Vol. 734 No. 2
6 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will formally contact the Israeli Government and request the free and safe passage of the forthcoming international peace flotilla, in which an Irish ship is participating, bound for Gaza with much needed aid and international solidarity for its beleaguered population; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13924/11]
Ireland's long-standing concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza is well known. The slight relaxation in the blockade in the past year has been completely insufficient. We recognise that Israel is entitled to prevent the transport of weapons and genuinely military materials into Gaza, and to check cargoes in this context, but other goods should not be impeded. Along with our EU partners, we continue to press for a full opening up of the border crossings into Gaza to allow unimpeded flows of humanitarian aid, and normal commercial and human traffic.
We will continue to press the Israeli Government to do all possible to facilitate those wishing to transport humanitarian goods to Gaza, and in particular to avoid any repetition of the unacceptable use of force against last year's flotilla. I recognise the essentially humanitarian motivations which gave rise to last year's Gaza flotilla, and also to the further flotilla now being planned. However, my Department's essential advice remains that people should not attempt to sail to Gaza, and certainly should not attempt to break through a naval blockade of the kind which Israel has imposed on Gaza. I am deeply concerned that there is real potential for a similar disastrous outcome this year. I cannot support a project which would involve Irish citizens engaging in actions which could lead them into danger. The United Nations Secretary General Ban has also called on Governments to discourage such flotillas, which clearly have the potential to escalate into violence.
Finally, the port of Gaza can never handle more than a fraction of the territory's needs, so the only real solution is the full opening of the land crossing points. I repeat the EU's call on Israel to do that, so that there would be no need for actions such as the planned flotilla.
The Minister is aware that nine activists were brutally killed in last year's flotilla by the Israeli forces in an attack that was rightly condemned by the House in an all-party motion. It condemned the Israeli assault on the first peace flotilla and, rightly, described the blockade of Gaza by Israel as an illegal act, yet the blockade continues and continues to visit appalling suffering on the people of Gaza.
The refusal of the Israeli authorities to allow water treatment plants and sewerage treatment plants to be constructed means that 80 million litres of sewage is being pumped into the Mediterranean Sea on a daily basis. A total of 85% of the waters around Gaza which belong to the people of Gaza are restricted and Palestinians trying to enter those waters are shot at regularly, as well as the ongoing humanitarian crisis and the destruction of the infrastructure in that territory as a result of the previous Israeli attack.
The reason I remind the House of those facts is because it is in that context that one must ask what is changing to make the situation better. The Tánaiste and this House said it is an illegal blockade, that we want it to end, that the suffering should end, that the attack on the previous flotilla should not have happened and should not be repeated. However, nothing happens. Israel is not sanctioned and its behaviour does not change. In that context is it not right and justified that people of good conscience from dozens of countries across the world would try to breach that blockade to bring aid and solidarity to the people of Gaza because it is an illegal blockade and they need that assistance?
I know the Tánaiste is not doing it for the same reasons but in calling on people not to go, he is echoing what Israel is now calling for in saying it does not want the flotilla to travel. I call on the Tánaiste to insist that the Israeli authorities allow the flotilla through the illegal blockade.
What we and our colleagues in the European Union are insisting on is that the blockade on Gaza be lifted. It is both the Irish Government's and the European Union's view that the blockade of Gaza is unacceptable and counter productive and we have repeatedly called for the unconditional opening of the crossing points to normal movement. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union has stated that in conclusions to its meetings. That view is communicated by our Government, by EU representatives and other member state Ministers to Israel at every opportunity. On the ground, the European Union is engaged with the Palestinian Authority in plans to increase both the physical and administrative capacity on the Palestinian side of the crossing points into Gaza.
I understand entirely the motivation of those who participated in last year's flotilla and I understand the motivation and genuine intent of those who intend to participate in the flotilla this year. However, my Department has a responsibility to provide advice to people who intend to travel, whether by flotilla or however, and that advice must express to people whether we consider there are dangers associated with that travel. We are very clear that this flotilla poses a danger to those travelling on it and we are discouraging people from doing that. In doing that, we echo the view that has been expressed by the UN Secretary General.
The organisers of the Irish ship to Gaza, the Irish leg of the flotilla, contacted the Minister's office a number of weeks ago and sought a meeting to discuss the departing Irish part of the flotilla, but they have received no response. Will the Minister meet the organisers of the Irish ship to Gaza to discuss their trip? Also, when will sanctions be imposed? When will the call for sanctions against Israel for its refusal to lift the blockade be applied? Israel will not change its behaviour or lift its illegal blockade unless Europe — starting with some states in Europe — stands up and says that sanctions must be applied against a state that is flouting international law and human rights.
I will repeat the travel advice the Department has issued in respect of Gaza. The advice states clearly that we advise against all travel to the Gaza Strip, including the waters off Gaza and goes on to explain the reasons for that.
I wish to be very clear that I do not want anything I say to convey in any way the view or impression that the State lends its support to this flotilla. We understand why it is taking place and the motivation of the people involved in it, but we must be very clear on where we stand with regard to support for it. It is not supported by the State and cannot be supported by it.
Will the Minister meet the representatives of the organisers?
I can, perhaps, arrange for officials of my Department to meet them. With regard to what the European Union is doing about Israel, it is clear the blockade on Gaza should be lifted. We must get moving on the talks between Israel and Palestine, which have been stalled for a long period. I was encouraged by what President Obama said in his speech a few days before his arrival in Ireland. When the Taoiseach and I met President Obama, this was one of the issues we discussed with him. We discussed the necessity for both the United States and the European Union to use our good offices to get talks started again and to try and get a settlement to what has been a long, difficult dispute which has caused so much grief. Gaza is very much a central part of that.
7 Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will confirm media reports which have stated that Colonel Gadaffi’s grandchildren were killed in a NATO bombing raid on Libya and if true, if he approves of what is clearly an attempted assassination of the head of State of Libya. [13734/11]
15 Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the way the latest reports of escalations in the war on Libya such as NATO’s bombing of ships in Libya, the sending of troops to Libya, and the news that British and French are sending Apache and other military helicopters to take part in the war in Libya, constitute as conforming with a no-fly zone UN resolution. [13735/11]
42 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which he and his EU and UN colleagues have monitored the situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14080/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 15 and 42 together.
The Government welcomed the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of Resolution 1973 which demanded the immediate establishment of a ceasefire in Libya as well as a complete end to violence and attacks against civilians. Resolution 1973 authorised the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya as well as "all necessary" additional measures in order to help protect civilians. The Government supports the implementation of Resolution 1973 in a manner that is proportionate, targeted and avoids civilian casualties.
Today, civilians in Libya remain under attack by Colonel Gadaffi, including through indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas and the use of cluster munitions. The text of Resolution 1973 specifically authorises member states:
to take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in [Libya]...while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.
NATO has stated that its aerial actions to protect Libyan civilians by disabling the command structure and weapons being used by the regime are entirely in line with the resolution. Troops on the ground are specifically prohibited by the resolution and are not envisaged.
In implementing Resolution 1973, NATO appears to be taking the utmost care to avoid civilian casualties, in stark contrast to the deliberate targeting of civilians by Colonel Gadaffi's forces. I am aware of unconfirmed reports of the death of civilians, including relatives of Colonel Gadaffi, in a NATO bombing raid on Libya in May. The Libyan regime is tightly restricting information from Libya, so it is impossible at present to confirm the truth of such reports. NATO has stated that it regrets any loss of life and emphasised that all NATO targets are military; it does not target individuals. I welcome the assurances already provided that protecting civilians is the sole purpose of military operations now under way and that no actions will be contemplated which are not in strict accordance with the terms of Resolution 1973.
The aim of the current military, political and diplomatic action by the international community is to end the violence and promote a political settlement to the conflict in Libya. There are no circumstances in which one could envisage Colonel Gadaffi being part of this settlement. The vast majority of the Libyan people could not accept Gadaffi continuing as their Head of Government, in light of the violence and repression he has visited upon them and his repeated refusal to comply with Resolutions 1970 and 1973. However, calling for Gadaffi to relinquish power does not amount actively to seeking regime change. Colonel Gadaffi is, of course, the subject of investigation by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court who is now seeking an arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity. Ultimately, it remains for Colonel Gadaffi and those around him to draw their own conclusions and recognise that his regime has no political future in Libya.
In order to increase the diplomatic pressure on Gadaffi, both the United Nations and the European Union have adopted hard-hitting sanctions against the Gadaffi regime. The EU promptly implemented the measures in Resolution 1973 including an assets freeze, arms embargo and travel ban, and later added additional individuals and entities, including investment companies and other institutions linked to the regime. The EU has also been actively involved in diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict and most recently established a technical office in Benghazi to support Libyan efforts to rebuild their society in opposition-held territory. The role of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy Al Khatib in exploring what scope exists for a political resolution to the crisis, beginning with a complete and verifiable ceasefire, is also critical and one which Ireland fully supports.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he is aware of the growing international concern at the NATO operation. UN Security Resolution 1973 was to prevent Gadaffi from using his army or airforce to attack Libyans. It is clear that the international community would support those objectives particularly in the context of the Arab spring that has taken place in neighbouring countries in north Africa and is now spreading throughout the Middle East. The Pan-African Parliament has condemned this. The Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has expressed concern over the objectives of NATO which have moved beyond the scope of the UN resolution. Konstantin Kosachev, spokesperson for the Duma foreign affairs committee in Russia, has expressed grave concerns at the attack which led to the killing of Muammar Gaddafi's 29 year old son and three grandchildren, which any right thinking person would have to condemn because it was an attack on the compound where they reside.
Does the Tánaiste share the concerns of the Russian Parliament, the Russian Prime Minister and the Pan-African Parliament? Does he believe there is consistency when there are numerous UN Security Council resolutions against Israel and international condemnation of Israel but no action? When Irish citizens try to go on a flotilla bringing international aid they are advised not to as they are not supported by the Government. Where is the consistency in approach? Where is the NATO operation against Israel to enforce those resolutions? This is the issue for the international community.
Having seen what has happened since the early part of the year in Libya and in particular at how citizens in Misrata have been attacked by the Gadaffi forces and taking into consideration the difficulties that were encountered with evacuating people from Misrata — to which operation Ireland made a significant financial contribution — nobody can be in any doubt about the way in which the Gadaffi regime has focused its guns on its own civilian population. A series of UN resolutions, particularly Resolution 1973, were designed to protect civilians. That is the objective Ireland supports in a manner that is proportionate, targeted and avoids civilian casualties.
One of the difficulties in forming an assessment of the impact of particular actions is the degree to which there is very little information coming from the Gadaffi-held parts of Libya. As the Deputy will be aware they have closed down the entire communications operation there. It goes without saying that nobody has any desire to see physical harm come to Muammar Gadaffi or any member of his family. That is not the objective of the UN operation. Neither, strictly speaking, is regime change part of that operation.
The Deputy spoke about the Russian response. I understand that Russia has now joined the list of countries stating that Muammar Gadaffi does not have a political future in Libya. They are increasingly trying to play a role in promoting a political resolution. The Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Lavrov, recently met representatives of the Libyan regime and the Libyan transitional national council in Benghazi. President Medvedev has sent a special envoy to hold talks with the Libyan rebels in Benghazi all of which is welcome.
Does the Tánaiste agree that the attack on Libya has gone on much longer than anticipated? President Obama said it would be a matter of days but it is now into months. Imposing sanctions on Syria is surely a better approach than bombing, as they are doing with Libya. We would all like to see the end of the Gadaffi regime, as we would with many leaders in that region. I am not convinced that bombing is the way to resolve problems. Does the Tánaiste not believe that sanctions would be more effective in the long term and cause considerably less hardship?
Along with the Deputy, I welcome the sanctions being imposed on Syria, which has been done at United Nations level and at European Union level. At the most recent Foreign Affairs Council, attended by the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, agreement was reached on those sanctions. In Libya there had been an earlier resolution, Resolution 1970, which essentially imposed sanctions. The problem was that the Gadaffi forces were attacking in a very vicious manner their own civilian population. What does one do when a regime starts bombing?
It is invidious to be drawing distinctions and comparisons. In Libya the Gadaffi forces were bombing their own cities. There is an obligation on the international community at a humanitarian level. The international community cannot allow dictatorial regimes to engage in that level of attack on their own civilian populations. I know many countries have very nasty regimes that deal in a very savage way with people who are protesting and so on. However, when a ruler of a country uses the armed forces of that country to engage in blanket attacks on civilians in his own cities, the international community has an obligation to act in order to protect those civilian populations.
The Tánaiste has put his finger on the issue. What should the international community do when there is obvious civil strife taking place to the extent that has been taking place in recent months and still continues? Does the international community and do we as participants in that thinking stand aside and do nothing or do we try to influence in some way as the Tánaiste has set out? For example there will always be people who will take both sides — sometimes in the same instance. How does one then resolve the problem? Does one presume that by the international community doing nothing the problem will go away or will it be seen to give reassurance to the aggressors that they can continue indefinitely and seek out their own way to resolve any problem or put down any disquiet or civil unrest in a most aggressive fashion?
I ask the Tánaiste whether there is something more the international community could do by way of diplomatic and other pressures to bring about a resolution that will not end up in the enormous loss of life that continues at the moment.
The international community must respond to an issue such as this one in Libya and it must be through the United Nations. This is why this was done by way of a United Nations Security Council resolution, which we support. It needs to be backed up by political and diplomatic work, which is why Ireland supports the work of the special envoy to explore what progress can be made in getting a complete ceasefire, bringing an end to the violence and the conflict, and bringing about the kind of political change for which the citizens of Libya have been calling in much the same way as has happened in the other countries that have been part of the Arab spring — except in this case they were crushed.
8 Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the way Ireland can aid the 165,000 refugees from Western Sahara, who have been living in refugee camps since 1975, who fled escaping Moroccan occupation and who are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. [13728/11]
Saharawi refugees arrived in Algeria in 1975 and 1976 following the escalation of the conflict over Western Sahara. The majority of these are sheltered in camps in the south-western desert province of Tindouf, where the Algerian authorities estimate the current number of refugees at some 165,000. A significant part of the Saharawi population also continues to live in Western Sahara, and many families remain separated.
Basic social services in the camps are provided by the Saharawi "government-in-exile", together with the support of the international aid community. Some of the major organisations on the ground include the World Food Programme, WFP, which provides food assistance, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, which gives assistance in areas including the provision of water, sanitation, health, nutrition and education.
In response to the continuing needs in this protracted humanitarian crisis, I recently authorised €250,000 in funding from Irish Aid for UNHCR's operations in the camps. These funds will be used to support the provision of basic services and to help refugees to maintain contact with their families. In addition to this direct assistance, UN agencies operating throughout the region can also benefit from the UN's Central Emergency Response Fund, CERF, to which Ireland has contributed €81 million since 2006.
Ultimately, of course, the only resolution to the plight of the Saharawi refugees will come with a political settlement between Morocco and Western Sahara. Ireland has a long-standing policy of support for the right to self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara. We remain strongly supportive of the UN's role and the efforts of UN Secretary General's Special Envoy, Christopher Ross, in trying to promote a political dialogue and settlement and earnestly encourage both Morocco and the Polisario, which I met recently, to engage constructively during talks scheduled to take place next week in New York.
I have also been engaged in talks with the various parties to this conflict. I met Polisario on a number of occasions and also representatives of the Moroccan embassy. I had made contact with the Algerian embassy in London. It appears this conflict can be resolved with a bit of effort. It is difficult in that the Saharawi people clearly have a right to self-determination. Morocco, which presides over much of the land of Western Sahara, is a monarchy and is undergoing considerable reform at present. Many of the Moroccan people who live in the northern provinces have an affinity with and roots in Western Sahara. This region was devastated by colonialism historically by the French and Spanish who, like the British throughout the world, clearly divided and conquered and left behind a devastating legacy that lasts to the present day.
I appreciate the comments and commitments of the Minister of State on this matter. We should make whatever contribution we can based on our own departmental officials' experience of our peace process. I will be happy to give whatever humble assistance I can and engage with the various protagonists. In fairness to the Department of Foreign Affairs, it is much more eminently qualified than I am and has many more resources and contacts than I do. The conflict can be resolved with focused effort. We need to address the human rights concerns. I ask the Minister of State to utilise whatever resources are available to reach a conclusion.
I agree with the Deputy Mac Lochlainn that Ireland has consistently supported the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. A meeting is scheduled for next week with Mr. Christopher Ross in New York. Ireland will continue, through the dialogue the Deputy described, to support the ongoing process. There is a blockage at present with regard to a referendum on self-determination and strong efforts are being made internationally to address that problem. We hope the talks next week will be successful. I agree with the Deputy that Ireland has a very strong record on finding solutions to its very difficult problems. I am sure we can help in the international field in this regard.
I commend the Minister of State on her response to this issue and her spirited defence of those who have been attacking the Irish Aid programme in recent times. Given the importance of bringing home to the Irish people the seriousness of circumstances in many locations, such as Western Sahara, where Irish aid is being provided, will she and the Minister for Foreign Affairs consider undertaking a number of visits to critical locations around the world so we can emphasise again to the Irish the importance of maintaining the aid budget, notwithstanding the difficulties we are experiencing?
We are in tune with the Irish people when we defend the Irish Aid programme. When the US President, Mr. Obama, was here, he said we are very much known for what we do through our development programmes, which are supported on all sides of the House.
I am planning to go to Africa, namely Malawi and Mozambique.
Can I go too?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has been engaging with the United States with regard to various international issues. We certainly intend to be strong in our work on this matter. I acknowledge all previous Governments have played a very strong role in regard to aid. Ireland's record is really excellent and its aid programme has been assessed as being the fifth most effective in the world.
I agree with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl. I have asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to engage in talks on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and I welcome his raising the matter with the President of the United States when he was here. There is much cynicism about international travel but we can make no apologies for it if it concerns international aid. We must have the full support of the House in terms of the Minister of State engaging proactively in trade missions and furthering Ireland's fantastic role. Ireland has had a great track record in international affairs and interventions having learned from its own experience of conflict. It has used its respect and standing in this regard positively.
There have been attacks on Ireland's reputation recently, and we began this session talking about them. Ireland's reputation with regard to conflict resolution and human rights is second to none. Ireland has had wonderful civil servants over the years. I urge the Minister of State to lead from the front using recent experience of Ireland's own conflict and others. She will have the full support of Members on this side of the House when travelling as much as she can throughout the world to promote the aforementioned message and when engaging in trade missions.
Without being at all cynical, I ask that the Minister of State invite the press on foreign visits. It is very important that it knows what the money is being spent on.
There will be some members of the press travelling with us and we intend to get the message to the people of Ireland. I acknowledge strongly the support of Members throughout the House on these issues. I agree the aid programme will constitute a key part of Ireland regaining its international reputation.
9 Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will open an embassy in Indonesia which will have both an aid and trade function as initiated by his predecessor. [13917/11]
38 Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will open any new embassies or consulates this year. [13916/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 38 together.
Decisions relating to the size and scale of the Irish diplomatic network are matters for consideration by the Government. The scale and presence of the Irish diplomatic network is being considered, along with all aspects of my Department's operations, as part of the Government's comprehensive review of expenditure. Given the current budgetary situation and recognising the role that our diplomatic network is playing in Ireland's economic recovery, adjustments to our diplomatic network will continue to be strategically focused. In short, all our missions abroad must continue to deliver benefits for Ireland and must do so in a manner that represents good value for money.
I assure the Deputies that my objective is to optimise the capability of Ireland's diplomatic network overseas to promote our key objectives abroad, especially support for our economic recovery. This is a key priority for me and one that I stressed yesterday when I addressed the conference of ambassadors being held in my Department. Any expansion of our diplomatic network can only be undertaken against this background, as I am sure the Deputies will appreciate. At the same time, any proposals to reduce the network must be considered in the same light and balance any potential financial savings that could be achieved against the operational and reputational costs that would be incurred, including writing off investments made over years in the bilateral relationships with the countries in question. At a time when we need as much international support as possible, it is important to get these decisions right.
Ireland has actively developed diplomatic relations with Indonesia since their establishment in 1984. Our diplomatic relations are maintained on a non-resident basis through our embassy in Singapore and through our Irish Honorary Consul based in Jakarta. While Indonesia may not be a priority country under the Government's strategy for trade, tourism and investment to 2015, Irish companies, supported by the embassy and State agencies in Singapore, have been meeting with some business success in areas such as telecommunications, software and education services. Resources are not available at present to establish a resident embassy in Indonesia but the embassy and State agencies in Singapore will continue to support actively Irish companies wishing to do business with and in Indonesia.
I regret the Tánaiste's response on this matter because I am aware some considerable work had been done by his predecessor in advancing the idea of developing an embassy in Indonesia. I raised the matter in the context of the Asia strategy which, as he is aware, was brought forward in 1999 and has proved particularly effective in building business and political contacts for us in the Asia-Pacific region.
If I am correct, the second phase of that Asia strategy, which was from 2005 to 2009, succeeded in driving up Irish exports to the region to approximately €11 billion, more than €2 million ahead of target. It would seem that this is one of those locations where it is very much in the national interest that we would do some work and try to establish an embassy in Indonesia. There is also an aid aspect to our possible involvement in Indonesia.
In normal circumstances and if we had the resources, I believe we would be establishing a resident embassy in Indonesia but we are working in the current circumstances within very severe financial constraints and we have to make the most of what we have. We are in any event examining our total diplomatic and embassy network in the context of the comprehensive spending review. We may make decisions arising from that. The position in Indonesia and our interests in Indonesia are catered for from Singapore. I do not propose to change that in the short term but it is something I will keep under review.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
