Clare Daly
Question:30. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the continued imposition of sanctions on Syria, in particular their utility in forcing regime change in that country. [53196/17]
Other Questions
Syrian Conflict
Deputy Wallace has been given permission to take Parliamentary Question No. 30.
Deputy Wallace is an able substitute.
Sanctions allow governments and international organisations such as the EU to appear to be doing something about war at times. At the end of the day, however, sanctions are a foreign policy tool which do not take account of the humanitarian needs of the citizens affected by war. It is obvious that the sanctions imposed on Syria have not had the intended effect on the Assad regime. It is the people who are suffering, not Assad. Does the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade believe it is time we abandoned the notion of sanctions on Syria?
The Deputy has raised this issue with me already and I know his concerns are genuine. There was quite a long debate on Syria in the Foreign Affairs Council meeting this week.
On 9 May 2011, the EU agreed to impose restrictive measures, or sanctions, on members of the Syrian regime to put pressure on them to end the violent repression of the civilian population in Syria. Targeted EU sanctions are in place against over 250 people and almost 70 entities complicit in the violent repression of the civilian population in Syria. The first person on this list is Bashar al-Assad, whose forces have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The sanctions also include an oil embargo, restrictions on investments, a freeze of the Syrian central bank’s assets and export restrictions on equipment and technology which might be used for internal repression, or for interception of Internet or telephone communications. There are no sanctions on food, medicines or most other civilian goods. The EU’s Syria sanctions include exemptions for essential civilian needs and humanitarian assistance.
The EU keeps the impact of sanctions under constant review. It will consider options to mitigate any unintended consequences which can be documented as relating directly to the measures themselves, as distinct from the more general economic disruption caused by the conflict and the Assad regime’s actions.
Ireland has consistently supported EU sanctions targeting the Assad regime and its supporters. It will continue to do so as long as the situation on the ground justifies these measures. To lift these sanctions would amount to tacit support for the Assad regime and would serve to encourage further impunity with regard to attacks on civilians, as well as disregard for the UN-led peace process.
There are numerous barriers to humanitarian access in Syria but these are as a result of actions by the parties to the conflict, particularly the Assad regime. I am aware of the challenges faced by NGOs operating in Syria. However, I am confident that EU sanctions are still justified.
While I have no intention of defending Assad, he is not the only one killing people in Syria as there are many other groups involved.
A report commissioned by the UN, Humanitarian Impact of Syria-Related Unilateral Restrictive Measures, was never published because of its findings. However, it was leaked. It found US and EU economic sanctions on Syria are hitting civilians the hardest and preventing the delivery of blood safety equipment, medical equipment, medicines, fuel, food, water pumps, spare parts for power plants etc. A leaked internal UN email, obtained by the online news publication, The Intercept, in October 2016, also highlighted US and EU sanctions as a principal factor in the disintegration of the Syrian health system. I recommend the Minister examines these two documents. The essentials are not getting through and the sanctions in place, which the EU thinks are bothering Assad, are not.
As we know Assad is winning the war so the sanctions had no effect on that. The people are suffering. A fresh look at the area is required.
The EU keeps the impact of sanctions under constant review and will consider options to mitigate any unintended consequences which can be documented relating directly to the measures themselves as distinct from more general economic disruption caused by the conflict. For example, in 2016, the EU amended the Syrian sanctions regime to make it easier for NGOs operating in Syria to buy fuel. Earlier this year, the relevant working group of the Council of the European Union examined the impact of EU sanctions on NGOs providing humanitarian assistance in Syria and consulted NGOs, including Irish NGOs, as part of the process. The review highlighted some challenges facing NGOs working in Syria, including a lack of understanding of the restrictive measures by banks and other key actors, which can result in delays in transferring funding, which the Deputy raised last week or the week before when there was a Private Members' motion on this issue. This led to the publication of a frequently asked questions document by the European Commission, which aims to clarify the sanctions regime for NGOs and economic operators to facilitate the work of humanitarian actors in Syria. Ultimately, the European Union wants to bring about an agreed settlement and permanent ceasefire that lasts in Syria. That is the way in which we can help people in that country most effectively, as opposed to removing sanctions and essentially allowing Syria to go back to normal under the Assad regime.
The western powers, with the prompting of Saudi Arabia and Israel, wanted regime change and interference has made the situation in Syria 100 times worse than it would have been without external interference. The centre for Syrian studies at the University of St. Andrews has stated that the reduction in living standards and aid dependency as a result of the sanctions is empowering the regime because people are more dependent on the regime. The NGOs that were interviewed in this report complain about the sanctions and say the sanctions undermine their chance to help people. The sanctions between 1991 and 2003 in Iraq caused the deaths of over 500,000 children. We will not know for a few years how many children will die in Syria because of the sanctions. The sanctions are not working.
Lessons have been learned from the sanctions regime in Iraq. I do not disagree with the Deputy on that. The sanctions against Syria are much more targeted than that but I reiterate the idea that we would send a signal by removing sanctions now, effectively saying that we accept that the Assad regime should not be targeted in any way politically, would give the wrong signal in the context of the negotiated solution we are looking for in the Geneva process.
Middle East Peace Process
Gino Kenny
Question:31. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether he will make known his views on President Donald Trump's formal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and acknowledge the potentially destructive consequences for the region; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53037/17]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:32. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has had discussions with his counterparts in Europe after the announcement by President Trump to officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53230/17]
Bernard Durkan
Question:36. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the degree to which he and his international colleagues can encourage a calming of the situation in Jerusalem with particular reference to the need to ensure that recent events do not precipitate violence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53169/17]
I call Deputy Gino Kenny.
This is grouped.
Sorry. Is that all right with the Minister?
I have no problem with it being grouped.
It is grouped.
It is grouped, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I wonder why Question No. 37 is not included in the group. It is practically the same wording as Question No. 31; it just proposes some actions.
It is not my call, Deputy.
Whose call is it then?
It is really the Minister who decides. I have just looked at it. It seems to be a broader question but in view of the fact that it is similar, if we do not seem to be about to reach it, I will give Deputy Crowe a supplementary.
Go raibh maith agat.
Can we clarify which questions are grouped?
All the issues relate to Jerusalem. Deputy Crowe's question has an added dimension, the recognition of the state of Palestine, which is presumably why it was not grouped, but I am happy to take them together.
Is it Questions Nos. 31, 32 and 50?
Questions Nos. 31, 32 and 36 are grouped, according to the Minister.
There is no Question No. 50 included.
We are making it up as we go along.
I do not think Question No. 50 was in the group.
Question No. 50 is in the grouping.
I do not think Question No. 50 is in the grouping. It is not in my brief.
Let the Minister respond. He normally responds.
My question relates to the announcement of Donald Trump's formal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the consequences for the region.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 31, 32 and 36 together.
On the US announcement, and the Government's position, I refer Deputies to my reply a few minutes ago to Priority Question No. 28, as well as to the statement which I issued on behalf of the Government on 6 December. I will not repeat my earlier reply but will add the following. The decision by the United States and its implications were discussed by EU foreign ministers both at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday and in the informal meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel which preceded it. Last week, many EU partners, like Ireland, had made statements of their own position following the US announcement. High Representative Mogherini had likewise issued a statement on behalf of the EU.
The EU and its member states have reaffirmed our belief in a two-state solution to the conflict, including the future of Jerusalem as a capital for both states, both Israel and Palestine. That remains our clear position. In the informal meeting on Monday, I stressed to Prime Minister Netanyahu the continuing necessity both for a solution based on two states, including a sovereign state of Palestine, and of a complete freeze on further settlement expansion, which is something I also made clear to him when I visited Israel four or five months ago.
There has understandably been a strong reaction in the region to the US decision, but I want to acknowledge that most Palestinians have expressed their anger and frustration peacefully. Regrettably, a small number have resorted to violence, including the firing of rockets from Gaza, which I condemn. At least two people have already lost their lives and I hope that all concerned will show restraint, both in protesting and in responding to peaceful protests, in order that no further lives are lost. Jerusalem has been a focus of tension and a flashpoint for violence in recent years. The international community has repeatedly called for all parties to refrain from unilateral actions that might increase those tensions. Unfortunately, that is what we saw last week.
I do not know who writes the Minister's statements but surely he does not believe that. Surely he does not believe that, as the two-state solution is non-existent? What happened last week was a deeply incendiary act by Donald Trump and was calculated to cause a reaction in the Middle East. Jerusalem will never be the capital of Israel and should never be formally recognised by the EU. This will only embolden both Donald Trump's reactionary supporters in the United States and the reactionary elements of the Zionist Israel of Netanyahu. This legitimises what Netanyahu wants to do. He has no interest in the two-state solution. That is pie in the sky. It is time for the EU to recognise that there is no way to have a two state solution. The only solution is one state in which Palestinians, Jews and Christians all live together as much as possible, peacefully.
That may be the view of the Deputy and others but the international consensus on this issue is clear that the most viable way for Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side is in the context of a two-state solution. The Government supports that, the EU supports it and it has been the subject of many debates, conclusions and resolutions in the UN. It is what we would like to see. The announcement last week, in my view, makes it more difficult to re-establish a political process that can lead to that outcome but the Government and I, on its behalf, will do everything possible to encourage a process that will result in that outcome.
Deputy Kenny can ask a final supplementary and then I will call other Deputies.
While there is a conflict here, it is a David and Goliath conflict and at the heart of it Israel is fundamentally not the liberal state that the EU paints it as.
It is a racist apartheid state, as much as South Africa was back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The time for treating Israel as a normal state is over. Israel is a cancer in the Middle East. It is there to confront and humiliate Palestinians. What Donald Trump did last week will start another intifada. Indeed, one has already begun in Palestine.
That is what Trump has done. His statement that Palestinian matters do not matter was incendiary. Even Netanyahu says that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people. What the hell is that? It is like what we saw in apartheid South Africa. Israel is an apartheid state. As long as the EU and the Irish Government treat Israel as some liberal democracy, we will always have Israel as an apartheid state.
I do not believe that such language is helpful to what we are trying to do. Israel is a state that has a right to exist. It has a right to defend itself and look after legitimate security concerns in a part of the world that is very unstable.
Do you believe in apartheid in South Africa?
In my view, Palestinians also have a right to a state. Much of their land is occupied at the moment.
All of it is occupied.
Please, Deputy Kenny, that is not fair.
We need to try to move forward a process that treats both sides with equal respect, one that allows for a situation whereby the legitimate concerns of Palestinian people are addressed. We need to see addressed the misery that many Palestinians live in today, especially the humanitarian challenges they face in Gaza and parts of the West Bank. That is why the international community, including the European Union, must show leadership and facilitate a process whereby we can have a negotiated solution again. That has not been the case for more than two decades now, despite the fact that the Oslo Accords provide a clear roadmap to do that.
Taking hard line positions on one side or the other is not helpful. We need to recognise when mistakes are made. I believe a mistake was made last week by the US President in making the announcement that he did. We all have a responsibility to try to calm things after that mistake.
There will be four more supplementary questions. Deputy Durkan's question is grouped so I will be calling him for a supplementary question.
Will the Minister please get real? Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was not a mistake; it was a calculated declaration of war against the Palestinian people, the Arab world and the Muslim population. If the Minister does not see that, then he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Netanyahu is celebrating. He claims that the European Union will eventually accept this and move EU embassies to Jerusalem.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the Israeli Government is genuine? I say as much given what it has done since the Oslo Accords to accelerate illegal settlements, carve up Jerusalem and ethnically cleanse thousands of Palestinians from east Jerusalem. It has carved up Hebron, literally sliced Hebron in two, to the point that there are now 600,000 settlers in the West Bank. That is double the number at the time of the Oslo Accords. Does the Minister honestly believe Israel has the slightest interest in peace? Now, the United States has made absolutely clear that it has no interest in peace either.
I have never believed in the two-state solution because it legitimises ethnic cleansing. Whether the Minister believes in the two-state solution, it is now dead because Israel has systematically flouted the Oslo Accords and UN international law. Faced with these facts, at what point will the Minister say that sanctions become justified?
I do not accept that the two-state solution is now dead. That would be an extraordinarily negative message to send to Palestinians and Israelis for that matter, many of whom I have spoken to. Many Israelis want a lasting peaceful solution and are committed to a two-state solution.
The actions of the Israeli Government, especially in the context of settlements, the expansion of settlements and increasing the settler population in the West Bank, are certainly difficult to see as compatible with a willingness to negotiate a viable two-state solution that works for Palestinians as well. I have made that clear and the European Union has made it clear too. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Mogherini, made it clear this week that EU countries would not recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and would not move their embassies following the lead of the US.
Let us talk about the facts and look to try to calm issues rather than inflame them.
Does the Minister think there should be any sanction for the systematic breaking of international law? The Minister believes sanctions are justified against Syria. Does the Minister believe that at any point sanctions should be imposed against Israel for what it is doing?
Does the Minister believe anything other than words of concern should be expressed about the fact that the United States has now legitimised the breaking of international law? Does the Minister believe it was legitimate to dismantle the apartheid state in South Africa using sanctions and boycott? Will the Minister explain the difference? What is the difference between the systematic flouting of international law and the ethnic cleansing being conducted by the Israeli State on the one hand and what apartheid South Africa did on the other? Can they Minister explain the difference? I cannot see the difference, except for the fact that Israel has done it more thoroughly. Does the Minister oppose ethnic cleansing? That is what is being done in east Jerusalem – there is no other word for it.
I believe in trying to get a political result that works for everyone rather than grandstanding.
That is what happened in South Africa. We got at result in South Africa.
The Tánaiste, without interruption.
What we are trying to do within the European Union is get unity and consensus. We have unity and consensus on settlements and a two-state solution. We have consensus on continuing to put pressure on Israel to ensure it comes to the negotiating table. We will continue to do that in an effort to try to get an outcome that is fair to Israelis and Palestinians. That is what we are working towards.
I do not believe that Ireland should put itself firmly into one far side or the other. Instead, what I have been trying to do with other EU states is work with them to build strong consensus within the European Union. I believe we will be listened to in that forum. Moreover, I believe we will be far more effective in terms of getting a response from Israel if we can get EU consensus and a way forward.
I agree with the thrust of what the Minister has said with regard to how the situation, explosive and sensitive though it may be, should be approached. The Minister and his EU and UN colleagues should come together at this juncture with a view to doing exactly what he has just said. Their aim should be to calm down the situation and establish a bridgehead to move on the negotiations and the peace process with a view to accommodating the various conflicting positions.
I agree with that. There are differing views within the European Union, which is why the EU high representative has looked to try to find common ground on certain issues. That is the reason the Israeli Prime Minister got a clear message when most of the Ministers were in attendance on Monday morning. The European Union is united in its concern around the continued expansion of settlements. I share the concern of Deputy Boyd Barrett in that regard.
Viktor Orbán does not share it.
Viktor Orbán was not there. The issue is how we move forward a process that can result in a two-state solution as opposed simply to making criticisms and protests. That is where there is a difference between politicians and NGOs in terms of what we need to try to do. NGOs have legitimate concerns and need to raise legitimate issues. I am a politician representing the Irish Government. We are looking for a political way forward. We are working within the EU structures because that is where we have power. Ireland, as a State within the European Union, is looking and talking to other countries to try to get unity and consensus that can increase EU leadership in this area.
The European Union is by far the biggest provider of financial support in the Middle East, particularly for Palestinian communities. It also needs to be a very significant political contributor to moving this process forward, along with the United States.
Deputy Durkan is entitled to ask a final supplementary question.
I thank the Minister for his reply.
What about Deputy Crowe?
To what extent does the Minister see a common policy emerging backed by the UN - which has considerable influence and investment in the area - and the EU, with a view to a coming together of their respective positions and using that influence in a positive way to reinvigorate the stalled peace process?
We may reach Deputy Crowe's question before time runs out or we may not. If I give the Deputy one supplementary question now, he will have to forfeit his later question.
Will I let Deputy Crowe in first and then reply to both Deputies? I know what the Deputy wants to ask and I am happy to try to provide an answer.
The Minister can respond to Deputy Durkan now and then I will let Deputy Crowe come in but he will have to forfeit Question No. 37.
My previous answer covers Deputy Durkan's comments regarding the need for the EU to be a more influential political player in the context of the Middle East peace process. This is all the more important now that the US has undoubtedly damaged its potential as an honest broker in the short to medium term, which is very clear from the statements made by the Arab League and many Arab governments. There is a need for the European Union to work with the US and others to try to find a way forward in which Palestinians and Israelis can have faith.
Does Deputy Crowe want to contribute now?
Yes. The Minister made reference to consensus. There was consensus in this House on the recognition of Palestine. The Minister has said that he wants to see consensus at European level but the difficulty in that regard is the guilt in Europe regarding the Second World War. Consensus can be reached in Europe on favourable trade status for Israel but not on actions being taken against Israel because of the aforementioned war guilt. We need to show leadership here. There is no point in the Minister saying that the settlements are difficult. They are not just difficult, they are illegal. There are approximately 500,000 illegal settlers right now. Are we going to wait until there are 1 million illegal settlers before we take some action against this Israeli Government?
Unfortunately, the figure is a lot higher than 500,000 and I agree with the Deputy that they are illegal. That is not just my view; it is also the view of the UN. The settlements are totally unacceptable and are counterproductive in the context of a lasting peace settlement. They also make the politics for the Palestinian leadership all the more difficult in terms of convincing people that negotiation actually works. That is why the settlements are so counterproductive. I have been to the area and seen the settlements we are talking about in east Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank. I will be there again in a few weeks' time. I do not propose to change the Irish position right now. I want to go to the Middle East again in the second week of January. I will have a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister and high-level political meetings with the Palestinian side as well. When I have made that visit, we can then review the political approach that Ireland has been taking.
Brexit Negotiations
Niamh Smyth
Question:33. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of his negotiations, particularly those relating to the Border counties of Cavan and Monaghan, in respect of Brexit and the possible reintroduction of a hard border. [53129/17]
I ask the Minister to outline the status of the Brexit negotiations, particularly with phase 1 having come to an end. I also ask him to address issues relating to the Border counties of Cavan and Monaghan that will arise on foot of Brexit.
I thank Deputy Niamh Smyth for her question. Last Friday was a crucial moment in the negotiations and a good day for Ireland, North and South. The Government’s long-standing goals in the context of ensuring that the Good Friday Agreement, in all its parts, and North South co-operation will be protected and in maintaining the common travel area were secured.
Crucially, in the context of the Good Friday Agreement and protecting the gains of the peace process, the UK restated its aspiration to avoid a hard border and also set out in detail for the first time how this could be achieved. In the event that it is not possible to resolve the Border issue as part of a wider EU-UK future relationship agreement - which has always been the Government’s preference - or through a specific solution for Ireland, the UK has committed that, in the absence of agreed solutions, it "will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 agreement". It has also been agreed that any agreements put in place will be accompanied by effective mechanisms to ensure implementation and oversight. We very much welcome these assurances and the details that back them up. I am satisfied that in all eventualities a hard border will be avoided.
The Government will continue to work intensively, as part of the EU 27, to ensure that the UK's exit from the EU does not undermine the peace process and does not give rise to the reintroduction of a border on the island or the introduction of one in the Irish Sea. The avoiding of a hard border is described as a “guarantee” on the UK’s part and as the “overarching requirement”. We are pleased that discussions will continue through a distinct strand in phase 2 of the negotiations. It was a very successful strategy in phase 1 to have a distinct Irish strand, along with the financial settlement and citizens' rights strands. We wanted to have that distinction again in phase 2 because there was a legitimate fear that the Irish issues would be put into a pot with all of the other big trade issues and would not get the same focus or priority. That is not now going to be the case. In phase 2, just as in phase 1, there will be a distinct Irish issues chapter or strand. That will be part of an overall agreement whereby we will have to support solutions for the Irish issues.
I thank the Minister and compliment him on the negotiations over the past couple of weeks. Obviously, the Brexit negotiations are of huge importance in the Border region, particularly for agrifood businesses such as Lakeland Dairies, which has plants on both sides of the frontier. Businesses along the Border are very anxious to ensure that the seamless border that exists at the moment will continue.
Phase 2 of the negotiations will deal primarily with the future trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I very much welcome the news that agreement has been reached on phase 1. What is especially important about that agreement is that there will be no hard border on the island, as the Minister has just outlined. Anything other than that would have had major implications for the thousands of people who cross the Border every day for work, education and leisure. However, concerns still remain because the text published last Friday repeatedly emphasises the fact that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. It is important that the EU's understanding of the guarantee is the same as UK's understanding.
Phase 2, which deals with trade, must now be addressed. It is important that we maintain a close and coherent focus on what we, as a country, want from this process. This phase will be particularly important for the agrifood and tourism sectors in Cavan and Monaghan, as well as for our export industries.
I agree with everything the Deputy said. The Border counties are in many ways uniquely affected by Brexit. The Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland will effectively become the land border between the European Union and the United Kingdom. That has created a lot of concern and has given rise to many questions and much anger in Border counties. That is why the Government took the very stubborn position of refusing to move to phase 2 until it was addressed. We got fantastic support and solidarity in that from other member states because they understand why Ireland is so concerned about this, North and South. We also have very clear language on this, which the Deputy will see when the guidelines are published at the end of this week. Those guidelines make it clear that phase 2 will not be allowed to progress unless we get assurance that the UK will follow through on the commitments it made in phase 1. That is really important and should be very reassuring for people.
Some of the ambiguous statements over the weekend on the commitments which were made last Friday have been clarified, both on the EU side and on the British Government side, and that is very welcome.
The Border counties are a particular case because they are at the coal face and I am glad to get clarification, from the Government side, the EU side and the UK side, that there is an understanding on the issue. It is important for companies such as Lakeland Dairies, which have plants on both sides of the Border, and we certainly do not want to go back to the time when there was a very visible Border because it curtailed the development of the area. I ask that, in future negotiations, positive discrimination be exercised in respect of Border counties because we are only now getting back onto our feet following the Troubles. We need to be mindful, particularly in the trade negotiations, that towns and villages along the Border are only now rising from the ashes of the Troubles.
It is not by accident that the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Heather Humphreys, is also from a Border county. It was a deliberate decision by the Taoiseach to send a message that we are prioritising the Border counties in the context of the undoubted concern around Brexit. In the new capital expenditure programme, which will be announced in the first quarter of next year, there will also be a reinforcement of the focus on the Border counties to ensure that connectivity, North and South of this island, remains strong and that the connection between the Border counties and Dublin is also factored into economic development plans. The Government is very aware of how vulnerable and exposed many Border communities feel in the context of Brexit and we need to respond to that. The agreement of last Friday is, hopefully, a strong signal of intent in that regard.
Foreign Conflicts
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:34. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report to Dáil Éireann on the situation in Kurdistan; the steps Ireland is taking to ensure that the national integrity of Kurdistan is supported by the EU and international community; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53040/17]
I ask the Minister for a brief update on any supportive actions Ireland has taken relating to the Kurdish nation which is located within the Turkish, State, Syria, Iraq and Iran. His predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, told me last year that the conflict resolution unit in the Department was attempting to assist the Kurdish people in Turkey and I wondered if that was ongoing or if anything has happened at the Foreign Affairs Council.
The Deputy's question reminds me that I visited Erbil just after the Iraq war. The Kurds there are an extraordinarily resilient people, as they are in Kurdish parts of Turkey.
A referendum on independence was held by the Kurdistan Regional Government in September 2017. On 6 November, the Federal Supreme Court of Iraq issued an opinion stating the referendum was illegal, and the Kurdistan Regional Government has confirmed its respect for that opinion. The Federal Government has taken steps to re-establish a presence at Iraq’s external border crossings, including the international airports in the Kurdistan region. I recognise that, following the referendum, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed by Erbil and Baghdad, and I call on both parties to engage in a constructive and comprehensive dialogue. Ireland supports efforts towards a mutually agreed solution, based on the full application of the provisions of the Iraqi constitution.
In its June 2017 Council conclusions, the EU reiterated its steadfast support for Iraq's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its firm and active commitment to the preservation of the multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-confessional nature of Iraqi society, including the protection of its minority groups. In order to achieve the objective of building a common vision on the future of the country, the EU believes that it is now essential for Iraqis to embark on an inclusive process of reconciliation, both at the national and at the local level. The EU believes that the general interest of Iraqi people is best served through dialogue and co-operation. I take this opportunity to reiterate Ireland’s support for the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.
Ireland has consistently called for inclusive democratic measures to allow for genuine national reconciliation, in order to create the environment for long-term viable stability in Iraq and the wider region. If specific commitments were made by my predecessor, I will follow up on them and get back to the Deputy.
It is interesting to hear that the Minister was in Erbil. In 1920, Kurdistan was to be established as an independent state but, following the treaty of Lausanne after the disastrous Greek-Turkish war, the opportunity was lost. I asked the previous Minister, Deputy Flanagan, whether the annual report on Turkey had been received by the Foreign Affairs Council, particularly in relation to the wave of repression that occurred in Turkey following the attempted coup in 2016. The Minister said that, in one of the few positive elements of the Iraq war, the autonomous region of Kurdistan had emerged. Do we have any specific relationship with that region? I note what the Minister said about the referendum and the large numbers of Kurdish people in Syrian and Iran, where there has been similarly severe repression over the decades.
I wish to put on the record my admiration for the Kurdish people. They have been an extraordinarily resilient people and have played a significant part in facing extremism and terrorism within Iraq by directly fighting Islamic State. I do not have any details on the Turkey report but I can follow up on it for the Deputy. I will also need to follow up on the question of our direct supports to the regional government in Erbil. It is an area in which I am interested.
Question No. 35 replied to with Written Answers.
Question No. 36 answered with Question No. 31.
Questions Nos. 37 and 38 replied to with Written Answers.
Foreign Conflicts
Seán Crowe
Question:39. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will call on Saudi Arabia to lift its blockade of Yemen (details supplied); and if he will contact his Saudi counterpart to request that they lift this siege. [53152/17]
I am extremely concerned about the situation in Yemen. According to the UN, over 8 million people are a step away from famine, yet Saudi Arabia has maintained its barbaric blockade of Yemen, which is impeding humanitarian access for the millions of Yemenis facing hunger and battling disease. Has the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade contacted his Saudi Arabian counterpart? Has he called on the Saudi Government to lift this illegal siege before millions die? Does he support the call for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia?
I am personally extremely concerned about the current situation in Yemen. Three years of war have had devastating consequences for civilians, with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law, and significant loss of life. The death of former President Saleh has led to increased violence this month. The closure of land, air and sea ports in November, including for the transit of humanitarian aid, was an alarming development, which we responded to at the time. The humanitarian situation is reaching crisis point.
Ireland has provided over €11 million in humanitarian assistance to Yemen since 2015, and we are committed to maintaining support. My predecessor, Deputy Flanagan, raised concerns about the conduct of the war in Yemen and the disastrous humanitarian effects with ministerial counterparts in Saudi Arabia and the UAE on a number of occasions. More recently, officials from my Department met with the Saudi Embassy in Dublin last month and passed on my strong concerns in relation to humanitarian access. In recent days, the embassy of Ireland in Saudi Arabia has conveyed to the Government of Yemen that the reopening of Yemeni ports, for both humanitarian and commercial traffic, is essential to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. There have also been EU contacts with Saudi Arabia on this issue.
At the Foreign Affairs Council this week, I urged stronger EU action on humanitarian access in Yemen. In my interventions, I highlighted the need for more robust political engagement for a sustainable solution. My officials and I will continue to raise my concerns on the humanitarian access issues with the Saudi authorities, as well as with other parties, and at EU and international levels. In September, we worked with other EU countries to get a resolution passed at the Human Rights Council in Geneva to set up an independent panel of international experts to investigate potential violations of humanitarian law in Yemen in the conduct of the conflict there.