I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and thank him for taking time out of his extremely busy schedule to appear before the committee. At previous meetings committee members expressed a wish for him to appear before the committee to discuss the Department's position on a number of matters in so far as they related to Iran. They are the nuclear proliferation treaty, the US-India agreement and the nuclear suppliers' group. Before we discuss these issues, I ask the Minister to update the committee on the developing situation in the Middle East involving Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
Iran and Related Matters: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the Chairman for the invitation to attend this meeting. Unfortunately, my time is limited, as I will have to leave at 12.20 p.m. to attend another meeting. I have a relatively long speech prepared but it is important, given that a number of issues have been put on the agenda, to address as many of them as possible.
I spent yesterday in intensive discussions at a meeting of the Council of EU Foreign Ministers in Brussels on the increasingly dangerous situation in the Middle East. I was also in touch throughout the day with our people in the region. Thankfully, the mobile telecommunications system is still functioning.
I know the committee will join me in expressing thanks to all those involved in the successful operation to evacuate our citizens from Beirut, through Syria. It was a particularly difficult operation and, as I speak, another 25 or more citizens have congregated in Beirut. We must make arrangements to get them out of the area. I understand there are another 20 Irish citizens elsewhere in Lebanon. We are trying to work with our European colleagues on this matter. There has been talk of a Polish convoy being of use and the French have also been very helpful to us. The issue of how to respond in a co-ordinated way was discussed in detail at the meeting of our EU partners yesterday.
The escalating violence in Lebanon and northern Israel and the desperate situation in Gaza are of the utmost concern to the Government and our EU partners. The large-scale civilian casualties in recent weeks and the increasing danger of a serious humanitarian crisis are, quite simply, unacceptable. It is now essential that all parties, including the European Union and the wider international community, devote every possible effort to overcoming the logic of this war. There will be no military solution to the immediate crisis, or to its underlying causes. The only way forward for the people of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and their neighbours is an end to the violence and a return to political negotiations.
There are inevitably some differences of emphasis among the 25 EU member states. However, we are strongly united in our basic message to the parties to the escalating conflict. All must now co-operate in the concerted diplomatic efforts being undertaken to end the immediate crises without further death and suffering. The action of Hezbollah in launching attacks across the border with Israel last week was cynically calculated to widen and deepen the conflict. It took place at a time when the negotiations between President Abbas and Hamas were progressing extremely well. The attack has brought tragedy and destruction upon the Lebanese people again. It has also diverted the focus of attention from the continuing suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.
The Government has remained in direct contact with Israel, the Palestinian Authority and governments in the region to encourage a diplomatic solution. It fully supports the active engagement of the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and the efforts of the EU High Representative, Mr. Javier Solana, to exercise the European Union's influence in favour of an urgent return to politics and diplomacy.
The UN Security Council will consider the situation in Lebanon in the coming days, based on the report of the Secretary General's mission to the region. Mr. Annan is in Brussels today on Sudanese business but he will also liaise with the EU Presidency with regard to the current situation in the Middle East. The UN Security Council will consider, among other options, the possibility of a new international force for southern Lebanon. This could be a fruitful possibility but the difficulties are also apparent.
The Government's message is very clear. All violence in and from Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories must end. We should not have to await further tragedies, be they intended or otherwise. All parties have unambiguous and immediate responsibilities and must act on them.
Hezbollah must stop its rocket attacks on Israel, which have taken the lives of innocent Israeli citizens. It must release the two captured Israeli soldiers. Syria and Iran have influence on Hezbollah and must use it now, in the interests of regional stability. I welcome the clear condemnation of Hezbollah by states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
The UN Security Council has, in its resolutions, provided the framework for peace and prosperity in Lebanon. It includes the disbanding and disarming of militias and the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all its territory. The international community will have to address how these goals can be credibly asserted in the current dangerous circumstances.
The immediate crisis in Gaza was precipitated by the attack on an Israeli military position within Israeli territory. The kidnapped soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, must be released unconditionally. Rocket attacks from Gaza must also stop. However, the crisis in Gaza is not a new one. The political, security and humanitarian situation in the occupied territories, always difficult, has been deteriorating for some time. The root cause is the absence of a political process for a negotiated two-state solution, which is the only way in which a lasting and just peace can be achieved for the Israeli and the Palestinian people. The Government is determined to maintain our active engagement, both directly and within the European Union, in favour of a negotiated settlement based on the terms of the Quartet road map. The Government has funded discussions between Israelis and Palestinians through the Glencree Centre. I thank Members of the Oireachtas for their active involvement in these discussions. We have supported the firm call on the democratically elected Hamas Government to commit to the peace process under which it achieved power. We have been encouraged by the efforts of President Mahmoud Abbas to achieve a national agreement among all the Palestinian parties based on commitment to a two-state solution. Those efforts have inevitably stalled but we will support him in his determination to conclude the process, which, if followed through, could provide an opening for a return to meaningful political negotiations. We are also increasing our humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.
I will now discuss the responsibilities on the Israeli Government, with whose ambassador we are in daily contact. There is no doubt that Israelis feel extremely threatened by recent events. Israel has an absolute right to peace and security but it is also a strong military power. We share the belief within the European Union that its military response in Gaza and Lebanon has been harsh and disproportionate. Israel has a legitimate right to defend its citizens but this must not be at the expense of the lives and welfare of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. All military operations must be carried out in strict accordance with international law and all parties must act on their responsibility to protect civilian lives. It has to be said that Israel is clearly failing to do this.
I condemn the rising toll of death and destruction, the blockade of Lebanon and the desperate conditions under which 1.5 million Palestinians are living during the effective siege of Gaza. I have spoken strongly, not only because of the suffering but because the current crisis does not serve anybody's interests. This is a time of great fear on all sides. There are no simple solutions and this is not a time for gestures. It is above all a time for acts of political courage and imagination, especially in the region. Those who are most directly concerned will ultimately have to take responsibility. The objectives must be to stabilise the situation in Lebanon and revive the hopes of its people for independence, sovereignty, peace and prosperity, while moving away from the arid temptation to unilateralism on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.
The Government and our EU partners have a role to play in close co-operation with our international partners. We have a clear interest in a peaceful Middle East. We are determined to exert our influence to end the violence and the military action and to maintain our engagement so that the cessation of violence becomes the basis for a credible new international effort for a comprehensive peace in the region.
I apologise for interrupting the Minister but, because of the immediate urgency of the current situation in the Middle East and the substantial attendance at this meeting, will members agree to discussing this issue first?
That is a fair suggestion.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss a number of urgent issues.
The issue we are discussing is related to other issues on our agenda. The agenda originally circulated mentioned Iran and related issues. I would like to confine myself to what the Minister said but to note that they are not unconnected. Three items on our agenda are crucially connected. At our last meeting we had available to us a reprinted article from Dr. El Baradei, who sided with an alternative strategy to the non-nuclear proliferation treaty. We noted this with some concern. If one were to accept the principles of that argument, one would regard the US-India agreement on nuclear technology as a new option on bringing non-signatories into the fold and disciplines of nuclear supply. That is relevant because it is at odds with the approach to Iran constructed by the European Union on our behalf. That is connected to something in the background to this discussion and what the Minister has said he has been discussing, namely, the new unilateral approach, for example on behalf of Israel, which is at a considerable distance from the Quartet.
While others will wish to speak, I want to make some fundamental points. We are in danger. People never say Israel is a nuclear power. However, we are allowed to say it at this committee. We have yet to receive hard evidence that Iran has any military nuclear capacity, yet we talk as if the one did not exist and the other were certain. It is one of the absurdities of our rhetoric.
On the efforts and appeals that will be made for peace, I am sure every member here would like violence to end and peace to happen. I am not alone in finding the European Union's statements during the long build-up to this disastrous situation unsatisfactory. The European Union has been light and sometimes omits any criticism of Israel's departure from international law. The Minister has spoken about the Quartet's proposals for peace, which are broken into a series of phases near the end of which is the future of east Jerusalem. Crucial to that strategy having any meaning is that there be a retreat from illegal settlements. The European Union decided to put that in as one sentence in the last paragraph of one of its statements, ignoring the structural illegality of occupation, settlement and expansion. I speak from the position of having been in Gaza the week after the withdrawal that removed more than 8,000 people. In that month, 112,000 housing permissions were announced for the expansion of Ma'ale Adumim outside Jerusalem. In other words that number of withdrawals was exceeded by a large multiple of expansion across the Jordan valley.
Although I have not much time, I want to say why I am unhappy with the European Union's statements and hand-wringing. It is a pity it was not able to achieve unanimity from the members of the Union present for the vote of the Security Council that condemned the excessive behaviour of the Israeli authorities in destroying civilian lives and infrastructure. Denmark and the United Kingdom chose to abstain and the United Stated voted against it. That is some unity. It raises the importance of the Irish position being stated before future meetings of the Security Council by the Irish Minister to ensure we are not dragged into these vapid and banal statements.
Lest I be accused of being one-sided, which I am not, I have said in my statements that the actions of Hezbollah revealed again a classic tenet of left-wing politics. One of the reasons we have always condemned terrorism is that the counter-terrorist response rains down on civilians a fate worse than that against which they originally struggled. The abduction of the soldier in Gaza and of the two by Hizbollah are indefensible. However, I do not believe the response to be justified and it is not adequate to call it "disproportionate". To say a response is disproportionate is to accept the basis of the action in principle but we do not accept the principle. One can argue that Article 51 on the right of defence applies but this concerns the principle of pre-emption and the concomitant destruction of bridges, lighthouses, schools and other necessary components of civilian infrastructure. The same thing happened in Gaza where the European Union failed to support activities it had funded for that purpose.
The media's response has also been interesting. None has reported the abduction of the Palestinian doctor and his brother, which preceded the abduction of the soldier in Gaza. Perhaps it did not happen and those who wrote about it imagined it. There has been a curious media silence on the most important opportunity the European Union had to intervene in the conflict, namely, the 18-point plan, agreed two days before the abduction by the four prisoners representing different factions, which in substance recognised the state of Israel and could have provided the basis for a new departure.
The European Union issued several statements via the European Council encouraging the Palestinians to hold elections. It sent an observation group, as did Jimmy Carter, and both groups reported on the elections as fair. However, within a few hours of the election results becoming known, the European Union punished the Palestinians for electing Hamas. Whether we like it, Hamas is important. It may not have expected to win but it did so in an electoral process that was free and fair. It would have made sense to have negotiated with Hamas and to have adopted the 18-point plan as a basis. It would have made sense to appeal to the international community to put forward proposals within the scheme of international law. Events of recent days cry out for the discovery of basic elements of decency, if not courage, in the member states of the European Union.
The acceptance of the principle of the destruction of civilian infrastructure in the name of a response is unacceptable because such actions do not constitute a response. It is totally inadequate to say Israel has behaved disproportionately because the build-up to the current crisis has involved a plethora of illegal settlements. When did the Department of Foreign Affairs last issue a statement concerning the wall, which was condemned by the International Commission for Justice a couple of years ago? What has been said about the right to communicate and other issues that have been outlined in one document after another?
I wish Israel and its people peace. I salute non-governmental organisations in Israel and the courageous journalists who are writing more extensively against what is taking place than are the Irish media. That is another story for which we do not have enough time. This is not the time for bland statements because too many issues of principle and international law are at stake.
I wanted to talk about nuclear non-proliferation but I will make two brief comments on the subject at issue. I welcome the actions of the Department of Foreign Affairs to evacuate Irish citizens from Lebanon. In this respect, I thank the Minister and his officials, many of whom went to Lebanon to execute the evacuation plan.
There is a sense of outrage among the public over what is perceived to have been a disproportionate response by the Israelis to the current crisis. I refer the Minister to the Council's conclusions of yesterday which state the European Union recognises Israel's legitimate right to self-defence but urges it to exercise utmost restraint and not to resort to disproportionate action. This is incredibly lame and has an air of total unreality. The totally disproportionate action has already taken place and this should have been noted in the conclusions. I am bewildered as to how one could be urging restraint after a complete lack of restraint has been evident.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. Deputy Michael D. Higgins has certainly given a passionate account of how circumstances are regarded by outsiders and very many in this country. Some 1.5 million people have been living in inhumane conditions in Gaza for a very long period. When the Hamas Government was elected democratically earlier this year, the European Union, instead of offering its support and opening up talks with that government, undermined it by withdrawing support and resources. This was unique and set a very dangerous precedent for EU Ministers. How was their decision made? To this day, we do not know.
Recently there have been abductions and incursions by Hezbollah, but the response by the Israeli Government has been pretty much in the form of a war. There is no question about the response being disproportionate and harsh — it has been an overwhelming nuclear-style response by a major power, with the full support of the United States. If the European Union is to be an honest broker, it must realise the response to what were effectively incursions and abductions has been one of waging outright war on the Palestinian population and the Lebanese and their government.
The Minister is quoted in today's newspapers as stating it is unlikely Ireland will get involved in any UN international peacekeeping force in the region. It is very much premature to make a statement of that nature. I would have thought we would have kept our options open, that we would welcome the establishment of an international peacekeeping force and that we should make it quite clear that, if the United Nations Organisation calls on us on foot of a meeting of the Security Council, we will be prepared to do our duty in this respect.
I did not say that exactly.
The Minister is reported as saying it is very unlikely that Ireland——
Sometimes the Deputy may also be reported incorrectly.
The Minister said——
I said we are stretched as a nation and that we probably have the highest level of peacekeeping troop participation. Many other countries, not least China, have plenty of troops yet very low participation in peacekeeping.
With due respect to the Minister, perhaps that might be discussed, examined and determined after a decision has been taken by the Security Council and a request made to Ireland. By speaking out in that premature fashion, it would seem that in some way——
The Deputy knows as well as I that politicians are often accused of not answering the question. The question was put to me. Of course, I could have hidden behind the usual statement that it is a matter for the Government to decide.
It is a matter for the Government to decide.
Of course.
That is the whole point of the exercise. It is a matter for the Government in the context of the triple lock. It is for the Government and the Oireachtas to decide, following a request by the Security Council. We already have troops——
The Deputy can tell some of his putative colleagues about the triple lock.
We have troops in Lebanon and a long, honourable tradition of serving there. Speaking out in that premature fashion was uncalled for and unnecessary, and the Minister's emphasis should be on the fact that we will fully support a UN force if required and will consider it if participation is requested of us.
I will be brief, since as others have said, the three matters on the agenda are connected. I do not suppose that what has happened should come as any great surprise. Anyone visiting Israel-Palestine recently could see that such an outcome was an unfortunate likelihood of Israeli policies. Like other speakers, I compliment the Minister and his officials on their prompt arrangements for the evacuation of Irish citizens, which has been an important signal and humanitarian gesture.
The Minister called yesterday and today for an end to violence, and I take the firm view that it is the only solution. However, in some respects, it may be whistling past the graveyard, and I use those words advisedly. It is tragic, unfortunate and regrettable that there has been such an outbreak of violence there and that innocent parties such as the Lebanese have been dragged into it. The process might disintegrate into a serious regional conflict. An Israeli journalist, whether speaking on behalf of his government or personally, said that the matter could end in a few weeks. However, the world may have been blown to pieces in a few weeks. This committee should call unanimously for an end to all violence in the region.
Hear, hear.
There are no circumstances in which the extent and nature of the violence can be condoned. The response has been disproportionate, and it is hard to know whether one can use any more vigorous terms. The Minister has certainly urged us all strongly to concentrate on the diplomatic route. Perhaps the US Secretary of State might be prevailed upon, during her meanderings around the world, to visit the region with greater urgency than appears to be the case. It is not good enough merely to suggest the Secretary of State will visit the region at some point; we all know that. The USA has a serious responsibility to engage with its allies in the region to ensure that this horrendous violence ends.
Regarding deployment of a peacekeeping force, I recognise that Ireland is stretched, but I also recognise and understand that, above all other UN peacekeeping countries, we would probably have greatest moral authority if we sent forces to the region. Those are my comments at this stage, but as I said, the three or four matters on the agenda are very much interlinked, each being as important as the other. A call for a cessation of violence should emanate from this committee today.
I completely endorse what Deputy Carey said and very much hope this meeting will unanimously endorse such a call for an immediate cessation of violence. If the Deputy wishes to put such a proposal to members, I will be pleased and honoured to second it. I congratulate our officials on organising a speedy, safe and successful rescue of Irish citizens in the region. It is notable that so many countries sent battleships, aircraft carriers and so on to rescue their own civilians without giving a damn for the welfare of Lebanese civilians.
Israel has certain moral and legal responsibilities that attach to its status as a state. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has no such status. It is not acceptable, therefore, to impose a collective punishment on an entire nation for the actions of that organisation. Israel is not going after Hezbollah but is bombing electricity generating stations, sewerage plants, oil depots, bridges and other infrastructure. This has absolutely nothing to do with Hezbollah.
I welcome the slight hardening of the Minister's position on Israel that is detectable in his speech. I am not anti-Israeli but I am against criminality and aggression. This situation is linked with that in Gaza where, in temperatures of 40° Celsius, there is no electricity for most of the day, sewerage and water services are disrupted and there is no effective health service. Can the Minister imagine what it is like to live in such conditions? Something akin to an open air concentration camp is being created. It is a moral reproach to us all that we sat on out hands and did absolutely nothing.
Israel has a right to peace and security; it is a right to which we are all are entitled. However, the Minister described it as an "absolute right" on the part of the Israeli state without referring to any concomitant right for innocent Lebanese civilians. The first reference to civilian casualties in his speech is to "innocent Israeli citizens". I deplore this loss of life and I am familiar with the particular railway station in Haifa. My heart is with those people who were so unexpectedly and brutally slaughtered. The ratio of casualties is 10:1.
It seems the European Union, with Ireland's assent, accepts the principle that Israel has the right to hammer the infrastructure of Lebanon in this manner. Does the Minister understand the irrefutable logic of the principle to which he seems to have consented? Does he accept it would have given the British Government the right, during the period when the IRA-Sinn Féin were bombing Canary Wharf, Brighton and Birmingham on our behalf, to bomb Dublin, Dundalk and Drogheda and take out our sewerage, electricity and water supplies? That is the parallel if we accept this principle, or are the Palestinians and Lebanese a sub-race? Increasingly, this seems to be the view.
The focus of the European Union's approach is all wrong. There was no protest when a large section of the Palestinian Parliament was arrested. I notice that what would otherwise be described as kidnapping is deemed an "arrest" when undertaken by the Israelis. We must have some straight talking in the use of language also. We have lost moral authority by not being even-handed. I welcome the very slight hardening of the Minister's attitude, not against Israel but in favour of international law. This is the crux of the issue. The Bush regime has deliberately set out to undermine respect for international law and its institutions. It provides a moral umbrella under which the Israeli Government and other allies can behave in this way. It is not acceptable and we need to make it absolutely clear that it is not. If Deputy Carey wishes to put forward his suggestion as a concrete proposal to this committee, I will second it and believe it will be unanimously agreed. I have great sympathy for the family of Corporal Gilad Shalit and the other two Israeli soldiers who have been kidnapped. Parallels have been made with kidnappings by the Israelis. It is awful. One feels for the human tragedy of all those involved but it is time that we stood up for some international principle.
I again ask the Minister to accept and understand that if we are prepared to tolerate this type of action by the state of Israel against the civilian population of Lebanon and Palestine, the British Government could justifiably have bombed Dublin, Dundalk and Drogheda in defence of its absolute right to peace and security if the heart of London had been bombed. I doubt if the Minister would have been so timid in his response had this happened.
Time is tight because there are a number of other speakers.
In deference to other speakers I will be brief. I join my colleagues in thanking the Minister and his officials for their rapid response in evacuating our citizens from Lebanon and for their very balanced presentation here today. My three questions probably result from political naivety but I will ask them nevertheless.
I agree entirely with Senator Norris's analogy in respect of the Brighton bombings and what the British army could have done if this absolute right to absolute defence was prevalent around the world. Thankfully, this right is not prevalent and appears to relate to Israel's capacity rather than that of other countries. I am not trying to set traps but could the Minister tell me at what stage a disproportionate response becomes a criminal act? At what stage does a government become guilty of a crime? I ask this question because it appears that what is happening is not simply disproportionate but criminal.
In respect of non-proliferation, I, along with Deputy O'Donnell, attended a meeting in the UN headquarters in New York approximately 12 months ago. At that time I proposed that the parliaments of the civilised world devote a day to reviewing, analysing and promoting the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT. I have raised the proposal with this committee on a number of occasions. I am not sure if anything happened but perhaps the Minister could use his influence to set the ball rolling with our own Government. Perhaps we could give half a day in the parliamentary annual calendar over to examining the NPT because it is only a pious wish and until we begin discussing the lack of progress, nothing will happen.
Is it possible to convince the Israeli Government that this disproportionate response, to use the euphemistic term, provides a breeding ground for the recruitment of terrorists? Our history is replete with examples of disproportionate responses and many people joined the IRA because of the actions of the British Government at the time. Thankfully, the situation has changed in recent times. Is it possible to convince the Israeli Government that it provides a breeding ground for the recruitment into terrorism of the children and grandchildren of the innocent civilians whom it has bombed in pursuit of a military objective, which appears to be the recovery of the unfortunate soldier?
I join my colleagues in complimenting the Minister and his officials on the alacrity and efficiency with which they have extricated Irish citizens from Lebanon. It is yet another indication of the wonderful support provided by the administration in Iveagh House and our representatives abroad.
The last paragraph on the first page of the Minister's speech is probably the most relevant in terms of what he is outlining. The situation is extremely serious. I, with everyone else here, feel for the innocent people of both Israel and Lebanon. A number of weeks ago when these events began, I had a great deal of sympathy for Israel. Hamas or factions thereof cynically manipulated what seemed to be a progressive peace process between the Israeli Government and President Abbas by crossing into Israel and abducting Corporal Gilad Shalit. The committee and the Minister reiterate their support for any sovereign state that wishes to defend its borders. Perhaps more than most, Israel is a democratic oasis amidst authoritarian and autocratic governments and should have our support. However, I agree with what has been said about events occurring in Lebanon. Why is Lebanon, a sovereign state, being punished for the acts of a military group that has operated with impunity inside its borders for a number of years? That is incredible. The militia has approximately 15,000 armed members and more than 10,000 state-of-the-art Katyusha rockets, some of which have penetrated Israel or been fired against an Israeli warship off the coast of Lebanon. I am not on the inside track, but according to information in the media, the only sources of this ordnance are Syria and Iran, indicating the support of those countries. Why are no efforts being made to involve them in this process?
I will refer to the paragraph in the Minister's submission stating that Syria and Iran must use their influence with Hezbollah. There does not seem to be an indication that they will do so. Rather, they are prepared to cynically manipulate and escalate the war and use Lebanon as a punch bag. Senator Norris spoke about historical parallels, of which I will offer another. Prior to the commencement of the Second World War, Czechoslovakia was used as a scapegoat because the then major powers wished to placate another power.
As the United States of America is lagging in objectivity in its unambiguous support of Israel irrespective of what it does, the rest of the world, particularly the European Union, is standing by. I agree with what has been said and I know that the Minister must try to operate on a consensual basis in the European Union, but there are only weasel words in the communique. Where else in the world could one find an example of a state that has had its sovereignty violated and infrastructure destroyed, some of which includes, according to Robert Fisk's report, a runway at the new airport in Beirut costing €450 million, a newly built lighthouse on the Korneesh and the Beirut-Damascus route? There have also been horrific attacks and the loss of civilian lives among ordinary, decent Lebanese. What will the world do? Will it stand by as it did in the case of Czechoslovakia and watch Lebanon disintegrate into civil war once again?
There is a strong moral imperative for the European Union to take a more proactive view. I appreciate what the Minister is saying such as that "there are inevitably some differences of emphasis among the 25 EU member states". Is this diplomatic-speak for a blazing row in the General Affairs and External Relations Council? Perhaps that is the reason for the resulting bland, accommodating communique. Ireland particularly and the European Union in general must take a more proactive role. From an Irish perspective, I would be interested in knowing the Minister's views on this matter.
What efforts are being made to monitor Israeli attacks on Lebanon's infrastructure? Are there any moves to engage Syria and Iran, which finance and support Hezbollah? What does the European Union propose to do about supporting the integrity of Lebanon? I understand that Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri is or was in Kuwait. Has the European Union been in contact with him and what role is he playing? After all, his father was primarily responsible for the regeneration of Lebanon's infrastructure. That country's people deserve better.
I congratulate the Minister on his and his Department's efforts to evacuate our people. This is the first state to move and be successful in respect of such an evacuation. I will take this opportunity to thank the Minister and comment on his Department's consular service, which has always been excellent. Recently, someone I knew experienced some trouble and the Department was excellent in handling the matter. I understand the Minister took a much stronger stand on this issue yesterday than his EU counterparts. This morning I heard a comment that instead of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Israel saw it as 200 teeth for one. That seems to be the ratio at which this is developing.
It is unfortunate that Lebanon, which is not strong enough to stand up to Hizbollah, is being victimised. Beirut, which was known as the Paris of the East, is being destroyed systematically. The infrastructure and schools being destroyed will create a breeding ground for further support for Hamas, which did not have full support in the area previously but now will because of the arrogant Israeli strikes. The area to consider is the 50 or 75 miles over which the rockets are fired and from where the trouble is coming, not Beirut.
Pressure can also be put on Syria and Iran to use their influence to obtain a ceasefire. Syria should be thanked for allowing our people through to safely leave the region. Approximately 100,000 refugees are in Syria and far more will arrive. Will we take a strong diplomatic position on Israel? Irish people perceive Israel to be disproportionately inhumane, overbearing and arrogant, knowing it has the support of the United States.
I reiterate the thanks to the Minister for his leadership during the past 48 hours in ensuring a speedy exit of our people from the area. Cyprus also played an important role in receiving those from other nations who were in danger. The situation is based on the abduction of one Israeli soldier who, I understand from the Palestinian side, is safe and well. He should have been released through negotiations, not through starting an all-out war against the Palestinians by taking out power stations and destroying infrastructure. This can only lead to further retaliatory action by the Hamas Government. Hezbollah then abducted two more soldiers, which led to all-out war with Lebanon, while Syria and Iran stood idly by. The Syrians left Lebanon only recently and, strangely enough, when they were there, this type of engagement with Israel did not occur. The Syrians kept control of Hezbollah. The Israelis are now trying to prove the weapons came from Iran. Perhaps the next step will be to take out the nuclear facility in Tehran, which would be in accordance with US policy. The United States cannot take a moral stand in this case because it invaded Iraq. The off-microphone comments made by President Bush yesterday in which he mentioned Syria were most revealing about his strategy in this regard.
Our position in the region is strong. I accept the Minister's reluctance to recommend to the Government that we should send another peacekeeping force to south Lebanon knowing we lost more than 40 members of the Defence Forces there. We played an important role but we must not be dragged back into the region. Most would accept the Minister's view on this matter.
What Deputy Higgins stated about Israel being a nuclear nation must be recognised. It has the capacity to take out the facility in Tehran. However, it will never reveal the fact that it has nuclear weapons and would be prepared, in limited circumstances if the worst came to the worst, to use them in defence of Israel.
Taking out the civilian airport in Beirut is not only disproportionate, it is also outrageous. It is time the United States moved in and called a halt. Deputy Davern is correct to state it is now 200 eyes for an eye. The entire region is in chaos. We must appeal for the release of the abducted soldiers. However, it is now three soldiers relative to the deaths of approximately 200 civilians and military personnel from Lebanon and approximately 25 Israelis. The situation is very serious. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is the person with the influence, I ask him to exert it with the Israelis through the US embassy and his contacts in the European Union. The European Uinon should take a stronger stand. It has influence with the USA but it is not using it to help dissuade the Israelis from pursuing its outlandish attack on Lebanon. The attack on Gaza has also been ignored. The committee will be united in any resolution sent forward.
The Minister said all military operations must be carried out in strict accordance with international law and all parties must act on their responsibility to protect civilian lives. He also said that Israel is clearly failing in this respect. Not only is Israel clearly failing to protect civilian lives, but has so far killed more than 200 Lebanese civilians by bombing heavily populated areas. We are told that entire families have been wiped out. If this is not in strict accordance with international law and is a grossly irresponsible attitude to civilians, what does it constitute? Are these war crimes? Will the Minister outline what he can do as Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs to address the issue in stronger terms than simply the statement he has issued today? Is there anything he can do? Will he detail what he intends his response to be?
I agree with Deputy Higgins that the most frightening aspect of current events is that the state which is acting in such a criminally aggressive manner in Lebanon has nuclear weapons available to it. It is the most frightening scenario that exists in the world, but reference to it is rare.
I agree with everything that has been said this morning, especially the Minister's statement to the effect that there is no simple solution. If there were, we would not have to be here. While the problem is currently the focus of world attention, it has been evident to an extent for 40 or 50 years. Some colleagues have referred to the lessons which could be learned from our experience on this island. The simple lesson of Irish history is that excessive force does not work and that a lack of respect and willingness to accept another's perspective and right to hold a political viewpoint results in the sort of conflict we see in the Middle East. We debated the matter in the Seanad a number of weeks ago, since which time the situation has worsened.
Will the Minister reconsider the attitude of the European Union to the Hamas, Government, which issue the Minister of State dealt with in detail a few weeks ago? While we cannot but take serious issue with some of its philosophy, there was the beginning of movement from Hamas which will eventually have to accept the right of Israel to exist. We must push Hamas down that road, which can only happen through further dialogue and negotiation.
I agree with the remarks on Syria. President Bush's comments yesterday may have been off the record, but they were correct. Syria must be brought further into the equation and cannot be left to stand on the sideline lobbing stones into a very dangerous area. Syria must put pressure on Hezbollah, over which it has strong influence if not control, to take a step back. While I agree, like every member, with the motion proposed, if the matter were as simple as the act of having a discussion here, the solution would be very straightforward. We must return to talks and the Quartet solution and demand that each side respect the other. These problems stem from a complete lack of respect and willingness on one side to recognise Israel's right to exist and on Israel's side to respect its neighbours. Israel is no more 100% wrong than it is 100% right.
Deputy Carey and Senator Norris have proposed a motion, which I have tried to interpret. Has either member formalised the motion?
While Senator Bradford has stated motions such as this do not achieve a great deal, it might be useful to agree to unanimously propose that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs condemn absolutely the use of violence for political ends, especially against civilian targets and call on all sides in the current conflict to cease all acts of violence.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister should note that we have a problem with time.
If members wish to focus on the Middle East today, I can return to the committee at a later stage to discuss the NPT and Iran, although I am not sure what my availability will be. I have a meeting at 12.30 p.m.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister.
There is no problem with that. The Minister is prepared to reply. Can we take the basic question and revert to the other issues separately?
The Minister's suggestion is a good one. The non-proliferation treaty and Iran constitute a very substantial issue which we should defer until another meeting.
We can agree to do that.
I have only one very simple question on Iran.
The Minister will not mind answering it. First, we should allow the Minister to reply to the questions which have arisen.
I accept completely that all of these matters are inter-related. The Iranian nuclear issue has a heavy bearing on current events in the Middle East, as does the influence of that country and Syria.
While some members have criticised the European Union, it should be noted that it is composed of 25 countries, some of which have different views. Senator Bradford was correct to state that if there were a simple solution, the problem would have been solved a long time ago. We will blame all sides because they are all at fault, some more than others. It may also be simplistic to blame the European Union for failing to do enough. People like me were adamant that we should not adopt the divided approach we took prior to the Iraqi war. The Irish and other member states sought to have substantial words included in the EU statement and we were successful. People are misreading the statemen,t which calls for the release of the abducted soldiers and the immediate cessation of hostilities. Ireland was to the fore in negotiating the statement and proposed the phrase "immediate cessation of hostilities". Senator Norris referred to the elected members of the Palestinian Government, to whom the statement refers in the seventh paragraph.
Another reference in paragraph 8 of the statement is to the European Union's relationship with Hamas in recent times. It states the European Union stands ready to work with its Palestinian Government that meets and implements three principles of non-violence, recognition of Israel's right to exist and the acceptance of existing agreements and obligations including the road map. Hamas has not done that yet. If Senator Norris meets any Israeli Minister, as I have done, one of the first things they will do is produce the charter of Hamas which swears all of those people involved in Hamas towards the destruction of Israel. I do not have to tell Members of the Oireachtas that we have our own debate as to whether people who have been involved in violence and the destruction of this State and the British State should be involved in a Government.
The issue of involvement with Hamas was extremely difficult. Personally, I was to the fore in trying to explain to my colleagues, and to be fair, to Jack Straw before Margaret Beckett, about the difficulties encountered by the British and Irish Governments in dealing with people who had the ballot box in the one hand and the Armalite in the other. It is not a simple issue to blame one side or the other in regard to these issues.
Coming back to the statement, I said yesterday that words were one thing and that criticising the words used in the statement was simplistic. As I said yesterday, what is needed is action. The only action to which the international community can respond in this respect is by getting the body which is responsible for the sustaining of peace, stability and security in the world — the United Nations — to engage in such a way that it will, if necessary, ultimately put in a monitoring presence on the ground in order to stop the Israelis bombing the Lebanon and Hizbollah bombing Israel from Lebanon. That is why I and others exhorted those of our colleagues around the EU table who are members of the Security Council in recent days, in conjunction with the support that, to be fair to him, Tony Blair quickly gave. I understand the Germans have also indicated their support.
It is the case that pressure must be exerted on countries such as the United States in this respect. The only way we can return to the position of over two weeks ago is by having an international force on the ground which would monitor what is happening to ensure that these incidents do not continue, as stated previously, on the 200:1 basis. The actions of the Israelis defies logic in that all they are doing is destabilising the one country in the region that was moving towards democracy, namely, Lebanon. It is the one country that was endeavouring to deal with the different types of ethnic and religious groups. I visited it last year and I was in the airport. Fantastic developments were taking place in the area, many of which were funded by the European Union. Apart from the death and destruction, for that reason the European Union should be more annoyed than anyone.
The answer has to be an international monitoring mission or something of that nature, sponsored by all of the leading powers. It is only then that we can get back to a situation where we can discuss the full involvement of Hamas, which may not ever state that it will recognise Israel but that in some way could be brought around as was hoped would be the case given the discussions between President Abbas and Hamas in recent times. It is ironic and is not uncoincidental that Hizbollah saw an opportunity because it felt that the talks among the Palestinians in their national dialogue were going the right way. We know only too well from our own experience that at times when we felt that perhaps we were on the right road events would come out of the blue from those who did not want them going that way that caused us all to go on the back foot. Our experience in such circumstances is not to fall back but to redouble our efforts. Given our experience, that is why, as a small nation within the European Union and the United Nations, we can talk with some conviction.
I very much welcome it that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs should pass a similar motion to the one which the European Union passed yesterday. Some credit should be given to the 25 EU countries who, thankfully, have gone further than the G8 because of the exhortations of the Irish and others around the table. I think people such as Tony Blair and others clearly see this pressure is required in this instance to ensure that this issue does not go over the edge into Armageddon. The President of Iran has stated on more than one occasion — it cannot be said, therefore, that perhaps he got a rush of blood to the head — that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. People have to be conscious of that because in all of the actions and deeds that have taken place so far, we are getting to a stage where this situation could become a third world war if the international community does not respond and those main players who are involved do not back away from the difficult positions. I include Israel, Iran and others in that regard.
I wish to ask a question about one of the remaining items in the Minister's speech.
I have not given my speech yet.
I will wait for it. I am sure the Department has printed it accurately for the Minister.
It may be a perverse sense of democracy, but I am entitled to articulate my speech.
I am perfectly willing to listen to the Minister, as he knows from experience. I have confidence also in his officials that he will faithfully represent their opinions and the Minister theirs.
I am sorry. I did not hear that comment.
I just said we were waiting for the Minister to give his speech.
We probably just have time to allow the Minister to give his speech.
I have to attend another meeting.
There will not be time enough for discussion on it.
I thought we had postponed it until another day——
Yes.
——and that questions would be taken on what the Minister has already said.
Is the Minister happy to postpone reading his script until a later date?
I am. This is an issue which deserves more than an hour and a half.
Especially when the Government has not made up its mind on any of the issues about the NPT or the US-India agreement. It may have done so by the time we return to this matter.
As Deputy Higgins is aware, it is not a simple matter of making a decision based on a question from a Member of the Oireachtas. Deputy Costello is trying to find fault with me. I was not going to make a Government decision based on a question from a European correspondent of an Irish newspaper.
Of course, but I asked the Minister the question because——
Things are not that simple. They may have been when Deputy Higgins was around the Cabinet table but they are no longer that simple.
I asked the Minister the question three times in Parliament.
We are at committee now.
I accept that.
I liked the way the Deputy welcomed what the Minister had to say. If the Minister will come back——
No one suggested the issue is finished. The issue is that the Minister has not made up his mind. He will have to choose between Baradei and Hans Blix.
Discussions are ongoing in relation to that matter.
There are two questions. I accept that belatedly there was a reference to the parliamentarians but it horrified me——
Not belatedly. To be fair——
It was fairly belatedly and there was very little——
That is not the case. It has been the constant view of the European Union that the arrest of members of the Palestinian Authority was not correct and that they should be released immediately.
It is a lot more than "not correct". I wish to move on from that——
On the issue of the wall and the settlements, which issues were raised previously, Ireland has constantly been active at EU level. The Senator said I do not make statements on these issues but I am sick of doing so in response to parliamentary questions.
The Minister referred to the Council's statement on developments in the Lebanon and Israel. In the light of what he said on how tough circumstances are, is he as surprised as I am that the only reference to restraint in the first three paragraphs is a call on Israel not to hinder shipping in international waters? There is no reference to the civilian casualties, except those on the Israeli side. That is pretty lame.
What about the first paragraph of the statement?
In paragraph 4, there is a general statement condemning attacks——
Paragraph 1 states the Council is——
——by Hezbollah and the abduction of two Israeli soldiers. The statement calls for the Lebanese state to restore its sovereignty, contends that continued escalation of the conflict would only aggravate the vicious circle of violence and calls on Israel not to hinder shipping in international waters.
I am reading the first page of the statement and note that the Council is acutely concerned about the conflict in the Middle East, particularly the deteriorating humanitarian situation and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It deplores the loss of civilian life on all sides. Paragraph 5 refers to the deteriorating circumstances involving Israel and Palestine and states the Council deplores the loss of civilian life the conflict has brought in this regard. These are words but what is required is action.
Absolutely.
A radio broadcast today suggested an Israeli Cabinet Minister had indicated some form of bargain or deal in terms of the mutual release of prisoners was necessary. The Cabinet Minister was unnamed and I wonder if the report is of substance. It seems that until there is some degree of bargaining, in which the Israelis have always engaged in the past, we will be unlikely to reach a solution.
I understand there were reports on possible talk of a deal. I suggested strongly yesterday that attention should be paid to how some movement could be made in regard to the captured Israeli soldiers. There may well be some discussions behind the scenes. I cannot say any more than that but believe it is important to note that the catalyst that brought the conflict to a head was the capture of the Israeli soldiers. I am not in any way condoning the response of Israel or the strength of that response. If the soldiers were to be released, it would de-escalate the conflict and allow proper dialogue to take place on other issues.
I welcome the Minister's idea of having some kind of UN monitoring committee or force. Is there any further courageous political action he can take to force the hand of the European Union or United Nations in this matter?
Javier Solana is our representative and was in the region for the weekend. He went there immediately when matters went downhill and returned yesterday to brief the 25 Ministers. I proposed that he return to the region to meet some of the leading heads of state in some of the Arab countries to ask them to put pressure on some of the parties involved.
I meant to compliment the Minister and his officials on rapidly ensuring the safety of Irish citizens.
Consider the proposal in the EU resolution on the meeting of the UN Security Council that is to take place shortly with a view to examining the possibility of an international monitoring presence in the region. If this becomes a reality, irrespective of the Minister's comments on Ireland's participation, and the United Nations requests that Ireland participate, what will happen? Will the Government unilaterally say "yes" or "no", or will it recall the Dáil to discuss participation in the context of the triple-lock mechanism?
I do not know what the Deputy is getting at. We have no difficulty regarding the triple-lock requirement and I am not so sure the putative alternative put to the people involves the same issues.
If the United Nations requests Irish participation after the meeting of the Security Council, how will the Government deal with it?
Any request for participation will be dealt with under the legislation, as amended quite recently. We will have no difficulty in implementing any measures required. Participation would very much depend on the type of mission in question. We already have people on the ground engaged in monitoring.
The Dáil is not in session.
As was suggested, this may not be a difficult monitoring force to put in place because the necessary infrastructure and people are already in place. It is a matter of building on these resources. There are many other countries which could come up to the mark and provide assistance. We do not have the resources of some of the larger countries, particularly those with a veto on the Security Council. They have plenty of military personnel who could be deployed at a moment's notice.
I am very grateful to the Minister because he has clarified many of the issues. It is a very complex matter. I support the stance the Minister has taken both at national level and within the European Union, despite the fact that we would all like to see more action. The Minister agrees with this. I am not a military man but sympathise with the Minister regarding Deputy Costello's questions. There are logistics to be considered and it would take weeks, at a minimum, before any troops could leave Ireland to go to the Middle East.
In regard to the responsibilities of the Israeli Government, the Minister said he is in daily contact with the ambassador here, which I welcome. We have good relations with Israel, as we do with the Palestinian Authority. Will the Minister indicate if there has been any shift in nuance in the Israeli position as a result of the daily contacts, as distinct from what we are seeing on our television screens?
No.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. He has heard the forthright views of the members and he will appreciate our very deep concern about the conflict. As he knows, committee members have visited the Middle East on a number of occasions. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members in saying we hope for a speedy and peaceful resolution to the conflict and we urge all sides to be restrained and engage in dialogue to avoid further deterioration.
Mr. Hans Blix, chairman of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, has asked to appear before this committee to discuss the commission's recent report, Weapons of Terror. The report sets out a number of important proposals on how the world could be freed of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The meeting has been scheduled for 12 September.
Will the Minister indicate when he will appear before us again to address the other issues? Could it be before the end of July?
Somehow I doubt it.
I doubt it also, but we will communicate with the Minister.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.30 p.m. and adjourned at 12.35 p.m. sine die.