JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 14 Nov 2002

Vol. 1 No. 2

General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentations.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, for again coming before the committee as part of the preparations for the upcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. The Minister is anxious to leave at approximately 1 p.m. and members should endeavour to keep that in mind during their contributions. The Department of Foreign Affairs has provided briefings on all items on the agenda. One item relating to external relations, the humanitarian crisis in South Africa, was notified to us this morning and has been included in the agenda. There is another item on the general affairs area with which we will deal when we reach that stage. On the external relations session, I propose we take the Middle East, the Western Balkans and North Korea together for questions. I suggest we deal with the remaining items, 6 to 10, after that. We will do two rounds of questions following the Minister's introductory statement. We will take items 3, 4 and 5 together and items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 together.

I welcome the Minister and invite him to make his opening statement.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I am pleased to appear again before this committee. I am delighted to be accompanied by my colleague in the Department, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who has special responsibility for overseas development and human rights. He will also be attending the Council, together with other development co-operation ministers to consider the development items on the agenda. He will address the committee this morning on those items.

As members are aware, the agenda for the Council will not be finalised until after today's meeting of COREPER. However, a number of additional items have been already added to the agenda. I understand copies of the latest draft agenda have been circulated to committee members.

On Monday, 18 November, the Council will examine general affairs items, particularly preparations for the Copenhagen European Council on 12 and 13 December, including enlargement and the Presidency function. It emerged at COREPER yesterday that the item concerning the progress of work on the convention may be dropped at the Council as Mr. Amato, one of the two vice-presidents of the convention, is unable to attend. The Commission may instead make an oral presentation on its own work programme for 2003.

At its session on Tuesday, 19 November the Council will focus on external relations items, including development issues. These include discussions on the situation in the Middle East, the western Balkans, North Korea and the European security and defence policy, ESDP, issues.

As time is limited and will not permit me to comment on each of the agenda items, I will confine my comments to the more salient issues, beginning with preparations for the Copenhagen European Council, specifically enlargement.

The positive outcome of the Nice referendum restored momentum to the enlargement process. The breakthrough agreement at last month's Brussels summit on the financial package maintained that momentum. The Government is confident that the completion of negotiations next month at the European Council in Copenhagen is now achievable.

At next Monday's meeting in Brussels, we will exchange views with our counterparts from the ten acceding countries. We want to explore with them how to resolve the issues that are outstanding in the negotiations. Although the margin for negotiation of the financial package is limited, the Government considers it important that the EU does not adopt a take-it-or-leave-it approach. There is room to consider reasonable requests from the acceding countries. EU Ministers will reflect at the General Affairs External Relations Council, GAERC, meeting, which will take place immediately afterwards, on how best to respond to what we have heard.

The Government does not have any special problems with the issues left in negotiations. We believe that following the referendum on Nice the Irish people have voted resoundingly for enlargement. The Government approach in the closing weeks of negotiations, and until the accession of the ten acceding states in early 2004, will be informed by that vote. While ensuring that Ireland's interests are protected, we will at the same time endeavour to see that Irish and EU assistance and advice is sustained until they accede during our Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers.

The GAERC is also due to hold discussions on the Presidency function. The Council will prepare debate at the European Council on further reform of the Presidency system. A number of practical changes were agreed at the Seville European Council in June and are now in place. These included measures aimed at strengthening continuity between Presidencies and at the better preparation of the European Council. They are working well. It was also agreed at Seville that there should be a further discussion at Copenhagen in December.

It is likely that there will be agreement on some further technical changes aimed at promoting co-operation between successive Presidencies. There is also a lively debate under way on more fundamental change, though this will ultimately be for the convention and the subsequent intergovernmental conference to decide on, along with other institutional questions. Ireland and many other member states believe the current rotation system has powerful advantages which should not be underestimated or lightly discarded. At the same time there are several others who believe there is a need for more profound reform. Different possible models exist, including the concept of team Presidencies. We are certainly open to discussion but we are insistent that the criteria of efficiency and equality between member states be met. It is likely that this and other basic institutional questions, such as the possible election of the Commission president, will not be resolved for some time.

The Government welcomed the unanimous adoption on 8 November of the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Ireland supported this resolution because it offers the most likely means of achieving the three goals we set ourselves - to obtain Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations; to avoid a military conflict; and to preserve the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is also to be welcomed because the Security Council has been able to express in a unified fashion its concerns and intentions regarding Iraq. The resolution enhances the inspectors' ability to fulfil their mandate, both by strengthening their hand in valuable ways and by demonstrating the Security Council's determination to ensure Iraq will, on this occasion, meet its obligations.

In the past two months the Security Council has been engaged in a debate in which Ireland has played an active part. The Government took the view that military action against Iraq was not inevitable and that, on the contrary, war could be averted if the Security Council adopted a strong resolution which sends the arms inspectors back into Iraq with a reinforced mandate to complete their work. Resolution 1441 gives Iraq a final opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations imposed on it by the Security Council. The purpose of the resolution is to achieve Iraqi disarmament without the use of force, which we would regard as a last resort.

The Government believes the integrity of the UN Charter and the prerogatives of the Security Council are fully preserved in the terms of this resolution. The resolution provides for a clear sequential process whereby the inspectors will report back to the Council on Iraq's compliance with its obligations under Security Council resolutions. This will then be assessed by the Security Council, which will decide whether a material breach of Iraq's obligations has occurred and what ensuing action is appropriate. The final text contrasts sharply with the original draft which provided that any failure by Iraq to comply would automatically authorise member states to use force.

Iraq has been offered a rigorous and fair way forward towards meeting its disarmament obligations. However, there can be no doubt that Iraq must now co-operate fully with arms inspectors and reassure the world, finally, that it has divested itself of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

It is, accordingly, to be welcomed that Iraq, on Wednesday, indicated to the Secretary General that it is prepared to accept the resolution and welcome the inspectors. It might be argued that the rhetoric in the letter gives grounds for concern but we believe words are less important than actions and that Iraq must be judged on its compliance and not on its rhetoric.

The other major cause for concern in the Middle East is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Violent incidents continue to claim lives on both sides and there seems to be an almost complete lack of trust between the parties. It is essential that the two sides realise that dialogue and negotiation are the only way forward and that this is not a conflict which will be resolved through either brutal occupation or terrorism.

International efforts to assist the peace process are continuing. The envoys of the Quartet are working on a road map for a Palestinian state based on ideas put forward by the European Union and the US. It is hoped this road map will be ready for adoption by Ministers of the Quartet at a meeting in Copenhagen in December. The intention is to see a Palestinian state emerge over three years and to have a final settlement which will have two states living in peace side by side with internationally recognised borders. Of course, any road map or plan is only as strong as the will to see it implemented and I call on both parties to take a positive approach to the road map and the efforts of the Quartet. At this stage it is not expected that the Council on Monday will adopt conclusions on the Middle East.

Under the ESDP heading the Council will review the ongoing progress towards the development of both military and non-military crisis management capabilities by the European Union. From our perspective this work is going well but all member states agree on the importance of maintaining progress throughout the period ahead.

European Union Defence Ministers, including the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, will meet with the framework of the GAERC to examine military aspects. A particular focus of their meeting will be on the capabilities for enabling the EU to carry out humanitarian and crisis management tasks.

Foreign Ministers will examine the civilian side and review progress in the four civilian priority areas of policing, rule of law, civil administration and civil protection. Council conclusions will be adopted subsequently during a joint ministerial session.

ESDP is now entering an operational phase. By agreement, an EU police mission will take over the existing UN operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina from January onwards, while there is also the prospect of the EU taking over a military monitoring mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia later this year. The reality of these modest scale operations may remove at least some of the unfounded myths regarding the ESDP.

The Council also expects to receive an update from Secretary General-High Representative Solana on EU-NATO relations and in particular on arrangements providing for EU access to certain NATO crisis management infrastructural support, the so-called Berlin Plus issue. Following agreement on the EU side at the recent Brussels European Council, Secretary General-High Representative Solana was mandated to work towards an overall EU-NATO agreement.

I am satisfied this issue is continuing to progress in a manner which is fully consistent with the relevant principles established at the Feira European Council in Portugal, namely, full respect for the autonomy of EU decision-making; recognition of the different nature of the EU and NATO; and non-discrimination against any of the member states.

Ireland's participation in any EU-led military operation would be on a case by case basis in accordance with the so-called "triple lock" requirements, as confirmed in the national declaration at the Seville European Council. That is, participation is subject to UN authorisation, Government decision and Dáil approval.

Regarding Cyprus, I welcome the proposal made on Monday by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, for a comprehensive settlement on Cyprus and I hope it will be carefully considered by the leaders of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots and by Greece and Turkey. The UN has done outstanding work over the years in attempting to resolve the conflict in Cyprus and I thank the Secretary General for his contribution to the process as well as that of his special adviser, Mr. Alvaro De Soto. The proposal the UN has offered to the two sides probably represents the best basis for progress. A solution based on this proposal is achievable. It is up to both sides to grasp the opportunity which has been offered to them.

Members will understand that I am reluctant to comment in any detail on the proposal at this stage because the Secretary General has asked that members of the Security Council exercise discretion on the matter, and it is important that the international community gives the two Cypriot leaders the space they need to consider the proposal. The Secretary General's document represents a tremendous opportunity for both parties to reach agreement prior to the Copenhagen European Council on 12 and 13 December. Agreement will involve painful compromise by both sides, but the prize is great and, with political will and creativity, it is achievable. The Secretary General has asked the parties to respond to his proposal by next Monday.

There have also been important developments in Turkey since I last addressed the committee. A general election took place on 3 November which resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Justice and Development Party led by Mr. Tayyip Erdogan. Only one other party, the CHP, led by Deniz Baykal, crossed the 10% election threshold.

It is expected to take a few weeks to form a government in Ankara. However, Mr. Erdogan will undertake a tour of EU capitals over the next few weeks, and the Taoiseach will meet him for discussions on Thursday, 21 November. The meeting will offer us an opportunity to get to know him. It is clear that Mr. Erdogan wishes to integrate Turkey further into the world system and that he will pursue with vigour Turkish membership of the EU.

It is understood that the United Kingdom is also keen to stress the progress made in conflict areas such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Angola and would like to have a discussion at the informal lunch on how all can respond to consolidate peace in those countries. The European Commission has also stressed the importance of addressing problems in the Horn of Africa where the humanitarian situation must be seen in parallel with that in southern Africa. The Commission sees crisis prevention as the key way forward.

The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, will deal with development co-operation issues.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kitt)

I am pleased to appear before the Joint Committee for the first time. I will confine my comments to trade and development issues, the untying of aid and the current humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, because these are the three issues on which discussions are expected to focus.

I welcome the draft Council conclusions on trade and development. Trade makes an essential contribution to development. When supported by appropriate policies, such as macroeconomic stability, sound environmental practices and good governance, it makes an essential contribution to growth and sustainable development.

I also welcome the European Commission's communication on untying aid. All Irish aid is untied. The untying of aid is an important issue in the debate on the coherence and effectiveness of aid efforts and the credibility of donors. On the one hand, untying is perceived to be a strong indication of generosity and solidarity, and on the other and perhaps even a more pertinent feature, it is seen to enhance the transparency and accountability of aid management and delivery. It could therefore also have an important effect in reducing the scope for corruption and mismanagement. It is also seen as an element that fosters the participation of developing countries in the management of programmes and projects.

As committee members will be aware, one of the items for discussion at the General Affairs External Relations Council is the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. Recent assessments carried out by the United Nations World Food Programme, the WFP, indicate that more than 14 million people in southern Africa will be in need of food assistance by next March. Almost half of these are in Zimbabwe. We welcome this item on the agenda to highlight the growing food crisis in southern Africa and to encourage greater EU support for the recent UN emergency appeal for humanitarian assistance for the region.

As I hope the committee is aware, I visited Malawi and Zambia last August and witnessed at first hand the devastating effect famine, drought, HIV and AIDS are having on the people of the region. I also viewed the excellent work being carried out by Irish non-governmental organisations and by missionaries and their local counterparts in seeking to alleviate the worst effects of the crisis.

Ireland Aid has delivered more than €8 million to date this year in bilateral emergency and humanitarian assistance for the affected countries in southern Africa. Support has been given to key international organisations providing food and other essential aid to the southern African region such as the UN World Food Programme and the Red Cross. Support has also been given to Irish and international non-governmental organisations operating in the region.

In addition to emergency humanitarian assistance, Ireland Aid also delivers long-term development support to the region with an emphasis on poverty reduction through the provision of basic needs and capacity building support. In 2002 it is estimated that such support for southern Africa will exceed €80 million.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and Minister of State. We will take a number of rounds of questions dealing first with external relations and then general affairs. Under external relations, we will deal first with items three, four and five. Then we will deal with items six to ten. Items three, four and five are the Middle East, the western Balkans and North Korea. Are there any questions on those items?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State. These meetings are useful and I hope the Ministers find them useful when it comes to attending EU Council meetings. It is unfortunate this meeting clashes with a meeting of the Forum on Europe in Dublin Castle and the standing committee of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation but I suppose such clashes are unavoidable.

On Iraq, will the Minister outline the Irish position and what he believes will be the EU position on compliance or non-compliance by Iraq with the latest UN resolution? He stated that the final text contrasted with earlier drafts which provided that any failure would automatically endorse the use of force by a member state. He appears to suggest that the Irish and EU position is that this is not the case. Colin Powell in a recent statement appeared to take a different view. Is there a difference between the Irish and EU positions and the US position on that? Are the Americans still of the view that there is an automatic entitlement to the use of force without further reference to the Security Council? Is the Irish and EU view that the matter must be referred back to the Security Council for a decision on whether there has been a material breach of the resolution?

On Israel and the Palestinians, is the famous road map for the Palestinian state pie in the sky in the context of the continuing unrest in the region, the continual flagrant breaches by Israel of the UN resolutions and its continuing illegal activity with settlements? It is a view that Israel has no intention of joining a peace process unless it is dictated by it. What is or will be the Irish and EU reaction to that, if what I have said is a correct assessment?

Deputy Haughey

I have a similar question on Iraq. I congratulate the Minister on his role in bringing about agreement on UN Security Council Resolution 1441. It was a positive outcome and no member of the Council voted against it.

Will the Minister clarify where we go from here in respect of any non-compliance? He said the purpose of the resolution is to achieve Iraqi disarmament without the use of force which we would regard as a last resort. I welcome that. In the event of non-compliance, are we talking about the possibility of a new UN Security Council resolution, or does this Resolution 1441 make provisions, if necessary for the use of military force? Could the Minister clarify that? I know the UN Security Council will monitor this on an ongoing basis. My second question is topical although it probably does not arise in the context of the EU meeting. On the question of Shannon Airport and its use for landing US military aircraft or overflight facilities and so forth, I appreciate that the initial requests in this regard probably go to the Minister for Defence. However, could the Minister clarify what requests have been received arising from UN Security Council resolutions more recently? Is there an anticipated request in the future arising from the UN Security Council Resolution 1441? Any clarification of that issue would be appreciated.

Deputy Mulcahy

I join the Chairm an and the other speakers in welcoming the Minister, Deputy Cowen and the Minister of State Deputy Kitt.

Deputies O'Keeffe and Haughey raised questions concerning the resolution. I would like if our congratulations could be passed on to diplomatic staff in New York as they did a great job with that resolution. However, there appears to be two points of view on what the phrase "serious consequences" means. If one takes the literal meaning of comments made by the President of the Unites States of America it means that in default of this regime of weapons inspectors, there would be military action without any recourse to the UN Security Council. It is important to clarify what Deputies O'Keeffe and Haughey have raised.

My second point relates to Cyprus. Am I correct in saying, and has it been communicated to all parties concerned, that it is preferable that there would be a solution to the Cyprus issue before the accession of Cyprus to the European Union and that all parties will work to find a solution before accession? I am interested in the comments by Giscard d'Estaing to with regard to Turkey. He appears to have said that Turkish membership of the European Union would be the end of the European Union. That is a particularly unhelpful comment. It is probably music to the ears of Islamic fundamentalists in Turkey who are probably anti-reform. The Minister said at the last meeting that we have welcomed reforms in so far as they have happened in Turkey, but if that is the attitude of the President of the European Convention, it is obviously a very influential opinion. I would like to know our policy on that.

Deputy Kirk

I join the other speakers in welcoming the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State to our meeting. It is very useful to have these exchanges on a regular basis. As a follow up to the UN Security Council resolution, in the hope that the Iraqi regime will accede to the request to allow the weapons inspectors in, in the event that they find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what are the arrangements for the dismantling process? I am sure the inspectors can identify and map out where the sites are right across Iraq, but how will the disarmament be effected?

Does the Minister have any indication of the number of Irish people in Iraq at this time?

Chairman

In relation to the western Balkans which has not been raised this morning, the sort of thing that has been going there in recent days does not augur too well for the development of democracy in the region. Can the Minister comment on how best to develop democracy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and other countries of the former Yugoslavia? Is not the best way to encourage democracy there to offer a pathway to EU membership? Some of these countries are more developed than the current applicants. It is a region which continues to fester and where democracy is not taking root. What is being done at an EU level to encourage democracy? Is the Minister addressing this issue?

If there is to be action or war against Iraq, will the European Union countries co-ordinate their activities and has there been any discussion about this to date?

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Cowen)

I will take the questions in the order in which they were asked. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and others raised the issue of Iraq. It is important to point out that the ultimate resolution that was carried, Resolution 1441, represented a compromise between the countries and different positions on the Security Council. There is no international consensus legally, but various states are contending that the existing resolutions on Iraq include a mandate to take military action in the event of non-compliance. This resolution seeks to ensure that a proposal is put forward that gives Iraq a final opportunity to deal with this issue without the need for military action. Ireland's firm position is that, in the event of non-compliance, as is clear from the resolution, it must come back to the Security Council for discussion. Operative paragraph four talks about the event of a material breach and in such a case, the arrangements under paragraphs 11 and 12 come into play, which means that if a member state alleges a material breach then it must be laid before the Security Council and, as per operative 12, an assessment by the weapons inspectors will also be required for consideration by the council in respect of any alleged material breach.

The characterisation of the debate, in the immediate aftermath of this resolution, suggesting that it allows for a trigger mechanism for any member state to take military action is not correct. The resolution's terms make it clear that the assessment of whether there is a material breach is a matter for the Security Council. That assessment will include a report from the arms inspectors themselves and the council will make an assessment on that basis. While there are different interpretations of whether existing resolutions provide a mandate for military action in the event of continued non-compliance, it is clear to us that this resolution provides for the matter to come back to the Security Council in the event of a material breach being alleged. That is a major achievement vis-à-vis the original draft and it is important, now that we have a unanimous vote, to keep this matter within the UN framework. This resolution is a final opportunity for Iraq to disarm and meet its obligations under Security Council resolutions, not to legitimise a war.

Chairman

I asked about co-ordination. Does the Minister wish to address that?

Deputy Cowen

There has been no such co-ordination since the whole focus of the United Nations' discussions has been to formulate a basis on which inspectors can return to Iraq to fulfil their mandate. We should allow that to happen. We have Iraq 's response, and, while we are concerned at some of the rhetoric, we will judge it by its actions.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe asked if the road map for the Palestine-Israeli situation was pie in the sky and I answer that it is not. Regardless of the approaches or policies of the Israeli government or the Palestinian authority, it is the international community's' responsibility, being faced with this serious conflict, to put forward what we believe is a peaceful and just solution. We seek to ensure that the main parties accept their responsibilities consistent with the road map which is being formulated. All tracks must move together. The security track is an issue for both sides as is the political track, while the humanitarian situation is critical. The international community would be in dereliction of its duty if it did not put forward a strategy to provide a just and peaceful solution. It is also clear that, following that discussion, it will be a matter for the Security Council to decide what further action should be taken. That is the firm view of the Government.

In the event of non-compliance and a continuing material breach, it is clear that should any military action be taken, its legitimacy would be best upheld by a further Security Council resolution. The latter would ensure the widest possible international support. That is the consistent view the Government has put forward at the Security Council. While there are different interpretations as to whether existing resolutions provide a mandate for military action in the event of continued non-compliance, it is clear to us that Resolution 1441 provides for this matter to come back to the Security Council in the event of a material breach being alleged.

The arms inspectors have a central role in assessing whether a breach has taken place. We believe that is a major achievement when compared to what the original draft resolution suggested. Now that the vote is 15-0, it is important to keep this matter within the UN framework. This resolution provides a final opportunity for Iraq to meet its obligations and disarm in compliance with Security Council resolutions. It is not a resolution that seeks to legitimise a war.

Chairman

I also asked about co-ordination.

Deputy Cowen

No such co-ordination has taken place because the focus of UN discussions has been to formulate a basis by which arms inspectors can return to Iraq and carry out their mandate. We should allow that to take place. We have heard what the Iraqi regime has said and there are concerns about some of the rhetoric in the response. However, we will judge the regime on its actions.

Regarding Palestine and Israel, Deputy O'Keeffe asked if the road map is pie in sky. It is not. Regardless of the approaches or policies the Israeli Government or the Palestinian Authority have to it, it is the responsibility of the international community to put forward what it believes is a peaceful and just solution. We seek to ensure the main parties take up their responsibilities consistent with the road map that is being formulated. It requires a recognition that all tracks have to be moved together. The security track is clearly an issue for both sides. The political track is very important and the humanitarian track is critical.

Regardless of how intractable the problem might appear, or how negative certain statements might be, we must continue with this process. There is no military solution. Israeli occupation of Palestinian Authority areas will not solve the problem, nor will terrorism. We have a responsibility to encourage a political solution, based on dialogue and peace and justice for both sides. A two state solution within internationally recognised borders is the only possible peaceful outcome. We have to continue to put that case even to those who are not listening. All other policies will continue to fail until people meet their responsibilities. The road map provides the best way forward strategically.

Deputy Haughey inquired about over-flights. I have dealt with this matter on numerous occasions in my replies to Parliamentary Questions. In giving permission to foreign military aircraft to over-fly or land in the State, I act under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, which allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs to grant permission to foreign military aircraft to over-fly and land in the State. In the case of routine landings of military aircraft, confirmation is required that the aircraft is unarmed, does not carry arms, ammunition or explosives and does not form part of a military exercise of operation. US military aircraft meeting these conditions have been granted permission to refuel at Shannon Airport for decades.

It has been the practice for commercial charter aircraft, carrying US servicemen between the US and bases overseas, to land at Shannon for many years. Such flights are subject to normal civil aviation regulations and do not require Government level approval. The Government will keep these arrangements under review. At this stage it sees no reason to alter current arrangements. I have outlined this position at least 50 times in replies to Parliamentary Questions.

Deputy Haughey

Does the Minister anticipate any review of this in light of the situation in Iraq?

Deputy Cowen

I do not anticipate any review until we see what emerges. We have to see if anything comes back to the Security Council and, if this happens, we will review the position in light of prevailing circumstances. Over-flights have been a matter of procedure for decades and that continues to be the case.

Deputy Mulcahy asked about Cyprus. The EU common position is clear. The accession of Cyprus to the EU is not dependent on the resolution of this issue before the finalisation of negotiations. We would like to see progress in this area and we believe the UN Secretary General's proposal forms the basis for an intensive phase of negotiations which we hope will be successfully concluded.

The chairman of the convention said that to admit Turkey would be the end of the European Union. He was speaking in a personal capacity and he is entitled to express his views. It was decided in 1999 that Turkey can become a member of the European Union on the same basis as the other candidate countries. When Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen criteria it will then be in a position to commence negotiations to become a member of the EU. At the European Council in December the EU Heads of State will decide on the next stage of Turkey's candidature.

On the issue raised by the Chairman in regard to the western Balkans generally, the stability pact for south-east Europe provides the framework for development and assistance by the European Union to the countries in that area. South-east Europe is a very important part of the Union. It is important for stability in Europe that we continue to engage with and assist the governments of these countries in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy of the 1990s in consolidating democracy and pluralism in their respective countries, and we will continue to do so. Here is an example where the European Union used not just its political role but its economic role and crisis management role. All the institutional arrangements available to the European Union have proved successful in seeking to restore and maintain stability in south-east Europe.

The diplomatic work of the EU High Representative, Javier Solana, has been very important on behalf of the European Union and the European Council in that regard. The work done in Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia is enduring, important and gets results. It shows precisely the important role the European Union can and must continue to play to ensure its role in achieving European security and stability.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kitt)

I would like to refer to the international trade in coffee. I will also be dealing with the issue when it is being discussed at the meeting.

The background to this issue is a report on poverty drawn up by Oxfam. This was called Mugged: Poverty in Your Coffee Cup. This has drawn attention to the fact that the livelihoods of 25 million coffee producers are affected as a result of the fall in the price of coffee. There are indications that the long-term prospects are very grim and that small farmers in developing countries are now selling their coffee beans for much less than they cost to produce. The economies of some of the poorest countries in the world are highly dependent on the coffee trade. Approximately one quarter of the population of Uganda depends on coffee sales. According to the World Bank coffee exports in Uganda in 2000 amounted to almost 43% of its total exports. As there is almost no coffee processing in Uganda export prices depend on the demand from the major coffee processors. The fall in the price of coffee is almost entirely due to a glut on the world market due to the entry of new producing countries such as Vietnam.

At our meeting the relevant EU expert working group will consider the crisis in the coffee market. There will be contact with Oxfam, which is involved in this dialogue, with a view to the preparation of a paper for consideration by Ministers at the meeting. The issue is also under consideration at the United Nations where member states are currently considering a draft resolution on a number of the issues raised by Oxfam. I welcome the forthcoming discussion among Ministers about how the EU can best assist developing countries most affected by the volatile coffee market. In the long-term, the international community needs to assist these developing countries whose export sector is overly dependent on a small number of primary commodities to diversify. I am sure members will agree that I have always promoted the need to assist these countries in ways other than development aid. We must help them to trade out of their poverty. We are now getting into a particular issue and I welcome the discussion.

Chairman

There used to be a managed and controlled market, which is gone. That is the essence of the problem and the question is how to turn it around. I read the report and yesterday tabled a question on it. I wish the Minister of State well on the issue which is very important for the countries involved. We will now discuss Nos. 5 to 10, including the international trade in coffee.

Deputy Carey

The Minister said he is confident that the principles of the Feira Council will be maintained in respect of the autonomy of the EU vis-à-vis NATO and so on. In view of the declared impatience of Lord Robertson at a meeting in Brussels two weeks ago in regard to his doubt about the capacity of the EU to organise even the equivalent of a military birthday party, is there a danger that the Petersberg Tasks might become blurred and that there may be an increasing push from NATO members of the EU towards a dominance of the NATO ethic to the detriment of the development of the rapid reaction force? Is there a belief that the rapid reaction force is not quite dead in the water and that it is not making the progress many of its promoters thought it would?

Senator Dardis

Deputy Carey has put one of the questions I was about to ask. It relates to the envelope for the Petersberg Tasks, including the humanitarian and crisis management aspects, how wide the envelope will be pushed, or how wide we will allow it to be pushed in terms of definition of the various tasks.

The other matter would be appropriately directed to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. That is the question of overseas development aid and achieving the objectives we set for ourselves with regard to the percentage GDP we would allocate to overseas development aid, including progress in hitting these targets.

Deputy Andrews

I would like to ask the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, a question on the untying of aid. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. McDowell, was before the committee on this issue and he was very clear on his commitment to the untying of aid, having made other soundings prior to that. On southern Africa, the Minister will be aware that many governments in that part of the world are not of the first order when it comes to their accounting affairs. Members may have seen in the newspaper recently that the King of Swaziland has bought himself a new Leer jet for $45 million. The total UN food programme is worth half of that. The untying of aid is something with which we all agree. I am sure, however, that the Minister, including his fellow Ministers in Europe, are trying to figure out ways of disciplining, controlling or scrutinising the money which is being sent to these countries. There are serious problems in regard to Angola and people are also aware of the problems in Zimbabwe.

Deputy Haughey

Following on from what Deputy Carey and Senator Dardis asked in regard to the UN role in carrying out humanitarian and crisis management tasks, eyebrows will be raised when there is talk of an EU/NATO agreement. I accept the Minister's opening remarks. We need clarification because we are the representatives of the people in this country. Will the Minister clarify what is involved in an EU-NATO agreement and assure us that this is not an erosion of our traditional policy of military neutrality?

Chairman

The note refers to the Mediterranean dimension to the ESDP being discussed. What is the objective of the Mediterranean dimension? What are the ideas behind that?

With regard to EU access to certain NATO crisis management infrastructural support, what sort of infrastructural support is envisaged? Have relations between the EU and NATO been damaged by the comments made by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing regarding the application of Turkey to join the EU? Turkey is likely to be co-operative in relation to the Petersberg Tasks. Has that co-operation been damaged by those comments?

The humanitarian crisis in South Africa is not mentioned in the note but the Minister mentioned the Horn of Africa. In Ethiopia, a country with which Ireland has a direct concern, 6 million people are threatened by what could be one of the worst crises for some time. The Development Council has been abolished. Is the Minister satisfied that the General Affairs Council is as capable of responding to this sort of humanitarian crisis as was the Development Council, with its separate identity?

Senator McDowell

Is it the view of the Government that a rapid reaction force should proceed in the absence of a satisfactory agreement on Berlin Plus, or should we wait until it is agreed?

Deputy Cowen

There is no change in the Petersberg Tasks. They are defined in the Treaty of Amsterdam and remain. The issue is being considered at the convention working group on defence in relation to the convention and the future of Europe. The Oireachtas is represented on that group by Deputy Gormley and Proinsias De Rossa MEP. We see no need for change although we need to look at how better we can deal with the common threat of terrorism.

The issue of EU-NATO was raised. The EU is not a military organisation. There is a need to have an arrangement with, for example, NATO in relation to access to planning capability and resources such as transport and heavy lift capability in the event of a catastrophe. That will be required for substantial crisis management missions, as UN mandated operations such as SFOR and KFOR have shown. The issue has been considered by successive European Councils since the inception of the ESDP. At the Feira Council the EU agreed on principles which specified that there should be full respect for the autonomy of EU decision making, a recognition of the different nature of the EU and NATO and no discrimination against any of the member states. These principles have been upheld throughout the subsequent development of the ESDP and are fully reflected in the arrangements which have now been reached.

The so-called Mediterranean dimension of the ESDP is in no way related to the current situation regarding Iraq. It has, instead, been a theme pursued by the current Greek and previous Spanish Presidencies - Greece has the Presidency at the moment because the Danes are not involved here - arising out of their geographic locations, and has so far essentially comprised a series of informal seminars with the EU's euromed partners. The matter has yet to receive any formal consideration inside the Council framework and I expect the item on next week's agenda will be for Ministers' information only.

Regarding what was agreed at the Brussells European Council on EU access to NATO infrastructural support - the Berlin Plus agreement - agreement was reached between the EU member states on modalities for the involvement of non-EU European members of NATO in the ESDP as well as on a further mandate to Dr. Solana to continue work towards an overall EU-NATO agreement within the next few weeks. The agreement still needs to be finalised on the NATO side.

Given that the European Union is not a military organisation, it requires access to NATO infrastructure, particularly in the Balkans, to carry out its tasks. The need for an EU-NATO agreement reflects a long standing aspect of European Security and Defence Policy and will confirm arrangements already agreed by the European Council concerning EU access to certain NATO crisis management infrastructural supports. It will provide the further assurances sought by Turkey and Greece regarding the involvement of countries which are not members of the EU but who are NATO members. This sets out the situation regarding the EU-NATO dimension which members have raised.

Senator McDowell

Does the Minister believe the takeover of the operation in Macedonia can carry on as things stand or does it require further agreement with NATO?

Deputy Cowen

The planned EU takeover of the Fox task force on Macedonia next year is a small operation and could, in theory, go ahead without Berlin Plus. However, larger operations would clearly require access to planning and other capabilities of the type available from NATO but not available in the European Union.

Deputy Kitt

May I deal with the issues raised by Senator Dardis, Deputy Andrews and you, Chairman. Senator Dardis will be aware of the commitment in the programme for Government to reaching the target for overseas development aid of 0.7% of GNP by 2007. That commitment stands. The Estimates will be announced today at 3 p.m. so I am not in a position to comment on them except to say the budget we have is substantial. We are in the front ranks in the European Union, thanks to increases we have made over the years. Our budget allows for an increase in staffing and capacity in the Department and that has been proceeding in recent months. We keep in close contact with our NGOs and we will continue to do so. I am not in a position to comment in detail on figures until after 3 p.m. today.

Deputy Andrews referred to the untying of aid. We take a principled position on that matter. Other EU countries are in a similar position, but not all. Many EU countries are involved with tied aid. This is why I welcome the debate at EU level on pursuing an untied approach, which the OECD would support. We are in a strong position to debate these issues at EU level.

The example of Swaziland was quoted. The EU has economic and political relations with the countries mentioned, particularly those in Africa. If there are instances of fraud and corruption they can be dealt with at that level. The question of sanctions against Zimbabwe is an example of the EU taking a particular position at a political level. Ireland is involved with six programme countries. We strongly support good governance and human rights as well as development support. That is built into our policy. We are only involved with countries which are moving in that direction. We all know there are imperfections in many of these countries but in our aid projects and policies we support good governance, human rights and capacity building across the board. As our budget has expanded we have managed to do more work in that area.

The issue of the Development Council emerged just after my appointment and I openly expressed my views at the time that it was a bad thing that the Development Council was no longer in place. When I was a Minister I found the council useful in dealing with Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia where there were horrific humanitarian disasters. I found the co-ordination very good.

My experience of the Development Council working with Foreign Affairs Ministers was equally strong. Working with it gave an added strength to our mission and efforts. I will be happy to share my experience in coming months.

When I was appointed, I met Commissioner Neilson immediately because he is the Commissioner for my area of responsibility. I keep in regular contact with many Ministers with responsibility for development, including Clare Short and others.

My experience is that the new regime works and I am willing to give it a chance. We should continue to support this process. Ministers with responsibility for development can meet informally. We will endeavour during our Presidency, to continue to meet because it is important we work together, especially in humanitarian crises such as that in Ethiopia towards which we have already allocated €1 million. I will meet our NGOs on Monday to see what more we can do to alleviate this crisis. I agree with the Chairman and it has always been my approach that we must work in tandem with Development Council Ministers. The new approach of such Ministers working with Ministers for Foreign Affairs will work equally as well as the previous situation.

Chairman

We will move on to general affairs issues now. On the preparation of the European Council in Copenhagen, enlargement is a major issue but we have already touched on that with the comments of Giscard d'Estaing. I am interested in the Kaliningrad solution. It appears it would be very difficult to monitor. Will it be possible for a person to drive a car from Russia into Lithuania, not proceed to Kaliningrad and have access to the Schengen area? What is in place to stop that? I am interested to hear what controls will be in place. Bearing in mind that Irish citizens are in the common travel area with Britain and must have a passport to travel to the rest of the European Union, is this a precedent we could follow so as to have a lesser document than a passport to travel within the Union?

I agree with the view on the permanent European Council President. It is something that must be monitored with great care. It will be a major upset to the balance between the institutions and the member states.

On terrorism, we have been supplied with a detailed note on issues such as the EU action plan to combat terrorism. It is an update on the road map, so to speak. What progress has been made on the European arrest warrant and what will be its status when it comes into force? On the issue of an inventory of national measures and early warning plans on terrorism, have we completed such an inventory and is there an early warning plan that dovetails into this European Union plan on terrorism?

Deputy Carey

On enlargement, I welcome the Minister's comment that matters are proceeding well. I also welcome the comment that the EU should not adopt a "take it or leave it" approach.

At recent meetings I have attended, issues such as the protection and security of external borders of an enlarged Union and how that would be paid for have been raised. A vast amount of smuggling, trafficking and other crimes are committed around the Polish border with Ukraine, to cite one example. We need to see how we would approach the funding of the security of the external borders of an enlarged Community.

Another issue relates to Presidency functions. I agree that we should be wary of the notion of a permanent Presidency, whether it is for three or five years or whatever. It would be in the interest of small states to protect the current arrangement. It probably needs some reform but we need it nonetheless. In tandem with that, we also need to ensure a strong Commission because it is in the interest of small countries such as Ireland that this exists.

The proposal in the draft constitutional treaty about a people's congress needs to be revisited. There are possible mechanisms for engaging with national parliaments. The Minister should bear this proposal in mind and watch how it develops.

The Kaliningrad proposal is an innovative one and I would like to see if it has other ramifications for the Schengen arrangement. It is worthwhile exploring it.

Deputy Cowen

On the Kaliningrad issue, what is involved is identity papers rather than passports. It is a question of trying to find a resolution to ensure the enlargement process and EU-Russian relations can be progressed together. The agreement on transit arrangements provides for Lithuania introducing a visa requirement from 1 July next for Russian citizens. A facilitated transit visa, in effect a free or low cost multi-journey transit visa, will be issued by consular authorities in the European Union or candidate countries to Russian citizens travelling by road and rail exclusively for direct transit between Kaliningrad and the Russian mainland. A feasibility study next year on the Russian proposal of visa-free non-stop trains will report after Lithuania's accession.

Although Ireland is not a party to the border control chapter of the Schengen Convention, we considered it important to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lithuania, a future EU member. We also recognised that a positive outcome on the negotiations with Russia on Kaliningrad would play a key role in progressing EU-Russian relations. We are satisfied that both these objectives appear to have been achieved at the recent EU-Russia summit meeting.

Regarding the EU arrest warrant, it is a matter which comes under justice and home affairs. It will facilitate the fight against serious crime, notably terrorist-related crimes, in the European Union. Therefore, we fully support it. The arrest warrant was agreed by the Union earlier this year. Oireachtas approval was necessary in our case and this was granted. It has not yet entered into effect, but when it does, it should have an important impact on the fight against crime.

Chairman

How will it work? Would one obtain an EU arrest warrant in Dublin and one in Brussels or does a national court award it?

Deputy Cowen

It is a national arrest warrant which would be sent to another state. What has happened is that arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the legal systems talk to each other, so to speak, and allow the warrant to operate in a way that is necessary to show the seriousness of intent in the European Union in dealing with these trans-national serious criminal issues, such as terrorism.

Regarding the Presidency, it is always important not to see institutional issues in isolation. If we take every individual proposal for reform then we might oppose each one, but we must recognise that a discussion is taking place and what we want is an effective Presidency. Small member states' interests are best guaranteed by having an effective Presidency making decisions and ensuring that the Single Market operates, that the economic decisions of the sectional Councils are implemented, and the success of the overall strategic approach of the European Council to make it the most competitive economy in the world by the end of the decade, arising from the Lisbon agenda. These are Ireland's real national interests. Of course, we want to ensure that there are reasonable balances in the proposals for making it more effective, but the fact is that with the EU increasing to 25 members, if we maintain the six month rotating Presidency, a state would hold the Presidency only once every 12 and a half years.

We must recognise that fact, and the different capacities within member states. We must also recognise, as we know from our preparations for the Presidency in 2004 compared to 1996, that the workload has increased enormously. There is a huge agenda on how to proceed and arrangements are being made to get greater continuity between Presidencies, with plans to move to three year action programmes with six Presidencies working together on priorities agreed at the Council level. There should not be the situation, as happened sometimes in the past, where every Presidency brings on its own priorities.

We must address all these issues and come up with practical, pragmatic, effective solutions. There are many benefits accorded to the Presidency in the present situation and there is no sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water, but we are moving into a new situation of 25 member states when accession begins on 1 January 2004. We must keep all of these matters in context and recognise what our essential, fundamental interests are regarding effective institutions which can make decisions and bring forward proposals to deal with the integrity of the single market and enlightened economic and social policies which will improve the lot of our citizens, and our political interaction with the wider world to ensure that the Union has positions that are influential and a force for good in crisis areas. Ireland must influence events in the convention and the Intergovernmental Conference, be open about any proposals and see if they meet the criteria of efficiency and effectiveness and give a role to the member states in the running of the institutions. Clearly the Council is where member states have the front-line opportunity and responsibility to lead and work in concert with others.

When proposals come up one at a time, of course, we could take a particular view of them, but no one can suggest that the outcome of this process will be the status quo. We must identify where our essential interests lie and adopt a pragmatic and open approach. We have to test any proposal against the objective criteria of effectiveness and efficiency rather than simply accepting something just because it comes under the heading of modernisation. We should defend our vital interests while recognising that we want enhanced democratic legitimacy in the institutional arrangements with the role of member states respected regardless of size, economic power or population. The position of member states must be channelled into whatever institutional arrangements are agreed so as to maintain the solidarity that has been the bulwark of EU development and the reason why we have had this successful experiment in international governance. That must also be there in a Union of 25 members which are at different stages of economic development, coupled with continuing progress in all the policy areas which are essential to us.

As Deputy Carey stated, people have a view on one issue that came out of the constitutional treaty proposal and that is the congress. They ask what is its purpose, if it gives an enhanced role to national parliaments - which it does - and if it solves the problem of democratic legitimacy vis-à-vis the election of the President of the Commission. At the moment, we require the approval of the Parliament after the President has been appointed. The advocates of that proposal ask if it is such a big step to say that he should be elected by the Parliament. I have come to no conclusions on any of this, but a negotiating position which seeks to maintain the status quo ante is not a sensible approach. We must be careful to work with our Oireachtas colleagues in the convention and on this committee to air views and keep the public up to date on developments that take place in the convention so that we can maintain the public’s interest as we did in the second referendum on the Treaty of Nice. The European debate must be incorporated more effectively into our national debate which would be in the general interest of our body politic.

Chairman

I asked a question about the inventory of national measures and early warning plans.

Deputy Cowen

I apologise, Chairman. I got lost in my rhetorical flourish. The Minister for Defence is responsible for that area and is putting forward proposals on Ireland's behalf. I suggest that this would be better discussed with him.

Senator McDowell

I wish to raise the issue of Turkey, on which my personal view may not be that of my party. I believe that there is merit in what President Giscard d'Estaing said. I do not see Europe with its borders finishing at Iraq and it is asking a lot of our citizens to think of it in those terms. I appreciate the importance of Turkey in that area and the sensitivity of the issue for the United States and our friends in NATO, but the central issue for current members of the Union, and as it will be enlarged in the next ten years, is the extent to which we can get the allegiance and support of our citizens for Europe.

Nonetheless, the central issue for members of the EU, and the Union as it will be enlarged in future, is the extent to which we can get the allegiance and support of our citizens for Europe as a concept and political construct. To import into the Union of a country which is largely in Asia, which has a different culture and politics and which would be the largest country by geography and population would be pushing our citizens too far. We would do some service to Turkey by indicating to it at an early stage that we do not envisage its full membership of the Union and we should talk instead of association or economic arrangements. I appreciate that is not the general view but it is important we say that.

Senator Dardis

The Minister will be relieved to hear that he answered my question in his concluding remarks.