We will now proceed to the main business of the meeting. I extend a warm welcome to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his delegation and thank them for taking the time to come before and brief the committee in the fashion to which we have become accustomed.
GAERC Meeting: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I am accompanied by Claire Buckley from my Department, Mr. Rory Montgomery, my political director, and Dan McCaul, head of the new division.
I thank members for the invitation to attend the committee. Next Monday's meeting in Brussels will be the third to be held under the Slovenian Presidency. I will attend that Council meeting on Monday. I will return to Brussels with the Taoiseach on Thursday, 13 March, for the Spring European Council which will probably continue into Friday, 14 March.
Before I move on to the Council agenda, I want to update the committee on the Reform Treaty. Members of the committee will be aware that the Cabinet last Tuesday approved the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The Bill will be published tomorrow along with an explanatory memorandum. The Memorandum will explain in detail both the purpose and the content of the Bill.
Importantly, the Bill provides for the continuation of the constitutional prohibition on Irish participation in an EU common defence and for an enhanced role for the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU law-making. The proposed legislation reflects principles which the people hold dear and which the Government views as vital for Ireland.
In the first place it maintains the constitutional prohibition on Irish participation in an EU common defence. This issue arose as a result of concern during the debate on the first Nice treaty referendum. It was addressed in the second Nice treaty referendum when the Government proposed inserting a constitutional prohibition on Irish participation in an EU common defence. This was agreed by the people.
This prohibition is being carried forward in the reform treaty. There is, of course, no proposal to create a common EU defence. However, even if there were, Ireland is prohibited from joining unless the people decide otherwise. That provision was inserted in the Constitution after the successful ratification of the Nice treaty referendum. No reasonable person can try to make the case that the reform treaty changes anything in this respect and I hope the debate on the treaty will reflect this reality.
The Bill also provides for the Houses of the Oireachtas to play a full role in EU business. By ratifying the reform treaty, the people will mandate the Houses of the Oireachtas to play an enhanced role in EU law-making. Additionally, the Bill will go beyond the requirements of the treaty by providing for the Houses of the Oireachtas to give prior approval to Irish involvement in certain areas of EU activity.
Debate on the Bill will begin after the Easter recess. In this regard I have no doubt the party Whips will soon be in contact to make the necessary arrangements. The Oireachtas debate will provide an important opportunity to explore the various aspects of the reform treaty and to highlight the Union's vital importance for Ireland's future well-being.
On the formal agenda of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, I propose to address first the general affairs items and then those relating to external relations issues. The only substantive item on the general affairs agenda is the preparation for the spring European Council scheduled for next week. The spring European Council traditionally concentrates on economic and social issues in the framework of the Lisbon Agenda. Next Monday's GAERC will include a discussion on the draft agenda and will examine the draft conclusions for the spring European Council. Among the items to be discussed are the Lisbon treaty; climate change and energy; and stability in the financial markets.
Ireland can accept the draft conclusions proposed by the EU Presidency on the Lisbon treaty. The EU Presidency has not yet brought forward the proposed conclusions dealing with climate change, energy and financial markets but will do so before the meeting.
In respect of the section on climate change and energy, the spring European Council is expected to endorse a roadmap for the negotiations on the Commission's package of proposed legislative measures on climate change and renewable energy. It is anticipated that the negotiations will conclude in the coming year, with a view to bringing the proposals to the European Parliament before the end of the current legislative period. The next European Parliament elections are due in summer 2009.
The Commission and Secretary General Solana yesterday published a joint paper on climate change and international security, which Mr. Javier Solana will present at the GAERC. The paper summarises the categories of security risks arising from climate change and looks at the main regional theatres where such risks may be most strongly represented. The paper also examines the nature of the policy responses which the EU might consider. Our initial response to the joint paper is broadly positive, but further consideration will be required in the immediate future before we can reach a definitive position.
On the external relations agenda, the Commission will brief the Council on the progress with the World Trade Organisation, WTO, negotiations. Ireland has always wished for a successful outcome to the current WTO round of negotiations. We insist the outcome of the negotiations should be fair and balanced and should take account of the needs of the developing countries. I stressed these points at last month's GAERC. The Government will continue to promote Ireland's interests with regard to the WTO negotiations, including our interests in agriculture. We aim to see that a genuine balance is achieved in a final agreement across the different strands to the negotiations, including agriculture, non-agricultural market access and trade in services. Where agriculture is concerned, Europe still needs a vibrant and efficient agricultural sector and we must ensure that Europe's agricultural industry can thrive and compete in the future. This is a view held by everyone in Europe.
On the Middle East peace process, the Council will hear from Mr. Javier Solana on his discussions in recent days with Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese political leaders. I am concerned by the appalling events of recent days in Gaza and southern Israel. It is no exaggeration to say they have brought the peace process yet again to a point of crisis. In view of the concerns expressed by Oireachtas Members of all parties, I will today directly address the implications of the current situation and the role of the European Union.
It is a strategic objective of the European Union to contribute to the achievement of a negotiated two-state solution. The EU is the largest single donor to the Palestinian people. Our assistance was conceived as supporting the establishment of the institutions of the future Palestinian state, but unfortunately it now has a very large emergency humanitarian component. EU assistance amounted to €1 billion in 2007 alone, a good deal more than the previous year.
The EU has strongly supported the courageous moves of the Prime Minister of Israel and the Palestinian President to enter into final status negotiations with the aim of agreement by the end of 2008. In recent months we have become increasingly concerned that events on the ground will undermine the political process launched at Annapolis in November. Ireland has spoken out clearly on continued illegal settlement expansion and on the strangling of the Palestinian economy by severe restrictions on the movement of people. We have also expressed deep concern at the internal Palestinian divisions, which have weakened the Palestinian negotiating position. We have condemned without reservation the rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli towns. Their sole aim is to influence the political process by terrorising civilians. This is terrorism; we should not avoid the term. The decision by Hamas to use this weapon has been taken with a cynical disregard for the lives and welfare of Israeli and Palestinian civilians and with the objective of bringing on an Israeli military response.
This is overwhelmingly a political problem, no matter how unacceptable its security manifestations. The answer to the Hamas takeover of Gaza and the firing of rockets will only be found through politics. In reality, there is no military solution. Nor is it acceptable that the Israeli Government isolates the people of Gaza and cuts off essential supplies in order to inflict pressure on them to reject Hamas. This is collective punishment and has been described as such by the United Nations. It is illegal under international humanitarian law. Not only that, it is politically counterproductive, increasing the influence of the extremists.
The events of the past week have been condemned internationally. I condemn the death of an Israeli civilian by rocket fire. I also condemn the Israeli military operation which took more than 100 Palestinian lives, many of them innocent civilians, including several babies and young children. The people of Gaza live in appalling conditions, in one of the most densely populated areas of the world. It is unacceptable that a heavily equipped modern army should fire weapons of war into slums and refugee camps — even if this is conceived as a response to the terror of rocket attacks. Terror was inflicted on large numbers of families in Gaza last weekend, and this is wrong. All armies have an obligation to protect civilian lives.
We can engage in an endless and useless debate on the apportioning of blame for this latest appalling cycle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or we can look to how the European Union, with its background of overcoming historic wrongs and violent divisions, can help breathe life into a real and credible political process which can replace the agenda of violence.
I believe Prime Minister Olmert is sincere in his commitment to a negotiated peace and that President Abbas wants conditions restored which enable him to return to negotiations with the support of his people.
On two occasions this week President Abbas proposed that he take the lead in negotiating a comprehensive truce covering Gaza and the West Bank. We strongly support this call and urge the Israeli Government to step back from further military action and engage with the Palestinian Authority in the search for a meaningful ceasefire. The aim is to end the rocket attacks and military operations throughout the occupied territories. President Abbas is the democratically elected president of the Palestinian Authority and leader of the Palestinian team negotiating with Israel. The aim is to end the rocket attacks and military operations throughout the occupied territories.
President Abbas is the democratically-elected President of the PA and leader of the Palestinian team negotiating with Israel. He deserves the wholehearted support of the EU if he moves to engage with parties to end the violence. It is now in the clear interests of all sides that we support efforts to create a basic Palestinian political consensus around the concept of a two-state solution. This will involve difficult choices for all sides but I believe they can be taken once the question of violence has been resolutely addressed.
If such a process were to result in the formation of a new Palestinian Government of National Unity, bringing together Hamas, Fatah, and, ideally, others, it would deserve the full support of the European Union and the international community, as long as it was based on a clear and unambiguous end to violence and a commitment to the negotiation of a viable Palestinian state. There are no easy options for any of the parties at this point, but nor can there be any military victories. The only way forward is through bold action in favour of peace and compromise. I hope our discussions in Brussels and contacts with the parties in the coming weeks will finally result in movement in that direction.
On Iran, the Council is expected to note the adoption by the UN Security Council on Monday of Resolution 1803, further strengthening the sanctions on Iran due to its refusal to abide by earlier Security Council demands for an end to enrichment. We will consider the implications of the resolution and the prospects for a negotiated solution with Iran, including what the EU can do further to assist the continuing diplomatic efforts. As the resolution has only just been agreed, I expect this may be an initial exchange of views, with a fuller discussion at a later Council.
The Council will discuss the situation in Zimbabwe in advance of the presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for 29 March. The political and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe continues to be very grave, with hyper-inflation now estimated at more than 100,000% per annum, 85% unemployment and continuing serious violations of human rights. It is clear that it is now too late to establish a level playing field for the forthcoming elections and that the final stages of the election campaign may well take place in a context of violence and intimidation of the opposition and its supporters.
I am disappointed that the progress made in the Mbeki/Southern African Development Community mediation initiative has not yielded an agreement on changes that could be implemented in time for the 29 March elections. However, in view of the difficulty of influencing the situation on the ground, we have no option but to continue working closely with Zimbabwe's neighbours. They are in the best position to bring about change.
The prospects for international monitoring of the forthcoming elections are not encouraging with the Zimbabwean government making clear that it has no intention of inviting either the EU or any of its member states to observe the election. This places an even greater premium on rigorous monitoring by regional groups such as SADC. Ireland and our EU partners are encouraging SADC to respond positively to the invitation they have received from the Mugabe Government to monitor the elections. There may also be a role for local EU embassies in Harare to play in informally observing events on the grounds during the election and this is something which nationally we would encourage.
At the request of Sweden, Ministers will discuss building up the EU's relations with Georgia. Discussion will cover such issues as EU assistance for the upcoming Georgian parliamentary elections, the start of negotiations on a free trade agreement as well as visa facilitation and readmission agreements, and the stepping up of the EU's involvement in the conflict resolution processes in that country. The difficult internal political situation in the country following the presidential elections held on 5 January last is also likely to be discussed. President Saakashvili won re-election but his victory continues to be disputed by the opposition, who look to parliamentary elections, now scheduled for May, for redress. Ireland supports continuing development of the EU's relationship with Georgia and particularly the provision of further assistance to Georgia on its democratic path.
The Presidency has indicated that western Balkans will be discussed over lunch at the GAERC, and that conclusions will be adopted, though it has so far offered only preliminary indications of the likely elements of those discussions.
We expect that there will be a stock take of recent developments in relation to Kosovo, following the declaration of independence. Elements for discussion here may include the Serbian response to the declaration, the violent incidents in Belgrade and northern Kosovo, and the implications for deployment of the ESDP rule of law mission in northern Kosovo, EULEX Kosovo.
At the GAERC on 18 February, EU Foreign Ministers agreed a common response to the declaration of independence, which noted Kosovo's unique situation, arising from the conflict of the 1990s and the eight years of UN administration which followed, and reaffirmed the EU's willingness to play a leading role in strengthening stability in the region including by means of the planned ESDP rule of law mission. The Council also agreed that member states will decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations with Kosovo.
Since then, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Austria, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Luxembourg, Sweden and the Netherlands have recognised Kosovo's independence. Finland and Slovenia are likely to do so this week. At least 21 of 27 EU member states are expected to recognise Kosovo.
It is regrettable that lengthy negotiations failed to produce an agreement between Belgrade and Pristina. A new UN Security Council resolution clarifying the position would have been greatly preferable to the current situation. But the clear reality is that Serbia effectively lost Kosovo through its own actions in the 1990s. The legacy of the killings of thousands of civilians in Kosovo and the ethnic cleansing of more than a million made the restoration of Serbian dominion in Kosovo unthinkable.
As the European Council agreed in December, the status quo in Kosovo was inherently unstable. More than 90% of the population wants independence, and this is supported by our major partners in the EU and beyond, many of whom have already recognised Kosovo. Taking all of the circumstances into account, the Government decided on 28 February that Ireland will recognise the Republic of Kosovo. I have already written formally to the President of Kosovo to convey this decision.
The Attorney General has advised that UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which mandates the KFOR international military presence, will continue in force notwithstanding the declaration of independence by Kosovo. We will accordingly be in a position to maintain our significant presence in KFOR, and intend also to contribute members of the Garda Síochána to the ESDP mission. We will also step up our support for economic development in Kosovo.
I have made it clear that our decision to recognise Kosovo is based on a careful assessment of the political and legal circumstances of this case. It is not intended as an act of hostility towards Serbia. I know that Kosovo's independence is painful for Serbia and difficult to accept. It is important however that Serbian reaction to this event should confine itself to legitimate, peaceful protest, in line with commitments freely given by the Government in Belgrade. Violent incidents of the sort seen in Belgrade and on the border between Serbia and northern Kosovo are in nobody's interest, and must be clearly condemned. Such violence serves only to evoke the spectre of the long Balkan nightmare of the 1990s.
The future for Serbia and Kosovo lies with Europe and I urge all sides to refrain from taking any action at this sensitive time which will impede and delay the realisation of this European perspective. It is in everyone's interest that the international civilian and security presences should be allowed to operate unimpeded throughout Kosovo in support of the development of a democratic, secular and multi-ethnic republic, which protects and promotes the rights of all communities. The closest co-ordination between the EU and the UN in relation to the future international presence is therefore clearly called for.
Staying with the western Balkans, the Slovenian Presidency has also indicated that Bosnia and Herzegovina, BiH, may be discussed, and that conclusions will be adopted focusing on the outcome of the Peace Implementation Council, PIC, steering board meeting on 26-27 February 2008. It is the role of the PIC board to advise the high representative in Bosnia who is charged with monitoring implementation of the Dayton peace agreement and co-ordinating the activities of international organisations operating there. The board decided unanimously that the high representative will remain in place until a series of objectives specified in its work plan are met. In addition, it was agreed that the high representative would remain until BiH has satisfied the conditions that would allow it to sign a stabilisation and association agreement with the EU, notably the contentious area of police reform, where some progress has been made but final agreement remains elusive. It also made clear that no entity has the right to secede from BiH. This is significant since it effectively offers a united response by the international community, including Russia, to secession threats made by some in Republika Srpska following Kosovo's declaration of independence. Ireland can strongly support all of the conclusions of the PIC board.
There will a short exchange on the launch of the South-East Europe Regional Co-operation Council. The RCC was formally inaugurated on 27 February 2008 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Conclusions are likely to express the Council's commitment to support the Regional Co-operation Council, RCC, and stress the need for regional leadership and ownership to sustain regional co-operation in the future. Ireland is a donor and board member of the RCC.
Afghanistan was included on the agenda and is due to be discussed over lunch. However, indications from the presidency are that they are considering withdrawing this item, with a view to having it discussed instead by Ministers in the margins of the European Council later in the week. Afghanistan remains an important foreign policy issue for the European Union and for our partners nationally, with EU member states providing 15,000 troops to the NATO-led and UN-mandated ISAF force. The goal for the EU and the wider international community, in co-operation with the Afghan Government, remains to extend stable and legitimate government and the rule of law to all parts of Afghanistan. Despite some considerable achievements, grave economic and security challenges remain. It is particularly important in this regard that there should be greater coherence in, and co-ordination of, the international effort in Afghanistan, including with the Afghan authorities, and this is likely to be a concern in any discussion of this item.
A final item on the GAERC agenda which is likely to take place as an "A" point is Pakistan. Following the recent parliamentary elections on 18 February, Ministers will adopt short conclusions, although no discussion is expected. Instead, this will be held over until the GAERC in April, pending a Troika meeting with Pakistan and a review of EU policy towards this important country. Democratisation, promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, internal and regional security, and progress in development and economic growth will be key priorities for EU engagement with Pakistan.
I thank members for listening. That concludes my contribution on the GAERC agenda. I will be pleased to respond to questions from members.
I thank the Minister. This is an important agenda on which many members wish to speak including Deputies Timmins, Costello and Dooley, Senator Quinn and two or three others. I call Deputy Timmins.
I welcome the Minister and thank him for his contribution. I welcome the imminent publication of the referendum Bill. It is important that it is made available as soon as possible. I am confident that people who want it will have sufficient time to get material on the Lisbon treaty. It may be some months before the referendum but it is important that the referendum commission is established as soon as possible and that it produces a user friendly document. Thanks to the Chairman we have the Official Journal of the European Union on the Lisbon treaty. I am not mathematically challenged but it is very difficult to follow, something I am sure everyone acknowledges. This document should not become the centre of the debate and it is important that the Department of Foreign Affairs or the commission produce a document, similar to the forum document, outlining the content of the treaty. We do not necessarily want the arguments for and against outlined but what is contained in the documentation because people will be dissuaded from voting if the document is not understandable.
With regard to some of the issues the Minister raised, and I wish him well at the general affairs Council meeting, he mentioned that we have written to Kosovo. Fine Gael welcomes the recognition by the Government of Kosovo's declaration of independence but we are conscious that there is a requirement on the Administration in Kosovo to operate as per the Ahtisaari plan, and Kosovo will be under the microscope of the international community. Has the Minister had any contact with the Serbian Government since the announcement because as he rightly pointed out it is not too pleased about it? I would like to know if it has affected our relations with Serbia or if Serbia has been in contact with the Minister since the announcement.
The Minister spent a great deal of time on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is almost as old as the planet. Many people have grown wearisome of it in certain respects but there is right and wrong on both sides. It is wrong of those on the West Bank and Gaza to launch rockets into a civilian community, or any community, in Israel. While the Israelis are entitled to protect the security of their own citizens, the response of the Israeli Defence Forces, IDF, has been more than what was required. It is outrageous that young children have been killed indiscriminately.
An Irish man in the region sent documentation to my colleague, Deputy Reilly, recently and I am aware he has forwarded it to the Israeli ambassador who has kindly agreed to meet him to discuss the issue. In the documentation the Irish citizen, who was in the region on a fact-finding mission, appreciated the assistance he got from the Israelis and the Palestinian authorities but he was involved in one unpleasant incident in a town in the region of Bil'in when the IDF over-reacted to a peaceful protest. He outlines the difficulties he and the group experienced in graphic detail, including the use of unnecessary force to disperse what was a peaceful protest. I will forward the information to the Minister. I hope the Israeli ambassador will give the individuals involved a fair hearing and relay this man's concerns as a neutral observer in the area.
With regard to Afghanistan, a student journalist, Mr. Kambakhsh, is currently under death sentence for blasphemy in Afghanistan. The case is under appeal. I hope the Minister will raise that issue and that the European Council would voice its concern about it with the Afghan authorities.
With regard to Zimbabwe, does the Minister have confidence in the South African Development Community to monitor the elections in Zimbabwe? Mr. Mugabe was invited to and attended the EU summit and it is regrettable that he reciprocates the hospitality afforded to him by prohibiting international and European Union observers from observing the elections in Zimbabwe. That does not instill confidence that these elections will be carried out in a fair manner. I understand strong internal opposition is being organised and I hope the elections can be held in a fair and democratic manner.
On the World Trade Organisation, the Minister mentioned the importance of the ongoing negotiations to the Irish agricultural industry. We live in a global economy but it is important that the interests of Irish agriculture, particularly the beef industry, are adequately protected. It is important to relay that information to Commissioner Mandelson and to remind the Council that when the Fischler reforms took place, the then Commissioner stated that was as far as Europe should go because it had made the necessary concessions in advance of the WTO talks some years ago. They are now being asked to go an additional mile even though they changed their modus operandi in the past. The Minister’s contribution was very interesting as was all the information in the documentation
I, too, welcome the Minister and his colleagues and thank him for a clear presentation of the various issues that arise at the Council meeting.
Along with Deputy Timmins I welcome the Minister's statement that the legislation on the Lisbon reform treaty is about to be published. I look forward to that and the debate that will follow. I am somewhat disappointed that the debate will not start until after Easter, which will be the beginning of April. I hope the Minister will indicate in his remarks that sufficient time will be given to allow a comprehensive debate on the Lisbon reform treaty in the Oireachtas.
When does the Minister propose to establish the referendum commission? Will it be established at the time of the publication of the legislation? When does the Minister propose to publish the White Paper? Will all the documentation be published as part of a package tomorrow or the next day?
On the World Trade Organisation, we have heard frequently in this forum that Commissioner Mandelson has consistently exceeded the mandate given to him by the Council. He seemed to do a solo run on a number of issues, which alarmed the farming community in particular and also the trade union movement. Is Commissioner Mandelson exceeding his mandate? What is his mandate? When he has completed the Doha Round of negotiations, will the Council have the final say? Can it be confirmed that anything that might be agreed is not agreed until the Council has made its determination?
With regard to Kosovo, the Balkans has always been a problematic area. The committee met a lively delegation from Serbia whose members did not put a tooth in it when giving their views of the Kosovo declaration of independence. They certainly were not in favour of it and indicated that Serbia would do everything to prevent it. Are there likely to be copycat declarations of independence? There are serious concerns in countries such as Spain, which has separatist movements within its boundaries that might be encouraged by the recognition of Kosovo's independence by the EU. However, I agree with the Minister's remarks, which I heard on the radio and television, regarding what happened to Serbia. From a humanitarian point of view the Kosovars deserve to have their independence. How does the Minister envisage that operating in terms of Serbia and Kosovo being jointly dealt with in negotiations for entry into the European Union? Will that be a live issue in the talks?
The fourth issue is Israel. A friend of mine was in both Israel and Palestine recently, and he was with a group of people in Ramallah when they were shot at with both plastic bullets and live rounds. This man is an architect and does a great deal of work for Dublin City Council. He would not hurt a fly. According to his description of what happened, the Israeli defence forces were out of order. This is something we should take up with the Israeli ambassador. Is there any change in mood in the European Union towards Hamas? Is it likely to begin any form of negotiations, particularly now that the Annapolis process appears to be suspended?
My final point relates to Zimbabwe. The Minister indicated it is unlikely that the European Union will have an observer role but that SADC, the South African Development Community, will. I presume we have links with SADC and that the European Union can be supportive of its observer role. Has there been any thinking about the situation after the elections take place on 29 March?
I join colleagues in welcoming the Minister and thanking him for his presentation. I wish him well with the full agenda. I particularly welcome his comments about the legislation on the reform treaty and look forward to the debate that will take place over the coming months. The Minister said that the Bill goes beyond the requirements of the treaty by providing that the Houses of the Oireachtas give prior approval to Irish involvement in certain areas of EU activity. Perhaps the Minister would expand on that and give us a further insight into the legislation. This committee has consulted widely and attended a number of meetings and conferences in Europe about subsidiarity, proportionality and the involvement of the various committees of parliament in working with that enhanced role. The information feedback we have received is that a number of countries, such as Finland, are very good at this. Most of that country's decisions, although not all, require a mandate from the parliament.
I do not wish to be repetitive but the other issue I wish to raise is the WTO. I come from a rural constituency with a strong farming population. The deep concern in the farming community about the proposals from Mr. Mandelson and others has been made clear to me over recent weeks. I would welcome any comment the Minister might offer regarding what method is available to the Government to deal with these proposals. Is there any way we can block or prevent the proposed deal? The concern is that, notwithstanding the great support the EU has given and continues to give farming, for example, the grant assistance to deal with the nitrates directive and the environmental aspect of farming, much of that money might ultimately be wasted. We are building slatted sheds and installing methods of containing effluent but there will be no cattle in those sheds if the proposals, particularly relating to beef, were accepted.
I am impressed with the range of issues the Minister must handle when he attends these meetings and I congratulate him on his ability to do so. I wish to mention one aspect of the reform treaty. Until now we have heard criticism and concern about the reform treaty from people who are normally opposed to Europe. However, I have recently heard concerns expressed by people who are usually on the other side, mainly people in business. I refer particularly to Article 158, where we hand over common commercial policy to Europe. This is of concern, particularly with regard to foreign direct investment. Will the Minister put the minds of committed Europeans, who are anxious that the European project succeeds, at rest in that regard? They are concerned about that aspect because it has been an essential part of our success in the past 20 years.
With regard to Afghanistan, Michael Semple is an Irishman who was expelled from that country. I have not heard whether Ireland supports his expulsion or if we have been able to state that it was understandable. Afghanistan has also refused to accept Paddy Ashdown, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, in the position in which he was imposed. Deputy Timmins has already referred to Mr. Kambakhsh who has been sentenced to death for supposed blasphemy. He apparently objected to some of the views in the Koran about women.
Will we continue to torpedo the WTO talks? Sincere concerns have been expressed by Irish people who are worried about Ireland's image and who have supported investment in charitable concerns to try and solve the problem of hunger in Africa. They have invested very large sums. People in charitable and religious groups over the past 100 years and particularly in recent years have invested money and time in efforts to try to solve that problem. The one thing that would change the situation is if Ireland's attitude in the WTO talks took into account the millions of people who go to bed hungry every night because Europe is preventing them getting their goods, particularly agricultural goods, onto the shop shelves in Europe. Impressed by the farming lobby in both Ireland and France, we refuse to take a balanced viewpoint on this issue. We must find a way to balance the interests of the farming and agricultural sector with the attitudes Europe is taking to close our markets with a protectionist policy, which refuses to allow the importation of goods from very needy people in Africa and elsewhere. That is happening even to the extent that surplus subsidised goods in Europe are put on world markets, thus depriving them of an opportunity to solve the situation. I urge Ministers to seek a balance in the WTO talks so they will not solely take account of Irish agriculture and farming interests. They should try to balance such interests with those of the world's population who go to bed hungry every night.
I also welcome the Minister to the committee. As regards his dealings with European Foreign Ministers, will the EU continue to keep the door open for Serbia's possible entry to the EU, despite an understandable knee-jerk reaction? Members of this committee know only too well the strong feeling about this matter because we heard members of the Serbian Parliament speak about it here. I accept that Kosovan independence has been recognised and I also note the United Nations has said it is not now, nor will it be in future, a template for any other region seeking independence. That is to be welcomed because there was the possibility of a domino effect next door in Bosnia, in Kosovo itself and for other ethnic minorities in European countries. It is good to hear, therefore, that there is a double red line being drawn beneath Kosovan independence, notwithstanding the fact that there is very strong feeling about it in Serbia. I hope EU Ministers will keep the door open despite the fact that Serbia itself may have a knee-jerk reaction.
I also wish to ask the Minister about the difficulties in Gaza and Israel, many of which stem from the proxy war Iran is currently waging through Hamas. Israel has overreacted again, notwithstanding the fact that missiles have been fired at its territory. Gaza is a densely populated area comprising a narrow strip of land where any military action will inevitably lead to multiple deaths. From that perspective I ask the Minister to ensure that Iran's responsibility in this, and its current veiled threats against any attempt to impose UN sanctions, will be considered by EU Foreign Ministers. There is no need for Iran to have a nuclear capability, especially given the stated views of the Iranian leadership. Ireland has a role to play in this regard given our stance on nuclear non-proliferation. Any necessary enriched uranium could be supplied from Russia.
The Minister should take the following two points into account: keeping the door open for Serbia despite the knee-jerk reaction; and the proxy war being waged by Iran in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Israel's reaction has been totally disproportionate. In addition, there was the sad use of the word "Shoah" by an Israeli Minister. I understand that it is a subject of controversy whether he actually said it in that context, but it is sad for any Israeli to use the word "Shoah" or "Holocaust" when referring to a military reaction. We had hoped that none of us would ever see that again.
The Minister is very welcome. I wish to add my voice to that of Deputy Dooley in exploring which areas of activity the Houses of the Oireachtas will be required to give prior approval.
The Minister's comments regarding Israel are interesting. On the one hand he said that rocket attacks by Hamas are terrorism, and I agree. He is right not to avoid using that term, which is what it is. I am sure the Minister has chosen his words carefully. On the other hand, the Minister describes the deaths of 100 Palestinians as terror inflicted, which is quite a subtle difference. In effect, however, it is the same thing. It is little or no consolation to innocent people who are targeted in that fashion to know that we are skirting around these issues. It is right to be blunt about what Hamas has done but we should be equally blunt about what Israel has done, which constitutes terrorism. It has consequences because we have an International Criminal Court and such things as war crimes. I know there is huge political sensitivity about using such phrases, especially in this context, but there is no use being blunt on one side while walking on eggshells on the other.
It is good that Zimbabwe is finally on the agenda because we have been raising it at this committee for some time, as well as in the House. I think the Minister would concede, however, that it is probably too late to have any influence on the forthcoming election. I ask the Minister to continue to raise this issue particularly in the context of SADC countries in which Irish Aid is active. Zambia currently holds the presidency of SADC. It would be interesting to see how the EU can support the SADC election observer mission. The Minister says he will explore that area but in what way can the EU provide logistical support to that mission? As Deputy Costello said, the question is what are we going to do after the election. The likelihood is that President Mugabe will be returned and, if previous elections are anything to go by, he will probably unleash a violent reaction against areas that voted against him or deserted him. He has done so in the past. I will continue to pursue this issue and I hope the Minister will raise at the Council the question of what Europe will do in the event of Mr. Mugabe being re-elected in what everybody accepts will be unfair and unfree elections. Will we drop this issue from the agenda and cut it loose, or will we continue with it? I am anxious for the Minister to raise the post-election scenario at next week's Council.
I warmly welcome the Minister and his officials and thank them for all their work. I also thank the Minister for his wide-ranging contribution today. I wish him, the Taoiseach and the entire team well at both important meetings next week.
I fully endorse the decision taken by the Government to recognise Kosovo. It is critically important for the EU to enhance its European neighbourhood policy by supporting Kosovo and Serbia, with the door being left ajar for future opportunities. We should be constantly mindful of the fact that Croatia is an EU applicant country and should receive any support possible to bring it into the Union. I think Croatia would have a positive impact in that region if it was admitted to the EU as quickly as possible.
At next week's WTO meetings, it is critically important for Ireland to send a clear message that we are concerned about the threat to the Common Agricultural Policy. Europe is the world's bread-basket with a huge capacity in that regard. We have not reached our full capacity and have a major contribution to make. In addition, we have continually reformed the CAP but now find ourselves with a Commissioner who seems prepared to give away many of the sacrosanct conclusions we had all agreed on the CAP over the past two years. Our farmers cannot continue to have confidence if this situation prevails. The Common Agricultural Policy has been the singular, sustaining pillar of the EU since 1957. It must be supported and protected in any global negotiations. Agriculture and its ancillary sectors must receive the priority and protection they deserve.
I fully endorse what my colleagues have said about other issues, particularly the Zimbabwean situation. It is vitally important for the EU to give a clear signal and, in partnership with the United Nations, it should take some action to address the terrible plight of the Zimbabwean people. Those unfortunate people are victims of the terrible situation prevailing there.
Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, has worked assiduously on behalf of the European Union under the instructions of the European Council and the General Affairs and External Relations Council over the years to resolve many of the issues in the Middle East. It is a complex area. Would the Minister agree that the endorsement of the European reform treaty by the Irish people would strengthen the hands of the EU and its representative in asserting a more positive outcome in the difficult environment prevailing in the Middle East at this time?
Many of my questions have been asked already and I will try to be brief as we come to the end of this part of the meeting.
Yesterday's mission by the US Secretary of State, Ms Condoleezza Rice, to try to resolve the situation in Palestine failed when she failed to persuade the Palestinian leadership of President Abbas to resume peace talks. Does the Minister believe a treaty could be put in place? The Bush Administration has stated that it wants something done before President Bush leaves office at the end of the year. What role can the EU play at this stage in persuading both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to get back to the negotiating table? That is the only way the situation can be resolved.
Some of my colleagues spoke already about Zimbabwe. The situation in Kenya has been resolved and peace can take root there with the power-sharing agreement. The Minister mentioned that the Zimbabwe Government does not want outsiders from the EU or the OSCE coming in to monitor the elections on 29 March next, with the exception of the SADC. I realise the UN probably would have to be invited to monitor the elections but there could be a role for it. Is it too late for the UN to get involved in those elections? The position on human rights will be a significant issue in the election. It most likely will affect the outcome because those who do not have a ZANU-PF party card will not get food, and the elections will be held in that context.
Mr. Makoni is the other contender for the presidential election. If the election on 29 March has a similar outcome to that of Kenya, could there be unrest and a civil war as occurred in Kenya if the people are strong enough? Is there an African leader such as President Mbeki of South Africa who after the elections could see what he could do to improve the Zimbabwean position on human rights, which is unacceptable? We in this country must look at this after the elections on 29 March next.
Like the previous speakers, I would be concerned about the World Trade Organisation talks. We have given generous concessions already in the talks on the elimination of export subsidies, etc. We must put a strong case for Irish agriculture at these talks.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his team. I thank him for his comprehensive speech on the issues which will arise in the next few days.
To follow-up on Deputy Breen's point about the World Trade Organisation talks, in light of the Lisbon reform treaty referendum it is important that the activities of trade Commissioner Mandelson be reviewed carefully and that the Minister get a report on the progress at the Council meeting on the progress of these WTO talks. There cannot be a lone star in this regard. Commissioner Mandelson is negotiating on behalf of the European Union, not on behalf of the UK. He must bear in mind the position of farming in the European Union and the genuine concerns of the Irish Farmers Association which has pointed out that if Commissioner Mandelson gets his way, the cost of beef would fall to an unviable level in this country and the entire beef industry would be wiped out.
In advance of the Lisbon treaty referendum it is important that the Minister can give assurances that any decision regarding the WTO would come to the Council of trade ministers, the General Affairs and External Relations Council or, indeed, the European Council. This has been brought to the attention of the public and the votes of the farming community are vital to the passing of the Lisbon reform treaty referendum. I am pleased that the Minister will issue the referendum wording tomorrow. Will he indicate whether the date of the referendum has been decided and whether it will be at the end of May or early in June?
The situation in the Middle East is tense at present. The European Union should have recognised the electoral mandate of Hamas. That grouping won the election fairly and squarely, yet it was not accepted because the European Union seemed to want the Fatah party to become the predominant leader of that region. Hamas has a mandate and now it is confined to the Gaza Strip. There is no likelihood of a Palestinian state unless there are unifying discussions between Hamas and the Fatah party and they become united in their approach. There is now complete division in that region. There is the Gaza Strip which is part of Palestine, the West Bank which is controlled by President Abbas, and then Israel on the other side. There is no opportunity for progress.
Ireland was the first country to recognise the two-state solution. The late Brian Lenihan was the first European foreign minister to accept the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. That is why we have a particular role in that region which other countries would not have. There is also our record in peacekeeping.
Ireland, separate to the European Union, should not be sucked into the Iranian situation. As Minister of State at the then Department of Industry and Commerce, I visited Tehran and we negotiated quite a number of deals with the Iranian Government. I do not see why we should put those deals in jeopardy. We must have a separate independent voice. As far as trade is concerned, the Iranian's have a close relationship with this country and I do not see why we should break it, especially when one bears in mind that the Israeli Government has nuclear missiles and is still trading openly. There is no embargo on the Israeli Government and it has been established, whether or not it denies it, that it has nuclear capacity. We should be careful in that regard.
The decision on Kosovo was a difficult one. Coming from our historical background, the fact that we were prepared to accept the division of Serbia by the establishment of an independent Kosovo was a major decision to take. I respect, after careful consideration, that the Minister took that decision and the Government accepted the independence of Kosovo.
However, Kosovo was invaded by the Albanians. It was part of the original, traditional Serbia. My view is it certainly is not settled and will not be for some time because I do not think Serbia will accept that this area next to it is independent. There is a similar situation in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina where Serbsca, which is Serbian territory, seeks to drift away from the Bosnia-Herzegovina solution. Such decisions bring about those types of demands and pressures. When one accepts a regional division of one country to set up an independent state, then one can speak of the situation in Ireland, for instance, a settlement to which we are coming to, and there are other regions which would have similar divisions and could look to Kosovo as a way of establishing their own independent states.
I accept the Minister's decision. He had to take a certain action in this regard. I would say that he had to think long and hard about that before he came to that decision.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and interesting presentation.
I wish to comment on the Middle East peace process and the events of recent days, which have brought into sharp focus the difficulties the European Union and other stakeholders face in trying to achieve progress in resolving the conflict and achieving the ultimate solution of the two states co-existing peacefully. I agree with the Minister that the actions of the Israeli Government, in effectively starving the Palestinians of resources and restricting the flow of aid, have been counterproductive in political terms. In addition, the Israelis have engaged in a disproportionate response in recent days and this led to a loss of civilian life in Palestine. From our experience in this country, we have learned that this will only add to the support for extremists and further strengthen their position. That will not be helpful in respect of the ultimate goal of achieving a peaceful resolution.
What role can the European Union play in the process, particularly in the context of the message Javier Solana will bring to the region during his visit there next week in the company of the US Secretary of State? Will the EU be considering direct engagement with Hamas in order to play a more forthright role in the context of achieving progress, getting the process back to where it started at Annapolis and trying to ensure that the final status negotiations commence before the end of the year? The target in respect of those negotiations is ambitious but the European Union must play a leading role. Ireland, which has experience in conflict resolution, must play a leading role in encouraging the EU to be at the forefront in the context of resolving this matter.
I apologise for my late arrival. I wish to raise a couple of points regarding some of the issues to which the Minister referred.
I welcome the publication of the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I am sure there will be lively debates in both Houses of the Oireachtas on the issue of the Lisbon treaty. Some people have commented on the lack of an easily accessible version of the treaty. The point has been made that the Treaty of Lisbon is a series of amendments to previous treaties. However, a consolidated and annotated text should be readily available for those interested in this matter. I am not suggesting that the members of every household in the country would be interested in giving careful consideration to a dense legal text. However, for those who would be, a consolidated, if not an annotated, version of the treaty would be extremely welcome. The Institute of European Affairs has produced such a version but I am concerned with regard to its ready availability. What role should the referendum commission take in the context of making information on the treaty available to members of the public?
The General Affairs and External Relations Council is to discuss climate change and energy. Media reports this morning indicate a possible threat to EU gas supplies as a result of the dispute between Ukraine and Russia over alleged debts. This highlights the fact that, in view of its dependence on the gas pipeline from Russia, the EU is extremely vulnerable in the context of energy security and future energy supplies. The energy provisions in the Lisbon treaty should be emphasised as much as possible. Under the treaty, energy will for the first time become a shared competence. The treaty contains specific references to the interconnection of energy networks, energy solidarity among member states, the promotion of renewable energy, etc. This will all serve to secure the EU's energy security into the future.
I accept that Kosovo is a controversial issue and that member states are divided in respect of it. In the context of reassuring those countries which may have concerns about secessionist movements within their own jurisdictions, perhaps clear criteria could be agreed among member states regarding the future recognition of states such as Kosovo. I accept that the situation in Kosovo is unique. However, certain areas or provinces in particular countries may claim independence in the future and may seek recognition from the European Union. Is the Minister of the view that the Union might draw up clear and transparent criteria which will provide reassurance that it will not take an arbitrary approach to recognising the independence of certain states and not others
I wish to inform the Minister that the committee recently met the Israeli and Palestinian ambassadors. The views he has expressed were also expressed by members and the conclusion was reached that if the current situation was allowed to continue, serious strife would result. It was also felt that events in the region would form the basis for a just war, for want of a better description, and that matters would spiral out of control. Members' views on this issue broadly coincide with those of the Minister.
On Kosovo, I attended a meeting in Ljubljana yesterday which was called by the presidency and the WEU. The discussion that took place was a virtual replica of that which occurred among the members of this committee and the Serbian representatives who came before it. There seems to be an unwillingness to recognise that heretofore anything was wrong in the region in question. Events in that region could destabilise eastern Europe at some point in the future unless the issues that continue to emerge are dealt with in a way which is both accommodating and which clearly illustrates that it is not possible to exterminate a population without a reaction being forthcoming. The fear of reprisals is probably still very alive in the minds of some people. Events in Kosovo are similar to those relating to previous conflicts. Issues such as prejudice, history, religion and fear arise and these give rise to considerable difficulties. I wish the Minister well in his efforts in respect of this matter.
Members have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding the WTO and what might happen in the future. In my opinion, a serious economic issue arises not only for Ireland, but also for the whole of Europe regarding the security of food supplies. A situation could develop whereby citizens of the European Union might become dependent on food produced outside its borders. That would be an economic disaster. An economist recently brought to my attention a matter he believes to be economic lunacy. I refer to circumstances in which multinational corporations could relocate their operations to lower-wage economies and, in the context of the predicted agreement that will emerge from the WTO negotiations and the projected proposals on climate change, could come into strict and serious competition with those that remain in Europe. If this happens, those multinationals which do not relocate to lower-wage economies could find themselves in serious economic difficulty. As a result, the food and industry sectors in Europe could experience major problems. Members discussed this matter at great length in recent weeks. We will leave it in the capable hands of the Minister. He is fully versed in that area and he will have a useful input.
Senator Quinn mentioned the emotive issue of the starving millions in poorer countries. I am not sure what the point was but the presumption is they will produce themselves. I heard this argument previously during the preliminary negotiations on Common Agricultural Policy reform. A delegation attended this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs where it was pointed out that it was imperative there would be changes to benefit the poorer farmers in developing countries. I did not have a problem with that but, unfortunately, the benefit accrued to multinational food corporations, which were in a better position to avail of it, and not the farmers. I am concerned future reforms will be more beneficial to multinationals than poor individual farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
I thank all those who contributed but I may not get to all the questions I was asked. I will try as much as possible to refer to the topics raised.
Once the reform treaty was signed in Lisbon, we issued an easy-to-read explanatory pamphlet on 13 December 2007. It was published in Irish and English and it is widely available in print, electronically, audio-visually and in Braille. The Department also launched a website at the time, www.reformtreaty.ie, which has had many hits since its launch. On 13 February 2008, we launched a 22-page guide to the treaty, which is also available in print, electronically, audio-visually and in Braille. I instructed my office to ensure copies of the guide were made available to Oireachtas Members but I am not sure whether these were received. Some members are nodding and others are shaking their head. The document is easy to read and we must ensure every Member receives it. Of all the documents available, it is the best.
On 15 December 2007, we placed an advertisement in all the national newspapers with information about the publication of the guide, the website address and a lo-call number for members of the public to request a copy of the guide or further information. The guide has been published and distributed extensively to public libraries, citizen information centres, Departments and other public offices. We are also finalising plans to distribute the guide nationwide.
We will make copies of the treaty available to all Oireachtas Members. The consolidated version of the treaties is available from the Institute of European Affairs. It is useful and I thank the IEA for it. I strongly suggest members refer to the 22-page guide. A White Paper is being finalised and it will be published in the first week of April. Members should read it because it is an informative document and outlines the way the negotiations on the treaty were handled by the Government and the rationale behind that.
The Bill will be published tomorrow. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government intends to write to the Chief Justice who must appoint a High Court judge to oversee the Referendum Commission. That will immediately follow the publication of the legislation. As the Taoiseach said previously, we intend to give the commission the time it would normally require for its deliberations, which is approximately three months. Once the judge is appointed, an establishment order will be issued by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
A number of members referred to my statement on the additional powers available under the legislation which are not provided in the treaty. The Government decided, in conjunction with other like-minded parties, that it would insert additional references to the ability of our Parliament to oversee changes that would take place. Article 156 of the reform treaty states any initiative taken by the European Council:
[S]hall be notified to national Parliaments ... If the National Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Parliament shall adopt the decision.
That is one of the instances where a national parliament has the ability to have a say on the decisions being made.
Questions were raised about the additional powers that will be available to the Oireachtas. The Bill to be published tomorrow requires Oireachtas approval for Ireland to opt into the measures in the justice and home affairs area and under enhanced co-operation. The Government decided, based on an examination of our particular circumstances, that it would not participate in the overall issue of JHA in certain areas but would opt in on a case-by-case basis. The opt-in will be provided for in the legislation through the provision of prior Oireachtas approval. Similarly, the Bill also requires Oireachtas approval for cases decided by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity. The explanatory memorandum will address this issue.
Senator Quinn referred to Article 188. However, my officials think he was referring to Article 2158 which relates to the EU's external commercial relations and does not give the Union additional powers on internal policies such as foreign direct investment. The reform treaty states: "By establishing a customs union in accordance with Articles 23 to 27, the Union shall contribute in the common interest to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and foreign direct investment and the lowering of customs and other barriers." That has no relevance to internal powers and policies on foreign direct investment. It concerns the EU's external commercial relations. The treaty does not make a significant change to the common commercial policy, which has been the responsibility of the Commission since Ireland joined the Union in 1973. In effect, there is no difference in the position. I have seen some reports suggesting that the reform treaty will in some way make it more difficult for Ireland to access foreign direct investment. That is not the case and the situation has not changed. Access to foreign direct investment is an internal matter for every member state and is not affected by the treaty.
Members have raised the issue of the World Trade Organisation. I, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, and the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy John McGuinness, have been vociferous in our views at recent meetings with regard to the position being adopted by the Commission on the negotiations. Some committee members asked what the mandate involves. The Common Agricultural Policy reform constitutes the limits of the mandate. We have been vociferous and attentive at our meetings, as have some but not all other countries. Some countries believe we should show our hand more, not just in agriculture, but also in other areas. We have been vigilant in this regard. At the last General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting, we received more support for our stance and that of France than heretofore because a number of countries are moving towards the view that the Commission is stretching the issue to the limit and is showing its hand too much to other interests around the world.
I assure members of the committee that at the coming meeting we will again reiterate our strong position. The negotiations are nowhere near a conclusion. We believe there is a balance to be struck, as referred to by Senator Quinn who mentioned assistance for countries in the developing world. No doubt assistance is required but it must be balanced. We cannot sacrifice, for example, our agricultural sector in Europe for the sake of reaching a deal. Anyone would agree with that. The deal must be balanced. We have always insisted that the development dimension should be very much to the fore, which would cater for the views expressed by Senator Quinn and articulated by the Chairman. A balance is necessary. We cannot throw everything out and leave our sector without the type of strength it requires.
Deputy Noel Treacy referred to whether the treaty would strengthen EU foreign policy. It will and will make it more coherent. I have recognised this at different Council meetings in different guises over recent years where I have seen the EU grow from a group of 15 countries to 27. It is getting more difficult to get a common position on issues and it is clear we need to find a better way of making decisions that will take into account some of the differing views, but that will not hamstring the forward movement of the Union.
This is especially true in the foreign policy area. I was at a meeting where all but one of the 27 member states wanted to issue a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire to the hostilities in the Israeli-Lebanese war some time ago. At that time, one country held up the inclusion of a call for a ceasefire in a statement from the European Union. I got somewhat annoyed and agitated at that meeting because I felt we could not close the meeting without calling for an immediate ceasefire and could not understand in whose interest it was not to call for one. This incident is a clear illustration of how any effort at institutional reform can make such situations easier and make it easier for the Union to have a more co-ordinated response.
The reference in the reform treaty to our need to move on climate change was included at Ireland's suggestion. We instigated that inclusion. One of the key issues for members positively disposed towards the reform treaty is that the European Union has been considering the make-up of its institutions and how to make changes that will make decisions easier. For the past seven or eight years, we have been to a large extent navel gazing at our own circumstances. We have not been paying as much attention as we should to the emerging issues such as energy supply, which is a significant issue for us, and climate change which can only be dealt with on a global basis.
If we can finally get rid of all the introspection at EU level, we will be in a position to concentrate on some of the key issues which affect not just the EU and individual member states but the whole world. The sooner we get issues such as the Nice referendum, the Maastricht referendum or reform treaties out of the way, the sooner we can concentrate on the major issues that affect us, such as Europe's place in the world from a foreign policy viewpoint. Europe has tended to be one of the largest donors of humanitarian aid, but we do not get credit for that. In the Middle East we are the largest donor of humanitarian aid, but from the point of view of influencing policy the Arab states are more influential and the US is more influential with the Israelis. For us to punch harder and stronger at foreign policy level, we need the ability to have a more coherent response so that when issues arise, we speak with one voice.
This brings me to the matter of Kosovo. We could say that all EU member states could not agree on the position. That is the beauty of the European Union. The people would not thank us if we were all press-ganged into a view against our will. That is the case with Kosovo. No matter what would happen, a number of member states, such as Cyprus, would never recognise the independence of Kosovo because of their internal circumstances and the implications recognition might have for them. The Cypriots were not forced to change their view. For that reason, it was agreed the European Union would have as united a response as possible to the issue, but at the same time allow individual member states, based on international law, normal international practice and the national point of view, the facility to decide for themselves whether to recognise Kosovo.
On the question of whether a precedent has been set with regard to Kosovo, the general view is that it is not a precedent. This is not accepted by everyone. The Russians and the Serbs make the case that it is a precedent. What happened in the 1990s in the Kosovo area was unprecedented. It was ethnic cleansing at its worst. The situation may be somewhat unfair on the current Serb Government which took over from people like Slobodan Milosevic and others like Ratko Mladic, who is still evading justice. These thugs ethnically cleansed 1 million people and murdered thousands. They prevented the possibility of the Serbian authorities ever having any power over the Kosovo region. This could have been regarded from a malign point of view as a precedent but the international community had to deal with the reality that — as I deduced when I went out there — rather than talking about this issue around a table every month in Brussels and discussing it with my officials in Iveagh House, it was preferable to go out and see the situation for myself. I spoke with the Irish troops there and a number of people on the ground. I was in Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzogovina and it was quite clear to me that the inevitable was going to happen. It will be seen in the future as an inevitable decision.
With reference to Afghanistan and the student, Mr. Kambash, we have been vigilant. The EU has made its concerns clear about this case and it is monitoring an appeal process which is under way. With regard to the issue of Mr. Michael Semple, we very much regret the decision taken by the Afghan Government. We believe he played an important role in the EU's assistance. We believe there were misunderstandings. The EU and the UN have made it clear that they were aware of the reconciliation work which Mr. Semple and his colleague, Mr. Patterson, were involved in. More important, the national Government was equally fully informed about the work he was doing there. For whatever reason, the Afghan authorities decided that the two gentlemen should leave and we regret that decision.
We regret the withdrawal of Mr. Paddy Ashdown. A number of other candidates are being considered for this position.
Senator Hanafin raised the issue of Serbian involvement in the EU. There is no doubt that the EU, as a united body, is of the view that dealing with the western Balkans under the umbrella of the EU is vital if we are to ensure regional stability and if the problem on our doorstep is not to be exacerbated. From that point of view there have been intense discussions with the Serbs up until the date of the declaration of independence by Kosovo. These discussions have been along the lines of a stabilisation and association agreement with the Serbs and with a view to moving towards possible eventual candidacy for accession to the EU. This is the perspective that should be held in focus.
Our ambassador accredited to Zimbabwe is raising the issue of election monitoring on Ireland's behalf with the South African Development Community, as is the EU as a whole. The Commission is already talking to SADC in this respect. The situation is unfortunate. We fully accept that we have been very active in trying to get the EU involved but if the resident Government is not willing to allow EU monitors to go in, it would be dangerous in the extreme to expect any of our people to go in without the imprimatur and the protection of the Government, or at least without the ability of the EU to deal with the Zimbabwean Government in the event of something untoward happening to our citizens. The situation is regrettable but it is an issue which we will keep constantly on our agenda. Deputy Pat Breen raised the issue of a role for the United Nations. The UN does not monitor elections.
Senator Leyden referred to the recognition of Hamas and the recognition of its mandate. This is one of the most difficult issues. I was aware of it when I travelled to Israel on one occasion. The Israeli Foreign Minister handed me the charter of Hamas and it was there in black and white that for anyone involved in Hamas his or her first and foremost duty was the destruction of Israel. We had the same issue with the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other.
We are sitting around a table of 27 member states, all of whom have different relationships and histories with Israel and with the Middle East in general. While the Irish, and to a certain extent the British, would be of a view that one should never shut the door but rather give people an opportunity if they are prepared in some shape or form to move to a democratic situation, as was the case here, the fact is I do not think Hamas is there yet. It is a question of whether it will ever be there, given what it is doing. That remains to be seen, given its stated aim. Unfortunately this is the situation. Others would be strongly of the view that Hamas should never be spoken to because they regard its members as purely and simply terrorists, even if they have been given an electoral mandate.
The case of the individual raised by Deputies Timmins and Costello is being pursued with the Israelis through our embassy in Tel Aviv.
Senator Leyden raised the issue of Iran. Because of what has happened in the past number of years, our trade with Iran is very small and is not particularly relevant. As other members of the committee said, while Iran is entitled to say it wants nuclear energy for civilian purposes, the reality is that any independent examination of what the Iranians are doing would raise very strong suspicions that they are looking for something more than civilian nuclear power. The international community must be very vigilant in this regard.
The Senator is correct and I said the same at the UN — perhaps not in terms as blunt as I will use here — that there is an element of speaking out of both sides of the mouth by UN member states across the world. As a non-nuclear nation and as a nation that sponsored the NPT in its initial phases, Ireland has the luxury of being able to be the white knight and say that all of those countries which have nuclear weapons should get rid of them and anyone who is intending to have such weapons should be prevented from having them. We will continue to articulate that view but unfortunately there are other emerging member states which are moving towards nuclear power for military purposes and this worries me. Even if it means being a lone voice, Ireland must stake its claim in that respect and set out its stall.
I hope I have responded to all the issues raised by members.
On a point of clarification with regard to the conclusions which the Council may reach on the post-election scenario in Zimbabwe, will the Minister raise the question of changing, escalating or getting rid of the existing sanctions against the regime, namely, the travel ban and the restrictions on bank accounts of senior people in the regime? Will the Minister propose alternatives to the current sanctions regime, such as the divestment of Irish pension funds which are invested through Barclays Bank, which may be pursued in the post-election scenario?
It is obvious that the EU will have to take a position if it is confirmed that the elections have been unfair and undemocratic. The question of increased sanctions or new targeted sanctions will arise in such circumstances. Ireland would have no problem with such a decision as long as the sanctions are not directed at the ordinary people of Zimbabwe.
I thank the Minister. We have covered everything we planned to cover in this meeting. The Minister mentioned the lack of stability in the financial markets, which is an issue that has yet to be resolved. We do not know how the markets are going to react. I am aware from previous discussions that Members are anxious to be reassured that the activities of financial institutions throughout the world will not impact negatively on consumers' interests. I presume the Council will be working on that. There should be no need for consumers to be affected. This aspect of the matter needs to be borne in mind during any discussions which take place.