Vol. 772 No. 2
1Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the current role of Ireland in the UN mission in Syria; the status of the mission; the future plans for the force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33767/12]
On 21 April, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2043 (2012) authorising the establishment of the UN supervision mission in Syria, UNSMIS, for an initial 90 day period. Six members of the Defence Forces have been deployed as unarmed military observers to the mission since 11 May.
UNSMIS's mandate is to monitor and report on the security situation and on any transgression of the ceasefire agreement, as well as on the implementation of the six-point peace plan of Mr. Kofi Annan, the UN and Arab League joint special envoy. Following the intensification of armed violence, the head of mission, General Robert Mood, announced on 15 June that UNSMIS had suspended its normal activities. The suspension is being reviewed on a daily basis by the UN. While normal activities have not resumed, UN military observers, UNMOs, have undertaken limited patrols to humanitarian sites since 26 June. In carrying out their mission, members of UNSMIS have been subjected to utterly unacceptable attacks and limitations on their activities. Such attacks and restrictions must stop and the safety and security of UNSMIS personnel must be rigorously respected, with particular responsibility falling on Syria as host nation.
The UN Security Council is expected to decide on the future configuration of the mission on 18 July, in advance of the expiry of the initial 90 day mandate on 20 July. UN Secretary General Ban is presenting a report to the UN Security Council today which will form the basis for a review of the mission's current mandate. While all options are on the table, from a scaled down mission to complete withdrawal, I continue to believe that the mandate of UNSMIS remains critical in objectively monitoring the situation on the ground while its presence is also of great importance and reassurance to the Syrian population. I hope, therefore, that the Security Council will decide to extend the mission, even albeit in reduced form.
I thank the Minister for his response. Since we last debated this difficult situation in the Chamber, we have had the opportunity, through the good offices of Deputy Pat Breen, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, to hear at first hand the experience of Syrian citizens resident in this country. That meeting was held in camera, lest their families in Syria be put at risk by the evidence being given. That meeting brought home to us the enormous seriousness and the impact of this disastrous situation on families. I salute the Tánaiste for the work he has been doing through Friends of Syria.
The last time we spoke about this matter in the Dáil we mentioned the statement of the United States Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, about attack helicopters being provided by the Russian regime. Mrs. Clinton got it wrong, it would appear. It was repair of helicopters that was being carried out by the Russian authorities. Does the Tánaiste agree with the Secretary of State when she asserts that China and Russia have a critical role to play in working towards a resolution of this problem? What is his response to the suggestion from Moscow that the Iranian authorities, and Prime Minister Ahmadinejad, should be involved in the process of working towards a resolution to the problem, given the close relations that exist between Iran and Syria?
As Deputy Ó Fearghaíl acknowledged, I attended last Friday's meeting of Friends of Syria at which 107 countries were represented, about half at ministerial level. We heard from representatives of the Syrian opposition of the atrocities being committed in Syria. About 16,000 people have been killed in Syria and there is continuing violence and attacks on the civilian population.
A robust position by the United Nations is needed. There has been one Security Council resolution which I have described and that allowed for the establishment of UNSMIS. However, it is our belief that we need a UN Security Council resolution that will allow for the imposition of much more robust and more widely respected sanctions against the Syrian regime. For that, the agreement of Russia and China would be necessary. Continuing efforts are being made to persuade both Russia and China to participate in a UN Security Council resolution. I hope they will do so. Their influence in involving other countries that may be useful in bringing about a resolution of the atrocities, including Iran, would be helpful. At this stage, the focus is on seeing what can be done to obtain a further Security Council resolution that would have real impact on the ground.
How does the Tánaiste respond to the assertion of the Syrian citizens who came to this House that direct military intervention by the UN is required? All Members of the Dáil are committed to pursuing diplomatic means, but the assertion of those most directly affected was that military intervention is required.
Has the Tánaiste had discussions with his EU counterparts regarding what will happen after 20 July? We are in a civil war situation that is continuing and getting worse. On Monday last, 100 people were killed in Syria and that was described as an average number of deaths. Has the Tánaiste had any bilateral contact with his counterparts in Russia or China on this matter?
My response to calls for military intervention, including UN military intervention, in Syria is that the Syrian opposition leadership would not welcome such an intervention at this point. One concern is the possibility of the deterioration of the situation in Syria to full-scale sectarian civil war. The situation on the ground is complex and the focus of the international community is on securing a resolution of the appalling situation in Syria without military intervention.
The European Union Foreign Affairs Council will be meeting on 24 July and will review the situation that exists after 20 July. We are in close contact with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, and other member states about the situation in Syria and we maintain close contact with them. I have discussed the situation with the Foreign Ministers of Russia and China but I have not had such a discussion in recent weeks.
2Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on whether Iran is entitled under Article IV (1) of the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty to engage in uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes on its own soil; and his further views on whether to deny Iran the right to uranium enrichment is to treat it as a second-class party to the NPT. [33732/12]
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty makes no specific reference to a right to engage in uranium enrichment. Article IV (1) of the treaty provides that states are entitled to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This entitlement must be exercised in conformity with Article II, under which non-nuclear-weapon states, including Iran, undertake not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Furthermore, each non-nuclear weapon state is obliged to accept IAEA safeguards with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful purposes to military purposes.
Iran has repeatedly failed to live up to its international treaty obligations and is in breach of a succession of Security Council and IAEA resolutions, including those that call for a suspension of its enrichment activities. A report issued by the IAEA last November concluded that there are grounds for serious concern about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme and indicated that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. In another report published in May, the agency indicated that it is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran and therefore cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is used for peaceful activities.
The international community has consistently urged the Iranian Government to respect and fulfil its international obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and seriously and unconditionally engage in discussions aimed at confirming the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Ireland strongly supports this position.
There was great disappointment among those who defend Ireland's position of neutrality at the closure of our embassy in Tehran. Ireland was a driving force in the non-proliferation treaty and was one of the first states invited to sign it. It is unfortunate that we have supported sanctions against Iran which were advocated by the US, Britain and certain other European states.
The report prepared by the IAEA did not provide any evidence that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Indeed, US intelligence services have been unable to provide evidence that such a programme exists. It is clear that Iran is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Israel, however, is reputed to possess more than 400 nuclear warheads even while it increases its trade with the European Union. It is also the biggest beneficiary of state aid from the United States, receiving $3 billion per annum. Does the Tánaiste agree that double standards are being applied and that Iran has the right to develop a nuclear enrichment programme for peaceful purposes if it is fully supervised, as I am sure it will agree, by the IAEA? It is unreasonable for any state to argue otherwise.
The IAEA set out at some length its concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme in its report of 8 November. This report concluded that the available information indicates that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. Its most recent report, which was published in May, states that because Iran is not providing the necessary co-operation and is not implementing its additional protocol, the agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran and therefore cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is used for peaceful activities. The Irish Government and our EU partners are satisfied that the IAEA's reports are credible and their conclusions must be taken seriously. The November report is based on information drawn from a wide variety of sources, including regular inspection visits by IAEA inspectors to Iran, and is deemed to be consistent in terms of technical content, individual and organisational involvement and timeframes. The IAEA is the international watchdog on these matters and has unrivalled technical expertise and a record of absolute impartiality and independence. Its report was the basis for the European Union's decision on sanctions, the objective of which was to bring Iran to the table to negotiate in a meaningful way in the E3+3 process.
Thankfully the talks appear to be moving towards a peaceful conclusion, although that may disappoint certain states in the region. These states may have ambitions for Iran which would not be shared by Ireland. Three experts, Professor Paul Pillar, who worked for the CIA for 28 years and could be accused of having a vested interest against the United States, Peter Jenkins, the UK ambassador to the IAEA between 2001 and 2006, and Hans Blix, the former head of the IAEA, have stated that the November report contains no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the evidence from inspectors on the ground does not back up the claim, which was contained in an appendix full of old allegations which have never been backed up by evidence.
We are bringing the region to the verge of catastrophic conflict because of somebody's agenda. I again ask the Tánaiste why Ireland supports sanctions against Iran despite a lack of evidence that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons at the same time as offering favourable trade agreements to Israel, which possesses more than 400 nuclear warheads. Why do we permit such double standards? How can Ireland call itself neutral while it takes this approach? We recently upgraded our trade relationship with Israel to allow its pharmaceutical businesses to avail of huge profits. We are rewarding Israel for its belligerent approach while severely punishing Iran without evidence. What good is the non-proliferation treaty when countries are rewarded for not signing up or making themselves accountable to the IAEA while others which seek to comply are punished? How can peace be served by such an approach?
The approach that Ireland is taking, in co-operation with other EU member states, is intended to avoid bringing the region to the brink of conflict. The objective of the sanctions was to persuade Iran to come to the negotiating table. We believe the Iranian nuclear issue can only be resolved through negotiation and agreement within the E3+3 process. As the Deputy has acknowledged, the negotiations have started. The negotiations held in Istanbul on 14 April were more constructive than previous discussions and held out the hope of a change of course on the part of Iran. Unfortunately, while Iran has engaged more seriously in two subsequent rounds of talks, it has concentrated on details and process while making no effort to work towards a solution. The impression given by the Iranian delegation is that it is authorised only to restate its position and is unable to seek solutions. A further round of talks is expected to follow technical meetings which will clarify details. I hope Iran will be ready to take significant and concrete steps to promote international confidence in its intentions.
As Iran is a party to the non-proliferation treaty it must live up to its obligations under the treaty. Israel is not a party to the treaty but we continue to urge it and other states to adhere to the treaty's terms as non-nuclear weapon states.
What about Yasser Arafat?
3Deputy John Halligan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will contact the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh and raise with him the issue of an independent and credible investigation into the murder of journalists (details supplied) in February 2012; the steps he has taken and is taking in addressing anti press violence in Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33766/12]
The incident referred to by the Deputy involving the death of two journalists Sagar Sarwar and his wife Meherun Runi in Dhaka February 2012 is one of a number of attacks on journalists which have taken place in Bangladesh in recent months. Ireland's diplomatic relations with Bangladesh are maintained by secondary accreditation via our embassy in New Delhi. I have requested that officials at the embassy make contact with relevant EU colleagues in Dhaka in regard to this case.
On 2 July 2012 Ireland joined a statement on the safety of journalists which was delivered by Austria at the 21st session of the Human Rights Council. This statement strongly condemned all human rights violations against journalists. Human rights have been a priority for successive Irish Governments and form a central part of our foreign policy. In particular, Ireland attaches considerable importance to the vital work of human rights defenders and condemns all acts or threats of violence against organisations and individuals working to protect human rights. Ireland, together with our partners in the EU, is committed to promoting human rights and to eliminating torture and the mistreatment of prisoners. The EU makes detailed representations regularly in response to executions, extra-judicial killings, arrests of human rights activists and restrictions on freedom of expression.
Ireland will continue to support efforts to ensure that these rights are upheld and respected and that this case is investigated in keeping with the need to respect the rule of law.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. I chair an international fact-finding commission, comprising people from America, Canada, Bangladesh and England, into the murder of both these journalists in front of their five-year old son last February in Bangladesh. Their deaths are just one part of a continuous series of physical attacks and murders perpetrated against journalists in Bangladesh, which amounts to a serious blow against freedom of expression. When journalists in Bangladesh protested following these deaths they were met by a murderous response both by the army and police there. Even the high court in Bangladesh has said it is dissatisfied with the poor progress of the investigation.
A question please, Deputy.
Bangladesh is among the worst nations in the world in combating deadly anti-press violence. The highly respected New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, or CPJ, has tracked the murders of 12 journalists in Bangladesh that have not even been investigated.
An independent and credible investigation into the torture, murder and disappearance not only of journalists but a growing number of opposition leaders, labour activists and student leaders is badly needed. I ask the Tánaiste to call for the arrest of the killers of these journalists who apparently are well known in Bangladesh. This matter should be reinvestigated because the original investigation into the murder of these particular journalists has stopped. The Tánaiste should also call for an end to the assault and harassment of journalists in Bangladesh while performing their professional duties.
The case raised by Deputy Halligan is indeed serious. The safety and protection of journalists are matters to which we attach a very high importance. Journalists should be able to go about their work without being at risk. The responsibility for investigating the crime lies with the authorities in Bangladesh and they must be allowed to carry out that investigation. Ireland, along with our EU partners, is encouraging the Bangladeshi authorities to ensure that there is a full and fair investigation into this and similar cases.
I am aware that there have been a number of incidents involving journalists over the past number of months. There have been reports to that effect from the Bangladeshi NGO, Odhikar. Some of the cases have involved attacks and-or intimidation. There are other unresolved incidents, including the unsolved murders of a Saudi diplomat and a labour rights activist, and the disappearance and abduction of a former MP. These cases, along with those referred to by Deputy Halligan, are being monitored by EU representatives in Dhaka. Along with its EU partners, Ireland would encourage the Bangladeshi authorities to ensure that there is a full and fair investigation of these incidents.
I acknowledge the Tánaiste's fine record in human rights. I thank him for having made contact with the Bangladeshi authorities but I would urge him to continue those contacts in the coming months. When other countries made contact with the Bangladeshi Prime Minister during the week, he made a curt remark, stating, "We can't guard every journalist's bedroom". That is the extent of the investigation that is currently taking place into the murder of these two young journalists. I urge the Tánaiste to continue to protest against the Bangladeshi Government's harassment of journalists and like-minded people there. The brutal murder of those two journalists in front of their five-year old child should be reinvestigated.
As I said, we do not have resident representation in Bangladesh; our embassy accreditation is through New Delhi. We will continue to work with the representations of EU colleagues in Bangladesh and will continue to seek a full and fair investigation of the cases that Deputy Halligan has raised.
I am aware of the situation concerning the person referred to by Deputy Ó Fearghaíl and have already addressed this matter on a number of occasions previously. As the person referred to is not an Irish citizen, it is not possible for my Department to offer him consular assistance. The Greek authorities are under no legal obligation to assist our embassy with any requests made in connection with this investigation as we have no locus standi in the matter.
However, on hearing of the predicament faced by this person, and notwithstanding the fact that he is not a citizen of Ireland, the Irish embassy in Athens made contact with the Greek police in an effort to convey the Irish Government's interest in this case on the basis that he is married to an Irish citizen. It was made clear to our embassy that the authorities in Crete would not provide them with any information regarding this investigation owing to the fact that no Irish citizen was involved in the case.
To clarify further, the embassy has certain rights of communication and contact with Irish citizens in Greece to facilitate the exercise of our consular functions under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The embassy has no such rights for other persons, even if they are related to Irish citizens.
I thank the Tánaiste for informing the House that there has been some contact by the embassy. In earlier written questions on this matter the possibility of any engagement on behalf of the family seemed to have been ruled out. I have a serious concern about this case. The young man in question is an Albanian citizen who is married to a young teacher from County Carlow. In the past, we have been able to highlight the obvious injustices to Irish-trained doctors in Bahrain, so we should also be able to reflect concern about this particular case.
Mark and Andreas Marku are two young Albanian brothers who have been wrongly condemned by failures in the Cretan justice system to 18 years' imprisonment. Their nightmare began in September 2010 and they have spent the past 18 months incarcerated in Neapoli Prison in Crete. In January this year, they were convicted of ten armed robberies, the theft of 12 cars and of being members of an armed criminal gang. My information is that Mark Marku was in Ireland in the company of his wife when a number of these crimes were supposed to have transpired.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Tánaiste reconsider his position and engage on a political level with his opposite number in Greece? Will he also have some discussions with the Greek ambassador here?
As I have said, we do not have any locus standi in the matter because the person concerned is not an Irish citizen. Given that he is married to an Irish citizen, however, we did attempt to make contact with the Greek police to see if we could be of some assistance and make inquiries about the matter. As Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has said, the man concerned, who is an Albanian citizen, was arrested in Crete on 16 September 2010. He was one of several others who were charged with being members of an armed criminal organisation, ten armed robberies, the theft of 12 cars, armed assault, possession of illegal arms and possession of drugs.
In January 2012, he was charged with and subsequently convicted of these offences and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, met with Mr. Marku's parents-in-law on 3 July regarding the case, at which time she advised them that as Mr. Marku is not an Irish citizen there is no consular role for the Irish Government in the case. I understand an issue has arisen in regard to documents which would show that Mr. Marku was in Ireland. Again, the conduct of a criminal case is a matter for the presiding judge. It would be a matter for Mr. Marku's defence lawyers to ensure that the relevant documents are provided.
My Department can authenticate documents executed in Ireland that are to be used in court cases in other countries. However, authentication of a document simply confirms that a particular signature, seal or stamp appearing on a document is genuine. Unfortunately, this is not a case in respect of which we can make direct consular representation as Mr. Marku is not an Irish citizen.
If it is not possible to provide consular representation can the Tánaiste make political contact on this matter? Can he, for example, call on the Greek authorities to ensure that the appeal in this case is expedited and could he make arrangements to have our embassy represented at the appeal hearing so that we can at least hear first hand what is going on? The lawyer representing Mr. Marku stated in recent correspondence that he would characterise the trial as a trial of purpose and that Mark's guilt had been decided by the court, with no consideration of his allegations or the facts.
Official documents produced by the defence which sought to prove Mr. Marku had been married in this country and was resident here at the time, were described by the prosecution as forgeries. I would expect that the Department of Foreign Affairs could at least defend the authenticity of legal documents produced in this country and offered in evidence elsewhere.
It would not be appropriate for me to intervene politically in this case any more than it would be appropriate for the Greek Foreign Minister to raise with me a matter that is before the Irish courts. It would not be appropriate or helpful if I were to make any comment on the trial, verdict or appeal process. That would also not be helpful to the man concerned. I do not propose to do so.
If Mr. Marku's defence lawyers wish to authentic documents here, this can be done through the consular section in my Department. We are happy to do so. As I stated, we have taken an interest in this case. Our embassy in Athens has attempted to have the issue raised with the authorities in Greece. The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, has met with the Irish in-laws of the man concerned. We are open to maintaining that contact but we cannot intervene inappropriately in what is a judicial matter in another member state of the European Union.
5Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will support the resolution of the Malvinas Falklands dispute at the UN level [33966/12]
The question of the Falkland Islands, Malvinas, has been the subject of ten resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, as well as resolutions of its special committee on decolonisation. On 16 December 1965, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2065 (XX), which invited the Governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the then special committee on the situation with regard to the implementation of the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, requesting them to report back on results of the negotiations.
The General Assembly again addressed the issue at its plenary session on 14 December 1973 and adopted resolution 3160 (XXVIII). This resolution noted the passage of time since the previous resolution and the fact that no substantial progress had been made in negotiations. The resolution again urged the Governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina to proceed without delay with the negotiations in accordance with the provisions of the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.
The question was the subject of another resolution in 1976 and of annual resolutions between 1982 and 1988. The most recent resolution, 43/25, was adopted in 1988 in which the General Assembly reiterated its request to the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems between both countries, including all aspects of the future of the Falkland Islands, Malvinas, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The issue has also been discussed at the UN's special committee on decolonisation every year since 1964. In its most recent resolution, adopted on 14 June 2012, the committee expressed its regret that, despite widespread international support for negotiation between the two Governments, implementation of General Assembly resolutions on the question had not yet started.
Additional Information not given on the floor of the House.
The Governments were requested to consolidate the current process of dialogue and co-operation through resumed negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands, Malvinas, in line with General Assembly resolutions. I would encourage the United Kingdom and Argentina, two countries with which Ireland has excellent bilateral relations, to pursue a peaceful resolution of their differences on this matter, based on the relevant UN resolutions.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. As he stated there have been ten resolutions calling on the UK and Argentinian Governments to proceed to negotiations without delay. However, the Minister of State ignored the fact that the UK is not co-operating with the United Nations resolutions.
Will the Minister of State accept that in recent months there has been a major militarisation of the south Atlantic in the region of the Malvinas Islands? Will he further accept that this is totally unacceptable and is very provocative to the Argentinian people? Will the Minister of State also accept, as would any international observer or person from Ireland, which is a neutral country, that historically the Malvinas Islands have belonged to the Argentinian people?
Will the Minister of State accept the right of Argentina, as a sovereign nation and country, which is now a democracy, to claim the Malvinas Islands through peaceful and democratic means? Will he support the formal complaints and resolutions at the United Nations in relation to this militarisation of the south Atlantic around the Malvinas Islands and will he put pressure on the UK Government to come to the table and talk with the representations of the Argentinian people on this issue?
I thank Deputy McGrath for his questions. As stated by the Deputy, there have been multiple EU resolutions on this issue, including a special committee resolution as recently as last month. However, there has been little progress made. Ireland has supported the United Nations and the international community on this matter. We have supported the European Union, the position of which is that both countries should engage in negotiations. It is impossible for us to compel both countries to do so. I agree with the Deputy that the situation has not improved in recent times despite that these resolutions have been repeated on numerous occasions by the European Union. Ireland strongly supports the resolutions put forward by the European Union. We will continue to support the United Nations position on this issue.
I accept the Minister of State's point on the issue of compelling. However, staying silent at international level over fear of upsetting our neighbour, Britain, is not an option. Until 1997 Hong Kong was a British colony and many people are suggesting such a model as a solution for the Malvinas issue. I want the Labour Party through the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, to assert Ireland's independent foreign democratic peaceful policy that is at the core of the Labour Party and not to be excessively influenced by those in Europe connected with NATO and those in the Government connected with Fine Gael.
Ireland does not take a position on the sovereignty issue. We regard the United Nations as the international forum for dealing with these matters and the negotiations should take place in accordance with the many United Nations resolutions on the issue. We will continue to support that position and we will argue it at the United Nations at all times.
