Paul Kehoe
Question:84 Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to report at UN level between Israel and Palestine; the EU response to these negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36054/10]
Other Questions
Middle East Peace Process
The direct talks which began in Washington on 2 September continued in two further sessions, in Egypt and Jerusalem, on 14 September and 15 September. The talks involved Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, with very restricted teams on both sides. The United States, usually through Senator Mitchell personally, is present at all sessions as a broker, but not a direct participant. The other members of the Quartet — the United Nations, the European Union and Russia — fully support this effort.
It is the intention of the parties that the progress of the talks should be kept as restricted and confidential as possible, and I respect that as an essential measure if they are to succeed. There has been a serious threat to the continuation of the talks due to the resumption of Israeli settlement construction. It is hoped this can be resolved and that the talks will continue, but this is not yet certain. I dealt with this issue in more detail in reply to the priority question on this subject.
The key issues to be settled are borders — including in respect of Jerusalem and settlements — and security, refugees and water. The initial talks are between Israel and President Abbas as leader of both the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. To reach a comprehensive settlement, Syria and Lebanon would also have to become involved in due course. The question of Gaza, currently under separate Hamas control, would have to be taken into account.
It is intended within one year to reach a framework agreement, with full details being elaborated subsequently. This timetable is ambitious but entirely feasible if there is genuine will on both sides. An outline agreement on borders, which would indicate which settlement blocks might remain part of Israel, would go a long way towards defusing the current serious difficulty over settlement construction. This should compel both parties to make every possible effort, and show all possible restraint, for the comparatively short period required. The prize of lasting peace is of vastly greater significance. I again urge the Israeli Government in particular to renew the moratorium on settlement construction.
As I understand it, both the Palestinians and Israelis accept the two-state solution. Am I correct in saying that?
As with our experience in Northern Ireland, it is a question of achieving a basic understanding and sticking to that. Surely there are times when we must keep working towards acceptance of one particular fact. I would be horrified to see the talks collapsing when there is agreement on the basic principle. I am interested to hear whether the Minister believes enough is being made of the fact that the agreement already exists.
The fundamental lesson to be drawn from the Northern Ireland peace process is that hurdles were jumped where there was a will on all sides to reach agreement. As I stated in my earlier reply, there is still a significant lack of trust in terms of one side trusting that the other will go the full road towards a solution.
That trust did not exist initially in Northern Ireland.
There was a far greater degree of trust in the Northern Ireland peace process than might have been known about at the time, certainly behind the scenes.
Achieving an agreement is very difficult and there are many challenges and hurdles. That said, the feedback we are receiving suggests both leaders are putting on the table their genuine personal desire to see an outcome. President Abbas has been weakened significantly over the past two years by a variety of incidents. I will not go through all of them again. He has the support of the Arab League and the Arab states, which support is essential. These states make a call in terms of what is possible for him in respect of his ability to emerge from the talks with an outcome.
I have made the point to anybody I have spoken to that every effort should be made to try to make space for the talks to proceed and to allow people to get into detail. I do not disagree with the Deputy in this regard. It is a matter of the United States trying to broker a formula that would keep the two leaders talking.
I made a point on the value of a secretariat in Question No. 80. The Minister has acknowledged it represents a way forward, which I appreciate. His own long list of unfinished business makes the case again for the secretariat. I do not share the Minister's view on the Arab League. The league switches on and off the issue in a fairly intermittent way.
While the talks may be at the point of breakdown in regard to the settlement issue, there were other dimensions, including those the Minister has listed, that could have created some prospect of progress, such as the release of prisoners or addressing the issue on east Jerusalem. Does the Minister agree?
Following on Deputy Barrett's point, there is no agreement on the shape of a contiguous, independent, viable Palestinian state. That is the issue. I repeat that if there is an extension beyond Ma'ale Adumim across the Jordan valley, one will have created such obstacles that there cannot be a contiguous, viable Palestinian state. We have been saying for decades that a two-state solution is the issue but there is no agreement on what is required in terms of an international legal order to establish that. That is where the Arab League could have been more active.
I made a point on the Arab league in the context of supporting President Abbas, not on the wider issues. The Deputy is making the point that the settlements on the ground keep creating new facts on the ground that undermine the principle of having two states. That is the problem and where the issue becomes very difficult. On the Palestinian side, people are saying that, in spite of all the talk of having two states, the reality is different on the ground. Matching the rhetoric and articulation of principles with the reality on the ground is the big challenge and difficulty. That is why President Abbas cannot really move too far forward without the settlement issue being at least temporarily put aside.
What are the Minister's views on the Israeli offer to renew the building freeze in settlements in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the main Jewish state? I know this has been rejected by the Palestinians.
As I stated, I regard the oath of loyalty required of Arabs living in Israel, including Jerusalem, as counter-productive and wrong. It is not helpful in any shape or form.
Rapid Response Initiative
Simon Coveney
Question:85 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will seek an interim agreement at the next meeting of the EU General Affairs Council in setting up a rapid response corps, consisting of existing battle groups, to deal with global humanitarian crises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36024/10]
The question of whether and how military assets and capabilities can best be used in responding to humanitarian emergencies was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council in June in the context of the Union's response to the Haiti earthquake. EU action in response to humanitarian crises is framed in the context of an overall international approach that brings together the United Nations, the Red Cross movement, humanitarian NGOs and others in support of action by the national authorities of the country concerned. There is general agreement that humanitarian assistance should respect the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Accordingly, humanitarian action should be civilian in character and leadership.
However, it is established UN and EU policy that in certain circumstances humanitarian aid may draw upon military assets, notably for logistical and infrastructure support. This would normally occur where there is no comparable civilian alternative and where only the use of military assets can meet a critical humanitarian need. Operating procedures and co-ordination arrangements for military support to EU disaster response have been put in place within the overall framework of humanitarian operations retaining their civilian nature and character.
There is considerable divergence of views among partners on the use and potential effectiveness of battle groups in a humanitarian context — not least because many of their components are not appropriate for disaster relief. This means that a battle group may not be able to provide the necessary capabilities within the timeframe required, even if it is decided that the use of military units is appropriate in the particular circumstances. I am in favour of further consideration of this question among our partners. Ireland's position on this matter is pragmatic and needs-driven. Once it is clear that there is no comparable civilian alternative available to meet a critical humanitarian need, military assets should be deployed be they elements drawn from a stand-by EU battle group or generated for that specific purpose from the member states, whichever is the more appropriate.
Is the Minister aware of the suggestion made by Brigadier General Stefan Andersson, who commands the Nordic Battlegroup 2011, in which Irish troops will take part next year with Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia and will be on standby for rapid deployment in the event of a military crisis, that the EU should consider broadening the range of possible deployments for the battle groups to include natural disasters and humanitarian crises such as the Haiti earthquake? The Brigadier General went on to state that within the Nordic battle group is a medical company, transport, helicopters, tactical aircraft and well trained soldiers who can support those who need support in such situations. I have spoken to people in the Irish Defence Forces who say they are ready, willing, able and capable of being discharged to assist in humanitarian crises and disasters. To fight whom are we keeping this military force on standby when it could be being used to assist in dealing with disasters such as occurred in Pakistan?
The Deputy will be aware that I quoted the Brigadier General's comments at the last meeting of the Joint Committee of European Affairs. I agree with Deputy Barrett. I also agreed with a number of members at the European Foreign Affairs Council that the battle group should be utilised to assist in disasters such as occurred in Haiti. This would be a good demonstration of the importance and relevance of battle groups and justification for the background work that goes into their formation, training and so on. There is no disagreement on this issue.
Does the Minister agree that the title of the group as a battle group has been a disaster?
Hear, hear.
Does he agree that all of the evidence coming from Afghanistan and every other place wherein there is a military presence alongside an aid presence, that aid activity which has been militarised has been a little less than disastrous?
Hear, hear.
Is it not the case, in terms of the review of Haiti, that any real dangers which occur are as a result of there being the slightest prospect of militarisation and that, therefore, humanitarian response and aid requires, if it is to be effective, to be at arm's length distance and observable and transparent to the receiving population?
My response to the Deputy's first question is yes, the name has been a disaster. On the second question, to use the Afghanistan context is not fair in the context of the question being asked because I can foresee situations where the presence of the military can be advantageous to humanitarian assistance. Indeed, it can be indispensable to the provision of humanitarian aid.
Logistics.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.