Vol. 772 No. 2
6Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has advanced his proposals to initiate a boycott of Israeli goods; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33518/12]
It is important to be clear that I have not made any proposal for a boycott of Israeli goods, and the Government does not support any such boycott. Successive Irish Governments have taken this view, and recognised also that such a proposal would have no chance of success.
The Foreign Affairs Council in May adopted conclusions on a range of critical and urgent issues which, in our view, increasingly threaten to make a peace agreement in the Middle East impossible to achieve. These issues centre on Israeli policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory which are progressively forcing Palestinians off the land in favour of illegal Israeli settlements. I made a detailed intervention in the Council debate. In addition, my officials had been heavily involved beforehand in the preparation of the draft conclusions. The conclusions adopted by the Council restated and in many respects advanced EU positions on these key issues and set out the remedial action which we wish to see, primarily of course from Israel.
I suggested at the Council that, in view of the urgency of these issues on the ground, Ministers should reconsider them in the autumn to see if the situation had improved or was continuing to worsen. I suggested that, if matters continued to worsen and our existing actions had not improved them, we would clearly need to consider stronger actions. The exclusion from the EU of settlement products and of individual settlers engaged in violence should in that case be considered as an option for stronger measures. I have previously stated that Ireland would support a ban on settlement products. I repeat that we do not support bans or boycotts on Israel and this is not in question. However, the products of illegal settlements, located in Occupied Palestinian Territory, constitute a separate and specific matter.
However, that is to look ahead and the Council as a whole will have to decide on any actions. At this point I emphasise that we have achieved a strong EU position which leaves High Representative Ashton and the EU well placed to press our concerns on these issues.
I again acknowledge the response. We all agree that the settlement is the biggest impediment to progress. Does the Tánaiste have any optimism that that issue will be addressed in the near future? Every new settlement makes the two-state solution - which we all support - more difficult to achieve. Is he optimistic given the realigned coalition arrangement between Likud and Kadima that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, might move in the right direction? The Tánaiste referred to a possible boycott of goods from the Occupied Territories. Denmark and South Africa have embarked on a process of demanding that these be labelled as products of the Occupied West Bank. What is his view on that initiative by those two sovereign powers?
I have previously outlined my belief that settlements are now at the heart of the continuing conflict and represent a key obstacle in then way of peace. It is very important that the EU has now clearly highlighted the continuing expansion of settlements as posing a real threat to the viability of a negotiated peace and the two-state solution. Every expansion of settlements makes peace more difficult for three reasons. First, the settlements are physically making the construction of a viable Palestinian state more difficult. Second, settlements and the measures taken to protect them inherently involve dispossession and theft of Palestinian land and resources, and daily obstacles and humiliations for Palestinians, increasing the likelihood of an explosive reaction. Third, this ongoing pressure on Palestinians makes it difficult or impossible for their leaders to sit down and talk with Israel while this continues outside the room.
Considerable progress has been made in that we have now secured a very strong European Union statement unanimously agreed by all 27 member states on the issue. I have asked that we return to it in the autumn to determine if any progress has been made. If progress is not made the European Union will need to consider stronger action, including perhaps a ban on products from the settlement areas.
The question of an artistic boycott has arisen in the aftermath of difficulties for the Irish traditional group, Dervish, whose members were subjected to very considerable e-mail pressure and had to pull out of a tour. How does the Tánaiste feel about that? How does he respond to the very fair points made earlier by Deputy Mac Lochlainn who earlier contrasted the response of the EU and the international community to the situation in Iran and the embargoes placed on it with the reluctance to take any strong action in this instance?
I recently read that a Swedish official suggested that Ireland's stance on Palestine was not quite as strong as it has been in the past. I wonder if the presence of a very pro-Israeli individual in the Cabinet, in the person of the Minister for Justice and Equality, is in any way watering down our position in supporting Palestine.
I wish to correct a comment made earlier. Not all of us are in favour of a two-state solution. Some of us believe the two-state solution is a recipe for ethnic cleansing of precisely the sort we have seen and continue to see by the rogue Israeli State. At what point does the international community realise that Israel is a rogue state, that it is involved in ethnic cleansing, that it has no interest in a reasonable settlement with the Palestinians and that it must not just have the products of the Occupied Territories boycotted but should be treated in the same way as apartheid South Africa was and isolated by the international community as a whole? It is not possible to separate what the Israeli military forces are doing in the Occupied Territories from the state itself because the decisions to allow further settlements, military incursions or whatever it may be are being taken in Israel proper. They are being taken in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and the headquarters of the Israeli defence forces. At what point does the world say we will not allow Israel to do this anymore and boycott it until it treats Palestinians as equal citizens?
The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been going on for a very long time. There have been repeated efforts over the years to get a resolution. It does not help to reduce it to the kind of simplistic terms that Deputy Boyd Barrett has used. Ireland's position on the issue is very strong as is acknowledged internationally. Speaking at the United Nations last year, I made clear Ireland's position in respect of Palestinian statehood. We have been actively seeking a strong position from the European Union on the issue, which was not easy to achieve. There are widely differing views among member states of the European Union in respect of the Middle East peace process. At the recent Foreign Affairs Council meeting we secured what I think is the strongest position that the European Union has adopted to date in respect of the issue of Palestine. That provides us with a basis to build on. The position in clear in respect of settlements and the impact they will have on achieving a peaceful resolution of the issue and of achieving a viable Palestinian state, and I will continue to pursue that. I have asked that it be brought back for consideration at the Foreign Affairs Council in the autumn. I expect there will be an opportunity to have the issue discussed around the UN General Assembly in September. We have a very strong position in regard to Palestine in terms of securing a settlement but that can only achieved if it is not impeded or obstructed by illegal settlements being put in place on the ground.
7Deputy John McGuinness asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on any progress the EU has made in relation to its sanctions on Iran; the progress that has been made in negotiations with the regime in relation to their nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33523/12]
Given the major concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme as documented in a series of UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions since 2006, and given Iran's continuing unwillingness to engage seriously on these concerns or to address the serious findings highlighted in the IAEA's reports, the international community has had to impose several rounds of increasingly tough restrictive measures.
These include an EU embargo on Iranian petrochemical products and a ban on crude oil imports to the EU which took effect on 1 July. The June Foreign Affairs Council agreed that Iran's engagement in talks up to that point had given no basis for postponing the measure. I have no doubt that these measures, by the EU and others, were instrumental in triggering Iran's belated acceptance of talks in recent months.
There have been three rounds of talks between Iran and the E3+3, in Istanbul in April, Baghdad in May and, most recently, in Moscow on 18 June, as well as some follow-up technical discussions. A further round is expected but not yet scheduled.
While Iran has engaged in these talks in a somewhat more realistic manner than before, hopes raised by the April meeting have regrettably not been borne out yet. Iran's negotiators have engaged with the issues, which is an improvement, but in a manner which so far suggests that they are seeking only to spin out the process, and not to actively work to reach a solution. There is no agreement among the E3+3 that a further round of talks is warranted, but Iran will have to demonstrate more serious engagement if the talks process is to go anywhere.
Ultimately, the grave issues arising in terms of Iran's nuclear programme can only be resolved through diplomatic negotiations and not by any other means. Ireland, with its EU partners, will continue to lend strong support to High Representative Ashton and the other members of the E3+3 as they pursue the twin-track approach which is aimed at persuading Iran to negotiate seriously - and which now appears to be paying some dividends.
I thank the Tánaiste for his response. The two critical elements in the negotiations at present are that Iran would stop enriching Uranium to the 20% level and that the 1,200 kg already enriched would be exported out of the state and in return for that the world powers would make concessions to help Iran develop its civil nuclear programme, they would help bolster safety at the existing nuclear facilities and they would help Iran obtain spare parts for its civil aircraft. That appears to be the critical issue on offer. Is the Tánaiste of the view that progress in that regard would justify the removal of sanctions?
I am conscious that the Minister wearing his trade hat - or the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, seating beside him, wearing his - has responsibility in the area of the €80 million-plus value of trade relations we have with this country. Notwithstanding the valid points made by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, does the Minister see Ireland as being a trading partner of Iran? Having had some traditional relations with it, I am conscious of the diplomatic efforts in this country of Ambassador Panahiazar, who is constantly asserting the fact that his country is not, nor has any desire to be, involved in the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Does the Minister consider there is any potential for Ireland to play any significant additional role to what is currently happening within the EU?
It is important to make the point that when sanctions were agreed, particularly when the crude oil sanction was agreed, its application was not applied immediately. It was decided to apply it from 1 July and the purpose of that was to encourage Iran to engage seriously in E3+3 talks. If there is serious engagement at the E3+3 talks and satisfactory progress is being made on them, then the sanctions can either be eased or withdrawn. The only purpose of the sanctions is to cause Iran to engage seriously in those negotiations. We believe that the Iran nuclear issue can only be resolved by negotiation and agreement but it requires Iran engaging in a meaningful way, not just turning up and engaging in process talk and spinning it out. There must be a real meaningful engagement. There is a willingness on the EU's part to engage seriously and meaningfully in those talks. If sufficient and satisfactory progress is made, then sanctions can either be relaxed or withdrawn.
I want to make it clear that I have no time for the Iranian regime, nuclear weapons or nuclear power. Can the Minister explain the extraordinary double standards that apply when it comes to the treatment of Iran as against the treatment of Israel? Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians, illegally occupying their land and territory, denying them rights at every level, has launched more wars than any other state in the Middle East, has a nuclear arms arsenal, has refused to sign up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and flouts all international laws in this regard but no sanctions are imposed on it. However, Iran has signed up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency has said it is not developing a nuclear arms programme, and sanctions have been imposed on it. I do not understand it. Iran has never launched a war against anybody. The supreme leader of Iran, no matter what the we may think of him, has said that nuclear weapons are an evil and that they should never be developed in Iran. Why is it the case that all these sanctions and pressure are put on Iran and no sanctions or pressure are put on Israel which has 200 or 300 nuclear weapons and refuses to sign up to the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty?
I have had my say in terms of the points that Deputy Boyd Barrett made. Blatantly shocking double standards continue to apply in this regard to Israel. The decision to close our embassy in Tehran was a bad one. Have we considered inserting ourselves into this situation? Have we considered Ireland's role as one of the driving forces behind the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a neutral country, although that has been undermined by the use of Shannon for military stop-offs? Have we considered playing a constructive role in the Middle East and in conflicts such as this because my understanding from engagements with the Iranian ambassador is that Iran would see Ireland as a neutral country and an honest broker? I presume the United States would view us similarly, considering our umbilical relationship with it. Is this something we have considered? What is the Minister's vision for foreign affairs? Where does he see Ireland's role in terms of those conflicts in that region?
Ireland has a very long and proud track record of promoting non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and that position remains absolute and consistent. This is position is not applied differently to Iran or to anywhere else. We want to see a nuclear-free zone with countries completely free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This means no nuclear weapons in Israel, no nuclear weapons in Iran and no nuclear weapons anywhere else. We all understand the horror that can be inflicted on the region and on the world by the outbreak of a nuclear war. The reason for sanctions on Iran is simple; the IAEA has made a report which has been considered by the European Union. Iran is a party to the non-proliferation treaty. A country cannot be a party to the non-proliferation treaty and ignore its obligations under that treaty and if a country ignores its obligations there has to be some action and some sanction. In this case, the sanction that has been applied is that Iran has been told it should engage in discussions so that the problem is hammered out using the E3+3 format. Iran will be permitted to use nuclear energy for peaceful energy purposes but it cannot develop nuclear weapons. The European Union is asking Iran to engage in talks. Ireland supports that position and we will continue to do so. Our role in respect of the Middle East generally has been a very positive role in promoting a peaceful solution in the Middle East. I am very proud of the fact that Ireland played a very active role in securing an agreed European Union position which is a very strong position, on the settlements issue in Palestine. Ireland has a very strong record on that issue both within the European Union and at the United Nations.
8Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the recent report by Amnesty International which suggests that militias in Libya are repeating some of the same abuses as the Gaddafi regime and that 4,000 people remain in detention centres outside the reach of the central authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33703/12]
36Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the ongoing violations in Libya including arbitrary arrests and detention, torture including to death, impunity for unlawful killings and forcible displacement as highlighted in the recent report by Amnesty International; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33704/12]
57Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which he will influence and encourage positive stability measures in Libya; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33906/12]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 8, 36 and 57 together.
The Government remains gravely concerned at continuing reports of human rights violations being committed by armed militias in Libya. The situation in a number of detention facilities still under the control of militias is particularly worrying. As documented by the UN support mission for Libya, the international commission of inquiry on Libya and by Amnesty International in its most recent report, routine practices of ill-treatment, human rights abuses and torture continue to be reported.
The question of how to ensure effective disarmament of the militias and restore security in Libya has been a priority concern for the outgoing Libyan interim government. We welcome the recent decisions to place prisons under the direct authority of the judicial police and the steps being taken to provide adequate training to prosecutors and judges. However, more needs to be done to address the situation of the estimated 4,000 detainees who are still being held by militias and to ensure full accountability for violations of human rights which, it is alleged, have been committed in Libya since the onset of last year's historic changes. The rights of victims need to be safeguarded and not completely set aside as against the wider need to promote overall reconciliation within Libya. This may have some implications for a recent amnesty law which has been adopted and about which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, expressed some concerns in his briefing to the UN Security Council on 2 July.
No one is under any illusion about the daunting scale of the challenges which Libya and its people face in rebuilding their country and in establishing effective institutions of government and accountability. A good start has been made over the past year and there is no doubting the commitment of the Libyan people to create a better future for their country in which human rights and the rule of law are fully respected. This was evident from the conduct of last weekend's elections which passed off peacefully and successfully and with a high turn-out of electors.
The next step will be for the new Libyan Government and parliament to oversee the drawing up and adoption of a constitution which respects and promotes human rights for all and which will guarantee gender equality in view of the significant role played by women during the ousting of Gadaffi. Ireland and its EU partners will continue to offer support to the new caretaker government in the complex transition from a repressive regime to a new, democratic and pluralist Libya.
The Minister of State will be aware that Amnesty International has published two reports on Libya. The first report was issued along with a UN report in March 2012. It stated that NATO had failed to investigate the deaths of scores of civilians killed in Libya as a result of air strikes carried out by its forces. Mr. Colm O'Gorman of the Irish branch of Amnesty International said this was unacceptable and he accused NATO of refusing to take responsibility for its actions. He said it leaves victims and their families believing they have been forgotten and denied basic justice. If NATO and the United Nations were as enthusiastic now as NATO was in deciding to take sides in the Libyan civil war, it might be possible to alleviate some of the problems. The latest report from Amnesty International published on 4 July and entitled, Libya: Rule of Law or Rule of Militias?, states that nearly a year after Tripoli fell to the revolutionary fighters, ongoing violations including arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, including to death, unlawful killings and forcible displacement are casting a shadow over the country. People from sub-Saharan Africa continue to suffer arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention, beatings which amount to torture in some cases, exploitation at the hands of armed militias. There has been no accountability on the part of NATO with regard to the bombings. The western powers were very keen to become involved in Libya but now they wash their hands of the situation in the country.
I would not agree that the western countries or, indeed, Ireland, are washing their hands of the situation in Libya. That country is undergoing a period of normalisation. Militias are still active because this has been the nature of the chaos and mayhem that occurred in the overthrow of Gadaffi and they are still in control in some parts of the country. The interim government has stabilised the country and the elections were recognised as being fair and free by international monitors. A total of 65% of the population voted in the election. The government has not been established as yet but it seems it will be a liberal government. As soon as the government is established its first function will be to produce a constitution. A group of 60 elected representatives will produce the constitution and human rights will be included in the constitution. However, the legacy of the war must be acknowledged and also the legacy of the militias which overthrew Gadaffi and this legacy must be dealt with. Libya is going in the right direction and the international community is supporting it.
I hope the election of Mahmoud Jibril will prove to be positive. I did not agree with the intervention of the western powers in Libya. It is rarely the case that military intervention proves to be positive. I agree with the Tánaiste in his view that a military intervention in Syria today, no more than in Iran, would be fraught with disaster. The new president is a former financial adviser to Gadaffi's government. He faces the resentment of the rebel commanders and the Islamic organisations. The Minister of State referred to the sharing out of seats in the parliament. The area in the east of the country around Benghazi is feeling pretty hard done by and there are feelings of exclusion and resentment because it has been allocated only 60 seats out of 200 seats whereas the western area of the country has been allocated 100 seats and the south has 60. This division was obviously based on population but those in the east are feeling excluded. The Irish Government should take note of the findings in the Amnesty International report. It said that following the election, "as a first step to turn the page, it was looking to the General National Congress and the government it appoints to publicly admit the scale and gravity of human rights abuses, unequivocally condemn them, and send a message that such violations would no longer be tolerated." Amnesty International's Middle East and north Africa deputy director said: "To honour the sacrifices and suffering of Libyans, those who take on the responsibility of governing the new Libya have to make clear that they intend to bring to justice and hold accountable those who have committed human rights abuses – whatever their rank or affiliation." The Irish Government should be seeking to have this implemented in the area.
The Irish Government has always had a considerable interest in the developments in Libya because a number of people who lived in Ireland and acquired Irish citizenship are at a high ranking level in the interim government. My information is that attempts are being made to ensure that the 60 person group that will write the new constitution for Libya has taken into consideration representation in the three major areas of east, west and south that considered themselves to be under-represented in the matter. That is being dealt with at present, but I will check on it. Ireland and the European Union have an interest in the matter. The EU has made €36 million available for capacity building and assisting in the electoral process, as well as having an EU mission in Libya for the elections that are taking place.
We cannot proceed to the next question because six Deputies' questions are being taken together. There are two minutes left if Members wish to ask more questions on this matter.
There was a proposition some time ago that this country would provide medical care for a number of Libyan citizens who were seriously injured during the conflict. Did that happen and does the Minister know how many were brought here? I understand a designated fund was made available to address that issue.
Yes, we received a number of former combatants and they were treated in our hospitals. Indeed, the Tánaiste and I met the interim Minister for Health when she was in this country two months ago. She indicated very strongly that her government was pleased with the manner in which the injured combatants had been dealt with here, that this country was an example to all the other countries where combatants had gone for treatment and that it would be using this model in the future.
I wish to reiterate the point made by Deputy Boyd Barrett about the manner in which we are dealing with Iran and with Israel. Whether the Minister likes it or not, it lacks balance. It would be great if more effort was made by the Irish Government to address that.
The Deputy is revisiting a question we dealt with earlier.
Deputy Wallace knows a thing or two about double standards.
I will refrain from getting personal with the Minister.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
