Vol. 869 No. 3
6. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has learnt lessons from the 2011 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, intervention in Libya, where matters have continued to deteriorate of late; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8198/15]
We were informed that Libya would be different, that lessons had been learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, that this would be a real humanitarian intervention and that there would be no indiscriminate bombing and that only precision weapons would be used. The Government, and this House, were cheerleaders when it came to the bombing of Libya. In six months, the number of people killed there rose from 2,000 to 30,000. Does the Minister agree that the bombing of Libya was a total disaster?
The fall of the Gadaffi regime in 2011, which followed NATO intervention, was welcomed by my predecessor. It was clear at the time that building a democratic future for the people of Libya from the ashes of the Gadaffi dictatorship would be a difficult task. The optimism and expectations of a better future for Libya, which then prevailed, have not yet been realised. A more recent false dawn came in the form of the elections of June 2014. These were evidence that the Libyan people wanted to see a secure, stable and democratic Libya. However, in the latter half of 2014, amid increasing violence and anarchic political circumstances, the situation deteriorated substantially. The promise of these elections, just like that of 2011, remains unfulfilled. Recent months have seen Libya paralysed by intensifying conflict, with competing factions vying for political legitimacy and control of cities and infrastructure.
Our direct role in the events of 2011 was, essentially, limited to the provision of consular assistance to affected Irish citizens. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 demanded an immediate and complete ceasefire and authorised all necessary measures to protect civilians, as well as the establishment of a no-fly zone. This mandate was the basis for the NATO intervention. At the time, Ireland urged that any such military action should be proportionate, avoid civilian casualties and conform to resolution 1973. I hope that all relevant actors in Libya will participate in the continuing UN talks process in order to bring to an end the catastrophic suffering which this conflict has entailed for the Libyan people.
Military action is never proportionate. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 called for a no-fly zone. However, Sarkozy and Cameron, who wanted to boost their poll ratings, decided to bomb Libya. The idea that this would save innocent lives was very quickly turned on its head and regime change became the objective. Those involved wanted rid of Gadaffi and they were not interested in protecting civilians. As a result of the bombing campaign, 30,000 people were killed. NATO took sides in a civil war and this proved to be a total disaster. What has been said here is nonsense. In 2011, we argued with the Government that bombing Libya was madness. However, it replied that there was a need to get rid of Gadaffi. Libya has been destroyed and the Government bears some responsibility in that regard. In reply to an earlier question, the Minister referred to humanitarian aid and humanitarian concerns. If we have such concerns, why do we allow Shannon to continue to be used as a US military air base through which armaments used to kill hundreds and thousands of people are being brought? What is the point in providing humanitarian aid after we have facilitated the murder of innocent civilians?
The Deputy will be familiar with the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat and attack in Libya, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory. I acknowledge that the situation in Libya is completely unacceptable. The European Union is deeply concerned by the current crisis and has consistently called for a ceasefire. The situation in Libya has been repeatedly discussed by the Foreign Affairs Council, with conclusions adopted at its most recent meeting on 9 February last. The UN Special Representative in Libya, Mr. Bernardino León, is leading efforts to secure a negotiated settlement. However, his work, although showing an element of progress, is yet to bear real fruit in the form of a sustained ceasefire. What the UN is doing is the focus of our efforts to achieve a political solution.
It is heartbreaking that Ireland is following a European Union diktat which is driven by NATO. In the past, war used to be waged in order to acquire property and land for gain. Then it became a method of securing economic resources. Now it has become a means of promoting the arms industry. One does not get elected to office in America without the support of that industry. It costs $1 billion to win a presidential election campaign in the US and payback is expected in respect of any support given. A NATO-led Europe has, in turn, led us by the nose in terms of how our foreign policy is shaped and we need to put an end to that. We need to reassert our neutrality and we must no longer allow Shannon to be used as a military air base. The Irish people like the idea of neutrality and they want us to be different. They do not want us to participate in ongoing global militarisation or to become involved in wars which cause nothing but hardship and grief. Libya is a powerful example in this regard. Will the Government admit that it got it wrong in respect of this matter? Those opposite supported the bombing of Libya, which is one of the craziest events that has ever happened. We bear responsibility for what has been done. Ireland is a nation state and it backed the bombing of Libya.
I stress that Ireland is one of a number of states which continue to pursue a policy of neutrality or non-alignment in times of peace. It is a matter for each of these states, including Ireland, to determine the nature and characteristics of its policies. Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, which has been pursued by successive Governments, is characterised by our non-participation. We will continue to support all efforts to bring about a political solution to the unacceptable level of violence, murder and mayhem in Libya. We will do so in our own right via humanitarian aid but also as a member of the European Union and of the United Nations.
7. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on meetings, or contact, he has had with the new Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs. [8250/15]
Will the Minister report on any contact, letters or meetings that have taken place between him and the Greek Government and its Minister for Foreign Affairs, considering that that country faces the same plight as this country faced in its battle against austerity with the EU, the ECB and the troika?
On 27 January 2015, Nikos Kotzias was appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece. I have held no formal meeting with the Minister since his appointment. I spoke briefly to him on the margins of the extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 29 January, when I wished him well in his new and challenging role. I look forward to working closely and constructively with him in this context.
That is absolutely unbelievable. The Greek Government came to power with a massive mandate from the people of Greece and all the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has done is had a chat at a meeting with them and wished them well. Is it not the case that, in reality, the Minister has not really wished them well? Instead of giving support for and showing solidarity with people who faced the same fate as we faced, the Irish Government has acted disgracefully and, in effect, has thrown the Greek people under a bus?
In 2010, the previous Government received a letter from Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet which was very similar to the gun that was put to the heads of the people of Greece last week. I will read one extract from the letter: "But all these considerations have implications for the assessment of the solvency of the institutions which are currently receiving ELA. It is the position of the governing council that it is only if we receive, in writing, a commitment from the Irish Government vis-à-vis the euro system on the four following points that we can authorise further provisions. The Irish Government should send a request for financial support to the Eurogroup." So it goes on. In other words: "Go into a bailout programme or we will take no notice of this Government." Does the Minister agree that that is very similar to the fate that has met the Greek people?
The Deputy will be aware that this is a matter primarily for the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, who has been actively engaged, along with his European colleagues, in dealing with the current situation in Greece. I confirm that there is solidarity in Europe, and indeed in Ireland, in terms of assisting the Greek Government and its people, and this was shown by the Eurogroup agreement on Friday to extend the programme. We fully empathise with the new Government's commitment to provide a social package to help the most vulnerable and marginalised sections of Greek society.
It is true to say that the people of Greece have suffered much more than the people of Ireland. The 25% of the Greek workforce who are unemployed have no access to social assistance after 12 months and they then have to live as best they can. The new Government in Greece is committed to tackling this problem, and eurozone members do not have a difficulty with this important social policy objective. The meetings of EU finance Ministers in the Eurogroup and at ECOFIN offer the correct forum for the Greek Government to bring forward such proposals relating to the restructuring of the Greek debt.
Is it not the case that what has taken place is, in effect, a silent coup against a democratically elected Government with a huge mandate from its people? In effect, what was said was: "We will bring down your banking system if you do not comply and agree to impose austerity against the mandate on which you were elected." There is a tug of war taking place in Greece at the moment with the EU and the troika, acting on behalf of the markets, the bankers and the capitalist system itself, versus the workers, the unemployed and the poor of Greece who have faced a humanitarian crisis over the past six years. On 15 February, 100,000 people rallied in support of their Government and it is now necessary for people on the left to mobilise support for the Greek working class and to be prepared to implement things like capital controls and public ownership of the banks and other key industries in Greece to bring about a fair and just society for the masses of Greece.
I believe the most appropriate fora for engagement and negotiation are the meetings of the EU finance Ministers, ECOFIN. This was where Ireland was successful in achieving savings in the past through negotiations such as the extension of maturities, the deal on the promissory notes and, most recently, the early repayment of loans to the International Monetary Fund. Like all member states, the Irish Government wants to see a resolution which can help the people of Greece, which is also in the interests of the European taxpayer. The Irish taxpayer, as the Deputy will be aware, has invested €347 million as part of the Greek programme. From our perspective, the resolution of this issue will happen through negotiation and engagement and I would urge all parties to recommit themselves in that regard.
Deputy Seán Kyne, who was to ask Question No. 8, is not present, so we will take Question No. 9.
9. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views regarding Israel's recent intensification of plans to construct 450 new settlements in the West Bank; the representations his Department will make denouncing any potential fast-tracking of construction of illegal settlements in the lead-up to Israel's March 2015 elections; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8303/15]
This question relates to the settlement rush taking place in the West Bank at the moment in the run-up to the Israeli elections, in which there is a rapidly expanding programme of illegal settlements. What are the Minister and his Department doing to express our concerns to the Israeli Government?
I have consistently highlighted the Government’s deep concern at the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, which are actively undermining the prospects for a comprehensive peace agreement to end the conflict. I have publicly condemned recent Israeli Government announcements of further settlement expansion and called for these decisions to be reversed. I repeated these concerns during my visit to Israel and the Palestinian territory last week, most notably in my meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Lieberman. This visit also allowed me to see, on the ground, some of the effects that settlements and the measures taken to support them have had upon the existing local communities.
Ireland has consistently pressed the European Union to focus on settlements as a key element to be addressed if a Middle East peace agreement is to be achieved, and we have argued for stronger action on the issue. This could include both more emphatic public and diplomatic messaging and action on specific aspects of the settlement programme, such as land seizures, evictions and demolitions of Palestinian facilities. The EU has already taken a number of actions. Most important, goods produced in settlements attract a higher import duty than goods from Israel, the Palestinian territory or many other places. EU research grants may not be spent in settlements. The EU does not accept Israeli veterinary certification of meat from settlements. Many EU members, including Ireland, advise their citizens against investing or buying property in settlements. The EU has also been examining the question of labelling of settlement products, and I have pressed for that to be moved forward.
I would like the international community, including the EU, to be more active on this issue, and I will pursue this issue further with the High Representative of the European Union at our next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels.
Everybody in this country knows that the settlements are illegal. They have been condemned by the UN, which stated that they were in breach of international law. The International Court of Justice has ruled that they are illegal and in breach of the Geneva Convention. Today, 800,000 Israeli citizens live in illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Maybe it has gone too far for expressing deep concern and pressing the EU to take action over these settlements.
The Minister said he advised citizens not to invest in the settlements, but we know that one of our own corporations, CRH, was actively involved in the construction of an apartheid wall in the West Bank.
It has gone beyond the stage of advising and expressing deep concern. We need to take more concrete action than that. Ireland should take more proactive steps to ensure the settlements are stopped.
I accept the continued expansion and development of Israeli settlements constitute a major barrier to peace in the region. Last week I had the opportunity to visit an area in the Palestinian territory adjacent to land that has been marked out for further settlement. I had the opportunity to engage with local public representatives in that regard.
Settlements and their related policies in the majority of the West Bank, known as Area C, seem to be designed to drive the Palestinians from the bulk of the land they occupy and to crowd them into cities under the control of the Palestinian Authority. I believe these procedures are incompatible with what could be described as a genuine commitment to a peaceful and viable two-state solution. It also casts a doubt on the good intentions of any government that pursues them. I had the opportunity to say that directly at a meeting with the Israeli foreign Minister, Mr. Lieberman. In public statements in September and again at the end of October I explicitly condemned the Israeli Government announcements of further settlement expansion and called for these decisions to be reversed.
I know the Minister has made public statements calling for them to be reversed, but unfortunately all they have been are public statements. It is obvious to everybody that the Israelis have used the softly-softly approach from the international community to continue with the settlement programme and accelerate it. They know because of the attitude of the international community that by the time they get around to doing something, it will be irreversible. That is the situation we are facing now. It is time for the Government to take a very strong stand and to go further than expressing deep concern and issuing public statements. It needs to institute concrete actions that will affect Israel directly and ensure the programme is revisited.
When I visited the region last week it brought home to me in a very practical and visible way the impacts of the settlements on the daily lives of the people in the region and also the impact on the prospects for future negotiations and peace. I share what the Deputy has said. It is very clear that only the ending of the occupation will resolve the issue of the settlements and other problems affecting the area.
It is right, therefore, that the European Union's priority is to work for a resumption of direct negotiations to reach a peace agreement. The European Union has made clear its readiness to give exceptional support to a peace agreement between the parties. This could be physical support, such as a mission, technical assistance or political support. In the meantime, it is essential that Ireland and the European Union retain a strong focus on the practical issues on the ground, especially the policies on settlements in the West Bank which the Deputy mentioned. It is important that the issue continues to attract our ongoing and positive engagement.
10. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if there are plans to transfer responsibility for the oversight of all military aircraft, including civilian aircraft carrying troops, and seeking weapons exemptions, passing through Irish airports and airspace, to his Department, in the interests of transparency and accountability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8085/15]
We obviously have a very peculiar situation in Ireland where foreign military aircraft can overfly and land based on permission received from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but yet tens of thousands of troops and weapons are being carried on civilian aircraft under the remit of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. When the Departments of Justice and Equality and Defence are added in, we have everybody being responsible and nobody being responsible. Has the time now come for all these issues to be brought under the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade?
As I have outlined in previous replies, responsibility for the regulation of foreign aircraft is determined by whether such aircraft are designated as civil or military aircraft.
The regulation of civil aircraft is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the Chicago Convention, which came into force on 4 April 1947. Ireland's rights and obligations under the convention have been incorporated into Irish law through the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1946, as amended. The legislation provides that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has primary responsibility for the regulation of civil aircraft, including chartered flights. Under the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973, as amended in 1989, civil aircraft are prohibited from carrying weapons or munitions over Ireland or into Irish airports unless they receive an exemption from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.
Responsibility for the regulation of activity by foreign military aircraft is accorded to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952. This order states that military aircraft means "aircraft used in military service" and that aircraft "including naval, military and air force aircraft, and every aircraft commanded by a person in naval, military or air force service detailed for the purpose shall be deemed to be an aircraft used in military service". Arrangements under which permission is granted for foreign military aircraft to land at Irish airports are governed by the strictest conditions. These include stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives, and must not engage in intelligence gathering, and that the flights in question must not form part of military exercises or operations.
The respective roles of my Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in the regulation of military and civil aircraft are consistent with international practice. I do not consider that any changes are warranted in my Department's role in these matters.
That is probably the Minister's worst answer ever. He spent all the time up to the final five seconds outlining the existing system when the question was specifically whether we should change it. Last year 741 foreign military aircraft were given permission to land in Ireland. The Minister is claiming they were all unarmed and were not involved in anything. I would like to know what he thinks they actually were doing. Similarly with civilian aircraft, more than 600 exemptions were sought from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport for the passage of ammunition and personal weaponry for 55,000 soldiers who transited on civilian aircraft. Did the Minister see the media reports that two people gave evidence in court during the week that they had seen guns and ammunition on civilian aircraft? Is it not time to centralise all applications for exemptions in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade?
I am aware of issues before the court, as indeed is the Deputy. She will be aware of the current regulations in respect of the inspection of civil aircraft. In that regard the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport bears responsibility. Authorised officers of the Irish Aviation Authority have the power to inspect all civil aircraft in Ireland for the purposes of ensuring full compliance with the Air Navigation and Transport Act. With regard to civil aircraft, the appropriate orders empower an authorised officer to enter and inspect an aircraft if it is suspected that the provisions on carrying munitions of war are being contravened. In addition, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal offence is being committed, the Garda Síochána has available powers of entry, search and seizure as part of its duty to prevent and detect crime. In accordance with international practice, foreign military aircraft passing through Ireland with the permission of the Government are not subject to routine inspections and searches.
I beg to differ. I do not think we are in sync with international practice at all. No search has ever been carried out on any aircraft. Deputy Wallace rang the Garda in Shannon last week to report his suspicions of two aircraft that had landed. The Garda would not carry out a search because it claimed it did not have enough evidence, which is the very point of why it would need to search in the first place.
These are very serious issues. The Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions prior to Christmas. He said that these aircraft were given specific permission to carry personal weaponry and get the exemption based on the fact that the armoury would be in the hold and not accessible.
Information appeared in the press on Tuesday about two people who said they had seen such armoury on the actual planes. Does the Minister think that the Department should intervene and do something about that as it took place on civilian aircraft?
If there are people, including the Deputy and the Deputy by her side, who have evidence, I ask that it be transmitted directly to the appropriate authorities. I believe there is a scheme of regulations and conditions involved that are transparent. I reiterate that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport bears primary responsibility for the regulation of civil aircraft. My Department deals with requests to permit the wearing of foreign uniforms in accordance with the Defence Act 1954. We will continue to monitor the situation. I understand that very serious allegations have been made by the Deputy and there are issues that are before the courts, but I reiterate that there is no intention on the part of the Government to change or modify in any way a long-standing arrangement with the US.
11. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views in relation to the representations he has made to the British and Northern Ireland authorities in relation to the escalating tensions in Maghaberry prison and the failure to implement the stock take agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8086/15]
A number of Deputies on this side of the House and from the Minister's party have been involved in a cross-party, ad hoc group relating to prisoner issues in Northern Ireland. We are deeply concerned at the deteriorating situation in Maghaberry Prison regarding serious issues of prisoner welfare and we would like to know what steps the Minister has taken to raise these issues with his counterparts in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
There has been an increase in tensions in the prison in recent weeks. This is due in part to the issuing of threats by prisoners against Northern Ireland Prison Service officials in a context where a serving prison officer, David Black, was murdered by dissidents in November 2012. It is also related to recent construction work in Roe House intended to increase the space available to prisoners in the separated regime for association. However, it appears the well-meaning intentions behind the works were not effectively communicated in advance to inmates.
A protest by a small number of prisoners on 2 February ended with both the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice, David Ford, and the Director General of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, Sue McAllister, reporting no injuries to staff or prisoners. I am aware that some prisoners have said that they were injured during the protest. Members of the independent assessment team have since met with prisoners and prison management to hear their perspectives on the protest and on how best to take things forward.
Despite the increase in tension, I take some encouragement from renewed calls by both the Northern Ireland Prison Service and prisoner representatives for the full implementation of the stock take report. It is important that this work continue with the goodwill and support of all the relevant stakeholders. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has reiterated its commitment to the implementation of the report's recommendations. It would certainly facilitate progress if all threats against those working in the prison administration were lifted. All such threats are completely unacceptable and serve only to frustrate the process of improving the atmosphere in the prison. The independent assessment group continues with their engagement to encourage the implementation of its recommendations and would be open to a meeting with the Deputy to discuss ongoing concerns.
I have discussed prison issues with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on a number of occasions, most recently on 11 February. I also met in January with a member of the independent assessment group which completed the stock take report of September 2014. My officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade continually monitor the situation at Maghaberry Prison, including through contact with their counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office and officials in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, as well as members of the independent assessment group, and have been keeping me closely informed of developments.
It is important to say that the Deputies who visit loyalist and republican prisoners believe our intervention is probably one of the best ways of reducing tensions and threats through respecting the rights of people in the prison system. It has been our direct knowledge that the stock take agreement has not been implemented in the manner it was supposed to have been implemented and that concessions that were supposedly to be given in terms of a reduction in controlled movement and access on the landings were being interpreted in a manner that meant a knock-back in prisoner conditions. This obviously led to an escalating situation.
We are very concerned that there are elements that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo from both a security services and prison service perspective. There has been some incitement of prison officers by some hard-line elements in the Unionist community, which is not helpful either. The Minister must step in on this and not just accept what has been said by the establishment because we are deeply concerned about what is likely to happen and the fact that chaplaincy services were not allowed into the prison the day after the riot intervention. Legal people were not invited or allowed in either, which legitimised the concerns of people and led us to believe that they are particularly vulnerable. We ignore this situation at our peril.
The Northern Ireland Prison Service has accepted the recommendation of the stock take report that forum meetings take place at least every two months with an agreed agenda in advance. I acknowledge there have been some difficulties in achieving agreement on a mutually accepted share of the prisoners' forum but I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that it is essential that prisoners engage with the prisoners' forum because the resolution of these difficulties is through engagement and the type of forum that is envisaged.
I acknowledge the work of the independent assessment group. I know the Deputy and others have been very much involved in this issue, particularly over the past few months, but I suggest that the Deputy engages directly with members of the independent assessment group who would be anxious to meet with any Member of the House on this issue.
