We have received apologies from Deputy Pat Breen. No. 1 on the main agenda is a discussion with the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs on the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. I welcome the Minister of State and officials from his Department. Like all meetings, this is important, and there will be time for questions and answers.
General Affairs and External Relations Council Meeting: Discussion with Minister of State.
I thank the Chairman and offer a belated happy new year to all the members of the committee and those joining us. I welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to review the agenda of next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council.
This will be the first meeting of the Council under the Slovenian Presidency, which is an historic occasion. In itself this will be a particular moment in the history of Europe as Slovenia is the first of the 12 new member states admitted to the Union on that memorable day in Dublin in May 2004 to take charge of the affairs of the Union. It is a small state and there is a symbolism in that also.
Prime Minister Jansa addressed the European Parliament last week and noted that Slovenia was the first member state from behind the former Iron Curtain and the first Slavic country to preside over the Council of the European Union. He went on to say that this would have been impossible without the profound changes that have occurred on the European Continent in the past quarter of a century. These have enabled Europeans to come together in a unique European Union founded on shared principles of democracy, freedom, solidarity and the rule of law. All this was unthinkable for millions of Europeans only 20 years ago.
The Slovenian Presidency represents a powerful expression of those remarkable changes in which the EU has played a pivotal part. The Irish have also played a pivotal part and, as I stated many times when we were to vote again on the Nice treaty, when we voted for it we turned the key that made this wonderful occasion possible.
For the Prime Minister, it was just 20 years since, as a non-commissioned officer in the Yugoslav army, he and two journalists were arrested, imprisoned, tried and convicted before a military court because they had criticised the then communist regime in Yugoslavia. Slovenia and many of its neighbours have come on an epic journey to freedom and economic progress, culminating in their membership of the European Union and, in Slovenia's case, being the first new member state to adopt the euro as its currency. The Slovenian Government has made an assured and energetic start to its Presidency and I wish it well in the months ahead. I am sure members of the committee will wish them well also as it is a very important occasion.
In many ways Slovenia is a metaphor for Europe if one thinks of where the Continent has come from over 50 years. An astonishing journey has been made as things unthinkable today were thinkable then, and things done then are not possible today. The European Union faces a challenge in this regard and we should bear these issues in mind.
Unusually, there are no items for formal discussion on the general affairs side of the Council agenda. The items relate entirely to the external relations issues. The agenda itself reflects what are likely to be some of the principal international issues and challenges confronting the Slovenian Presidency, with the western Balkans, the Middle East peace process, Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan and Chad down for discussion.
The western Balkans represents a major priority for the Presidency and developments in that region are likely to be a particular preoccupation for the Union in the coming weeks and months. Ministers will discuss the western Balkans over lunch, where the focus will be on Serbia, on which conclusions will be adopted. The conclusions have not yet been finalised but they are expected to concentrate on the EU’s relationship with Serbia, including the visa facilitation and readmission agreement signed last year, a Commission initiative for dialogue on visa liberalisation and the question of possible signature of the stabilisation and association agreement, SAA, between Serbia and the EU.
Ministers will exchange views on ways of improving the EU's relationship with Serbia and will discuss prospects for the signature of the SAA. Negotiations on the agreement are now complete, though signature remains dependent on full cooperation by Serbia with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY. We hope developments will soon make it possible for the Council to give a positive assessment of Serbia's cooperation with the tribunal, enabling signature of the stabilisation and association agreement, SAA, which has the potential to bring Serbia closer to Europe at a time when tensions over Kosovo have placed the relationship under significant strain.
The presidency has indicated that it does not intend to have any conclusions on Kosovo at this general affairs meeting, the timing of which falls between the dates of the first and second rounds of the Serbian presidential election. The timing is sensitive. However, it is expected that there will be time allotted for an exchange of views on the issues now facing the EU, following the failure of the troika-led talks and the continuation of deadlock on the status issue at the UN. The most urgent issues requiring decision at EU level are the timing of the launch of the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, mission, in respect of which preparations are continuing at a technical level, and the formulation of a common approach to the handling of the anticipated early declaration of independence by Kosovo.
Ireland has welcomed the European Council's conclusions on the importance of a unified EU approach to the Kosovo issue and its clear expression of the EU's will to take the lead, including through the launch of the planned ESDP rule of law mission. We believe that we must strive to achieve an early agreement on the launch of this mission and on the details of a common platform on recognition as the basis of a coherent response at EU level to a declaration of independence by Kosovo.
On the question of final status, Ireland has strongly supported the Ahtisaari proposal, which provides for a form of internationally supervised independence for Kosovo with strong guarantees for the rights of Serbs and other minorities. We continue to believe this proposal provides the most practical and realistic solution for the future status of Kosovo and expect that any declaration of independence by Kosovo will be accompanied by a commitment to implement its provisions. We regret the failure of the recent troika talks and believe that this outcome, coupled with the deadlock at the Security Council, confirms that all options for achieving an agreed settlement have now been exhausted.
On the basis of positive advice from the Attorney General confirming the continuing validity of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in the absence of any decision by the Security Council to terminate or amend it, Ireland will be in a position to maintain its enhanced presence in Kosovo Force, KFOR. We intend to contribute members of the Garda to the ESDP mission and to support the future economic development of Kosovo.
The Council will review recent developments in the Middle East peace process. It will underline the EU's strong support for the negotiating process launched at the Annapolis conference in November and will welcome the start of bilateral negotiations on final status issues last week. It is of critical importance that the Israeli Prime Minister and the President of the Palestinian Authority are now committed to reaching a final status agreement by the end of 2008 and that the US Administration is so centrally involved in supporting the process. The EU is determined to play a positive political role, directly with the parties and as a member of the quartet.
The Council will also welcome the successful outcome of the international donors conference for Palestinians hosted by the French Government in Paris on 17 December. Total pledges were calculated at $7.4 billion, sending a strong signal of the international community's support for renewed efforts to achieve a peace agreement. Ireland, represented by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, pledged €40 million in assistance, in line with our record of working with the Palestinians and the strength of our commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Unfortunately this political momentum now risks being undermined by events on the ground. The Government is deeply concerned at the recent upsurge in violence in Gaza and in particular by the deaths of civilians. The situation has become particularly serious over the past week. Like all sovereign states, Israel has the right and duty to protect its citizens from rocket attacks. We have consistently condemned these attacks but we have also made it clear that events have proved that there can be no military solution to this or any conflict. The Government has called for an urgent end to all violence in and emerging from the occupied territories, a genuine freeze on the building of settlements, the lifting of restrictions on movement and an end to policies and actions to isolate the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza.
Yesterday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs called on Israel to immediately resume fuel supplies to Gaza. Hundreds of thousands of homes, as well as hospitals, schools and factories have been without power since Israel cut supplies of fuel and sealed border crossings into Gaza on Friday. The action was taken in response to ongoing rockets attacks from militant groups in Gaza. The UN has warned of the grave humanitarian implications if hospitals cannot operate and it is not acceptable that hospitals have had to rely on emergency generators for essential power; innocent lives are being placed at risk. We acknowledge the action by Israel yesterday, in response to international pressure, allowing some essential fuel supplies into Gaza. It is vital now that all parties act urgently and decisively to end the damaging cycle of violence and death and give the political process a chance to succeed.
The Council will also discuss the Iran nuclear issue. The EU has been working closely with the United States, Russia and China to try to press Iran to engage seriously with the international concerns about this issue. We support the work going on in New York, where members of the Security Council are considering a possible further resolution, which would extend the measures already taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. I expect that at this meeting ministers will take note of the continuing work in the Security Council and reserve detailed discussion on any further EU action until a future meeting.
Ministers will consider two issues under the heading of Africa, namely Sudan and Chad and recent political developments in Kenya. The Council will be briefed by the UN Secretary General's special representative on Darfur. The situation there remains grave and very fragile despite the formal transition to a hybrid United Nations - African Union mission in Darfur, UNAMID, as of 1 January 2008. This force is still a long way below its target size of 26,000 personnel. The attack by the Government of Sudan on a UNAMID convoy on 7 January was extremely worrying, even if it may have been accidental. This incident must be fully investigated.
Humanitarian access continues to be a particular concern for Ireland, not least given that a number of non-governmental organisations, NGOs, are present in the field and endangered, working to alleviate the suffering of the people of Darfur. Overall a political solution is urgently needed. It is regrettable that the negotiations launched last autumn have not developed further and I expect the UN Secretary General's special representative on Darfur, Mr. Jan Eliasson, to focus on this area and on how international support and pressure might assist. The possibility of further measures against any party obstructing the Darfur peace process, UNAMID deployment or humanitarian access, must be kept on the table. We would also urge Sudan and Chad to cease supporting each others' rebel groups and to seek to resolve any disputes peacefully, in accordance with recent peace agreements concluded between the two countries.
The Council is also expected to formally approve the launch of the European Union Force, EUFOR, Chad mission, which will facilitate the provision of desperately needed humanitarian assistance to refugees and displaced persons in eastern Chad and elsewhere. The Government very much welcomes this and the successful conclusion of the force generation process led by General Pat Nash of the Defence Forces as operations commander. The Council decision will allow the first of Ireland's contribution of 450 members of the Defence Forces to begin to deploy to Chad next month and we look forward to the mission achieving full operating capability by May.
The Council will also discuss the ongoing political and humanitarian crisis in Kenya, which has erupted following the disputed elections of 27 December. Recent developments in Kenya are a cause for real concern, not only given their broader economic implications for the east Africa region but because of the relative stability the country has enjoyed since independence.
Ministers are expected to reiterate the European Union's support for the steps now being taken to build upon the efforts of President Kufiior, president of the African Union, at mediation between the two sides. Ireland fully supports the mission of the panel of eminent African personalities, which is led by Kofi Annan.
Pressure also needs to be maintained on both sides to avoid further escalation and to find a political solution to the current impasse which reflects the clear democratic will of the Kenyan people. The Council is also likely to make clear that any failure by Kenya's political leaders to engage seriously in current mediation efforts and reach a negotiated settlement is likely to have adverse implications for Kenya's future long-term relations with the European Union, including in regard to funding.
Ministers will also have a short discussion on recent developments in Pakistan in advance of elections due to be held on 18 February and following on from the horrendous assassination of Pakistani People’s Party leader, Benazir Bhutto, on 27 December last. Conclusions are not envisaged at this time. The European Union remains active on this issue and will mount a full election observation mission to Pakistan. There remains an urgent requirement for the authorities to use the delay in elections to address serious concerns regarding the conditions for those elections, including easing media restrictions and releasing all remaining political prisoners.
In seeking to restore stability and address the security situation in Pakistan, it will be vital for any new government to have the legitimacy and credibility provided by free, fair and transparent elections. Instability in Pakistan has serious implications for the country and the region as a whole, particularly given the Taliban-led insurgency in neighbouring Afghanistan.
That concludes the GAERC agenda. I will be pleased to respond to any questions or comments that members may have on the various agenda items. I also congratulate the committee for the important work it has undertaken recently on the reform treaty. I know it has already held a number of well-attended briefing sessions with some of the social partners, which I welcome. I am aware, also, that it intends to continue this work both in the Oireachtas and when the committee holds meetings in centres around the country. That cannot but be beneficial. I applaud that initiative and believe it will contribute to increased public engagement on the issue of the reform treaty. In this regard, the most important thing we as public representatives must do is to ensure that people have the maximum amount of information. This committee is certainly playing its role in that regard. While the reform treaty is not on today's agenda, after dealing with the GAERC agenda items, I will be happy to address any questions on the treaty that may arise. It is important that we avail of every opportunity to discuss the treaty and its implications for Europe's future and, most importantly, its implications for Ireland's future.
I thank the Minister of State for his address. We have a number of speakers who wish to contribute to the comprehensive layout of the work of this meeting. I will call Deputy Lucinda Creighton first followed by other members, after which the Minister of State can respond and there may possibly be a second round of questions.
I thank the Minister of State and his team from the EU affairs division for that excellent comprehensive briefing. I am interested in the stabilisation and association agreement concerning Serbia. The Minister of State pointed to some of the difficulties that may arise with regard to the international criminal tribunal. How does the Minister of State view Serbia's potential future accession to the European Union? Does he, along with other EU ministers, view this as a stepping stone for Serbia's ultimate accession to the EU? Is that in effect the message that is being communicated to Serbia? My view is that it would be quite premature but perhaps the Minister of State can address the question in more detail.
We had a lengthy debate on the EUFOR Chad mission and there were major concerns which at the time were not really recognised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was subsequently forced into a position whereby he had to take the concerns into account. I would like to hear some of the details from the Minister of State, particularly concerning aircraft requirements. Is the Minister of State fully satisfied that matter has now been resolved?
The Minister of State said he would take questions on the reform treaty at the end. Does he have any information about some organisations that are springing up, particularly from the far right, and campaigning against the ratification of the reform treaty? Does the Minister of State have any background information on or insight into those organisations? Can he outline briefly any advances we can expect through the ratification of this treaty in terms of the EU's peacekeeping and conflict prevention capabilities? What precisely will be the implications of the reform treaty in that respect? The treaty is a matter of growing interest to the Irish people and a positive step upon which we should focus.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and his officials for attending the committee and providing such an erudite and comprehensive report on what will be the agenda for the next meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. He referred to African affairs and in his reply perhaps he could let us know the up-to-date situation in Kenya. Is it still in a state of anarchy or will there be another election? One sees bits and pieces on the BBC news and other media but one does not get very much detail. I wonder if any more information is available other than what the Minister of State has said.
While we welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the committee, our minds are engaged on the Lisbon treaty or the reform treaty. We had better settle on a name first because it is being called different things. When will the treaty referendum be held? Perhaps the Minister of State cannot say but we would like him to do so. Our purpose for this term and the next is to promote the ideas of the Lisbon treaty but we are currently working in a vacuum. It is interesting and constructive to go through the various areas which will occupy the Council meeting next week but the home agenda is the most tantalising one and we must get to grips with it. Our Chairman told us last week that we cannot embark on a nationwide tour until we know the date. Is that not correct?
That is correct.
He told us we would need to get our starting orders. Some time ago, we got an easy-to-read leaflet from the Minister of State but will a clause-by-clause guide to the Lisbon treaty be issued in layman's language? It is not that I do not believe the Chairman or the Minister of State but we constantly hear that the treaty will bridge the democratic deficit, help us to understand what it is about and be in plain language. All this is given to us in lofty tones, although not by the Minister of State. However, we still do not know what it is about. Therefore, those who promulgate the contrary view have a fertile field because we have nothing in our hands. We cannot quote, say, clause 65D to rebut their particular contention whatever it may be. We need comprehensive material in simple layman's language.
I do not know whether the Minister of State will be shocked by this or whether he believes it is par for the course some weeks from the date being announced but I have yet to meet a constituent who has voluntarily raised the Lisbon treaty with me, and I meet hundreds of constituents. It does not appear to engage them. Obviously, one can say the bread and butter issues engage them. If I was asked to stand up in Athlone Institute of Technology and put forward this committee's case for the Lisbon treaty, I would be unable to do so. I would do so from an idealistic point of view but that is not good enough because the naysayers will be dogged, horrible and full of what they believe is the way forward, which is certainly not our way. Perhaps the Minister of State will reply to that.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their contribution and attendance. I will refer briefly to the reform treaty which I believe is the official title being used by the Government.
Will the Minister of State tell us whether it is the Lisbon treaty or the reform treaty?
To be very helpful, I sent the Deputy 50 copies of these--
We got them.
Deputy O'Rourke is on copy 37 at the moment. She has 13 more to read.
I do not.
Without wishing to be accused by opponents of--
I am afraid they may have got dumped.
--vulgar advertisement, we have several hundred more which can be made available.
On the issue of the treaty's title, the tradition in Europe has been to call a treaty after the city in which it is signed. For example, the Maastricht treaty later became known as the Treaty of the European Union. I have always regarded that as a conceit because the title should convey what the treaty is about, and the treaty is about reform.
I am sure members will have paid close attention to the debate in the UK last night. The term used regularly was "reform". It was a very interesting debate. There is a significant number of references and the treaty is referred to as either. I would like to think that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The content rather than what is on the cover is what counts. Members can use the words "reform" or "Lisbon" or the very long title.
It is like beauty; it is in the eye of the beholder.
I hope Deputy O'Rourke realises she need only read one of those documents.
What am I to do?
The Deputy need only read one of those documents.
They are no good.
I would not disagree with the Deputy.
It is important the Referendum Commission is established as soon as possible following the enactment of the legislation in order to convey the information. I have read the treaty and one would be none the wiser after reading it as it is very difficult to follow. It is important we get a simplified version. There is not that much in this treaty other than the reorganisation of the institutions.
I am a little amused when I hear talk of loss of sovereignty and neutrality. I do not agree with our position in respect of neutrality but we were supposed to have lost sovereignty and neutrality after the Nice, Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. Are we to lose them again? It is a little disingenuous of the "No" campaigners. I read some of what they have written and it was totally off the wall. I do not believe we should descend into a slanging match but one of the claims made is that people across Europe have not been given a say. When Monsieur Le Pen decided he would like to come here to articulate his view, those on the "No" side said he should not do so. They cannot be selective; they are either consistent on this or they are not. If people realise what is in the treaty, they will vote for it because it is an administrative mechanism more than anything else.
The main external affairs issue facing the EU is Kosovo. Would it be fair to say that President Thaci was elected on the basis that he would declare independence and that following the second round of elections in Serbia in early February Kosovo will declare independence which will cause a difficulty for the EU? It will also cause a difficulty for the UN Security Council because the existing resolution 1244 will probably be terminated as there will not be agreement.
I noted the Minister of State spoke about positive advice from the Attorney General but I beg to differ. I believe the advice will be that we will face a difficulty in respect of our forces in Kosovo because there will not be a legitimate UN resolution under which they can continue there.
I wish to make it clear to the committee that the Attorney General has given positive advice and I believe this is possibly the first time it has been made clear in public. The positive advice is that which I reflected to the committee, that is, that unless there is an amendment to the existing UN resolution or it is overthrown, it continues to apply. Incidentally, I understand that is not only the advice of the Attorney General and that Ban Ki-moon has looked at this and has made it clear that is also the advice available to him.
I thank the Minister of State for his intervention.
That is very important.
That is the meaning I took from the Minister of State's contribution. I have not misinterpreted it.
The point I am making is that if the resolution is terminated or if there is a difficulty at the UN Security Council, which there may well be because the major power blocs differ on this, if there is a request from the UN Secretary General for the EU to provide a force, which has happened in the past, and if there is no UN resolution, we will have to withdraw our forces due to our archaic triple lock system. If the resolution is terminated or if there is no agreement on it, will our forces be serving in an illegal capacity and will they have to be withdrawn as a result?
The committee should send a strong message that the Israelis should restore full energy supplies to Gaza. It is also important that the Palestinian authorities use the forces available to prevent rocket attacks on Israel. This situation has been going on for generations.
I wish the Irish forces well in Chad. This is not the first time the committee has met since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto but it is the first occasion we have discussed such matters. I suppose it shows how international affairs move on so quickly that it is now old news and so many other things have happened. It is important we condemn that atrocity.
There is, however, a related issue. Every other day we pick up the newspaper, we read about opposition parties claiming that election results are wrong and that elections were rigged by the incumbents. We have seen that following elections in Pakistan, Kenya, Venezuela and Nigeria. It sounds familiar to the Chairman and me.
It was not too close.
On a more serious note, the Minister of State spoke about EU observers attending the elections in Pakistan, which will be held on 16 or 18 February. I predict that in the days following the elections, we will read headlines stating: "Opposition claims elections were rigged".
In recent years, efforts have been made by the UN General Assembly in regard to the conduct of elections. Assistance has been given by the UN in over 100 cases since 1989. Ireland could take a lead role in looking at that resolution. I do not know the number of it off the top of my head but I am sure the officials will be familiar with it. The resolution deals with the conduct of elections which is signed up to by the host country. We must have in place in these countries, where every other time there is a dispute about an election, an agreement that the UN observers have a greater role and call the final result because what has happened in Kenya is nothing short of a joke. First, we had the result, then the commission stated it could not be relied upon, then the President spoke of powersharing, and lo and behold the President is back in and matters are moving on. This is unsustainable but it keeps being repeated.
The importance of the Chad mission to the overall impression the EU conveys in this country and other European countries is critical. We have been dragging our heals trying to get this mission up and running for some time and May looks like the month ordained for the full deployment. It has nothing to do with the reform treaty as such, but it would be really important that 450 Irish troops were on the ground before we in this country vote. As happened in France and the Netherlands, people vote on these treaties for all sorts of extraneous reasons and if we were still waiting for this deployment, if I was against the treaty I would have great fun in stating that they cannot even organise troops to go to Africa over a period of nine months. It would be something of an own goal.
The election in Kenya happened and it is finished. Nothing has happened in Zimbabwe where there will be elections soon. We are good at reacting after the event. Zimbabwe has similar demographics in terms of tribal differences.
We had a discussion in the Dáil before Christmas on the issue of Zimbabwe. There was a motion which had all-party agreement after a fashion, as Deputy Timmins will recall, and we looked for the EU to become involved in terms of voter registration. As Deputy Timmins stated, we can read the script already. There will be a dispute about the outcome, there will be rigging, etc. What are we doing in anticipation of this? Why is Zimbabwe not on this agenda? I ask the Minister to push for Zimbabwe to be discussed before all hell breaks loose. Elections are due there in March.
On the reform treaty, the organisation Libertas has been peddling the view that the treaties can be amended without reference to the people. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, might comment on that.
Does the Minister of State want to answer those Deputies and then we will return to the remaining speakers?
The observation made by Deputy Barry Andrews about the symbolic importance of the mission to Chad is valid. If there were to be any slip-up, the first who would be critical of the EU's efforts would be the same people who are criticising interoperability, which is ensuring that one's radio can pick up another's, as being part of militarisation. This has always been a charming part of the negative view in Ireland, that they try to play both sides of everything.
Deputy Andrews was also correct that this mission, like that in Aceh and the work being done elsewhere by the EU, is a good indication that the EU can be not just a positive force for democracy and economic growth and development in Europe, but play a significant role in peacekeeping. It is interesting - this relates to the Deputy's point - that the United Nations is looking increasingly for regional support to move away from the older system.
That leads me back to Deputy Timmins's point about Kosovo, the UN and our triple-lock arrangement, and specifically the requirement that it be underpinned by a UN resolution. All the legal advice states that United Nations resolution 1244 will stand, unless of course it is overturned. Deputy Timmins is quite correct that there are power plays within the United Nations because that is not necessarily always a pristine organisation in terms of what motivates actions by member states. The resolution will stand, unless it is overturned or changed. It will continue to have legal effect.
Deputy Creighton asked about Serbia. Ultimately, of course, that normalisation in Serbia, the bringing of it into the democratic fold, must be an important part of that country's preparation to ultimately become a part of the European Union, and represents the Europeanisation of a particular issue.
One of the most uplifting aspects of the reform treaty, some of the comments on which I will come to later, that does not cause anybody a mental strain to read is the part early in the treaty which deals with the basis for which we in Europe stand, and of course the rule of law, democracy, peace and all of the matters which most civilised people regard as the norms are included. They become the norms for anybody who wishes to join the European Union and they will be the norms for Serbia. It is clear that the ultimate ambition of people in that region is to become part of what we have and they can do so only if they observe the rules of decency that we apply to ourselves.
Related to the question from Deputy Timmins, it was stated there had been a difficulty in getting the Chad mission geared up. One of the ironies about some of the debates here in Ireland is that interoperability is the very aspect that gives security to our men and women who go to support democracy and to be involved in peacekeeping. The Deputy is quite correct that there were some issues, particularly on the air transport side. I understand they have been resolved and that Lieutenant General Nash has commented that he is now happy. The French have stepped up.
If one looks at the list of participating states, they represent a vast swathe across the European Union: France, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, Romania, Austria, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal and Slovenia. There are additional member states represented at operational headquarters: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, Slovakia and the UK. It is remarkable. It is Europe trying to assist a country to come out of a horrific past.
Deputy O'Rourke asked about Kenya. Unfortunately, as we all will be aware and as Deputy Timmins pointed out, in Kenya there was this extraordinary dispute about the elections. There was an EU observation force in Kenya and it took a negative view of the position. Currently, there is a stand-off. The European Union and the African states have been putting pressure on both sides to come to mediation and reconciliation. There is strong support from the European Union, moral as well as diplomatic and political, in particular for the work Kofi Annan does in that area. I have significant hope for Kofi Annan. I made the point that I recently visited Kenya and it would break one's heart that a country that had such extraordinary potential has slid so far down. There was so much hope invested for democracy in Kenya by its people and the surrounding nations. What is continuing to happen there is undoubtedly a tragedy. At EU level there is a week-to-week review and Europe will have some clout and capacity to put pressure, particularly when we look at the assistance that comes from Europe.
Deputy O'Rourke made a fair point about the title of the reform treaty. The titles of Lisbon treaty and reform treaty are interchangeable. Neither is in fact the treaty's title, which is rather long and more convoluted, but either can be used.
Deputy Creighton asked what would be the impact of the treaty on peacekeeping, which was an interesting question. One of the issues which has been more misrepresented and untruthfully represented in debates in this country about Europe since 1972 is its impact on our neutrality. Deputy Timmins and I have slightly different views on this matter.
In the context of those who will ask the people to believe their arguments and vote no on this occasion, it has consistently been put forward in respect of each referendum that if we vote yes we will lose our neutrality. Our neutrality and our reluctance to ever become involved in a military alliance are crystal clear and, as with other treaties, they will be protected. As members are aware, we have negotiated a specific relationship that is recognised by the European Union. Issues relating to defence can only be decided upon on the basis of unanimity. Not only is there the Seville declaration but there is also a specific requirement in the Constitution that the Government, regardless of its shade now or at any time in the future, cannot become involved in a defensive arrangement without the prior consent of the people being given in a constitutional referendum. The argument that we are somehow undermining our position in this regard is clearly mendacious.
The activities the Union may undertake in the area of common security and defence are governed by the Petersberg Tasks. The latter cover humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. I do not know of any Irish citizen who would state that we should not become involved in humanitarian efforts. Likewise, I do not know of any citizen who would wish us not to become involved in areas where we can help build peace, democracy and stability.
The treaty expands and updates the list of the possible activities under the Petersberg Tasks to include disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. Deputy Timmins, from his time as a member of the Defence Forces, will be well aware that it is critical to ensure stabilisation after a conflict. All of the major parties in Ireland have always supported this approach, which is fully in keeping with our tradition of peacekeeping and enhances the Union's ability to make a meaningful contribution to the world.
In short, the treaty enhances the European Union's capacity to make a positive contribution. It also addresses ways to improve the capabilities provided by member states. Much has been made of the concept of interoperability. Deputy Timmins, a former military officer, will be aware that in the field the most important thing for military personnel, particularly those operating on UN-mandated missions, is interoperability. If an Irish group were under threat, one would hope that its radios would be able to interoperate with those of other groups. There is nothing sinister about that, it is mere common sense. I apologise for commenting on this matter at length but Deputy Creighton touched upon an extremely important point.
Deputy O'Rourke inquired as to when the referendum will take place. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to provide an answer in that regard. However, I have consistently stated that I would like it to be held in the first half of this year. The referendum should be held sooner rather than later. I do not believe it would be good to hold it in the latter part of the year. If it were held in the first half of this year, we would have more than ample time to provide factual, truthful and objective information to the public.
Deputy Timmins inquired about the referendum commission. As is normal, a properly resourced referendum commission will be established. We have earmarked millions of euro to be allocated to that commission in order to ensure it will have the necessary resources. It is likely to be established as soon as the referendum Bill is introduced in the Dáil. Work on the Bill, which is quite complex, is almost complete. Suggestions that the commission will be gagged or will be prevented from taking certain actions are, to put it mildly, premature. The people who made such assertions do not know when the commission will be established or what level of resources it will have at its disposal. As with other aspects of the debate, people tend to put their own spin on matters.
Deputies Creighton and Timmins also referred to a particular group. I am not going to become involved in a debate on personalities and I do not believe the Deputies are encouraging me to do so. The treaty will be sold on its merits, which are considerable.
I was struck by what the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Socrates, had to say about this matter. Portugal has always been close to Ireland, particularly in the context of Europe. Portugal and Ireland have often operated together within the Union. Mr. Socrates stated that this is a treaty about the future. He also stated that it will make Europe more modern, more efficient and more democratic. He further stated, "We need a stronger Union, stronger to meet the concerns of citizens, stronger to promote the economy of Europe and stronger to defend European values".
We live in a period of world history and development in which there are so many major challenges to be faced. I refer, for example, to energy security, global warming, the mass migration of people from countries in which there are political troubles and the changing economic climate. These are major issues which cannot be resolved by any one state. We can help the European Union to take a proper stance on such issues on our behalf. Regardless of the differences among the governments and parliaments of members states and the European Parliament, they all agree the treaty is necessary.
Deputy Timmins is correct. When one scales matters down, it is obvious that what the treaty does in respect of institutions is modest. The treaty merely sets a cap on the size of the European Parliament and puts in place arrangements regarding how the members thereof will be chosen. The membership of the Parliament will number 751. Is anyone stating that there should be 1,000 or 2,000 MEPs? The treaty also makes an institution of the European Council and makes the governance and operation thereof more logical and structured by establishing the office of president, the occupant of which will serve for 30 months.
The treaty deals with the rotating Presidency of the Council of Ministers and stipulates that this will run for 18 months. That is a simple change. In addition, the treaty puts in place a logical system of voting in respect of the Council of Ministers, namely, double majority. This system respects the equality of each member state and the value of each citizen of Europe. That is not rocket science, it is the reality. I hope that some of the exaggerated claims which have been made were based on people misreading the treaty.
Deputy Barry Andrews asked what I believe to be the most important question, particularly because it speaks to truthfulness and accuracy. The Deputy inquired whether it is truthful to say that the treaty is self-amending. It is not truthful to say so. The situation regarding future changes to the treaty could not be clearer. The position is expressed in Article 48 - the number will be different in the final draft - of the draft treaty which provides that when major changes are being made, it will be necessary to hold an intergovernmental conference, which will normally be preceded by a convention, and to obtain the agreement of the European Council. Every member state has a veto at the European Council, the decisions of which must be unanimous. Most importantly, in the case of both major and minor changes it is made clear that any change to the treaty must be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member state.
Anyone who suggests that this or later treaties could somehow be amended without the involvement of the Irish people or without the constitutional requirements of other member states being met is simply not telling the truth. The second part of the article to which I refer deals with situations where there is a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting. In such circumstances, the agreement of the European Council must be obtained. This means that every government will have its right of say. In addition, it will for the first time be necessary to have the agreement of the parliaments of all member states. As a result, each individual parliament will effectively have a right of veto.
This is an incredible expansion of the democracy of the Union. The European Parliament will have a much wider law-making role than at present. The President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, stated:
I have been a member of the European Parliament since the first direct elections in 1979. In those days, Parliament had no legislative powers; it is now the heart of a European parliamentary democracy unimaginable in 1979.
The democratisation of the Union is fundamentally altered, for the positive, by this treaty. However, those issues will be debated.
The point made by Deputy Andrews on Zimbabwe is a good one. We know the script and there is no point in talking about it. In case anyone is worried about our elections last year, I should have made the point before Deputy Timmins left that we had an OSCE observation team here.
That is very reassuring.
More to the point, Wicklow was one of the constituencies included in the study.
Everything was sustainable, I am sure.
Everything was sustainable and transparent.
I agree with Deputy Andrews that the election in Zimbabwe is worth flagging. I will make that point to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is no point in trying to pick up the bits after the event. One of the issues in Zimbabwe is the extent of co-operation with international observers.
I have three questions on the Minister of State's presentation and I will conclude with two points which have emerged from the joint committee's meetings with the social partners on the treaty.
The Minister commented on what is unfolding in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. What makes the recent developments so disappointing is that they follow so quickly on a conference in which almost €7.5 billion was raised for investment in that region. Given the recent developments there, do we anticipate any change in how that fund will be used across the coming year?
The situation in Kosovo in the 1990s was a source of huge difficulty for the EU. It was difficult for the member states to agree a common position on developments. In the light of that, the Minister of State's comment that "we regret the failure of the recent Troika talks and believe this outcome, coupled with the deadlock at the Security Council, confirms that all options for achieving an agreed settlement have now been exhausted", is particularly troubling. What is the Minister of State's perspective on what will unfold and what is the likely EU position on the issue, particularly as it is not even a formal agenda point in the meeting which the Minister of State will attend next week?
This treaty will not affect the economies of China and India. As we enter a period of economic turmoil, it is already apparent that those countries are managing to deliver consistent economic growth while North America is likely to slow down and the European region could be affected by that. Our relationships with those countries is likely to be one of the pivotal points we face in the coming years. In the two meetings of this committee which I have attended I have noticed that our relationships with Africa and the Middle East are continual agenda points. I am surprised to see that European relationships with China do not feature more readily at meetings such as this. Is this a deliberate decision or will they, at some time in the future, receive the attention they deserve?
In the joint committee's meetings with the social partners, two points have emerged clearly. It is imperative that the Minister of State and his colleagues in Government engage quickly with the trade union movement on the treaty. From our meeting last week with a trade union leader, it is clear that the best we can hope is that the trade union movement will adopt a neutral position on the treaty. The Minister of State and the Government should invest time in discussion and in answering their questions on the treaty, particularly in view of the exceptionally negative view of the Commission.
At every meeting with the social partners the question of corporation tax was raised. It is imperative that a mechanism is found for the Government to spell out its position on tax sovereignty with such clarity that anyone who is interested in understanding the treaty will first gain an understanding of that position.
I am conscious of the demand for independence in Kosovo. Notwithstanding that, what is the template for a province which seeks independence? I am thinking of the stability achieved in the former Soviet Union and of the smooth transition from the two terms of Mr. Vladimir Putin's Presidency to a new president. What would our attitude be if the situation were reversed and provinces in Georgia, which have significant Russian minorities, were seeking independence? I am sure Ireland's position would be right and proper.
The Kosovo situation is extremely complex. It goes beyond the borders of Serbia and affects our nearest and biggest neighbour, Russia. From that perspective and given Russia's strong view on the issue, I suggest that the EU, and Ireland in particular, should not take a position on this issue but work through the EU mechanism. As more countries become involved in the EU, the extent of boundaries becomes less important. This issue is very important to the Serbian people. When a delegation from that country visited the joint committee the intensity of feeling expressed by members of the delegation on this issue became clear.
First, we need a template for provinces seeking independence. Second, we should look at our near neighbour and be cognisant of how they might react to neighbouring countries with Russian minorities.
My second point relates to Iran. The late Mr. Frank Aiken introduced the non-proliferation treaty, a very important treaty for the continuation of peace and stability, at the United Nations. As countries develop the facility for uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons, the world becomes a less safe place. We know that North Korea and Pakistan have nuclear capability. It would not be good for world peace if Iran were to develop that capability, especially as the Russians have offered enriched uranium. We must take a very strong stance on this matter, obviously within the confines of the Security Council. This is important for future security.
I warmly welcome the Minister of State and wish him well, particularly with the demanding and exciting year ahead for the country and for the European Union. I also wish his officials well and thank them for their work over the years. I endorse everything the Minister of State has said about the reform treaty. It behoves all of us who believe in common sense and in practical and pragmatic politics to get the message clearly out to all citizens that the reform treaty is vitally important to an efficient European Union in the future.
The Middle East is at a serious impasse. The situation in the last week, with hospitals isolated and without power, illustrates the complexity of the situation. Has progress been made in respect of the financial mechanisms dealing with the transfer of cash resources, on which the European Union has been working? Have they been sustained and simplified to ensure that cash transfers from the Union are getting through to these unfortunate people?
On Chad, can the Minister of State confirm that the transport logistics and requirements that were creating difficulties for the mission have been resolved and is he satisfied the system now in place will allow the mission to go ahead? I endorse the condemnation of the tragic death of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan on 27 December last. I ask that Ireland, through every forum in which it is represented, condemns this terrible tragedy. The world viewed Benazir Bhutto as a voice for democracy for the people of Pakistan and globally. She was the one hope in terms of the sustainability of democracy. Perhaps the UN will indicate its conclusions pertaining to the investigation into this terrible tragedy. Those responsible for the death of this woman must be brought to justice.
I acknowledge what has been said today on the situation in Zimbabwe. I know from my dealings with people from Zimbabwe that they are virtually prisoners in their own country. They have no right to mobility outside the country unless they have a valid, sustainable visa which shows the destination to which they are going. The Zimbabwean Government recently produced the largest currency note in history. It is possibly the most worthless as well. Perhaps the Minister will outline for the committee the Union and Ireland's view in respect of how the ultimate situation in Zimbabwe will pan out. The situation there is worrying for all of us.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting and thank him for the information provided. I would like to address an issue that was not raised by previous speakers, namely, the Middle East. Is the Minister satisfied that the EU is playing a key role in the Middle East process? It seems there may be an opportunity ahead for progress given the potential change in US foreign policy following the election of a new President at the end of this year. Is there potential for the EU to take a much greater and more proactive role in the Middle East?
I note from the Minister's documentation that the EU is determined to play a positive political role in the Middle East. However, it is clear this is centred around the US administrative role. We are, from time to time, critical of US foreign policy, yet we may not be proactive in terms of putting in place an alternative policy to support the various agendas around the world. I would have thought there is now a distinct opportunity for the EU to beef up its role in terms of its policy towards the Middle East, particularly given the potential change in US foreign policy.
Like other speakers, I emphasise the importance of informing the committee and the House as soon as possible of the date for the proposed referendum. We need to plan ahead as do all the other institutions that will be involved.
Incidentally, there has been ongoing debate at this committee within the past few weeks in respect of whether we should invite before the committee representatives of the "No" campaign. I believe it is necessary that we do so and I foresee no difficulty in our doing that. It was mentioned that we should not be afraid of anybody regardless of how much weight he or she might carry. The committee must be able to challenge and confront people and to reach conclusions in this regard.
Various people have raised issues of importance. The European Union will need to devote more time than it has in the past to issues pertaining to Kosovo, which has the capacity to be divisive within Europe at a critical time. It is not in the interests of Europe that this should happen. Europe looked on in the past and allowed issues to take on a life of their own. Doing so again in the future would not be wise.
Deputy Noel Treacy spoke about the situation in Zimbabwe, an issue, as with others of interest to the European Union, that has received more attention in the aftermath of events than it did prior to them. Senator Paschal Donohoe also raised this issue. Zimbabwe is a country with tremendous wealth and resources which are falling by the wayside and Europe must deal with its responsibilities in this regard.
The situation in the Middle East appears to be, once again, on the point of degeneration. Nothing will be served by going this route. It might not be a bad idea if the committee were to have a discussion on the situation with the ambassador. While the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has had such a meeting with the ambassador, this committee also has responsibilities in this area. The situation cannot be allowed to continue without a positive response from the European Union.
I now invite the Minister to reply and wish him the best of look at next week's meeting.
Thank you. I will start, if I may, with the Chairman's questions and work my way backwards. I was reminded during the Chairman's contribution on the Middle East of something that Cearbhaill Ó Dalaigh said when leaving the European Court of Justice to take up his responsibilities as President of Ireland. He compared the progress made in Europe to that of the annual pilgrimage at Echternach in Luxembourg with the pilgrims marching two steps forward and then one step backwards but eventually reaching the wonderful Benedictine abbey where they honour a saint who, though from Northumbria, had Irish connections.
The Chairman is correct in saying that the situation in respect of the Middle East is frustrating. It is a continuous tinder-box. This leads me to the point raised by Deputy Dooley. The quartet is an important process because of the American involvement. The Americans have a critical role to play in this because of their influence with Israel. I accept the Deputy's point that Europe can play a key role too in terms of police training and helping to put the administration in place. Europe is already doing so and it is funding the process. As regards what will happen with funding, there is no reason to believe it will be terminated.
Deputy Noel Treacy asked if the cash transfers are getting through and they are. An issue arose in terms of how the transfers were getting through because clearly Europe cannot be seen to support any belligerent factor. The Deputy, and Chairman, also spoke about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the situation in Chad. On Chad, the transport issues appear to have been resolved. This was and remains a big issue. If Europe is to play a peacekeeping role it must be able to put in place the required logistics and personnel. This demonstrates the rather bizarre nature of some of the arguments made against Europe. If we want to play a positive role in the world, we must be able to get to those locations where we can do most good. As I understand it, that situation has been resolved.
I agree with Deputy Treacy that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was not alone a tragedy in terms of herself, her country and her family, it was a strike against democracy. Assassination is the antithesis of democracy.
The Chairman, Deputy Treacy and several others referred to Zimbabwe. It has phenomenal potential and could be fantastically positive, but is in a sad situation. The democratic world should be mindful of the situation there. There is, sadly, a reluctance to criticise Zimbabwe within African leadership. African leadership must be prepared to criticise that which is bad, irrespective of the source.
Deputy Dooley made an important point about the quartet and the disappointing arrangements in the east. The quartet is a key player and America is part of it. The Deputy's analysis is correct with regard to the changes on the way. Senators Hanafin and Donohoe raised the issue of Kosovo. It is important that Kosovo does not become a breach point between Europe and Russia. Politics of a different order are being played in this issue. Europe must keep on track and continue to press for a settlement that meets our requirements.
I mentioned Iran. It is interesting that the role of Frank Aiken is being reassessed. He was a man who is a metaphor for the journey that can be made between warfare and peace. He was involved as a republican and leader at a difficult, bitter and horrific time in our nation's growth and development, yet he made one of the most significant contributions to world peace because of the non-proliferation treaty. Similarly, Europe can be seen as a metaphor for the movement from something civilised people want to avoid towards hope.
Senator Donohoe also raised the issue of economic turmoil across the developed world and suggested this probably had less impact in China and India. I glance at the Financial Times every morning out of interest rather than as an investor, and noted the collapse of stock prices in China and India was significantly greater than elsewhere. This illustrates the point that the scale of the challenges we face in an unpredictable economic future is one of the most coherent reasons for arming the European Union with the institutional arrangements that will allow it to deal with these challenges. The Senator was correct in the point he made about China, that it does not feature significantly, although there are some EU-China contacts. I agree with the Senator and have said several times, including during the Irish Presidency of the European Union, that it is important that Europe looks east and establishes closer links with China and India. It has tried to do this and has an agreement with the ASEAN countries.
The Senator made two important points about the EU reform treaty. The first concerned engagement with the social partners. I agree with him and those engagements are under way. I have made arrangements for meetings with the social partners. One of the most important of the social partners to be involved will be ICTU. I have already had some personal discussions with trade union leadership. It has always played an important role in this area and I expect the leadership will see that making Europe less capable of dealing with the challenges in the years ahead would not serve anybody, in particular our workers.
On the issue of CCCTV and consolidated corporate tax arrangements, I always mystify people by mentioning that no paper has yet been produced on this and none will be produced. I believe this is one of the daftest propositions ever put forward. We have still not seen any detail on it. ISME raised the issue in discussions with the committee. The situation is clear. During the negotiations that led to agreement on the reform treaty, it was agreed that unanimity was, is and will continue to be the basis of decisions on taxation. There is nothing in this treaty, contrary to what has been suggested by some people who for whatever reason want to mislead the Irish people, that changes this. Unanimity is still the rule. This means that no changes can be made in this area without the approval of every member state. We are of the clear view that it does not make any sense. This is a growing consensus among member states with whom I have discussed the issue. There is always someone somewhere who wants to talk about tax. We cannot deny them the right to talk, but action is a different issue. Action in this area would require unanimity, which there will not be from our point of view, because it makes no sense.
I draw the committee's attention to a comment made some time ago to the Sunday Independent in an interesting and lengthy discussion with the President of the European Commission. I remind members that common taxes do not even exist across the United States. Mr. Barroso made the sensible point that competition in the area of taxes between member states is good. He is right and that is the Government view. Even if we had a different group of parties in Government, that would remain the Government view.
Thank you. The Minister of State is anxious to move on to another appointment and we have some housekeeping to do. On the issue in question, at one time a proposal allegedly came from Brussels to the effect that bananas should be straight in order to conserve space. No such proposal was ever made, but it sounded like a good proposal from a bureaucratic centre, as seen by those who made the suggestion. A similar proposal to grow square coconuts fell by the wayside. The issue in question is like much of the myth that emanates from debates on such subjects. We can take it with a grain of salt. The Minister of State did not say whether we should embark on a confrontation with the naysayers.
I believe firmly that when people spread myths, the best way of dealing with them is to tell the truth. The truth is the most powerful weapon in any political debate. It is not up to me to advise the committee; the committee members are politically experienced. Members know from their experience in politics that the truth will out in the end. It is our job to bring it out.
Thank you. A nod is as good as a wink.