Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Friday, 19 Mar 2004

General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.

I want to explain from the outset that proceedings are not being broadcast this morning, which is unacceptable. The requirement is that when the Oireachtas meets, it does so in public session. I protest very strongly that arrangements have not been made for the broadcasting of this public session of a parliamentary joint committee. I intend to seek an explanation for this. Our meetings are held in public, with the press free to attend and to broadcast our proceedings. We are holding an important meeting prior to the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting, and it is not being recorded or broadcast.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, and thank him for attending. It is a busy week, and a busy time lies ahead next week.

The briefing notes from the Department indicate that in addition to the IGC and external relations, the Council meeting will be concerned with specific items within the Lisbon strategy. In particular, the focus will be on innovation and competitiveness. The new draft agenda indicates that an item on terrorism has been added. The Minister of State will be aware that this committee is engaged in the preparation of a comprehensive report on the Lisbon strategy, which we will submit to the plenary meeting of COSAC in May. Our aim is to encourage EU-wide parliamentary support for the implementation in full of the strategy. It has become clear from our meetings on this issue to date that there is a widely held view that there has been much discussion but little implementation. I would appreciate if the Minister of State would raise that concern at the Council meeting, and note that this committee will be raising the issue at the COSAC meeting. The Minister of State might also raise the matter of the COSAC view that the IGC should be completed before the forthcoming European Parliament elections.

Following the opening comments by the Minister of State, we will take two sessions on general affairs and external relations.

I thank the Chairman, and I know the committee members are under pressure today. I support the comments by the Chairman about this committee not being broadcast. There is something fundamentally bizarre about that. For many years, the broadcast media were very critical, and rightly so, that the Dáil was not accessible, and now, when it is accessible, as is the Seanad, it is very odd that those media are not interested in broadcasting proceedings particularly as this is a critical week for Europe. That speaks volumes about the people who make those decisions. I am pleased to appear again before the committee to review the agenda for the General Affairs and External Relations Council which takes place in Brussels on Monday next. I propose to deal, as usual, with the session on general affairs first before moving on to the external relations issues.

According to the Seville European Council conclusions, the General Affairs and External Relations Council is responsible for drawing up the draft annotated agenda for the European Council. The preparation for the European Council will accordingly be the main item on the general affairs agenda on Monday. We have already made significant progress in this regard, a theme to which I will return. We have circulated to partners a revised draft of the annotated agenda outlining the issues for discussion by heads of state or government at the European Council. A copy of this document has been forwarded to the committee for information. There was a constructive discussion on that at COREPER yesterday, and a revised version incorporating the result of that discussion will be circulated today for consideration by Ministers on Monday. As the Chairman said, the focus of the Irish Presidency's approach to Lisbon is to stop talking, get ahead and start acting on specific key areas on which we believe progress can be made.

The Presidency has indicated that it intends to limit the agenda for the European Council to the Lisbon strategy, the Presidency report on the Intergovernmental Conference, terrorism, the international situation and a small number of "any other business" items, including procedural conclusions in the financial perspectives and a proposal by the Belgian Government that the European Council use the residence palace building for its meetings after it has been refurbished. The European Council will begin next Thursday evening with a discussion on terrorism. That will be followed by a discussion by Heads of State or Government on the prospects for further progress in the IGC. The morning session on 26 March will be devoted to the Lisbon strategy of social, economic and environmental renewal. There may also be some discussion of the international situation.

Last week's terrible and cowardly attacks in Madrid are a chilling reminder of the threat that terrorism poses to civilised and democratic societies. Speaking on behalf of the EU, the Taoiseach condemned those desperate acts. In doing so, he expressed our solidarity with the Spanish people and reiterated the EU's determination to combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. As the committee is aware, the European security strategy adopted by the European Council last December identified terrorism as one of the key threats to EU interests. The attacks last week underscore the need for the EU to redouble its efforts to counter this international scourge.

In his statement following the attacks on 15 March, the Taoiseach outlined a package of measures to counter terrorism which, as holders of the Presidency, we will bring to the European Council next week for agreement. Those proposals will be set out in a draft Council declaration on combating terrorism. The draft declaration aims to build on existing co-operation through legislative pleasures, reinforcing operational co-operation, maximising the effectiveness of information systems and strengthening border controls and document security.

The Taoiseach has proposed that member states agree to implement the solidarity clause proposed in the draft constitutional treaty. As members will be aware, the solidarity clause aims to facilitate member states' co-operation in the prevention of terrorist attacks as well as the provision of assistance to a member state which is the victim of an attack. The establishment of the position of a counter-terrorism co-ordinator is proposed to enhance co-ordination of member states' efforts in the area further and to bring forward new measures.

The declaration also addresses issues such as the sharing of intelligence, the financing of terrorism, measures to protect transport and population, assistance to victims and international co-operation, in particular with the US and other partners. The draft declaration is being discussed by Justice and Home Affairs Ministers at their meeting as we speak. The proposals will then be taken up by foreign ministers on Monday before Heads of State and Government discuss them on Thursday.

The IGC is not itself on the agenda of the Council but will arise in the context of preparations for the European Council. In accordance with the mandate received at the European Council in Brussels last December, the Taoiseach will report to his colleagues on the prospects for further progress in the IGC. The European Council will then discuss how best to proceed. It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to speculate as to what the Taoiseach's report might contain. Our consultations and contacts with partners are continuing and we will not be coming to any final decisions on the content of the report until that process is concluded.

The committee will, however, wish to be aware that we have been pleased and encouraged by the support that we, as holders of the Presidency, have received from partners in our efforts to advance the agenda. There is recognition that it would be desirable to make progress and, if possible, conclude the IGC as soon as possible, and that delay would not make agreement easier to reach at a later stage, something that we previously discussed at this committee. Our consultations have been positive and constructive, and we have a deeper appreciation of the concerns of all our partners. We also have a greater understanding of where scope for compromise might lie.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs will brief colleagues in general terms at next Monday's Council. We intend to circulate the report before the European Council. While final decisions have not been made, we envisage a short report containing a summary account of the work done to date and our overall assessment of the state of play. It is not expected to contain detailed specific proposals. The Taoiseach will expand on the report at the dinner with his colleagues, focusing on the prospects for progress, and would hope to have an open discussion. Members of the committee may be assured that we will not hesitate to seize the chance to make progress if we believe that a window of opportunity exists.

The morning session of the European Council on 26 March will be devoted to the annual review of the Lisbon strategy. Partners have agreed with our aim of focusing on a limited number of issues and concentrating on two specific areas, growth and jobs. Our first priority - sustainable growth - includes action to promote competitiveness, innovation and greater respect for the environment through greater support for environmental technologies. With regard to our second priority - employment, Heads of State or Government will consider how we can increase the adaptability of companies and workers, improve labour force participation and invest more effectively in education and training.

At this month's Council, Ministers will return to the subject of Iran - especially the nuclear issue - in light of last week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors. On 13 March 2004, the board adopted by consensus a resolution on the issue of Iran's nuclear programme critical of omissions in Iran's statements and of new discoveries regarding that country's nuclear activities. At the same time, it notes progress in Iran's co-operation with the agency, its signature of the additional protocol and its suspension of centrifuge activities. It calls for further consideration of the matter at the June meeting of the board following the next report by the director general of the IAEA. The Council will consider the outcome of the March meeting and look ahead to the next report of the director general in May.

On the Middle East, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, will present to colleagues an interim report on the work on developing a strategy towards the region. That work is based on a mandate from the European Council in December. The development of a strategy towards the Middle East region is also one of the four areas for initial action under the European security strategy, which was also adopted at last December's European Council. The report, which will be delivered by the Minister, details the existing framework for the EU's relations with the Arab world, including the EuroMed process and the European neighbourhood policy, while setting out the future aims of the EU for the region. We intend to build upon existing structures which have proved successful in facilitating constructive engagement between the EU and the region. A central consideration underpinning the policy is the EU's common view that the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict remains an essential and strategic objective for the EU in its engagement with the region. We are conscious of the need to ensure the European Union's friends and partners in the region are consulted on the development of this strategy. We have already begun this process through our continuing bilateral contacts and will continue to do so in the months ahead.

In this regard the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will attend the Arab League summit in Tunis at the end of March 2004. The Taoiseach is expected to address the summit in his capacity as President of the European Union. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will also avail of the opportunity to meet with other heads of state and government attending the summit and to consult them on the strategy.

The final strategy is scheduled for adoption at the June 2004 European Council meeting. Preparations are also well under way for the forthcoming Asia-European Foreign Affairs Ministers' meeting, which will be held in Ireland on 17 and 18 April. We have good indications of ministerial attendance from both sides. This is particularly significant given the concerns expressed by the Asian side about falling attendance by EU Ministers. At the Council Ministers are likely to discuss enlargement of ASEM and the question of Burma-Myanmar, probably the greatest challenge currently facing the ASEM process.

As the Presidency we will continue to engage with both EU and Asian partners in an effort to find a common approach on the issue of ASEM enlargement. ASEM is a particularly important forum for dialogue in that it provides an opportunity for co-operation and open exchanges between Europe and Asia across a whole range of political, economic and cultural issues, including regional and international issues of common concern.

Preparation for the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights is also on the agenda. The EU is firmly convinced that promoting human rights, democratisation and the rule of law promotes peace and stability. The EU attaches great importance to the commission as the primary UN body dealing with human rights. The EU will present a specific number of country and thematic initiatives at the UN Commission on Human Rights. The thematic resolutions to be presented will address the issue of the death penalty and the rights of the child jointly with Latin American and the Caribbean countries, and the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.

The country specific resolutions will include ones on the human rights situations in Burma-Myanmar, North Korea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Russian Federation - specifically Chechnya, Sudan and Zimbabwe - as well as the question of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. In addition the Union will propose initiatives on Turkmenistan and Belarus jointly with the United States. The European Union will also initiate UNCHR statements on Colombia and East Timor.

The expressions of the Union's concerns in regard to human rights situations in countries will not be confined to formal resolutions. In traditional statements under agenda item No. 9, human rights situations in various parts of the world, the European Union will refer to a number of country's situations in the context of a thematic approach. The Presidency intends to keep this draft as concise and targeted as possible to ensure the maximum impact. In this statement the Presidency will address the situation of human rights in China and Iran, among other countries.

Turning to the western Balkans, in their regular discussion on the western Balkans, Ministers will review the current situation in Serbia and Montenegro following the formation of a minority coalition Government in Serbia on 2 March 2004. Also, on Monday the Prime Minister of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will present his country's application for EU membership to the Taoiseach in Dublin. Ministers will discuss developments in Macedonia in the context of its application for EU membership and in the light of the recent tragic death of the Macedonian President.

Ministers will also review the situation on Kosovo in light of the violence there in recent days. The immediate priority is that calm be restored. The disturbances in Kosovo underline the importance of continued EU engagement in the stabilisation and development of the western Balkans region as a whole and, in particular, in bringing forward the work under way to ensure a stable future for a secure, democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo with its place in Europe.

Turning to ESDP, the committee will be aware that it is proposed that the European Security and Development policy will be discussed at this month's Council on the basis of a report by High Representative Solana on EU rapid response capability. However, this is not yet available and, accordingly, the item has been deferred to a later date. Ministers will instead be invited to approve without discussion short procedural conclusions which underline the European Union's willingness to take forward work on this issue as a matter of priority. This is an issue of particular relevance to the EU's relations with the United Nations in the area of crisis management and was specifically welcomed by UN Secretary General Annan during his meeting with the Minister, Deputy Cowen, in Brussels on 28 January 2004.

As it is envisaged that the enhanced EU rapid response capacity should have a particular role in supporting the UN in crisis management, the Presidency and High Representative Solana's office are pursuing the necessary contacts with the United Nations on an on-going basis with a view to seeing suitable arrangements put in place as soon as possible.

There will be a number of items in the margins of the Council. The Council of Europe quadripartite meeting, the 20th such meeting between the Council of European and the European Union, will take place on the margins of this month's Council meeting. The meeting will provide an opportunity to exchange views on the role of both organisations whilst stressing the importance of identifying areas of complementarity and possible division of labour. The planned Council of Europe summit in 2005 will also be discussed, as will the situations in Belarus, in the southern Caucases, specifically Georgia, and in the western Balkans.

I will once again be happy to answer any questions members of the committee wish to raise.

I intend to take the general affairs section first - it seems to be the lighter part of the agenda - and then go on to the External Relations Council. There are two questions in regard to the Tasmin Spirit, if the Minister of State could just say what that is, and the EU-ACP water facility.

On behalf of the whole committee, I express our deepest sympathy to the people of Madrid and Spain and our solidarity with our fellow EU citizens on this murderous and unwarranted terrorist attack. It is an appalling development and all right thinking people will be horrified by what happened. I hope we can act in solidarity with the people of Madrid and Spain and give them every support we can. I presume that issue will come up at the Council under ESDP. I take it that it certainly will not come up under the general affairs section of the agenda.

Terrorism will be a very significant item in the——

Is that under the general affairs section?

Yes. As I mentioned, the big focus in the terrorism area will obviously be in the justice and home affairs area today, but political issues which hang over from the justice and home affairs area will come up on Monday. We had a very positive response to the initiative initially launched by the Taoiseach, but since we brought our detailed propositions to COREPER yesterday there has been a remarkably positive response. For once we will actually see action as opposed to just talk.

So terrorism is on the general affairs section.

The first item on the agenda is the general affairs section, item Nos. 1 to 5, and then an extra item, No. 6, on terrorism.

On the issue of terrorism, the Minister of State mentioned the solidarity clause and the counter-terrorism co-ordinator, two ideas that are being brought forward to try to deal with the issue. I ask the Minister of State to give us a little more detail about the thinking behind this and what he hopes the positive effects will be.

On the solidarity clause and the Taoiseach's statements over the last number of days, it would seem on the face of it that the interpretation will be that we are entering into a mutual defence pact. I would obviously be interested in some clarification as to what consequences the implementation and enforcement the solidarity clause will have for our neutral status.

My question is on the external relations section so I will wait.

My question is on the solidarity clause also. Will the national parliaments have an opportunity to debate this or is it going to be fast-tracked through the General Affairs Council in a similar way, for instance, to the EU Armaments Agency? It is vital our national Parliament has an opportunity to engage in proper discussion on this clause, especially since it has been taken out of the debate on the constitutional treaty and fast-tracked. A constitutional treaty has not been signed off or put to the people. It would be a pity to pick and choose in this instance.

Like other speakers, I will be brief. My question relates to the solidarity clause. There is a role for the United Nations in regard to more involved conflict between nation states. We have our own procedures in place for participation in war or for providing assistance in any way in that regard. There is the triple lock mechanism. I agree with the new solidarity clause. We need to unite to oppose terrorism within the EU and elsewhere. The Minister of State referred to the provision of assistance to a member state in the event of it being the victim of an attack. Like other speakers, I believe there is a major role for the Oireachtas in this area. Terrorist attacks are unforeseen and in the event of such an attack a crisis management situation develops. We need mechanisms in place to ensure full accountability and to ensure that the Dáil, in particular, is very much involved in any assistance which may be given. Like Deputy Andrews and other speakers, I would appreciate more specifics on this area.

I wish to make the same points as those made by my colleagues on the solidarity clause. It provides for moving forward to the establishment of the position of a counter terrorism co-ordinator. I would be interested to know how that role will be used in the light of last week's tragedies. It is important to move forward in that regard because the time for talk is over. We cannot have any more discussion on it; we need to move forward and take action.

Ms Patricia McKenna, MEP

On the solidarity clause, I do not need to repeat what has been said, but it would be interesting to know the Government's position on it and whether it will be debated nationally. There are a number of other issues, many of which will be discussed during the meeting taking place in regard to justice and home affairs.

The Belgian Prime Minister wrote to the Irish Presidency requesting four new measures to be brought in at EU level. One is the creation of an EU intelligence agency, which would bring together member states' police intelligence and security agencies with Europol. The second request was to change the law to enable security agencies to operate across borders. The third was to have a new focus on arms trafficking with the finance of extremist groups. The fourth was to ensure the better use of existing resources such as using the Schengen information system to exchange intelligence. Apparently, considerable pressure is being put on the five member states which have not implemented the EU arrest warrant. Will these issues also be on the agenda and what is the Government's position on them?

Last week, the Commission was presented with a report from European industry leaders and EU policymakers calling for a boost in the budget to security research, which was welcomed by the Commission. What is the Government's position on that proposal, which was put forward by security and research industries, including defence industries? The proposal is very much in line with what was agreed in Thessaloniki in regard to boosting the resources being given to the defence industries and the defence agency. Will these aspects arise during the meeting and what is the Government's position on them?

I note there will be procedural conclusions on defence policy without discussion. What are these procedural conclusions? Has the Minister of State seen them or have we been given them? I cannot seem to find them.

On the same issue, will the Council consider carrying out an audit of member states' implementation of agreements already reached on the issue of terrorism? A number of legislative and other steps have been agreed. It may be that many member states have not implemented what has already been agreed. Will efforts be made to bring all member states up to the line so to speak?

I will deal with the solidarity clause first, then the counter terrorism co-ordinator and then the terrorism issue. To pick up on the last point made by the Chairman, he is right in that there has been no lack of initiatives in the terrorism area in Europe since 11 September, rather the problem has been in terms of their implementation. The Chairman is correct in that a significant number of countries, which have agreed and, sometimes, encouraged us to move in a more advanced way, have not been particularly good at coming up to the line. I will come to deal with that in some detail.

The solidarity clause exists. I welcome Deputy Ó Snodaigh's positive views on the constitutional treaty. The solidarity clause exists within the constitutional treaty. It aims to provide assistance to a member state in the event of that member state being the victim of a terrorist outrage or attack or suffering from a natural or a man-made disaster. The solidarity clause allows each member state to determine how to respond if a request is made. It is not the type of arrangement that has any impact on neutrality. It would provide a mechanism through which assistance can be given to member states, which so request. The form in which such assistance is given is a matter for each individual member state. It could be civilian assistance, military assistance or assistance in some other capacity or capability. It would be up to an individual member state to make assistance available as it deems appropriate. It has no impact whatsoever on Irish neutrality.

The mutual defence clause is an entirely different matter. There is a temptation for some people to tie the two clauses together, but they are two quite different issues. The issues relating to the mutual defence clause has been well discussed and our position is well known. There has been some correspondence and suggestions from the Belgian Prime Minister, and that is part of the process. Member states have the right to exercise a view, to advise or to suggest movements in particular areas.

Turning to the specific areas, I am not sure what the point was in regard to the co-ordinator.

Ms Patricia McKenna, MEP

I was interested in the Minister of State's position on the Belgian proposals. I know that member states can propose what they wish, but I would be interested to know the Government's position on these proposals.

I will give Ms McKenna the Government's position if she has a little patience with me. I will outline in detail precisely what we are proposing. The items on the table are our proposals. The appointment of a security co-ordinator is a new post. The level at which he or she would operate is to be decided. It makes common sense that somebody should be responsible for co-ordination and co-operation between EU bodies and third countries and for streamlining the activities within the European Union. As the Chairman pointed out, it is bizarre that since the 11 September outrage, a significant range of agreements have been made in Europe but they have not been co-ordinated. The fight against terrorism crosses many pillars within the European Union and it makes common sense that a co-ordinator position should be established.

Another issue, on which the Chairman touched, is that of measures to reinforce political co-operation within the Union. The Union has agreed that there should be a police chiefs task force. Europol, Eurojust, the European arrest warrant and the joint investigating teams or multi-state teams have been agreed, but in reality these measures have not come through on the ground. The discussion on the political co-operation side is to examine how we can reinforce measures in this area. Other areas we will examine - Ms McKenna will be aware that some of them were mentioned in the Belgium letter - include taking forward the framework decision on mutual recognition of confiscation orders. There has been agreement on a framework decision on mutual recognition of confiscation orders but work has to be taken forward in that area.

Ms McKenna asked about information sharing and co-operation. When the Union increases to 25 member states there will have to be a new Schengen arrangement. Within the Schengen agreement there is a useful information system already in place. How that will be dealt with in a Union of 25 is a matter which requires attention. Another issue which arises is how non-Schengen countries can buy into the system. It would be odd if information relating to security was available but was not shared with some countries. Another area is the new visa information system. The Presidency has made it clear for some time that there is a synergy in bringing together issues relating to the visa information system and issues relating to the border agency.

Another matter which will arise in this general context is one which has been around for some time, the financing of terrorism and the general question of guidelines for a common international approach to the fight against terrorism, specifically with regard to relations between the European Union and the United Nations in the context of terrorism. Ultimately, when dealing with issues relating to terrorism, it is necessary not just to address the horrors that arise from terrorism but also the causes of terrorism. A holistic approach has to be adopted in that area.

Concerns as a result of confusing the solidarity clause and mutual defence should not arise. Anybody who wishes to do so can clearly make the distinction. The solidarity clause refers to a member state that is a victim of a terrorism attack or suffers a natural or man made disaster. The key issue is that it is up to each member state to decide how to respond to a request. Implicit in one of the questions was whether this would have an implication for the triple lock mechanism. The answer is "No". There is no implication for the triple lock governing the deployment overseas of members of the Defence Forces. The role of the Dáil in this regard will continue to be fully respected by the Government.

Ms McKenna asked about research funding and the statement from Thessaloniki. The item is not on the agenda at this time.

The Chairman asked about the Tasmin Spirit case. The Tasmin Spirit is a Greek owned tanker which was registered in Malta. It ran aground at the entrance to the port of Karachi whilst under Pakistani pilotage. The crew of the tanker assisted the Karachi port authorities for several days in salvaging the vessel but it eventually sank at the port causing a spill of thousands of tonnes of oil. The crew of four Greek and three Filipino seamen was transferred to a hotel in Karachi. They have been denied repatriation since. An inquiry was completed on 17 September last and eight persons remain in detention in Karachi. Charges against the Greek citizens have not been pressed by the Karachi port trust and the police in Karachi, leading to successive postponements.

The Greek Government has made numerous approaches at different levels, including ministerial, requesting the repatriation of its citizens. There are no results so far. The matter has also been taken up by the European Union at different levels. There was a meeting, for example, between Chris Patten and Pakistan's Minister for Foreign Affairs in Brussels last November and during a lunch in December the Italian Presidency also pursued the matter. There was a Troika meeting on 18 February with Pakistan. That was led by the Minister, Deputy Cowen. The Troika reiterated that this is not a bilateral issue between Pakistan and Greece but an issue of major concern for the European Union.

Can you say a brief word on the EU-ACP water facility?

I have nothing on that with me——

You can send a note.

——because it does not arise. I will send you a note on it.

I wish to make a further comment on this section. It is a personal view. The treaty also includes provisions for defence and the Minister will be aware of my views on this. I believe it is time we had a more open and healthy debate on this issue. I note that terrorism is just one element of this and that it will be addressed. Are there any further questions on this section before we move to the foreign relations section?

What is our position on Chechnya? There is a great deal of difficulty there with the Russian hardline approach. Chechnya is seeking its freedom.

We can take this under the next part of the agenda on external relations.

I have to leave early for a lunch appointment.

I have two questions on general affairs. There is a recommendation from the Commission to the Council to open negotiations under Article 24.5 of GATT, 1994. To what does that relate? Under the section dealing with resolutions, decisions and opinions, it is stated that the European Parliament called on the Council and the Commission to work for the universal ratification of all human rights instruments and made a number of requests to the Council concerning the positions to be adopted on the resolutions. Is a list available of the remaining resolutions and instruments that need to be ratified? What is Ireland's position on this?

As these are technical matters, I will give the Deputy a written note on both items. I will also forward him a list of the resolutions that are outstanding.

That concludes the general affairs section. I call Senator Mooney and Deputy O'Keeffe on the external relations section of the agenda.

Kosovo is dealt with in the documents but recent and current events indicate that there is a need to establish where EU policy is going with regard to the outbreak of fighting between ethnic Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo. Will there be any move towards establishing Kosovo as a self governing or independent state? This would be the hope of the overwhelming majority of Kosovar Albanians.

In the context of the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, will the Minister of State outline the Irish position regarding a US indication that it will table a motion on the human rights situation in China? Will he indicate what initiatives Ireland intends to take with regard to the situation in Burma or Myanmar, following the recent Irish decision to give recognition to the military junta in that country? I welcome that decision. It is important in the context of establishing dialogue on a country to country basis.

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation at present. There has been huge loss of life as a result of the tyrannical approach of the Russians. Suicide bombings have become the order of the day. It is the new problem afflicting mankind throughout the world. What is our position on Chechnya? It is referred to in the section dealing with the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

I have a further brief question. Ireland attempted to sponsor an anti-Semitism resolution but it failed because it did not have majority support in the United Nations. According to the briefing notes, there is now an indication that the Government will table a motion or resolution on religious intolerance. Is it the Government's intention to include anti-Semitism as part of that resolution?

Will the Government raise the question of Myanmar and the case of Aung San Suu Kyi? Kosovo was already discussed. There will be a further ten member states of the EU in 42 days. What is the situation regarding the other applicant countries? Bulgaria and Romania are potential members in two or three years. Both Croatia and Macedonia are now spoken of as potential members. Will the Minister of State inform the committee of any developments in that area? Is it likely that these states will be ready to join earlier than anticipated?

Ms McKenna, MEP

It is very important to know the Irish Government's position on Chechnya. The EU-Russian summit will be held during the Irish Presidency and I ask the Minister of State to inform the committee of the Government's plans for the summit. Chechnya is a major problem which has been overlooked. There is gross abuse of human rights and it is completely unacceptable that the situation is being treated as a so-called internal Russian problem. It is an international conflict that should be addressed.

On the issue of the arms embargo on China, will that subject be on the summit agenda? I am aware there are moves within the EU to seek the lifting of the arms embargo. What is the Irish Government's position and what is the likely outcome of that position? I regard it as a serious mistake to consider lifting the arms embargo on China. Clearly the majority of members of the European Parliament would agree.

With regard to Burma, unlike my colleague I would not agree with supporting the Government's recent decision to recognise the military dictatorship. The situation in Burma is absolutely appalling. There is the case of Aung San Suu Kyi who is still under house arrest. She is the recipient of a peace prize and has been under house arrest for goodness knows how long and she is not the only one. Human rights abuses in Burma are completely unacceptable. What is the position of the Irish Government and what will be the EU position when it is the turn of Burma to chair the ASEAN meeting? Many people are of the opinion that Burma should not be facilitated. There must be demands for major changes in Burma before it can be recognised in the manner in which the Irish Government has done and which I regard as mistaken. It means there is no incentive to address the human rights issues.

The Minister of State has set out the strategy for the Middle East region cogently and in summary form. I ask the Minister of State to explain it in more detail to the committee, specifically the intention of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to attend the Arab League summit in Tunis at the end of this month and the targets and objectives of that meeting. I take it that this is all part of the strategy to bring together the final strategy for adoption hopefully at the European Council meeting in June.

The question of Burma has been raised. I attended with the then Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, the first ASEAN meeting in 1996 when I held the position the Minister of State now holds. My recollection of that meeting is that the Asian side was quite happy for the Europeans to raise the issue of human rights so long as we were not lecturing or hectoring or trying to apply standards which the Asians perceived as different. Will the Minister of State inform the committee of the Asian view of what is happening in Burma? What response is the EU receiving from the Asian component of ASEAN on the situation in Burma?

I will deal with the issues in the order in which they were raised. A number of members raised questions relating to Chechnya. The European Union is gravely concerned about the human rights situation in Chechnya and the Union under the Irish Presidency has continued to express its concern on the reported ongoing violation of human rights and international law. Concerns regarding the general issue of violations have been voiced and registered. Concerns regarding the enforced disappearances have been registered. Extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and attacks against humanitarian workers have all featured as specific European Union and Irish Presidency concerns.

As the Russian Federation has failed to engage with the EU in negotiations on an agreed statement on the human rights situation in Chechnya, the EU is prepared to table a resolution on the issue which is the specific point raised by Patricia McKenna MEP and Deputy O'Keeffe.

The general question of China was another issue raised by both Patricia McKenna MEP and Senator Mooney. The issue is whether the Irish Government would support a resolution on China from a third country. The first point is that there is no indication of a resolution on China being brought forward. I am aware of the European Parliament position on the issue of the arms embargo. I was fairly forthright at the last meeting when I dealt with questions on this issue. As I stated to the Parliament, the issue is not for immediate decision. There was to be a report produced on the issue and the issue will not be decided before April.

A number of members asked about Burma and Myanmar. This matter was discussed. A very comprehensive resolution was adopted by the European Parliament at its last session. As members and the Chairman will be aware, I have taken a very strong interest in Burma. The record will show that I moved the first resolution on the issue of Aung San Suu Kyi in any parliament in Europe when I was a Member of Seanad Éireann. I was therefore very pleased last week to make a trip to Malaysia where I met Mr. Razali, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General. I also met the Irish ambassador who has been in Burma recently and both men have recently met Aung San Suu Kyi. My meeting was quite extraordinary and was an eye-opener in many ways. The Chairman asked about the attitude of the Asian member states to being lectured by Europe and I can state that it is negative. There is some progress being made in Burma. The general feeling is that it is much better to recognise Burma and to have diplomatic relations than it is to stick our heads in the sand. The fact that we or any country has diplomatic relations is not an endorsement of a regime. It is certainly perverse to suggest that it would be an endorsement of all the actions of a regime.

What view do the Asians take of Burma?

The Asians have their own views on the issue. I could summarise by saying that many Asian countries do not take kindly to Europeans lecturing them on issues in their region. Many Asian countries take the view that they themselves may be better equipped to analyse the problems and to resolve them. There has recently been a change of Prime Minister in Burma-Myanmar and I am aware of contacts between the Prime Minister and Aung San Suu Kyi or her interlocutors. Recently, some of the representatives of Aung San Suu Kyi met the Irish ambassador. The decision to establish diplomatic relations with Burma-Myanmar was taken in the context of Ireland's Presidency. If the Irish Presidency is to fulfil its responsibilities, one of the issues to be dealt with is Burma-Myanmar and the concerns of the ASEAN group. The Chairman has mentioned those concerns and they have been there for some time. It is logical to have diplomatic relations, hectoring the Government of Myanmar without some form of relationship makes no sense. It is perverse to suggest that diplomatic relations are an endorsement because concerns about human rights issues, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the National League for Democracy have been expressed by all parties in the Dáil and Seanad at some stage.

What view does the Asian side of ASEAN take of events in Burma? I accept that it does not want to be hectored but is it as concerned?

The point was clearly made to me that isolating Burma would not yield results. I listened to a good debate in the European Parliament, most of which I agreed with, and the general feeling was that hectoring or isolating Burma would not help.

There is movement in Burma and I was struck by the age of most of the people involved so perhaps nature will take a hand in resolving issues. In case there are any doubts, both Ireland and the European Union have been strongly critical of the serious and persistent human rights abuses, the lack of fundamental freedoms, the absence of political progress and the position of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Democratic League.

There is a forthcoming national convention in Burma and there is interest in this issue in the region and Asian countries have a strong view on it. The Chairman touched on the point that this could have a fundamental impact on EU-ASEAN relations. I do not agree with Patricia McKenna, MEP, that if ASEAN decides that Burma should become a full member and ultimately chair the group, we should simply ignore it. It would not be sensible to do that.

What if it assumes the chairmanship of the human rights committee of the body?

There are many odd features. Chairing ASEAN is not the issue, it is rather the enlargement of ASEAN that is under consideration by EU and Asian partners. Ireland fully supports the application of the ten accession states for membership of ASEAN and during our Presidency, we are working to conclude that. Clearly the Asian partners also have a view on membership.

I was asked about the EU resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, including a reference to anti-Semitism. The Government's position on anti-semitism is clear - we condemn anti-semitism in all of its manifestations without reservation. Many committee members are aware of my personal revulsion at instances of xenophobia or anti-semitism that have raised their extremely ugly heads here on occasion. Ireland, along with our European Union partners, continues to be concerned about the growing problem of anti-semitism, it is an evil phenomenon that has not gone away. It deserves to be condemned at the highest level, including United Nations level.

The EU, including Ireland, is of the view that the appropriate place to consider anti-semitism is at the United Nations in the context of racism because it is one of that list of evils. The Union will seek to include appropriate language on anti-semitism in the resolution to follow the world conference on racism. That would be the view of all sides in Ireland.

Croatia and Macedonia were mentioned. Croatia's application has been received and the Commission's opinion thereon is awaited. There have been discussions on the issue but it is not known yet what view the Commission will take. It will be considered by the Council if and when it is received.

Following the recent tragedy for Macedonia, the application will now be presented on Monday. The Taoiseach will receive the Prime Minister of Macedonia and the application will be formally handed to the Taoiseach as President of the European Union. The preparation of the Commission's opinion on Croatia is well advanced but we do not have it yet. I have met the Croatians myself on a number of occasions and there are still some issues to be resolved. We are concerned about the representation of the ethnic diversity in Macedonia and the delegation that is coming to Dublin will be multi-ethnic. The manner in which the Macedonian Government is handling this is very welcome.

On the strategy on the Middle East, it is hard to know where to start. At the December meeting of the European Council, the high representative asked the Council, in consultation with the Commission and Mr. Solana, to take forward work on the strategy towards the Middle East region. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has invested a phenomenal amount of time and energy in this and EU partners are broadly supportive of a more developed policy for EU relations in the Arab world. It is our view, as President, that we must engage and address the causes of terrorism. There is general agreement that for any strategy to be credible to the Arab world, it must contain a solid commitment to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it is the well from which so much bitterness flows. There is also broad consensus on the need to include the entire region from Morocco to Iran. Given the diversity of the region, any policy must be flexible because one size will not fit all.

The Presidency, working with Mr. Solana, has prepared an interim document that will reflect general principles and the holistic approach. The document suggests political outcomes that add focus to the Union's endeavours in the region. The Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed it well when he said that we need some small concrete steps to bring about a normalisation of relationships but a key to that is resolving the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In my address to the European Parliament last week, I stated that I felt every right-minded person would see that our main objective and energy must be focused on creating a future where young Palestinians do not see their future as being bombers and young Israelis do not see themselves as army personnel. All humankind should be interested in normalising the relationship. The participation by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, at the Arab League summit this month in Tunis will be interesting. It has been portrayed and is seen in the region as a determination by the Presidency to consult, involve and continue to consult. The Minister has put a vast amount of personal energy into this area. I have a punishing travel schedule. However, his is inhumane. He has put in an enormous effort. Our view is that we repeatedly consult and must involve everybody in the region. If we can make some difference, we will. It will not be from lack of trying and from the viewpoint of investment of time and effort as the Presidency. I believe that is what all parties and all public representatives in the Oireachtas would wish.

We live in a potentially unsafe world. I note Iran is on the agenda of and is an issue for the International Atomic Energy Agency. On the nuclear issue, there is the lack of accountability of some former Soviet states where a number of nuclear devices have disappeared. When one sees what has happened in Spain and the fanaticism that prevails in certain parts of the world, the question of nuclear safety is clearly important. In terms of the consideration being given to terrorist issues and atomic safety in other parts of the world, is this something the Council will give particular consideration to and is there co-operation between the EU and the US in identifying and addressing difficulties?

I had the most extraordinary and blood-chilling experience of being briefed in Washington a short time ago. At the briefing a member of Congress opened a suitcase. In it there was a tiny nuclear device, a piece of extraordinary miniature engineering. I trust it had been deactivated, but it was one of up to 40 devices of its kind that had been manufactured and placed in embassies during the course of the Cold War - not by the Americans. That it had come into the hands of American intelligence raised questions in its own right.

The Chairman is correct. We live in an unsafe world. This issue of the disappearance of small nuclear devices is not on the agenda.. However, it is a matter that is at the back of people's minds because these devices exist. The world is awash with arms of one type or another. There were horrific reports recently of a group of men looking for lead to be used for buckshot who removed caesium from a storage room and poisoned themselves and their families by stripping the lead away. Given how easily they could get their hands on this material, it does not require a huge leap of the imagination to see how widespread the contamination might have been. We know about the co-operation involving Pakistani scientists.

The Presidency made a general statement to the board meeting welcoming progress in a number of areas. It was not focused specifically on the issue of small nuclear weapons. It was focused more on the movement in Iran, but not just there. We live in an unsafe world. The reality is that enormous quantities of weapons are available, some of mass destruction and some that can be easily turned into weapons of mass destruction. It is easy for people to deceive themselves into thinking that this does not concern them. It concerns everyone. What happened on the streets of Madrid last week can happen anywhere. Terrorism knows no boundaries and the threat it poses is universal. All civilised democratic nations must be concerned and work together to address the threat.

That concludes the business. I thank the Minister of State.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 11 April 2004.
Top
Share