Apologies have been received from Deputy O'Rourke and Senator Donohoe. The first item on the agenda is a discussion on the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. We are happy to welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and I ask him to proceed.
GAERC Meeting: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I begin by congratulating the members of the committee who served on the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. The sub-committee's report is an impressive document which will make an important contribution to the Government's efforts to chart the best way forward for Ireland in the European Union in the period ahead. It eloquently underlines the centrality of the European Union to our development and rightly stresses how imperative it is that we retain our place at the heart of the Union. These are sentiments which I heartily endorse.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to review the agenda for next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting which will be the last of foreign Ministers under the French Presidency. I should qualify that by saying there is always a possibility of another, given the level of activity of this Presidency.
I propose to address first the items on the general affairs side and then external relations issues. The general affairs segment of the Council will begin with the preparations for next week's European Council. For the most part, the draft conclusions for the European Council will build upon work undertaken during the French Presidency by the Council of Ministers in its various formations. The Presidency's approach, which has attracted broad support among member states, is to work towards short and concise conclusions. The five areas identified by it for discussion are: the Lisbon treaty; economic and financial affairs; energy and climate change; the Common Agricultural Policy; and external relations and security.
It is not expected that there will be any discussions of substance on the Lisbon treaty. This issue is the subject of intensive discussions which will continue until the European Council which, as promised at the October meeting, will seek to define "the elements of a solution and a common path to be followed".
The European Council will discuss the economic challenges facing the European Union which has been active in seeking to deal with the current economic situation. At its October meeting the Council resolved to seek concerted global action to strengthen international financial market rules and supervision.
Energy and climate change is a major item on the European Council agenda and a priority for the French Presidency. There is a strong desire to finalise the European Union's energy and climate package by the end of the year, although it would be wrong to underestimate the depth of the challenges involved. It is vital that the Union deliver on its commitments and continue to give a lead to the international community in devising an effective response to the threats posed by climate change.
The European Council will be invited to note the decisions of agriculture Ministers on the CAP health check.
The Presidency intends to confine the discussion at the European Council on external relations and security to the following themes: the approval of a declaration on European defence and security, focusing on the European security strategy, international security and strengthening European security and defence policy capabilities; and briefly considering the Commission proposals for an eastern partnership, asking the Council and the Commission to continue to work on this in 2009.
The second substantive item on the general affairs agenda is the Commission's recently issued enlargement package, comprising a strategy paper and progress reports on the individual candidate countries from the western Balkans. Ireland takes a positive view of the enlargement process. However, we also take the view that candidate countries need to comply with their undertakings and commitments.
The progress reports outline the advances made by Croatia and Turkey in their accession negotiations. They also highlight areas in which greater efforts are required. In the case of Croatia, the Commission's assessment is generally positive. While there is still much work to be done, it is fair to suggest the accession negotiations are likely to be completed by the end of 2009. While Turkey has also made advances, the Commission's report identifies a number of areas in which commitments have not been met or considerable additional effort is required. I hope the Turkish authorities will take due note of the Commission's findings. The Commission has concluded that conditions are still not right to open negotiations with the other candidate country, Macedonia. Its report also looks at developments in the reform processes of the other countries of the western Balkans which have a European perspective.
The session on external relations will begin with a discussion on the World Trade Organisation negotiations taking place as part of the Doha Round. This is for the technical purpose of allowing the GAERC to meet outside the European Union, should another WTO ministerial meeting be called before the end of the year. In the wake of the recent G20 meeting in Washington, it now seems highly likely that a ministerial level meeting of the WTO will be called in the week before Christmas. In its approach to the negotiations Ireland has always wanted a fair, balanced and ambitious outcome, one which would respect its national interests and reflect adequately the aim of the Doha development agenda to give greater prominence to development issues, especially the needs of the poorest developing countries.
Ireland remains fully committed to the evolution of fair and sustainable international frameworks to facilitate trade. WTO rule-making and multilateral trade liberalisation have had a profoundly positive impact on Ireland's economic development. Against this background, our position on the WTO negotiations has been balanced and consistent. We have always wanted to see a successful outcome, but not at the expense of unfair and unrealistic provisions in respect of agriculture. Ireland's view is that the European Union has made very significant contributions to the negotiations so far and that the other WTO negotiating partners should make equivalent efforts.
The Council will note the Commission's recent progress reports on the countries in the western Balkans region, noting that the European Union's policy on the western Balkans is based on a clear European perspective, within the framework of stabilisation and association agreements. The Presidency has advised that there may also be a short discussion on Kosovo and Serbia. The agreement reached at the UN Security Council meeting of 26 November on the full deployment of EULEX Kosovo throughout Kosovo under a UN umbrella is a very positive development which I warmly welcome. On Serbia, the Council will receive an update on the extent of that country's co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. If there is progress on this issue, the related unblocking of the application of the European Union's interim agreement on economic and trade issues with Serbia may be discussed.
On Pakistan, it is anticipated that Ministers will adopt conclusions which are under consideration at official level. The GAERC is expected to outline steps by which the relationship between the European Union and Pakistan can be enhanced. No discussion will take place.
I would like to brief the committee at greater length on the Middle East as the Council will have a broad-ranging discussion on developments in the region for the first time since July. The Council is expected to discuss the revision of the EU action strategy for peace in the Middle East — first adopted in November 2007 — which sets out the European Union's role in support of an eventual comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East, one of our key strategic objectives. The Council will review the current state of play in the continuing negotiations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, following the Quartet meeting in Egypt on 9 November. It will also address related issues such as the recent escalation in violence in Gaza and the grave humanitarian situation in that territory, as well as the European Union's wider relations with countries in the region. Conclusions dealing with many of these issues are also due to be adopted.
The European Union continues to strongly support the Annapolis process — launched under US auspices in November 2007 — which is aimed at reaching agreement between Israel and the Palestinians by the end of this year. While it is clear that this deadline will not be met, it is understood some progress has been made in the discussions which have been led by outgoing Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, and Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. The priority must be to make sure this progress is carefully preserved and built upon once President-elect Obama's Administration is in place in Washington and following the general election in Israel on 10 February 2009. The revised action strategy will set out the European Union's role in supporting the negotiations and assisting Palestinian state building efforts, as well as providing support during the transition period in the form of confidence building.
We also expect and will certainly be urging the Council to address the current urgent situation in Gaza, following the recent escalation of violence. I have publicly expressed serious concern about the critical humanitarian situation developing on the Gaza Strip as a result of the continued closure of crossing points into the region. I also unreservedly condemned all rocket attacks launched from Gaza, which regrettably continue. However, it is the Government's view that such actions do not in any way justify the punitive isolation of the Gaza Strip and its population. It is unacceptable that critically needed humanitarian supplies are being prevented from entering Gaza and that the UN Relief and Works Agency is being impeded in its vital tasks of feeding and educating the Gazan population. While the border crossings from Israel and Egypt to Gaza have been opened from time to time for humanitarian supplies, there are still food shortages and frequent power cuts due to interruption of fuel supplies. It is important that all sides work to reinstate the ceasefire instituted last June and support the efforts being made by Egypt to have this extended beyond its official expiry date of 18 December.
The situation in Gaza highlights how the rhetoric and desire to achieve progress in the Annapolis process unfortunately does not always correspond to the reality on the ground. In this regard, I continue to have serious concerns about the impact on the wider peace process of the continuing construction of Israeli settlements. We have called for decisive action by the Israeli Government to freeze all settlement construction and dismantle outposts in line with its commitments under the road map for peace in the Middle East. Restrictions on the movement of Palestinians across the West Bank must also be lifted. The lack of progress on these issues and the crisis in Gaza only serve to undermine the standing of President Abbas among Palestinians. The EU will continue to send clear messages to Israel and will examine practical ways to exert more influence on these issues. We will continue to support efforts by Egypt on behalf of the Arab League to advance reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. Success in these discussions is in the interests of the Palestinian people and can only help to underpin efforts to secure a lasting peace.
The Council will also discuss the ongoing crisis in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, and we may hear briefings from colleagues who have travelled to the region. Our discussion is likely to focus on the need to strengthen MONUC, the UN peacekeeping force in DRC, and on the humanitarian catastrophe this conflict has unleashed. The widespread and systematic sexual violence against women by armed groups, including Government forces, is particularly shocking. It is clear that a military solution cannot solve the problems of the North Kivu region and we should give strong support to the mediation which former Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, is undertaking on behalf of the UN. I hope the governments of the region, especially the DRC and Rwanda, will work together as a matter of the utmost urgency to restore peace and stability.
Due to other overseas troop commitments, Ireland is not in a position to contribute troops to MONUC over and above the three Permanent Defence Force personnel already serving with the force. However, Ireland is playing its part in trying to alleviate the suffering of the Congolese people, having provided €12 million in humanitarian assistance to the DRC so far this year and more than €30 million since 2006.
The Council will consider a report on the implementation of the European security strategy, ESS, which was originally adopted in 2003 within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The report on the ESS notes the primary position of the UN and underlines that EU action to address security challenges is fully in support of UN objectives. Accompanying this implementation report will be a declaration on international security focusing on counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism. It is important that we place EU action to combat proliferation and terrorism in the context of an international system that recognises the primary responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. On the capabilities declaration, Ireland has sought to give the civilian capabilities elements more prominence, reflecting the fact that more than two thirds of ESDP missions thus far have been civilian in nature and the urgent need to boost civilian planning expertise.
That concludes my statement on the agenda for next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. I will be pleased to respond to any questions or comments members might have.
I thank the Minister for outlining the comprehensive agenda for the next meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council.
The Minister covered a range of issues. It will be a challenging meeting. I was surprised to learn that the WTO and the Doha Round will be discussed prior to Christmas because that was not anticipated. We wear two hats in this regard but we do not often pay attention to our second. We clearly wear an agricultural hat but we also have a huge interest in avoiding the protectionist movements that endangered the conclusion of the Doha Round last summer. It is important that we maintain an open market by reaching an agreement that avoids the trend towards protectionism. I am aware that the pre-Christmas discussions will be managed by the French, whose agricultural and protectionist perspective appears to have damaged the last negotiations. I urge the Minister to recognise that Ireland's interests lie in reaching agreement on open markets and not solely in agricultural aspects.
While visiting Russia two weeks ago, concerns were impressed upon me about the efforts being made in Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. These moves frighten the Russians, although I am not sure of the extent to which the European security strategy addresses this issue. Europe has an interest in maintaining good relations with Russia and in ensuring the security of oil supplies. If we continue to take the confrontational attitude that has developed in recent times, we may endanger our future in this area. In regard to Georgia's and Ukraine's efforts to join NATO, we should recognise the concerns of Russia.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. The Lisbon treaty will be the talking point of the day at the summit taking place on 11 and 12 December. Does the Minister intend to arrange for a debate in the Dáil in advance of the summit so that Deputies can articulate their views? The Millward Brown IMS survey and the report published by the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union make a major contribution to informing the Government on how to proceed. The Minister stated that he does not expect the Lisbon treaty to be extensively discussed. I presume that is because the matter will be addressed at the summit. I imagine, however, that questions will be asked by his colleagues. This is our last opportunity to raise the matter with him, unless a debate is held in the Dáil. What is the Government's current thinking on the issue? The Minister has stated that the Government intends to attend the summit to outline the elements of a solution. I ask him to outline to the committee the elements of a way forward.
I expected him to address in greater depth the economic challenges that currently face the EU given that they will be the subject of discussions at the meeting. At a previous meeting, the Secretaries General of the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment made a presentation to the committee on the report, Lisbon Agenda Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs — National Reform Programme, Ireland 2008-10. The Chairman, Senator Cummins and I expressed our concerns about the substance of this report, which had to be submitted by the end of October. It represented the past rather than the present or future even though it anticipated the reform programme for 2008 to 2010. We made a considerable number of criticisms based on the fact that we are in the middle of an economic and financial crisis. The document did not seem to reflect any of this. It seemed to give a very rosy picture of the Celtic tiger which was a fine and healthy animal when it was around. On that occasion a couple of weeks ago we asked that the document be redrafted to reflect this. I know it is not the direct responsibility of the Minister but it is one of the items on the agenda.
It is not on it.
The Minister referred to it, stating the European Council would discuss the economic challenges facing the European Union. Will it not come up with him?
The Council will deal with the Commission's proposals relating to current global financial issues.
The matter will not be discussed as part of the Minister's agenda.
The document referred to by the Deputy that considers the economic submissions made is not on the GAERC agenda.
The Minister will not deal with the Lisbon treaty agenda. I will finish the point. The document has not been redrafted, although it has been tweaked very slightly, with one extra paragraph introduced. The Minister might bring the matter to the attention of the Taoiseach. This is the only document on which the European Union is working with regard to the current economic and financial state. Therefore, I wish to make it clear that it does not in any way reflect the concerns expressed around this table.
On energy and climate change, I am delighted to see that the French Presidency will come up with final proposals on the matter. We have a fair idea of how matters will transpire.
Two other issues have not been referred to, one of which is the recent terrorist attack in India. The Minister mentioned Pakistan but should remember that there is a link between that country and the terrorist attack in India. I am surprised, therefore, that it is not on the Minister's agenda. He might make some reference to it.
The other missing issue is the Georgia-Russia conflict that occupied much attention in the autumn. I am surprised that it has gone off the radar so quickly. As Senator Quinn stated, it is a major consideration that could affect the economy of this country to a significant degree because major pipelines pass through the region. I would have thought there would be some discussion on the matter, although I know President Sarkozy has made a worthwhile intervention that seemed to worked well in the negotiations which took place recently in Geneva.
With regard to the Middle East, we have expressed the view around this table on a number of occasions that the European Union was not exercising its muscle to the degree it should, considering its financial input in the region. On the one hand, there is the preferential deal with Israel but, on the other, the Union has also made a considerable financial contribution as a major donor on the Palestinian side. As the situation continues to deteriorate on the Gaza Strip and West Bank, we are a long way from what we discussed six months ago when President Bush was going to find a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict as his last major initiative as US President. As stated here, there was not a hope in hell that a solution would transpire. We will soon have a new US Administration and with his colleagues the Minister should be indicating that it is high time the European Union came into the limelight in the negotiations to find a solution. The United States has dominated the negotiations but with a new and reasonably sympathetic President about to take over, the European Union should be able to work better with him. It should also make its case to be the premier mover in the discussions to resolve the conflict. It might be no harm if the United States took a back seat and allowed the Union to move further towards the front of the process.
It seems the most serious conflict in Africa is the one in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Nigerian President is mediating on behalf of the United Nations but it remains the most volatile region. I would like to see greater emphasis being placed on the issue in the discussions because of the hundreds of thousands of deaths which have occurred.
I will be brief, as I do not want to be repetitive. The source of greatest concern in the Minister's comments is the notion that a WTO deal will be completed before Christmas. There is a view coming from the United States that the incoming President has indicated to the outgoing US Administration that he would like to see a deal done in the dying days of the Bush Administration, thereby not leaving the President-elect with responsibility for dealing with the fall-out. Clearly, there are issues that concern Ireland and the European Union, particularly the agriculture sector here. There has been much comment about the necessity to secure a deal and we all accept it is the right thing to do. There has been an indication that there are potential benefits in a WTO deal in the services sector but I am not sure this has been highlighted as much as it might have been. Any comments by the Minister in that regard might be helpful. There is a clear issue in the beef sector. It is important that if a decision is about to be made to resolve the US-India issue which caused the previous negotiations to break down, we have a better understanding of the benefits as opposed to the potential impact on the agriculture sector.
I take Deputy Costello's point on the Indian crisis, as it should be on the agenda. The Georgian matter should also be on the agenda and it is surprising that it has faded so quickly. I mentioned at the last meeting that there was an ongoing issue about the continued advancement of NATO and the efforts to have its members so close to the Russian border. The European Union should take a view on the matter, as it is seen by Russia as an aggressive action. We need to rethink. I hope the input of Ireland, a neutral country, would help in having enlightened thinking on the advancement of NATO in a way that will only generate attention and be seen as not being in the best interests of Europe and the wider world.
I will be brief. I apologise for missing the Minister's presentation, some of which I have read. Will he give a short summary of his visit to South Ossetia in Georgia last week? Has the position changed much since the war in August? What is the UN mission doing? Have the refugees and those displaced during the war been settled? What is the political climate in the region?
Like other speakers, I am concerned that the Indian issue is not on the agenda. A number of EU citizens were caught up in the attacks and killed. An Irish citizen could have been in a similar position. As we know, peace initiatives have been ongoing between Pakistan and India since 2003. Perhaps we should use the situation to strengthen our resolve to work together to combat terrorism and address its causes. The EU might act as a broker in this regard. It is a very serious situation and it was allowed to happen. The fact that many of these people came from Pakistan sparks off concerns.
I understand the Taoiseach is to pay a number of visits to several EU countries——
He visited a few countries.
——over the next few days in preparation for his summit in December. He visited Sweden and Finland last week. Perhaps the Minister might report to us on those meetings and on how Ireland is seen by its EU colleagues after the rejection of the Lisbon treaty.
Deputy Costello referred to the ongoing situation in Israel and Palestine. Perhaps the Minister might prioritise this with his colleagues because it is a very important issue. I talked with pilgrims last week who had been in Bethlehem with a guide from Palestine. They said that when they crossed the border, the amount of harrassment the guide received from the Israeli police and border guards was considerable, in comparison to the treatment they received. This situation is long standing and it is to be hoped that when the new US Administration is in place there will be some development.
Nobody mentioned the Congo.
I did.
I apologise to Deputy Costello. That is a terrible situation, in humanitarian terms. It is such a huge country and is very hard to patrol. The Minister might give the committee an update on that situation also.
Zimbabwe has gone from the agenda despite the considerable problems in that country at present, with cholera widespread amid other humanitarian problems. The Minister might report on that.
The Minister has a long list now. I will emphasise some of the points made by individual speakers. The forward march of the Lisbon treaty appears to continue and will proceed, as far as we can judge. We must emphasise the importance of having a general ongoing debate, particularly in the aftermath of the sub-committee's report, referred to by the Minister. There is need to generate a debate in this country that would be based on fact rather than on myth. We must avoid the hijacking of the situation by anybody. Everybody in public life has this great responsibility, including those in business and the associated services industries. We all have a common interest in not being left off the European agenda. That would have very serious consequences for us as a country, politically, socially and economically. The full extent of such an outcome may be measured against the kind of events that are happening in other countries, for instance, in Iceland.
Members made reference to economic and financial affairs, making the point that the European Union is a powerful bloc, with 500 million people. It is a very strong trading bloc with great economic clout. I believe that what members were intimating is that they wish to see the European Union move with alacrity. I compliment the French Presidency on the degree in which it engaged with the different situations that developed. There were many such during its term. Full credit is due to the French for the tremendous work they did. However, this must happen all the time.
There was a debate at a recent meeting of the Friends of Europe. President Barroso addressed the group and indicated that the Commission had intimated to member states what should happen, long before the financial crisis arose and that it had outlined to financial services what was likely to happen. There appeared to be a reluctance on the part of the different constituent bodies to prepare and to lead but when the European Union began to respond it did lead. Action had to be taken in this country before the EU, as a unit, took any particular action. That point was well made, not merely by the Irish but by several other countries too and President Barroso responded to it.
The area of energy and climate change is one the Minister knows well. We must be cautious at present and must get the right balance between the achievement of necessary targets and trying to ensure that, as a country and a trading nation, we are not disadvantaged as a result of decisions taken or commitments entered into that might not necessarily put the most urgent priorities to the fore. These general points were made to me throughout my discussions with different bodies outside these Houses and I know members have expressed them repeatedly.
My last point refers to the Common Agricultural Policy. Senator Quinn made the valid point that we trade many services and goods other than those in the agricultural sector. Unfortunately, we still have a big food producing sector in this country, as does the European Union, and that is why the French support the agricultural sector. They realise that they must support it because the European community must eat, have food and be self-sufficient, apart entirely from the issue of food security.
The European Union and this country might be able to source its food supply from outside the Union, though not necessarily in line with climate change proposals and certainly not in accord with the traceability applicable here or with the standards in place here and in the European Union. At some stage we must approve or abandon the Lisbon treaty and there will be consequences to that. We must be very mindful of how we handle the CAP health check. The Minister referred to that in his speech. It is an important check and is most significant, not only for the future of the EU agricultural sector but also for our own and for our ongoing efforts to generate debate on the Lisbon treaty and achieve a satisfactory conclusion.
From discussions I have had with parliamentary colleagues in other countries, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of generating this debate and of elevating it. There is a notion abroad that Ireland has said "No" and that because it did this everything in Europe stops. Everything in Europe does not stop, unfortunately, and we must recognise that as we shout "Stop". Perhaps there were genuine concerns. These exist. I hope they have been addressed already and will continue to be addressed. Nobody should think that because one country in the EU decided to vote "No" the decision is permanent as far as the Union is concerned. There are implications for this country, and for the Union, but the greater ones by far are for this country.
The Minister has a long list now but I know this matter is something he holds dear.
I thank the Chairman and appreciate his comments.
Senator Feargal Quinn raised the issue of the WTO discussions and other members, including the Chairman, commented on that too. The idea of reconvening a new round of talks or a meeting before Christmas was initiated at the G20 meeting recently. That meeting was called to look at the potential new financial architecture for the world and regulations arising, and there was a strong push to get the WTO talks back on the agenda with a view to seeing if something might be concluded by Christmas. As far as I can detect, the rationale there is to use such talks as a confidence-building measure in the world economy, and to avoid any headlong rush towards the establishment of protectionist barriers and regimes across the globe. The major powers were anxious to avoid that.
Deputy Dooley and the Chairman are correct in suggesting that Ireland's position is one of balance. We are an open economy, we export 80% of everything we produce and we need open markets across the world. Our trade in services has grown dramatically in the past decade. Recent economic and financial predictions prior to the recent global crisis were that our services would comprise 50% of all exports by 2011. There has been a dramatic transformation for the good; my predecessor was well aware of this trend and worked with Enterprise Ireland in terms of foreign direct investment, and the companies who have located here also reflect that trend.
We have always negotiated on the basis of a fair and balanced approach. The EU made significant concessions and contributions to the talks process, and the last round broke down on the basis of other partners not demonstrating cause regarding change. Europe cannot be rolled over on a range of issues. It is not just agriculture; the economies of emerging states are developing very quickly.
An overall agreement should be fair, balanced and reflect our core concerns in the area of agriculture. We are making progress on that and it could have a beneficial impact on trade. I cannot speculate on the outcome but we feel enough has been given to agriculture in the talks. Other blocs did not come to the table with significant contributions and that led to the breakdown in the previous set of talks.
I note what Senator Quinn said regarding Russia and I am aware of the overall concern emanating from there. The EU GAERC meeting does not discuss NATO policy; the EU is not NATO although there are many EU members that are also members of NATO. Other bodies such as NATO must be mindful of the potential impact their decisions have on the stability of a region. I travelled to Georgia recently. The perspective of Georgia and other countries in the region is that when it is stated that they should not join NATO one succumbs to the notion that spheres of interest pertain, and Russia can dictate how independent countries decide their destiny and future. Pragmatic and experienced politicians might say that one must bear in mind the fears and concerns of others. Finland is a good example of how to manage a relationship with a large neighbour.
It is clear that there are political tensions; the conflict has changed perspectives within Georgia and created a great deal of concern. We met members of opposition parties and the Government, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Minister for Education, the Minister for Labour and civil society groups. There is a residual fear and uncertainty about tensions with Russia and its approach to Georgia and other countries. There is also a view that the EU intervened at a critical time, and, led by the French Presidency, was critical in effecting a ceasefire. It is also believed that President Sarkozy moved quickly and the EU, through the French Presidency, acted in a very positive, interventionist manner that was perhaps the key factor in Russian groups not reaching Tbilisi.
One hears different perspectives on the ultimate objective of Russia and one can speculate on that, but a ceasefire was effected. For that I pay a warm tribute to the French Presidency and it is a good illustration of the importance of a co-ordinated, strengthened European Union with capacity to intervene with effect in such situations. The idea of a five-year Presidency that could pick up the phone to world leaders in a time of crisis should not be understated, nor should the idea of a person having capacity to develop a relationship with key personnel around the globe.
We have often heard Kissinger's famous question, "Who do I pick up the phone to?". Every President of the US meets approximately 16 EU Presidents during their four-year or eight-year term; President George Bush met approximately 16. How does one build and develop a relationship and a collective approach to conflict resolution and security? Our role is to support that and the Geneva talks on the status of the South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Georgia, Russia and other parties. We have offered the lessons we learned from our experience with conflict resolution to all concerned.
Deputy Costello raised the issue of having a Dáil debate before the 11 and 12 December. There was to be a debate in the joint committee and this represents a substantial and comprehensive articulation of the broad opinion of both Houses. There should be a debate on the report.
Regarding the debate and the Council, I must refer to the Whip and others. I will deal with Lisbon in the context of this question and the significant workload for the Taoiseach in coming days. I had a series of bilateral meeting in recent weeks with colleagues from Germany, Italy, Sweden, Portugal and Spain. The Taoiseach met representatives of Finland and Sweden last week and will visit Germany, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and France this week. We are in an intensive phase of negotiation and discussion, leading to the conclusions to be adopted at the summit. The broad issues we focus on are known and are those identified by the report.
I am not in a position to discuss specifics as we are in a negotiating context and the outcome of the December Council meeting is not certain. Some people believe this matter has been resolved but it is not. Important discussions are ongoing and will continue to the wire before any outcome——
I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but a request came from the committee on the publication of the report of the sub-committee. The members felt it was imperative to have the debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas prior to conclusive negotiations.
I am sure that can be facilitated by the whips. I have no problem with that.
Hopefully that will happen.
Regarding the Whips, there has been a discussion and there is an expectation that it will take place next week.
It was originally to be next week but it will be brought forward. I do not know if they will do that or not.
It is a Whips issue.
Next week on Thursday.
For the purpose of clarification, I have been pushing for a debate on the report.
Yes.
In terms of the specifics of the negotiation process, there may be a degree of reticence on this side. The Deputy will appreciate we are in a negotiating process.
Is it intended that the Taoiseach will produce the road map at the summit?
In October we decided, in consultation with our colleagues, that we would bring the elements of a solution to the summit. However, there has to be agreement on what constitutes the elements of a solution; otherwise one does not get the kind of Council conclusions that are agreed.
Does the Minister expect those to be finalised during the EU summit on 11-12 December?
Do I expect?
Is that the intention of the Minister?
I hope so, but I cannot be definitive at this point. We respect the vote of the people last year. We made a determined effort to assess the underlying reasons people voted the way they did and that threw up a whole range of issues. We then set up an Oireachtas committee that went through those issues in some detail and invited in civil society. We reflected on the issues. We are focusing on those issues and bringing them to our colleagues. We have an emerging view in terms of the best way to deal with the situation but we have to get agreement from our colleagues across the European Council before it can be advanced any further. That is the phase we are in now.
There is a perception that EU Governments are willing to recognise, accommodate and assist in whatever way possible. There is also a growing fear that the members of parliament of the member states are not as tolerant and as accommodating because they have their own domestic interests to look after. As we are aware, that happens in all parliaments and it must be borne in mind.
The Georgian conflict and the financial crisis across the world has enhanced the desire of other partners and colleagues in Europe to move on with ratification of the Lisbon treaty. They believe it is important and that recent events have only added to the relevance of bringing about the reforms envisaged by the Lisbon treaty. I take the Deputy's point. We also have had a referendum and the people have spoken. We are listening to what the people have said and are reflecting what they have said in the discussions with our colleagues. We need to reconcile that process with the overarching objective of our colleagues, that is, to have the Lisbon treaty ratified. However, there is some way to go yet.
As well as engaging in consultation with the Minister's colleagues in Europe is there any intention to engage in consultations with his colleagues in the Oireachtas?
Certainly there are concerns.
I would have thought that the Oireachtas committee——
The Labour Party would like to articulate concerns that the Taoiseach certainly has not articulated to date.
I would have thought the Oireachtas committee was a very comprehensive form of engagement with all parties. I appeared before the committee and I have read the report. Given that all parties have engaged together we should not understate that. I was somewhat surprised at a comment made last week by one party to the effect that there was no consultation, despite the fact that we have had almost two months of consultation between all the parties in the House. I suppose it depends on one's perspective.
It depends how one looks at it.
In terms of the economy, I referred to the Commission communication on a European economic recovery plan for growth and jobs which was launched on 26 November. That will be discussed at the ECOFIN meeting on 2 December, in advance of the Council meeting on 11-12 December. That is different from the package to which Deputy Costello referred. Nonetheless, that is the one that has come into significant focus in terms of an urgent response from the Commission to the economic situation. It wants a timely and targeted response. Our national development plan at about 4% of GNP is probably the largest capital plan and represents the bones of our economic stimulus package in the context of the overall economic slowdown.
In regard to climate change, I expect during the lunch that the terrorist attack in India will surface. The Presidency will perhaps wish to put that on the table. Some people may say that Zimbabwe, and the Georgian and Russian conflicts have fallen off the table. They have not. All of these have been extensively discussed at previous GAERC meetings which take place monthly. If every conflict area was put on an agenda, there could be 15 to 20. The idea is to get a more focused approach to the core issues.
In terms of the Middle East I take the point Deputy Costello has made. That is the theme of our approach to the Middle Eastern situation and the peace talks in particular. In regard to the conflict resolution process, the EU is anxious to have a significant role. The EU Commission is the largest donor to the Palestinians, about €550 million. If the contribution from member states is added it amounts to approximately €1 billion. At a donor conference recently, approximately an extra €440 million was pledged by the EU member states but it was felt the Arab states should make a more proportionate contribution. We are calling on the Arab countries to pay an appropriate share.
The EU is growing in importance. The issues coming down the track in 2009 are the EU-Israeli enhanced co-operation agreements and so forth. The EU has concentrated very strongly on civilian capacity building within the Palestinian state in terms of its Government. We are anxious to support them in a variety ways, such as policing. The overall view within the EUFOR Ministers is that much depends on the prioritisation within the new US Administration. It needs to be a key priority in the new US Administration. If it is an early priority, there is a significant prospect of building on whatever progress has been made in the Annapolis process, rather than waiting for the end of the first term. That is very important.
Deputy Timmy Dooley raised the WTO. I have dealt with that issue. He asked about the Congo. A significant discussion took place on the Congo at the last meeting. The Deputy will recall that Foreign Minister, Mr. Kushner, and the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. David Milliband, had been there and reported back on their experience. The view is that it needs a regional political engagement as ultimately a military solution on its own will not suffice. Also there was some discussion on whether Europe should make a battle group available but the view at this time was that MONUC needed to be strengthened significantly in terms of security there. People are concerned and the view is that there needs to be engagement by the regional leaders to ensure stability and to facilitate the ongoing delivery of humanitarian aid.
There were indications at the last Council meeting that some member states have particular issues in respect of the energy and climate change package. As a country we support making progress in energy and climate change. It is an issue that will not go away and cannot be postponed indefinitely. However, member states are conscious of the dangers of carbon leakage and have different issues. We have issues in respect of carbon sinks and, perhaps, would be open to their being applied earlier in the context of an EU agreement as opposed to awaiting the international agreement. We are pressing a range of other issues with the Presidency. The Presidency has a tough task to get agreement on this by the end of the year. President Sarkozy has set it as a key task of the French Presidency.
An issue referred to previously is the massive deforestation taking place in areas such as Kenya and Latin America and the likely impact on the carbon reservoirs or the lack of them.
We could create a few here.
We could.
We would ultimately make a significant contribution to our CO2 emission levels. Also it would be economically viable.
We thank the Minister and wish him well in the discussions that will take place. We obviously have every confidence in his ability to give a good account of himself and that he will look after the interests of this country and the European Union in that context.
Thank you.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.11 p.m. and adjourned at 3.30 p.m. sine die.