We have a quorum so I will get the meeting under way in public session. Apologies have been received from people who are here, which is better again.
Business of Joint Committee
Does that mean we have imposters?
There must have been a change of plan by some Members. I welcome our new committee member, Deputy Gerald Nash. You are very welcome to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.
I thank the Chair.
You were appointed to the committee by the Dáil on 26 January. I welcome you and I look forward to working closely with you in the coming years. I assure you there is little rest on this committee. It is working hard at the moment. I am sure you have a copy of our work programme for the coming 12 months. It is a comprehensive programme. The other members of the committee are interested in the brief. They are active and they participate. We look forward to your contribution. I know you have a keen interest in foreign affairs and this is why you are on the committee. I take this opportunity to thank Deputy Michael McNamara, my colleague from County Clare, who served on the committee up to 26 January. Deputy McNamara has taken a keen interest in foreign affairs. He has worked abroad and he is now a member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. I wish him well in his new post on the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.
I remind Members and those in the Public Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off completely for the duration of the meeting because they cause interference, even in silent mode, with the recording equipment in the committee rooms. I ask you to respect this instruction and to ensure they are switched off completely. The minutes of the previous meetings of 19 January and 25 January have been circulated to Members. Are there any matters arising from the minutes?
My point relates to the statutory instruments. I realise they will be before the committee for discussion today. However, I asked for the statutory instruments to be put before us prior to the Minister signing them.
We will deal with all of that.
I am simply raising it.
I would prefer to deal with the correspondence rather than deal with it in that way.
It is relevant to the minutes because in the minutes I asked that we would get them before they were signed by the Minister not when he had signed them and put them in the Library.
Under our terms of reference we cannot do that. However, I will give you the first opportunity to deal with that when we get there.
We might as well be at home if we cannot do that.
I missed the last meeting because I was at the Council of Europe. However, I read the correspondence and I note the correspondence forwarded from Oxfam Ireland about the list of donors for Haiti. I note that Cuba was not on the list but I know that it was one of the first countries in Haiti with medical teams and that there were considerable donations from that country. If I had been here I would have brought it up and I apologise for that but I was not here.
We will get clarification on that for you, Deputy O'Sullivan. We can deal with it under correspondence as well if you wish to raise any further issues.
I refer to the follow up in respect of the promised donations for Haiti. It appears from the meeting that many of the commitments have not been kept. Is it possible for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to monitor the situation with a view to attempting to ensure that in so far as it is possible a commitment entered into, possibly in the heat of the moment with good reason and for a good cause, is kept?
I suggest that when we meet the various ambassadors in the coming six months or so we table the issue for the informal meetings and express our concern to the countries which have given pledges and commitments. Is the committee in agreement on that? Agreed.
Given the difficulties or obstacles that have presented themselves in Haiti with the housing replacement situation and in regard to title, land, deeds etc. we must use whatever influence we can to improve the situation.
We have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on that matter. We asked him to raise it with the President of Haiti. When we receive the relevant correspondence we will circulate it to Members.
The Haiti and Cuba issue has been raised. We have a works programme for 2012. I know from sitting on another committee related to the interparliamentary union and chaired by the Ceann Comhairle, that he has now committed to carrying out a search of all the invitations received by that committee for reciprocal visits. Have we a catalogue of requests made either to the Chairman or the committee for international foreign affairs committees exchanges? If there is such a list it would be helpful if we could get it.
Since this committee was established early last year we have received several invitations to various countries through either our informal visits with ambassadors or through formal invitations from our counterparts on other committees. We will draw up a list for the next meeting of all the invitations and I will have them before the committee for the next meeting.
The minutes of the meeting of 19 January, which involved Paddy Ashdown, only cover who was at the meeting. I though he made an important point. The central point I took from the meeting was that in the accession talks under way, the EU is undermining the Dayton Agreement and that this is having a destabilising effect on Bosnia-Herzegovina. It would be useful for us to record some of the important comments he made so that they can be picked up down the line. If we had the High Representative from the European Union here, it is important that we are able to look at the record and see what was said.
What we will do is get the transcript of that meeting. We will ask the secretariat to source the transcript and at our next meeting will present the committee with a more detailed account of the meeting with Paddy Ashdown. Is that okay?
That is fine.
If there are no further questions, we will move on. The second issue on the agenda is one I raised following consultation with the secretariat, namely developments in Syria. I am anxious for the committee to have an opportunity to discuss the current situation in Syria and that is the reason I added it to the agenda at short notice. I apologise for that, but I felt it was something that could not wait until our next meeting, particularly when over the weekend we saw the defeat of the UN Security Council resolution following Russia's and China's veto of the resolution pressing President Bashar al-Assad to stand aside and start political transition. We all know that yesterday President Assad met the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Lavrov, and that President Assad said he wanted to end the violence. However, that does not seem to be happening on the ground, judging by the reports we saw this morning, with 43 more people killed last night in Homs. European Union countries and Arab countries are continuing to withdraw their ambassadors and the situation in Homs seems to be deteriorating.
I am anxious that this committee issue a statement following our meeting today. It is a significant matter and I am sure it will arise again in our discussion with the representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the officials from the Department of the Taoiseach in connection with our application to the Human Rights Council. My concern is that members have a brief opportunity to discuss the continuing humanitarian situation in Syria and suggest we should also issue an agreed statement after our meeting today. The proposed agreed statement has been circulated to all members. It is a draft proposal and is open to change.
I commend the Chairman on his initiative in circulating this draft and support the suggestion that the statement be issued on behalf of the committee. We all have grave concerns about the situation and we are hearing from our constituents about their concerns about the situation in Syria. We should indicate the support of this committee for any initiatives the Tánaiste can take with his colleagues in Europe to try to intercede in this matter and to bring about as speedy a resolution as possible.
Thank you.
I also commend the Chairman on his quick response to this tragic situation. I note that the Chairman mentions Amnesty in the statement and that is good. I would also like, if possible, to include the view of Medécins sans Frontières because that remarkable and wonderful organisation has worked independently in many countries at huge risk to its members. They have drawn attention to a request that there be a commitment from the Government for the protection of people who have been wounded, for example those in hospitals - I understand hospitals have been targeted - and for the protection of people against torture. I strongly support the Chairman's motion and commend him on it, but would like it to include Medécins sans Frontières, the targeting of hospitals, respect for medical treatment and the withdrawal of torture. Perhaps torture is used by both sides, I do not know.
That is a very good point. When we drafted the statement yesterday, we had not received the correspondence from Medécins sans Frontières. It only arrived this morning. We would be delighted to include them in the statement. We also intend to invite Medécins sans Frontières to this committee within the next month. We think highly of the work they do abroad. Senator Norris is correct, they have highlighted in their press release details of how medical targets are being used in the persecution by the Syrian regime. We will add the Senator's suggestion to the statement if committee members wish.
I too compliment the Chairman on responding to the situation as it emerges. As someone already said, there is little sense in commenting on these issues after the event. Our comment will demonstrate the importance the committee places on such events.
The difficulty is that in a war situation all sorts of issues arise. Truth is sacrificed, human rights are sacrificed and all actions are justified on the basis of war, particularly civil war. It is unfortunate that the wider community tends to stand by and be appalled by this, but the situation is much more appalling for those directly affected. To what extent can this committee of a member state of the European Union exert a positive influence on the situation in Syria, along the lines suggested by the proposed statement? How can we use our influence within the European Union to get involved, without attempting to get involved in regime change? Change of regime is a difficult operation, where one may not know until afterwards for what one stands or to what one is opposed.
With regard to Syria, the world community is appalled by what is happening, but it continues and will continue until such time as a mechanism is found to convince the warring parties to agree, at least, a ceasefire. That should be the first objective.
Thank you. This meeting is very important. If we are elected to the UN Human Rights Council, it will coincide with our EU Presidency and will enhance our international reputation given that we are also Chair of the OSCE currently. These positions will give Ireland a meaningful role in the area of human rights.
I concur with the sentiments already expressed, but I want to elaborate slightly on this. I congratulate the Chairman on the formulation of the statement. It is very important we continue to exercise as much pressure as we can on our EU partners to continue the dialogue. However, the statement calls for us to work with the League of Arab States. This is a key part of the statement. We are not superimposing a western philosophy on the Arab world. The statement makes it a condition that we support the League of Arab States. Does the league have a representative in Ireland or is it represented by any of the Arab embassies here? To whom should we as a nation speak in this regard, rather than go through the United Nations or the European Union? Have we a link with representatives in Ireland of the League of Arab States?
There was to be a high profile visit to Ireland this week by the Chairman of the Gulf Co-Operation Council, but it had to be cancelled because of domestic issues in the Gulf. That visit will be arranged again. There are a number of ambassadors from the Gulf States here. We will meet the Saudi Arabian ambassador informally in the near future and we will also meet the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates.
What about the nations of Arab League?
The ambassador from Jordan will also visit next week and there will be an informal meeting with him. The issue will be high on the agenda for all of those meetings and the committee will be informed of those informal meetings. There is always a great turnout at these informal meetings, which shows the interest committee members have in this area. We will do whatever we can to facilitate a resolution of the situation in Syria. As Deputy Byrne said, the Arab League plan is probably the best way forward and that is incorporated in our statement.
Can we consider expanding the statement, because it is a bit one-sided? Quite rightly, we condemn the Assad regime, but, unfortunately, the alternative is as bad and possibly worse because it would be a Sunni Muslim regime, a fundamentalist extremist regime. All we have to do is consider Egypt. I recall the comments about that country and how the Arab spring would pan out. Talking to people of the Coptic faith, they have suffered tremendously as a consequence. There has been a major exodus of people from those countries, and many people who exited Iraq during the war and got some protection in Syria despite the regime, are now very exposed. Many have been killed, with over 100 killed in January alone in Syria. There would be kidnappings, murder, rape, etc. Children have been targeted in particular by kidnappers and killed.
Our statement should include our apprehension about the alternative and the need for the international community to play its part to ensure we do not have a more serious replication of what has happened in Egypt and Iraq in Syria. Both the Christian community and the Alawites would be very much at risk if the Sunni people assume control of that country, which is the likely outcome of President Assad being taken out. We must be balanced.
We must be careful not to label all the Sunni Muslims the same way.
It is my view that we must be very careful not to get too involved in the politics of what is happening in Syria. We want to become involved in the human rights issues, which is our role.
Would we not regard 100 Christians being killed as a major human rights issue?
That concerns human rights.
Absolutely.
That is why I argue it should be reflected in our press release. To ignore that is to fundamentally undermine our efforts and any application to the UN to be involved in the human rights aspect. I will comment on it when we discuss human rights as well.
We are not ignoring it. We are approaching it from the human rights aspect, which is what we want as a committee because it is our role. The internal political element would be slightly different.
I do not see that reflected.
That could not be accepted as an alternative. The motion is perfectly well worded. The third paragraph indicates that the committee "calls on Ireland and its EU partners to continue working with the League of Arab States to protect the lives of the civilian population in Syria". That is a perfectly positive statement and it avoids the suggested pitfalls. I oppose the amending of that wording.
I support Senator Norris's comments on including a statement from the Médecins Sans Frontières correspondence, which is very important. At a recent meeting of the Council of Europe, the political group met a delegation from Syria seeking democracy there. I have doubts about working with the League of Arab States as some of those states have not exactly been to the forefront of human rights issues.
Hear, hear.
It does not appeal to me that we work with the league on this issue; we should instead look to work with the people of Syria to have a say in their own destiny. I would hate to see what happened in Libya - regardless of how one feels about Colonel Gadaffi - as the process was manipulated by political powers in other parts of the world.
I apologise for missing the presentation.
The Deputy did not, so he is okay.
It is good I did not miss it. I have been reading the presentation as I was at another meeting which ran on, unfortunately. I hope there is success in these endeavours. As we are a neutral country historically, Ireland has the potential to be a leader in human rights efforts across the world. People like Mary Robinson and Seán McBride have done tremendous work in the past to promote this so we are in a very strong position. In these times of great hardship and the narrative of Ireland's economic difficulties, it would be very welcome for us to assume a leadership role in the human rights area. I will throw a couple of concerns into play.
We are just dealing with the Syrian issue at the moment.
This is what happens when I am late for a meeting. I thought we had dealt with that.
We are dealing with the draft statement on Syria.
There is an excellent article concerning Syria in today's London Independent by Seumus Milne and I would recommend it to committee members. He is a balanced observer. His concern is that the driving momentum around the UN Security Council resolution was not so much in the interest of the Syrian people but Iran, which is a key ally of Syria in the region. One of the great difficulties I have with human rights is the inconsistencies in the international community. One of the driving states around Syria is Bahrain, which is responsible for criminal actions to repel a legitimate uprising, and Ireland has expressed serious concern about that. This committee has taken considerable action on that in the recent past. We have concerns about other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, which are not democracies. Inconsistencies could cause concern.
Russia and China vetoed this intervention because of what happened in Libya, and there was a belief that the likes of America and European states took advantage of that resolution for regime change purposes. I am no defender of the Gadaffi regime, which was horrendous, but what has replaced it is equally horrendous. They have not even announced who are the collective leaders.
We must confront the horrendous abuses of human rights in Syria, including what is happening with the sustained attack in Homs. When this committee or any international authority raises issues of human rights, I would appeal for consistency. We should not have as a champion of human rights states like Bahrain or Israel because of what is happening in Palestine. There is a tendency for committees like ours to respond to crises as they emerge, which is fair enough, but the difficulty with this draft statement can be seen with the issues raised by Seumus Milne's article. They are real and concern the real agenda behind the United Nations Security Council resolution.
We should remember that there have been many proposed Security Council resolutions about Palestine that have never been put into action. The settlements continue. There is a high-ranking EU report outlining the concerns relating to area C in the occupied territories in Palestine and nothing has been done. Nevertheless, when the Libyan resolution was passed, three days later there was a massive bombardment in the country. That is the difficulty in the Middle East with the Arab spring. The Muslim and Arab people can see massive double standards in the global responses to crises, and that is a massive concern.
I support the thrust of the resolution and it is absolutely right to confront human rights abuses in the Assad regime. I appeal for us to take the same approach for all conflicts and confront without fear all regimes in the area. We must look for the same approach, equally applied to the regimes in the area.
An important issue has involved. I referred to regime change in another independent country, which is always difficult. Who determines when a regime change is legitimate, as legitimacy has been referred to? That applies to all scenarios. If there is an elected government, the legitimacy of a claim could be questionable in any event. Who decides the extent of its legitimacy? As part of the international community we must be careful about getting involved in the politics. We have every right to become involved in the human rights element, and through that medium we can exert our influence in a positive and meaningful way.
I would take issue with my colleague with regard to Ireland's tradition of neutrality, and not for the first time. Ireland was never traditionally neutral, and the sooner we recognise that, the better. This country was never neutral until 1939, and even then it was for a valid reason.
We were not free for a long time either. It is hard to be neutral when the country is sucked into an empire.
We can talk about that-----
We had to have years of freedom before deciding to be neutral.
Deputy Durkan, without interruption.
Look what we did with it. Look where we are now.
Deputy Durkan without interruption.
The reality of it is this,-----
They rolled over.
-----that irrespective of whether we like it, Irish people, in their thousands, died on the battlefields all over Europe for 500 years. That is a fact.
I only want to ask Deputy Durkan what the situation in Syria-----
When we want to recall history, we should recall it-----
Excuse me, I want to stick-----
If Deputy Durkan wants to join an EU army, he is more than welcome to sign up. I am sure they are taking recruits.
-----with the proposed statements-----
I am responding.
-----rather than ruin the debate.
I am merely referring to something stated by a speaker previously. I presume that is in order. Otherwise, it should not have been stated previously.
The point is this: We need to be sure the basis on which we purport to operate is clearly on the grounds of human rights. We have every right to get involved there. We have not the same right to get involved in determining who governs in a particular country. If we get into that area, we will get into terrible trouble. Whether it be in the area of religion, tradition, history or whatever, we will invariably, and ultimately, get into difficulty. However, on human rights grounds, we have every case to become involved and to point out the abuses of human rights and to put in place a necessary structure to support those, regardless of who they are, who are attempting to create a safe haven for human rights.
I am not sure how helpful it is to go back over the 500 years of tragic Irish history on either side. The Civil War is over, thank God, and we have moved on.
I would agree with Deputy Durkan on this. We are dealing with human rights. That is where I respectfully part company with my colleague and friend, Senator Walsh, because I do not think we should get involved in the question of whether it is Christian rights, Palestinian rights, Jewish rights or Muslim rights, be they Sunnis or others. There are good and bad persons in all of these groups and that is why it is important to take it as human rights. I am interested in the human rights of persons, whether they are Christian, Sunni, atheist or whatever. That is why it is so important to keep this in a neutral fashion.
That is why also I suggested the inclusion of this helpful material from Médicins sans Frontières. I tried to do it in as neutral a way as possible and I hope it will be so reflected, if we decide to amend the Chairman's very good resolution. I suggest that we deal with the principle, for example, the issues of the protection of hospitals and of forbidding torture. I stated that it appears to have occurred on both sides, that nobody is immune from these matters. I suggest we stick to the principle. I would hate to get into a situation where we appear to be blaming the Sunni population generally. It is a dreadful situation.
On the question of the Arab League, I agree completely with several members who stated that a number of the states that compose that have very questionable human rights records, but that does not mean that the sentiment behind the resolution is inappropriate. It is important that it comes from an Arab source because I also agree with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and others who stated that we must be very careful.
There is the situation of the Russians and the Chinese veto. That, to my mind, raises questions about the United Nations and its present structures. Permanent members should not have a veto, but they are merely fighting the Cold War all over again. When the warship arrived off Libya and they all were helicoptered in to be greeted and all the rest of it, one of the principal persons there was the head of the Russian secret service, the former KGB. Unfortunately, the citizens of Syria are merely pawns in the middle and it is they for whom we, from our different perspectives, all want to stand up. I would like it if we could unify around a composite resolution, which addresses human rights principles and does not target any particular group, but which demands that human rights principles be implemented by all sides there.
I will wind the debate up after the final intervention from Senator Walsh, and we will make some additions.
I do not disagree with anything anybody has stated. I agree we cannot get involved in politics or regime change. That has caused many problems within the region. However, missing from our press release is this balance that there are atrocities being committed on both sides. There are the lessons from Libya and Egypt to look at being replicated in Syria and we should signal in the press release that the murder of minorities by rebels and by the current regime is unacceptable from a human rights point of view. That is all I am looking for in this. As I read it, that balance is missing from this.
Murder and torture.
I do not think we should refer-----
We all need not be signatories to the motion.
We can say, "the protection of all citizens",-----
Yes.
-----rather than mentioning the political element of it.
Yes.
That is the most important point.
There are a few members who are anxious to add an addition to the statement on the Médicins sans Frontières press release. I will read out something here to see whether the committee is happy with it: "There are also reports from Médicins sans Frontières that medicine is being used as a weapon of persecution by the Syrian regime, including the repression of NGOs and the targeting of those attending hospitals." Is that agreed?
The one point on which we need to be clear is the last line in the statement: "The Committee affirms its solidarity with the people of Syria in the face of their ongoing repression." That is the most important part of our statement.
Could we include a reference to the use of torture by any source?
We can, if we can fit it in.
What are we doing about the league of Arab states?
My view on that is that the Arab League states are the major players in this area. Those are the most important players here. Even the Russians have stated that the Arab League plan is the only way forward. I am not sure. Have members any other comments to make on that?
What about mention of the democratic process in Syria and the other groups in Syria which are involved in the protest, which are not involved in the Arab League, and which are fearful of the Arab League and what it might do? These groups are talking about democracy and the right of the Syrian people to decide their own destiny.
Ireland will be working with its EU partners on this. Even the statement from the Russians stating that they want an enlarged Arab League mission returned to Syria again-----
I wonder why.
They are useless.
The Russians are stating that as well.
They saw murder in front of their eyes and they did nothing about it; they just shut them. Every time something happened, they shut them. Even one of its leading members resigned from it because of its inactivity.
What we will do is work with our EU partners to ensure that what is happening out there is monitored and that they work closely. Turkey also has a role to play here.
There is a need to see the Arab League being committed to democracy.
On "the Syrian people", Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan is 100% correct.
Members may correct me if I am wrong but if one listens to the conversations and the contributions, there is frustration at the UN system in that one or two major permanent members of the UN Security Council can veto the will of the international community.
Exactly.
There is either an under-reaction to a resolution or an over-reaction. I would like to see a paragraph expressing the committee's concern around the security council's mechanism for addressing human rights abuses.
That was the point I made. I would be happy to have that included. The only difficulty is that it would get too broad. Perhaps we should look at that as a separate item. I would be happy to support Deputy Mac Lochlainn if we look at that as a separate item. We could blur the focus.
I strongly support what Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan stated. She really put her finger on the heart of it. It is the Syrian people-----
Of course.
-----and their democratic rights. That is what should be right at the kernel of it. Unfortunately, of course, many of these political sources of resolutions with which we can agree or disagree are polluted or tainted. Many of these countries are totally undemocratic. Some of them are much less democratic even than Syria was. There were developments happening in Syria and that is probably why Assad got frightened. We should put at the heart the Syrian people and try to keep any partisanship out of it. To that extent, I agree with Senator Walsh. By mentioning particular minorities we introduce an element that could be divisive and for that reason we might concentrate on the principle of human rights, minorities or-----
Use the generic term.
Let us look at the first sentence of the second paragraph which reads: "The committee expresses its deep regrets at the failure of the UN Security Council to unanimously support the call ...". I would like if a little more was added to that sentence because it does not represent the view of the committee in that our frustration is with the Security Council resolution process.
As a result of its undemocratic nature. It is undemocratic.
With five permanent members, only one block, when it is clearly the will of the international community. We have seen what happened in the Balkans and Rwanda and the failure of the international community too often in the recent past. There are two elements here. What we have seen in the recent past is an under-reaction to a UN resolution that is not enforced or an over-reaction - I do not presume everybody will agree - in Libya where it was all out regime change, bombardments, and now there is an absolute disaster in Libya. That may be more subjective on my behalf but I would like to see a reference in that sentence that expresses our concern and frustration at how this process fails people who are victims and who are suffering human rights abuses.
I wish to make a brief point on which I think we can all agree. Nowhere in my analysis of this statement do I see an explicit condemnation of the military action taken by President al-Assad. Correct me if I am wrong and if that is not the case, that is fine. It may well be inferred in the statement but it would give the statement much more serious tone and more serious weight.
The statement reads: "It is clear that President al-Assad's approach of crushing the central military force has failed-----
That is a valid judgment about President al-Assad whether his project has failed or succeeded but a general condemnation of the approach would be very useful.
We can add that to it. There is no problem about condemning the approach. I think the whole committee would agree unanimously with that. We must move on. We have other speakers.
We are all trying to sing off the same hymn sheet by supporting the people in Syria against unnecessary bloodshed. We cannot amend the statement to start attacking the United Nations structures - those structures are in place - we do not live in a perfect world. The Arab world is not perfect. We live in an evolving world. I would rather we recognised the League of Arab States which, for the first time, has been central to debate. It is first time I have seen it send peace observers into an area of conflict. We should not use the jackboot and stamp that initial progressive foray into the very complicated conflicts that exist in the Arab world. I would defend strongly the right to applaud the work of the League of Arab States in moving into areas in the Arab world that are extremely complex. They will evolve in their own way with the assistance of the EU and the United Nations eventually but we cannot rebuild the structures of the United Nations Security Council. It is what it is.
That is a broader issue involving the whole UN. We will not get involved in that. If the Deputy wants to remove the second line we can do that. It reads: "The committee expresses deep regret at the failure of the UN Security Council.....[and add] to reach unanimity in the face of this crisis". Is the Deputy happy with that?
Sorry, in the third line, could we leave out the words "with the League of Arab States"-----
Yes, we will leave that out.
-----and put in "continue working to protect the lives of the people".
Okay.
There must be some reference to either side, as my colleague Senator David Norris said, and also to minorities, in order that it comes across that what is happening on the other side is unacceptable as well. To repeat what happened in the other countries about learning the lessons and flag it at this stage would give us greater credibility on the line.
"By whom" was a little more neutral? It was from any source.
From the leaders.
Okay we will work on-----
I am not happy with the removal of the reference to the League of Arab States. I will support the amended motion but, without reservation, I do not think it was necessary-----
We have included a reference to the League of Arab States further on in the motion. We have not dropped that reference. We could argue for the whole evening on this issue. I want to get the statement out after the meeting. I suggest we make the necessary amendments and release the statement. Is that okay?
Yes.
I think most members are in broad agreement with the statement. There will always be a few things here and there. We will never have perfection. That is probably what is happening in the UN and perhaps some of it is happening here also. However, that is politics.
Could it be recorded that it was unanimously supported? There were reservations, which will be recorded by the transcript, but it was unanimously supported. That would give it greater effect.
As amended. That is fine. We will get that statement out immediately after the meeting today? Is that acceptable to members?
I wish to move on to the third issue. I thank members for their contributions to the meeting. It is important that we discuss the Syrian situation and issue a statement following the contributions of our members. We will return to the issue in the near future because it is obviously going to be a long process. I apologise to the officials. We considered it was important to discuss the situation in Syria before dealing with Ireland seeking election to the United Nations Human Rights Council. I thank them for their patience. I wish to have that noted.