JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 2012

Current Situation in Syria: Discussion with The Tánaiste

Chairman

I would like to remind our witnesses that we have already been meeting since 2.30 p.m., so we have had a busy afternoon in this room.

Tánaiste, you are more than welcome and thank you very much for facilitating the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade this afternoon. You are here at a very appropriate time to update us on the current situation in Syria, following the European Council meeting.

I also welcome some of your senior officials here this evening. Brendan Rogers is the director general of the development co-operation division. David Donoghue is the political director. Adrian McDaid is from the OSCE co-ordination unit and Pat Kelly is the director of the political division. I thank you all for taking time to be with us here this afternoon.

Tánaiste, we know you attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 27 February, and that you will attend an informal meeting of the foreign Ministers this Friday. We are very pleased to have you here to discuss the work of the Foreign Affairs Council. Committee members are very keen to hear what the EU is doing about the dire situation in Syria. We had an emergency debate on this issue on 8 February and we expressed our deep regret at the failure of the UN Security Council to reach unanimity at the time in the face of the crisis. We also considered reports from Médecins Sans Frontières that medicines were being used as a weapon of persecution by the Syrian regime. There has been incontrovertible evidence in recent days of the deplorable action of the Syrian authorities obstructing Red Cross and Red Crescent workers from bringing assistance to the sick and injured.

I know that you attended the Friends of Syria meeting last week in Tunis. We would like to know what effect international pressure can have on the situation in Syria. Is the international community powerless in the face of Russian and Chinese obstruction of criticism of the Assad regime? Perhaps you can answer some of these questions during your remarks on the work of the Foreign Affairs Council. We know that the UN humanitarian chief, Valerie Amos, visited Homs today. The committee would appreciate an update on the current situation. We certainly do not want to see headlines like "We don't want to live like this. We would rather die", which I saw in the newspaper today. That is very worrying.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Eamon Gilmore)

Thank you, Chairman, and members of the committee. I welcome the opportunity to meet with the committee again to review the issues on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council for the first quarter of this year. With your permission, Chairman, I propose to focus first on the situation in Syria and then provide a read out on the other key items featured on the council's agenda so far this year.

I am aware that the committee is following developments in Syria with deep concern. All right thinking people have been outraged by the images of helpless civilian populations being bombarded and massacred by state security forces. The grim facts of this conflict are truly horrifying. There have been credible reports of more than 7,500 people killed since last March, an estimated 200,000 people internally displaced and 35,000 who have fled to other countries as refugees.

According to the latest report of the Commission of Inquiry established by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate events in Syria, state forces stand accused of committing widespread, systematic and gross human rights violations which amount to crimes against humanity. They have done this apparently with the knowledge and consent of President Assad and his regime.

There is no doubt about the widespread international revulsion. This is evident from the overwhelming support for various resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council in recent weeks. It was also evident at the initial meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People group which I attended in Tunis on 24 February - and where more than 70 countries gathered to voice their support for the Syrian people and for international efforts to end the conflict and to promote peaceful democratic transition within Syria. There is an obligation on the international community to do all it can to end the violence and suffering of the Syrian people and to help them to chart a new way forward. The immediate priority must be to secure a ceasefire which will end the indiscriminate shelling of cities such as Homs and Rastan and at the same time provide the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, and others with humanitarian access. In this regard, I welcome the decision to allow the UN Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, Baroness Valerie Amos, to travel to Damascus today.

Ireland has pledged to make up to €500,000 available to the ICRC and UN agencies operating in Syria as well as in neighbouring countries. These funds will be used both to provide immediate relief to those affected by the fighting and to pre-position emergency supplies for use in the event that the situation deteriorates further. In addition, my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and development, Deputy Joe Costello, has placed Irish Aid's rapid response corps on standby and offered emergency stockpiles to aid agencies as part of their response. Like many others at the Tunis meeting, I warmly welcomed the decision to appoint the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, as joint special envoy of the UN and Arab League. Kofi Annan brings a wealth of experience to this challenging assignment and is already actively pursuing his mandate, including exploring the possibility of his visiting Syria later this week.

The European Union has, of course, also been actively involved in the crisis. We have expressed strong support for the efforts of the Arab League to mediate a settlement. We have also imposed several rounds of sanctions targeted on the Assad regime. A further such round of sanctions was agreed at last month's Council, including an asset freeze imposed on the Syrian Central Bank. Last Friday, the European Council made clear the EU's readiness to impose further sanctions and to escalate the pressure on the Assad regime for as long as the violence and human rights abuses continue. The European Council also reiterated its call on President Assad to step aside so as to allow a political transition to begin.

It is, of course, regrettable that the UN Security Council has so far failed to agree a resolution on the situation. It was at least a step in the right direction that the Council was able to agree a presidential statement last week which condemned the lack of humanitarian access in Homs and regretted Syria's failure to facilitate a visit by the UN Emergency Relief Co-ordinator. I welcome the fact that discussions have now got underway in New York on a new draft resolution which the US has prepared primarily addressing the humanitarian situation. I hope these discussions will have a more positive outcome on this occasion. I still believe it is incumbent upon the Security Council to live up to its responsibilities in the area of the maintenance of international peace and security and to adopt a resolution at the earliest opportunity on the situation in Syria. No other action could better convey to the Syrian regime the strength of the international condemnation of what is happening in Syria. I made the point at last week's Foreign Affairs Council that the EU and others must work closely with Russia and China so as to lay the basis for a unified Security Council position on this crisis.

In saying all this, we must also be realistic about what the international community can accomplish in relation to Syria. I detect no appetite anywhere for any form of external intervention. This also extends to any idea of arming those now opposed to the Syrian regime. We must never fail to remember that Syria is a country through which many fault-lines - whether political, ethnic or religious - run. The worst-case scenario would be if Syria were to slip into an open civil war which would be profoundly destabilising for the entire region.

The Arab League peace plan still provides the most credible basis for resolving the crisis and allowing a political transition to get underway; it is, moreover, a plan which the Assad regime itself committed to supporting last November. We must also continue to encourage greater co-operation and co-ordination amongst the members of the Syrian opposition. At last month's Foreign Affairs Council, I pressed for the Syrian opposition to develop a common programme or set of principles before the next meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People group, which is scheduled for later this month.

I now turn to the other items on the Foreign Affairs Council's agenda in the first quarter of the year. On Iran, committee members will be aware that there was a substantive discussion of this issue by the Foreign Affairs Council in January. We adopted a further package of sanctions against Iran, including a phased oil embargo which will only properly take effect on 1 July next if there are no positive developments regarding Iran's nuclear programme in the meantime. We also decided to impose an asset freeze on the Iranian Central Bank. None of these additional restrictive measures were undertaken lightly. There was lengthy and intensive discussion in Brussels before agreement on this latest sanctions package was reached. It is no secret that a considerable number of member states, including Ireland, had reservations about imposing an oil embargo at a time when both the European and global economic situations remain so fragile. Nor have our doubts about the economic consequences of an oil embargo proved unfounded. World oil prices have increased by almost 30% in the past five months, with much of this increase concentrated in the period since the start of this year. However, whatever prior discussions there may have been, the fact is that all 27 EU member states fully supported the adoption of the latest sanctions in order to demonstrate increasing concern over Iran's nuclear programme. A report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, last November clearly spelled out the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear activities and the many questions it has failed to answer. Concerns have been heightened by the revelation that Iran has tripled its uranium enrichment up to the 20% level over the past four months.

The signs are that the tightening of sanctions and the growing international isolation of the Teheran regime are beginning to have a clear impact within Iran. The Iranian chief negotiator on the nuclear issue has now replied in generally constructive terms to a letter from High Representative Baroness Catherine Ashton last October which urged Iran to return to the negotiating table. I welcome the fact that Iran has responded, even if belatedly, to the invitation issued by EU High Representative, Baroness Ashton and the E3+3. I strongly believe that it is only through diplomatic negotiations that a solution can be found to the crisis of international confidence relating to Iran's nuclear programme.

In February, the Foreign Affairs Council discussed the current situation in Egypt and adopted conclusions on this subject. Overall, Egypt continues to make progress in its political transformation, though no one is under-estimating the scale of the challenges which remain. While the parliamentary elections held last December and January passed off relatively smoothly, the real challenge remains the upcoming presidential elections in May and the completion of a transfer of power to full civilian rule. Respect for the rule of law and for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms also needs to be strengthened in Egypt, particularly in light of recent incidents such as the well-publicised trial of a number of NGO activists. Ireland and its EU partners stand ready to assist Egypt on its path of political transition, a point I emphasised when I met Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mohammed Amr at the recent Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Tunis.

In January and February, the Foreign Affairs Council briefly reviewed developments in relation to the Middle East peace process. The lack of any real progress towards the launching of substantive peace talks remains a cause of serious concern. I believe that a particular responsibility falls on the EU at the present time to keep the political flame alight and to do whatever we can to encourage both sides back to the negotiating table. Nothing could be more helpful at this point than a clear demonstration of goodwill on Israel's part, through some form of confidence-building package which might help President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to accept that there is something to be gained from resuming direct talks. I believe that the Foreign Affairs Council needs to think seriously about this issue, as well as others such as Palestinian reconciliation, if the current impasse is not to descend into a dangerous path of drift and inactivity.

I will press for a substantive discussion by the Council at a very early stage.

The issue of Belarus has been considered by the Foreign Affairs Council at both its January and February meetings. On 28 February, the General Affairs Council took a decision to extend EU sanctions against Belarus. The extended sanctions consist of a travel ban and an asset freeze which are targeted against 19 judges who imposed prison sentences on peaceful demonstrators on five or more occasions. At the March meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers are likely to discuss what further measures can be taken against the Belarus regime with a view to achieving the release of political prisoners and resumption of a dialogue with the EU on reform.

In February, the Foreign Affairs Council discussed the southern Caucasus on the basis of draft conclusions which were adopted by consensus. Ministers welcomed progress made in the negotiations for association agreements with the three states concerned, including visa facilitation and deep and comprehensive free trade agreements. The association agreements offer greater European integration for the economies of the three southern Caucasus countries which will benefit the people of the region and may have a positive effect on the protracted conflicts in the region.

With regard to Georgia, Ministers expressed concern at Russian troop levels in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and called on the Russian Federation to fulfil its obligations under the ceasefire agreement of August 2008 and agree a non-use of force commitment. The Council also touched briefly on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, expressing concern at the slow progress of negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and voicing its support for the OSCE Minsk group co-chairs in their efforts to resolve the conflict. As members will be aware, the search for lasting settlements to the conflicts in the southern Caucasus is high on the agenda for Ireland's current chairmanship of the OSCE. I hope to be able to visit the region later this year in this context.

In January and February, the Foreign Affairs Council also reviewed progress in the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo. These discussions fed into the wider consideration of Serbia's application for EU membership by the General Affairs Council and European Council. As members are aware, the European Council agreed to grant the status of candidate country to Serbia last week. In the January discussion, I reiterated Ireland's support for candidate status for Serbia, not least given the significant positive steps it has made in recent years in its relations with its neighbours and in respect of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

The discussion in February followed on directly from the resumption of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue and agreements reached at that. There was a generally more positive attitude towards candidate status, along with recognition that the aspirations of both Serbia and Kosovo would have to be taken into account. Broad support was shown for a proposed feasibility study on a stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo. This study will assess if the economic and legal conditions are appropriate for a stabilisation and association agreement, which is the first phase of a contractual relationship with the European Union.

Candidate status is only the first step on the road to EU membership. A further decision by the Council will be required to open accession negotiations. With parliamentary elections due in Serbia in April or May, I do not expect much more movement on this issue until after the summer. The elections, the manner in which they are conducted and the final results will all have an impact on Serbia's future EU progression. Nevertheless, the decision agreed last week is a concrete assurance to the Serb people of their future within the European Union. After a decade of conflict followed by a decade of recovery and stalemate, we are seeing a serious commitment on the part of Serbia to a future in Europe.

The Government remains closely engaged at both European Union and international level in monitoring the position in Burma and supporting the Burmese people in their struggle for democracy and human rights. I have been very encouraged by recent reforms and developments undertaken by the Burmese Government, including the release of a significant number of political prisoners and resumption of dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi. At the January Foreign Affairs Council meeting, we decided to ease sanctions on Burma by suspending the visa ban on high level members of the Burmese Government to underline our hope that Burma will continue along the path of political reform.

While the situation in Burma has improved, there is still much to achieve. I hope for continuing reform over coming months, including the unconditional release of all remaining political prisoners and further action from the Burmese Government in addressing the concerns of ethnic minority groups and towards the establishment of comprehensive human rights protection for the people of Burma. I remain optimistic that April's by-election in which Aung San Suu Kyi is due to stand will be characterised by free and fair conduct. I am hopeful that recent developments indicate a lasting change for the people of Burma and herald the beginning of a new era of peace, democracy and respect for human rights.

The January meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council also considered the situation in Sudan and South Sudan where tensions remain high and a number of disputed issues remain unresolved between the authorities in Khartoum and the newly independent Republic of South Sudan. Ministers expressed concern about continued conflict in disputed border areas, human rights issues on both sides of the border and the need for all parties to facilitate access for humanitarian relief. We urged both sides to refrain from violence, co-operate with the United Nations and African Union missions, fulfil their obligations under the terms of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement and engage fully in dialogue to resolve outstanding issues.

Looking ahead, I will attend the traditional informal meeting of Foreign Ministers which will be hosted by the Danish Presidency in Copenhagen this weekend. We will take a strategic look at the direction of EU foreign policy against the backdrop of the economic crisis. Discussions are expected to cover a number of thematic areas, including a review of the European External Action Service following its first year in operation, the centrality of human rights to the European Union's internal and external policies and a discussion about how the EU can best effect change in countries such as Iran and Syria.

That concludes my comments on the business of the Foreign Affairs Council in the first quarter of this year. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to set them out to the joint committee and I will be pleased to respond to any questions which members may have.

Chairman

I thank the Tánaiste for his comprehensive opening statement. As I am conscious of the demands we are placing on his time, we will take questions immediately.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl

I concur with the Chairman that the Tánaiste has provided a comprehensive overview. Ongoing developments in Syria are clearly the main priority for both him and the joint committee. We are conscious that Baroness Amos was in Syria today and the position may be progressing somewhat in terms of United Nations involvement. I am sure members would be ad idem in expressing grave concern about soundings emanating from the United States on the possibility of military intervention in Syria. I ask the Tánaiste to ensure that members of the Government who travel to the United States encourage President Obama to maintain his current approach to developments in Syria because the last thing we need is military intervention in the country.

I commend the Tánaiste on travelling to Tunis and actively engaging with the friends of Syria group. He is doing the nation some service in that regard and his approach enjoys significant public support. We all welcome the appointment of Kofi Annan as a joint special envoy to Syria. He can play a substantial role in this matter. What level of engagement has the Tánaiste had with his counterparts in Russia in terms of using any influence Ireland may have to encourage Russia to take a more realistic approach to any resolution the United Nations Security Council may produce?

While I concur with the Tánaiste that diplomatic engagement is essential to finding a solution to the issue of Iran, he will forgive me for raising the old issue of the closure of the Irish embassy in Teheran. I express again my disappointment and regret that we do not have a diplomatic presence on the ground in Iran at a time of such dramatic change and major challenges in the country.

The Tánaiste referred to Serbia and Kosovo. I submitted a written question to him recently on a revealing presentation to the joint committee made by Lord Paddy Ashdown who has a phenomenal knowledge of the Balkans region. Lord Ashdown identified the progress that was achieved in the aftermath of the Dayton Agreement but expressed grave concern about the lack of continuing progress.

I commend the Tánaiste and his European Union colleagues on making the correct decision to begin to ease sanctions on Burma following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. When we use sanctions as a means of forcing countries to see reason it is appropriate to reward them in some way if they begin to progress towards the objectives we are seeking. I urge the Tánaiste to continue to monitor the position in Burma. I wish Aung San Suu Kyi success in the forthcoming by-election, which I understand will be held in April. She is a lady who is held in high regard in this country and Irish people look forward to seeing her play a major role in the reform of the process of governance in her country. While I do not agree with the Tánaiste on everything, he is doing a great deal of good work. I urge him to continue this work and wish him success.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I join Deputy Ó Fearghaíl in commending the Tánaiste on his initiative in Tunis and his recent visit to the Middle East where he met the belligerent parties to the conflict there.

I will focus my comments on Syria, Iran and the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. The joint committee expressed profound disappointment that the United Nations Security Council failed to reach a unanimous agreement in response to gross human rights abuses and atrocities in Syria. The reason given by Russia and China for not agreeing to the proposed UN Security Council resolution was that the NATO powers overstepped the mark following a previous Security Council resolution on Libya, to which both Russia and China had agreed, when they moved from a position of defending those who were legitimately protesting against the Gadaffi regime to one of promoting regime change. This policy had horrendous consequences when civil war and mob rule broke out across Libya and Russia and China expressed concern that a similar path would be followed in the case of Syria.

When one steps back a few paces one cannot but believe that four of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, namely, the United States, Britain, China and Russia, are failing the entire international community through their failure to reach some type of consensus, position of trust or common purpose in their approach to conflicts. They have taken a selective approach in recent years. Having failed in the Balkans, the international community subsequently took a decision to quickly move into Kosovo. We then had the issues of Libya and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East to which I will refer in a moment. We are left with the assaults on the Syrian cities of Baba Amr and Homs, both of which are located in a zone with a history of conflict. The Red Cross finally confirmed today that it is present on the ground in Homs. One has a sense that the journey in Syria will be long because there are no easy solutions. The opposition groups on the ground lack unity of purpose. The fundamental question is how we can defend human rights and the rights to engage in democratic opposition in Syria. Unfortunately, the international community has failed to reach a common purpose.

On the Israel-Palestine conflict, despite a number of United Nations resolutions being passed on illegal settlements in the occupied territories, settlement activity continues unabated. A leaked European Union report refers to the impact of the Israeli Government's policies in Area C of the occupied territories. It notes the diminishing population of the indigenous Palestinian people and increase in the Jewish population. Under the 1998 Oslo accords, the PLO was willing to accept 22% of the territory of historical mandate Palestine. At that time, Area C had a Jewish population of approximately 180,000, which has since increased to 500,000 through a process described by a UN special rapporteur on the ground as "ethnic cleansing". In addition to ethnic cleansing, the Israeli state has failed to cease illegal settlement and the international community has done diddly-squat about it other than to mouth platitudes. Whereas sanctions have been imposed on other states, as is appropriate, the European Union has signed favourable trade agreements with Israel, thereby rewarding it for belligerence and defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. This defiance of the will of the international community was best exemplified recently by the decision of the overwhelming majority of members of UNESCO, including Ireland - I applaud the Tánaiste for supporting the relevant resolution - to support the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland while protecting the right of Israelis to security and a state. The two state solution has the overwhelming support of the international community but nothing has been done to enforce it or require Israel to meet its responsibilities.

Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has a responsibility to open up its nuclear sites to demonstrate clearly that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. This requirement is accepted by most people. Israel, on the other hand, is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and is not required, therefore, to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency or open up its nuclear sites. It is widely believed the country has hundreds of nuclear weapons. How can the Tánaiste stand over the European Union's policy on this issue, under which Israel is provided with a favourable trade agreement while sanctions are imposed against Iran, a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty?

The difficulty in the Middle East and wider region is that the approach taken by the global powers - NATO, Britain, the United States, Russia and China - reflects double standards. Until we reach a point where a consistent approach is shown to all offenders and democracy and human rights are defended consistently and for all without equivocation, we do not carry any moral weight. It is either all or nothing in terms of the application of these standards. The historical difficulty in the region is one of enforcing the will of the international community in some countries while failing to confront a blatant offender, Israel, which is rewarded for its belligerence.

On the wider challenge arising from Syria, Iran and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Finnish Government has organised an event for later this year under the umbrella of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which seeks a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. I raised this critical event with the Tánaiste earlier. If we can secure full disclosure and honesty about the weapons possessed by all parties in the region and an acceptance that the will of the international community will be respected, we can then start to address all of the conflicts in the region. However, President Obama is more focused on his re-election later this year than on realistically addressing conflicts in the Middle East. How can one have Prime Minister Netanyahu being welcomed and receiving standing ovations in the US Houses of Congress while the United States speaks of Iran and Syria meeting their responsibilities? Until a genuinely consistent approach is taken to human rights abusers and those who defy the will of the international community, we will not be able to address these issues.

I commend the Tánaiste on the efforts he has made in recent times and his meetings with protagonists in the Middle East. Ireland has a major responsibility in this regard, having historically played a leading role in the region and driven the non-proliferation treaty. We should not have closed the embassy in Teheran as the decision undermined our capacity in the region. I implore the Tánaiste to accept that Ireland can punch above its weight and play a constructive role in addressing conflicts in the Middle East. We must be consistent with those major powers which take an inconsistent approach to these conflicts. They must be either serious about addressing all such conflicts in a consistent manner. Otherwise, they will lack credibility. That is the choice they must make and only when they make the correct choice will be able to start making headway in the region.

Senator David Norris

I thank the Tánaiste. This is not by any means the first time he has addressed the joint committee, which he is clearly taking seriously. His recent visits to Seanad Éireann were also greatly appreciated because it means that foreign policy is accountable, through the Oireachtas and the media, to the Irish people. The Tánaiste has displayed considerable flexibility and courage in this area and I hope that his efforts to get a seat for Ireland on the human rights committee at the UN will be successful. I am not sure if it is appropriate for him to make any comments on the progress of his efforts, but, under the chairmanship of Deputy Breen, we consistently raise this in meetings with the ambassadors of different countries, so we are doing our best to play our part in trying to ensure that it is facilitated.

The situation in Syria is appalling. None of us has a greater bleeding heart than any of the others and I am quite sure that the Tánaiste identified clearly with the people in that situation. However, from the filmed material that was secretly taken in the hospital in Homs, it seems to me that we have a situation that is getting more serious all the time. That clearly brings what is occurring in Syria under the category of international war crimes. There is no aspersion cast on the background of the material or its authenticity. There appears to be clear evidence of the use of hospital facilities to inflict torture on patients. The instruments of torture were seen lying beside the bed of a man who had been clearly beaten by a rubber whip. There were electrical implements to be seen. There was evidence given by some of the hospital personnel and I would like to pay tribute to that wonderful person and that person's colleagues who had the courage to give evidence. That is whistle blowing of a most extraordinary nature. Drugs are being withheld from people who have serious shrapnel wounds or have amputated limbs, and this guarantees that they will get gangrene. That is a truly horrible thing to do. The withholding of blood transfusions from patients is the use of medical equipment for purposes of warfare. That is illegal. It is a deeply criminal regime.

I understand the difficulties because it is a very complex community, with different religious affiliations, including a small but significant Christian element. One hopes that the Arab League will be able to get itself together. It has a voice that should be listened to in Russia and in China. What exactly can the Tánaiste or any other foreign minister, or the UN or Kofi Annan recommend to the people who are in this situation? They are being subjected to indiscriminate bombardment. If they take their injured to hospital, the only hospital that will accept them is the military hospital, where they will be tortured. It is assumed, on the basis of the fact that they are wounded, that they are rebels, or insurgents or whatever. Given that we are coming up to the anniversary of 1916, I am reminded of Seán O'Casey's words. What are they expected to do, come out in their pelts and throw stones?

I know it is a very difficult argument, but I am very conflicted about whether these people should be given arms. I try to be a pacifist, but can people be expected to sit there and be blown to pieces? The right to defend oneself and one's family is a profound right. Some children cannot be taken to hospital and they are being treated in improvised clinics. I am not completely certain that intervention is the worst of a series of very bad options, because I cannot comprehend what it must be like to be living in those circumstances.

In respect of Israel, I believe that President Obama is being as nuanced as he can in his current situation. I think we should support him in trying to restrain those hawkish elements in the US and in Israel who appear to be interested in military intervention in Iran. I mentioned the fact that a senior military figure in America was broadcast giving information about the development of new bunker buster bombs that could be applied to those locations where they are putting some of these nuclear facilities at a deep level. It is worrying when an important general comes out and makes these statements, because it is war mongering.

I watched the Israeli ambassador to London on television the other evening. He was playing his cards close to his chest, but it was very clear that nothing is off the table, including the military option with regard to Iran. They might have difficulties in refuelling, but they have the weapons for the strike. They would need the assistance of the US for refuelling. I think it is very important that we support President Obama in trying to restrain this material.

I agree with my colleague from Sinn Féin about the relations with Israel. During the so-called Operation Cast Lead, there was the Euro-Mediterranean agreement. There are human rights protocols attached to that agreement. I requested on many occasions and had resolutions passed at this committee that those protocols be monitored. There were never even monitored. Some 85% of Israeli agricultural products are accepted into the European Union. A mild slap might have made them hesitate before they acted in Operation Cast Lead.

I wish the Taoiseach well in his visit to China. I was involved in the moves that lead to the release of Liu Feng and Xiao Ming. Another Falun Gong practitioner, Ms Fang Yang, has been studying in Dún Laoghaire. Her passport has been withdrawn and given back to her and so on. People and cases are named. They can be named privately. I am not suggesting that the Chinese should be embarrassed. If we are serious about human rights and incorporating them with trade, we need to look at these issues.

I wonder if there is any update on the Roma children who have been left on a dump in Kosovo. They have been left with the highest levels of mercury and lead ever recorded in human blood, and this is a UN project. I wonder if anything has been done about it.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Today's developments in Syria in respect of the ICRC are very welcome. Along with the potential for a visit by Kofi Annan next week, that could provide some momentum towards addressing this harrowing situation for the Syrian people. The Tánaiste correctly pointed out that there is no appetite whatsoever for external intervention, by which he means military intervention. That has been clear for some time. The Arab League peace plan provided the framework for a road map forward and it should be supported.

In his contribution, the Tánaiste refers to the necessity for the Syrian opposition to come together and develop a common programme. How realistic is that in the short to medium term? Does the Department have clear figures on the number of Irish citizens in Syria at the moment? I am aware that there is quite a number of medical and engineering professionals in the country at the moment. What sort of information do we have on the presence of Irish people in Syria? Have we assessed our level of risk? What are the contingency plans to remove them if required?

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan

Ireland is looking for a seat on the human rights council and we deserve that. We have a fine reputation that is respected in the world. Much of that is related to our neutrality and to the way in which we engage with developing countries when providing aid. I hope we can get that seat, because I think we have a role to play. The Minister is demonstrating that with all the work he is doing. What is happening in Syria is very disturbing. We have heard about the forces of President Assad, but there are now equally disturbing reports of atrocities on the part of the Free Syrian Army, and I would not like that to get lost. There is no black and white in any situation.

The Minister said in his report that he detects no appetite anywhere for any form of external intervention. However, I believe there is intervention taking place in Syria. We are told there are arms coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar and that Turkey is playing a role, and it is said that Western special forces are giving military support on the ground. I am not in favour of direct intervention as happened in Libya and Iraq, because that sort of direct intervention is orchestrated, and it is the ordinary people who lose out and are denied their democratic voice. I also wonder about the Arab League. Certain countries within that league are not to the fore when it comes to human rights, whether they are to do with the death penalty or certain types of punishment, or rights for women, minority religions and sexual minorities within their countries. Yet suddenly they are being lauded as the answer to everything that is happening in Syria. I am wondering about other types of opposition in Syria that are more pro-democracy than we are hearing about.

I read this morning an article by Robert Fisk, which brings in the question of Iran, and I will quote it briefly. He wrote:

Our brave leaders have spent much time telling us how they absolutely, totally and completely refuse to interfere militarily in Syria. And odd, isn't it, how we're almost as keen to publicise our impotence over Syria as we are to threaten Iran over its real or mythical nuclear weapons programme, when Iran isn't massacring anyone at all.

I have an image that Syria is being used by Western powers to get at Iran. Where is the concern for Syria? I share the concerns of Deputy Ó Fearghaíl about the closure of the embassy in Tehran, because we could have had a role there.

I support previous comments about Bosnia. As pointed out by Lord Ashdown, Bosnia has come out of an extremely troubled history. It is not a country in its own right but a created country. It has such a convoluted, complicated system of elections that it is a wonder it was even able to elect a Prime Minister, which it did. Support is needed to ensure the country does not disintegrate as it did before.

A few of us raised a Topical Issue in the Dáil earlier about Pakistan, to which Deputy Burton replied. It concerned the anniversary of the murder of a Minister who criticised the blasphemy laws, and the fact that Asia Bibi continues in jail with no sign of a trial date. We need to keep our voice heard on that issue. Deputy Burton gave the Minister's reply, but the call was for further correspondence from our Government to the Pakistani authorities.

Deputy Eric Byrne

The Chairman is telling me to be speedy because the Minister has another engagement. I will do the best I can.

I agree with a lot of what Deputy O'Sullivan says, but I find myself, time and again, disagreeing with some of her comments. I disagree that the Western world has been standing idly by in the case of Syria. China and Russia were the two powers that failed to support intervention by the UN, so we cannot blame the Western world for its inactivity in Syria. Our hearts go out to the people of Syria. It is horrendous that crimes against humanity are occurring there, and it is incumbent on us to take whatever diplomatic steps need to be taken to remind the leaders in Syria that there are international courts of justice before which they will possibly be brought in due course, although nothing happens overnight.

I was about, if I had been the first speaker, to applaud the role of the Arab League, which has played a crucial role on this occasion, notwithstanding the difficult start to the observer mission, which was partly due to the presence of a Sudanese military person over whom there were question marks about human rights. The Arab League is the appropriate body to organise and work with Europe and the UN in seeking a resolution to the problems in Syria.

I commend the Minister for travelling the world as extensively as he does and for being on top of his brief. He mentioned many countries and conflicts around the world. I am greatly concerned about the Middle East. As there is a presidential election campaign in the United States, President Obama will be concentrating on his re-election campaign, but there are clear, tell-tale signs that the Israelis are baiting and provoking America into becoming more involved in Iran in an aggressive way. The next time the Minister meets with President Obama, he might remind him that we do not support - and few countries in the world apart from Israel would support - military intervention in Iran at this time or maybe any time in the future. The sanctions that have been applied are working in Iran, although they do not work in some other countries, and diplomacy is clearly the way forward.

The next time the Minister is speaking with those in the American establishment he might remind them they are doing untold damage to UNESCO by removing funding because of the decision of UNESCO to recognise Palestine. It is horrendous that programmes are being undermined by a lack of funding from America.

This committee met representatives from the Jordanian embassy in the recent past, and today it met representatives from the Saudi Arabian embassy. It is fascinating that notwithstanding the cultural differences and attitudes to human rights, as mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan, these countries have a progressive role to play, particularly on the subject of the Middle East and our relationship with the Palestinians. Saudi Arabians are, for the first time, about to break their love relationship with the USA and take an independent view on Palestine which is very similar - in fact identical - to our own line.

I commend Irish Aid for placing its rapid response unit on stand-by for Syria. That is great. We need to keep restating the point that diplomacy can and does work. Sanctions can work, but violence and pre-emptive strikes on Iran by any country that may be contemplating it would be a world disaster.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I thank members for their contributions and for their supportive remarks and questions. Ireland, as a small country, has historically played a powerful and constructive role in world affairs. We take pride in the fact that we have an active foreign policy which has been built, through successive Governments, around a number of cornerstones such as our position on human rights. The fact that we do not have colonial baggage means that we can act as an honest broker in many situations. There is high regard for us and we can be proud of our development aid programme. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with serious conflicts or disputes that come to our attention from time to time, we have a significant role to play.

I watched the "Prime Time" programme on Syria last night, and there was footage on Channel 4 before that. What we are seeing is shocking. It is my view that the international community cannot stand aside on this. As we take a multilateral approach to international affairs we look to the UN to take the lead in these areas. When it was not possible for the UN Security Council to agree a resolution on Syria we expressed that view.

I was at the UN Security Council meeting in the middle of February and had the opportunity to address it. I expressed our disappointment about the fact the Security Council had not been able to reach a conclusion. I spoke to the Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Ban-ki Moon, about what could now be done by the international community given that the Security Council had not agreed a resolution and outlined the importance of the international committee being able to act on Syria. I am glad that, following on from that meeting, we have had the appointment of Mr. Kofi Annan, the visit of Ms Valerie Amos and the work the Arab League is attempting to do.

We have to consider Syria on a number of levels. There is the immediate humanitarian situation. People are being killed, injured and tortured in hospitals. There is a necessity to deliver humanitarian aid which is why, for example, this weekend we made a very firm commitment that we will make an additional contribution to the humanitarian aid effort. The biggest problem with regard to Syria is not the availability of money, resources or materials, rather it is getting them in. That gives rise to the question of what is done at a practical level. Senator Norris expressed the question that is in a lot of people's minds, namely that if the Syrian regime is dealing with its own people in an appalling way and not allowing in humanitarian aid, there should perhaps be some kind of military intervention.

At the meeting in Tunis and at the Foreign Affairs Council last week, as well as at the discussions I had with Mr. Ban-ki Moon, I have taken the view on behalf of this country that we do not want to see military intervention in Syria for a number of reasons. The situation could degenerate into full-scale civil war. There are divisions in the country, as well as on the opposition side, which is why some of the calls for arming the opposition are misguided.

There are two phases. One is what happens vis-à-vis the Assad regime which is clearly determined to suppress militarily the entire opposition in a very brutal way. The second factor is what happens in a post-Assad situation where there is a lot of division. We have spoken about the necessity for the opposition to unite around a set of principles. There is a basis for that to be done. The Friends of Syrian People, which was started in Tunis, intends to hold another meeting next month. I hope it will be possible for the opposition groups to use that opportunity to agree a set of principles.

There is also the question of what can be done. I have heard the views expressed by some members of the committee on the Arab League and the different states which are part of it. It has put forward a set of settlement proposals which will allow for a political transition in Syria, a ceasefire, access for humanitarian aid and movement. Those proposals can and should be supported by the international community.

We have to look positively at what can be done at UN level. The United States has proposed a new resolution. A question was asked about our contact with Russia and China on this matter. I took the opportunity to discuss the situation in Syria with the Chinese Foreign Minister who accompanied the Chinese Vice President during a recent visit. We have maintained contact with the Russian Government through our diplomatic service and the European Union.

I was in Moscow some months ago and spoke with the Foreign Minister Lavrov about Syria, among other things. The meeting took place prior to the Security Council resolution. We will continue to play an active role on Syria. While the informal meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the EU at the weekend will be a more thematic meeting rather than having a set agenda, we will have an opportunity to pull back a little and consider the wider picture in terms of EU foreign policy. I expect we will discuss the situation in Syria and attempt to move it forward.

I referred to the decisions made by the EU in regard to sanctions on Iran. We have not dreamt up this situation. The IAEA produced a report on where the nuclear programme is going in Iran. Its military intentions with regard to the development of nuclear weapons and so on have huge implications for peace and stability in the region. We have made our position on the threat of an Israeli military strike against Iran very clear.

When I was in Israel and met Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman I expressed our view very clearly that this would be a disaster for Israel. At the time there was a lot of talk in the Israeli media about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Such military action would set off a horrendous situation in the region. We have set our faces against that.

The committee knows why we have had to close a number of embassies. I regret that because of our current financial circumstances it is something we have to do. We have to cut our cloth to fit our measure. I have responded to the committee before on the matter. It would always be better to have resident embassies but I am satisfied that the arrangements we have made for our diplomatic service in Tehran are satisfactory.

In response to Deputy Mac Lochlainn, I visited Israel and Palestine at the end of January. I agree the continuing settlements and the blockade of Gaza are the biggest obstacles. I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the necessity for confidence building measures and to progress these issues. I referred in particular to the plans for a major settlement on the eastern side of Jerusalem, the effect of which would be to physically cut off the northern part of the West Bank from the southern part. I had hoped some more progress would have been made on those confidence building measures and I am disappointed that has not taken place.

The Deputy referred to the way in which the situation in the Middle East plays into the domestic politics of the United States and how it is tied into the electoral cycle. For all of these reasons the EU has a key role to play in the Middle East peace process in terms of starting talks. My visit to the Middle East was immediately preceded by Ms Catherine Ashton and followed immediately by the Foreign Minister of Germany, Mr. Guido Westerwelle. Ireland will continue to keep the Middle East peace process issue on the EU agenda.

I am addressing the issues thematically. Senator Norris asked about human rights issues. It would be helpful if members of the committee used their good offices with ambassadors for our candidacy for the Human Rights Council. If we were playing football we would regard the group we are in as the group of death. It is a very competitive field. We obviously have been working both politically and diplomatically in trying to secure support and would welcome the assistance that members of this committee can give to that effort.

Senator David Norris

The Chairman has played a lead in this.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I thank the Chairman, Deputy Breen, for his assistance.

During the course of the recent Chinese visit, Vice President Xi Jinping and I spoke about human rights and we are agreed as two Governments to talk to each other respectfully about human rights issues. There is therefore a basis on which individual cases may be raised through diplomatic channels.

Deputy Eric Byrne referred to the cuts in the funding to UNESCO. I agree it is very regrettable that funding to UNESCO has been cut in this way. The director general is working very hard to maintain UNESCO operations but the 25% cut in its funding will have a very clear impact, if that decision is not reversed soon. We have made these points in discussions with the United States.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan raised the issue of Bosnia. The formation of the state level Government 14 months after the elections should at least allow Bosnia-Herzegovina to move forward with the adoption and implementation of reforms required by the EU. I am encouraged by the recent statements of the chairperson of the Council of Ministers, which set out his ambitions for progressing it towards EU membership. These include his hope that a stabilisation and association agreement will enter into force this summer and of having an application for EU membership submitted before the end of this year. While recognising the enormity of the challenges that Bosnia-Herzegovina is facing, the country is at last moving in the right direction. The formation of a state level Government is a positive step but what is required to move the country further on the path of EU integration is a common understanding of the overall direction of the country and its institutional framework.

I will look at the Pakistan issues raised in the debate on topical issue matters. Deputy Nash asked about the number of Irish citizens in Syria. We do not have an exact figure but it falls between 100 and 200. Our embassy in Cairo is in touch with the EU delegations in Damascus to provide consular assistance to people, if they need it.

On the easing of sanctions on Burma, the committee will agree that the international community uses sanctions as a way of enforcing its point of view and to cause change. When progress is being made, it is also important to send a very clear signal of our willingness to relax the sanctions to encourage the progress that is being made. That is the reason I supported the relaxation of the sanctions regime in Burma. We will see how that goes and adjust accordingly, if necessary.

Chairman

I thank the Tánaiste for his time. I remind members that I will be in Copenhagen on Sunday and Monday for the COFACC meeting on Syria and will be meeting Baroness Ashton. I will remind my colleagues from the EU member states that Ireland does not support military intervention in Syria. There is the mechanism of the friends of Syria group and I hope the Tánaiste will continue to support this group because that is the way forward for a peaceful solution.

I commend the Minister for his active role in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he travelled to Tunis and to the Middle East recently. The Minister, as chairman of the OSCE, has an onerous task and we support his work. While members may have different views on matters, there is a clear agreement that diplomacy works and it will work in the areas of current unrest. I hope the Minister will continue as chairman of the OSCE to exercise his role as an honest broker and I wish him every success, particularly at the EU Council meeting at the weekend. I hope there will be a peaceful resolution. Baroness Amos is in Syria and Mr. Kofi Annan is due to arrive and I hope we will have a diplomatic solution to the dreadful situation that is being broadcast on television.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. As there is no further business we will adjourn.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.45 p.m. sine die.