Vol. 1051 No. 2
7. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government has made a decision on if and when Ireland will support South Africa's case against Israel in the ICJ, which alleges that the latter is committing genocide in Palestine. [11134/24]
12. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of his statement of 30 January last, if he has received legal analysis of the genocide convention, the court's provisional measures order and consultation with other contracting parties regarding the case taken by South Africa against Israel; and if he has concluded his urgent consideration in respect of to the filing of a declaration of intervention. [10949/24]
Has the Government made a decision on if and when Ireland will support South Africa's case against Israel at the ICJ? On 30 January, the Tánaiste informed the Dáil that an urgent legal analysis of South Africa's case to the ICJ had commenced. Has that analysis been concluded? What was the determination in that regard? I would like to know what the Government is going to do.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 12 together.
I have been closely monitoring developments in the case taken under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, the genocide convention, by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ. I welcomed the court's January order in this case, particularly the direction that Israel take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza. Ireland has been consistent in calling for this since the start of the conflict. Israel filed a report to the court on foot of the order on 26 February, but this has not been made public.
My officials continue to analyse the legal and policy aspects of this case. We are in contact with South Africa and other like-minded partners in that regard. As stated previously, however, the Government will not make a final decision on intervention until after South Africa, as the applicant state, files its written memorial. The reason for awaiting the filing of the applicant state's memorial is to enable third states to make informed decisions on whether to intervene, based on a complete as possible understanding of the matters in question before the court. This grants a state considering intervention the time to carry out a detailed and rigorous analysis of those matters in advance of intervention. In turn, this means that any intervention is more likely to be permitted or be deemed admissible by the court, depending on the legal basis of the intervention. It also means that interventions are more likely to be relevant, comprehensive and helpful to the court in its consideration of the legal issues before it.
Let me make it very clear that this is exactly what we did in the Ukraine v. Russia case, which was also taken under the genocide convention. Our intervention in that case was deemed admissible. No state has ever successfully intervened in an ICJ case before the applicant filed its memorial. Only one state, namely, Nicaragua, has requested permission to intervene in the South Africa v. Israel case to date. The court has not yet decided upon that request. It is important to note that when third states seek to intervene in ICJ cases, they do not join one side or another. Rather, they submit a statement that asserts their interpretation of the provision of the convention at issue, or they must identify a specific legal interest affected by the proceedings.
Beyond the case taken by South Africa under the genocide convention, Ireland has actively supported other efforts to promote respect for interactional law and accountability for violations of international humanitarian law across the occupied Palestinian territory. On 22 February, Ireland was represented by the Attorney General at public hearings relating to the request by the UN General Assembly for the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israeli policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory. The Attorney General provided Ireland's legal analysis of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, concluding that Israel has violated international law.
Separately, the International Criminal Court, ICC, is investigating potential war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the occupied Palestinian territory since 2014, on foot of a referral made by Palestine in 2018. The ICC prosecutor has confirmed that this includes the events of October 7 and all actions since that date. It is vital that the ICC is given the support it needs to carry out its investigation effectively. The court has made it clear that it is facing severe financial constraints. Ireland has committed additional voluntary funding to the ICC of €3 million to assist its work across all situations, including in relation to Palestine. I met with ICC prosecutor Karim Khan at the Munich Security Conference and discussed the investigations under way by his office, including in respect of Palestine, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Sudan.
My question pertains specifically to South Africa's case at the ICJ. I welcome that the Attorney General represented Ireland very well at the public hearings, but my question specifically relates to the process by which we will align ourselves with South Africa's case. I would like to understand the work that has been undertaken to this point. How many people, for example, are working on this matter in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and what is the timeline regarding our announcement concerning an intervention? Why are we leaving South Africa with the sole responsibility? We also have a responsibility in view of the fact that we also signed up to the genocide convention. Nothing is stopping us from initiating our own case, which the court, if it chose, could align with South Africa's case. It was built very strongly on the area of the Israeli Government's rhetoric. We would also have particular foreign affairs-related expertise concerning many factors. One achievement of the Tánaiste's Department has been the banning of the use of large-scale munitions in urban environments. Israel is dropping 2,000 lb bombs every day around Rafah, which is a tent city. Does the Tánaiste not think that we have expertise here that would allow us not only to intervene but to initiate proceedings of our own to add weight to South Africa's case?
On 30 January, the Tánaiste said he was seeking a legal analysis of the genocide convention and the court's provisional measures. Has he received that analysis and, if so, has he taken any action on foot of it? South Africa has again gone before the ICJ to seek further provisional measures in light of recent developments. I agree with Deputy Gannon that it is unfair of the international community to put the entire burden on South Africa. To be quite clear, and this is important, there is no prohibition on Ireland seeking to intercede formally at this or any other time. In the case of Ukraine v. Russia, the court observed that the articles of the statute "do not restrict the right of intervention to a particular phase of the proceedings". Notwithstanding that point, the questions I have put to the Tánaiste are not about the actual date of intervention. I was instead asking about the date of making a declaration concerning intervening. The Tánaiste knows this would send a very strong message internationally on the part of Ireland.
I regret how this debate is being conducted because it is more about playing politics. It is important that we be upfront with the public. The Attorney General's presentation last week demonstrates that we are doing the right thing from a Government perspective. Our action involved a robust legal submission to the ICJ on the question of the UN seeking an advisory opinion. This was followed up by oral participation in the court on well-informed and well-researched legal grounds. I refer to a legal intervention that has credibility and impact.
When this debate started, on social media and everywhere else there were calls for Ireland to join, support and align itself with the South African case. This was despite the fact that Deputies were told, on numerous occasions, that countries do not join or support a case in this way, but rather legally intervene and try to use the genocide convention or identify a legal route in that can have a real impact in this context. This approach would be one that would be opposed to just simply saying something, which we could do, because it is very easy to write a press release and say we are politically joining this and doing that, but one which means nothing. There are two basic, narrow grounds possible in this regard and I have been briefed by my legal advisors on this aspect. Articles 62 and 63 make it possible for a country to potentially intervene. It makes absolute sense that we work with South Africa. The Opposition Members, however, have now suddenly turned from asking why we would not join the case to saying we should not put the whole burden on South Africa. The Opposition is really playing politics with this matter.
Why would we-----
Just as in the case of Ukraine v. Russia, it makes sense that South Africa would submit the substantive case, which is called a memorial. It normally takes four to five months for such a memorial to be lodged. It makes absolute sense in this context for us to work with South Africa. Our legal advisors are very clear on this point, and in saying that we may identify our own grounds in respect of how we intervene. We are proactively looking at approach in terms of what basis to intervene on if we were to do so. In my view, the grounds in this regard are narrow but we are actively looking at this and we are in touch with South Africa in respect of its lodging of its memorial. This is the honest and factual position.
What possible motivation would we have to play politics around genocide? The Tánaiste can nod his head, but the insult of that suggestion is extraordinary.
But why-----
We are not the only ones who take to our social media. Six days ago, the Tánaiste had a big post on his social media saying how he was doing everything in his power in respect of this matter. This is a Chamber where we debate ideas and discuss the most serious issues.
What Deputy Carthy and I have said - the Tánaiste has backed this up - is that there are other means by which we could intervene. South Africa built its case and its 83-page submission on the rhetoric of the Israeli Government. We could come in and base our case on other issues, such as enforced starvation of a population and the dropping of large-scale munitions. There are other bases on which we could intervene or initiate our own proceedings. This is not the first time this is being brought to the floor of the Dáil. The Tánaiste may not like the argument in the debate. There is no intent to be personal here. I do not know why the Tánaiste keeps rendering it in that way. It is unbecoming. He should cop himself on.
I concur with that. The Tánaiste reaches for the political card, the performative card and the accusation card if anybody asks him to do something. Regarding those accusing people of playing politics, I remind him that the very first response from Government was from An Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, whose words were that Ireland had no intention of joining the South African case. That was the language used. I welcome that the Government has moved on to such a point that the Tánaiste brought a motion before the Dáil in January, albeit in response to Opposition motions. He talked about urgently considering intervening in this case. That was six weeks ago. Where is the urgency today? I commend the Attorney General on his role in respect of the advisory opinion. Nobody is asking us to do anything other than our utmost to stop what is happening in Gaza. That is what this is about.
It is not.
The Tánaiste should not question people's motives. I do not question his.
The Deputy does. He has.
I do not. I have not. What I have asked of the Tánaiste is to do more. That is entirely legitimate for an Opposition spokesperson to do. It is not legitimate for the Tánaiste to try to play political games and go down into the gutter on this issue as he has done consistently.
We are way over time. I call on the Tánaiste to respond.
We are asking the Tánaiste questions in respect of the ICJ. I ask him to please keep his responses to that.
With the greatest of respect to the Deputies, they have played politics with this. They did not quote my full statement to the House on the motion in question, when I made it very clear that we would await South Africa's filing a substantive case and that our legal people would, in the meantime, examine any particular grounds we could explore in respect of any legal intervention we might make. They are very narrow. I am very clear that the Deputies opposite have condemned Government. They have tried to create a wedge in domestic politics on this issue, as have others in this House. Let us not pretend that has not happened. They have successfully and critically condemned Government over the expulsion of ambassadors, on which they have flip-flopped, and a range of other issues.
I hope the Tánaiste will listen to himself and recognise the inconsistency in what he is saying.
We have been very clear. This is a legal intervention and needs to be done properly and with credibility as we have done all along. Ireland has been one of the few countries within the European Union that is utilising the international courts properly, effectively with due analysis, looking at these things rigorously. Six weeks ago, in the debate on that motion, I said that we would consider intervening, but we first of all had to see preliminary findings in the South African case. This is exactly what happened with Ukraine v. Russia; it was four to five months after the preliminary hearings. So far South Africa has engaged in the preliminary hearings. The court ruled, made conclusions and provisional conclusions on which we all agreed regarding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and unhindered access to aid. That is the preliminary stage, but South Africa has to file the substantive case. It makes sense. I have to stress I have been advised of legal grounds on this and I have no issue with that. We need to look at this through the legal prism if we want to be effective. We could write a press release. Either we want to be effective from a legal perspective or not. I think we need to examine this given the very high threshold within the genocide convention that is there already.
8. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the case of a political prisoner (details supplied) in Russia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10849/24]
20. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his response to the recent developments in the cases of political prisoners in Russia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10799/24]
68. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the case of a political prisoner (details supplied) in Russia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10848/24]
Question No. 8 is being taken by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan.
A number of weeks ago, I raised with the Tánaiste the plight of Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition figure who at that time was incarcerated in an Arctic penal colony. We now know tragically that he was killed in that colony and his funeral has taken place. What is the Tánaiste's response on that? Other political prisoners have also been incarcerated by President Putin, in particular Vladimir Kara-Murza and Ilya Yashin. Does he have anything to say on their plight?
I pay tribute to the Deputy, who was probably the first Member of this House to raise the question of Alexei Navalny during Oral Questions in a long time. Unfortunately, Mr. Navalny's death was announced subsequently.
Ireland is deeply concerned at the ongoing shocking erosion of human rights in Russia, and the persecution of individuals for exercising their personal freedoms, including rights to freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly. The domestic political situation in Russia has steadily descended into authoritarianism over in recent years and has deteriorated even further since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of President Vladimir Putin. There are ongoing examples of mass arbitrary arrests and detentions, as well as harassment of peaceful anti-war activists, human rights defenders, journalists, cultural figures and ethnic minorities. Domestic opposition leaders have been arrested and prosecuted on politically motivated charges. Legislation has been introduced to essentially shut down civil society in Russia.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation has described a so-called legal carousel whereby victims are put through a series of arbitrary detentions until a fabricated criminal charge is raised against the victim. Confessions are frequently obtained through the use of torture or other coercive practices. There is no independent oversight, reporting, or investigation mechanisms, which perpetuates impunity for such serious crimes.
Lawyers in Russia who fight to protect human rights defenders, journalists, opposition activists, anti-war protesters or victims of human rights violations in Russia are also targets of political pressure. This pressure includes legal harassment and prosecution, and physical violence amounting to torture and ill-treatment.
The sudden and shocking death of the opposition leader and political prisoner Alexei Navalny on 16 February is yet another indication of the ongoing deterioration and disregard for human rights and international law by Putin’s authoritarian regime. Ireland, along with our European Union partners, has been clear in our condemnation of Mr. Navalny’s death. His death reminds us of the fundamental freedoms that we all too often take for granted. He died in a penal colony in the Arctic Circle where he was serving a sentence of 19 years under politically motivated charges. This followed his earlier poisoning with a toxic nerve agent. Ireland considers that the ultimate responsibility for the death of Mr. Navalny rests with Russian leadership.
I attended the European Union Foreign Affairs Council on 19 February, where Ministers from EU member states heard from the widow of Mr. Navalny, Yulia Navalnaya, and discussed a co-ordinated EU response.
Russia is currently subject to the most comprehensive and far-reaching sanctions ever imposed by the European Union. The European Union adopted additional sanctions on the second anniversary of the Russian invasion and continues to keep its sanctions under review, including in response to the death of Mr. Navalny and the increasing erosion of human rights and civil liberties in Russia. Ireland is supportive of further EU sanctions targeted specifically at those directly responsible for Mr. Navalny’s death and options are currently being considered in discussions in Brussels. Ireland has taken a number of other actions, including summoning the Russian ambassador to Ireland to express our outrage at Mr Navalny’s death.
Ireland shares international concern at the situation of other political prisoners in Russia. These include Vladimir Kara-Murza, a British-Russian national and opposition leader, who was arrested in April 2022 after he referred to Russia as being run by a regime of murderers in a televised interview. Mr. Kara-Murza is serving a 25-year sentence in a Siberian penal colony and has been the target of two previous assassination attempts through poisoning.
Ilya Yashin, another political prisoner, is currently serving eight years for publicly criticising the Russian Federation for committing war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine. Mr. Yashin has been involved in opposition politics for many years and until his arrest was a municipal deputy in Moscow. Mr. Yashin took the courageous decision to remain in Moscow in order to be a vocal critic of Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine.
Six weeks ago, that we discussed the plight of Alexei Navalny and his incarceration in the Arctic penal colony. At that time, I said that President Putin deals with his political opponents by either imprisoning them or poisoning them.
I should also have mentioned at the time that when those two options do not work, he takes a further step and kills him. It gives me an opportunity to salute the bravery of Alexei Navalny in the bravery he disclosed not only nationally within Russia but internationally. I also commend the people who attended his funeral as it was a very brave act to display any sign of political opposition in Russia considering the previous record of President Putin.
The two individuals I am mentioning here today, and I welcome the fact the Tánaiste has dealt with both of them specifically, are Vladimir Kara-Murza and Ilya Yashin. As the Tánaiste has said, Mr. Kara-Murza is serving a 25-year sentence and suffered from suspected poisoning, and Yashin is serving an eight and a half year sentence. What does the Tánaiste think can be done internationally in trying to put further pressure on the Russian regime to ensure we do not see all political opposition there simply wiped out?
First of all, I welcome the Deputy raising these questions because we do not have the same level of scrutiny on Russia in this House as perhaps we should have with regard to debate. It is a striking feature of the House that there has been an absence of a more detailed debate as to what is happening within Russia in the suppression of freedom of expression. I agree with Deputy O'Callaghan and I salute the bravery of Mr. Kara-Murza and Mr. Yashin and their commitment to speak out against their authoritarian government, which underlines the bravery of many civilians in Russia, Russian civil society and political opposition. It takes extraordinary bravery to do that.
The EU is doing everything it can and sanctions are one key area. We are also conscious that the three lawyers who had been defending Mr. Navalny were added to Russia's list of terrorists and extremists in November 2023. They remain in pre-trial detention to this day and are facing up to six years' imprisonment. International pressure and the isolation of Russia internationally must be considered given the extreme behaviour of this country against its own civilians who dare to speak up. It is shocking.
The violations of human rights in Russia and the stamping out of political opposition are important because Russia as a country exerts significant influence throughout the world. There are very many other countries around the world which do not comply with the principles of human rights that we respect in this country but they are of limited influence. Unfortunately, globally, Russia's influence is extending beyond its borders and it is having quite an impact in other countries. That is why it is important we keep focus on what is happening in that country. I welcome that there is concentration now on other political prisoners who are being incarcerated because of their political views.
It is important to recall in respect of Ilya Yashin that the reason he received an eight and a half year prison sentence was because he made statements about the killings in Bucha. We cannot forget what happened there regarding the violations of human rights, the mass killings of civilians and the war crimes which were committed there, and it is important we keep a focus on that in the same way as dissidents in Russia are keeping a focus on it in their own country.
I certainly join others in commending the bravery of Alexei Navalny and all others who stand against Putin's autocracy. The Tánaiste set out rightly the litany of human rights violations now afoot in Russia. On our actions, I produced and brought before the House, as the Chair of the justice committee here present will recall, the Magnitsky legislation to ensure we and our financial services sector here are not used as a conduit for the ill-gotten gains of the autocrats who now rule Russia. Will the Tánaiste undertake to re-examine the opposition of the Government to the enactment of the Magnitsky legislation which was unanimously supported on a cross-party basis both on Second Stage in this House and at the justice committee?
First of all, Deputy O'Callaghan's point is a very fair and important one. Russia is no ordinary country and is a significant power. It wields considerable influence across the world, be it in Syria, Africa or in some parts of Europe. It clearly has significant influence on states within the EU and is endeavouring to disrupt some EU states. It has already now put EU leaders in Estonia and Latvia under threat of detention because of the alleged destruction of Russian monuments in European Union capitals. It is very serious because others follow and believe this is the way you control countries and citizens and rule. It allows for an expansion of authoritarianism.
Again, I was taken aback by some comments of Irish MEPs in respect of Mr. Navalny before he died, where they were condemning him and they were less than empathetic to his situation. There are a lot of double standards in Irish public life in respect of these matters, because we should all support freedom of expression in every society.
On Magnitsky?
On the Magnitsky legislation, and the Deputy raised this at the time, the Department of Justice view was that we already had sufficient instruments that mirror the Magnitsky case, but again, I will go back because I know that the Deputy has been a very strong advocate for that and I have no issue at all with the principles behind that.
9. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has spoken to his European counterparts about placing sanctions on Israel for its bombardment of Gaza; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10255/24]
Given the cataclysmic circumstances in Gaza at the moment, has the Tánaiste spoken to his European counterparts with regard to sanctions on Israel and what will the European Union and this country do about the terrible events that are going on in Gaza at the moment?
I thank the Deputy for raising the question. Ireland has in recent weeks engaged in several concrete initiatives regarding the conflict, all of which have been underpinned by our clear and principled position.
In view of the unacceptable levels of violence being perpetrated by certain Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, in particular since 7 October 2023, I have underlined my strong support for EU sanctions targeting violent or extreme Israeli settlers. This is a matter I have raised with my European counterparts at successive meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council. During the Council’s meeting in February, 26 member states indicated that they are ready to move ahead with sanctions on this issue. Ireland has called for rapid presentation of proposals in line with commitments given by the High Representative.
While Ireland continues to press to agree sanctions at EU level, officials are also examining options to work in concert with a group of EU member states to implement measures at a national level. Additionally, the Taoiseach and the Spanish Prime Minister have written to Commission President von der Leyen, expressing deep concern at the deteriorating situation in Gaza and calling for an urgent review of whether Israel is complying with its human rights obligations under the European Union-Israel Association Agreement.
As the Deputy is aware, calls for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire have been and will continue to be a central priority for the Government. Civilians in Gaza urgently need the fighting to stop and a significant and sustained increase in humanitarian aid. It is clear that this is the desire of the overwhelming majority of the international community, along with the immediate and unconditional release of hostages, urgent and effective humanitarian access, and the protection of civilians.
What we are witnessing at the moment and have witnessed in the past six months in Gaza is and has been almost unbearable to look at. I do not know if the Tánaiste saw the report on the BBC the other day where 15 children died basically of malnutrition. It was unbelievable just to see that. Imagine being there and being the mother or father of that child. This is being done in real time by a state that we call a friend and that has an ambassador not too far from here. Over 75 years, what has this country ever done to hold Israel to account? It has done nothing; it has been just absolute lip service. The Tánaiste comes in here every week saying the exact same things. When will Israel be punished and brought to account for the crimes it is committing at this time? Where? Show me where.
The Tánaiste's party in the previous Dáil supported the occupied territories Bill and now his party is hiding. That is a very limited Bill. Can the Tánaiste imagine if that were enacted?
The Deputy will have a chance to come back in again.
I do follow the BBC reports and I pay tribute to the BBC because I believe it has brought some sharp insights and has revealed and exposed a great deal, notwithstanding the limits and constraints on how it can operate within Gaza. The situation is shocking and we and I have condemned it.
I disagree with Deputy Kenny's characterisation of Irish foreign policy. I invite Deputy Kenny to go to Israel.
I have been, Tánaiste.
Hear me out.
I was there.
I ask the Deputy to hear me out for a second. I had not finished the sentence. I invite him to go to Israel, meet with the Israeli Government and find out first-hand what it thinks of the Irish Government's position or the Irish people's position. The Israeli Government does not think we have done nothing. I will leave it at that. We have shown leadership on all the concrete issues that have had an impact over many years. Ireland was the first European Union state to call for the Palestinian right to a homeland. The late Brian Lenihan Snr. did that way back. If you go to Palestine or any of the Arab partner countries in that region, you will find that they appreciate Ireland's principled position on this issue. We want an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. The horrors people in Gaza are experiencing are shocking. They should come to an end immediately.
I acknowledge what the Tánaiste says. I acknowledge that Ireland has done more than the rest of the European Union in calling out what Israel has been doing, and not only in the past six months. If you go to the Middle East, you will find that people from Palestine are very generous in their comments on what the Irish people have done and the empathy we have shown, but we have not done enough. A good example is the occupied territories Bill, which the Tánaiste's party supported in the previous Dáil. Now it does not support it. Can the Tánaiste imagine what would be the position if that Bill was enacted? Can he imagine if, as a small country in the European Union, we were to say that from here on, any goods coming from the occupied West Bank or Gaza will be illegal? Can he imagine what signal that would send? It would send a huge signal not only to Zionist Israel but across the world that Ireland, as a country, will do more than has been done in the past five or six decades.
We need to do more. We cannot let this barbarity go on. Israel needs to be called to account for the barbarity it is inflicting on the Palestinian people.
The Deputy knows the answer to his question about the occupied territories Bill. The European Union has a legal competence when it comes to trade. I do not agree with the Deputy that it would have the impact he says it would.
Try it out.
Europe has been proactive in certain respects in-----
People said that of South Africa in the 1980s.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. He has asked questions.
The same-----
Deputy, let the Tánaiste answer.
The Deputy does not allow me to answer the question he has put. I do not interrupt him. Europe has taken steps in respect of trying to identify goods that come from the settlements and the possibility that we would be in a position to boycott them. The most effective decision we have taken as a country within the European Union - it will be difficult, by the way, to get unanimity on this - is through questioning on the trade association agreement. There are human rights clauses in the agreement in terms of obligations on Israel. Ireland and Spain have written to the President of the Commission. This will be discussed preliminarily at the FAC but then, ultimately, it will have to be reviewed by the Commission. Those are practical steps that can have an effect. It will take some time because of the idea of getting unanimity, but at least it will enable a review to take place of an agreement that is in place between the European Union and Israel on the basis of what it is doing in Gaza.
10. Deputy James Lawless asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views of the establishment of an international centre for the prosecution of the crime of aggression in Ukraine by Eurojust; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10861/24]
54. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he is taking to promote accountability for violations of international law, including international crimes, arising out of Russia's invasion of Ukraine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10851/24]
I ask the Tánaiste about the establishment of an international centre for the prosecution of the crime of aggression, with a particular focus on Ukraine and Russian activities there, and the suggestion that has been made by Eurojust that such a body be established. Will the Tánaiste outline his views on that proposal?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 54 together.
I thank the Deputy for raising this question. The Government has been consistent in the pursuit of accountability for Russia's illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. This includes accountability of the Russian leadership responsible for the crime of aggression. Ireland is one of 40 states, plus the European Union, in the core group for the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression in Ukraine. Ireland participates in regular meetings of the core group to address the complex legal and practical issues that arise in trying to establish a credible, legitimate and effective tribunal to deal with this crime. Ireland has also welcomed the establishment of an international centre for the prosecution of the crime of aggression in Ukraine by Eurojust. The purpose of the centre is to co-ordinate domestic investigations in other countries into the crime of aggression against Ukraine and preserve and store evidence for future trials. The centre will enable investigations into Russia's leadership to commence while discussions continue on the creation of a special tribunal.
As the first permanent international court with the power to prosecute international crimes, the ICC has a crucial role to play in fighting impunity for international crimes that have been committed in Ukraine. In March 2022, Ireland was one of 43 states to refer the situation in Ukraine to the ICC in order to enable the ICC prosecutor to immediately start an investigation. The Government announced in November a voluntary contribution of €3 million to the ICC in support of its important work across all situations. This is in addition to the voluntary contribution of €3 million made to the ICC in 2022 and Ireland's assessed contribution to the court's budget, which was €1.5 million in 2024.
Ireland is also a founding participant of the register of damage, which will serve as a record of evidence and information on claims of damage, loss or injury caused by Russia's actions in or against Ukraine. The Government views the register as an important first step towards the creation of an international compensation mechanism to hold Russia accountable to victims of its aggression. In addition, Ireland has joined 31 other states intervening as a third party in Ukraine's proceedings against the Russian Federation at the ICJ under the genocide convention.
This is a really important step. As I understand it, Russia is outside the jurisdiction of the ICC, not being a party to the Rome Statute. I think of historical parallels. I am not sure if the Tánaiste is familiar with the book East West Street by Philippe Sands. It is an excellent work for many reasons. It chronicles the two Jewish lawyers who effectively led the Nuremburg trials and developed the concept of crimes against humanity, which phrase did not exist prior to that. Not only did it characterise from a legal perspective the offences but it also gave the world a concept to focus around and prosecute again. I am also mindful of the Eichmann trial in 1961, when Eichmann was repatriated to Israel and put on trial. The trial ran for many weeks and months. The benefit of that trial was that not only was Eichmann brought to justice but it allowed the survivors and the victims of the Holocaust to tell their stories on public record. That gave the world a document that recorded that for perpetuity. It may have given some closure and some relief to the survivors but it also gave international precedent and an international historic record of what had happened, which may not have been possible without the trial. A question always in these matters is whether it is a case of retrospective retribution or preventative pre-emptive steps. Getting in early can stop the apocalypse before it happens.
I thank Deputy Lawless for his insights, which are valuable and important. Ultimately, this is also about accountability of those who perpetrate crimes of this kind against a civilian population and against a country. There must be accountability under international humanitarian law in the case of what is happening in the Middle East and, likewise, in Ukraine. Part of the challenges here have been that the ICC does not have jurisdiction at the moment over the crime of aggression. While Ukraine signed the Rome Statute of the ICC on 20 January 2000, it has not ratified it, meaning that it is not a state party to the ICC. However, Ukraine accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on its territory since 21 November 2013 by lodging two separate declarations under Article 12(3) of the statute in April 2014 and September 2015. There is an ongoing debate with like-minded countries as to the best forum in respect of this. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in Ukraine if the Security Council of the UN refers the situation there to the court. Given Russia's veto on the Security Council, however, that referral is implausible. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter.
A supplementary point that occurs to me is that while it has historically been difficult to capture evidence for prosecution of these types of crimes, in 2024 we have access to real-time footage, not only from the journalists - we heard the BBC and other respected bodies mentioned earlier - but also from people on the ground, from postings on their own social media accounts. Obviously, there is a certain bias depending on who is behind the camera, but there is a wealth of material available that may be of assistance in such prosecutions. Are steps being taken at the ICC, at the Eurojust centre or elsewhere to record and capture that material in order that it will be available to such a court, should it be established now or even in the future, and that it will be there as an historic record that can be then used?
It is an opportunity that was not there historically but, in the current situation, it is and should be used.
The establishment of the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression under the aegis of Eurojust gives the opportunity to do just that, to co-ordinate domestic investigations by EU member states and non-EU countries into the crime of aggression against Ukraine and to act as a central repository for evidence of that crime. Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania and the US are participating in this initial phase. The Deputy is correct. Already, a significant body of evidence has been established for a range of crimes, particularly the shocking crime of abducting children and taking them into Russian territory. There is far greater capacity now to assemble evidence. That is why we need to resource the international courts and forums. As the Deputy said, even the presentation of the evidence can be of great value to victims and their families. I support that enthusiastically. We will continue to support this in any way we can.
11. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs for an update on the action he is taking in relation to diplomatic outreach efforts and co-operation with Ukraine and other countries to ensure the widest possible international support for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace on the basis of the key principles and objectives of Ukraine's peace formula; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10899/24]
61. Deputy Cormac Devlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is supportive of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s peace formula; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10852/24]
There have been proposals for peace in Ukraine, some of which are barely worth considering. There was what I might describe as a Russian-friendly proposal mooted at one stage, including, I think, by some Members of this House, that would allow Russia to retain jurisdiction over the likes of Crimea, etc., which does not even bear considering. It is more acquiescence and surrender than peace. In any event, there is a proposal from Ukraine for peace. What are the Tánaiste's views on that? Does he think it will gain traction at an international level?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 61 together.
Along with our European Union partners, Ireland continues to engage internationally to build broad support for a just and sustainable peace in Ukraine based on the Ukraine peace plan. It is up to Ukraine to determine the terms and conditions under which it should engage in peace negotiations. Russia has stepped up its large-scale assaults on civilians in recent weeks and has intensified its offensive along the front line. President Putin's recent rhetoric threatens escalation rather than de-escalation. While the world calls for peace, respect for international borders and territorial integrity, Russia continues to choose the path of aggression.
Ireland fully supports President Zelenskyy’s ten-point point peace formula. Working groups have been established by the Ukrainian side for each point of the plan, with the aim of translating political support into practical and pragmatic implementation. Ireland has been participating in a number of the working groups, including on food security, restoration of justice and nuclear safety, and recently attended meetings on preventing escalation and confirmation of the end of the war. Ireland also participated at senior official level in recent meetings on the peace formula in Malta and Davos, in which a large number of countries from different regions of the world participated. There are now 80 countries from across the globe involved in discussions on implementing the ten-point formula. Switzerland has offered to host a high-level conference on peace in Ukraine in the coming months with the objective of securing support at senior political level from as many countries as possible for the key principles underlying the peace plan. Outreach is ongoing with a view to securing broad participation at the conference. Ireland continues to actively support this outreach.
In the meantime, we will continue to work with international partners to advance on elements of the peace plan. A recent example is the formation of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, a co-ordinating platform for Ukraine, partner states and international organisations to address the issue of the unlawful deportation and forced displacement of Ukrainian children by the Russian Federation. The coalition is co-chaired by Ukraine and Canada. The work of the coalition aligns with point four of Ukraine’s peace formula which calls for the release of all prisoners and deported persons, including children. Almost 20,000 children have been identified by Ukraine as having been illegally deported or forcibly transferred to Russia and Belarus. This is a shocking statistic but likely underestimates the true number of those forcibly removed. The coalition held its first meeting in Kyiv in November, at which the Taoiseach delivered a virtual intervention. In February, Ireland finalised its membership of the coalition, having participated in subsequent meetings.
Another area in which progress is being achieved is in efforts to counter the impacts of Russia's illegal invasion on global food security. Ireland supports President Zelenskyy's grain from Ukraine initiative and the European Union's solidarity lanes, which play an important in role in delivering Ukrainian grain to world markets. We are also engaged bilaterally in efforts to alleviate global food insecurity. Ireland will also continue to engage in relevant multilateral forums, including at the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, to work to ensure accountability for Russian actions in Ukraine. We will continue to engage with Ukraine and our European and international partners in the months ahead to build consensus around the key principles that should inform a just and lasting peace.
I thank the Tánaiste. It is encouraging to hear that progress is being made internationally and that many partners are working with us and others to advance that. Continued Russian aggression is a concern, primarily in Ukraine but also, as the Tánaiste referenced in earlier remarks, in other theatres. I was struck by President Macron's recent remarks that the European Union's response must step up. Of course, he was conciliatory in the early stages. He was almost apologetic for that recently when he perhaps reflected that he was overly optimistic or naive. He also referenced Russian activity in the Balkans and Africa. If anyone has spent any time in the developing world or has any contacts or follows the situation there, Russia is active in the global south and across every underdeveloped country in advancing influence, in infrastructural supports, although China is probably more to the fore on that side, and in undermining and planting a seed for its own ideological status. It is almost as if a new Cold War has taken seed. It is not just in the developing world because this country is also not immune to disinformation or misinformation. We have seen that play out in the West across many elections and political debates. It is a corrosive, toxic presence. Russia's aggression on every front has to be tackled robustly.
I thank the Deputy. He will get a chance to come back in.
The Deputy's points are well made. There is a real fear in eastern European countries, in the Baltics in particular, not just among elected political representatives but among the people in these countries about Russia's positioning. If Russia gains further ground in Ukraine, these countries genuinely feel they are next. It is sinister and threatening that the Russian President has laid charges against political leaders in all of those countries, saying they will be arrested and detained. It is wrong. Its influence in Africa has been malign and about grabbing the resources of the countries in which it has been behind coups. We saw recently in Mali and now in Niger the influence of the Wagner Group, for example. It is very destructive. It is about securing as many mineral assets as it can to get control over them, which is to the detriment of the population of these countries. Russia is a bad actor on the international scene.
I thank the Tánaiste. We are over time. There are two minutes left for this question and then the questions will finish. There will not be time for any more questions, unfortunately.
How concerned is the Tánaiste, because I presume he is in some way concerned and I imagine probably very concerned, about the possible ascension of President Trump part 2 in the United States? I was disappointed to see Nikki Haley bow out of that race. I suppose the Irish preference would be for President Biden to continue. In any event, there is a risk of a repositioning of the United States on the international scene. It is quite extraordinary that the party of Reagan, who oversaw glasnost, perestroika and the dismantling of the Iron Curtain now advocates a withdrawal from Europe and effective acquiescence to the Russian bear. It is quite a turnaround but nothing surprises about the individual who is seeking the Presidency at the moment. What can Ireland do on that front? How concerned is the Tánaiste that the international order will alter if that comes to pass later in the year?
As a representative of the Irish Government, we do not interfere in the political deliberations within the United States. There is a general election. It is democracy. People will make their choice. We have appreciated President Biden's transatlantic reach and the transformation in that relationship over the last number of years, the commitment to climate change and also the general working in partnership with Europe, which is important in terms of overall security but also for economic relationships, prosperity and so forth, as well as in trying to deal with war and conflict across the world.
The Deputy referenced President Macron. He is articulating a sense of a lack of long-term certainty in US policy more generally and perhaps a growing isolationism within the US political world. That is why he is calling for a stronger European resilience on many fronts as a response to that and that Europe needs to be in a position to stand on its own two feet. That is not going to happen any time soon, if we are honest. The US-Europe partnership is key and essential. Nonetheless, President Macron's points are well-made and we have learned that from Covid right through to the current war in Ukraine and the crisis more generally within Europe because of the stance Russia has taken.
