I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for coming to this meeting. We will follow the usual format. I invite the Minister to give his brief presentation following which the members will put questions to him.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak here. I am accompanied by Mr. David Cooney, my political director, Ms Kathleen White, deputy director of the EU division, Mr. Keith McBean, consular international security policy, political division, Mr. Gerard Keown, European correspondent of the political division and Frank Smyth, co-ordinator of the EU division.
Next Monday's meeting of the Council in Brussels will be the sixth under the Luxembourg Presidency. The May General Affairs and External Relations Council is traditionally attended by Defence Ministers as well as Foreign Ministers for an exchange of views by Defence Ministers on recent developments in European security and defence policy. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, will elaborate in more detail on these issues, when I have finished speaking.
Foreign Ministers and Development Co-Operation Ministers will consider jointly the agenda item on the December tsunami in south-east Asia which is the follow-up to the EU action plan. It is the practice for Development Co-Operation Ministers to attend one meeting of the Council per Presidency. This month they will discuss the millennium development goals; the EU contribution to the high level event in New York in September 2005; the Action Programme against HIV-AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria 2007-2011; and the revision of the development co-operation policy statement. The Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development and human rights, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who is here today, will represent Ireland during these discussions. He will brief the committee on these issues after my presentation.
The Presidency has scheduled a ministerial conclave for the eve of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which will be dedicated to the financial perspectives. Ministers will have the opportunity to discuss in detail the latest Presidency proposals which are expected later today. The Presidency's continued intention is to press for agreement at the June European Council, if possible.
An intensive programme of work is foreseen between now and then. It is expected that the Presidency will put forward figures for each expenditure area by early June, and will be discussing these in bilateral meetings with all member states. Finance Ministers will have an intensive discussion of the dossier at ECOFIN on 7 June. Foreign Ministers will have a further conclave devoted to the negotiations on 12 June, immediately before the European Council.
We are ready to work for an agreement by June, believing that our choices will not become any easier later. Our approach has been to seek to equip the Union adequately to meet future challenges, while ensuring that the expenditure allocated offers value for money for our taxpayers. As the committee is aware, we have consistently highlighted the importance of maintaining the existing October 2002 agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy and of ensuring a fair outcome for our regions. I am aware that the committee had a briefing on this matter last week. It is also important for us that any rebate mechanism agreed for excessive net contributors should be limited and should not cost more than the existing UK rebate.
I propose to first address the general affairs side of the agenda and then the external relations side. The General Affairs and External Relations Council, acting on a Presidency proposal, draws up an annotated European Council agenda at least four weeks before each meeting of the European Council. In the draft annotated agenda for the European Council on 16 and 17 June the Presidency has indicated that it intends the agenda to comprise the following items: financial perspectives; economic, social and environmental issues; issues in the area of freedom, security and justice, including the EU plan of action on combating terrorism; enlargement; and external relations issues.
On the external relations side, the Presidency has indicated that the European Council will consider the position which the European Union will adopt at the forthcoming UN summit in September. Intense discussions are in progress on the decisions which the Heads of State and Government will take at that meeting. The discussions are centred on a set of recommendations for decision made by UN Secretary General Annan. They cover restoring momentum to the achievement of the millennium development goals, achieving a new consensus on security, enhancing the UN's human rights overview function and strengthening its institutions. It is hoped that the European Council will adopt an agreed EU position lending strong support to achieve agreement on the Secretary General's proposals in order to strengthen the legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations and enhance the multilateral system.
The European Council will also consider a six-monthly report on progress in the European Security and Defence Policy; a six-monthly report on implementation of the Union's strategy for the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the annual report on the implementation of the EU programme for the prevention of violent conflicts. The Council may also address other external relations issues. Heads of State and Government are also expected to adopt conclusions concerning relations with the EU's main strategic partners. In particular they will consider a report on the future direction of the strategic partnership with the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Depending on developments nearer the time, the European Council may also address a number of other external relations issues.
At our meeting next Monday the Presidency will present the draft agenda, but does not envisage a substantial discussion on it. Work will continue on the draft, and the Presidency will submit a further version closer to the time. This revised version will be considered by Ministers at the following meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 13 to 14 June.
I now turn to the external relations agenda. This month, we will consider issues including the European security and defence policy, the Middle East, Sudan and the situation in Uzbekistan. In respect of the agenda item on the European security and defence policy, or ESDP, issues likely to be discussed this month include the ongoing European Union peacekeeping missions such as EUFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina in which over 50 personnel from the Defence Forces are participating, and the state of play regarding the rapid response-battlegroups concept. The Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, will elaborate on that later.
Ministers for Foreign Affairs will discuss over lunch the situation in the Middle East, with particular reference to recent developments such as the Quartet meeting in Moscow on 9 May, the upcoming Palestinian general elections and the recent decision by the Israeli Government to postpone commencement of the Gaza disengagement until mid-August. The Presidency has indicated it does not intend to issue conclusions on the Middle East from this Council.
The Council will also consider and adopt the European Union guidelines for the Euromediterranean ministerial meeting which I hope to attend in Luxembourg at the end of this month. This meeting will focus on preparations for the extraordinary summit in Barcelona in November, which is being held to mark the tenth anniversary of the Barcelona Process. It is expected that this item will be agreed without discussion.
Regarding Sudan, it is anticipated that the adoption of substantive Council conclusions will take place. The draft conclusions restate the EU's existing position on Sudan. They call for full co-operation in the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1590, 1591 and 1593, welcome the resolution on Sudan adopted at the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights and express the Union's willingness to support the expansion of the African Union's mission in Darfur.
The overall political and humanitarian situation in the Darfur region continues to remain serious. The priority remains an improvement in security on the ground and the speedy resumption of political negotiations between the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels with a view to achieving an overall settlement. In both areas the African Union is playing a critical role, one which Ireland and our EU partners are determined to continue supporting.
The African Union decided recently to double the size of its observer mission in Darfur, from 3,200 to 6,171 personnel, and this expansion is due to be completed by the end of September 2005. The EU is looking at various ways to ensure that an expanded mission will operate to its full capacity. Before any EU support can be given, the modalities would have to be agreed with the AU, due to the importance of African ownership of this mission. Any additional EU support will be in close co-ordination with the UN and NATO. In the meantime, sustained international pressure needs to be exerted on all the parties to honour their commitments, improve the security situation and achieve a speedy political settlement.
In view of the grave developments there, Uzbekistan has been added to the agenda of the External Relations Council. It is expected that the Council will adopt conclusions. Clearly, the reported heavy loss of life in Uzbekistan since last Friday is a source of serious concern. The credible reports that many of the killings in Andijan last Friday were the result of firing by the military on unarmed civilians are extremely troubling. It is imperative that the situation be resolved without further bloodshed. While many of the facts still remain to be established, I strongly urge the Uzbek authorities to show restraint and to ensure respect for fundamental human rights, including the right to peaceful protest.
Granting access to the region for international organisations and the media would contribute to establishing the facts and to identifying the root causes of the unrest. It is also important at this stage that the humanitarian needs of refugees are met and that their rights under international law are respected. The EU Commission is actively looking at options for assisting the refugees and others who have been displaced as a result of the unrest. The European Union is watching developments closely and will play its part in international efforts to resolve the crisis.
The Presidency will also brief partners on preparations for a series of ministerial level meetings with the Union's Latin American partners. I will attend those meetings on 27 May.
The last item on Monday's agenda is the follow-up to the EU action plan on the tsunami. This item will be taken by Foreign Ministers together with Development Co-operation Ministers. Members may recall that in the wake of the tsunami which caused such devastation in south-east Asia in December last year, the External Relations Council adopted a wide-ranging action plan to address the EU's capacity to respond fully and appropriately to such large-scale disasters. At last month's Council, proposals were presented to Ministers by Commissioner Ferraro-Waldner and by Javier Solana on how the EU's rapid response capability in the area of civil protection might be improved. Ireland and Sweden in particular took a lead in this matter. A Commission communication on improving co-ordination of humanitarian and reconstruction aid was also presented.
These proposals have been under discussion at working group level. While we welcome much of what is proposed, such as improving EU-UN co-ordination in the area of civil protection, we have some concerns about how the respective proposals of the Commission and the Council secretariat would work together in practice. The sole focus in developing an EU rapid response capacity must be whether, by working together, we can add value to overall international efforts to assist in emergency situations. We in the European Union can only do that if we have completed our own internal housekeeping. Further work needs to be done on how the various EU mechanisms which already exist to respond to these types of disasters can be properly co-ordinated so that we have a single, coherent, effective European response.
From a national perspective, we in Ireland need to look at how we can contribute to international responses to large-scale disasters, be it through the UN or the EU. My Department is currently co-ordinating an interdepartmental audit of assets and capacities in Ireland which could be used to respond to humanitarian emergencies abroad. In the post-tsunami situation, I asked that this would happen, and I hope that this audit will be completed before the summer.
Under the heading "any other business", Portugal has requested that Guinea Bissau be placed on the agenda in order to update member states on the situation in the former colony in West Africa, ahead of presidential elections due to take place on 19 June.
I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan. The Minister for Defence is operating under a time restraint. Deputy Lenihan might allow the Minister to proceed, after which we could take questions, and proceed from there.
I thank the committee for allowing me this opportunity to address it on European security and defence policy matters, and on the issues to be discussed by Defence Ministers at the meeting on 23 May in Brussels.
Three main items arise on the agenda: military capabilities, rapid response and the European Defence Agency. Immediately following the Defence Ministers' meeting, there will be a meeting of the steering board of the European Defence Agency, of which Ireland is a member. The EU Helsinki headline goal, established by the European Council at Helsinki in December 1999, committed the EU to develop the capability to deploy within 60 days and to sustain, for at least one year, forces of up to 50,000 to 60,000 persons capable of the full range of humanitarian, peacekeeping and crisis management tasks, known as the Petersberg Tasks. The objective was to achieve the goal in 2003. In June 2003, the Council noted that the EU now has operational capability across the full range of Petersberg Tasks, while acknowledging that this was limited and constrained by recognised shortfalls.
A significant achievement of the Irish EU Presidency in the first half of 2004 was the agreement of the new headline goal 2010, adopted by the European Council in Brussels in June 2004. Under the new goal, member states committed themselves to be able, by 2010, to respond with rapid and decisive action applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations, the Petersberg Tasks. A key element, though only one element, of the headline goal 2010, is the ability of the European Union to be able to deploy force packages at high readiness, commonly known as battlegroups, or rapid response elements, in response to a crisis, either as a stand-alone force or as an initial part of a larger operation enabling follow-on phases.
The battlegroups' rapid response elements concept is intended as a building block within the overall approach of developing an EU capability and is complementary to the measures and actions for EU decision making and planning at the political and strategic level. Work is ongoing within the EU military staff and the Political and Security Committee on the development of various aspects of the rapid response elements concept. The meeting on 23 May will allow Defence Ministers to review progress on the current work in hand.
During the course of the current Luxembourg Presidency, work has been ongoing to develop a requirements catalogue, which sets out the capabilities and capacity requirements necessary to undertake the full range of Petersberg Tasks. Ministers will be asked to approve the current stage of progress on the requirements catalogue which will then be finalised during the upcoming UK Presidency.
As I mentioned earlier, in 2003 the Council noted that the EU now has operational capability across the full range of Petersberg Tasks, while acknowledging that this was limited and constrained by recognised shortfalls. Project groups were established to examine the capability shortfalls and to identify solutions. A review of this process was completed by the EU military staff and the European Defence Agency, EDA, during the Luxembourg Presidency and the outcome of this review will be discussed at the meeting. The recommendation is that the work of the project groups, for the most part, will be merged into the EDA's work, with teams progressing each of the particular issues in the light of Headline Goal 2010 and under the guidance of the Political and Security Committee, PSC.
As of January 2005, a battlegroup, including support elements, has been declared available to the EU. It is planned that the battlegroup initiative will reach full operational capability from 1 January 2007. Full operational capability will involve two battlegroups on standby in each six-month period to meet the EU rapid response requirement.
The first co-ordination conference to identify the battlegroups was held on 11 May. A single gap remains in the second half of 2007. However, it is expected that future co-ordination conferences will provide opportunities for member states to adjust their commitments and to redress the outstanding issues.
As members of the committee will be aware, the question of Ireland's potential participation in the EU battlegroups rapid response elements concept is currently being examined by an interdepartmental group consisting of representatives of the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces, the Department of The Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General. It is expected that this study will be completed fairly shortly, whereupon it will be submitted to me for consideration prior to it going to Government. Pending the outcome of that study and a Government decision on the matter, it is not possible to state what Ireland might contribute in terms of capability.
That said, the Government supports the development of the EU's rapid response capability in support of UN authorised missions and is positively disposed towards participation in rapid response elements in this regard. However, we need to examine in detail, as we are, the legal, policy, operational and financial issues involved. We will also be discussing the decision making and planning processes for rapid response operations both in relation to battlegroups and also other crises which demand rapid responses. The issue here is to ensure that systems within the Union can respond in a timely and dynamic manner so as to meet the objective of being able to launch an operation within five days of a decision by the Political and Security Committee to proceed with the operation.
Work is proceeding on other structural, organisational and operational issues relating to rapid response elements and we will be reviewing overall progress at the meeting in this regard. Finally, the Secretary General High Representative, Mr. Javier Solana, will report to Ministers on the activities of the European Defence Agency since its establishment. At the European Council held in June 2003, EU leaders agreed to set up an agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments. A joint action to establish the agency was agreed at the June 2004 General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, meeting. The EDA is now operational with its senior management in place and a budget and work programme for 2005, approved by the Defence Ministers of the participating member states.
The Government, on 6 July 2004, agreed that Ireland would participate in the framework of the EDA. The EDA is an intergovernmental agency within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP. Participation in the framework of the agency does not impose any specific obligations or commitments on Ireland other than a contribution to the EDA's budget. Participation in individual projects of the agency will be a matter for national decision on a case by case basis.
As I have indicated, the EDA is working closely with the EU military staff in finalising the requirements catalogue and in addressing the issue of shortfalls. The agency has also engaged with the Commission on how best to achieve the internal opening up of the European defence equipment market. Outside of this, the agency has focused on identifying and resolving capability gaps, improving co-ordination and efficiency and eliminating fragmentation as regards research and technology programmes within the European defence industry.
The agenda for the EDA steering group board meeting breaks down into two main areas. The first area deals with rules, procedures and administrative issues, generally. The second part deals with the European defence equipment market.
I have outlined the current state of play and what we will be discussing at the meeting and will be pleased to answer questions.
To follow up on that, the last time we had a referendum the waters were muddied by people who were campaigning on this issue. They hyped up matters and exaggerated the whole issue of battlegroups and Ireland's participation in any such role. I have the same degree of concern from reading this statement. Will the Minister not nail his colours to the mast? Dissident groups could make much of the fact that he has not yet made a decision as regards participation, although it looks as if we are heading in that direction. There is a good deal of doubt over this. The Minister has said legal, policy, operational and financial issues are involved and he has not determined, as yet, what they are. Is there concern, as we proceed to deal with the EU constitution, that people could make something out of nothing here?
I take the Chairman's point and I have to agree with him that there was a good deal of misrepresentation during the last EU referendum campaign. It was also witnessed before that, in other EU referendum campaigns.
There has been considerable misunderstanding about the battlegroups situation. As I said, the Helsinki Headline Goal 2010 dealt with a number of matters. At present the goal is to increase and enhance the ability of the European Union to engage in what are commonly known as the Petersberg Tasks, which, generally speaking, are humanitarian orientated operations. The battlegroup concept is just one element of that within an overall package. Ireland is playing its part through its membership of the European Defence Agency, and in other ways, to help the European Union achieve that goal, which is accepted as legitimate by everybody.
The word "battlegroup" is rather unfortunate. It would have been better if it had been called a peace brigade or something like that, because that is the intention. The whole idea is that there will be a small group of soldiers — approximately 1,500 it is reckoned — who will be fully equipped and who can go into a given situation rapidly. This will happen within five days of the appropriate decision by the European Council that the group should go in to stabilise a situation. In most cases it will be a developing situation, to prevent people from being slaughtered, for example. In the vast majority of cases such initiatives will be followed up by the usual UN involvement in the way that is done now. Ireland has played a significant role in this regard over the past 50 years and fully intends to continue to do so.
There have been some difficulties. Since the Chairman has asked the question, I will elaborate on these, briefly, as regards Irish participation in battlegroups. Let us say, initially, that we are well disposed towards the general concept of battlegroups. We agree that there is a need for a rapid response unit in the modern world. I remind the committee that when Mr. Kofi Annan came to this country he emphasised the logic behind this type of rapid response and encouraged us to participate in it, because he said it was very necessary now to make UN peacekeeping operations effective. He emphasised it was the element that had been missing to date.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is there any great difference between what is being proposed, essentially, and our participation in the UN, as it is today? Perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, might wish to intervene. Is there any great difference between what we have been doing so successfully for the past 30 years and what is being proposed now? Can the Minister say, specifically, what the differences might be?
We can contribute to UN peacekeeping missions such as those in Liberia and in Kosovo. This is an extra element. What is now being proposed is that member states, in addition to providing troops for peacekeeping, also participate in these small battlegroups. Many of those battlegroups will be multinational in their composition. Bigger countries like Britain will have a battlegroup of its own of at least 1,500 troops. The concept is that these are units trained to stabilise emergency situations. The view of the Government is that we should participate in those battlegroups as a logical follow on to what we are already doing. We have some difficulties with our participation at present and the idea of setting up an interdepartmental group was to find a way around the barriers that appear to be there.
I listened to what the Minister was saying but I was also following his script at the same time. It seemed that he left out one sentence when he spoke about the agency. He said that the Government agreed on 6 July 2004 that Ireland would participate in the framework of the agency, which was an inter-governmental agency. He left out a sentence in the script that states there is no requirement for Dáil approval for participation in the agency.
That was an oversight.
The Minister has answered my question. Can he explain why this is so? How we can achieve that if the Minister is to move as quickly as he intimates? Is he sure that we do not need Dáil approval for participation in the agency?
I approve of the way we are doing this. Moving with caution is important to bring people with us. I support fully the idea of a rapid response unit having watched with helplessness the lack of a response to major crises over the last few years. However, I have difficulties with the wording of this. As a woman, I find the idea of using the term "battlegroup" reprehensible. It will cause the Minister many problems in the future. The idea of a battlegroup conjures an image of boys with toys.
What is wrong with that?
The terms "battlegroup" and "rapid response unit" do not tally. We are trying to persuade people that the EU needs to respond to crises and that Ireland, as a neutral state, will be participating in a rapid response. Even if the Dáil does not need to participate, it is still important that there would be discussion on it in the Oireachtas.
The reality is that some of the groups, if formed, may have to go into battle.
The wording has the connotation of boys with toys. I feel very strongly about that.
I respect the point the Deputy is making. All I am trying to point out is that ultimately, we may be talking about people fighting and dying.
I fully support the idea of a rapid response unit, which does involve battlegroups, however, we should not be portraying it as such. Initially we will be responding and, hopefully, there will be no need for major military intervention. The very idea that we are there should be a preventative measure in itself. The notion of battlegroups has a completely different connotation.
Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
I remind Deputy Sexton that there are women in all European armies these days.
That may be so, but the image of boys with toys always comes to my mind.
Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
As we are part of the framework, I take it that we have a representative on the European Defence Agency. Who represents us? Is it a politician, civil servant or a member of the Defence Forces? Do we have any information on the outcome of the review carried out by the EDA? The Minister stated in his speech that the review of the process was completed by the EU military staff of the EDA during the Luxembourg Presidency and that the outcome of the review would be discussed at the meeting. Can the details be made available?
I agree with Deputy Sexton that the term "battlegroups" is unfortunate. However, the question is really about the terms of reference and that is what we have to get across. Is it true that under the UN Charter, the UN is mandated to establish a standing rapid reaction force? In broad terms, we would be quite happy to participate in such a rapid reaction unit if the UN was capable of setting it up. It has not been capable of doing that since its foundation and this is why Kofi Annan has welcomed the fact that the EU is getting around to doing this. Can the Minister comment on that?
The Minister mentioned the question of capabilities and looking at what we might provide. What does he think we are capable of providing? We might get upset about participating in battlegroups yet end up providing translators or transport.
It is politically unwise not to bring the matter of the EDA before the Dáil, or at least before this committee, for discussion and debate. Given that we are entering a sensitive period of debating the new EU constitution and so on, we will have to be completely up front about what we are doing here. By and large, the Minister will get significant support in the House for participation. Finally, how much are we contributing to the budget of the EDA?
I do not know how to address Mr. De Rossa as he is no longer a Deputy.
Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
I was told yesterday that I be should be addressed as Deputy De Rossa.
I did not know what to call him until I found out last week.
Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
I know what he would like to call me.
I think the term in Europe is "your wealthiness". To deal with the last point first, Dáil approval is not necessary because the EDA is an intergovernmental agency. However, in line with the Oireachtas scrutiny procedures, the Department of Foreign Affairs submitted an information note to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny prior to the adoption of the EU joint action establishing the agency, as well as a post adoption note. The sub-committee was kept informed in that regard, which deals with Senator Quinn's point.
With regard to the wording, I have already conceded the point. Mr. De Rossa, MEP, is correct that the terms of reference are important. We must sell the European constitution. Therefore, as matters can be misrepresented, language is important. We will use the term "rapid response unit" in our campaign. The term "battlegroup" is an established part of military terminology. We endeavoured to get some modification of the term but, unfortunately, without success.
In reply to Mr. De Rossa, MEP, the Minister for Defence is a member of the board of the European Defence Agency. With regard to the 2005 review, the military requirements catalogue is being prepared. In other words, the EDA is setting out the totality of what is required to achieve the objective set out in the Helsinki goals in terms of men, materials, etc. That will be the catalogue against which we will measure our total capability. The catalogue is expected to be ready by the end of the year. I understand Mr. Solana will inform us of the current rate of progress at the meeting on Monday.
The answer to the further question by Mr. De Rossa, MEP, is that the UN is mandated to establish a rapid reaction force but it has not yet done so, and I do not know if it will ever do so. From listening to the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and considering developments in Europe and Africa, the direction the UN has taken is to contract out rapid response tasks by getting local agencies such as, for example, the European Union or the Organisation of African States, to provide rapid reaction forces, as requested by the UN.
With regard to what we can supply, Mr. De Rossa, MEP, will be aware that there is a process by which various member states agree to supply up to a maximum amount of troops for UN peacekeeping. Ireland's maximum contribution is 850, a limit which can be breached slightly, as circumstances require. This figure constitutes approximately 10% of our standing Army. In addition, we can provide experts, observers, engineers and so on, as we did in the aftermath of the tsunami crisis.
At present, a reorganisation of the Reserve Defence Force is underway. One of the features of that reorganisation will be to allow members of the RDF, with the appropriate training and guarantees of job security, to serve abroad. I understand most other EU member states allow reserve defence force members to serve abroad.
With regard to the question by Mr. De Rossa, MEP, on finance, the relevant agency has just been set up. The Government made a contribution of €21,733 towards the agency's initial general budget, which was €2.4 million in 2004. The budget for 2005, which is estimated at €25 million, again includes once-off capital provisions for accommodation and infrastructure items, and means that Ireland's contribution towards the running of the agency this year will be approximately €315,000. It is expected that this contribution will reduce next year because the capital expenditure will be out of the way. However, I would not be confident it will reduce by much because the agency intends to employ some 75 staff, whereas only 50 are employed at present. Extra staff costs must be taken into account.
I support the notion of a rapid response capacity in Europe. Most of us who previously had doubts were persuaded of the argument following the experience in the Balkans in the 1990s. However, it is important the capacity should be serious and capable of being utilised without the say-so of the White House or the Pentagon.
Given our current level of defence spending, has Ireland the capacity to contribute in any sort of meaningful way to a European capacity? This process will be dominated by the French, the British, the Italians and other large countries. If it is to be seen as a genuinely European or pan-European effort, it requires countries such as Ireland to make some sort of serious effort.
I have not seen recent figures in this regard but my guess is that our defence spending as a percentage of overall spending is very low, certainly much lower than most other European countries. Does the Minister accept as a general proposition that if we are to make a serious input into developing an independent European capacity, we will need to increase our spending on defence?
Like other members, I support the idea of a rapid reaction force. However, we should painstakingly examine the implications of participation in this structure, including, for example, with regard to the triple lock. I agree with other speakers that this is probably the most sensitive area we will have to face in debate in the coming months. When we consider what happened on our doorstep in Bosnia and elsewhere, we cannot but go along with this. However, an issue that will be raised in debate is whether participation in the European Defence Agency and the rapid response groups has implications for the Seville declaration, the triple lock and our traditional policy of military neutrality.
May I have a note from the secretariat on when we discussed the European Defence Agency at the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny?
Yes. There is a Dáil vote. We will suspend for a short time. I understand the Minister for Defence has a time constraint. Does he agree to return after the vote?
I will return to answer the questions.
Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs agree to return following the vote?
Yes.
Sitting suspended at 11.47 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.
I ask the Minister to resume. We must vacate this room at 12.30 p.m.
Senator McDowell asked whether we have the capacity to play our part in the rapid reaction forces. The short answer is "Yes". There is nothing to suggest that increasing expenditure on defence as a proportion of gross expenditure will be necessary in the immediate future. In terms of the troops committed, as a percentage of our standing Army, we have been the largest contributor to the various United Nations peacekeeping operations over the past 50 years.
Never before in the history of the State has the Army been better trained and equipped. Those reforms have come about because we reduced the size of the Army and sold off a significant amount of property. The proceeds of that have been reinvested in training, equipment and infrastructure. As a consequence, we are well equipped to continue the prominent role we have played over the last half century. The total amount of expenditure on defence has risen in real terms over the past ten years because expenditure generally has risen. As a percentage of gross expenditure, however, it seems to have fallen back somewhat. There is no necessity to adjust that balance in the immediate future.
Deputy Carey asked about the triple lock. The difficulty in respect of Ireland's participation in rapid response units is that the triple lock requires a decision by the Government, ratification by Dáil Éireann and a United Nations Security Council resolution. Members are aware that it sometimes takes a long time to get a Security Council resolution. The purpose of a rapid response unit, however, is to ensure forces can be deployed within five days of a decision of the European Council.
A situation might arise, for example, where Ireland is a participant in a battlegroup, albeit as a minor player, and the European Council makes a decision, in the absence of a relevant Security Council resolution, that this battlegroup must be deployed. In such a situation, Irish troops could not be deployed until an appropriate resolution was passed. As a consequence, it would be necessary to provide troops from other sources to replace the Irish troops in that battlegroup. If a Security Council resolution were later passed, Ireland could then play its part.
There is no question of a diminution of the triple lock. We are committed to it and succeeded in ensuring it was built into EU law through the Seville declaration. We must work our way around the problem. The United Nations also a role to play. I understand it is undertaking reform of its own procedures, presumably to make them more speedy and efficient. This may help our situation.
I welcome the Minister and apologise for my absence during some of the discussion. By definition, a rapid reaction force must react rapidly. It is difficult in practice to envisage a circumstance where a Security Council resolution would not coincide with the need for the deployment of a rapid reaction force. Such a situation might occur but it is very unlikely. Like Senator McDowell, I support rapid reaction forces and the idea of solidarity.
My question relates to the issue of financing. Let us assume a cavalry unit of the Irish Army is participating in a rapid reaction force. The Minister is aware that equipment is extremely expensive. For example, an armed personnel carrier costs approximately €1 million. Would it fall to us to provide and pay for that type of equipment or would we get a contribution? Is that even known at this stage?
The matter has not been quite worked out. In my main contribution I outlined a number of issues which are still under discussion in respect of rapid response. One is the triple lock legal issue, and there are also financial considerations. There is a current argument about common cost and the extent to which countries participating in battlegroups have to bear that cost. It is a very technical debate within the Commission. This is one of the issues which must be thrashed out before Ireland finalises its positions on battlegroups. We may have to contribute some of the equipment or make a contribution towards the cost of somebody else providing the equipment. The question of how the cost will be distributed among the participants in the battlegroups has not yet been satisfactorily worked out.
Am I correct in saying that we did not have to finance the hardware for certain UN missions, such as armed personnel carriers or trucks?
We are providing our own equipment in Liberia, but we are part-financed. The full rapid response concept will be in place by the end of 2007 and there will be two types of battlegroups, if I can refer to that controversial term again. There are those provided by a single country, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy, and one of them has been already established. We will be taking part in multinational battlegroups, which is where the question of common cost arises and that formula has not been worked out as yet.
The Minister mentioned that the UN is getting into the realm of contracting out the organisation of African states for these types of expeditions or activities. Is there a problem with the UN? Does it have the capability? Has it received a response from different countries? Is it moving in that direction because there is a deficit of interest from other countries? Is that the point the Minister was trying to make? Does the UN feel the need for people to look at the issue differently because countries and their defence forces are not dealing with these situations?
The number of missions in which they engage is increasing all of the time, and that imposes its own burden. It would be much more convenient to get local agencies, such as the European Union and the Organisation of African States, to do the work for the UN. That is the direction it is taking and the reason why they are doing so.
African countries do not take too kindly to others' opinions or intervention in their conflicts. They prefer to use their own people and the reverse would also be true. There is a strong regional aspect to the issue.
Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
I have a few questions for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Ahern.
We only have 15 minutes remaining.
Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
I will be very quick. The Minister mentioned Sudan and the Middle East. He said that the Council does not intend to take a position on the Middle East at its meeting, which is unfortunate. I am particularly concerned that the Israelis have decided to defer their withdrawal from the Gaza strip until mid-August. It was supposed to happen in April and the Palestinian elections are due to be held in July. The Palestinians are considering deferring elections until the autumn because they fear the election of hardliners if the Israelis are still in the Gaza strip at that time. The Council should take this consideration into account next week and some pressure should be brought to bear on the Israelis to speed up their withdrawal. They have difficulties and I welcome their initiative. However, the effect of the postponement on the elections should not be underestimated.
The European Parliament last week adopted a resolution on Sudan and referred to the arrest Dr. Mudawi Adam who has since been released. He was to be here last week to receive an honour from the frontline organisation in Ireland. His release is most probably as a result of international pressure. However, other human rights defenders are still in prison and the matter should be raised in the Council. The Parliament also expressed concerns about the need to ensure that war crime information is provided by the Sudanese authorities to the International Criminal Court. I would also like to raise the issue of NGO access to all areas of Sudan, including the refugee camps. There are many restrictions in that regard and the authorities are preventing full openness in respect of what is happening in the camps. Many women are being raped and are not receiving treatment.
I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, to respond to the issue of Sudan. I will be dealing with it on Monday and take on board the points raised by Mr. De Rossa, MEP. Deputy Lenihan was recently in Sudan and was involved with my officials in making representations with regard to the recent arrest. The point made by Mr. De Rossa, MEP, regarding other detainees is well made.
I intend to make a contribution on Monday if possible. I raised the issue at an internal debate over lunch in terms of what we regard as one of the huge difficulties surrounding the Israeli withdrawal, namely that of resettling or accommodating people who will be moved. The EU is concerned about any postponement of the deadline. The Israelis say it is because of religious holidays and there may be an element of that. However, there may be difficulties in terms of alternative accommodation for the people who will be moved. Some of the recent statements made by Israeli officials would not inspire confidence. The matter will be raised. We might have something to say after the meeting, although not necessarily any conclusions. This is one of the big issues on the agenda every month.
I welcome the contribution made by Mr. De Rossa, MEP, in this regard. I also attended the ceremony in City Hall when Dr. Mudawi's wife and daughter accepted his award from President McAleese. The Government has been very active in respect of Dr. Mudawi's case and our frontline Ministers and officials on the ground prompted the matter. His Excellency Richard O'Brien is our ambassador to Sudan but resident in Cairo. He made very strong representations regarding Dr. Mudawi's arrest and detention by the Sudanese authorities. Prior to the arrival of Dr. Mudawi's wife and daughter, I made direct telephone contact with the deputy foreign secretary, who happened to be the only person available on that day. I had a lengthy conversation with him and indicated our complete disapproval of what had occurred. Dr. Mudawi runs a NGO in Sudan and was involved in the making of a documentary. He posed for photographs with a government building in the background and is accused on charges of espionage. This gives a sense of the nature of the charges. We believe he should be released and the formal charges against him should be dropped altogether.
We have also made representations regarding his colleagues who also work for the NGO, SUDO. It provides humanitarian relief by building water projects and such like and we have made strong representations that those people should be released. I will compile a letter later today which will make these points directly to the Foreign Minister of Sudan.
During my visit to Sudan, I visited a number of projects, including an internally-displaced persons camp run by the Irish non-governmental organisation, Concern. I also went to al-Fasha, where I received briefings from the head of the African Union's military presence on the ground, its director of military intelligence, about the situation. Two weeks ago, he reported that the number and level of incidents had decreased in the month immediately before my arrival. He attributed the decrease in the number of violent incidents to the fact that some of the parties, particularly some of the rebel groups and the government party to a lesser extent, were trying to focus on the proposed resumption of the Abuja peace talks at the end of May. I emphasise it is not necessarily indicative of a long-term decline, but this was one of the reasons attributed to the relative decrease in the level of violent incidents. There was a one-month period where violent incidents decreased for the first time.
I do not wish to sound overly-optimistic in stating this because as members are aware, since the peace talks in Abuja have come into focus, some degradation has taken place at the edges, in that armed groups which were previously militarised and affiliated to one or other rebel group have started to engage in activities that could be loosely described as banditry. In one sense therefore, the situation appears to be getting worse. We now see people who are not motivated by any political concerns but by pure banditry. This has also occurred elsewhere. As the overarching cause of a conflict moves towards a peaceful conclusion, one begins to see a fragmentation of the forces at the edges.
I met a number of ministers when in Khartoum. At those meetings, we strongly emphasised that they should co-operate fully. When I arrived, large protests were taking place outside the UN buildings and agencies in Khartoum. It was the week in which the announcement was made about the referral of the 51 cases to the International Criminal Court. Clearly, much of the discussions between the Sudanese ministers and myself — I met two or three of them — was focussed on their anger, as they expressed it rhetorically and otherwise, about the referral of these cases to the International Criminal Court. In all our presentations, we emphasised that the perpetrators of acts of near-genocide should and could be prosecuted by the Sudanese themselves and that this option is open to them.
I wish to ask the Minister of State a question and I propose to limit further questions to Senators Bradford and Quinn because the meeting must conclude. The Minister of State detailed a number of issues in his opening presentation. Is it possible for him to return before the joint committee at some future time? He has raised issues that we have spoken about previously.
I would be pleased to.
The Minister of State will not be able to touch on all these issues today.
If the Chairman wishes, I can furnish the joint committee with a report or information note in the short term, outlining the situations.
The joint committee would like to examine some issues concerning HIV, AIDS and other matters if possible.
Yes.
I will be brief. I wish to discuss Sudan and have done so on past occasions when the Minister was present. At the earlier presentation by the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, the joint committee was concerned about overly-aggressive or robust language. We tried to steer a clear and cautious line. However, the international response to Sudan is anything but robust. We have become neutered by a degree of caution at UN and EU level. Even at this meeting, the Minister's speech refers to the importance of African ownership of the mission. I appreciate that to some degree, this is a sensitive issue. However, on the ground, no proper intervention has yet occurred. If we are serious about the EU having a strong foreign policy and a strong role in intervention for the protection of life and human rights, Sudan is an example of how not to go about our business.
The UN has almost walked away from this issue. I appreciate that the European Parliament has passed a strong resolution, but immediate action is critical. Leaving political sensitivities aside, we should decide on what must be done and go about doing it. African ownership of the mission is important and appropriate but, unfortunately, that ownership is not delivering on the ground for the unfortunate people of Sudan who go through hell on a daily basis. We are not taking the issue sufficiently seriously at European level.
I wanted to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, about the possibility of raising the question of Iran at the meeting on Monday. If there is a danger of war anywhere, it is most likely to come about because of Iran's determination to start producing plutonium again. The Iranians stopped doing so for six months, at the request of the UK, France and Germany as well as the United States. The feedback coming from those three European nations and from the United States sound threatening. Iran claims it is not in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is starting plutonium production, which is capable of creating nuclear bombs. Is it intended to bring this matter up as a European effort, or is it intended to leave it in the hands of the United Nations?
I do not accept Senator Bradford's assertion that Sudan is not taken seriously at EU level. It is discussed constantly at our meetings and at official level. Javier Solana, working with other partners, is extremely active in this regard. A difficulty exists in that the African Union and the African states insist that no Europeans should participate in any of the intervention forces and that it is an African problem. The EU contributes substantially to bolstering that kind of force. While it is true that we would like to see it happen faster, I do not accept the Senator's point.
As far as Senator Quinn's question is concerned, the issue of Iran is likely to be raised at Monday's meeting. As the Senator is aware, the Paris agreement exists whereby France, Germany and the UK, known as the EU three, work with Javier Solana and the Iranians. The Americans have given these talks their imprimatur, as it were, given the fact that they have expressed very strong views. The negotiations are not limited to nuclear issues, but obviously they are a huge focus for them. They are also exploring the possibility of formal negotiations regarding a political relations agreement and a trade and co-operation agreement with Iran. Hence, this issue will be raised.
When I was in New York at the UN non-proliferation treaty meeting, at which I spoke, I met the Iranian Foreign Minister. He sought me out and asked for a meeting in order to inform Ireland as an EU country of Iran's position in respect of nuclear power and its intentions. He briefed me fully on Iran's desire to increase nuclear power and I informed him of Ireland's strong objection to the use of nuclear power. Under the non-proliferation treaty, Iran has the right, if it wishes, to opt to use nuclear power for normal energy and other non-military purposes.
I emphasised to the Foreign Minister that Ireland was fully committed to the Paris agreement and communicated to him very clearly how Ireland was affected by Sellafield and particularly how the east coast of Ireland was affected. I left him in no doubt as to where Ireland stood regarding the use of nuclear power for any purpose. I acknowledged that they had a right to take action under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, provided the action was carried out on the basis of the treaty.
The Paris agreement, which involves the three countries working with the Iranians, has been successful to date. A considerable amount of discussion has taken place at EU level on how to move forward with regard to this issue. I am reasonably hopeful that the Paris agreement and the arrangements with the participating three countries, who give us a briefing every month and with whom we have contact at official level, will continue and bear fruit.
Iran has made it clear that as a sovereign nation it has the same entitlement to use nuclear power for non-military purposes as any other nation. There is great unease, particularly in the United States, with regard to whether nuclear power is being converted for military purposes in Iran. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Authority have visited the country and it has emerged that the Iranians have not been as forthcoming with information as they should have been. That is something that the EU three must continue to press for and we will press it at a higher level at the broader EU level.
It appears that the message coming from the United States is very similar to that pertaining to Iraq, bearing in mind the speed with which the United States moved on Iraq. I hope the Minister is not being complacent about his issue.
I think the Americans would be much more circumspect about intervening in Iran.
Regarding the points made by Senator Bradford and Proinsias de Rossa, MEP, about the situation in Darfur, it is important to emphasise that the AU is scaling up its mission in Darfur and hopes to go from approximately 3,000 to approximately 6,000 by September 2005. In fairness to the African troops involved, the AU force has blended very well and increased the level of its patrolling in Darfur. AU troops have secured the area.
With regard to the question asked by Mr. De Rossa, MEP, about the access that NGOs have to camps and the safety of humanitarian convoys, the AU has reduced the number of attacks at key points and road junctures in Darfur. There has been some success and it would be wrong to depict the AU military operation as a failure. Darfur is the same size as France and 3,200 troops do not provide much coverage. However, the AU force has very good helicopter support, so the level of patrolling has increased considerably in the last few months.
I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials for attending this meeting of the joint committee.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 May 2005.