Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 2013

Vol. 808 No. 2

Other Questions

Foreign Conflicts

Bernard Durkan

Question:

6. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which the international community continues to endeavour to make a positive intervention to secure peace in Syria; the extent of the efforts made by the EU-UN to achieve safety corridors, no-fly zones or safe havens with a view to giving some degree of protection to civilians who continue to be the victims in the course of the ongoing civil war; if there are specific plans to follow up on recent discussions at the G8 meeting in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30748/13]

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

31. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views regarding the decision of the EU not to renew the arms embargo on Syria; and if he will encourage his European counterparts not to send weapons to any side in the conflict. [30758/13]

Thomas P. Broughan

Question:

64. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has recently discussed the conflict in Syria with Prime Minister David Cameron or with other Heads of State from the member countries of the EU; and if he will report on any such discussions. [25465/13]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 31 and 64 together.

With the death toll in the Syrian crisis now estimated at more than 93,000 and an unprecedented humanitarian emergency affecting Syria and its neighbours, it is more urgent than ever that everything possible be done to de-escalate the crisis and to promote a political settlement. That is why Ireland and its EU partners fully support the US-Russian initiative to convene a Geneva II conference, building on the Geneva communiqué of June 2012, with a view to mapping out a genuine transition towards democracy in Syria. EU Foreign Ministers made it clear at the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 May that the Union will spare no effort in helping to create the appropriate conditions for a successful convening of the conference.

I also welcome the strong endorsement and political commitment to work for the earliest possible convening of the Geneva II conference which was contained in the communiqué adopted by G8 leaders at their meeting in Enniskillen on 17 and 18 June. I urge all parties involved to direct their actions towards ensuring that Geneva II takes place and that it succeeds in its goal of securing agreement among all Syrians on a power sharing executive to oversee transition and reform.

The Tánaiste has already expressed his regret that the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 May was unable to agree to renew the EU arms embargo against Syria. The Government remains firmly of the view that the provision of further arms and weapons is unlikely to assist international efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully. It is, however, important to underline that all 27 member states of the EU remain fully united in their desire to promote the earliest possible end to violence and a political resolution leading to transition in Syria. In the Council declaration that accompanied the Council decision on renewal of the sanctions package, it was noted that no member state intending to do so will proceed at this stage with the delivery of arms to Syria. The Council will also review its position before 1 August on the basis of a report from the High Representative on the developments related to the US-Russia initiative and on the engagement of the Syrian parties.

In relation to calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria, this would obviously necessitate broad international agreement and could only be authorised through a UN Security Council resolution specifically mandating such a step. Regrettably, the Security Council has not been able to agree any resolution on Syria since the conflict erupted in March 2011 and it appears most unlikely that the political will exists within the Council at present to reach agreement on such a proposal.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. How much consideration has been given at EU, UN or G8 level to the viability of establishing no-fly zones? Notwithstanding the experience of the western Balkans, to what extent have safe havens been considered with a view to protecting civilians? To what extent has the international community established a position on regime change in countries experiencing civil wars?

The European Union did not consider that no-fly zones necessarily offered a way forward. In many cases, such zones could only be created after specific authorisation by a resolution of the UN Security Council. As I have indicated earlier, given that the Security Council has been unable to agree on any resolution in respect of this matter, it is unlikely that it would agree on a proposal to enforce no-fly zones.

In regard to safe havens in the Balkans, it is natural that displaced persons would first seek refuge in their own countries or, if that is not possible, cross borders to neighbouring countries. It would be quite a distance to the Balkans in that respect. Neighbouring countries have, however, been generous in accommodating refugees.

Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq have taken large numbers of refugees despite the fact that this is putting huge pressure on their own resources. These are very poor countries in their own right.

This conversation is giving me a feeling of déjà vu. We remember the situations in Iraq and Libya. When people spoke about chemical weapons in those cases, consideration was given to no-fly zones and invasions. The position in either country is far from a success story. Does the Minister of State agree that the suggestion of bringing more weaponry into this conflict will not help anyone in Syria or any of the other countries in the region?

That is the issue. The Tánaiste has been arguing that point much more than I have, for example at the Foreign Affairs Council when it considered whether it would be appropriate to lift the arms embargo to allow the opposition to acquire some weapons. While member states agreed to look for a solution, they could not agree fully on the way forward. It was eventually decided to lift the arms embargo. Neither of the countries that were anxious to lift the embargo at the time - Britain and France - has actually supplied any weapons to date. It is very difficult, certainly from this country's point of view, to understand how the supply of weapons might increase the chance of peace. The opposition is very divided. Some of the more militant Islamic opposition groups, such as al-Nusra Front, have divided further. They have split again. The clear danger when one provides arms is that one has no indication of how those who get them intend to use them. On the other side of the equation, there is a split between the two great powers - the US and Russia. It is likely to be a tit-for-tat situation. The provision of arms is certainly unlikely to provide any solution.

I think the Tánaiste needs to be commended on taking the position that the embargo should not be lifted. Anyone who looks at history will see that it is pure madness to pour more arms into Syria. It is likely to cause more problems than it will solve. Two years of sanctions did nothing to sort out al-Assad, or bring him to the negotiating table. As it turns out, he seems to be more eager to go to the negotiating table now. Some of the western powers want the rebels to do likewise. Secularism in the area has been undermined by the western powers over the past 30 or 40 years. We have facilitated a civil war between Sunnis and Shias. The more western involvement in this conflict there is, the more hardship will be experienced by the peoples involved. Like the American backing for the Taliban in the 1990s, this seems to be based on the idea that "my enemy's enemy must be my friend". It could yet result in British or American forces fighting alongside al-Qaeda in Syria. The thought of it is just frightening. I encourage the Government to be strong in making the point that intervention in Syria would amount to madness.

The Tánaiste has done well in arguing against the lifting of the embargo. I honestly think we could do a lot more. We tend to understate the influence we can have on the world stage. I think the examples of Libya and other countries show the damage that comes from taking sides in a civil war. Is it not the case that the peace talks are being held up by the American-backed rebels rather than the Assad regime? America is looking to arm the rebels in order to enhance their position at the negotiating table at a later stage. The lifting of the embargo will make the humanitarian disaster worse and will set back the objective of peace. If arms are travelling to Syria, can the Minister of State assure the House that Shannon Airport will not be used for that purpose? Can he assure us that checks will be carried out in that regard?

On 27 May last, the Ministers agreed to extend the restrictive measures for 12 months but without the arms embargo, on which no further agreement could be reached. It was also agreed that the high representative will draw up a special report on political developments in advance of the Council meeting on 1 August next. That will give Ministers an opportunity to review the situation. It seems at this point that the Geneva II peace conference offers the only real prospect for any progress to be made. All of the steps that have been taken so far have been unsuccessful. As the Tánaiste indicated, it may not be possible for it to take place on 9 July, as was intended, because of Ramadan and for other reasons. One can read as much as one wishes into the positions the various superpowers are taking on one side or the other. For a long time, the US has been proposing that weapons be supplied. The EU has been very reluctant to get involved in that in any way. Britain and France have broken the agreement to that effect that was in place until recently. At the same time, they have agreed not to supply any arms until the matter is reviewed on 1 August.

I thank the Minister of State for his extensive and comprehensive reply. I compliment him and the Tánaiste on the extent to which they have committed themselves to peaceful intervention in the region. I note what the Minister of State said in his response about no-fly zones. Can he comment on the extent to which the international community has proposed the notion of safe havens - notwithstanding the experience in the western Balkans in an earlier generation - with a view to establishing such locations in this region or on its borders, and to which members of the civilian community might have recourse in the event of their human rights being violated or their lives being at risk?

I am not sure of the extent to which consideration has been given to the western Balkans as a possible safe haven.

No, I was not suggesting that. I mentioned the experience in the western Balkans as an example of the background to this suggestion.

The areas on the borders of Syria are safe havens, in effect.

There is the Zaatari camp in Jordan, the camp in Turkey and the camp in Lebanon. A number of the neighbouring countries, most notably Jordan, have taken a large number of Syrian nationals into their communities. They have been located in people's homes, especially where there is a sort of racial connection. There has been a good response from the neighbouring countries that are under stress themselves. The United Nations is involved in all the camps on the borders. UNICEF and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement are also very much involved. All of these organisations are extremely active in all of these camps. They are seeking to engage internally in Syria as well at present. We must not forget the work of our own agencies. GOAL has received permission from Turkey to work there and across the border in Syria as a registered agency. Oxfam and UNICEF, with which we are very much related, are very active there as well.

Foreign Conflicts

Michael Moynihan

Question:

7. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on whether the experience from the Mali mission would suggest that, while individual member states of the European Union could respond rapidly, the decision-making process within the EU had been found wanting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30806/13]

The EU has been concerned about the situation in Mali for some time, notably following the army coup in March 2012 and the takeover at around the same time of much of the north of the country by a range of armed groups. Recognising that the crisis in Mali cannot be addressed through military means alone, the EU has implemented a comprehensive approach to the situation which encompasses diplomatic support, development and humanitarian assistance, as well as support in the areas of security and peacekeeping.

The EU has emphasised the importance of progress on the political track, especially the implementation of the transition roadmap by the Malian authorities. This week, the Foreign Affairs Council welcomed the signing of the interim peace agreement in Mali on 18 June 2013 between the Malian authorities and Tuareg communities in northern Mali, which provides for an immediate ceasefire and paves the way for presidential elections nationwide on 28 July. The EU will continue to encourage the preparations for free and fair elections, a meaningful national dialogue and reconciliation process and full respect for human rights for all of Mali’s citizens.

The EU has also been active in addressing the humanitarian situation in Mali. In May, the EU and France partnered to organise a donor conference on Mali in Brussels at which more than €3 billion was pledged to assist Mali’s recovery. I announced at the conference that Ireland will provide a further €2.5 million to respond to continuing humanitarian needs and to support the recovery of Mali.

The EU has supported international efforts to support stabilisation and counter the threat of terrorism in Mali. Alongside the French-led Operation Serval and the African-led International Support Mission in Mali, AFISMA, the EU Training Mission in Mali - EUTM Mali - forms an integral part of the EU’s role in supporting the request from the UN to member states and regional and international organisations to provide assistance, training and capacity-building support to the Malian security forces to help them to restore the authority of the Malian Government. The EU is currently examining how it can provide further support for the Malian authorities in the area of civilian security and justice in order to contribute to the long-term stabilisation of the country. Furthermore, a number of EU member states, including Ireland, are considering making a contribution to the newly established UN peacekeeping force, MINUSMA, which is due to be deployed at the beginning of July and will build on the work undertaken by France and AFISMA troops to date.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. With regard to the forthcoming elections, I read some time ago that the security situation, particularly in northern Mali, remained very unstable. Is the Minister of State confident that enough stability has been achieved to ensure free and fair elections? As we know, French forces intervened in Mali in early January to prevent Islamic forces from overwhelming the country. It has been claimed, I believe with some justification, that it was essentially unilateral French action to intervene in its old colonial area of influence that drove on the EU rather than a multilateral intervention decided by the EU. Does the Minister of State agree with the comment of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, some time ago that the EU was found wanting in respect of its Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP?

I would be reasonably confident that the roadmap that has been put in place, which culminates in elections taking place on 28 July, will be achieved. The EU was very quick to respond to the situation. France intervened in January and at the informal meeting of the Development Ministers on 9 and 10 February in Dublin Castle, the first real discussion of the issue took place. It was decided at that point that a roadmap would be put in place, there would be nation building and there would be the release of €250 million by the EU to get moving on dealing with the humanitarian situation. Since then, steps along the way have brought us towards the transition to the fulfilment of the roadmap. It is intended that the French troops would evacuate at the time the elections take place, the transition Government would step down before the elections and that, when the elections take place, a new Government would become operational.

Part of the process was to ensure a commission on mediation and reconciliation was established and that this would operate before the elections took place. This was to ensure contact would be made and agreement reached with the Tuareg in the run-up to the elections. Agreement was reached and the interim peace agreement was signed on 18 June. I believe this will, to a much greater extent, ensure the elections are peaceful and transparent.

As the Minister of State is aware, the European Council in December 2012 proposed that the whole CSDP and its strengthening would be an issue for discussion and decision at the December Council meeting. As the House is aware, the protocol inserted in the Lisbon Treaty provides for our neutrality, and Ireland's views will be influenced and framed by that protocol and our policy of neutrality. Can the Minister of State assure us that, in the forthcoming Green Paper on Defence, the position on the triple lock will not be changed and our participation in foreign missions will remain under the same criteria as they have up to now?

While there have been numerous Tuareg ceasefires in the past, I see this as positive in that there is now a real opportunity in that country. The agreement is that many of the grievances of the Tuareg population would be addressed. There is criticism that there was no common agreement across the EU in regard to the conflict in the region but I presume there is common agreement in regard to building a real and meaningful peace process in that region. This is where the positive support needs to come from the EU in order to try to resolve the conflict that has been ongoing for decades in the region by seriously addressing the grievances of the Tuareg population in the north of Mali, in particular in regard to the corrupt regime that was in place, given the intervention was seen as the French stepping in to prop up that regime. Does the Minister of State agree this is a real opportunity that the EU needs to grab with two hands?

With regard to the Green Paper on Defence, that question could be more usefully put to the relevant Minister, who I am sure will give him a thorough and comprehensive response.

I assume the long-standing policy of neutrality will remain.

As of now, and on the best information, our neutrality remains intact.

I see the Tánaiste agrees.

Absolutely. There are no worries about it.

And the triple lock.

We have eight people involved in the EU Training Mission in Mali and they are there largely to train the existing force and to ensure the operations are based on human rights. There is also a request that member states make a contribution to the EU peacekeeping force, MINUSMA, which is due to come into place from the beginning of July. Whatever decision is made on that is another matter.

With regard to the broader question from Deputy Crowe about what is needed in the long term, there is at this stage general recognition that this whole area of the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, which has given rise to enormous conflict and, at times, mayhem, needs to be addressed. Somalia, on one side, is a huge part, and Mali, on the other side, is another part, but there are other areas in between where there is a lot of conflict.

Some €3.25 billion was collected during the pledging conference in Brussels, to which we contributed. The intention is that a state-building exercise would take place so that, in the first instance, humanitarian aid would be provided, there would then be new elections and there would be a reliable and transparently elected Government. The intention is then to move towards developing the country in a sustainable way and ensuring its security at the same time.

Human Rights Issues

Martin Ferris

Question:

8. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a person (details supplied) who is imprisoned in Lithuania will have his case heard before the court of appeal in Vilnius, on 27 June; and if the Irish ambassador to Lithuania, or another high-ranking embassy official, will attend this hearing. [30773/13]

Martin Ferris

Question:

24. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to conditions in Lukiškės Prison in Lithuania, in which an Irish citizen (details supplied) is currently imprisoned; and if the Irish Embassy in Lithuania is providing the consular support he needs. [30772/13]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 24 together.

It is the intention of the consul at our embassy in Vilnius to attend on 27 June the appeal hearing of the person mentioned. The Embassy of Ireland in Lithuania and the consular assistance section in Dublin have provided consular assistance to the person in question since his initial detention in Lithuania and will continue to do so. The person mentioned by the Deputy was transferred in July 2012 from Lukišks Prison in Vilnius to Pravienišks Prison, near Kaunas. This is a lower category of prison, with a different prison regime to that in Lukišks Prison.

With regard to the upcoming appeal on 27 June, I am advised that the usual procedure is that prisoners with appeal hearings in Vilnius are temporarily held in Lukišks Prison. The length of time prisoners remain in Lukišks depends on the date of the court hearing and prison transport arrangements between Kaunas and Vilnius. Our ambassador has repeatedly communicated our concerns about the conditions in Lukišks Prison. The ambassador has asked that the period of the person's detention in Lukišks for his appeal be kept to the absolute minimum.

I am aware that Lukišks Prison has been the subject of reports by the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT. I also understand that the Lithuanian Government is actively addressing the issue of upgrading its prison accommodation and is engaged in an extensive modernisation programme.

I thank the Tánaiste for his response. I understand that the other prison where Michael Campbell is being held is almost as bad as Lukišks Prison, and the conditions, particularly regarding non-contact visits using a phone through glass or Perspex, along with sanitation conditions in the prison, are a disgrace. In Lukišks Prison, a number of prisoners in a cell all share a hole in the ground and also share terrible visiting conditions. The High Court here refused to extradite somebody to Lithuania because of the conditions, as did the extradition court in Belfast. Ensuring this Government is represented at the highest level possible at the appeal hearing tomorrow is in the interests of the human rights of the prisoner in question, Michael Campbell, and is also a statement of intent that the Irish Government and people will not accept the infliction of such inhumane conditions on any prisoner, irrespective of who he or she is, especially if it is a person over whom we have jurisdiction.

I have taken an interest in this case since Deputy Martin Ferris raised it directly with me some time ago and expressed his concern about conditions in Lukišks Prison. As the Deputy is aware, the man concerned was transferred from Lukišks Prison to another prison. The information I have on Pravienišks Prison is that it is located in a forested area approximately 30 km from the city of Kaunas. Prisoner accommodation is in dormitories and prisoners are not subject to lock-down overnight. Toilet facilities are separate from sleeping quarters and separate kitchen facilities are available for those who wish to prepare food in addition to or in lieu of the standard prison food. Prisoners have access to a garden, prison shop, prison gym, workshops and language classes. Unless subject to a disciplinary regime, prisoners may have one day visit of up to four hours every two to three months and an overnight visit of up to two days' duration in the same period. There is also the possibility of two pastoral visits per month by English-speaking priests.

The person concerned has received a number of consular visits from the embassy in Vilnius. There is an appeal hearing tomorrow. Deputy Ferris's main concern is that the person will be brought back to the original prison from which he was transferred. I understand that is just for the duration of the appeal hearing and the intention is that a diplomatic official from our embassy in Vilnius will attend the appeal hearing.

I thank the Tánaiste for the fact that an official will attend the trial. The appeal is not by the prisoner, Michael Campbell, but by the State to increase the sentence he received. There is no doubt that the publicity and interventions, particularly by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, have had a welcome effect on the conditions in which he is held. After tomorrow I will be seeking a repatriation ticket so he can have some type of relationship with his family and community.

It is an indictment of the Lithuanian authorities that they stand over prison conditions such as those in which Michael Campbell, and anyone else in Lithuania who happens to be in prison, are being held. It is in breach of all human rights standards and something this nation should speak out about. It is good that the embassy is sending a representative. I hope the Tánaiste will ensure the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade is involved in this later because, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, there will still be a battle to get this prisoner repatriated to serve his sentence in Ireland. There are grave concerns about the fact that he continues to be held there.

Irrespective of what this person is guilty of and whether he should be in prison, he is entitled to certain human rights while in prison. Based on the details the family has sent to us, there is a big gap between the conditions they describe and what the authorities are saying. The conditions we have been told about are frightening. I do not know what sort of facilities exist for getting Irish prisoners home to a prison in Ireland, but it is unfair on his wife and family to have him in a prison outside Ireland. Given that Lithuania is taking over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union after Ireland, it is very important that Lithuania is seen to adhere to proper rules and regulations on prison life.

The man concerned was found guilty of trying to purchase and smuggle weapons and received a sentence of 12 years. There is an appeal, which Deputy Martin Ferris mentioned. There is a Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons but that cannot be activated until the appeal process is completed. Deputy Ferris referred to two other cases in which extradition requests were refused. The appeal will be heard tomorrow. The embassy will be represented at it. Deputy Martin Ferris asked me some time ago to take an interest in this case and I have done so. I have asked our ambassador at the embassy in Vilnius to take an interest in it and the embassy will be represented at the appeal tomorrow.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.
Top
Share