Vol. 746 No. 2
1 Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reasons he closed the Irish Embassies to the Holy See, Iran and Timor-Leste; the measures he has taken to continue representation there; if and when he informed those countries of the decision to close the embassies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33774/11]
As outlined in my statement on Thursday last, it was with the greatest regret and reluctance that a decision had to be made to close Ireland's embassies to the Holy See and Iran and its representative office in Timor-Leste. This decision is in line with the tough choices that the Government must make to address the current economic challenges that face the country. Our targets under the EU-IMF programme mean that cuts to public expenditure must be made across a wide range of public services, including our diplomatic service. The decision to close the three missions followed a thorough review of the overseas diplomatic network in which particular attention was paid to the promotion of Irish economic interests and the economic return from missions abroad.
The Iranian ambassador and the chargé d'affaires at the Papal Nunciature were informed of the decision shortly before it was announced on Thursday last. Our ambassador in Tehran and our chargé d'affaires to the Holy See subsequently called to the respective foreign Ministries. Our representative in Dili conveyed the news to the foreign Ministry there. The information was received with understandable disappointment, although there was recognition of the severe budgetary pressures Ireland faces and the difficult decisions that have to be made.
Diplomatic relations will be maintained with the three states in question. I assure the Deputy that we intend to continue our active engagement with the Holy See, Iran and Timor-Leste. The Government believes that our relations can be sufficiently dealt with by representation on a non-resident basis. Arrangements are being made to accredit a senior Dublin-based diplomat as ambassador to the Holy See and to accredit an ambassador in the region as ambassador to Iran. Our ambassador to Singapore will continue to be accredited as non-resident ambassador to Timor-Leste.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. When he took office, I congratulated him in the House for developing the concept — it was already in existence — of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our embassies abroad playing a critical role in the area of promoting trade. I am, therefore, concerned about this matter from a number of perspectives. In supporting and actively encouraging the Tánaiste to continue to develop the trade role, I must state that we still have a responsibility to maintain important diplomatic links that are already in place. The Tánaiste made a major decision in respect of this matter. I put it to him that this was the wrong decision. Many people throughout the country — practising Catholics and also those who have a respect for the role the church plays in world affairs — are hurt and offended by the decision relating to our embassy in the Vatican. Will the Tánaiste reconsider the position in respect of this matter? Fianna Fáil would be absolutely committed to re-establishing our embassy presence in the Vatican.
Is the Tánaiste in a position to indicate the extent to which the decision to close these embassies was discussed by the Cabinet? Was it merely rubber stamped? Did the Tánaiste engage with his Ministers of State in respect of it? I am concerned with regard to Iran and the decision to close our embassy there. Iran is extremely important both in the context of world security and with regard to the influence of the Shi'ite Muslim community. There is some €86 million in trade between our two nations and the bulk of this, over €80 million, takes the form of exports from Ireland to Iran.
Our establishment of a presence in Timor-Leste was linked to our development aid role and the question of human rights. The issues which affect that country are as important now as they were in the past.
I accept everything the Deputy said with regard to the desirability of maintaining a resident embassy in each of the three states involved. However, the difficulty is that we are operating in circumstances where, in the first instance, we are obliged to reduce costs. In addition, as a result of the reduction in numbers across the public sector, the number of staff available to the Department is declining. We are, therefore, obliged to focus our operations. It is unfortunate that we cannot maintain all of our resident missions and we have been obliged to make some difficult choices. For example, and in view of the fact that we are due to assume the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in January 2013, we had to decide whether to reduce the number of resident missions in Europe. We have only two resident missions in South America. This is despite the fact that we are involved in a high level of trade there. We also have only a small number of people operating on the ground in Asia.
The conclusion I reached in respect of this matter was that the Holy See could be effectively and adequately serviced by a senior diplomat based in Dublin. Iran can be serviced from an embassy in another jurisdiction in the Middle East region. Our ambassador in Singapore will continue to serve as non-resident ambassador to Timor-Leste. I am willing to review the position in respect of these missions when we are in a position, both financially and from the point of view of personnel, to consider reopening them. That is something we can do in the future.
I welcome the Tánaiste's indication that he is prepared to revisit this matter. It is important that he should do so. I again put it to him that there is a political imperative in the context of our trading relationships with foreign countries. We should consider expanding our diplomatic and trade footprints in Indonesia, South America and elsewhere. On 21 July, the Tánaiste, when replying to a question from one of his parliamentary colleagues, indicated the importance of the mission to the Holy See in the context of the enormous importance of the Vatican as a listening point and as a huge, internationally renowned hub of diplomatic activities. I implore him to review the position in respect of this matter.
All of our missions abroad will remain under ongoing review. I am not offering any hope or prospect that the position can be changed, either in the short term or in the foreseeable future, because there are financial and staffing considerations which militate against such a change. We have a small diplomatic team and we must concentrate our efforts. Compared to other countries, we have a small number of resident missions and we must be extremely focused in the context of how we use them. Diplomatic relations will continue with the three states to which the original question refers and which are very important. Diplomatic relations with the Vatican are particularly important and that is why we have decided to seek to have a senior diplomat from Dublin accredited as a non-resident ambassador to the Holy See. We will have an ambassador to the Holy See but he or she will be a senior diplomat based in Dublin. We can review the question of having a resident mission to the Vatican when the position relating to the financial and staffing considerations to which I refer changes.
2 Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the profound concerns of international human rights organisations regarding the implications of the Peru-Colombia trade agreement as it stands; and if he will bring the proposed agreement before Dáil Éireann for debate and clarification. [33846/11]
In 2009, negotiations commenced on a multi-party trade agreement between the EU and two member states of the Andean Community of Nations, namely, Colombia and Peru. The negotiations concluded in March 2010 and the agreement was initialled by the parties on 13 April 2011. The Tánaiste, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I are well aware of and share the concerns that have been expressed over human rights in Colombia, particularly in the context of the position of trade unionists and human rights activists. The Tánaiste had an opportunity to discuss the human rights situation in that country when he met the Colombian ambassador in July. During their meeting, the Tánaiste outlined the ongoing concerns of the Government at reports of human rights abuses in Colombia.
The EU believes that the multi-party trade agreement will be a key tool in addressing the human rights situation in Colombia, not only through a robust human rights clause but also by means of a number of binding commitments to implement core labour and environmental conventions and the use of a mechanism for monitoring their implementation which will include civil society institutions. It is expected the agreement will be signed in the first half of 2012. The issue of the designation of the agreement as one which involves mixed competence requiring approval and ratification by all 27 member states or as one in which the Union has exclusive competence will be determined by the European Council in light of analysis of both the final text and legal advice.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton. I welcome the fact that she acknowledged the concerns the Government shares on the human rights situation in Colombia, which is quite profound. Even with the arrival of the new Administration of President Santos, the human rights problems have not eased all that much. In the first year of his Presidency, more human rights defenders were killed across the country than in the previous year.
There is the significant issue of displacement. Some 286,000 people were displaced in 2010. Then there is the concern around the indigenous peoples that such displacement is related to foreign multinationals with speculative investment in mining, agriculture, and so on.
Would Deputy Mac Lochlainn frame a question?
Is it the case that we are not forcefully ensuring that this ends with a proper dialogue? Are we too hasty? Is there quite a road to go yet before Colombia and Peru, and particularly Colombia, have reached the human rights bar that we seek?
It is fair to say that there is a challenge here in terms of balancing the need to provide an incentive to governments such as the Colombian Government to make progress on human rights issues while being conscious that we cannot turn a blind eye. In fairness, the European Union and the Government, in feeding into that process in our engagement with the Commission, and at Council level, have made a robust and clear statement on how we want to see human rights promoted and protected within the parameters of the agreement.
There is a substantial and robust human rights clause in the first article of the trade agreement which has the potential to contribute to the enhancement and protection of human rights in the future. I certainly consider that to be a more constructive, engaged and, hopefully, productive approach than simply wringing our hands and aspiring to an improvement in the human rights situation but actually not being able to do anything tangible about it.
For example, countries in the Balkans and eastern European Baltic states applying for membership of the European Union have had to go through a process over a period and have had to reach an acceptable standard of human rights, not to mention economic competency, to be accepted. My concern is that it is clear the situation in Colombia is still serious. I listened to a presentation from a senior trade unionist in exile, Mr. Javier Orozco, who is touring the country addressing human rights activists and trade union members. He showed a documentary that was made by human rights organisations in various regions and cities of Colombia. I urge the Minister of State to try to access a copy of this because it is disturbing. The situation in Peru is similar. The bulk of civil society and trade union movements are opposed to the FTA there too because of the impact it would have.
There is a sense that while in Ireland we rightly defend the livelihood of our farmers, whenever there is a free trade agreement it can cause significant distortion for the small farmers in these countries in terms of what we give as subsidies to our farmers in that competition of produce. That is another big issue.
Thank you, Deputy Mac Lochlainn. Deputy Mac Lochlainn is over time.
The organisations that signed up to the excellent document I hold are internationally respected and very much respected in Ireland: Christian Aid, CAFOD, Oxfam GB, SCIAF and Trócaire. These organisations recommend that we do not proceed and I urge the Government to follow their lead.
We will certainly take on board the concerns of those important and reputable agencies. There is no question about that. We are moving in the direction of concluding the trade agreement, but it has not been done yet and there still is opportunity for further negotiation.
I accept Deputy Mac Lochlainn's point about the process for accession to the European Union and the length of time it takes, but this process began formally in 2009. Obviously, there has been engagement on a human rights level for a longer period than that. It will be a minimum period of three years — up until 2012 — when it is anticipated that the agreement will be signed. There has been an opportunity to give it careful consideration but there still remains some opportunity for consideration.
I take on board all of the points Deputy Mac Lochlainn makes. There is active engagement and dialogue between the European Union and the Governments of Colombia and Peru on the area of human rights, but those are negotiations and talks that have gone on for quite some time without tangible results. By engaging such countries in a trade agreement which basically imposes binding obligations on them, one has the power to be able to say that one will suspend the trade agreement — that is contained in the terms of the proposed agreement. The issue of the risk to small farmers is a real one of which we must be conscious but balanced with it are the significant opportunities for farmers to sell their produce. We have seen in other Latin American countries the significant opportunities that have opened up, for example, in Brazil and Argentina. Hopefully, there will be opportunities for farmers in those countries as well.
3 Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he sees a role for Irish parliamentarians in Ireland and developing countries in the context of Ireland’s efforts to help achieve the millennium goals; the position he will take at the upcoming high level forum on aid effectiveness in Busan, South Korea; the engagement he has had with Irish aid agencies in the preparation for this summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33914/11]
The High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, to be held in Busan at the end of this month, will be a milestone in the international effort to strengthen the quality of development assistance. The Government will be represented at this major international meeting by a delegation headed by the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. The delegation will include the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Breen, who will also attend the parliamentary forum at the Busan meeting.
Parliamentarians at home and in developing countries have a critical role to play in oversight and in holding Governments to account for the achievement of clear results from development assistance. Ireland is working to ensure that the outcome document from the meeting includes a firm commitment to strengthen the capacity of parliamentarians in developing countries to fulfil this role. We are also arguing that parliamentarians be included in existing forums on aid effectiveness at national level.
The Government has consulted widely in preparing for the forum. In addition to our discussions with Members of the Oireachtas, we have engaged with the higher education and research institutes and with Irish aid agencies. They have made valuable suggestions which we have taken on board in the ongoing negotiations on the final outcome text.
Ireland's position in Busan will be to focus on progress in poverty reduction and on the achievement of development results, particularly in fragile states. We are working to ensure that women and girls are more effectively prioritised in development. Other priorities include strengthening the transparency and accountability of development spending, reducing the bureaucracy of aid management and ensuring civil society can play its legitimate role as partners in poverty reduction.
I hope that the forum in Busan will mark a clear decisive move in placing the effectiveness of aid at the heart of development policy to accelerate progress towards achieving the millennium development goals.
We know there will be so many demands on our budget and we are talking about cuts, but it is only moral and just that we should try to maintain our development aid budget. It is really important that such aid is effective. There is a definite role for Parliament since parliaments are different from governments.
I am glad the Minister is considering the progress being made, but in the draft outcome document the word "oversight" is still not included. We know of countries where the aid has been manipulated by governments and it is really important that it is validated by parliament so that the aid is distributed fairly and justly. The question is: will Ireland take a strong position at EU level before Busan to ensure that the word "oversight" is in the document?
The officials of my Department have been actively engaged in the preparations for the Busan meeting over the past 12 months. Final negotiations on the outcome document will take place in Busan. In the meantime, a number of high-level officials from partner countries, donors, emerging economies and civil society are working on the text of the outcome document. Within this group, we are engaging actively with the EU and the Nordic Plus group of like-minded countries to ensure agreed priorities for the document are included in these negotiations. We are placing a particular emphasis on parliamentary scrutiny within the donor countries, for example, we have a robust committee system, and the receiving countries. The countries with which we partner must have developed parliamentary scrutiny systems to ensure the aid is used to its greatest effect.
That is positive. I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, in the Association for European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA. He has done a great deal to ensure the word "oversight" is included. I would hate to see his work undone.
I welcome that Deputy Breen will attend the parliamentary forum. It would be a great boost were the Tánaiste able to ask or encourage the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, to attend as well, as her presence would give credence to our involvement with parliamentarians. Some 50 parliamentarians from the global south will attend, 20 of whom will be brought by AWEPA. Were the Minister of State able to attend, it would be a positive step.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, intends to take an active role at the meeting. I will ask her, but her attendance will depend on the schedule of meetings. As the Deputy knows, there are ministerial, governmental and parliamentary schedules at these types of event. Sometimes they overlap. I am sure the Minister of State will endeavour to liaise with Deputy Breen on what is happening and, in so far as she can, attend some of the parliamentary sessions.
4 Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the actions he has taken to change his policy and engagement since the conference of 1 June that he undertook with Irish ambassadors and heads of mission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33775/11]
The "Promoting Ireland Abroad" conference in June enabled interaction with all of my Department's senior overseas representatives, Irish business leaders and heads of Irish economic agencies. The Taoiseach and I outlined the Government's approachto promoting Ireland as open for business and set out the role of the State's diplomatic networks in this regard. I set as a priority our contribution to renewed and sustainable growth by promoting Ireland's economic and trading interests, cultural and scientific profile and reputation internationally in close co-operation with other Departments and agencies. Responsibility for certain trade functions transferred to my Department on 1 June. I now chair the new Export Trade Council, which has held its inaugural meeting and which aims at creating a more co-ordinated approach to promoting our trade, tourism and investment sectors.
Last month's Global Irish Economic Forum allowed the opportunity for a discussion of our priorities for economic renewal with key members of the international business community and for strengthening our ties with the Irish diaspora. The forum was marked by a high level of enthusiasm among the participants. The global Irish network in particular will be an important partner in our efforts to restore our international reputation.
I have led a number of trade missions, including to Japan and South Korea last month and to Moscow this week. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and development, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, is leading a trade mission to South Africa. The diplomatic network has also had significant involvement in a range of economic promotion activities, including trade missions led by other Ministers.
Aside from the closures of the three missions mentioned in an earlier question, there are ongoing efforts to explore greater efficiencies in our external representation. To this end, I am extending the pilot scheme that provides for missions with only one diplomat. I have also carried out an internal restructuring of the Department in Dublin aimed at organising work on a more geographical basis with new regional units having lead responsibility in the management of the fullest possible range of relations with their particular countries. The restructuring is designed to meet the need for more focused and efficient delivery of services and policy goals and should result in more coherent and efficient outputs.
I thank the Tánaiste for his response. On the face of it, his initiative on 1 June was positive, but where is the beef? Has there been an obvious change in the diplomatic stance of our ambassadors and heads of mission across the world? Will the Tánaiste point to specific measures operating to the benefit of the country that are now in place that were not in effect before 1 June?
The Tánaiste raised the issue of achieving economies across the diplomatic system, an important aim that we accept. The Tánaiste also referred to the question on the three missions to be closed. A broad-based cost saving measure might have been preferable to his decision to save €1.8 million, a small amount of money.
Where is the beef? What are the specific, tangible changes in the approaches of our diplomats that are beginning to yield benefits for us?
The beef is in the country's improved reputation. It is fair to point out that, when we took office in March, Ireland had suffered considerable damage to its international reputation and the weekly reports we got on what was being said about Ireland in the international press made for embarrassing reading. I am happy to say that this situation has been turned around. Our strategy is aimed at restoring the country's reputation and has been pursued successfully in Europe through my work and that of the Taoiseach and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. We have made a concerted effort across Europe to improve the country's reputation. The convening of the meeting of the heads of mission formed part of that strategy, as did our briefings for other countries' diplomatic representatives to Ireland, the programme of visits we have undertaken to a range of countries, the convening of the global Irish network and our joined-up approach to trade promotion. The Export Trade Council will co-ordinate our entire trade operation across Departments. This format is replicated at a country level where our ambassadors will act as team leaders for those countries in which we have representation, be it in the form of embassies or agencies. Even though we will have a small presence in individual countries, our representation and impact will get the greatest bang for our limited buck.
I intend no disrespect to our diplomats. I have much respect for them, but surely the Tánaiste agrees that the restoration of our reputation abroad derives from the implementation of the previous Government's four-year plan and that many of our reputational difficulties derived from the negative comments made in this Chamber and this country. I wish the Tánaiste well with his efforts to continue rebuilding, but let us be clear about where the difficulties came from in the first instance.
The Opposition was not in power.
I am very clear about where the difficulties originated. At these sessions, I try to be as non-partisan as I can——
So do I.
——but the Deputy keeps tempting me.
Resist.
Let us be clear about where the problems originated. In fairness, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl acknowledges that the work done since the change of Government has been proactive and that we have consciously set out to rebuild the country's reputation at official level with other governments. For example, our work in talking with media and business leaders has achieved a great deal. Compare the recent commentary about Ireland with the commentary in March. There is no comparison, it has improved enormously.
This has been reflected in the markets. The spreads in our interest rates have decreased. It is reflected in our trade performance, in that our exports have increased.
It is also reflected in the interest in terms of foreign direct investment and the strategy the Government is pursuing is to use every means at our disposal to promote the country's interest, to get increased investment here from wherever to create jobs and grow our economy, and because we are an exporting economy to use every opportunity available to us to increase our trade.
This week I had a very successful meeting in Russia of the joint economic commission which agreed to concentrate on work which will promote trade and business between Ireland and Russia in five sectors. It is the BRIC country which is nearest to us geographically. It is part of the European continent and there is enormous potential for development of trade and business between the two countries. We will continue to work proactively at this. I would welcome an opportunity here or at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade to have a longer discussion on where I see the potential for increasing these trade and business links.
5 Deputy John Halligan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the pressure he thinks that he could apply on the United States and Israel to shift their political opposition to the recognition of an independent Palestinian state; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33939/11]
Ireland has supported the achievement of an independent Palestinian state for 30 years. I have made clear my strong view that I would wish to see this achieved very soon, and that the indefinite continuation of the occupation is quite unacceptable. It is incumbent on all parties, including Israel, to seek actively to bring the occupation to an end through the negotiation of a two-state agreement based on the borders of 1967. The United States has consistently expressed support for a Palestinian state. Israeli Governments also claim to support the concept although Israel's aggressive policy of territorial annexation and settlement of occupied Palestinian territory would appear to undermine the prospect of such an outcome.
Both the US and Israel have made clear their strong opposition to the current Palestinian effort to achieve immediate recognition at the United Nations for the state of Palestine. They argue that this can only come about as a result of a negotiated settlement, and that what they regard as unilateral action at the UN is a threat to this. I do not consider there is any prospect for now of convincing them otherwise. Indeed, they are exerting strong pressure on others to come around to their point of view.
Given Ireland's close friendship with the United States, I regret our difference of opinion on this point. The fact is, however, that our contrasting positions reflect deeply held views among our respective peoples.
The Government does not accept that the Palestinian initiative is a legitimate threat to negotiations. We consider it a parallel process born out of deep Palestinian frustration with the lack of progress in almost 20 years of on-off negotiations since they accepted the existence of Israel. I have made clear therefore that, subject to our scrutiny of the exact terms, Ireland would support a resolution at the UN General Assembly to admit Palestine as either a full member or a non-member observer state.
Ireland voted in favour of the admission of Palestine to UNESCO on 31 October.
I acknowledge and accept the Tánaiste's support for the Palestinian cause and the concern he has expressed over the long number of years I have known him. I know he will agree with me that the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign state has awaited implementation not for 20 or 30 years but for 64 years. I am glad to hear the Tánaiste acknowledge, and I believe he did acknowledge, that Israel has no valid claim whatsoever to any of the land it has occupied since 1967.
In the coming weeks parliamentarians throughout Europe will urge their respective Ministers with responsibility for foreign affairs to do more to pressure the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel to accept the state of Palestine. Will the Tánaiste make personal contact with them as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of this State? Palestinians have lived in the most inhumane conditions during the past 60 years. Perhaps the time has come — perhaps the Tánaiste has already done so — for personal intervention. I will not criticise the Tánaiste because I acknowledge his support for the Palestinian cause through the years.
I am sure the Tánaiste is aware that of the seven Irish detainees who were to return home today two were removed from the plane and forced back to Israel. I regret having to raise this matter. I merely wanted to ask a question about Palestine but perhaps the Tánaiste will give me an answer on this also.
I thank Deputy Halligan for his comments. The Taoiseach and I have already discussed the Palestinian issue and the Middle East peace process with President Obama. We discussed it with him when he was here in May. In EU-US bilateral discussions I have also discussed the issue with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In addition, I have also spoken directly with the Israeli and Palestinian Foreign Ministers about the issue.
A quartet statement was agreed during the United Nations General Assembly which sets down a timetable for negotiations. It is important that we support this timetable which sets certain deadlines. We are working through the EU Foreign Affairs Council and the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, will attend the Foreign Affairs Council's meeting on Monday where I expect the issue will be discussed. Again, we will support the efforts being made by the High Representative, Ms Catherine Ashton, in this regard.
In respect of the people of the MV Saoirse, I am deeply disappointed. Seven were to be flown home this morning and I am disappointed this did not happen. We worked to make alternative flight arrangements for them this afternoon but only five of them managed to board the plane. I understand the other two will return home tomorrow.
This morning, I may have indicated to Deputy Boyd Barrett that a certain question was not tabled but it was and I acknowledge this. I do not want to have misled the House on it.
Will you group it with the other questions on Palestine so we can discuss it?
See how fair I am.
I am deeply disappointed about what happened this afternoon and we have made very strong protests to the Israeli authorities.
Would the Tánaiste mind telling us whether the Israelis have given him a reason for stopping two Irish citizens from boarding the plane?
I understand that the issue this morning had to do with the airlines. Because they were presented as deportees the airlines were not willing to take more than two at a time. We felt we had that issue resolved by this afternoon and that all seven would be on board a flight. I understand that what happened this afternoon was that two of the seven were detained because of security clearance issues on the Israeli side. Frankly, I do not see how there can be a problem with security clearance for people already in custody who were being deported. As I stated, we have communicated to the Israeli ambassador here and the Israeli foreign ministry our deep dissatisfaction at what happened this afternoon.
