Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 2011

Vol. 738 No. 3

Other Questions

Human Rights Issues

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

13 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the dramatic increase in political prisoners in North Korea’s political prison camps, which, according to Amnesty International, now hold 200,000 persons; and his intentions to address this crisis. [20088/11]

The human rights situation in North Korea has been described by the UN special rapporteur for North Korea as "abysmal". The general population of North Korea faces violent political and religious persecution, collective punishment, torture and arbitrary execution perpetrated by the North Korean authorities. In addition, citizens of North Korea are victims of chronic food shortages and grossly inadequate public services. In his most recent report, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea addressed the use of political correction camps, collection centres and labour camps to imprison political critics of the government. The special rapporteur believes that gross and systemic human rights violations take place regularly in these facilities and cites evidence of poor living standards and a lack of medical care for those imprisoned.

The promotion of respect for human rights is a cornerstone of foreign policy for Ireland and the European Union. Ireland played an active role in the drafting of the UN General Assembly resolution on North Korea last year which called on the North Korean authorities to meet their obligations as a member state of the United Nations to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to fulfil their obligations under the international agreements to which they are a signatory. Ireland also contributed to the drafting of the recent resolution at the Human Rights Council concerning the situation in North Korea and the European Union used its introductory statement to reiterate its concern at the authorities poor human rights record and the lack of any reform.

Senior officials from my Department had the opportunity to express our concerns about human rights and other matters, such as nuclear non-proliferation, directly to the North Korean ambassador when he visited Dublin last November. We will continue to communicate our concerns to the North Korean Government regarding the human rights situation in North Korea in our bilateral contacts and through the European Union and United Nations. I take this opportunity to call upon the North Korean authorities to co-operate fully with the United Nations special rapporteur and wider international community in their efforts to assist the people of North Korea.

I thank the Tánaiste for his response. The information emerging from North Korea is horrific. Respected international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and the US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea are starting to report the stories of former prisoners and, in some cases, prison wardens who have managed to escape the country. I propose to cite an article published in The Guardian in which a lady who was imprisoned in one of these terrible places recounted her experiences. She states:

There were about 1,000 women in our cabin and we were so squashed together we had to sleep with our legs interlocking. We had rice husks to eat and had to work cutting down trees and dragging the timber back with chains. When it got really cold in winter, five or six women would die every day and the other prisoners would have to carry the bodies out. I still dream about that.

This is an appalling case. The North Korean Government refuses access to such camps, whose existence its denies despite aerial photographs showing they are growing in number. North Korea poses a dilemma in that international organisations are repeatedly obliged to provide food assistance directly to the regime because they cannot abandon the poor people of the country. What action can Ireland take at United Nations and European Union level? What interventions can we make with the North Korean Government to end the abominations and crimes against humanity taking place in that country?

I concur with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. North Korea is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. It denies even the most basic of human rights to its citizens. Services such as health care and education appear to be allocated according to loyalty to the regime, there is no freedom of press or religion and the judiciary is neither impartial nor independent. One also has the issue of punishment camps and the treatment of prisoners in these camps.

As Deputy Mac Lochlainn noted, there is a dilemma regarding the provision of aid. Ireland provides aid through non-governmental organisations which are working in North Korea because of the appalling food shortages in the country. At the same time, we continue, through the United Nations and bilaterally, to communicate our abhorrence at what is happening under the North Korean regime and to work for an improvement in human rights. As the Deputy will be aware, Ireland will seek election to the Human Rights Council next year. This is one of the areas of human rights to which we intend to give priority.

Foreign Conflicts

Joe Higgins

Question:

14 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has made representations to the Israeli Government regarding the safe passage of the recent Irish flotilla to Gaza. [18580/11]

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

15 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the sabotage of at least two ships in the international flotilla to Gaza, including an Irish ship, and the actions of the Greek authorities in preventing other ships from the flotilla from departing from Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20109/11]

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

21 Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has had any recent contacts with the Israeli authorities. [20098/11]

Gerry Adams

Question:

33 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has been in contact with the Israeli authorities regarding the sabotage of the Irish aid ship the MV Saoirse to Gaza. [20097/11]

Sandra McLellan

Question:

38 Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has received a report in relation to the sabotage of the MV Saoirse; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20099/11]

Pearse Doherty

Question:

43 Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the way he interprets comments made by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, leader of the Israeli group Shurat HaDin, whose stated objective is stemming the flow of money to terrorists, that it had been working for months to obstruct the flotilla by threatening legal action against any group that helped them in the US, Europe and Asia. [20089/11]

Sandra McLellan

Question:

45 Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will raise the sabotage of the Irish aid ship MV Saoirse to Gaza with other EU leaders. [20100/11]

With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will take Questions Nos. 14, 15, 21, 33, 38, 43 and 45 together.

As I have made clear to the House, prior to the anticipated sailing of the flotilla I made clear to the Israeli authorities my insistence that any interception of the flotilla must ensure the safety of Irish citizens, and indeed other peaceful participants, on board. This message was conveyed through diplomatic channels and by me personally to the Israeli ambassador and to a visiting senior official of the Israeli foreign ministry, who I asked to make their Government aware of my views.

When reports were received of the damage to the MV Saoirse, operated by the Irish participants in the intended flotilla, I made clear my view that it would be a matter in the first instance for the authorities in the port in Turkey to investigate any claims of deliberate sabotage, but that if such claims were substantiated by the Turkish authorities this would be a matter of serious concern, especially if the lives of those on board might have been endangered.

I made this clear in public and, again, I conveyed the same message personally to the Israeli authorities.

As I have also told the House, however, the Irish Embassy in Ankara has been in contact with the Turkish authorities and has reported to me the latter's view, based on a coastguard examination of the damaged vessel, that the boat was not sabotaged. There has therefore been no basis for raising the matter with my EU colleagues, or making a further approach to the Israeli authorities.

I have myself indicated that, while I respected the intentions and objectives of those intending to participate, I could not support a venture whereby citizens intended to place themselves at risk. I understand that the actions of the Greek Government in preventing ships from sailing from Greece to Gaza were motivated by a concern to avoid risk to human life.

As regards the reported actions or statements of the NGO Shurat HaDin, a number of NGOs in Israel and elsewhere are reported to have made various claims in relation to the planned flotilla. We are not in a position to assess whether there is a factual basis to any of these claims.

I will be taking Deputy Higgins's question also, if that is okay.

Just take your own question, Deputy. Just ask a question.

I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's response. The people involved in the flotilla and their supporters will be very disappointed with that response, as they are angry at the collusion with the Greek authorities and, they believe, the collusion of all European political leaders with Israel, in preventing this peace flotilla reaching the beleaguered people of Gaza with aid and solidarity.

Why did the Minister ask the Israeli authorities merely not to injure people during an interception of the flotilla rather than ask them not to intercept the flotilla but to allow it free and safe passage to breach an immoral and illegal siege that has been causing immense suffering for the people of Gaza for several years? That is what many people and I believe the Minister should have asked them. Why did the Minister not ask them simply not to intercept the flotilla?

I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's response to the sabotage allegations. It is not true, as the Minister said, that the Turkish authorities have stated they do not believe the damage was caused by sabotage. This is based on a report from a newspaper that was put out a few hours after the official investigation by the Turkish authorities in Turkey began. The report has since been recycled in the press across the world. An official investigation is going on, with which the flotilla participants are co-operating, and which has not concluded. How can the Minister state that the Turkish authorities have concluded there was not sabotage when the official investigation has not concluded?

Has the Minister not seen the evidence of sabotage? I have, and the media in Ireland have seen it. Two boats in different ports were damaged in exactly the same way and in a way that, had the damage not been detected, would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of life of Irish citizens and others. The boats were damaged in exactly the same way in two different ports, one in Turkey and one in Greece. This is cast iron evidence of sabotage. I ask the Minister to look at the evidence.

Deputy Boyd Barrett was not in the House when I answered the serious questions raised about the Government's response to the Palestinian issue, the occupation that is taking place in Palestine, the blockade of Gaza and the efforts we are making to bring about a resolution to that. It is claptrap to talk about collusion by the Irish State with Israel. The Government is working constructively to find a solution to a long-standing problem. I hope, as part of that, we will be able to support recognition of a Palestinian state.

It is typical of Deputy Boyd Barrett to be more interested in the protest than in the Palestinians.

The only issue he seems to be concerned about is the protest. With regard to the protest, I made my position clear. The travel advice provided by my Department was consistent with the travel advice we provide to anyone going into dangerous circumstances. I was hugely conscious of the actions that took place last year, and which I condemn. I met the organisers of the Irish group in the flotilla and on two separate occasions I raised the matter with the Israel authorities, once with the ambassador and once with a representative of the Israeli Government, and made clear our view that we did not want a repeat of last year and that the safety of those participating in the flotilla must be ensured.

When we got reports of damage to the MV Saoirse we asked for a report of what had happened to it. I have told the House what the Turkish authorities reported in relation to that. If Deputy Boyd Barrett has evidence other than what I have given I ask him to produce it and I will have it investigated.

I accept the Minister's point about the Palestinian campaign for recognition. Throughout the decades, Irish Governments have played a constructive role there. However, I am stunned to learn that it is the position of the State that the investigation has concluded and that no sabotage to the MV Saoirse took place. I do not accept that.

Like Deputy Boyd Barrett, I have seen the evidence of sabotage. A man I know to be of the highest integrity, a fisherman called Pat Fitzgerald from Waterford, has clearly outlined that the damage to the propeller shaft would have to have been man-made. Almost identical damage was done to a sister-ship in the flotilla. The Minister has asked for evidence. He should meet the campaign group, Irish Ship to Gaza. I am sure they would arrange a delegation of some of the flotilla participants to produce the evidence to the Minister and explain why it had to have been man-made.

I am shocked that a spokesperson for the Turkish authorities, after a cursory examination, could make a pronouncement that sabotage did not take place.

There is a state that held the Palestinian people under military occupation for all of these years. It was responsible for the slaughter of 1,500 people in Gaza. It has caused a massive humanitarian crisis which every human rights organisation in the world has condemned. It murdered nine peace activists on a flotilla last year. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that state is not capable of sabotage of two boats to prevent the completion of a mission that would have been deeply embarrassing to that state?

I implore the Minister to meet a delegation and look at the evidence himself. I trust his integrity. I ask him to look at the evidence and make up his own mind.

I do not have to be invited to do that at all because on the very day that we received the report that there was damage to the MV Saoirse, we asked for the matter to be investigated. The investigation had to be carried out by the Turkish authorities because the vessel was in one of their ports. I am not telling the Deputy what I believe nor am I offering him an opinion. I am relating the report that came back to us. If somebody else has evidence, which contradicts that, we will ask to have that investigated. I made it clear on the day we received the report about the vessel that if there was sabotage, we would take a serious view of that.

I am genuinely not trying to score political points but I was disappointed with the Minister's answer. In reply to a written parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, the Minister stated: "I have no grounds on which to dispute these views or to demand a further investigation." That is why I expressed disappointment. There is no evidence to support the claim that this matter has been investigated. Who in the Turkish Government told the Minister that this matter had been investigated and it was concluded that this was not sabotage? On what basis were the conclusions drawn? Did he inquire about the nature of the investigation that led them to these conclusions? The official investigation involving the coast guard had only begun hours before the report that it was not sabotage appeared in a newspaper. It has not even concluded and, therefore, how the Turkish authorities could conclude it was not sabotage is beyond me. From whom and on what basis have they given the Minister this information?

He got somewhat annoyed when I referred to the collaboration between European governments. Why did the Government and other European governments say to Israel "Just do not do any harm to anybody when you are intercepting the flotilla", which is more or less what the Minister said earlier, instead of saying to them "Do not intercept the flotilla because these are peaceful activists bringing aid to people who are unfairly and brutally besieged"? That is what anybody would expect our Government and European governments to say because the siege is wrong. My interest is in the lifting of the siege and not in the protest. I became involved in politics having visited the Palestinian occupied territories at the beginning of the first intifada. The appalling plight of the Palestinians and the failure of western governments to do anything about it motivates me.

First, I do not rely on newspaper reports. The report I received was from the Irish Embassy, which had been in contact with the Turkish authorities who reported the view they had concluded based on the coast guard examination. If the Deputy has information and evidence other than that, we will look at it. This is my third time to repeat that and if it transpires that there was sabotage, we will take a serious view of that.

Second, if I had not raised at all with the Israeli authorities concerns about the safety of the people intending to travel in the flotilla, I would happily say that the Deputy had grounds for criticism of the Government. However, on two occasions I made clear directly to the Israeli authorities that we were concerned about the safety of Irish people in the flotilla and what we expected by way of response, which confirmed a view that was pursued through diplomatic channels. The Government has been actively engaged for a long time in seeking a just solution to the Middle East conflict and in respect of the hugely difficult conditions that the Palestinian people have to live under.

It would serve that cause and, ultimately, the Palestinian people better if, occasionally, the Deputy expressed a little support in the House for the effort the Government is making in this regard rather than making wild and unsubstantiated allegations of collusion with this, that and the other one.

A delegation from the Irish ship sailing to Gaza has produced video evidence and so on. Will the Minister consider an independent examination of the evidence they produce? All it would take is someone with naval engineering experience. I am confident that this was sabotage of the propeller shaft. The Minister is well aware of the implications. It was devious sabotage because it would have caused a failure at sea by forcing the shaft up into the hull, forcing the boat to take on water and sink. It was a most malicious and devious form of sabotage. Will the Minister accept a presentation of evidence to him on this matter? If so, will he have it independently examined if it turns out the Turkish authorities are holding to the position he outlined?

If any Deputy wants to bring evidence to my attention, I will have it examined. The standard way to assess damage to vessels in a port is to have it investigated by the port authorities and the authorities of the country in which it takes place.

Undocumented Irish

Denis Naughten

Question:

16 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress made to date on resolving the issue of undocumented Irish in the USA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19971/11]

Addressing the position of the undocumented Irish and reforming our migration arrangements with the United States are important priorities for the Government in its relationship with the US Administration and Congress. The inclusion of Ireland in an amended reciprocal E3 visa scheme, which would allow Irish people with a certain level of education to work in the US on a two-year renewable visa, is the most effective way of creating new opportunities for Irish citizens in the USA. However, this scheme alone would not provide a solution to the undocumented Irish issue. The most realistic long-term solution for our undocumented citizens remains comprehensive immigration reform.

The Taoiseach and I discussed the question of the undocumented with President Obama when we met with him on 23 May in Dublin. Responding to our concerns, the President expressed his interest in achieving progress on immigration issues, a view he had earlier outlined in a major address on the issue on 10 May. Most recently, I raised these issues with Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate judiciary committee when I met him in Dublin on 3 June.

The introduction of a new Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate on 22 June last was a welcome development. This Bill, which has been brought by senior Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez, is similar to that introduced in the previous Congress and, once again, includes provision for a new E3 visa for Ireland. While Senator Menendez has indicated that in circulating the Bill he aimed to provide a framework around which a debate and negotiations can happen, the continued inclusion of the E3 for Ireland in the Bill represents an important achievement for the Government and the Irish community.

However, while I am encouraged by my discussions and by developments in Congress I remain aware of the enormous political challenges that face efforts to pass immigration-related legislation at the current time. All avenues will be explored by the Government in the search for a solution to this difficult issue.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He has been passionate about this issue for a while. Many families on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean are sad because of the restriction and the inability to travel. I wonder whether the Minister would consider seeking an informal amnesty with the US authorities. We could perhaps have an amnesty for undocumented Irish people living in the United States for five years or more. Many of them have children and they participate in family and community life. If an amnesty could be secured for such people they would be able to participate in a fuller way by paying their taxes and making a wider contribution to the US economy. Is that something the Tánaiste would consider?

The suggestion has been raised with us by the group, Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, ILIR. The idea is that an administrative waiver would be applied to undocumented people who are in the United States and who otherwise would qualify for a visa. However, they would have to return home in order to make an application. The issue is being pursued by us. The ambassador in Washington has been and is pursuing the issue. We are in contact with him in that regard.

I am grateful to the Tánaiste for his reply.

EU Presidency

Seán Ó Fearghaíl

Question:

17 Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his plans for Ireland’s Presidency of the EU in 2013; if he has identified his priorities for the EU Presidency in 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20077/11]

Ireland will assume the Presidency of the European Union during the first six months of 2013. The Government has placed emphasis on its goal of enhancing Ireland's reputation in Europe and more widely, and of thorough engagement with the Union's agenda. The 2013 Presidency falls perfectly within this and can be a mobilising element in that process. Preparations for Ireland's Presidency during the first six months of 2013 have been under way since 2010. Planning is being co-ordinated by two interdepartmental groups which are chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. One group is focusing on policy preparations and the second group is working on logistics planning. I will chair the next meeting of the first group, the policy interdepartmental group tomorrow morning with officials from all Departments.

A Presidency programme is built to a large extent on proposals and policies already under consideration in the Union. We will therefore pay close attention to the plans and work of the new Polish Presidency and the Danish and Cypriot presidencies in 2012, as well as to the Commission's work programme for 2012. Departments are currently identifying areas of work that are likely to figure prominently on the EU agenda during the Presidency and those which we could seek to prioritise. Discussions at a political level between Ministers, our partners and the EU institutions are taking place in parallel with this process.

A non-exhaustive list of issues that are likely to figure prominently on Ireland's Presidency agenda include the next multi-annual financial framework, and reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, as well as more broadly the economic and financial situation, employment creation and promotion of European competitiveness. These are all policy areas of broad importance to the EU and member states, including this country, and we look forward to working closely with partners to progress these issues.

I wish the Minister of State and all involved success. This country has distinguished itself in the past in terms of the manner in which it has conducted its Presidency. This is the first time we will be taking part in the post-Lisbon arrangement of a trio of presidencies over an 18 month period so perhaps the Minister of State will inform us about the degree of interaction between her and her opposite numbers in Lithuania and Greece. Should we consider ourselves somewhat unfortunate that we are included with Greece as one of the trio of countries to work out the 18 month plan?

Could the Minister of State also outline the administrative structures that have been put in place across the three member states in order to co-ordinate the approach to adopt? I agree in principle with the priorities the Minister of State set out for us. Of particular importance to us will be the work in the area of the review of the Common Agricultural Policy and also the multi-annual financial framework programme which is unlikely to be finalised at the end of 2012. It is quite likely to extend into our period. Does the Minister of State consider that is something which would ultimately be to our benefit?

I thank the Deputy for his good and relevant questions. The structure has changed. One of the key features in the new arrangements for the Presidency of the European Union is the key role of the European Parliament. That is something that is new. We are very cognisant of that. One of the things all Cabinet Ministers are doing at a very early stage is meeting with their counterparts in the European Parliament, particularly with the chairs of relevant committees. As the Deputy is aware, since the extension of co-decision to pretty much every policy area, the success of the Presidency is contingent on getting our legislative programme through the European Parliament which means we must have strong and coherent, direct engagement by all Ministers and all levels of officialdom, not just during the Presidency but in the build-up to ensure we have a good working relationship.

This country is the first member state in a trio with Lithuania, which takes over the Presidency directly after us in the second half of 2013 and Greece in the first half of 2014. The Deputy asked about the administrative and logistical co-ordination between the three presidencies. That is happening at a political level. It must also happen at an official level between the three member states. Critically, that is pulled together by the Council. So, for example, when this country sets out its Presidency priorities, it can only be done in the context of the priorities for the trio, in other words, the priorities for the 18 month period. Currently, we are preparing our priorities, in consultation with the other two member states. We then feed them into the Council secretariat which pulls it all together, again, in deep consultation with the member states. There is an important role for the central administration in Brussels.

I advise the Minister of State that we are running out of time. Does Deputy Ó Fearghaíl wish to ask another question?

I am happy to allow the Minister of State to continue.

In terms of the level of political engagement, the Deputy will be aware that recently, on 1 July, the Tánaiste met with his Lithuanian Foreign Minister counterpart in Vilnius to discuss issues of common interest. Naturally, there was a focus on the Presidency in 2013. They agreed to meet again later in the year with the Tánaiste's Greek counterpart Minister for Foreign Affairs to continue the discussion about the joint programme.

I have also met with my counterpart from the Greek Government who is active and constructive. We have had a number of good conversations. Likewise, I have had discussions with my Lithuanian counterpart at the General Affairs Council. Next week we will attend the General Affairs Council as well. The Tánaiste will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. In the autumn I hope to have an opportunity to travel to Lithuania. I hope there will be an opportunity for Ministers to visit this country as well in the run-up to the Presidency trio.

Critically, I also met a month ago with the Secretary General of the European Parliament who will play a very important role. President Buzek was in the country on Monday and Tuesday of this week. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and I discussed the Presidency with him. We are working hard to ensure the Presidency will be successful. It is one of critical importance to the country and it is well under way.

Human Rights Issues

Peadar Tóibín

Question:

18 Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he is concerned by recent opinions voiced by the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations that China’s purchase of Spanish and Greek bonds over the past year, and recent promise to buy from Hungary, have made it a bilateral lender of last resort for politicians in indebted countries and that this has serious implications for Europe’s ability to present a united front to China on issues such as trade reciprocity, climate change and human rights. [20094/11]

The EU fully recognises the challenges it faces to defend its interests and promote its values in a fast changing world, where countries such as China, India and Brazil have emerged as increasingly influential global players. Over the past year, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton has been developing a framework to enable the EU to strengthen its internal coherence in order to engage more effectively with its main strategic partners, taking full advantage of the Lisbon treaty instruments. In particular the European External Action Service is central to the new approach to strategic partners, which involves fewer priorities, greater coherence and a sharper focus on results.

The practice of having all 27 member states voicing common messages in bilateral contacts with partners is important in helping to project the EU as a unitary force. The commercial investment decisions of individual member states do not undermine the efforts of the EU as a collective to pursue its core objectives with international partners. China's size, economic clout and political weight makes it a key strategic partner of the European Union. It is the world's second largest economy and the biggest exporter of manufactured goods.

Trade between the EU and China has risen dramatically in the last decade and the EU is now China's largest trading partner. Strengthening relations with China is a priority of the EU as China offers immense potential for co-operation in the trade, energy, security and development sectors. The partnership is increasingly focused on addressing global challenges in which the EU and China can play a key role in devising effective international responses. In this respect, EU-China relations go beyond a bilateral framework and take on a global dimension. As with all partnerships, it is not without its differences, most notably in the area of trade and investment; the EU is seeking improved market access, a better environment for investment, more effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and the opening up of public procurement. The rule of law and human rights are also important elements in the ongoing dialogue with China.

The EU-China relationship is more important than ever in the current financial and economic climate. The EU welcomes China's emergence as a global power and recognises the considerable contribution it has made to global economic growth. China's dynamic economic growth benefits the EU. The significant investment by China and other countries in Europe is welcome. It demonstrates confidence in the European economy and in Europe's capacity to emerge from its current economic difficulties.

The purchase by China of government bonds is a matter between China and the individual relevant member states.

The Minister will be aware that historically, one of the great concerns of human rights organisations has been the fact that, all too often, commerce was put ahead of human rights concerns, particularly in the case of Europe and the United States. In terms of population, only India can compare with China, which has around 1.4 billion people and is the second-largest economy in the world. It has an important role to play and will have, for God knows how many years to come. However, there are ongoing genuine concerns about human rights in that vast country, as well as about environmental legislation and the need for reciprocal trade agreements. The same rules that apply to China in Europe should apply to European investment in China.

One statistic here is remarkable. According to the European Council on Foreign Relations, China's total investment in Europe was around $1.3 billion five years ago; however, from October 2010 to March 2011, Chinese firms and banks committed $64 billion, which represents an immense increase in influence. One hopes this does not diminish our responsibility to uphold human rights and legitimately question any issues that arise with that country. It is important that we get the balance right.

I accept the points that have been made by the Deputy. It is fair to say that of all global economic blocs, the European Union has been the most consistent in striving to uphold human rights and impress upon the Chinese the need to enhance human rights protection in China. There is, as I mentioned, a wide-ranging dialogue between the EU and China on all sorts of matters, from environment to trade to general economic co-operation. Part of that dialogue is an intensive focus on human rights issues such as freedom of expression, the death penalty, independence of the judiciary, prison conditions, freedom of religion and minority rights. At the latest session of that dialogue, which took place on 16 June in Beijing, the EU again raised its concerns regarding the rights of minorities, forced disappearances and the extra-legal house arrest of government critics, challenging and addressing in a forthright fashion these issues which are of major concern.

However, the world still goes around. There are major economic challenges facing the European Union and individual member states and Ireland, like all other member states, regards China as an important trading partner. While we are trying to use the clout and influence we have to ensure China prioritises these human rights challenges, we cannot afford to place ourselves at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other member states. We must be competitive in vying for trade with China. That is essential to our export sector in particular.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share