on 15 January and, in this context, the killing and injuring of civilians. That represents progress in terms of an international investigation into allegations of breaches of the Geneva Convention and humanitarian law. I would equally point out that Hamas was in breach of the Geneva Convention by indiscriminately firing rockets into a civilian population.

I agree the blockade should be lifted. The ongoing Egyptian brokered talks are the key to progress at this point in time and we are supportive of the efforts of the Egyptian Government and others.

I welcome the strength of the interventions the Minister has been making on this issue, particularly in light of the messages Members have received from those who are not interested in anything other than laying down preconditions of such a nature as to make peace impossible.

However, his views are exceptional in the European Union at present and, indeed, certain countries are opposed to them. I have been visiting the West Bank and Gaza since the 1980s. The people on the other side who are most insistent on preconditions will not point to the demolition of a single settlement. In 2005, there was a withdrawal from Gaza and a few minor settlements in a remote part of the West Bank. They look on and do not condemn the expansion of settlements and they cannot point to the destruction of houses. They did not oppose the destruction of houses in East Jerusalem or the West Bank. It is total hypocrisy to say one is in favour of a negotiated, peaceful solution while at the same time refusing to address the issue of settlement expansion.

The existing Euromed agreement contains three human rights clauses but there is no compliance with them. Why is everyone so quiet about that? It would be outrageous to deepen the agreement.

I have detected a shift in European thinking in the aftermath of Gaza, although certain countries clearly have different perspectives from ours. Strong presentations were made by the Egyptian, Turkish and Norwegian Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Palestinian Authority at our session on the Sunday night prior to our meeting. They outlined what may emerge from the Egyptian brokered talks. In terms of a mechanism to deliver humanitarian and reconstruction aid, they advised Europe against closing a door by imposing preconditions.

Flexibility is needed in facilitating the emergence of a proper peace process. We have some experience in that regard in that events were sequenced or choreographed and people were not put in impossible positions. In other words, we were more interested in outcomes than initial inputs. I sense an awakening to that among some EU Foreign Ministers. The President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and others have pointed out to us that whatever emerges in the context of Palestinian unity, we should not close the door in a knee-jerk manner. That is something for which I am pushing strongly.

I have two brief questions for the Minister. Given the onslaught, will he call publicly for an arms embargo on Israel and enter into discussions with his colleague, the Minister for Defence, in regard to a cessation by Ireland of the purchase of Israeli military products and services? Also, will he consider requesting the UN to broaden its proposed investigation beyond a tax on UN buildings?

Our Defence Forces procure equipment on the basis of the most effective equipment available to meet the specification competitively tendered. The Defence Forces have in recent years purchased defensive equipment such as helmets from Israeli companies on the basis of effectiveness and best value. That is the scale of our engagement in that regard.

Our view is that trade boycotts are not the way forward. Ultimately, there must be dialogue. Much depends on what happens post-election in Israel. Our view is that all parties to this historic conflict need to engage in finding a resolution that will lead to durable peace. We welcome the prioritisation given to this issue by President Obama. Prior to the US presidential election, the main concern of European foreign ministers was would the next American Administration make this issue its number one priority from day one. The statement by President Obama that he will aggressively pursue the issue and the appointment of George Mitchell are important signals. Let us not, however, understate the challenges that lie ahead in terms of working towards a solution. As regards Ban Ki-moon, I welcome what has happened. I will not overstate the degree to which we can leverage any more in that respect.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he does not support the concept of boycotts. It is important from a Government discipline point of view that he take that issue up with Members of his party, one of whom was listed as a speaker at a rally, the purpose of which was to organise a boycott.

The Minister stated we cannot set preconditions but good faith requires good acts. The construction of settlements during the process is unhelpful.

Yes. Fine Gael policy on this is that any settlement constructed in the disputed territories since March 2001 should be demolished. Does the Minister agree with that proposal?

Yes. I am intrigued by Deputy Timmins's exhortations on me to impose discipline on Members of my parliamentary party. We are a broad church and a democratic party. Ireland is not like other countries which suppress the right of people to free speech. The fact that Members of my party are engaged in international issues of this type is positive. We may from time to time differ in emphasis but I am not into suppressing genuine humanitarian engagement and do not believe Deputy Timmins should be encouraging me to do so.

The Minister is at variance with his leader on that issue.

On the other hand, I do not wish to encourage them too much.

The Minister is covering all options.

Arms Trade.

Liz McManus

Question:

7 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on an effective universal arms trade treaty in view of the effect of unrestrained arms trading on human rights in conflict areas in particular. [5224/09]

I share fully the concerns of the Deputy about the impact of arms transfers on human rights in conflict areas. The programme for Government commits us to supporting a binding and comprehensive global treaty on the trade of arms covering all weapons and ammunition.

At the United Nations, Ireland has been actively promoting the idea of an arms trade treaty to secure agreement on common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. Last October we co-sponsored a resolution at the General Assembly which agreed the establishment of a working group to consider the elements that might be included in a legally binding treaty.

The first meeting of the group will take place next month in New York and officials from my Department will be actively involved. A key priority for Ireland in this process will be to ensure our long-standing commitment to the principles of humanitarian law and individual human rights is reflected in the final outcome. Achieving an arms trade treaty is also a priority for the European Union and we have been working closely with our partners to advance the prospects for agreement. The European Union is now preparing to hold a number of regional seminars in various parts of the world to highlight the necessity of securing an effective arms trade treaty. Although negotiation on this issue is likely to be complex and protracted, we are determined to remain fully focused on achieving a successful outcome.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the vital role which representatives of the NGO community such as Amnesty International and their partners in the control arms campaign have played in taking forward the proposal for an arms trade treaty. I look forward to maintaining close co-operation with them as we move ahead in this process.

What is revealed in this type of question is another contradiction at the heart of the European Union — I say this as somebody who is in favour of the European Union — in terms of diplomatic activity which is scant in regard to, say, the Middle East, with all due respect to Javier Solana and Tony Blair, whose presence has not achieved much.

During the past four and a half years, the European Union sold a total of 9.1 billion armaments to the Middle East. The figure for 2004 was just over 4 billion. The European Union, in its armaments industry, has been pouring armaments into the Middle East at the same time as it has remained silent on options in respect of the quartet proposals on US withdrawal. Will the Minister agree that in terms of securing a balanced foreign and security policy the most serious implications could be drawn from the bad faith involved in that regard? Some 156 Deputies and MEPs have signed Amnesty's petition. There are 1,600 parliamentarians around the world, including the United Nations.

The armaments industry is alive and well in the European Union.

At the same time, there is a shortfall in terms of diplomacy. Deputy Deasy and I noted, when in a remote part of Africa called Karamojo, where people are being slaughtered, that spears had given way to AKs. Often there is not even a single weapons producing factory in the countries on the receiving end, which is an obscenity.

The whole world is engaged in the armaments industry.

That does not make it a good thing.

That is only one side of the European Union and its role on the international stage. The European Union is the largest contributor to humanitarian assistance in the Middle East.

That is never acknowledged. Generally speaking, in commentary on Europe, there is an over-tendency to portray Europe as a militaristic entity whereas it is possibly the best global entity around——

That is not the point.

——in terms of conflict resolution and humanitarian aid and so on. I accept the premise behind the Deputy's question in terms of the treaty and so on.

From our perspective, the European Union has been a major driver in getting the arms trade treaty to the point at which it is now. Only recently, the code of conduct of arms export was upgraded to the status of common position. This means that armament companies in the EU are already in compliance with one of the strictest export regimes in the world. Again, a whole range of separate criteria must be taken into account, including the effect an arms transfer could have on a country of final destination. European countries must abide by approximately eight criteria in this regard.

That said, the UK, which has a substantial Defence Ministry, has been to the fore on this issue. The defence industry in the UK supports the introduction of an arms trade treaty. We will work with our partners in Europe to achieve the strongest possible treaty but the talks will be complex and protracted. Some of the larger states——

Does the Minister favour an end-use requirement where the responsibility would fall on the producer as seller?

We are not taking a predetermined position. We will wait to see how the talks unfold and evolve.

Does the Minister accept — this is a serious question in terms of the future Lisbon referendum — that one of the main reasons the referendum on Lisbon was lost is the European Union's spending on arms? The Minister will have to deal with this elephant in the room given this is a major issue for voters, in particular female voters who were disgusted with EU spending on the arms industry.

Does the Minister agree, in terms of arms and human rights, that white phosphorous bombs, which were used in Gaza, should be banned internationally? Cluster munitions were also used in Gaza. Does the Minister agree that these type of weapons should be banned from the face of the earth?

Yes, I do. They are appalling weapons that visited huge injuries on the civilian population in Gaza.

With regard to the Deputy's comment on the European Union, member states historically, long before the European Union, have been involved in the arms trade and industry. That is a fact we knew before we joined the European Union.

The key issue in terms of our participation in the European Union is that no obligations are placed on us, that we have full freedom to exercise options and choices and that we can move the European common foreign policy towards an active engagement with the world that is positive and focused on conflict resolution, humanitarian assistance, developing democracies and good value systems in areas of conflict. Europe has been spectacularly successful on this front. There is no other entity in the world that has been as effective and successful as the European Union in terms of ending conflict and creating harmony. There is no question about that.

We must be mindful that peacekeeping armies and troops need equipment and facilities to be effective peacekeepers. That said, I am also mindful of what the Deputy has said. Certainly, that image of the European Union has been portrayed but it is not a fair or balanced one. There is another side to the story that does not get articulated to the same degree. Perhaps that is the fault of the European Union and others, but it needs to be said.

The spending is in the treaty.

UN Conventions.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

8 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Ireland will ratify the UN Convention against Corruption. [5223/09]

The United Nations Convention against Corruption was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its 58th session in October 2003. Ireland was among the first states to sign the convention when it was opened for signature in December 2003. The convention entered into force two years later on 14 December 2005.

Ireland of course intends to ratify this convention. It is a very broad and comprehensive treaty which seeks to promote integrity, accountability and proper management in public affairs. It provides for internationally recognised measures to prevent and combat corruption. It also seeks to support and facilitate international co-operation and technical assistance in the prevention of, and the fight against, corruption.

Before we become a party to a treaty, it is necessary to ensure that the necessary domestic legislation and administrative arrangements are in place. This is to ensure Ireland can fully comply with all the provisions of the agreement.

The issue of enabling domestic legislation with regard to this convention is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and other Departments, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has examined the text of the convention and identified the legislation that is required to give effect to its provisions. The Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, provides for certain necessary measures. The remaining legislative requirements, concerning bribery of foreign public officials and protection for whistleblowers, will be dealt with in the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008, which completed its Dáil Second Stage on 30 October 2008 and is due to commence Committee Stage shortly. The Minister for Justice is satisfied that once the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill is enacted, it will be possible for us to proceed to the ratification of the convention.

I would of course wish to see Ireland ratify this treaty as soon as possible. The timing of our ratification will depend to a large extent on the progress of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008 through the Oireachtas.

It was a year ago, on 6 February 2008, that I last asked about this issue and I welcome the fact progress is being made. However, in the February 2008 reply, the Minister said there were some legal and administrative issues that arose with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Can I take it that, with the passing of the legislation to which the Minister has just referred, we will within the current Dáil session ratify this convention?

I have been assured by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his Department that this is the case.

Given the current exposure of fraudulent activity in the banking system in this country, it would be timely if Ireland were to ratify this convention. It would assist our international reputation and would be seen as decisive action by the Government, as well as sending out the correct signal in terms of domestic public confidence here in Ireland. Will the Minister clarify whether there is any delay or reluctance on the part of the Government in case some of its friends in the banking sector might become exposed on ratification of the treaty?

The latter point is a rather silly one to make. It is a matter for the Oireachtas. I take the Deputy's points——

It is not a silly point. We are all hearing about the golden circle.

It is not silly any longer.

The Bill is on Committee Stage in the Oireachtas and is a matter for the Houses. If it is that urgent, the Deputy can also play a role.

The Minister is in Government, not me.

The Bill is on Committee Stage in the Oireachtas.

I welcome the Minister's response in regard to the UN Convention against Corruption. I encourage the Minister to move on to Committee Stage.

Does the Minister accept that corruption is a very serious issue both nationally and internationally? As we have seen in recent weeks, corruption causes major problems in our banking institutions but also, in other countries, it leads to bribery in the arms industry, as I mentioned earlier, which is a major issue that leads to deaths, conflicts and worse. This is not just a windy convention but a very important one.

I agree 100% with that point. The other point I would make is that when one is ratifying a convention, it should be done properly. Any country that is ratifying should make sure it is dotting its i's and crossing its t's, and that there is an exhaustive examination of what the convention entails and its application to various legislative requirements, to ensure one is actually ratifying it sincerely as opposed to just declaring oneself to be ratifying something. This is the approach we have taken. It has taken a bit longer than I would have liked but we are getting to the end position. It will be an effective and important additional legislative measure to combat corruption, particularly in the international context, as the Deputy has outlined.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share