JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 15 Apr 2003

Vol. 1 No. 13

Middle East Peace Process: Ministerial Presentation.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, for agreeing to appear before the committee, notwithstanding his busy schedule. He has come from a Cabinet meeting and, after taking questions on Northern Ireland in the House, he will travel to Athens this afternoon for the official signing of the accession treaty by the Heads of State or Government of the 15 EU member states and the ten acceding countries. The Minister is busy and we appreciate his attendance.

At this time, with the removal from power of Saddam Hussein, the international community can again turn its attention to priority issues which need to be resolved. These include famine, food shortages and disease in a number of sub-Saharan Africa countries, on which the joint committee will continue to have discussions. In the Middle East, the main unresolved issue is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and this is an opportune time to make a major effort to resolve the problem once and for all.

To kick-start the process, we should seek the immediate implementation of the road map for peace and security in the Middle East, which was prepared by the EU, UN, US, Russia quartet. Now is the time to bring the plan to fruition. The plan provides a practical solution, based on peace and stability as well as economic and political development.

I welcome the recent initiative of the US and UK, which endorses the commitment to have a peace settlement based on the recognition of two states in the area, Israel and Palestine. This opportunity should not be sidetracked. We must push to have it implemented. This would be an important signal to the Arab world that the time is ripe to go forward with this plan, which would bring about lasting peace in the Middle East. It is helpful that Prime Minister Blair is a solid advocate of the peace process. His current close alliance with the US President makes him a valuable ally in the cause of Middle East reconciliation.

The Palestinian Authority, in a spirit of co-operation, has accepted the road map on the grounds that it emerged from a consensus of all four quartet members. While it is disappointing that the Israeli Government has asked for 15 amendments to the plan, it is known that the Israeli people would respond positively if a reasonable peace settlement could be found. Even during the heat of the recent election in Israel, the opinion polls there showed that the Jewish population was willing to trade land, including the settlements and a Palestinian state, for peace and security.

The agreement of the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Yasser Arafat, to surrender some of his powers to the new Prime Minister, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, and to accept the road map, as proposed, indicates a willingness on behalf of the Palestinians to go their half of the way to re-commence the peace process, although the argument that has developed over the new Palestinian Authority Cabinet membership will not help the peace process. However, the Palestinian offer should be grasped with both hands by the quartet and Israel.

Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority should agree the road map and put an end to the conflict. It will take time to end all hostilities, but that should not stop the peace process. Northern Ireland is an outstanding example of what can be achieved through a peace process that has international support. We welcome the continued commitment of the Government in providing humanitarian assistance for the area and support the role played by the EU there. We are anxious to see further movement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has been expressed by Members on a number of occasions in recent times.

Mr. M. Higgins

I dissent from a number of points in the Chairm an's presentation, which I regard as personal views.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the progress of the Middle East peace process and to update the committee on developments. It has been some time since I have had the opportunity to speak at length at this committee about this long-running conflict, in which the people of Ireland have always had a profoundly sympathetic interest.

The conflict in Iraq and its repercussions have, to some extent, taken the spotlight off the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the international effort to resolve it. It is important that this should not be allowed to remain the case. Indeed, the recent events in Iraq make it all the more necessary for the international community to focus on the situation in the occupied territories and the associated conflicts between Israel and Syria and Lebanon.

The situation on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel remains a major cause for concern. Killings and injures are continuing on an almost daily basis. A sense of urgency about the peace process is completely absent. The reports that I receive almost daily from our diplomats in Tel Aviv and Ramallah and from our other embassies in the region make sombre reading.

The Israeli government is continuing its provocative project to build its so-called "Security Fence" on illegally confiscated Palestinian land. This will have the impact of effectively annexing further Palestinian territory, dividing Palestinian communities and separating villages from their farmland and water supplies. The value of this fence to Israel is extremely questionable. It offers doubtful security to Israel, but will stand as an impediment to the peace process, an affront to the dignity of the Palestinians and a question mark against Israel's intentions. The European Union has made these points in a friendly fashion to the Israeli Government. I urge the Israeli Government to heed the warnings of their friends in Europe and elsewhere and to reconsider this ill-advised project.

The humanitarian situation of the Palestinian population remains grim. The economy is in ruins and the closures and restrictions on movement make normal working life impossible for whole communities. Ireland Aid continues its programme of assistance in difficult circumstances. This year €6 million will be allocated in development, humanitarian and emergency assistance to the Palestinians. The European Commission will also continue its budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority for some time, which currently runs at almost €10 million per month.

Politically, there have been significant developments, some of them positive. On Saturday Palestinian Prime Minister designate, Mahmoud Abbas, presented his Cabinet nominees to President Arafat. I understand the nominations will be presented to the Palestinian Legislative Council for approval within the next few days and that there should be a new functioning Palestinian Cabinet within a week or so. I wish Prime Minister Abbas well in the difficult task which lies ahead of him and have urged our EU partners and other international actors to show him the support that he will need to establish his authority.

President Bush indicated in mid-March that as soon as a Palestinian Cabinet was approved and operational, he expected the quartet road map to be presented to the parties. This document, which has been developed by the quartet of representatives of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, sets out the steps which must be taken over a three year period to ensure the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. The aim is for this Palestinian state to live in peace and security within internationally recognised borders alongside a peaceful and secure Israel.

The road map is not a simple document but then nor are the problems that it seeks to address. It makes demands of both Israelis and Palestinians; sets measurable benchmarks and definite timeframes; and, above all, provides for progress to be monitored and assessed by international observers. The text was agreed at the end of last year but for a variety of reasons the US Government was reluctant to publish it during the first three months of this year. However, there appears to be a determination in Washington that, following the overthrow of the Iraqi regime, progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a political and moral necessity if stability, social and political progress are ever to come to the Middle East.

There has been public speculation on whether the road map is open for further discussion or negotiation before publication. The Government of Israel has suggested it would like changes in the text but the quartet has made it clear that the road map stands as agreed in Washington last December and that negotiations are a matter for the parties in the course of implementation. The formal adoption and publication of the road map will represent a major challenge to the parties. Sacrifices will be necessary from both sides and the statesmanship of both sides will be severely tested.

Ireland has been a consistent supporter of the work of the quartet and I see the road map as offering the best prospect currently available for a comprehensive, peaceful solution to the conflict. The Taoiseach urged President Bush on the necessity to proceed with the road map during their meetings in Washington on 13 March. As it happened, the President announced his intention to proceed with publication the following day.

Ireland will continue to support the work of the quartet and the difficult process of implementation over the period of the ending of the conflict. We have our own experience of the difficult process of building peace on this Island. While no direct parallels can be drawn between the situation in the Middle East and that in Northern Ireland, there are lessons to be learned and we are happy to make our experience available to the parties and the international team monitoring implementation of the road map.

Work on the mechanisms necessary for implementation of the road map has made considerable progress and as soon as it has been presented to the parties, it will be possible to proceed directly to implementation. The question of Ireland's participation in an implementation mechanism has not yet been decided as we are awaiting an indication of the way in which resources will be sought from the four quartet participants.

The European Union as a whole remains committed to the Middle East peace process. It is considered by Foreign Ministers at practically every meeting, most recently at the Council in Luxembourg yesterday, which I was unable to attend. The High Representative, Javier Solana, and his staff are fully engaged in the search for peace and maintain constant channels both to the parties and the other international actors who have a role to play.

At its meeting on 21 March the European Council concluded that the Iraq crisis made it all the more imperative that the other problems of the region be tackled and resolved. The Heads of State and Government repeated their support for a two state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. They called for the immediate publication and implementation of the road map and parallel progress in the security, political and economic fields. Tomorrow in Athens EU Heads of State and Government will discuss the Middle East peace process with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. They will consider the means to give effect to the road map and the most effective proposals for implementation.

The states of the Middle East are also active in the peace process. Since the Arab League summit in Beirut in March 2002, Arab states have been clear about their commitment to a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders and complete normalisation of relations between the Arab states and Israel. This initiative which came from Saudi Arabia was an important clarification and will enable the Arab League and its member states to play a major role in the establishment of peace in the region.

The Arab League also has a potentially important role to play in resolving the other outstanding conflicts between Israel and its neighbours Syria and Israel. No long-term settlement in the region will be complete under there is also agreement between Israel, on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon, on the other. We know from the experience of the Defence Forces in those countries the debilitating effect of these conflicts. We are conscious of the way in which they have impeded the social and political development of the countries involved over the past 30 or 40 years.

Happily, the road map takes into account the necessity for these questions to be resolved. However, it will be necessary for Syria and Lebanon to show willingness to move also. They must also be prepared to make the commitment to peaceful co-existence and move on from past wrongs to an era of regional peace and development. Difficult security and territorial issues will have to be resolved. Nonetheless, I am confident that if real progress towards a Palestinian state is discernible, the necessary goodwill and political courage will be forthcoming.

I will bring my remarks to a close by summing up the state of the Middle East peace process as I see it. As on so many previous occasions when I have addressed this question in the House or at the committee, the situation on the ground is deeply worrying. Communities on both sides live in fear; there is sense of mutual hostility, almost to the point of dehumanisation. There has been a lack of political will towards peace and a failure to appreciate the necessary sacrifices and compromises that will have to be made by all sides. At the same time, there is at some level a dim understanding of the shape which the peace process has to take. There is an acceptance that two states will have to live side by side in peace and within secure internationally recognised borders. There are the beginnings of an acceptance that painful sacrifices will have to be made by both sides.

The quartet road map embodies all of the essential elements for the peace towards which the Israelis and Palestinians are so painfully groping. A plan which left out any of these essential elements would have little chance of success. There is now, perhaps for the first time in years, an international consensus around a peace plan and the international will to see it through.

The next few months will be absolutely crucial, not just for Israelis and Palestinians but also for all of the peoples and states of the region. Everyone involved must be prepared to move with speed and resolution to ensure this opportunity is not missed. Israel must end its illegal settlement activity and accept the need to withdraw its colonies from the occupied territories. It must recognise that its long-term peace and security rest in the establishment of a viable and independent Palestine based on the 1967 borders. Palestinians must accept that Israel has the right to exist in peace as a Jewish state within recognised borders. The Arab and Muslim world must allow Palestinians the space to make the necessary compromises and cease all support for terrorist activities. The United States, the European Union and others must encourage and facilitate their friends to do whatever is necessary to achieve a just and lasting peace. Violence must end but the peace process must not be made hostage that would seek to use violence to destroy it.

None of us can foresee the shape of the Middle East five years from now but the peace plan on offer, bitter as its consequences will be for many, is the best that is likely to emerge and Ireland will support it, offer our experiences to those who can benefit and continue our own modest but determined efforts in the humanitarian, peacekeeping and diplomatic fields.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I thank the Minister for his presentation as he raised all the issues of concern. Based on our experience in Northern Ireland, we should be particularly slow to prescribe solutions for conflicts such as this from a distance or condemn one side while absolving another, nothwithstanding the suffering on both sides.

I want to ask the Minister a number of specific questions. He said the road map set measurable benchmarks and definite timeframes and, above all, provided for progress to be monitored and assessed by international observers. We will be assuming the Presidency of the European Union in just over eight months' time. What consideration has he given to Ireland playing a part in the monitoring process? Did he raise this issue in his discussions with Mr. Haass in recent weeks? Did he single it out as very important, almost as a counterbalance to what is happening in Iraq?

We were given to understand by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair that this issue would gain momentum. I note the matter, particularly the road map and the most effective proposals for its implementation, will be discussed at the meeting in Athens tomorrow which will be attended by the Secretary General of the United Nations. It is timely that this should happen. It would be a major let-down, however, if the meeting was to conclude without some momentum being created, bearing in mind that Prime Minister Blair, one of the two people who promised there would be real progress on the Israeli-Palestinian question at the outset of the Iraq war, is attending.

For a few years I had an opportunity to attend such meetings and often the statements emanating from them can be drafted so as to be very bland and nuanced and incorporate all concerns. Will the Minister accept this is not a time for a nuanced statement, that there needs to be some hard decision-making in regard to the role of the European Union in advancing the road map and the peace process at this time?

Deputy Quinn

I compliment the Minister on his remarks. I detect a considerable shift in attitude in Iveagh House. This text was certainly not drafted by a Zionist given that it refers to settlements as colonies. I wonder why there is this tone which I am not disputing. The patience of the world community with both the Palestinians and the Israelis is beginning to run out. Solutions are available which involve compromise. The European Union is the embodiment of that institutionalised compromise.

My question to the Minister in the light of the remarks made by Deputy Gay Mitchell which I endorse is, does the road map and the enforcement of its provisions envisage any form of economic sanctions the European Union or the quartet might bring to bear on the participating parties on both sides? The Minister spelled out the level of economic support the Union is giving to the Palestinians. There is a substantial scale of support from another member of the quartet, the United States. At this stage, without taking sides on the issue, has the European Union considered the use of economic sanctions on an equal basis?

Deputy Mulcahy

I thank the Minister for attending the meeting. His presentation, particularly the summary, is a very balanced statement which many of us support.

As I understand it, the European Union is the largest financial contributor to the Palestinian Authority. Would I be correct in saying this is not just a funding problem, that perhaps the United States also needs to invest a little more energy in the whole Middle East peace process? When first elected, I recall President Bush saying he would not get personally involved in the process. That is not a tenable position for any US President because the role of the United States is absolutely crucial.

The Minister referred to the Lebanon and Syria and said Javier Solana was trying to ask the Americans to tone down their remarks about Syria which were causing a little nervousness. Will the whole question of the Lebanon and Syria be discussed at the forthcoming meeting? Will it be tied into the whole quartet process?

Deputy Cowen

On Deputy Gay Mitchell's remarks, given that Ireland will assume the Presidency of the European Union in the first half of next year, we will be doing all we can to constructively advance the common EU position which is quite clear and has been incorporated into that of the quartet. The big development in terms of European diplomacy has been the emergence of a quartet position involving the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations as sponsors of the peace plan. Therefore, it is in the ownership of each of them. It does not belong to any one party over another. It is a collective responsibility which we must share. I hope we will make advances and do whatever we can during our Presidency to ensure this mechanism is proceeded with speedily. The strength of the peace plan and prospects for its durability are greater because of the fact that it is in the collective ownership of the four sponsors. Its analysis is fair.

To take up what Deputy Quinn said, the tone of the plan's content is not meant to be in any way belligerent against any side. It is a question of acknowledging that if we want peace with justice in the region, it must be along the lines of implementation of the road map. It is not a case of having friendly relations with Israel or the Palestinian Authority. We want to work with two parties which are striving to find a means by which the peace process can be put back on track. We know from our own experience that it is a very short-term and, ultimately, not very beneficial approach to advance a partisan position in favour of one side or the other. We are motivated by our statements in this matter based on our assessment of the need for peace with justice in the region and, as we have seen on our own island, where the equally legitimate aspirations and needs of both sides can be accommodated and respected. Israel is entitled to peace with security. Palestinians are also entitled to a state with peace and security.

I hope nothing will be taken from my remarks as indicating anything other than a consistent position by the Government, even though we all have our own style of saying things. It has been the view of successive Governments that we genuinely plead for mutual respect by both sides and acknowledge the facilitation sought from the quartet as a means of resolving the matter. This is important not just for Israel and Palestine internally or in terms of their bilateral relations. The reason for the interest of the quartet and the international community is that our security is threatened by not resolving the problem. Therefore, all the political will we can muster as an international community under the guise of the quartet and other international fora must be directed towards constructively assisting two peoples who yearn for peace to find a means by which they can attain that legitimate aspiration.

I have not mentioned this matter to Richard Haass in recent discussions only to stress, if we go back prior to the conflict breaking out, the importance we attach to what are now the post-Saddam Iraq arrangements being embedded in the context of wider regional security requirements. The European Union, in its consideration of the matter with the Secretary General of the United Nations tomorrow, will reflect the sense of urgency we all feel about the issue. It is important that we do not allow a situation to develop where, as happened in the past, either side uses the European Union or the United States as proxies for their own argument. The benefit of the quartet road map and peace plan is to avoid the tendency for the United States to be put in an exclusively pro-Israeli position at the expense of other legitimate opinions and for the European Union to be regarded as a proxy for the Palestinian argumentation. That is self-defeating in trying to solve this problem and allows extremes on both sides within the region to avoid our being able to focus on solving the problem in a way which most moderate and reasonable people on all sides would regard as essential for a solution.

The European Union has legitimate interests in the region. Our security is affected by it and we are the region's largest trading partner. We do not come with a partisan approach but one which seeks to ensure the Community's values of solidarity, stability, prosperity and peace are available to the region. This is the approach we take in all aspects of our foreign policy as we try to improve relations around the world.

On the question of economic sanctions, I do not foresee them as a means by which we best serve the parties in gaining sufficient confidence to move forward on a voluntary basis. We would be starting from the wrong point were that to be our approach. There are continuing issues regarding rules of origin and the make of products, an issue for the import and export arrangements between the European Union and Israel. There is a certain technical process which is proceeding. However, the peace plan of the quartet is put to both sides on the basis that they will, voluntarily, pick up the challenge and work the process through in a way that will bring about a successful conclusion. It would not be helpful to get into that sort of arrangement, nor is it contemplated by us.

Regarding what Deputy Mulcahy says, there is a prospect, as the Arab League makes clear, of normalising relations, not only between Israel and Palestine but also between Israel and the whole Arab and Muslim world. That is a very important opportunity which should be grasped. It would involve the normalisation of bilateral relations between Israel and Syria and between Israel and Lebanon as part of that wider framework.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I like the quartet approach. I also like the Minister's presentation. There is one point which should be clarified further, particularly in the light of his last comments. He said the United States, the European Union and others must encourage and facilitate their friends to do whatever was necessary to achieve a just and lasting peace. I take his point that economic sanctions might not be the answer. I was never madly in favour of sanctions. Despite the worst excesses of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, I did not favour the sanctions approach as the answer to the tyrannies being exercised there.

The Minister is telling us he believes there is the political will among the members of the quartet, particularly the United States, to do more than encourage and facilitate a just and lasting peace. Does he accept that it will be necessary to do more than encourage and facilitate? The Palestinians are virtually on their knees. While certain pressures might need to be brought to bear on Arafat and others, I could see them coming on board in relation to a solution.

The ground to be travelled by the Israelis is, in many ways, more difficult. They have their illegal settlements and their own extreme fundamentalists in their country. Is there a political will on the part of all members of the quartet to use whatever influence they have, not necessarily through economic sanctions, to bring all parties on board?

The other side to sanctions is aid. I note that Israel announced that the United States was to provide it with $10 billion, about 10% of its GDP, in aid to help its economy, although this has not been approved. Possibly the non-approval or limited approval of such an application might be part of the pressures the United States could bring to bear on Israel. Is the Minister satisfied that the political will is there?

Deputy M. Higgins

This has been a very helpful speech by the Minister which has the merit of directness. I have no difficulty with the description of the illegal occupation and forced settlement of lands that are not one's own as a colonisation. The word stands up.

It is important to stress that the peace plan is the creation and achievement of the quartet with which its ownership lies. I suggest to the Minister that part of my disagreement with some of his earlier remarks is that if the peace plan is seen as a consequence of, or an adjunct to, what has been taking place in Iraq, its force is lessened. The roles of the United Nations and Russia are stressed in it. If it sinks into being a consequential instrument of either the United States or the United States and Britain together in an exclusively Iraq conflict context, it is limited in what it can achieve.

I share the Minister's view as I understand it, that the document is completed and that issues of discussion are issues of implementation. That is not the view of the United States as I understand it. It is certainly not the view of Israel, whose 15 suggested changes are not merely amendments. Some have the status of preconditions.

This enables me to turn to one that is worrying and which emerged in the evolution of the peace plan and from the circumstances that immediately followed. What is the status of the requirement that the Palestinian Authority accepts a new Cabinet? That requirement is not an amendment but an additional precondition. This has been deeply affected by statements in the past few days by the Israeli Defence Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister, both of whom made new observations on Syria that amount almost to preconditions in relation to what the peace plan is seeking to achieve.

There is no point being silent. It may be useful at this stage to try to have an amnesty on some issues, but I do not believe they can be left aside for long. If it is suggested, for example, that the ceding of the right of return by the Palestinian side might enable Israel to engage more positively, it would create an immense problem for the Palestinian side and the peace plan would be weakened as a result.

There is now a bigger problem regarding the success of the peace plan, which is in the common ownership of all the members of the quartet, the European Union, the United Nations, Russia and the United States. It was structured to some extent as a significant step towards a non-military solution of the problems of the Middle East and the building of peace beyond the Middle East. It is seriously contaminated by the military option and it is significant that the people who advised the crudest form of military option in relation to Iraq are precisely those who are advising Israel and using the same language regarding a military solution to what they see as the elimination of terrorism.

I agree with the suggestion that the aims should include a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state. I support the Minister in that regard. I do not want to sound excessively pessimistic but I suggest that the quartet's peace plan is being damaged by the description of it as an instrument of US policy or of the so-called coalition of the willing policy. In that respect, if it becomes an instrument of both, it is difficult to see the United Nations as a co-author and co-sponsor of it although the role of the UN is crucial.

Senator O’Rourke

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his balanced and understandable report. The Minister said frankly that any sense of urgency about the peace process seems completely absent. He went on to tell us what has happened to date but a potentially positive aspect is the Prime Minister designate and the presentation of his Cabinet. This shows willingness in terms of intent.

Do the members of the quartet have an equal say and does the Minister envisage it developing in an even-handed way, with each member having equal weight? I know the Minister will use our upcoming Presidency to push matters further, but we are debating this issue with the overhang of what has happened post-Iraq. That gives a different flavour for many of us observing and thinking about it. The recent comments by the US about Syria - I will be as frank as the Minister - into which all this fits clearly evoke a sense of unease among many countries particularly in the EU. Those comments also evoke in all of us a sense of unease. I note the EU Commissioner will speak on this issue tonight at Harvard. While the quartet is about its business and seeking to give added urgency to this debate, there is another debate going on. This has been initiated by the US and it is gaining ground in terms of a predatory path that it may seek to take. Surely that casts its own shadow on the peace process.

Ms Patricia McKenna, MEP

As most people said, we cannot disagree with what the Minister said but, when talking about the Middle East peace process and the road map, we cannot ignore the statements by the US on Syria. We must ensure peace in the whole region and not just between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The recent statement by the US is extremely disturbing. Most people would not have thought the Americans would use the events of 11 September as an excuse to invade Iraq. However, they planned cleverly and organised well and succeeded in doing so. Just after 11 September, the vast majority of the international community would have been appalled at the idea of the US invading Iraq. However, its strategy was very clever.

The Americans have, in the last few days, accused Syria of harbouring or giving refuge to Saddam Hussein and of having chemical weapons. It is now talking about imposing sanctions and who knows what will follow because this approach is similar to the one it took to Iraq in the first instance. This issue must be part of the discussions on the Middle East peace process. What will be the Government's position? We do not want a situation, as happened previously, where the Opposition parties in the Dáil have little influence over what the Government did in Ireland's name. What will be Ireland's position in relation to the possibility of the Americans imposing sanctions on Syria? What will the position if the worst comes and the Americans think they can get away with doing to Syria what it has just done to Iraq? Will we provide facilities at Shannon regardless of whether there is UN sanction?

Visits by the EU to the Middle East have, in the past, been very short and at a time of crisis. Will the Government, during its Presidency, ensure sustained visits are made to the Middle East and that they are more substantial than heretofore?

Deputy Cowen

I thank members for their contributions. Deputy O'Keeffe asked if there is political will to make progress. We need a greater collective political will than has been the case up to now if there is to be a successful outcome. That is certainly the case. I talked to the Taoiseach regarding his discussions in March and in Hillsborough recently when he had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the US President and the British Prime Minister. An important point was made by the US President when, in congratulating the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister on the work they were doing on our peace process, he indicated that he would give that sort of time to the Middle East peace process. Knowing, as we do, the amount of time our Taoisigh and Prime Ministers in Britain have had to give this process over many years, that is an indication of a public commitment by the US Administration, at the highest political level, of its determination to work with others through the quartet to advance progress on this dossier.

It is an important indication and statement of intent on behalf of the US President. I welcome it because I think US involvement in this peace process is essential for its success. The US is an influential actor in the process - there is no doubt about that aspect. By the same token it cannot have laid at its doors exclusively the failures of the process in the past although it is true that it can influence for the good or the better and can obtain movement at times when we are not able to get movement on certain issues. In answering the question directly, I believe that in the US Administration, as the President said, there is a political will to progress the peace process. The Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, is deeply interested and is, potentially, an influential figure in the process. The European Union is determined to enhance our role, based on ownership of this process through the quartet. The Russian Federation and the UN clearly also have critical roles in this situation.

Senator O'Rourke asked if everyone would play an equal part. The important point is that the composition of the quartet is such that it is fully equipped to deal with any issue that arises if the collective political will can be mustered and maintained, consistent with what we have set out as the basis of our plan. Obviously, the quality of that work is determined by our ability to influence the primary actors, Israel and the Palestinians, and others in the region like Syria, the Lebanon and the wider Arab League movement which also stand ready to work constructively for a solution to the problem. The answer is "yes". There is evidence available, from public statements and from regional and international bodies which have come to address the issue in recent times, that there is a determination and a recognition that this problem must be solved. It must be a top priority for all of us. It must not be simply considered a regional or bilateral issue. It concerns everybody and is a vital priority matter. We must therefore give it the time that is necessary. I believe the quartet will do that as will the main players.

As the plan has been agreed for some time it is not seen simply as an adjunct, as Deputy Higgins said. We can avoid that perception by confirming that it was decided upon prior to any military action in Iraq. Again, regarding the ownership issue, there is a determined effort on all our parts, as constituent members of the quartet, to confirm our ownership of it. The plan is not to be hived off to any subsidiary but is the considered view of all four parties of the quartet.

Deputy Higgins was right in confirming that publication does not solve the problem but is only a necessary first step. We have been looking for publication of this peace plan for some time. As I said when EU Ministers met the Secretary of State recently in Brussels, the commitment to publish the peace plan needs to be followed up quickly with further steps in terms of its implementation. Publication itself is not the end result. It should not simply be published, discussed and interpreted by people without being part of a focused political process going forward. Counter balancing political and security steps need to be taken to build trust. We should remember that there is a total absence of trust just as there has been at times in our own process. We know the difficulties that arise from that. We need to build that trust and if we want to help, we will not build it on the basis that we see one side of the problem and not the other.

Deputy Higgins raised the question of the Palestinian Authority, the new Prime Minister and the Cabinet and the legislative and Council's consideration of all those issues. This is all about establishing partners and ensuring there are partners in the process with whom people can and will deal, without interfering in the internal decisions of the actors themselves as to how they organise their structures, so that we can get the necessary responses. We want to ensure that when we look for political developments there can be a security response and that there will not be a counter security response that seeks to eradicate the security apparatus that might bring about that which is being sought. We have seen that happening in the past. Therefore, that short-term militarism has to stop.

The important point the Taoiseach made and the critical point he impressed upon the US President is that the enemies of the peace process cannot hold the peace process hostage. There must be a commitment to end violence. We must get a ceasefire as part of the process as we move forward and all terrorist groups must be confronted and must not obtain support from any quarter. We must also ensure that those who are enemies of this process, extremists who will foment violence in order to derail the process, must not be allowed to deter us in our resolve to continue forward with what everyone recognises to be the solution to this problem. The solution to the problem is two states living in peace and security side by side.

There are people who will use terrorist violence to make sure that this process will not succeed. There are examples of institutional violence which have taken the oxygen from those moderates who are trying to move forward. The fundamental requirement of not allowing enemies of a process to dictate the process is a critical factor in any successful peace process. That is what we bring to the table in terms of our experience of our own process. It is where our experiences might be helpful to others.

The issue of Syria has been raised. It is important to point out that these issues were raised between EU Ministers and the Secretary of State. It was confirmed to us that there is no military plan to attack Syria and it is wrong to suggest one exists. Questions have been raised regarding possible problems in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Syria. These problems fall short of any threat of military or other action. Certain assertions have been made about weapons of mass destruction and possible support for the former Iraqi regime. Those assertions have been made by the US about Syria's policies. They fall far short of threats of military or other action and there have been no indications of any such intention. The position is the contrary. Syria is a country with which both Ireland and its EU partners continue to have friendly relations and with which the EU is negotiating an association agreement.

The situation with Syria is not at present deemed comparable to the crisis in Iraq. The situation in Iraq evolved over a very long period as a result of Iraq's attacks on its neighbours and its long defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. Syria has a crucial part to play in the Middle East peace process. It is essential that along with the other nations involved, it assumes its full responsibilities in this regard. It would be very unwise, as Ms McKenna suggested, to discuss what Irish policy will be in relation to a war because there is no war envisaged. I do not think it is very helpful to raise those issues because they are not deemed to be part of any solution to any matters that arise in relation to the current situation. I thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to attend the committee——

Ms McKenna, MEP

What about my last question about Ireland's Presidency of the EU? I asked about sustained visits because, up to now, there have only been short sporadic visits at a time of crisis.

Deputy Cowen

In the context of enlargement and reforms of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, we have made certain proposals about trying to assist Javier Solana with his huge workload. The European Union has been successful on this dossier and the High Representative and Chris Patten have done very beneficial work. The success of that diplomacy should not be measured in terms of the frequency of visits, although that is an issue we will keep in mind. If frequency of visits was the solution to this problem, it would have been solved about 30 years ago. A sustained effort and a peace plan which has the ownership of the international community and the important actors and players in that region will be the determining factor. I commend the High Representative for the continuing role and high priority he attaches to this on behalf of us all.

Deputy G. Mitchell

Clearly, Prime Minister Blair's stock with President Bush is very high at present and President Bush is the central figure in this. The President will not be at the meeting tomorrow but the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, will be present. I do not wish to tell the Minister his business but our attitude should be to do everything in our power at the meeting tomorrow and to use all our influence to imbue Mr. Blair with the enthusiasm to persuade President Bush to follow through on the indications that he gave at the outset of the war in Iraq. That should be the focus of our agenda and our purpose tomorrow.

Deputy Cowen

I wish to emphasise that in more than 90% of foreign policy issues the European Union is united. The recent difference of opinion in relation to the dossier on Iraq should not be deemed to suggest that the European Union is not united on many of the major issues of the day because that is not so. I assure the Deputy that the High Representative and the Heads of State, including Mr. Blair, are ad idem on the need for us to work with our partners in the quartet to implement this road map when it is published and to work with the parties concerned. Ireland has a role to play in this matter which should not be underestimated. The only precondition in any peace process is to have people prepared to trust one another in the negotiation of a peace process that will work. We will do whatever we can to instil on all sides the necessary courage, fortitude and determination to bring that about. We will work constructively with our partners in the European Union. As Deputy Higgins said, despite the good work thus far in terms of policy position, a huge task and challenge faces us in the context of the current difficult situation and its background.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance. I also thank the distinguished visitors who have listened to the discussion. The committee regards this issue as a priority and we intend to continue to pursue it as one of the priority subjects. The Minister has set out the issues very frankly and directly. He seeks, as does the committee, a settlement with dignity and parity of esteem. The road map was devised last autumn and Ireland was very active at the UN Security Council in supporting it. It is now time to press for its implementation. We want to keep it on the agenda and centre stage. We do not want to mix it up with other issues.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.46 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 April 2003.