JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 8 Oct 2003

Vol. 1 No. 42

General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for attending. The list of eight items discussed at the September meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting were recently circulated to the committee. I have asked the committee secretariat and our special adviser in particular to examine them and draw to our attention any issues that may be of interest to the committee in case we missed them.

In accordance with the normal procedures for these meetings, I will ask the Minister to make his presentation following which I will separate the agenda into two sessions of questions and answers, one on external relations followed by one on general affairs. We will take the questions in that order. The Minister is welcome.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I thank the Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the committee to review the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. As the committee will be aware, the Council meets in Luxembourg on 13 October next and will begin by reviewing the general affairs agenda followed by the external relations agenda. On the morning of Tuesday, 14 October, foreign ministers will hold a working session of the Intergovernmental Conference. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, will represent Ireland at the meeting of the Troika and the countries of the European Economic Area as well as the Association Council with Jordan.

I will begin, as the Chairman suggested, with the general affairs agenda. The Council is due to consider again on Monday next the draft annotated agenda for the European Council meeting of 16 and 17 October. Among the issues covered in the agenda are initiatives to promote economic growth. It is expected that the European Council will discuss a Presidency initiative, A European Action for Growth, which aims at boosting growth through more effective use of the European Investment Bank to support greater investment in infrastructure and research and development. Ireland recognises the importance of promoting growth in the current economic climate. We look forward to advancing progress on related issues such as the promotion of employment creation, competitiveness and environmental sustainability at the spring European Council next year.

The European Council will also consider conclusions in the area of freedoms, justice and security. The Council is likely to examine ways to develop more effective management of the European Union's external borders, especially in the context of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. The Council is also likely to consider issues around the management of migration flows. There will also be a session on the Intergovernmental Conference at the European Council which will focus on institutional issues.

Regarding the Statute of Members of the European Parliament, the Presidency has indicated that it wishes to place on the Council agenda the 1965 Protocol on Privileges and Immunities with a view to updating it. The protocol is the basis for the parliamentary immunity of Members of the European Parliament. There is no consensus yet on the procedure to be followed that might allow it to be amended. The matter is scheduled for further discussion at tomorrow's meeting of COREPER. We share the view that time for further reflection is required before this matter is taken any further.

Before turning to external issues, I would like to say a few words about the Intergovernmental Conference. While the Intergovernmental Conference is not formally part of the General Affairs and External Relations Council's agenda, it would be useful to brief the committee on it given that many of its sessions coincide with meetings of the Council. As members will be aware, the Intergovernmental Conference formally opened in Rome on 4 October last with a meeting of Heads of State and Government. The Taoiseach made clear Ireland's strong support for the Italian Presidency and its approach to the Intergovernmental Conference. We will seek to play a constructive role as far as possible.

As we have indicated before, we remain broadly happy with the outcome of the convention. That said, the Intergovernmental Conference cannot be a rubber stamp and we, like others, have a small number of key concerns which we will be pressing. The work programme set out by the Presidency allows us the scope to raise these concerns.

At the Foreign Ministers meeting in Rome it was agreed to drop the proposed provision for a separate legislative council which the great majority of member states, including Ireland, felt was impractical. Instead, the legislative work of sectoral councils will take place in public. This is an important development. There was also a first discussion of the Presidency on the basis of a questionnaire circulated before the meeting. Ireland's response has been circulated to the committee. We have indicated support for the team Presidency concept while remaining open to other models so long as the basic principle of equality between member states is retained.

At our meeting on 14 October, Ministers will have a first debate on the role and status of the proposed Union foreign minister and the composition of the European Commission and will begin preparation for the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference at the European Council on 16 and 17 October. We have also been informed within the past hour that there will be an evening dinner on Monday when there will be a first debate on defence issues as set out in the convention. Ireland supports the proposed creation of a Union foreign minister and, while some aspects of the text may need clarification, we believe the broad balance is about right. I queried at last week's meeting whether it might be better if the member states continued to chair the Foreign Affairs Council. It did not meet with widespread support.

As is well known, we wish to see thorough consideration at the Intergovernmental Conference of the convention proposals on security and defence issues. These have not so far been discussed in sufficient detail and a number of practical points remain to be clarified. I can revert to the Council on those when that discussion takes place.

Regarding external relations, on the western Balkans we will concentrate on the co-operation by the countries of the region with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal in The Hague. The chief prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, will be present for the Council discussion, following her presentation to the United Nations on Thursday of this week of the tribunal's annual report.

While there has been some improvement in co-operation by the countries of the region with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, more remains to be done, especially in the cases of Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina. Full co-operation by the countries of the region with the international criminal tribunal is an essential element of the stabilisation and association process established with these countries by the European Union.

The Middle East, I am afraid, remains a matter of major concern. There has been no improvement in the situation since I last addressed the committee. It remains extremely grave and prospects for progress towards peace are bleak. The suicide bombing in Haifa on 4 October and the Israeli air attack on Syria have increased tension and raised the possibility of a wider conflict.

At the Council, Ministers will discuss developments in the region and partners will brief on recent bilateral contacts. The Middle East was discussed at the Council on 29 September. This followed a Quartet meeting at ministerial level in New York on 26 September and contacts between European and regional Ministers at the UN General Assembly. The Quartet reaffirmed the importance of the road map and issued a statement reminding the parties of their obligations and responsibilities. On 29 September the Council adopted conclusions noting the Quartet statement and calling on the parties to address immediately and simultaneously the core concerns of the other. The Council also stressed the need to establish a ceasefire. This need is made all the more urgent by recent events.

The situation in Iraq remains difficult. While the north and south are reported to be showing some signs of improvement, the majority Sunni areas west of Baghdad are still volatile. The US hopes to attract troops and fund contributions through a new SECCO resolution. A revised US draft resolution was circulated to the five permanent members on 1 October. A number of new elements were evident in this draft. However the extent of these additions falls short of what is needed if the resolution is to achieve its objectives. This relates especially to the quickest possible transfer of sovereignty, the provision of a timetable for the political process and the role of the United Nations. The US may obtain its resolution, but it may not attract the desired troop or funding commitments. In addition, the UN system remains deeply concerned about being given a mandate by SECCO which it cannot fulfil in the current situation.

The Council will also discuss relations between the EU and Iran. The third round of the EU-Iran human rights dialogue will begin today in Brussels. We have been disappointed so far at the lack of progress in the human rights situation in Iran. It is critical that we see some progress there and in this dialogue.

On the question of Iran's nuclear programme, Ireland fully supports the content of the resolution adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors on 12 September last. In this connection, we consider a number of questions are still outstanding regarding Iran's nuclear programme which give cause for serious concern. We call on Iran to provide continued and accelerated co-operation and full transparency on all aspects of its nuclear programme. At its September meeting, the Council resolved to revert to the issue of EU-Iran relations and review future steps in light of the report of the director general of the International Atomic Energy Association in November. The Government and its EU partners will continue to monitor the situation closely.

At its June meeting, the Council agreed the main elements of the Wider Europe initiative and the Council conclusions, which were subsequently endorsed by the Thessaloniki European Council in the same month. Specifically, the Council invited the Commission to present proposals in the form of action plans for all the countries concerned, commencing with, among others, Ukraine, Moldova and the southern Mediterranean partners with association agreements. The Commission was also asked to present a communication on a new neighbourhood instrument which would focus on promoting sustainable economic and social development of the bordering countries based on the evaluation of existing instruments.

At the Council next week, Ministers will consider developments in the initiative since Thessaloniki, and Commissioner Verheugen will give us an update on the current schedule of work. I expect that this will include proposals to develop neighbourhood programmes for the period from 2004 to 2006. These would cover the external borders of the enlarged Union as an intermediate step before the creation of a single new neighbourhood instrument. This will be designed to promote sustainable economic and social development in the border areas and will be based on the existing legislative and financial framework.

Ireland strongly supports the Wider Europe initiative and we will follow the ongoing discussion closely. Accession for new member states will take place in the course of our EU Presidency next year and, for this reason, it is vitally important that progress should be made as quickly as possible in determining policy towards the new neighbours.

The Council will also prepare for the forthcoming summit with Russia. It is intended that the EU-Russia summit in Rome on 6 November will follow up the four common spaces for co-operation which were identified at the St. Petersburg EU-Russia summit in May. Dialogue on regional and international issues will also take place. In addition to the EU-Russia summit, Russia's application to join the WTO will be discussed at the Council.

The EU-China summit at the end of this month will offer a valuable opportunity to establish good working relations with the new Chinese leadership. I hope the new EU policy paper introduced by the Commission on 10 September this year will provide new impetus so that the EU and China can become strategic partners into the future, with the EU continuing to support China's transition to an open society based upon the rule of law and respect for human rights.

As members of the committee will know from the agenda, there is a meeting with the European Economic Area countries in the margins of the Council. The EEA Enlargement Agreement, which has only recently been concluded, will enable the ten new accession states to become members of the European Economic Area as well. It is intended to hold a signing ceremony at the European Economic Area Council next week. This will allow time for ratification by all participating states so that it may enter into force at the same time as the EU enlargement.

Ireland welcomes this agreement as one of the essential steps in ensuring a smooth transition to enlargement. The European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Area countries will also contribute €600 million over a five year period towards alleviating social and economic disparities in the enlarged European Economic Area.

I am happy to take questions from committee members on any of the agenda items scheduled for discussion at the forthcoming Council meeting.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I am not sure under what heading the Intergovernmental Conference falls. It is included in the external relations brief but was touched on by the Minister in his remarks on general affairs. Under which heading does the Chairman wish it to be dealt with?

Chairman

I think it is more under the heading of general affairs.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The Chairman is probably right. These briefing sessions are very useful. Regarding the Middle East, one gets a dreadfully helpless feeling when one sees what happens there. Even in trying to be objective, it is quite clear that Israel ignores UN resolutions and the efforts of the Quartet. Is it time to take a tougher approach towards Israel? It acts in a worse fashion towards its neighbours, especially the Palestinians, than any rogue state. Is it time to take a tougher stance by isolating it as a rogue state at this stage? It appears to ignore every effort made by people of goodwill, determination or intent to try to achieve progress. Israel has taken no action on settlements and is proceeding with construction of the wall. Despite every effort, it ignores international opinion on all fronts.

We had the opportunity of discussing the issue of Iraq in full recently with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs, which was very useful. The weakness in Europe appears to be the lack of a common position. The Minister said the European Union position was outlined at a General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on 29 September. What is it? I do not seek a long two page declaration. Clearly there are different positions within the EU. Is there hope of achieving a common position to which all member states will subscribe?

Regarding the EU-China summit, the Minister referred, as does the brief, to supporting China's transition to an open society based upon the rule of law and respect for human rights. We receive consistent and regular reports from the Falun Gong about the denial of human rights in China. Is it correct that, because it is such a major country, it is treated with kid gloves on this issue? Is it correct that no strong approach is made to China on the issue of human rights? What is the Minister's opinion on that?

Deputy Mulcahy

I thank the Minister for attending. On the EU-Russia summit, something I welcome, does the Minister agree that EU-Russia relations appear to be rising to the top of the EU agenda? We should note that a large Russian population lives in Dublin and there are great opportunities for further cultural and economic development between Ireland and Russia. In that context, am I to understand that the Common European Economic Space, CEES, is drifting towards a non-political customs union between the EU and Russia where eventually goods and services might be able to be traded between the two areas without barriers or tariffs? Is that what is meant by the CEES?

I understand from the wording of the Minister's speech that we have had sight of the resolution on Iraq put before the five permanent members of the Security Council. The Minister appears to say in his comments that the resolution does not go far enough from a European perspective. The vast majority of committee members would like sovereignty handed over to the Iraqi people as soon as practicable. Is that mirrored in this resolution?

A conference will be held shortly in Madrid to discuss financial contributions to reconstruct Iraq. I would be of the view that Ireland should not contribute to that fund in the absence of a satisfactory UN resolution. What is the Government's policy in this regard? Will there be an EU attempt to have a co-ordinated position on the financial contribution issue?

Chairman

The Minister might respond to those questions before we continue.

Mr. Cowen

Regarding the situation in the Middle East, there is much frustration that the road map is not being implemented. The benefit of the road map is two-fold. First, it brings all the partners - the EU, the US, Russia and the UN - into a common analysis of the situation. Second, it sets out the comprehensive solution which is in two stages. The problem is with implementation of the analysis, but no new analysis is to take place.

A number of problems face us. Obviously the continuing violence is a major problem, as are the breakdown of the ceasefire and the suicide bombings. We should not underestimate the effect that has had on the psyche of Israeli society. The bombings need to cease immediately. A parallel commitment set out in the first phase of the road map needs to be taken by the Israeli Government as well, namely, its phased withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There is also a need for a Palestinian Authority and this emergency Cabinet which has finally been brought forward to bring security issues under one transparent control. That needs to happen. For some time we have been proponents of reform within the Palestinian Authority, both in relation to its financial and political transparency and its security effectiveness.

The absence of political progress, as set out in the road map, is a major problem. Facts are changing on the ground on a continuing basis which render it more difficult to see a two stage solution emerging if present policies are continued. We are, therefore, saying to the Israeli Government also that things are being done which could make it very difficult to achieve a two stage solution to the land problem. That is also unacceptable.

There is a need for all parties to take up their responsibilities. Against this very difficult political and security background, we are encouraging the high representative and the European Union to continue dialogue with all sides to try and bring about a ceasefire. There was one previously and there is a need to restore it.

We also need to continue, with others in the Quartet, to use leverages to bring pressure to bear on authorities who are changing facts on the ground that are inconsistent with the attainment of the objective of the roadmap. Following the meeting of the Quartet at the United Nations, Kofi Annan spoke of the need to recognise the seriousness of the situation and for people to take up their responsibilities. We share frustrations, but we must also continue the work on the diplomatic front, even if it means ploughing difficult territory. That is what the European Union is doing. It is bringing persuasive pressure to bear on all of the parties to do the things they are supposed to do and to address the deficit that exists on both sides.

With regard to Iraq, the issue is to obtain a resolution in the Security Council that meets the requirements of the situation, including the reconstruction of the country, political reforms and the restoration of sovereignty as soon as practicable. There are different views as to what is practicable in terms of the restoration of sovereignty. We met representatives of the Iraqi Governing Council, including Mr. Chalabi, the Foreign Minister, at the United Nations. They feel strongly that the sovereign decision making powers of the Governing Council should be incrementalised as a de facto interim administration so that people can see it is not a question of enforced or prolonged occupation but rather one of trying to establish a security environment that will enable more decision making to be taken by the Governing Council itself pending the establishment of the drafting of a constitution, the holding of elections and the establishment of a new democratic government in Iraq.

The United Nations Secretary General has made it clear that while there are positive aspects regarding the present draft resolution compared with previous drafts, further discussion will be required and further moves will need to be made if a consensus is to be built at the Security Council on the terms and content of the resolution. We would support the Secretary General in that respect.

We spoke to the Secretary General at the United National General Assembly. He wants to maximise participation by the UN and its personnel, but he also wishes to minimise the risk, given what has happened to his people within Iraq on two different occasions. The prospect of being able to help from outside Iraq, rather than exclusively from inside, is a pragmatic question he will consider depending on the mandate given him by the Security Council resolution.

With regard to the success of the conference in terms of reconstruction issues, we also met parties such as the Gulf Co-Operation Council at the United Nations. Like them, I take the view that the success of an agreement on a substantive resolution that meets the requirements of the situation is necessary for a successful conference because, in the absence of knowing what is the political perspective, it is very difficult for people to make commitments commensurate to requirements.

I do not agree that we should discontinue funding. We have already provided €5 million in humanitarian aid. There are humanitarian considerations which are not dependent upon political decisions, but such decisions would help the effectiveness of the humanitarian effort. We will continue with such assistance. The European Union is considering making a contribution qua EU as distinct from member states making individual contributions.

The conference is not the same as the Tokyo conference dealing with Afghanistan, held in Tokyo, and which was concerned with a five year prospective. This conference is concerned only with the next 12 months. To compare figures in the aftermath of the Madrid conference with what happened in Afghanistan is not comparing like with like, both in term of the timescale of the commitment and the amount spent. In addition, Iraq, in due course and thankfully due to its natural resources, has the capacity, if properly organised and put on a proper footing, to restore a measure of wealth and prosperity to the Iraqi people in a way that is not available in Afghanistan. They are different situations and considerations.

The EU Troika met with a delegation from China at the United Nations in New York to deal with a broad range of issues in preparation for the EU-China summit. I was impressed with the head of the Chinese delegation, the new Foreign Minister. There are different perspectives on the nature of human rights. We in the European Union regard them as universal concepts which should be applied equally, but it is only through dialogue that there have been improvements for ordinary people in China. Further improvements will only occur through continuing mutual dialogue.

There can be no doubt that there have been reforms within the economic, political and social system. They are changes of huge magnitude about which we are engaged in continuing dialogue with the Chinese. As part of the discussion in New York, I was delegated to raise in general terms with the Chinese the issues raised with me at this meeting.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

What was the reaction?

Deputy Cowen

The reaction is never what one would hope, but the dialogue continues. The Chinese hold strong views as to the nature of the Falun Gong movement, with which outsiders may not agree, Tibet and other issues, which they regard as going to the heart of their national sovereignty. However, we continue to raise these issues because it is only through dialogue and diplomatic efforts that we have seen improvements. It is easy to get into a confrontation and throw away all the goodwill one has built up in terms of moving these issues along. However, where necessary, strong points are made but in a mutually respectful atmosphere.

With regard to the EU-Russian summit, it is envisaged that in due course and over time, the economic co-operation aspect of the St. Petersberg Conclusions will provide a better economic space that will enable greater trade both ways between Russia and the European Union, short of Russia becoming a full member state of the Union.

Deputy Haughey

I would like to ask a question about the Intergovernmental Conference, but I understand it comes under the next section. I will speak instead about the Middle East. It is obvious to everyone that peacemakers need great patience. We are aware of this fact as a consequence of our experience in Ireland. I understand the Minister's frustration regarding the implementation of the road map. It seems particularly bleak at this time. I would like to wish the Minister well in his endeavours in that regard as part of the Quartet when Ireland assumes the Presidency of the European Union.

I recently met his Excellency, the Mexican Ambassador to Ireland. He provided me with some information about next year's summit of EU and Latin American countries. I appreciate that it is not on this agenda for next week's meeting, but I wonder if the agenda for the summit can be discussed at a future meeting. I would welcome a briefing on it now or at a later stage.

Deputy Carey

It is clear that the stability of the western Balkan region is an issue on our doorstep. Some of us visited Croatia in recent weeks. We had the benefit of listening to Mr. Solana's speech about the Balkans and places like Moldova and Ukraine on Monday last. Apart from encouraging co-operation with the international criminal tribunal, is the EU contemplating any other initiatives? I refer in particular to Croatia, an EU candidate country that needs to reform its judiciary and its media control laws. Such issues are clearly of concern in Croatia and neighbouring states. Are the Council and the Minister in a position to express a level of satisfaction with the recovery of stability in the general area of Bosnia Herzegovina and Macedonia? It is clear that such countries are in our area of interest. It is imperative that the best relations should exist between the EU and such countries in the short-term, as well as in the longer term.

I would like the Minister to elaborate on the wider Europe initiative, which he mentioned, as I do not fully understand it. I would also like to ask about the new neighbourhood instrument which the Commission has been asked to prepare. Other than the laudable aim of promoting peace and stability in the Mediterranean region of Europe, what is the ultimate objective of this initiative? Is there a long-term ambition in respect of countries such as Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia?

Chairman

What are the prospects for a new UN resolution on Iraq in the near future? What is the likelihood of EU member states, including Ireland, agreeing to fund and send troops to Iraq? This matter was touched on in the Minister's briefing document. Is this an issue that might arise in the near future rather than in the longer term?

I would also like to ask about Iran. I understand that the human rights situation in that country is getting worse rather than better. I do not know if that is a correct or fair assessment. The IIEA has suggested that Iran is not co-operating fully in respect of nuclear processes. Can pressure be brought to bear to ensure that Iran complies with the concerns of the EU?

The question of Russia's admission to the World Trade Organisation is on the agenda. Is Russia likely to become a member of the WTO soon?

Deputy Cowen

I will deal with the issues raised by Deputy Haughey, who pointed out that the next year's summit will not be on the agenda for next week's meeting. I accompanied the Taoiseach to his meeting with the Mexican President, Mr. Fox, in New York. The Taoiseach and Mr. Fox will jointly chair the summit of EU and Latin American countries in Mexico City next year, during the Irish Presidency of the EU. There was a great deal of discussion about the preparations for that meeting. Given that so many countries will attend the summit, it was decided to break it into working groups rather than having a set-piece set of speeches from each national delegation. It is hoped this will substantially add value to the debate.

We are hoping to set achievable deliverables for the meeting in a way that would be seen to be beneficial and valuable. We plan to make a real contribution to our dialogue with a part of the world where we do not have a very strong permanent representation of diplomatic personnel. It is an increasingly important region for us. In that respect, we met the Rio, Mercosur, San José and Andean groups as well as other organisations in the Central America and Latin America regions, as part of our UN engagements in the week in question. The groups and organisations are taking part in an ongoing dialogue with the European Union about enhancing regional co-operation. Both sides are trying to learn how they might be able to assist each other in constructing stability in certain parts of the world and overcoming many of the economic challenges they face. There is a need to maintain dialogue with such countries as part of the EU's drugs policy.

The dialogues are beneficial and are appreciated by countries and Governments in various parts of the world. We will give next year's summit of EU and Latin American countries the priority it deserves. We hope that the agenda on which we are working will be substantive. The Mexican President, Mr. Fox, has mentioned areas such as employment and training, which are very important for Latin American countries as they strive to prepare a labour force that will attract greater investment.

When I hear complaints from this part of the world about certain things, I make the point that it is not often recognised that 90% of all global foreign direct investment is in the triad areas of Europe, the USA, Japan and seven coastal provinces of China. The other 10% of foreign direct investment is aimed at the rest of the world where 70% of the world's population resides. If we want a more stable world, we have to hope that we can restore the talks at Cancún and that we can build a global trading system which is more just and fair. Such a system should provide access to our markets for developing countries' products, many of which are commodity products. That is a more general point, but I assure Deputy Haughey that my officials and I will be glad to discuss this matter in more detail when the committee feels it is appropriate to do so, based on our respective agendas.

Deputy Carey spoke about the western Balkans, which is a priority area for Ireland during its Presidency of the EU. One of the reasons I visited that region some months ago was to meet some of the main players there and to assure them not only of our interest but of our hope that we can be of help. There are huge challenges in this area. The EU stabilisation and association process has been an outstanding example of the establishment of economic and diplomatic instruments in the aftermath of military conflict to provide some measure of stability in the countries in question. It is appropriate that a political perspective should be provided to help progressive forces to proceed with the democratic reforms that are necessary in countries where membership of the EU could be an obtainable objective in the future, although not in the short-term.

Some have made more progress than others and are in a better position to progress. Croatia is one of these. The Croatian Prime Minister was here and had a good bilateral discussion with the Taoiseach. The Croatian Government is doing all it can to overcome the legacy of the past, part of which relates to co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. There are issues for countries in that region which have yet to be resolved. Every effort is being made and I do not question the good faith of governments. However, their ability to deal with such a major issue is an important factor in the European Union's consideration of how we continue to integrate and provide a perspective for these countries.

In relation to stability in that region, as well as looking to the European Union for membership there is a need for a greater degree of co-operation among countries within the region itself. That will bring a measure of stability. The region must overcome the legacies of the past, including retrieving and developing trade links between countries where, in the past, major ethnic tensions have boiled over into violent conflict, as we saw in Yugoslavia when it imploded.

The whole idea of the new neighbours initiative is that if one does not try to devise a policy in the aftermath of this enlargement one faces the prospect of EU candidate countries heading for the Gulf of Mexico. One must find out at what stage the Union can continue to integrate and enlarge and at what stage one has to develop neighbourhood initiatives with countries for whom membership of the Union is not an immediate or medium-term possibility. In the interest of maintaining a stable, secure area we need to develop relations with these countries which promote progressive forces which share our values. The Commission is beginning to give us its thinking on this. There is no detailed policy as yet but the idea is to work out stabilisation and association agreements which are precursers of further deepening co-operation and assistance from the Union, as we have done with the western Balkans. Given that these areas now represent the external border of the Union, these neighbourhood initiatives encourage economic developments along our borders which do not affect the integrity of our markets or the policies we pursue.

Stability of borders is an important characteristic of a stable and secure environment. We face major challenges in relation to migration, illegal immigration, smuggling and so on. The problems of international criminal activity are never far away. What is happening in Afghanistan today has a direct bearing on the price of heroin on the streets of Dublin. We have to worry about these things because their effects manifest themselves in our own parishes. We do not even have to come to Dublin to see them.

In our foreign policy we must bring public opinion with us. We do not engage in dialogue for its own sake but to seek a real and effective means of providing for a more secure and stable environment at home as well as a better environment internationally.

There are no imminent proposals for the participation of Irish troops in Iraq. When asked about this question hypothetically one always answers that consideration is given by Ireland to deployments of defence forces overseas if there is a UN resolution and mandate, which we do not have at the moment. Participation would require a Government decision and the approval of the Oireachtas. This does not mean we are about to send people into Iraq. It means the same rules apply when we consider these things as with anywhere else.

Chairman

Are we likely to see the resolution sooner rather than later?

Deputy Cowen

From discussions between the EU and the United States I think there is a recognition that it is important that we get a resolution before the Madrid conference, which is due at the end of the month. Whether that is possible depends on there being sufficient political agreement at the Security Council.

Iran is a very serious issue. The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to report again in November. Concern is being expressed by various foreign ministers in the European Union about the failure to comply transparently with the resolution of the IAEA board of governors which has been with the Iranians for some time. We are also concerned about human rights issues in Iran. I raised these with the Iranian Foreign Minister at a bilateral meeting in New York.

Chairman

There was a question about the World Trade Organisation and Russia.

Mr. Cowen

Russia applied for membership of the WTO in 1993. Discussions on many technical issues are ongoing. Russia hopes to join the WTO in 2004, depending on the successful conclusion of negotiations.

Deputy Sexton

With regard to the Israeli security cabinet decision in principle to remove President Arafat from the occupied territories, its condemnation by many of us and the veto by the UN Security Council and General Assembly, what could Israel do to carry out that decision in principle and if Israel takes such action, what can the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly do?

We are all concerned about the apparent intransigence of Israel. The Minister's briefing shows the Palestinian side as unable to fulfil its commitments while it appears that Israel simply does not want to do so. The Government's position in relation to the removal of President Arafat is correct. If he were removed the vacuum created would be detrimental to the stability of the area.

Mr. Cowen

I agree. The removal of Mr. Arafat from the scene would not bring about a more stable situation. When I visited him I made it clear that the international community expects that the Palestinian Authority will fully support the reforms. He assured me that he supported them.

A resolution was passed at the UN General Assembly which called for no move to be made for his removal. The resolution was vetoed by the United States when it went to the Security Council.

Chairman

That concludes the section on external relations. On the general affairs section we will hear Deputies Haughey and Jim O'Keeffe.

Deputy Haughey

The Minister said that a first discussion of the Presidency, in the form of a questionnaire, was circulated before a meeting of foreign ministers in Rome. Is that questionnaire a discussion document? Is it available for public scrutiny? What was the nature of the questions and what were our responses to them?

I have read reports recently of the UK softening its position on tax harmonisation. This is not on the immediate agenda but it will be a controversial issue in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference. Can the Minister comment on a possible change in the UK position in this regard?

Chairman

As regards the questionnaire, I do not recall seeing it. The Minister says we have received it. We may have but we will make sure Mr. O'Mahony receives it and that it is circulated to members of the committee.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Would it be correct to summarise our position by stating that we largely accept the draft constitutional treaty negotiated at the convention and that we seek some tweaking here and there rather than a radical change of the draft? I know from the brief that there is a reference to the fact that the Government will seek improvements on aspects of taxation, criminal procedure, security and defence. I encourage it to do so. Will the Minister indicate what sort of improvements he would like regarding taxation? I understand that we do not want to change from unanimity on tax measures but is there something else of concern to us as a member state? What divergence has occurred between our position and that of the United Kingdom? We were in a strong position where, through coat-tailing or otherwise, we were able to run with the United Kingdom on the taxation issue. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that. It would be a matter of concern if there were a divergence given its impact on our strength in the final shake-up. The issue in question has something to do with measures to be agreed regarding cross-Border tax fraud. I am not sure of the detail but saw one brief newspaper report about it.

On the Intergovernmental Conference, is there any provision regarding criminal procedures, security or defence that we are seeking and which is not in the draft constitutional treaty?

Deputy P. Carey

I presume there is a desire to agree on the easy parts first at the Intergovernmental Conference and to leave the difficult issues until later. It was inevitable that the proposal for a legislative council would be rejected in preference for the sectoral councils appearing in public session. On balance, it is probably a better proposal.

I know the Minister lost the case regarding the Foreign Minister chairing and being the chief executive of the External Relations Council. The exercise of this dual function is bad practice and could give rise to serious conflict. I do not know if it is possible to reconsider the issue. I get the impression from the Minister that he obtained little enough support for the Irish position. I forsee all sorts of dangers. Others have pointed out the dangers regarding a permanent President of the Commission. This also has potential for conflict. However, that is what we are left with.

I want to dwell on fairly euphemistic references to the management of migration flows. What precisely is intended in this area? I hope it does not involve quotas, the concept of Europe as a fortress and border police. Are we talking about a more enlightened approach to migration? Will the Minister elaborate briefly on the likely conclusions in the area of freedom, security and justice?

Senator Ormonde

On the point Deputy Haughey raised, I do not recall receiving the questionnaire and therefore I am not in a position to be knowledgable in the area. It struck me as interesting that the Minister indicated support for the team Presidency concept while remaining open to other models so long as the principle of equality between member states is retained. What is his view on this? How will the discussion progress in light of his having outlined his position on the issue?

Chairman

Members of the committee returned late last night from a two-day session of COSAC in Rome, which was addressed by Mr Frattini, President-in-office of the General Affairs Council, and by the Secretary General, Javier Solana. Some very interesting contributions were made.

What is the Minster's best guess in respect of the Intergovernmental Conference? Will it be completed during the Italian Presidency? The Intergovernmental Conference clearly does not want to deal with too many questions, but the terms of reference for the Chairman of the European Council have yet to be established. Given that the European Council is a creature of national parliaments, there is potential for its Chairman, if he is unsuitable, to create havoc in terms of blurring the distinction between the institutions. A very strong Chairman could overshadow the President of the Commission. If he were also President of the Commission, which is now a possibility, this in turn would blur the institutions. If one examines the terms of reference of the Chairman of the Council, one will conclude that there should be some provision whereby, say, one-third of the voting members of national parliaments could remove the Chairman if he did not fulfil his mandate or if he upset the institutional balance. There should be provision in the terms of reference for some body other than the Council to sanction its President.

It is clear that the protocol on defence has yet to be devised and written. I have a view on what it should say about the opportunities for member states to join on the basis of an Article 5 type commitment concerning mutual defence. Rather than necessitating a commitment to mutual defence, provision could be made in the protocol whereby a state could opt in or opt out. I do not think this would cause any major problem. I imagine that if a member state were attacked under existing arrangements, the Irish State would come to its defence voluntarily. However, it is a question of leaving doors open. This proposal does not require a readjustment of the text of the treaty. The issues remain to be sorted out during the Intergovernmental Conference.

I will not ask the Minister anything about the Statute of Members of the European Parliament. I am sure the shop stewards are still considering the matter. Will the Minister give us some idea what will happen in terms of the preparation for the European Council in Brussels on 16 and 17 October? Will the Intergovernmental Conference comprise the main business or will there be other items?

Deputy Cowen

What issue did Deputy Haughey raise?

Deputy Haughey

I referred to the questionnaire and to tax harmonisation. The latter issue was also referred to by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

Deputy Cowen

I will outline the purpose of the questionnaire so members will understand the work methodology in place for the Intergovernmental Conference. The Presidency will send out questionnaires to all member states before any aspect of the draft constitutional treaty is discussed. Every member state has the right to raise whatever issues it wishes. In terms of the organisation of the Intergovernmental Conference, identifying the issues the various member states wish to raise is dealt with in the form of a questionnaire circulated by the Italian Presidency. The member states give their views and find out the views of the other member states before preparing for the meeting and, in terms of how a decision may shape up, proposing a solution where views vary. We nearly achieved agreement on the legislative council on which only Belgium and one other country disagreed and we eventually decided to proceed. Some of the other issues, including institutional questions, will probably be reserved for a final decision in the European Council. It will help to move us along.

This Intergovernmental Conference differs from previous Intergovernmental Conferences because we have a draft. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe asked what is our position on the draft. The view expressed at Thessaloniki was that it is a good basis from which to work. We will neither rubber-stamp it nor start ab initio. If we have certain timetables in mind, we will need to proceed by taking the draft as a basis for our work, asking what issues arise from it for every member state, identifying the issues each member state wishes to discuss and on which they want changes, before getting down to dialogue to try to find a solution. That is the methodology.

The process is not a zero sum game. One cannot adopt a position by which everyone else can go to blazes if one does not get everything one wants or one refuses to discuss other issues until one's own problem solved. One cannot enter negotiations on that basis. One must accept the draft as a good basis from which to work and then propose improvements. In order to build consensus, one must come up with constructive proposals to resolve the issues, otherwise we will fail to get the job done. This is the broad approach.

We have a simple position on the taxation question, namely, we have no problem with tax harmonisation in the European Union provided it is unanimously agreed. There are issues on which we should work together, common interests, for example, in the area of cross-border fraud, but we will deal with them by unanimity. I do not want a scenario where one agrees to include a reference to a particular area in the treaty only to find later that separate proposals or issues are covered by this reference when this may not be the case. It is a question of achieving clarity.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Where is the divergence between our position and that of the United Kingdom about which there was a recent report?

Deputy Cowen

There is no divergence. The United Kingdom has confirmed to us that its position has not changed. How people interpret what is said is not my business. I do not write articles and I was not present during the interview in question. The substantive point is there has been no change in the United Kingdom's position.

I was asked whether I wanted radical change. I want to achieve consensus on an outcome with which we can all live. In a community of 25 member states a consensus usually means that not everyone is jumping up and down singing hallelujah. At the same time, however, they can usually live with what has been agreed. That is the nature of compromise and we want to make sure a coherent compromise is agreed. There are still political decisions to be taken, for example, on the weighting of votes in the Council, which is an issue on which some people feel very strongly. There are also strong feelings on issues related to the Commission. Further political discussions are necessary. We accepted the Nice compromise to which we are prepared to accept improvements if they become available.

I noted the statement by the German Foreign Minister today that it could reopen issues related to the Commission with a view to returning to the position of having two Commissioners for the large states, including Spain, which does not have two Commissioners, and Poland. While I do not have a problem discussing these issues, I want to see the nature of the proposal and the rationale behind it. We have consistently emphasised that we must act on the basis of equality and equal rotation gives us that. A compromise was reached between those who historically wanted a small Commission and those who wanted one Commissioner per member state. When the European Union reaches a certain size, one must ask whether such a system is efficacious and effective and how one maintains equal rights for all. These kinds of political arguments and discussions will take place. We keep an open mind on the basis that we will not end up in a worse position than at present. I have no problem negotiating improvements in our position. Others have different views on the matter.

Considerable debate is required on the defence proposals set out in Part III of the draft constitution. We need certain clarifications to ascertain what is meant and intended by some of the proposals. They include the idea of structural co-operation, an EU planning union establishing a form of defence component independent of NATO and a solidarity clause. We need to go through all these points in detail. Until we have that discussion and receive clarification from those who favour the proposals, I am not in a position to say what our attitude will be to them.

The major issue with regard to defence matters, which I have articulated since the Treaty of Nice, is that we have negotiated a position in which all decisions regarding our participation in defence matters are subject to a national sovereign decision. If we are to maintain this position, we will have to call on other member states, which have traditionally taken a different view from us on this issue, to agree to a process in which arrangements are open. Our constitutional position is that there will be no change in our common defence position without the consent of the people.

Increasingly, common defence arrangements appear to be emerging through NATO as opposed to the European Union. I do not propose, however, to gaze into a crystal ball or confuse the issue. The real question for the Government and the people will be whether we are authors of our own destiny as regards our participation in defence matters. If this is the case, what is the problem given that we retain sovereignty and competence over these issues at national level?

Obviously, we will want to know precisely what is the substance of the various processes, procedures and policies other member states wish to pursue rather than having a discussion in which there is much heat and little light. I am prepared to discuss all these issues with colleagues and I want to be able to explain to my people what other member states have in mind and how our sensitivities, protections or decision making must remain a matter for our national institutions in terms of participation in defence matters. This is the mature, sensible approach.

On Senator Ormonde's question on team presidencies, detailed discussion is required on the models, the form such a presidency would take, whether there would be four of them in two years, five in two and half years and how would one divide up the various sectoral Councils. These are technical, detailed questions. Once I see equality of member states reflected in a proposal, I am prepared to give it a fair run, provided it also meets the criteria of being effective, coherent and workable. There is no point in taking up these embroidered ideas if they do not work in practice. Our job is to make sure citizens can make sense of this process. The Italian Presidency has undertaken to meet us and show us, based on our discussions, how the models might look. At that point, we will be able to make a better value judgment as to what we believe would be best for the Union as a whole.

I have answered Deputy Gay Mitchell's questions on the protocol on defence in my more general points. With regard to a president of the Council, we need to discuss the impact of this proposal. The draft constitutional treaty states team presidencies would need to take into account geographical and other circumstances. What would that mean in practice? I would like to have a practical example.

We are anxious that the institutional balance be retained. We do not want new bureaucracies built up around new personages and competing tensions arising. Similarly, the double hatted Solana-Patton figures are a single figure under these proposals. People say he should chair the Council. I have raised this issue and asked member states to consider if that is procedurally all right. It does not affect our national interests but I have asked them if they think it is a good idea from the point of view of it working well. By the same token, some people who say there is no problem with that sometimes question the collegiality of that figure in the Commission. If it is about coherence, it should be about being embedded in the Commission as much as being embedded in the chair

of the Council. We believe that this person should be a vice-president of the Commission.

We need to discuss what are the lines of responsibility, what are the proposed interactions, how to ensure we get an agreed political consensus with regard to some of the issues the chairman raises which would cause bigger problems than they would solve and that the treaty draft reflects the detailed political consensus that will emerge from the political discussions which have still to occur. I respect the work the convention has done but governments, in meeting their responsibilities as sovereign governments, have to be satisfied that the good work that has been done reflects the political understandings that will emerge from the discussions which have to take place. We will enter those discussions positively.

Chairman

Will the Minister comment on the European Council agenda?

Deputy Cowen

The Intergovernmental Conference, the relaunching of the European economy issues I have mentioned, the JHA and external relations are the four broad subjects that will come up for discussion on 16 and 17 October. The Intergovernmental Conference and institutional issues could well be taken over lunch and other issues taken during the course of the day. These are matters for technical preparation by the Presidency and we will go along with whatever it decides.

Chairman

Colleagues from the Bundestag are waiting to come before the committee. I mentioned COSAC earlier. We met the President of the Italian Republic yesterday as well as the Foreign Minister, who addressed the meeting, and the secretary general. Previously in Athens it was Prime Minister Simitis and Mr. Papandreou. We will put together a programme for the COSAC meeting here which will involve approximately 170 members of parliament from the 25 member states and we will be in touch with you about the agenda so you can fit the meeting into your schedule.

Deputy Cowen

The Office of Public Works said recently at a Cabinet sub-committee meeting that there should be no more informal Council meetings as far as visitors are concerned. It has reached its maximum capacity. Obviously, however, Parliament must do its own thing.

Chairman

That concludes this part of the meeting. I thank the Minister and wish him well at the European Council meeting next week.