The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the forthcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council with the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Treacy. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. Members have received the usual brief for today's meeting and the conclusions of the last meeting of the GAERC held on 30 June 2005. Members have also been circulated with a document detailing the UK's Presidency priorities. I propose to follow the usual format, namely, following the presentation by the Minister of State I shall invite questions from members.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
Is breá liom bheith ar ais aríst ag an chruinniú tábhachtach seo le mo chomhghleacaithe agus na hoifigigh ó mo Roinn.
I am pleased to come before the committee for an exchange of views on the forthcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Next Monday's meeting in Brussels will be the first under the British Presidency. This afternoon, an extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council will take place in Brussels following last Thursday's bomb attacks in London.
The events in London last week provide us with a tragic reminder of the callous and indiscriminate nature of terrorist violence. I echo the comments made by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government last week when he condemned this outrage against the people of London. Those responsible for these attacks deservedly stand condemned in the eyes of the international community. On the other hand, the people of London stand tall in our eyes for the calm and resilience they have demonstrated in the face of an unspeakable crime. In response to the tragedy of the London bombings and as a mark of solidarity with the people of London, the Government has proposed that we join the other EU member states across Europe in observing two minutes silence at noon on Thursday, 14 July. The Government hopes that members of the public will participate in this expression of sympathy and solidarity.
The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Straw, will make a presentation to his colleagues at the GAERC on the priorities of the Presidency. In addition to future financing of the European Union, the Presidency has signalled priorities under three headings: economic reform and social justice; security and stability; and Europe's role in the world. As the Chairman indicated, a copy of the document setting out the Presidency's priorities has been sent to the committee for information.
Under the enlargement heading, the Council will discuss developments relating to Croatia and Turkey. The Council will review progress since its last meeting on the one remaining issue in Croatia's co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Ireland continues to support the opening of accession negotiations with Croatia as soon as the required unanimity can be achieved on the issue of co-operation with the tribunal. The European Union remains committed to Croatia's membership and to the opening of accession negotiations on the basis of the framework agreed by the Council on 16 March last. I hope that a decision on the opening of negotiations can be taken at the earliest opportunity. It is also important to emphasise that there is no political link between the decisions to be taken on the opening of negotiations with Croatia and Turkey.
The Council will hear a presentation from the Commission on the draft framework for negotiations with Turkey, which was approved by the Commission on 29 June and is now under consideration by the member states. The draft broadly follows the lines of the detailed conclusions adopted by the December 2004 European Council. I hope that agreement can be reached to enable negotiations to open on 3 October, in line with the commitment made by the European Council. It will also be important that Turkey delivers on its commitments regarding the implementation of reforms. I also look forward to early movement on the signature of the protocol to the Ankara agreement of association to take account of the accession of the new member states, including the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey has made a clear commitment that it will do so in advance of the actual start of negotiations with the European Union.
Ministers at the GAERC will discuss the European Union's ongoing efforts to ensure a strong and positive outcome from the summit taking place at the United Nations in September. Members will be keenly aware that the UN millennium review summit in September is a major priority for the Government. The European Union has a vital role to play, to which Secretary General Annan has referred to on a number of occasions, in this regard.
The European Union is actively engaged with other key groups and member states of the UN and is pressing for agreement in September on a number of issues, including measures to recast the UN's human rights machinery in order that it fulfils its charter mandate; the proposed peace-building commission to assist states recover from conflict; action to enshrine the principle of the responsibility to protect civilian populations from large scale humanitarian suffering and human rights abuse; and measures to restore momentum to the achievement of the millennium development goals.
The Presidency's draft conclusions also pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Latvian President as envoys of Secretary General Annan. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is in the Middle East today pursuing his work as envoy and will update his colleagues at the Council on his recent visits in this capacity.
Over lunch, Ministers will discuss Lebanon, Iran and the Middle East peace process. It is expected that conclusions will be adopted setting out the European Union's position on the outcome of the recent Lebanese general elections and the EU's position on Syrian policies, both in regard to Lebanon and the wider region. These will build on the conclusions adopted by the European Council on 16 and 17 June last, noting the withdrawal of Syrian military forces from Lebanon, reaffirming the importance the EU attaches to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon and reiterating the EU's call for the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559.
I expect discussion on Iran to focus on continuing concerns over that country's nuclear programme and the possible implications of the election of its new president.
The discussion by Ministers of the situation in the Middle East will take place with particular reference to the pending Israeli disengagement from Gaza. This is due to commence on 16 August. It is anticipated that conclusions will be adopted and these are being worked on currently at official level. The conclusions will build on the EU's declaration at the June European Council but are likely to be more operationally focused on the disengagement and what the parties and the international community will need to do to ensure that it is successful.
The Council will have a discussion on the preparation of the EU-China summit, which is scheduled to take place on 5 September in Beijing. A draft agenda is awaited. EU-China summits are held on an annual basis. The EU will be represented by the Presidency, the Commission and the Secretary General-High Representative of the European Union. The EU regularly engages with China on a number of levels. Since the last summit in December, the EU and China have again met in the EU-China human rights dialogue in Luxembourg and at the EU-China ministerial Troika in Beijing. There was also an EU-China human rights seminar held in Beijing last month.
The Council will also be asked to adopt conclusions on Uzbekistan. Following the deaths of a large number of civilians in Andijan, Eastern Uzbekistan on 13 May, the Council condemned the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Uzbek security forces. The Council also deeply regretted the failure of the Uzbek authorities to respond to the UN call for an independent, international inquiry. On 13 June last the Council gave the Uzbek authorities until the end of June to reconsider their position on its call for such an inquiry. In the absence of an adequate response from the Uzbek authorities the Council is now expected to decide to suspend the further deepening of the EU-Uzbekistan partnership and co-operation agreement. Other measures that may be adopted include an embargo on the export of arms and military equipment to Uzbekistan and a continued re-orientation of the TACIS programme towards democracy and human rights. The Council is also expected to decide that in future bilateral ministerial contacts with the President and Government of Uzbekistan, the EU and its member states will convey strong messages on the importance of respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Uzbekistan.
The Council will also discuss the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe, arising from the widely condemned Operation Restore Order which the Zimbabwean Government launched in May. These actions have given rise to an appalling situation in which many thousands of informal street traders have been arrested, an estimated 200,000 private dwellings destroyed and possibly as many as 1 million people left homeless at what is the height of the southern winter. It is clear that international pressure on the Mugabe government must be stepped up in order to halt this operation, address the serious humanitarian consequences it has provoked, and improve respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. Ireland very much welcomes the appointment, by the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, of a special envoy to assess the humanitarian consequences of Operation Restore Order. We look forward to receipt of her report and would also urge the Secretary General to bring the report to the immediate attention of the UN Security Council. The discussion at the External Relations Council will provide a further opportunity to assess what further steps the EU can usefully take to assist the oppressed people of Zimbabwe at this difficult time. The Council is also expected to adopt conclusions which will welcome the positive outcome of the conference on Iraq which was jointly hosted by the European Union and the United States in Brussels on 22 June last.
Discussions at the GAERC on the WTO are expected to focus on the current state of progress on the Doha development agenda negotiations in Geneva and on preparations for the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December 2005 at which it is hoped that substantial progress will be made towards reaching a fair and balanced agreement across the key sectoral areas of agriculture, manufactured goods and internationally traded services. On Monday evening next, EU Trade Ministers will meet in Brussels for discussions on the Doha development agenda. Ireland will be represented by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern.
The Council will adopt conclusions to mark the tenth anniversary of the terrible massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995. I represented the Government at the extremely moving and dignified commemoration ceremony which was held in Srebrenica on Monday last. I visited the site of a mass grave where the painstaking work continues to exhume and identify the remains of the 8,000 men and boys who were brutally killed by Serb forces following the fall of Srebrenica. I witnessed the deep pain and sorrow in the eyes of many thousands of Bosnian women and young people who gathered for the reinterment of the remains of 610 of the victims who have been identified. Some 6,000 remain unidentified, many of them still in unmarked mass graves in the countryside around Srebrenica. There are many mass graves all over Bosnia. It is a very tragic situation.
I pay special tribute to the Bosnian authorities for the manner in which they organised this important tenth anniversary commemoration. I also mention President Boris Tadic of Serbia, whom I stood beside at the funeral service, and whose courageous decision to travel to Srebrenica will contribute to the difficult work of reconciliation in Bosnia. Members of this committee will also join me in expressing appreciation of the vital contribution which the members of the Defence Forces and of the Garda Síochána are making to peace and security in Bosnia through their participation in the EU military mission and the EU police mission.
At 6 a.m. on Monday I had the opportunity to meet His Excellency, Ambassador Gary Ansbro, Ireland's ambassador in the region and Assistant Commissioner Carty of the Garda Síochána. At 10 p.m. I had the honour of addressing the Irish troops in Tuzla. The international community, the United Nations and the European Community failed the people of Srebrenica in 1995. Ten years later we must ensure that the European Union and the United Nations have the capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to acts of inhumanity and evil. We must continue to work for the arrest and trial of the military and political leaders directly responsible for the massacre, notably Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. The people of Bosnia and of the other countries of the western Balkans are working to rebuild their societies following the terrible conflicts of the 1990s. The European Union has a moral and political obligation to support them. The EU will maintain its long-term commitment to the region, which is based on a clear commitment to the integration of the countries of the western Balkans into European structures.
I will be happy to listen to the views of the committee and to take any questions members might have.
I saw the television shots on Monday of the mass burial in Bosnia and I noted the Minister of State's presence there. I agree with everything he said on that occasion and at this committee.
The evolving situation in Zimbabwe, the appalling treatment of the people, which we have seen on television, and the destruction of 200,000 dwellings, which has left 1 million people homeless in the middle of winter, will soon be discussed. A report is awaited from the UN Secretary General's special envoy. There are parallels with the situation in Bosnia. How long will we have to wait for that report? Will there be more than mere discussion at the European Union meeting which the Minister of State will attend? Will the Union be proactive and take some form of action? What is Ireland's stance in this regard? Will we insist on a more proactive response to what is happening there? If there is not some form of intervention now, the genocide could be as bad as it was in Bosnia. It is time to stop waiting for reports and to be proactive.
How proactive will we be in terms of the UK's Presidency programme and the issue of reforming the CAP and tying it in with the budget? Perhaps the Minister of State could outline his views on Ireland's stance on the proposals outlined by the UK Government in that regard. I do not need to bore the Minister of State with the implications this has not only for agriculture in this country but also for the many other industries which depend on a vibrant agricultural community. That might sound strange for an urban Deputy to say, but I understand the implications.
I echo the remarks made by the Minister of State about the events in London. We extend our sympathy to the British Government and to the people of London who have been remarkably resilient in the face of this threat. I also echo the Chairman's remarks about Zimbabwe.
As regards the work programme, I welcome the fact that under economic reform and social justice the UK will highlight the need for better regulations and the need to reduce the volume and to increase the quality of EU legislation. Those of us who sit on the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny would very much wish to see that happen because it appears that some of the issues coming through are of minor significance. One gets a volume of literature and one wonders how it could have been generated. We all have heard of the straight banana but it seems there is more of that type of thinking coming from the Commission. One would welcome anything that could be done to bring a little sanity into the workings of the Commission on regulation. There have been beneficial regulations from the Commission but some seem to be getting into peripheral and non-essential areas, merely for the sake of interfering.
The most important aspect is the one the Chairman mentioned, namely, the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. I would have been one of those in favour of reform because I think Irish agriculture is competitive and in the long run it will be beneficial to us, provided that farm incomes can be maintained in the transition and that people will not be forced off the land. However, I would be very worried about what I hear coming from the United Kingdom and I noted it is not envisaged that the financial perspectives element will not be on the General Affairs and External Relations Council agenda. I find that worrying, given the prominence given to it by the United Kingdom in recent months.
The point about the Common Agricultural Policy, whether it is for good or ill, and its effect on Third World countries, is that a solemn deal was done. It was extremely painful and difficult for Ireland and the then Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, did a remarkable job in those talks. It would be the utmost bad faith if a done deal were now to be unravelled.
I was encouraged by President Barroso stating, when he came to the National Forum on Europe, that the Common Agricultural Policy should not be threatened, that an agreement was in place until 2013 and should continue and that what happens after that is a matter for renegotiation. There is a much broader issue here than the Common Agricultural Policy itself. It is to do with agreements that are made. In the expectation that those agreements will last until 2013, suddenly it is decided that this agreement is not in somebody's interest and now they are going to dismantle it. That is not acceptable from an Irish point of view and I hope that point will be made strongly if the opportunity is available to make it.
Is the committee taking general affairs together with external relations?
Yes. Our time is limited. We must finish by 11.15 a.m.
I will be brief.
I am suggesting not that the Senator be brief but that we take both together.
On the Turkey problem, I note that the Minister of State hopes that negotiations will start on 3 October. This is the middle of July. He spoke of Turkey's commitment on the implementation of reforms. From his perspective, as one aware of the nature of these reforms, has the Minister of State an update on the current position in their regard because that is a disconcerting issue? Last week's delegation to Cyprus, of which I was a member, listened to many people's views on this and many other issues relating to the Greek Cypriot side as well as the Turkish Cypriot side. These matters are important. I ask the Minister of State to comment on those reforms and on the current position because there is little time left. There is no point in stating something in theory if we do not see it happen. Reforms may be happening in the urban areas but I wonder about the commitment to them in rural Turkey.
I agree with the views of the Acting Chairman and, indeed, with those outlined here by the Minister of State. Will the Minister of State comment on the UK EU Presidency's ID proposals, both within the UK and Europe, and how we in Ireland are likely to pick up on them? I would be interested to hear his views.
I was impressed by the British reference to better regulation and what they intend to do in that regard. It seems to me we must encourage them to a great extent because the impact of legislation produced in Europe has profound effects everywhere else, and Senator Dardis referred to this.
I would like to refer to the Groceries Order, about which I know something. Ireland must make a decision on this and whether we insist on the regulations that are in place. When we talk about subsidiarity, it appears we are talking about passing regulations down to each nation which only affect that nation. We are now in a global situation in regard to the Groceries Order because many companies operating in Ireland and competing with Irish companies are based elsewhere where there are not similar regulations. Their Irish operations do not even know whether the Groceries Order applies to the products they purchase.
I am taking this as an instance that we are becoming a global economy in so far as we will not be able to pass regulations in this country to the same extent as we have, nor can we hope to enforce them because, in effect, they will not be enforceable. It means that the British move during the Presidency to seek better regulations and to try to remove the "straight bananas" type of regulation will probably be taken out of our hands. This means we need very tight control over what is happening in Europe because this will effect us to a greater extent, not just in that area but also in other areas.
Agreements with the World Trade Organisation were referred to. When the Lisbon Agenda was launched five years ago, the ease with which we spoke about making Europe the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy within one decade appeared easy. There was no reference at that stage to China. The effect of that country in the past five years has been dramatic. It is one of the main reasons the French voted against the European constitution.
Imports from China have increased by approximately 23% each year. Last January, Europe removed the tariffs on textiles from China. Within a few months, we began to impose them again because of the effect it was having. When I was in Hungary two weeks ago, I was amazed to discover that fresh garlic, which was always a popular product produced in that country, is now almost entirely imported from China.
The impact of this is causing great concern to importers and all those involved in agriculture and trade. As soon as Peter Mandelson took up office, he was approached by shoemakers in Europe who were concerned about the shoes being imported from China.
I have raised this issue because if we are going to have world trade agreements, we must recognise that we are in a global economy. We are in an economy where we are competing with imports from countries such as China. I do not think we have taken sufficient note of the effect this is having on our economy and on people who were very pro-Europe a few years ago but are now frightened by it.
I wish to deal with two issues. One relates to the priority for the UK Presidency of the EU in 2005. It states that an important part of a budget review will be the Common Agricultural Policy. The UK starting position has been that it should simply be abandoned or slashed overnight. CAP is one of the major issues of concern to us at this time. I would like to know if this is a renegotiation of what has already been agreed. I would like to get the views of the Minister of State on this issue.
On the issue of enlargement and Turkey delivering on its commitments to reform, is there a monitoring body in place to monitor these reforms? Will we just listen to its view or is the EU monitoring what is happening in that country?
I wish to make a number of points, most of which have been touched on. I join a number of speakers in expressing sympathy to the British Government, the people of London and all those directly affected by the catastrophic bombs which killed and maimed so many people.
I wish to refer to globalisation, industrial employment and the World Trade Organisation. We had first-hand experience in my constituency overnight of an industry which has served the northern part of Louth pretty well for a long number of years. There is a strong possibility, as a result of the company's review of its worldwide operations, competitiveness and globalisation, that approximately 250 to 300 jobs will be lost in Dundalk. A number of other industries have also left the area for similar reasons.
I support Senator Quinn's point on the WTO. It is important, in the context of those negotiations, that the impact of particular agreements on different regions within the Community is quantified. I am a little concerned that our influence in that area is limited. We must bear that in mind, especially if there is to be a review. While issues such as excessive regulation and so on are regularly reviewed, the taking of decisions on fundamental reform is another matter. It is important we remember that.
Senators Dardis and Quinn referred to the signing off of an agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy by member states and the Council of Ministers. The British Prime Minister has indicated this issue will have to be revisited as budget provision to support the Common Agricultural Policy is of such magnitude it is unsustainable. The British Government was a contributor to the agreement reached just a few years ago. The former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, did an excellent job in representing farmers' interests at that time.
We have reached a stage in Ireland where general appreciation of the agricultural industry has diminished somewhat. To pretend that everybody who seeks employment in farming can be employed in the higher echelons of intellectual capacity would be a serious error of judgment. There is a need to cater for the spectrum of people offering themselves for employment in the workplace. The agricultural industry has served and continues to serve as a cornerstone for the Irish economy, particularly in rural communities.
We have moved towards general urbanisation in terms of our population settlement policies with a gravitation towards the east coast of the country. It is important our employment and industrial development strategies are tailored accordingly. However, in the rush to do that, we could lose the sense of importance of the agricultural industry to the economy. I am sure those involved in the deliberations during the British Presidency will reflect the needs and priorities of the Irish Government and economy.
Does the Minister of State wish to respond?
I welcome the Chairman and congratulate him on his recent marriage. I wish him and his new wife every success.
I thank Deputy Allen and other members of the joint committee for their questions and will do my best to respond to them.
Does Deputy Sexton wish to ask a question?
No.
The first issue raised was the situation in Zimbabwe. Operation Restore Order has confirmed our worst fears. The Mugabe Government continues to set its face firmly against any political reforms or efforts to promote greater respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The Irish Government has responded to the worsening humanitarian situation provoked by Operation Restore Order. Our ambassador to Zimbabwe has visited the area and the embassy is maintaining regular contact with Irish missionaries and national and international non-governmental organisations engaged in providing assistance for those who have lost their homes or livelihood as a result of Operation Restore Order.
The Government recently allocated an additional €1 million under the World Food Programme to support emergency feeding programmes in Zimbabwe and Malawi, where there are critical needs. International pressure must be stepped up on the Mugabe regime to restore order and to make recompense to those who have lost their dwellings or livelihoods due to this terrible operation.
We look forward to receiving the report of the Secretary General's special envoy, Anna Tibaijuka, who visited Zimbabwe to assess the humanitarian consequences of the forcible eviction policy being practised by the Mugabe Government. I will also encourage the Secretary General to forward this report for the attention of the Security Council because we believe the situation in Zimbabwe is now such as to warrant its active involvement. Deputy Allen asked when the report will be available and I can confirm that it will be available immediately.
The members of the South African Development Community and the African Union also have roles to play in using their influence with Zimbabwe at this time. The European Union is actively encouraging the members of the SADC to do so through diplomatic representations in SADC capitals.
Many members asked about the situation in respect of the CAP. The Government has been absolutely consistent in its treatment of this issue. The negotiations concluded in October 2002, under the then Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, and, as Senator Dardis said, a deal was concluded and agreed within the Union. This deal was lodged as the European Union's contribution to the world trade talks on the reform of agriculture. On the basis of that document being lodged, the Government believes it has done its job regarding reform and is not of the opinion that this matter should be revisited.
The Government is at odds with the Presidency on this issue and cannot understand why it has been continually raised. The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and her Ministers of State and I have made the Government's position clear at every meeting attended. The point was made that it is a binding document which should not be revisited. A stand-off occurred at the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee yesterday when the British Minister for Agriculture made a presentation in which reference was made to reform of the CAP and, as a result, some members of the committee walked out. There is a chasm on this issue. In my opinion, there is overwhelming support within the European Union to uphold the conclusions agreed in October 2002. I am optimistic that this position will prevail. However, we must be vigilant on this issue because it is critically important for the country.
The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, will provide detailed information on the intentions of the UK Presidency which has indicated that it does not intend to abandon the CAP. However, it wishes to pursue a programme of reform to ensure that European farming can meet the challenges of globalisation. It has also indicated that CAP reform will form part of its proposed review of expenditure and resources.
It is the Government's position that the European Union, in recognising the challenges of globalisation, has already put in place a framework under the 2002 October agreement for a sustainable programme of CAP reform. The Government is of the view that the existing CAP reform programmes must be respected as the appropriate framework within which to secure substantial reductions in the resources allocated to agriculture while providing certainty and stability for farmers whose livelihoods depend on the current arrangements. There must be certainty and sustainability. The agreement reached covers the period October 2002 to 2013 and this must be respected.
The Government will continue to maintain a strong line in defence of the CAP in the negotiations on the financial perspectives. It is the Government's view that the credibility of the European Union's decision-making processes would be seriously undermined if there was a move to review or modify existing commitments at a time when trust must be fostered among the citizens of the EU. The Government will make this position clear to the governments of other member states. It would also be useful if members of the committee and MEPs would communicate to fellow parliamentarians and to the European Parliament the importance of the Union maintaining a sustainable and credible approach to agriculture.
Senators Dardis and Quinn and Deputy Allen referred to better regulation. This was an initiative begun under the Irish Presidency and the Government fully supports EU priorities in this area.
Senator Quinn referred to subsidiarity, the term used to describe the need, in particular circumstances, for power and competence to reside with individual member states to allow them to decide how best to regulate for the common interest of their citizens. The European Union does not wish to interfere in circumstances in which the application of the subsidiarity principle is the most appropriate approach to making decisions. Against a background of increasing globalisation and in view of Ireland's position as an open economy in the global trading system within which Europe operates, a balance must be struck in this regard to ensure that different governments, including the Irish Government, take the correct political decisions. This creates a dichotomy which is not always easy to overcome.
The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, will make a presentation at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on Monday next, which should provide further information on how the Presidency intends to handle the financial perspectives negotiations. It has indicated that it will undertake an intensive consultation exercise with member states at official level in the coming months. Based on the outcome of the consultations, in which Ireland will participate, the Presidency will determine how best to take forward the negotiations. It is expected that it will press for political agreement on the future financial perspectives at the December European Council.
Several members, notably Senator Ormonde, referred to Turkey. The December 2004 European Council agreed that Turkey sufficiently fulfils the political criteria to enable the opening of accession negotiations. It requested the Commission to present a draft negotiating framework to the Council with a view to opening negotiations on 3 October next. Commissioner Olli Rehn will make a presentation to Ministers on the draft text that is under discussion by member states.
The European Council agreed that the objective of negotiations with Turkey will be its eventual accession to the European Union, provided it meets the requirements for membership. The pace of negotiations will depend in large part on the pace of the implementation of Turkey's wide-ranging reform process. Given the substantial financial consequences of its accession, member states are agreed that it will not be possible to conclude negotiations with Turkey until after the establishment of the financial framework for the period from 2014. Reform, therefore, will be undertaken from now until that date.
While it is important that the European Union fulfils the commitments given by the European Council in December, it is also essential that Turkey fulfils its commitments, particularly those relating to the implementation of reforms. It has also given a commitment to sign the protocol adapting the 1963 Ankara agreement of association to take account of the accession of ten new member states, including the Republic of Cyprus, before the start of negotiations. This step will be critical if further progress is to be made.
The text of the protocol was approved by the June European Council but it has not yet been signed. The early signature of the protocol and its ratification and subsequent implementation will constitute important steps towards the normalisation of relations between Turkey and all EU member states, including Cyprus. Ireland has consistently made clear that it hopes Turkey will proceed with signature in the near future.
Members raised the issue of identity cards. We have noted British proposals to introduce identity cards, which would have implications for the common travel area and Northern Ireland, and officials have had preliminary discussions with the British on the matter. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, stated in the aftermath of the recent bombings in London, we will have to take account of any British action on identity cards. While no decision has been made, this is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in the first instance. The Government will have to consider the position in detail, particularly as we live in a globalised economy with massive mobility. Ongoing problems of congestion and pressure at airports and seaports are evident to all. Governments must be committed to ensuring that people can be readily identified, that legitimate travel is not hindered and that we know exactly who is moving where. Frequent travellers must be able to travel from country to country without enduring significant delays. Parallel to this requirement is the need to be aware of those who travel less frequently for nefarious reasons and pose a threat to democracy. As parliamentarians, we must face this challenge together to ensure that democracy is sustained and that citizens are protected at all times and in all places.
Reference was made to WTO trade from China and we agree that it has a serious impact on globalisation. Importantly, the WTO provides a framework for a rules-based multilateral trade system. That is why we attach such importance to a successful conclusion of the current negotiations on the Doha development agenda. We want balanced agreement across all areas of trade in agriculture and industrial goods and services.
As trade is a Union competence, the Commission conducted the Doha development agreement negotiations on behalf of member states in all WTO negotiations. This is based on mandates agreed at EU Council. EU member states, including Ireland, are fully consulted by the EU Commissioner representatives in Geneva and Brussels at all stages in the negotiations. Ireland actively participates in internal EU discussions and negotiations on common EU positions on the WTO negotiations in both Geneva and Brussels, where Irish representatives actively defend and promote the country's interests in the ongoing WTO negotiations across all sectors.
I have had limited involvement in this area and I am aware that we have outstanding officials working for us who do a great job on a daily basis. They keep Ministers fully briefed on the situation so that they can defend Ireland's national interests in the areas to which I refer and reach a practical and sensible position that is for the common good, in global trade terms, in a regulated process which ensures that mobility of commerce can be maintained to the benefit of the Irish, European and global economies.
I thank the Minister of State for that comprehensive response. What sort of pressure can the EU place on Zimbabwe? If the international community does not respond to Mugabe, who was recently re-elected, it will lead to further problems. The Minister of State pointed out that we sat by and were shamed by what happened in the Balkans. When is the next meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council? Timeframes are important.
While ongoing implementation of reform in Turkey will be monitored, is there any possibility of it acceding to the EU before 2014?
The European Council has already taken a decision that, due to the population and size of Turkey, it would not be possible to accommodate it within the financial regime of the European Union any earlier than 2014. This gives adequate time for major reform to take place before anything happens. It must sign the Ankara agreement, a position Ireland had assumed long before the final decision was taken by the European Council. The Council is adamant on that point. All countries wishing to join the European Union must respect the sovereignty of each member state within it.
Deputies Allen and Sexton made important points on Zimbabwe. The situation in Bosnia was a disaster. The European Union and United Nations failed and they admit that publicly. In my opinion, the EU does not have the capacity to deal with a similar situation within Europe. Until such time as we ratify the European constitution, we will not have the legal competence or capacity to deal with such situations. Against the best wishes and recommendations of the Secretary General of the United Nations at the time, Boutros Boutros Ghali, the UN Security Council decided that Srebrenica was to be a safe area. That was a complete disaster because innocent people were corralled there, culminating in the terrible genocide of 8,375 males between the ages of 12 and 70. It was outrageous but the world stood idly by, Europe and the UN failed and it can never happen again.
This is an important point and touches the kernel of the issue. The Minister of State visited Bosnia recently. What is his position now on Irish troops joining a rapid reaction force?
If the European Union takes a decision that there is a requirement to do certain things, and the United Nations recommends they be done, Ireland, taking into account its responsibilities, duties, and traditional position, and following a decision of Government and the Dáil, would take the appropriate decision at the appropriate time, relative to the individual requirements.
As we are part of the European Union, we must have an opinion on the slaughter in Srebrenica which the Minister of State has described, and the potential for such an incident to recur.
We have already clearly indicated our position. In November 2004 the Government indicated Ireland's readiness to consult with EU partners regarding potential participation in rapid response elements, or battle groups as they are otherwise known.
The Government established an interdepartmental working group to analyse the issues surrounding possible participation by Ireland in the initiative. The group comprises senior officials from the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Defence and the Taoiseach's office as well as the Office of the Attorney General. It is examining several issues in this context; for example, Irish participation in rapid response elements may require legislative changes to facilitate training of Irish troops abroad.
This also involves the wider policy issue of the type of mandate under which a battle group may be required to deploy. Irish troops can deploy on peacekeeping missions overseas only when three conditions, to which I have already alluded, have been met, namely, the agreement of the Government, the approval of the Dáil and the existence of UN authorisation for the mission. The situation in Srebrenica collapsed because there was no decision by either the United Nations or the European Union, and no request.
Following these consultations a detailed memorandum to Government would be prepared outlining all the implications for Ireland including potential costs, legislative aspects, questions relating to potential partners and deployability, training and interoperability aspects. This will also take into account Ireland's support for the United Nations as the international authority for co-operative arrangements for collective security, and the UN Secretary General's support for the development of EU capability in rapid response and crisis management. This would enable the Government to make a fully informed decision on Ireland's participation in battle groups and rapid response elements at any particular time in any given situation and any location.
I have just returned from Bosnia where I was very proud of the work of the Garda Síochána and the Army. The Army in particular is closely involved in the analysis and identification of the human remains in the mass graves. It provides daily protective cover and services for the international professionals, DNA experts, archaeologists, pathologists, forensic scientists and others who are working on this major task. It is also involved in many other facets of activity there. We can all be very proud of the outstanding work of the Army and the Garda Síochána. They and their work in the region are highly respected there.
In response to the question about Zimbabwe, the European Union made clear its concerns regarding Operation Restore Order at a senior officials' meeting with the South African Development Community, SADC, in Johannesburg on 20 June. This has been followed up by a series of diplomatic representations by EU ambassadors in SADC capitals. Officials are meeting in Brussels this week to consider what further steps can be taken to encourage the member countries of SADC and other African nations to use their influence with Zimbabwe to halt this operation.
The African Union also needs to consider what it can do to improve the situation in Zimbabwe. I therefore welcome the fact that the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan raised this issue directly with several African leaders, including President Mbeki of South Africa at the recent African Union meeting in Sirte, Libya. Negotiations and dialogue continue. We want the African Union to exert pressure on Zimbabwe to ensure that the rule of law, respect for human life and dignity, mobility and freedom to trade and live in peace and harmony are respected. International bodies such as the European Union have a key role. There is a great challenge ahead, but we can face it together and ensure that international pressure is exerted to maximise the impact on the terrible regime in Zimbabwe.
The Minister of State opened up the issue of Srebrenica, which is fitting this week. It was a shameful episode in the recent history of Europe. However, he got himself into some difficulty, notwithstanding the passion of his presentation. Owing to the conditions that we have voluntarily imposed on ourselves regarding participation in any sort of effort to ensure that something like the Srebrenica massacre never recurs, we cannot say with hands on hearts that we would participate. If there was no UN mandate, we simply would not participate, with the result that we would stand idly by in such circumstances, even if the European Union decided to intervene. We should consider that now when there is no such immediate threat rather than in a few years if there is a problem in Macedonia or elsewhere. I make that comment only because the Minister of State broached the issue.
The question that I wished to ask was about something entirely different, namely, east Africa. There have recently been fairly worrying developments in Uganda and Ethiopia. Does the Minister envisage the Union taking a view? What might the Irish view be? Specifically, President Museveni has procured a change in his country's constitution to allow him to run again. Term limits are an extraordinarily important part of ensuring decent standards of governance, particularly in Africa. This is worrying, to say the least. The British have already symbolically frozen an aid measure, and I have read reports that Ireland is considering doing something of the same kind. Perhaps the Minister of State might comment on that and say whether we are considering freezing aid or taking measures in that regard.
The second part of the question concerns developments in Ethiopia following the recent election there. As the Minister will probably know, opposition elements represented in Dublin have made their view known that the election was not free or fair. They are not happy with how it was conducted. There was an appalling incident when several dozen people were killed immediately after the results became known. Do the Irish Government and the European Union have a view in this regard?
I do not understand how Senator McDowell should think that I got into any difficulty. I am very clear in what I say and have no problem responding on any issue at any time. That is why politicians are elected.
I did not intend to be personally offensive. This is a national problem and not one affecting the Minister specifically. On the one hand, we say that we require a UN Security Council mandate to do something, while, on the other, we say with feeling and passion that we want to stop incidents such as that at Srebrenica recurring. The truth is that it is very likely that in similar circumstances we would not be able to do anything because there would be no Security Council mandate. I appreciate that even in my own party I am in a minority in articulating that view. However, we must all face up to that difficulty. I know that we all feel passionately that the like of the Srebrenica massacre is intolerable, particularly on the continent of Europe. We must be able to say that the European Union will not permit it to happen again.
I will make a point anecdotally. I was coming in this morning and met an acquaintance from Waterford who is one of the few Second World War veterans still alive in Ireland. He recounted his experiences at Belsen, having visited not only that concentration camp but several others. He spoke of the effort that Irish people had made after the fact, when doctors and nurses went to concentration camps such as Belsen.
The situation was similar to that described. We have given a great deal of help in the area of forensic science, with DNA specialists and so on. However, we must be clear if we are to make repeated proclamations regarding the horror of war that we must be prepared at some point to contribute to the effort to prevent such events taking place to begin with. That is my opinion. I understand the situation in which the Minister of State finds himself regarding legal and constitutional elements. However, if we are talking about preventing something of this nature recurring, we must be clear.
I agree with both speakers. It is an opportunity. I expressed my views regarding the speed at which we were moving forward in Europe. I hear of it constantly, as do we all. People do not fully understand the importance of the constitution for the future or our participation in preventing what happened in the Balkans from occurring again. Those are the issues on which we need to concentrate. The Irish people would be easily persuaded when they realise the implications of not having a proper constitution that would allow us to progress in a fashion such as that mentioned by Senator McDowell and Deputy Deasy.
As a committee we should concentrate on those issues to ensure people fully understand the importance of the constitution, in areas where they have real concerns and not on issues they do not understand. They are lost in the debate.
Everybody was appalled by the situation in Srebrenica, particularly the fact that the European Union was impotent in dealing with issues in the Balkans. We do not have a choice in these matters. That is not my question.
My question is on aid to Zimbabwe. I note that on 29 June we agreed to provide an additional €1 million to the World Food Programme to support emergency feeding programmes for those directly at threat from the current humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. I welcome that. We contributed €7 million between 2002 and 2004, including €2.46 million for assistance to Zimbabwe. I am aware we have significant missionary and NGO activity there. That creates difficulties. One wonders why we should have diplomatic relations with the country but we must look after those people. What is done to ensure these moneys are properly channelled to where they are needed? One has fears about that in Zimbabwe. How do we monitor the delivery of the funds? We have a tradition of not attaching conditions to our overseas development aid and I agree with that. Can we be confident that money is delivered to where it is required?
I thank everybody for their contributions and for the questions and points they raised. I am delighted Senator McDowell admitted his party fully endorses the traditional position of our country pertaining to peacekeeping operations. We are a sovereign State. We have no right to take a unilateral decision to move in any direction unless the world through the UN, and the EU in local matters pertaining to it, takes a particular position in order that we, as a member of both, are in a position to respond in a positive way. It is then a matter for the sovereign Government of this country to decide what route, role, capacity, requirements and expenditure will take place.
Not entirely, a member of the UN and the EU can lead from within those groups. It is not just following the advice of people. A participating member can also lead on these issues.
Of course we can lead on these issues, but the leadership one can give has a certain limit and capacity. We can only make our contribution on the basis that we have a mandate to intervene at a particular time. When all of the information becomes available a decision must be taken. Over almost half a century we have become world leaders in international peacekeeping duties. We play a major role for which we are highly respected. That is done under the flag of the United Nations. As a member of the European Union, we have given leadership in many aspects of this situation.
That is a fair point.
Returning to the situation in Srebrenica, we provided €1 million for the professional execution of the identification process, which was traumatic. Our army also provides support. We have never been found wanting in either giving leadership or responding to opportunities. However, we must be mindful of the legislative and constitutional requirements and ensure what we do is done properly, correctly, legally and judicially in order that it will stand up to the satisfaction of our country and people, as well as fulfil our international responsibilities.
I now turn to the other issues raised. The European Union was actively involved in observing the recent elections in Ethiopia. The Irish Embassy closely monitors the situation and with our partners we are doing everything possible to encourage dialogue between the government and the opposition on a continuous basis.
On Uganda, we have been in contact with the Ugandan Government to express concern on the situation there. The question of directing some aid to NGOs rather than the Ugandan Government is under consideration.
Senator Dardis and Deputy Sexton raised the issue of Ireland's aid to Zimbabwe. Our embassy in South Africa closely monitors operations and spending by Development Co-operation Ireland in Zimbabwe, including that by Irish NGOs and missionaries. We are satisfied Irish aid goes to those in need in Zimbabwe. With regard to the government there, the EU and Ireland will continue to press for a change of direction. Irish missionaries and key NGOs do an outstanding job there in a difficult situation. They regularly brief us on the situation. We are in constant communication with them and we are responding to that situation as quickly and as generously as possible and we will continue to do so.
We need to exit this room. I thank the Minister of State for his co-operation with the committee.
The joint committee adjourned at 11.15 a.m. sine die.