The first item on the agenda is a discussion in advance of the next General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and ask him to proceed.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I begin by wishing committee members a happy new year on the occasion of our first meeting of 2009.
I welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to review the agenda for next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting which will be the first under the Czech Presidency of the European Union. The meeting occurs against a background of conflict in the Middle East, uncertainty fuelled by the disruption of energy supplies and the ongoing global economic crisis. Inevitably, the agenda must be extensive in scope and depth. I propose to address, first, the general affairs items on the agenda. I will then turn to external relations issues.
As is customary at the start of each semester, the EU Council Presidency will present its priorities for the six-month term ahead. Under an overarching motto of "Europe without barriers", the Czech Presidency priorities are encapsulated by what it terms the "three Es" — the economy, energy and the European Union in the world. The Czech Presidency has had to hit the ground running on at least two of these policy priorities — energy and the Middle East. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, has attended an early informal meeting of the General Affairs Council in Prague which gave European Union Ministers an opportunity to discuss energy security in general and the Ukraine-Russia gas dispute, in particular. Both of these key policy challenges will feature again during this month's Council discussion and I will speak more about them shortly.
Overall, the committee will agree that the Presidency is an historic undertaking for the Czech Republic, with its first ever European Union Presidency coming in the year which also marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This anniversary serves as a powerful reminder of how far freedom and democracy in Europe has come in two decades. The fall of the Berlin Wall will be commemorated by a conference to be held in June entitled, Twenty years on: the memory of Nazism and communism. The Czech Presidency represents yet another milestone in that historic journey of European reconciliation and I wish the Czech Government every success for its first EU Presidency.
The Czech Presidency workload is substantial. The Presidency will host 13 informal Councils in total and more than 140 meetings across the range of sectors. Of particular importance will be the two European Councils in March and June. In addition, there will be crucial summit meetings with Russia, the Balkans, Japan, the Republic of Korea and, possibly, China which cancelled the summit scheduled to take place during the French EU Presidency. A meeting at Head of State or Government level of the EU 27 member states with the six partner countries of the Eastern Partnership is also planned for May. Foreign Minister meetings will take place with the Rio group, the Association of South East Asian Nations and ASEM, the Asia-Europe Meeting.
Reflecting its history and experiences, the Eastern Partnership will, understandably, be one of the Presidency's key external relations priorities, with the western Balkans and enlargement, especially the accession negotiations with Croatia. The Czech Presidency will also mark the fifth anniversary of the 2004 enlargement by holding a special conference in Prague in May entitled, European Union enlargement: five years on. Another key external relations priority for the Presidency will be developing the European Union's transatlantic relationship with the new US Administration which was also on the agenda for the recent informal General Affairs Council.
Obviously, the economy will be a key dossier for the Czech Presidency, building on the excellent work of its predecessor, the French Presidency, in responding to the global financial shock. The Czech Presidency will have an important role to play in shaping the European Union's continuing response to the current extremely difficult economic conditions. These events have underlined the value of having Ireland and other European nations work closely together under the EU umbrella in order to advance our many shared interests.
The Czech Presidency will also be initiating work on the review of the European Union's current budget, covering spending between 2007 and 2013. This will be important in preparing the Union's future budget which is of huge importance to Ireland. The Presidency has also set itself an ambitious agenda with regard to sustainable and secure energy. However, that agenda has been dominated in the first two weeks of the year by the gas cut-off caused by the dispute between Russia and Ukraine which will also be debated by the General Affairs Council on 26 January. This issue which has not impacted on gas supplies to Ireland to date is of grave concern to all of us in the Union, given the very significant shortfalls in gas supplies to a number of our EU partners.
All of us in the Union regard the resolution of the dispute as extremely urgent. Russia invited Ukraine and the Europan Union to a summit in Moscow on 17 January. The Czech Energy Minister and the Energy Commissioner attended on behalf of the Union. I want to make it clear that the Union is not a party to this bilateral dispute. Progress has been made in the bilateral discussions between Russia and Ukraine, which we welcome. The key points which the Union has made and will continue to underline to both Russia and Ukraine are that the gas supply must be restored immediately and unconditionally and that this is a commercial dispute between these two nations. Both sides must resolve the matter. The Union will not be involved as regards who is to blame. There are clear serious commercial, financial, political and economic consequences for both sides which need to implement and fulfil the agreement reached with the Union on monitoring.
Energy security will also be considered at the spring European Council. Further decisions on advancing this dossier will be taken by the Energy Council at its meeting on 12 February, with the focus on diversifying sources and routes of supply and improving infrastructure connections. Ireland supports the points which will be communicated to the Russian and Ukrainian Governments which have contractual obligations to provide the European Union with gas which they must fulfil urgently. We look forward and will contribute to a broader debate on the future of the Union's energy security and strategic decisions to improve energy security for European consumers.
Before concluding my presentation on the general affairs session, we will be working intensively, including with the Czech Presidency, to advance work on the legal guarantees given on the Lisbon treaty, as agreed at the December European Council.
The session on external relations will begin with a discussion on the ongoing grave situation in Zimbabwe. The United Nations has reported over 2,000 deaths from the ongoing cholera epidemic. I can only imagine how it adds to the suffering of their families to know that many of these deaths were needless and that they themselves remain at the mercy of a corrupt and callous regime. Although talks between the government and the opposition have resumed, I see few grounds for hoping President Mugabe will make the compromises necessary if he is to share any of his powers meaningfully with the MDC. The continued victimisation of human rights activists such as Ms Jestina Mukoko and the reappointment of Mr. Gideon Gono as head of the Zimbabwean Central Bank, even after all he has done to wreck the economy, are dispiriting signals that Zimbabwe cannot expect a responsible and legitimate government any time soon.
There is, unfortunately, no easy solution to Zimbabwe's tragedy. The European Union is maintaining diplomatic pressure in the quarters where it considers it can be most useful. It is also considering in a very focused way whether there are additional ways to target the financial resources and methods which the Mugabe regime uses to sustain and shield itself from the economic catastrophe its own policies have created. However, I will want to be satisfied that any new measures the European Union takes are carefully calibrated so as not to exacerbate the suffering of ordinary people or destroy what legitimate private sector activity remains. Ireland and its EU partners continue to provide aid directly for the Zimbabwean people who are more dependent than ever on our help.
The most important item facing the Council will be the situation following the appalling conflict in Gaza. On the eve of the Council the Presidency has signalled its intention to organise a meeting between EU Foreign Ministers and the Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. A separate meeting has also been arranged for tomorrow evening with Foreign Minister Livni of Israel. The General Affairs and External Relations Council will be the first opportunity for Ministers to discuss the crisis since the extraordinary meeting of EU Foreign Ministers which I attended in Paris on 30 December following the ceasefires which we all welcomed with such relief at the weekend. At this point it is too early to tell what the situation will be when the Council meets, but I am hopeful the ceasefires will have held, that both sides will have pulled back from confrontation and that we can discuss how to help solidify it into a lasting ceasefire and ensure the conflict does not restart. Our meetings with regional Ministers should help us get a feel for the understanding, expectations and needs of all sides.
The war in Gaza, arising from the launch of Operation Cast Lead by Israel on 27 December 2008, was a profound tragedy for the people of Gaza. I share the widespread sense of horror and revulsion at the appalling level of casualties arising from this military operation, during which more than 1,000 people were killed and somewhere in the region of 5,000 were injured. An even more shocking statistic is that the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies operating in Gaza estimate that more than 40% of those killed and injured have been women and children. The suffering and devastation we have witnessed are not just a sad indictment of those directly involved on both sides but also of the international community for not having done more to insist that the search for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East be an absolute priority in terms of diplomatic efforts.
From the outset, I was consistent in condemning Israel for initiating such a large-scale military operation in Gaza, one of the most densely populated enclaves on the planet, and its disproportionate response to the undoubted provocation presented by the firing of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel by Hamas. I spelled this out clearly to the Israeli ambassador when we met on 6 January and the Israeli Minister for Education, whom I met this morning. The frank exchange of views through such contacts is the essence of diplomatic activity. The Israeli ambassador has thoroughly and professionally carried out his duties, just as our ambassador in Tel Aviv has reported thoroughly on Israeli thinking and actively carried out his consular functions. I regard calls for the withdrawal or expulsion of ambassadors as misguided and counterproductive.
I want to be clear in my condemnation of Hamas and other Palestinian militants for their actions in firing rockets which have terrorised a very large proportion of the population of southern Israel, with an estimated 750,000 people having to live in fear of such attacks. Moreover, just as the Israeli operation was bound to lead to large numbers of civilian casualties, Hamas for its part has also shown a callous disregard for the ordinary civilian population of Gaza. The sad reality, regrettably often only learned with great difficulty, is that there are no military solutions to such conflicts. That is the lesson our own peace process has clearly taught us. It is, therefore, imperative that there is, as the UN Security Council clearly called for on 8 January, a durable and fully respected ceasefire as soon as possible, making concrete the cessation achieved. This must be coupled with full opening of crossing points into Gaza to facilitate the delivery of urgent humanitarian provisions and access by humanitarian actors. I hope no party will regard the ceasefire achieved, as some regrettably regarded the ceasefire achieved last year, as an opportunity to prepare for the next round. The least the people of Gaza and Israel deserve is that their leaders will work earnestly and sincerely to build on and make the ceasefire permanent.
There are other issues which will need to be addressed in connection with any lasting ceasefire arrangement, including the effective monitoring of Gaza's borders, commitments to ensure humanitarian and commercial traffic into Gaza will not be impeded and measures to combat arms smuggling. The issue of the precise contribution the European Union or its member states can make to any future monitoring arrangements is one which the Council will address urgently. As an initial step, the reactivation of the EU border monitoring mission at the Rafah crossing point seems to be an appropriate measure.
Of equal priority in cementing the ceasefire is addressing the appalling humanitarian situation within Gaza. I acknowledge the heroism and bravery of the humanitarian actors on the ground in Gaza who have continued their life-saving activities under the most dreadful conditions. Agencies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, and its Irish director of operations in Gaza, John Ging, the International Committee of the Red Cross and others cannot be praised enough for their efforts.
It is also crucially important that some of the worst incidents of this conflict, including the shelling of two UN-run schools on 6 January and of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's headquarters on 15 January, and the reports of medical and ambulance personnel being killed in the performance of their duties, should be fully investigated by the international community to ensure accountability and that there is no repetition of such acts. The full facts need to be established if it is to be determined whether international humanitarian law has been breached, as at the minimum appears possible.
Committee members are aware that the Government has committed €500,000 to provide immediate humanitarian relief to the population of Gaza and this is being made available via the UN Humanitarian Relief Fund. That will be additional to the funding we have already made available to UNRWA and to the Palestinian population in 2008. The Czech Presidency of the EU has also announced plans to host a donors' conference for Gaza next month, although full details are still awaited. Ireland will, of course, be represented at any such donors' meeting organised by the Presidency.
It is important for the European Union — I have written to Council President Schwarzenberg in this regard — to consider the implications of the situation for the proposed upgrade of relations with Israel which was agreed in principle by the Council in December. It cannot simply be a case of "business as usual" in terms of now progressing with an upgrade in our relations with Israel at this juncture. The committee is aware that Ireland has consistently argued that account must be taken of overall developments in the peace process in considering how to progress and develop EU-Israel relations.
The European Union has been active throughout the crisis in seeking a political resolution. I commend the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, for convening the important meeting in Paris on 30 December which saw the Union firmly back the call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and the urgent provision of humanitarian assistance. President Sarkozy and President Mubarak of Egypt are also to be commended for their intensive efforts to secure the basis for a permanent ceasefire. These efforts were complemented and assisted by the EU Troika mission which Foreign Minister Schwarzenberg led to the region between 4 and 6 January. The United Kingdom and France played important roles in securing agreement on Security Council Resolution 1860. The Presidency and several EU partners attended the conference called by President Mubarak on Sunday.
It is important also to acknowledge the leadership which UN Secretary General Ban has provided throughout this crisis in clearly articulating the demand of the international community for an end to the violence above all else. Ireland and its EU partners very much hope that President-elect Obama will give the highest priority to the relaunch of the Middle East peace process.
I am greatly relieved that the conflict has been brought to an end, albeit belatedly and at a huge cost in suffering and human life. I hope that when the Council meets next week in Brussels, we will be able to consider how the EU can best support any ceasefire agreement and prioritise a renewed effort to achieve progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, including on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 1850 and 1860. A particular challenge will be how we can best support the process of inter-Palestinian reconciliation which clearly must be a priority following recent events, but has proved elusive to date.
The next item on the external relations agenda is the conflict between the Ukraine and Russia. I set out our position in my earlier comments.
A brief discussion may take place on the western Balkans, which is a priority area for the Czech Presidency and reflects the Union's ongoing commitment to stability in the region, including through the stabilisation and association process. The Taoiseach, accompanied by the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, visited Kosovo on 22 December, where they met members of the 233-strong Irish unit serving with KFOR. The Taoiseach and the Minister also met President Sejdiu and Prime Minister Thaci. This visit provided an opportunity to assess the situation on the ground, including the recent deployment of the EU rule of law mission, EULEX, which achieved initial operating capability on 9 December. Such positive progress is necessary to meet the challenges on the ground. EULEX will continue preparations to reach full operational capability in the early months of 2009.
The Council may also discuss Sudan, if there have been developments in relation to the ICC Prosecutor's request for an arrest warrant against President Bashir. It is now thought, however, that this issue will not arise until February. The situation in Darfur remains extremely grave. Government and rebel attacks, and widespread banditry, continue to cause suffering. I am also mindful of delays in implementing the 2005 north-south peace agreement, which brought to an end a long and brutal civil war. The international community will need to remain vigilant, in case this peace agreement begins to unravel.
The final item on the agenda is Guantanamo. President-elect Obama has indicated that he intends to close the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay and I expect an early announcement to this effect. The closure of Guantanamo will be a very important step forward. Ireland, with its EU partners, has long supported the closure of the camp. Difficult legal and practical issues will need to be addressed. One of these is the possible resettlement of detainees who have been cleared for release but cannot be returned to their countries of origin. The discussion at the GAERC will be the first at EU level and Ireland believes that it is appropriate for the European Union to see if there are ways in which we can collectively assist the process.
That concludes my comments on the agenda for the GAERC meeting next Monday and I am grateful to have had this opportunity to set them out to the Oireachtas.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive review of the important issues affecting us and the European Union and peace in general. These include the European Council meetings in March and June, the question of Croatia, the Commission's budget, the cut-off of gas due to the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine, energy security, Zimbabwe, Gaza and the western Balkans, Darfur and Guantanamo.
I thank the Minister for his review. Does the Minister have a view on whether we should take in some of the detainees to be released from Guantanamo? I understand that he indicated that he would like to but his colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform shot down that proposal. Is there Government agreement on that issue?
Can the Minister outline what advances, if any, have been made on the Lisbon treaty guarantees and when will they be concluded?
It is outrageous that because of the trouble in the Middle East the problem in Zimbabwe has not received the international focus that it should, following over 2,000 deaths from cholera. We have been talking about it for years. Can we do anything tangible to help or, following the new hot policies of the Minister's party colleagues, should we consider breaking off a trade agreement or any agreements with Zimbabwe? We need to take definite steps.
We welcome the ceasefire in Gaza. Fine Gael has been calling for it from the outset. I share the Minister's revulsion at the death and destruction in the area, caused by both sides. The debate here has been divisive, even at the level of this committee. I am glad to note that the Minister realises that the policy of some of his colleagues is misguided and I welcome his pronouncement on that point today. We should do everything we can to ensure that the violence does not recur. What is the Government's policy on the broad Palestine-Israel situation? Is it in line with the EU policy?
What are the Government's and EU policies specifically on Gaza? What is the Minister's view of Hamas? One of his party colleagues said last week that its members are democratically elected representatives of Gaza which is factually correct, but how do we get a message to the Palestinian people? For example, with whom does the Minister deal? It is important to open all corridors of communication. I do not believe it is productive to be selective. We passed a motion here last week which has resulted in the ludicrous situation where, given that we are trying to talk about peace, we will have the Palestinian Head of Delegation in to adjudicate on the EU-Israeli agreement. It is completely unhelpful in trying to resolve the difficulties. I would like to hear the Minister's view on this.
I propose that we suspend the sitting as there is a vote in the Dáil. I would not like to precipitate a general election.
Sitting suspended at 2 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.
I thank the Chairman and welcome the Minister and his staff. Undoubtedly the main business at the GAERC will be a discussion of the events that took place during the past three weeks in Gaza and that is as it should be. This is the first opportunity for EU Ministers to discuss what happened and to consider the way forward. We have discussed these issues at length in this committee and I do not intend to go over them again to any great extent, except to say that the Gaza Strip was occupied by the Israeli army and that action resulted in more than 1,300 deaths, more than 5,000 injuries and an incalculable amount of damage to property, schools, hospitals and various other centres. All of this has been stated in categorical terms not by any reporter, but directly by the United Nations agencies operating there, as well as our own John Ging who is in charge of UNRWA in Gaza which was also bombed.
It seems to be indicated that this action came about unnecessarily for a number of reasons that do not stand up, that is, in the context of a change of regime in the United States. First, there was some unfinished business that the Israelis wanted to get out of the way which might be somewhat embarrassing with a new US President. Second, in regard to Lebanon, the Israeli military had not come out of the situation in glory and, third, because of an election next month in Israel. I believe those were elements in bringing about the inordinate amount of deaths and the awful tragedy that has occurred there. I believe it cannot go without consequences and that the European Union has a role to play. I am glad there appears to be an end to the immediate upgrading of the neighbourhood policy with Israel and that should continue for the time being. We have already agreed at this committee that we would see ourselves conducting a review of the Euro-Med trading agreement to see whether there have been violations of the basic principles of democracy, international law and human rights. The European Union should examine that agreement also and the Minister should convey that message to the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council.
Claims have been made by human rights organisations that there have been not just human rights violations, but war crimes. That must be examined by the European Union with a view to deciding whether some structure should be set up to establish whether that has happened, on both sides. For example, allegations have been made that Hamas has used civilians as human shields. That is another consideration, but the inordinate number of deaths and injuries must be investigated as well as some of the bombings that have taken place.
The message must be conveyed to the European Union that it must have a more robust and central involvement in activity in the Middle East rather than leaving the leadership of dealing with the peace process to the United States. Tony Blair was conspicuous by his absence for the duration of the conflict until a few days before the ceasefire when he suddenly appeared on the television screens. Once again, the European Union did not cover itself in glory in terms of its involvement in this conflict. It has an opportunity now to do something, but it also has a responsibility. The European Union is the major trading partner with Israel. It has a preferential trading agreement and it is the major deliverer of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. It must take on its responsibility in this area. Now that there is a new regime in the United States it should be possible to work that out more beneficially.
Also, as Deputy Timmins said, mechanisms must be put in place to deal with Hamas. The European Union cannot simply stand aside and say Hamas are not to be dealt with under any circumstances. We will not move forward very far in that respect unless some mechanism is put in place.
I want to briefly mention the other two issues. On Guantanamo, I welcome the fact that the Government made a stand on the issue, even prior to Barack Obama indicating he would stand down Guantanamo Bay prison. In terms of the Minister's position and as appears to be reported, I would like to see some element of resettlement taken up by the European Union and Ireland being positive in providing a location for the settlement of a small number of detainees if that was requested.
The opportunity might also be taken to re-examine the position whereby military aeroplanes can land in our airports and overfly our air space without apparent proper supervision or mechanism to ensure that they are not carrying weapons or are involved in activities counter to international responsibilities.
Will the Minister indicate if he intends to discuss the Lisbon treaty? It appears the initiative lies in the Irish camp. The guarantees were delivered last December and the position appears to be that it is now the responsibility of the Government to examine those guarantees and tease out the formula for the way they will be presented in terms of the language and the mechanisms that will be used. Does the Minister intend to re-establish the sub-committee that examined the aftermath of the treaty or establish some other sub-committee with specific terms of reference to examine the various guarantees that were offered?
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I will concentrate my comments on the Gaza crisis as the position on the other areas is the same as it was when we spoke to the Minister prior to his attendance at the last meeting.
I recognise the Minister's forthright approach to dealing with the crisis in Gaza. His comments during the course of the crisis focused on the particular issues rather than becoming focused on the wider issue or the historical context. That was appropriate. He rightly identified Israel as being at the forefront of this crisis not in terms of the historical context, but the actions it took which he correctly said were disproportionate to the threat posed by Hamas.
Notwithstanding the justified condemnation of Hamas for the actions it took in firing rockets and the damage it inflicted in terms of the impact on people's lives, which was significant, there was not an eye for an eye response, which is often talked about in that region. The scale of the devastation of people's lives in Gaza is most regrettable. I agree with Deputy Costello that it is something for which we must ensure that consequences ensue for Israel. The Union must be to the forefront. It is regrettable that we were not in a position as a Union to take a more forthright approach, notwithstanding the efforts of the French. We did not have a coherent policy or framework in which to deal with it.
To some extent Israel moved in a cynical way, as I have said in this committee previously, recognising the hiatus in the United States in that President Bush was on the way out of office. It is clear it saw an opportunity to inflict maximum damage. I believed from the outset and said so publicly that it would find a way to remove itself from Gaza prior to President-elect Obama taking office, and that is what has happened. That confirms my view that this was a cynical act on the part of Israel. It was designed to inflict maximum pain and destruction on the people of Gaza in a way that will make it difficult for them to re-establish their lives within a reasonable timeframe. There must be consequences for Israel in that regard.
Deputy Costello referred to the decision of the European Union not to proceed with the next level of the Euromed neighbourhood agreement. We must reflect on the existing agreement and the capacity for Israel to derive some benefits through the trade the Union currently has with it. The Union must consider whether we should put in place a trade embargo or some other sanctions that will make Israel recognise that the actions it took which resulted in the destruction of human life, particularly the lives of innocent women and children, is not acceptable, regardless of its concerns. Other states encounter difficulties on a daily basis due to terrorism or other interests but they deal with that without resorting to the type of outrageous disproportionate actions taken by Israel. I hope the Union is in a position to do that, particularly in terms of the approach it has taken in regard to the bombing of United Nations bases, UN-supported schools and the compounds where food and medical aid was stored. That action showed Israel's disregard for human life. I am not suggesting that war is pretty or that it is a game that can be played like toy soldiers. Notwithstanding that, this is a small area. The Israelis have highly sophisticated equipment and it is unacceptable to suggest that the bombing of a UN base was an accident or a misfire. They regularly show us how strategic they are in terms of pinpointing from where rockets have been launched. It is clear no rockets were launched from any of the UN bases or depots.
On the Guantanamo issue, that is an issue for the United States. If there is a problem, it is a problem of its making. I am not against the notion of the European Union or Ireland assisting in whatever way we can to the greatest extent possible, but there must be something in it for Ireland. In the proposals suggested by President-elect Obama, the US has put forward some measures that might be difficult for Ireland to accept, particularly on the commercial side. We need to see some movement on a number of issues because this is a situation entirely of the US Government's making. Regardless of the views of the incoming President, he has to deal with the situation as he finds it. I am sure through the Minister's good offices and in negotiations, he will reach the best solution possible in that respect.
I will call Senators Leyden, Quinn and de Búrca in that order and then Senator Hanafin and Deputy Mulcahy.
I would like first to commend the sound approach the Minister took in regard to the recent conflict in the Middle East and his sure-footed approach to Israel — which reflected the views of Irish people — regarding the question of Hamas and the firing of rockets. These attacks were provocative and were going on for far too long. However, the Israeli reaction to them was completely over the top. The destruction and deaths that have occurred are almost unbelievable. Irish people are appalled by what has happened. We must move forward in terms of dealing with that region in the future.
On the question of contacts with Syria and Iran, I believe the incoming US President, Barack Obama, and the incoming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, will adopt a different approach to dialogue with countries in that region. Hamas has been supported by Iran and Syria. It would not be able to obtain those rockets without their having come from that region. There is no point ignoring the fact that America must engage in dialogue with Iran, an important trading nation of ours. That has been accepted. President-elect Obama, who will be sworn in as President in the next hour, will be prepared to open up such dialogue with Hillary Clinton. She outlined to Congress her exact views on the situation there.
The same approach should be adopted to Hamas. The president of the West Bank Fatah organisation is prepared to enter into dialogue to try to form a united approach. That was stated by the Minister. The approach of the Palestinians is that there must be unity among them if they are to seek their own independent nation.
The other side of the coin — in regard to which the Minister will attend an important meeting next week — is that the reconstruction of Gaza is imperative. Its access to a port to facilitate exports by sea is another issue. The 1.5 million people of the Gaza Strip, which is a larger population than that of some member states of the European Union, do not have access to a port for exports. It does not have an airport. The last Prime Minister who flew into Gaza some years ago was the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, but that airport was bombed by the Israelis and is now totally destroyed. Such issues should be debated in the context of the reconstitution of that region, if it is to have an economy, given that it has no outlet for its exports and its economy is in ruins.
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza. They had settlements there and their withdrawal was painless but necessary because they could not sustain those settlements. We rightly condemn the destruction in the region and the deaths of possibly as many as 1,200 people, mostly civilian and a high percentage of whom were women and children, which is unforgivable. It was a holocaust, of that there is no doubt. The Israelis have not learned from the past.
In regard to trade with Israel, the Minister said it cannot be a case of business as usual. Demands must be made of Israel. There is a case for a trade boycott of Israeli goods. I would favour such a boycott in the context that every Israeli import purchased provides funds for a bullet or bomb to murder Palestinians. Put simply, the more the Israelis export, the more money they have to provide arms to murder those in that region. They will have to be taught a lesson. A sanction on trade is one way to lever a result from the Israelis. The special relationship we have in terms of trade is based on respect for human rights, but human rights are not being respected by the Israelis. Now is our opportunity to renegotiate this treaty on the basis of a recognition of the two-states solution to that region. It is not a question of recognising but of talking to Hamas, irrespective of its fundamentalism. We spoke to the IRA and other organisations to bring about a peace process in Ireland. They could learn from such examples of what happened here.
The Minister is welcome. I will divide my words between general affairs matters and external relations matters. An aspect of general affairs on which the Minister hardly commented is the economy. He mentioned it but did not go into it. He mentioned the three Es, but the question of the economy is almost like the elephant in the room. It has such a major impact on what is happening in Europe. I assume it will override a great number of the discussions that will take place in the general affairs area. I would be pleased to think it would be given some attention, which I do not hear the Minister give it.
The second E the Minister spoke about was the energy question. There is no doubt that there is a major problem in terms of energy security. The economy influences this. Steps that we might not have been willing to consider previously in Europe might now need to be considered. In terms of the countries in Europe that depend on Russia almost entirely for their energy supplies, the Ukraine-Russia difficulty is a challenge for them. Four European countries rely 100% on Russia for their energy supplies. France, on the other hand, has little need in that respect because it has nuclear power. Will we consider the possibly of nuclear power, something we would not have considered until this financial crisis? Is it possible that it should not be considered? I am not an advocate of it. I do not know enough about it and I doubt very much if moving in that direction would be an easy step, but in the new financial situation prevailing throughout Europe perhaps we have to examine the situation in France which invested in nuclear power a long time ago. That direction has been successful for it. A number of other countries do not face the same challenge because they found alternative methods to provide for their energy needs. I hope the question of the energy crisis and the energy security will receive the attention it deserves.
I have two other points regarding general relations. One concerns a report in a newspaper over the weekend that documentation from the Czech Presidency referred to the fact that it would not bring up the question of harmonisation of tax until the Irish referendum has taken place. That is quite frightening. I hope the Minister will query this. I acknowledge this issue relates to the tax base, but regardless of the tax base, they say it will not occur and apparently have agreed — I do not know from where the memo came but it was cited in a newspaper article — not to raise that matter until after the Irish referendum has taken place. I would like the Minister to inquire from his hosts in Prague if that is correct and, if so, to ascertain what is the position in that respect.
I was in Brussels yesterday and my visit there overlapped with a visit from Mr. Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey. It was his first visit there in four years. Apparently, he is now back in Turkey because they are trying to resurrect the question of Turkey's accession to Europe. The Minister did not mention that, nor was it mentioned in the documentation. Perhaps it is not high on the agenda, but I would like to know what is happening regarding the Turkish application and whether it will be reconsidered.
I do not want to repeat what others have said regarding external relations but I want to speak about the situation in Gaza. I thought the Minister's tone when he spoke about the situation there today was moderate and acceptable. I do not know if the tone of the statement he made on 28 December, 24 hours after the Israeli invasion of Gaza, was moderate. It seemed it was aimed directly and only at Israel and it was only after some paragraphs that he mentioned the Hamas bombs and rockets that had been invading and attacking Israel since 19 December. For one week at least since the end of the ceasefire was announced by Hamas, it was sending rockets into Israel. Maybe its action was a provocation and that was the objective of its action, but the fact that the Minister did not condemn Israel until 24 hours after the Israeli invasion and did not appear to give anything like the same attention to a condemnation of Hamas was less than moderate.
In regard to Israel, people should always ask if this will achieve the objective they want. I am sure what Israel had as an objective is not what it is getting, which is condemnation for the overreaction. Perhaps Hamas anticipated this reaction to its provocation and it is exactly what it wanted, although I am not sure. I would be glad to hear the Minister's views.
I welcome the Minister to the joint committee and commend him on what was a very good outcome to the EU summit in December. As a country, we could not have been more satisfied that our fellow member states were willing to listen to our concerns about the Lisbon treaty and to offer us very strong reassurances. The legal guarantees we were offered in regard to taxation, sensitive social policy issues and neutrality and the assurances we received about retaining a Commissioner were very strong and positive. The Minister's role in that is to be commended. There is, however, is no room for complacency because, obviously, the devil will be in the wording of these legal guarantees.
There is a considerable amount of work to be done between now and the time of a possible rerun of the Lisbon treaty. I concur with Deputy Costello who talked about a mechanism of some kind to ensure cross-party agreement and support for the type of guarantees which will, in effect, be put before the people in a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
I regret that the assurance we received from other member states in regard to workers' rights is not as strong, or does not have the same standing, as the guarantees we got in regard to those other policy areas I mentioned. We should take this issue quite seriously because, looking at the results of the Millward Brown survey, it was obvious that concerns about workers' rights and the potential undermining of workers' rights within the context of the European Union was something which exercised many people who voted against the Lisbon treaty. It is an issue at which we need to look. With the changed economic circumstances, workers may approach any rerun of the Lisbon treaty with a slightly different attitude towards the European Union.
I understand there were difficulties with other members states agreeing to things which would have implications for themselves and not only Ireland. That is something at which we might need to look. We might need to look at what is happening in regard to workers' rights at European and national levels and at the interplay between both levels because there may be things which could be done at a national level that would reassure workers and strengthen their resolve in terms of supporting the Lisbon treaty in a rerun of it.
I commend the Minister on the stance he has taken on the recent Israeli bombardment of Gaza. He has spoken clearly and courageously. At times like this, sometimes diplomatic language is used which can be very frustrating because it seems often to lack the kind of moral outrage necessitated in these circumstances. I know it is very important not to be seen to overly identify with one side or the other in such a complex conflict situation. However, in terms of the disproportionate actions in Gaza, the Minister spoke clearly and courageously and reflected the broad views of the Irish people in regard to the situation.
Like others, I welcome the ceasefire in Gaza. However, it was somewhat predictable in that most people predicted that in the period between the drawing to a close of the Bush presidency and the President-elect taking office, any action on the part of the Israelis would be likely to finish. That is exactly what happened. The challenge for the international community is how to make the ceasefire a lasting one. It will be a challenge because, as we have seen, ceasefires can be very fragile.
The question for the European Union is, what role it can play? The Minister mentioned that there will be discussions on a possible monitoring role for the EU at the GAERC meeting. I support a call made by my colleagues, the Greens in the European Parliament, for an EU-led peacekeeping force to be stationed in Gaza with a large Arab contingent as part of that force. We need to look at the EU taking a more proactive role, a role in which it will distinguish itself. To date, unfortunately, the EU's role in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian situation has been seen as limited and ineffective.
If the EU wants to distinguish itself from a position adopted by others, it needs to show it is willing to make a commitment to keeping the peace in the area. It is a step which would involve serious risks and at which member states would need to look quite carefully but it would be in the long-term interests not only of this part of the world, but of the global community generally because we are all aware that serious regional instability and conflict in the Middle East would impact on all of us. The EU should look at some kind of serious monitoring role in regard to Gaza.
Senator Quinn mentioned the importance of stressing the economy at this time. The Minister referred to the global financial shock and a possible EU response. For the EU to be seen to be more relevant to its citizens, the citizens of the EU member states would need to see there are some benefits to being a member of an economic union and the benefits of co-ordinated action a time of great financial instability such as that which we are experiencing. I can think of one recent example where Irish citizens may have felt the benefit, that is, the globalisation adjustment fund — the agreement the EU reached in regard to providing Dell workers with approximately €10 million in funding to retrain. We need to see more of this kind of action on the part of the EU.
We also need to see a message going out from the European Union on the euro. There is a danger there will be a loss of confidence in the euro if a strong message is not sent and strong action taken. These are the kinds of issues which should be discussed at the GAERC meeting.
The Minister referred to the importance of the Atlantic partnership. Barack Obama, the incoming US President, talked about a new green deal. There is no reason the European Union could not try to adopt the same forward-looking positive model of economic recovery. Ireland is certainly very well positioned to take advantage of that and to show leadership in that area given our abundant natural resources. I hope that is discussed and progressed at the GAERC meeting.
In regard to energy, it is correct for the EU to define the current gas dispute between the Ukraine and Russia as a bilateral one. There are, however, contractual obligations in regard to the EU and it is very important they are fulfilled. What sanctions might be considered? Has any discussion occurred about possible sanctions which might be taken by the European Union should those contractual obligations not be fulfilled?
It is important when talking about the Lisbon treaty to highlight the provisions for a common EU energy policy which would allow the European Union to develop more energy independence. We heard the incoming US President, Barack Obama, talk about how vital it was for the US to develop energy independence. It is just as vital for the European Union to do so. There are many benefits to a pan-European approach to developing that.
I am disappointed to hear nuclear energy being revived as the panacea for all ills. Europe is in a great position to take advantage of renewable energy. For example, a pan-European approach to developing our wind energy resources would help us to overcome some of the problems with variability which exists in regard to wind energy. If wind energy supplies in one member states were variable at one point, it could be compensated by wind energy supplies from other member states.
With the current crisis, I hope we do not forget ratification of the Lisbon treaty remains a priority for all of us. When looking at the Lisbon treaty, I hope the other member states consider the issue of the democratic deficit. I anticipate that those who will campaign against the Lisbon treaty will highlight the fact that Europe, as they see it, will remain profoundly undemocratic and that the issue of the democratic deficit will not be tackled. There is an opportunity for the European Union to resolve to take this issue seriously and launch a separate EU-wide democracy initiative, not linked necessarily to the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, but which has some thought and planning put into it and would reassure the citizens of Europe that their concerns about the democratic deficit are not being ignored. While the Lisbon treaty contains some democratic provisions, I do not think anybody feels it goes far enough in terms of reassuring citizens that they are being listened to and that their concerns are being taken seriously. The issues of communication, consultation and participation must be central to any EU democracy initiative and if the EU was seen to be making moves in that direction, it would weaken the arguments any of those campaigning against the Lisbon treaty could make about people condemning themselves to an undemocratic future if they were to support the Lisbon treaty.
I thank the Minister and his colleagues for coming here today and for his statement. On the issue of energy security, in general terms is the Minister happy that Ireland's interests will be fully protected within the framework of a European energy security policy? It is a matter of fact that one or two member states seem to have made bilateral arrangements with Russia for the supply of natural gas. While that does not affect us too much, I want to know whether the Minister is happy that Ireland will be covered or is it the case that, like other countries, Ireland needs to be a little more active in developing bilateral energy relationships? I should note that the committee will visit Russia this year and, hopefully, we might be able to sign up for gas for an unlimited period.
The second issue I wish to address is the Gaza Strip and the points the Minister will be making in that regard at the meeting. First, maybe I missed something, but I found the Minister's statements to be balanced and, as Senator Leyden stated, to reflect the general view of the average citizen. I repeat I may have missed something. I do not know whether Senator Quinn has a point or not, but in general I was very happy with the Minister's statements.
Although I am sure the Minister has already been briefed, I take this opportunity to formally inform him of the process that we initiated at this committee last week and with the Chairman's permission, I want to read out the motion. The motion that was passed reads as follows:
That this committee invite either the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, or their representative, and European Union Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, and any other persons which this committee deems necessary, as quickly as possible, with a view to assisting this committee in determining whether or not as a matter of fact there has been a breach of Article 2 of the EU/Israel EURO-MEDITERRANEAN Association Agreement of 1995.
We all know that agreement came in in 2000. Then we quote Article 2 of that agreement which stresses that human rights, both nationally and internationally, are an integral part of the association agreement.
I am not sure if some members here were trying to portray me or my colleague, Deputy Dooley, who co-sponsored the motion, as being on one side or the other. Just in case, I stated, as the Chairman will recall, that I had not prejudged the outcome of those deliberations and that I have an open mind. I have always supported and taken what I believe is the standard Irish policy position of security for Israel so that it is allowed to live in peace and self-determination for the Palestinian nations under internationally accepted borders. That is what we want.
However, we also acknowledge that a cornerstone of Ireland's foreign policy is based on the United Nations and we cannot ignore what the United Nations is telling us. I want to put on the record again a number of reports that we have before us. I am speaking, in particular, of the report of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Mr. John Dugard, to the General Assembly, dated 21 January 2008, which has some strong words to say about human rights, the press release of the special rapporteur, Mr. Richard Falk, dated 9 December 2008, and the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay, dated 28 December 2008. All of these reports in various ways indicate there have been violations of fundamental human rights.
This committee expressed its determination, in passing this motion in an unbiased way, to take those alleged — if one wants to call them that — violations of human rights very seriously. We will have hearings and maybe the committee will decide to invite the Minister to give evidence. We hope that the Palestinian delegate and the Israeli ambassador will give evidence, with people from the UN and EU. It may take quite a while but we will come to our conclusions and hand the matter over to the Minister on the basis of our conclusions.
In that context, I was glad to hear the Minister state:
I believe that it cannot simply be a case of "business as usual", in terms of now progressing with an upgrade in our relations with Israel at this particular juncture. The committee will be aware that Ireland has consistently argued that account must be taken of overall developments in the peace process in considering how to progress and develop EU-Israel relations.
I disagree with my other colleague who stated that the ambassador should be sent home. I am glad there is an Israeli ambassador here because I want good relations with Israel. I want trade between Ireland and Israel and between Europe and Israel. That is healthy. I am part, as the Chairman who may have been to one or two of the meetings with me will be aware, of the Barcelona process which is a good process. Trade between the EU and Israel is an integral part of the Barcelona process, now called the Mediterranean process. However, Israel must understand that we in the EU take human rights very seriously and we will not permit trade in the long term with countries which are in flagrant denial of human rights according to the United Nations. I hope I have expressed that clearly, forthrightly and in an unbiased way. I have no particular axe to grind for any organisation. I condemn violence no matter from where it comes. I have no axe to grind — good, bad or indifferent. We want trade with Israel but we want it also to agree with human rights. I am interested to know how that will develop in terms of the proposed upgrade of relations with Israel and the kind of statements that the Minister will be making at this meeting in that context.
I ask the Minister to take a strong view on the Russia-Ukraine gas pipeline dispute. Our difficulty is that the media has reverted to type. It is just a knee-jerk reaction, calling it another Cold War, and they use all the usual headlines. The reality is Russia is a reliable supplier of gas and having improved its social services significantly, it needs the income stream from the gas. In any business if somebody is not paying, it creates difficulties. The country which evidently appears to have cut off the gas supply is Ukraine.
There is a second difficulty, namely that there were intermediaries in the Ukraine. This has been a significant problem because they were getting gas at $170 per 1,000 cu. ft. and yet it was being sold on for $450 per 1,000 cu. ft. Somebody somewhere was profiteering and it was not Gazprom or the Ukraine state supply. That dispute then affected the rest of Europe. It is a matter of ascertaining the reality of the situation so that we can give a fair, unbiased view.
Second, I commend the Minister on the way he has handled the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. I am a strong supporter of Israel, of Israel's right to exist, to thrive and survive, and of a two-state policy for Palestine so that the Palestinians can also thrive and survive. I do not believe either side would be satisfied with my view.
The Iranians are fighting a proxy war by supplying rockets to militants within Gaza. Some 8,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza into southern Israel and 20 people were killed. The Irish equivalent would be the firing of 8,000 rockets into the rural areas of south Munster. The Israeli response to the firing of these rockets was completely disproportionate. The use of bombers to attack cities, where more than 1,000 people died, was a totally unacceptable response on the part of Israel to the clear provocation that occurred.
There is a need to deal with the situation as it stands. This is a perennial problem. Israel has an agreement with the EU in respect of trade, which confers upon it a favourable status. I would like this to be extended to the Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza. We should use the carrot of trade in respect of this matter. The definition of trade is that, over time, both sides reach the higher level. Regardless of whether an economy has a comparative or absolute advantage, over time trade is beneficial for both partners. That is why trade and open markets make people well off. Trade is a lever we can use to assist the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis in order to ensure that they behave. When we circumvent the fact that they are at war with each other, we must also ensure that the Palestinians are removed from the poverty trap in which they live and are treated properly.
The statement that I am not happy with either side is the truth. Both sides have been responsible for the commission of crimes.
I welcome the Minister and thank him for his comprehensive explanation of what happened at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Like other members, I condemn human rights abuses by Israel or any other country. Members have views on such abuses in China, Burma and elsewhere and perhaps the Minister might expand on that matter.
Some members of the committee from the Minister's party made emotive calls last week for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador from Ireland. I am glad he regards these calls as misguided and counterproductive. We should all agree that diplomacy involves negotiation and bringing people together. I welcome the Minister's comments in this regard.
I was vociferous in my condemnation of the disproportionate response on the part of the Israelis. I also condemned Hamas for its acts of terrorism. On the day when President-elect Obama is due to take office, there is genuine hope that American foreign policy relating to many matters will be reviewed and will take greater consideration of the views of the EU and also of nations in many of the world's troubled regions. If President-elect Obama announces later today that the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay is to close immediately, that will be a positive beginning to his term of office. I hope Senator Obama's presidency will assist in resolving the difficulties in many of the world's trouble spots. I also hope he will work more closely with others than did his predecessor with regard to the many issues of foreign policy in respect of which resolutions must be found.
I agree with the points made by members regarding the need for the expression of temperate views in respect of the conflict in the Middle East. The fault does not lie with one side or the other — it lies with both. While the invasion of Gaza was an overreaction and was unnecessary, unwarranted, unwise and likely to generate nothing but negative publicity for those involved in carrying it out, it was not the equivalent of the Holocaust. Everyone should recognise that such comparisons are ill made.
I listened with intent to contributions made by members of another committee and this committee in the past couple of weeks. If there is one thing we need to learn, particularly in the context of having experienced a situation similar to that in the Middle East during the past 35 years, it is that we should be slow to offer advice unless we fully comprehend the issue in its entirety. The problems in the region have been ongoing for many decades and, unfortunately, those problems will remain in place unless the best efforts of the international community and those interested in bringing about a peaceful settlement come to fruition. The Minister is correct to state that such a settlement will come about not as a result of the use of force but rather on foot of agreement being reached. The sooner that agreement is forthcoming the better, not only for the Middle East but also for the rest of the world. The region in question could well become the tinderbox that would ignite further conflict in the not too distant future. We all have a responsibility to recognise the importance of finding a resolution.
I am sure everyone welcomes the proposed closure of the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay. We are all opposed to the ill treatment of prisoners and imprisonment without trial. However, we were not always so disposed. Lest it be forgotten, not all of the people detained at Guantanamo Bay may be innocent. That is a matter which should be borne in mind.
In the context of the Lisbon treaty, the points relating to the elephant in the room and the economy are well made. The time for further deliberation on the treaty has passed. The treaty is extremely important to the country and its economy and we must decide whether we wish to be on board in respect of it. We can hold as many committee and sub-committee meetings as we please. However, it behoves all of us, as Members of the Oireachtas and members of this committee, to do whatever is required in order to ensure that the proper result will be achieved. There is no point in reiterating that many people are opposed to the treaty. I accept that the latter is the case, but there are also many who are in favour of it. The time has come for those who are in favour of the treaty to stand up and be counted and do what is required in order to achieve the result to which I refer.
The Minister is aware that 95% of the leading lights who opposed the Lisbon treaty in the recent referendum campaign have also opposed every treaty since 1973. There is no point saying, as a way to opt out, that opposition to the European project is growing. The overwhelming majority of those opposed to the treaty have always been opposed to the modern concept of Europe. They have not changed their position. That is why members of this committee, individually and collectively, must take responsibility for the work that must be done from this point forward. Time is running out. This matter will come up for decision again, sooner rather than later, and the quicker we recognise the role we must play, the better it will be for us and for the country in general.
Reference was made to the current position of Turkey. On many occasions in the past, I reminded members that it would be wise to ensure that — outside of normal statutory meetings such as those relating to COSAC, etc. — they make themselves available to fraternise with their colleagues from other European countries on a regular basis. The reason behind my recommendation in this regard is that opinions and policy are being formulated and nurtured at various meetings that take place throughout Europe on a weekly basis. In most instances we do not have an interest in such meetings and none of our members attends. For various reasons, members of the committee are not available to attend such meetings. The Minister is more aware than anyone that if he or any of his colleagues in the Cabinet miss a Council of Ministers meetings, decisions can be taken over which they will have little or no influence. As a result, they dare not be absent from such gatherings. By the same token, the parliamentary tier has a responsibility. We must take serious issue with ourselves regarding our responsibilities. We may well be criticised by the media for allegedly spending public money but if we are not present, important decisions will be taken in our absence. The issues will come back to greet us at a later stage and we may well have to hold up our hands and say we were not present.
I refer to the energy issue. As a former party spokesperson in this area, I agree entirely with the members who raised this important issue. It is ironic that gas supplies are ready, willing and waiting to be exploited for the past five years to be used for the benefit of the economy and people, but we are going nowhere. Before we start to resolve the energy problems worldwide and the problem between Russian and Ukraine, it would be useful if we addressed the serious energy problem off our own coast in a way that brings to the fore a quick resolution to ensure uninterrupted energy supplies are made available to us at competitive prices, as the economy needs this.
I apologise for ranting but the issues raised by members are valid. We live in difficult times, which will not improve nationally or internationally, unless we have make a serious input.
The Chairman should not apologise because he was not ranting. He spoke directly with great clarity and in a straightforward manner. That is necessary at times. I take his point urging people to attend the various parliamentary fora across Europe where opinions are formed. That is important but we do not miss Council meetings. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, and I ensure that we always cover the Irish representation but that is important at parliamentary level.
Deputy Timmins raised a number of issues. With regard to the Lisbon treaty guarantees, we will work with Oireachtas Members to work through the issues. Last summer, I worked with representatives of the political parties to facilitate the establishment of the Oireachtas sub-committee and, therefore, I did not take a unilateral decision at the time. I said nothing to anybody and there were various leaks saying this, that and the other. However, we eventually established a sub-committee, which was very worthwhile. It was an inclusive sub-committee, notwithstanding different perspectives. It is generally regarded as having worked extremely well and it produced a good report. I am open to consideration in working with colleagues on the best mechanism for taking the work forward. Deputy Costello also raised this issue.
I refer to Guantanamo Bay. Ireland and various political representatives have articulated the need for a closure of the detention centre, particularly in the context of human rights violations and the various activities that took place there earlier. We welcome what is expected to be an early announcement by President-elect Obama to close the centre. As the Government has not been formally asked to do anything yet by the US Administration, it has taken no decision on this but I articulated publicly that we can see the potential may arise where we may or may not have to, and we have to give consideration to that. The Government will discuss that in due course. We await the new Administration taking up office and formulating its position. Next week, the first discussion at European level will take place at the General Affairs Council about this issue.
With regard to Zimbabwe, I agree with Deputy Timmins. We are doing everything we can, as is the Union. The regional actors could have done more over the past year or two to put pressure on Mugabe to relinquish power. We have concentrated and targeted sanctions on the leadership in Zimbabwe and we have been clear that we do not want in any way to punish and penalise the ordinary people in the country. There is a humanitarian crisis with an appalling public health epidemic, which has the potential to cause further significant loss of life. The World Health Organisation is particularly concerned about the cholera outbreak and we will continue to do everything with our EU colleagues to maintain the pressure to achieve a breakthrough. We are not hopeful, given what has transpired.
Deputy Timmins asked whether Government policy was in line with EU policy on Gaza. I have been asked that question a number of times by the Israeli ambassador and government and perhaps that shows the degree to which they are penetrating certain schools of thought. However, the EU position, as articulated at the Paris meeting, was clear and it had three key elements, to which Ireland strongly subscribes. The first element was the call for an immediate ceasefire on 30 December. The second was a call for unrestricted access of humanitarian actors and aid to the civilian population in Gaza and the third was the revitalisation of the political peace process, which could ultimately provide a two-state solution.
The Irish policy position has been clear. We recognise the state of Israel and its right to its security, but we have equally recognised the right of the Palestinians to a homeland and their own right for a long time. Ireland was one of the first countries to do so within the Union. We have always taken a lead on these issues. These are the essential elements of the Union's statement in Paris at which 27 member states were represented.
I do not apologise for the content of my statement on 28 August 2008. There is quibbling about whether the attack on Hamas is mentioned in the third paragraph and the condemnation of Operation Cast Lead is mentioned in the first paragraph. Prior to any conflict, the Government and I consistently condemned the Hamas rocket attacks in southern Israel and we believe Hamas must recognise the state of Israel before it can become an actor in the peace process. This is similar to the peace process in Ireland. There was a time the key actors now were not key actors and, because of the stances they took, they were recognised. However, because of movement on all sides a context was created whereby people participated in the process and we are now where we are. It was a long journey. I do not say Ireland is directly comparable to the Middle East but lessons have been learned from the Irish conflict.
Once the recent operation started, civilian casualties were inevitable on the scale we witnessed because of the densely populated nature of Gaza. It is the most densely populated enclave on the globe and it was inevitable, because of the nature of the air strikes and so on, that there would be a significant loss of life. This operation was counterproductive. Such operations can radicalise opinion even more, push people further into the arms of the extremists and fundamentalists and undermine the work and activities of moderate Arab opinion. I visited the region last July and I met Prime Minister Fayyad and President Abbas. They are endeavouring to create the machinery of a Palestinian state. They have made good progress on the West Bank, although they said policies on settlements and the restrictive nature of border security and so on were undermining their efforts to gain credibility among their own population. We made these points to the Israeli Government last July and I reiterated them earlier when I met the Israeli Minister for Education, and I have also raised them with the Israeli ambassador. I said that calls for the expulsion of the ambassador are misguided; we do not believe that is the right way to go. On the other hand, I told the ambassador this morning that he should reflect on why people are making these calls and on why people are on the street. There is a reason for this. I do not believe the Irish people are different from any other civilian population. People have a sense of balance and proportion. I have a responsibility to reflect what I perceive to be the majority view of the Irish people in regard to how the campaign was conducted.
I take Deputy Mulcahy's point that certain incidents need to be investigated. The UN is, perhaps, the best vehicle for the examination of the manner in which the conflict was conducted, in particular in regard to the attack on UNWRA. I spoke with Mr. Ging the morning after the attack on UNWRA headquarters. While I am aware that in a war situation one cannot be precise, the Israeli defence forces had been supplied with the co-ordinates and were warned they were shelling close to UNWRA's headquarters. In his final warning, one hour prior to the attack, Mr. Ging informed them there were many trucks, full of fuel, in the compound. Despite this, the shells landed. Members will be aware of the implications in this regard in terms of the catastrophe that could have resulted. However, this is the context in which we are operating. A ceasefire has been announced and we must move forward.
In terms of President-elect Obama, the European Union position has been consistently that if the US Administration makes this its number one priority in terms of foreign policy, there is a chance of ultimate peace and political settlement for the region not alone in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but in the broader regional context. There are opportunities, if the Annapolis process could be resuscitated and if other moderate countries could be brought into play, to create the context for a durable settlement although we believe — we may be wrong — that the outcome of this may be that support for Hamas in the Gaza will be even stronger. That is a consequence that complicates at the very least the prospects of a political solution being achieved.
In terms of the relationship between Israel and the European Union, we have flagged to the Presidency our concerns in this regard. I have written to Karel Schwarzenberg, the Czech Foreign Minister, indicating that we believe there are implications that need to be examined and that we cannot simply get on with business as usual. We have also indicated our views in terms of some of the actions and incidents that occurred.
Deputy Costello spoke about Gaza. I believe I have covered most of the issues raised by him. Deputy Timmins asked about Hamas. Hamas must change its stance. As Deputies Dooley and Mulcahy stated, allegations have been made in regard to the degree to which its shielding itself among civilians created vulnerabilities. Hamas will have to change its stance if there is ever to be a viable civilian rule of law state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza. I do not buy the argument put forward by Deputy Costello that the EU did not cover itself. The EU made valiant efforts in this area including during the French and the Czech Presidencies. Key players such as President Sarkozy, the British and French Governments and the UN were progressive in trying to achieve a resolution. The EU did significant work in this area. The bottom line was that people were not listening in terms of the imperative of a ceasefire.
Deputy Dooley also raised issues in regard to Guantanamo. I note his comments in respect of it being a matter for resolution by the US. Obviously, we work in partnership with the US and we will maintain ongoing consultations in that regard. Senator Leyden raised similar issues, in particular in regard to Gaza which I hope I have covered in my response. Senator Quinn spoke about the economy. ECOFIN will deal primarily with the economy. It will not be the central issue at the General Affairs Council meeting but is an important priority for the Czech Presidency. Members will be aware there was a significant discussion on the issue at the December Council meeting.
The points in regard to energy security are well made. Senator de Búrca also referred to this issue, but coming from a different angle. It is clear that one of the most pressing issues facing Europe is energy security. If one is too dependent on any one source that creates potential vulnerabilities into the future. On alternatives, renewables and so on, Europe has set tough targets. The December Council meeting, particularly in terms of climate change, was a major breakthrough. I commended President Sarkozy on the manner in which he dealt with the matter at that time. It was difficult to get agreement given that there were 27 member states with different backgrounds and coming from different perspectives and with different needs involved. It is hoped this creates a platform for the future.
On the energy security issue, I agree with the Chairman that we need to reflect on the fact that we have found it difficult to bring gas ashore. It is extraordinary. I compare this with what happened when gas was found off the Old Head of Kinsale. I recall as a young man reading the headlines in this regard in The Evening Echo.
They are progressive in Cork.
We were a little idealistic. We thought life was never going to be the same again. People speak about the Celtic tiger and the tell tale signs of complacency in that regard. The idea that one can find a natural resource like that offshore and not bring it ashore — this is a personal view — reflects a certain mindset. I do not wish to get into the difficulties involved in this regard. I am aware that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and the Minister of State are working with the local community to resolve the issues. We are all aware of what happened in respect of the Ukraine-Russian problem. The actual impact was serious for the countries involved in terms of their industry, quality of life and so on. We have taken the view that this was a commercial dispute between the Ukraine and Russia. Senator Hanafin made some valid points in this regard.
The European Union has been careful not to upgrade this dispute to a political level or to create a conspiracy theory and so on. There are issues between Ukraine and Russia that need to be resolved. There are also issues involved in terms of contractual obligations between member states and Russia. People depend on reliability of supply, in particular having entered into agreements in a transparent and honourable way. That is the main point as articulated by the Czech Presidency. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Topolánek in particular for his role in this regard. It illustrates how important is the Lisbon treaty and the reforms it envisaged. Energy security is the key issue of the future. I do not believe Ireland will be in a position to meet those needs if it is not part of a wider European Union security. We have much to gain from a pan European Union energy security policy and framework. We will contribute to that as we believe it is important and vital to our future.
Senator Quinn made a point in regard to the common consolidated tax base. The article which the Senator read quoted from a source from the Commission, not the Czech Presidency. Commissioner Kovács said in August 2008 that no proposal would be published soon and no timeframe for a proposal could be put forward. Work on this initiative has effectively stalled. The real reason for this is the widespread scepticism among member states in regard to its implications. Ireland has consistently said that the CCTB is unworkable. Our analysis is that this view has gained wider support across the Union. We are now moving into a situation whereby the outgoing Commission is not in a position to do anything on this dossier. It is hoped a new Commission on the Nice treaty or the Lisbon treaty will be formed in the autumn. The new Commission will bring forth a new agenda and work programme. We are of the view that this proposal may not surface at all. The current Commission has, in essence, dropped the matter. Whether the new Commission will have an appetite for such a troublesome and unworkable initiative is questionable.
The position on Turkish accession is that discussions have been ongoing for a long time. The Presidency hopes to open two new negotiating chapters with Turkey during its term, but it is a long journey.
Senator de Búrca raised the important issue of workers' rights and the Lisbon treaty. When we went to the meeting prior to December, we sought legal guarantees on ethical questions such as the protection of our traditional policy of military neutrality and our competency in direct taxation, which were specific Irish concerns emanating from our research. We got undertakings that those legal guarantees would be provided, as President Sarkozy said, in the form of a protocol attached to the treaties at the time of the next accession treaty, which will be the Croatian treaty. The protocol will be attached to the EU treaties that will be passed post Lisbon, not to the Croatian treaty.
With regard to workers' rights, in the document we submitted prior to the December Council, we identified the three issues requiring a protocol and then identified workers' rights as an issue that needed consideration. We asked the European Council to attach high importance to the issue of workers' rights, but the Council wanted to do more than that and inserted it into the conclusions it adopted. We were happy about that. However, there is still work to be done in this regard. First, the Government must complete its agenda on workers' rights, namely, the national employment body rights legislation and the agency legislation. It must also deal with the post-Ryanair judgment situation and how we resolve that in terms of creating a new legal edifice that corresponds as closely as possible with the legal edifice that existed prior to the judgment in terms of recognition etc.
We note the Commission has invited both the workers' representatives of trade unions in Europe and employers for discussions on the implications of the mobility of workers across the Union. It will also discuss the implications of the Laval, Rüffert and Viking judgments, although these are case specific, something which is not often recognised. With regard to the Laval case, for example, Sweden does not have a minimum wage, but relies on its tradition of collective agreements. Ireland has a legal minimum wage and this is enforceable. This is the difference between Sweden and Ireland in terms of a minimum wage.
We need to understand the issues. I have suggested to the Institute of European Affairs that it would be good to have a seminar on the workers' rights to bring clarity to the issue. Everybody speaks about the Laval judgement, as if the edifice tumbles down as a result. That judgement does not bring down the edifice of workers' rights. I have read the legal opinions on this. The judgement has two important consequences. It guarantees the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining. However, at the mere mention of the Laval, Rüffert and Viking cases, people assume, almost psychologically, that these have brought the edifice down. They have not brought the world down around us.
It is the intention of this committee to carry out a report on those three cases and put forward the facts.
That would be very useful.
That will be in the near future.
That would be very useful and we could work then with our European colleagues. Other areas concern the amendment of the workers' directive. We should protect workers and ensure there are not vulnerabilities in that area. The highest profile cases in Ireland involving a clear undermining of workers' rights and of Irish labour law legislation related to workers who came into Ireland from outside the European Union.
Turkey for one.
That is often forgotten, but we should bear it in mind. We must ensure we uphold and enforce our own labour laws and that we have a good framework to protect these.
I think I have covered most of the issues raised. Senator Mulcahy asked about energy security and Gaza. I take his point on a motion and agree with him on his clear exposition of the human rights dimension to this. That is a fundamental part of Ireland's thinking on this in terms of its contribution to international debate. Senator John Hanafin raised the Ukraine-Russia issue and mentioned his position on the trade agreement and the Palestinians. Senator Maurice Cummins mentioned Gaza also. I have covered all the issues in terms of the Gaza situation.
I take on board the point made by the Chairman and note his steadfast and unrelenting support for the Lisbon treaty.
I thank the Minister. This concludes the first part of our meeting.
Sitting suspended at 3.36 p.m and resumed at 3.37 p.m.