I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and his officials. We are only considering Vote 38 and have deferred consideration of Vote 39 until tomorrow at 11 a.m. We are convened to consider the Estimates for the year ending 31 December 2000. I now invite the Minister to make an opening statement which will be followed by statements from the main Opposition spokespersons. We will then have a question and answer session and other members are free to contribute and can raise matters under individual subheads, groups of subheads or on the Estimate in general.
Estimates for Public Services, 2000.
Vote 38 - Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Revised).
I welcome this opportunity to meet the Select Committee to consider Vote 38 which deals with Foreign Affairs, while the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, will speak tomorrow on Vote 39 which covers Ireland's contribution to overseas development aid.
The Estimate for Vote 38 amounts to £92.591 million, most of which is taken up with the administrative budget which accounts for £76.254 million. The remainder of the Vote funds programmes which promote peace and reconciliation within Ireland, encourage the development of cultural relations with other countries and support Irish citizens abroad. This year for the first time contributions to international organisations, including the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the WTO, are also included in the programmes of Vote 38.
I know members of the committee will wish to join with me in welcoming Saturday's decision by the Ulster Unionist Council to re-enter the Northern Ireland Executive and to take the historic opportunity which was on offer. The period since the Assembly and Executive were suspended in February has been difficult for all concerned. While it was our highest priority to get the institutions back up and running as soon as possible, the issues with which we had to deal are sensitive and complex and we knew it would never be easy to find an agreed way forward.
On 5 May the British and Irish Governments set out the basis on which we see the outstanding aspects of the Agreement for which we have responsibility being implemented. This was an important step towards creating a context of confidence in which others could make their intentions known. It paved the way for what has been widely and correctly acknowledged as an enormously significant statement from the IRA, which, in turn, paved the way for the decision taken by the UUC on Saturday. In recent weeks all sides have had to move to express to each other a willingness to build trust and to give each other the confidence that the Agreement will be implemented in full. This mutual reassurance and working together is one of the cornerstones of the process.
It has taken immense courage on the part of the leaders of the pro-Agreement parties to make these developments possible. They and their parties have had to face difficult questions and make difficult choices. As politicians, we can particularly appreciate the leadership and commitment they have shown in stretching their constituencies further than the sceptics on all sides thought possible. They richly deserve our thanks and congratulations. As a result of their efforts we now have a secure and agreed basis for the full implementation of the Agreement. The Executive is meeting tomorrow and the Assembly will resume next week. There is also a great deal to be done in the North-South and British-Irish institutions and the work is already under way.
The Agreement is a multifaceted, multi-layered document, but the institutions are at its heart. They are valuable not just because of the important work which they carry on and to which they will now be able to return, but also because they have the capacity to demonstrate conclusively that politics can work and that the elected representatives of both communities and traditions on the island can co-operate together with common purpose and to the benefit of all. It is in the interest of all democrats that they succeed. However, as the Government statement on 5 May set out, there is also a great deal of work to be taken forward in other areas if the Agreement is to be implemented fully - work to which we must also turn our hands.
We have committed ourselves to the establishment of a human rights commission in July and to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights by October. We are proceeding with both commitments as a matter of urgency. The British Government has undertaken to enact the legislation necessary to implement the Patten report by October. As Members will be aware, the draft legislation in this area was published on 16 May and, as I stated then, there are some aspects of it which give cause for serious concern. In our continuing discussions with the British Government we will be stressing our view that it is vitally important that the legislation and its implementation give full effect to the Patten recommendations. The outcome must be a police service which is effective, representative and acceptable in all parts of Northern Ireland.
Progress must also continue to be made on the question of arms. The IRA's statement on 6 May was a major step forward and it is important that the commitments made in it are now honoured. I look forward to an early report from Mr. Athisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa on the proposed confidence building measure. The de Chastelain Commission will also be continuing its work and will be reporting to us. I hope loyalist paramilitaries will find ways to build further confidence.
The British Government has undertaken to take the necessary steps progressively to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements. The programme of prisoner releases will continue. These and other issues will require continuing consultation and co-operation.
In the coming months it will be the responsibility of everyone - the Governments, the parties and society in general - to prove, on a sustained basis, that the Agreement can work for all, including those who do not now support it. The past two years have been, as David Trimble has stated, a rollercoaster. We have experienced more than our fair share of setbacks and difficulties, breakthroughs and advances. I hope we will now have a period of steady progress so that we can realise the Agreement's full potential, working together in a spirit of mutual respect and partnership.
In reviewing the proposed expenditure of my Department, it is important to consider that expenditure and the Department's role in the context of the Government's domestic agenda and its foreign policy objectives. Ireland has a small open economy which is critically dependent on foreign trade. Inward investment has played a crucial role in Ireland's recent economic development and in creating our current economic prosperity. It has transformed our economy, created thousands of jobs and is the major source of our exports. Our national interest lies, therefore, in the maintenance of an open global economy favourable to the free flow of international trade and investment in a context of international peace and security.
In so far as economic affairs are concerned, my Department and I have two major objectives, namely, to pursue Ireland's economic interests abroad, making full use of our diplomatic and consular network, and to promote and protect Ireland's interests in the European Union as it deepens its level of integration and prepares for enlargement.
My Department aims to promote an international environment within which trade and investment can flourish as a basis for the development of mutually beneficial relations with all countries of the world. Our embassies and consulates abroad are keenly aware of Ireland's economic interests in their host countries and take every opportunity to promote them. Irish diplomats overseas develop and maintain as broad a range of contacts as possible with key economic and commercial players in their countries of accreditation. They also maintain close contacts with Irish business people and those with Irish connections.
At headquarters, my Department works closely with the main economic Departments - Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Public Enterprise and Agriculture, Food and Rural Development - and both at home and through embassies abroad with the relevant State agencies. During the past year the Government developed an economic strategy for Asia which is aimed at augmenting Ireland's foreign earnings in the increasingly important markets of the Asia-Pacific region. Towards this end, we have opened new missions in Singapore, Shanghai and Sydney and we are expanding our missions in Beijing and Tokyo.
Our membership of the European Union has been critical in influencing the decisions of international corporations to invest in Ireland. Our partners in the EU are also our primary trading partners and as the Union grows in the coming years so also will the challenges and opportunities for Ireland. We welcome the proposed enlargement of the Union and the decisions taken at the Helsinki Council last December, under which each applicant should move towards accession on the basis of its own merits and level of preparedness. An enlarged community of member states will have significant implications for the way the Union runs its affairs. The Intergovernmental Conference, which is considering the institutional implications of enlargement as well as the issues left unresolved at Amsterdam, is due to complete its work in time for the European Council to be held in Nice in December.
Ireland's priority for the Intergovernmental Conference is to ensure that in equipping the institutions of the Union to respond effectively to enlargement the essential balances which are at the heart of the community are not undermined. In this regard we are committed to ensuring that each member state retains the right to nominate a Commissioner. We have emphasised this point strongly at the conference, as have a majority of member states. While not convinced on the justification for reopening the issue of the weighting of the votes of each member state, we and other smaller states would likely be prepared to consider some modest adjustment in return for a willingness on the part of the larger member states to forego their second Commissioner and an assurance that the right of each member state to nominate a Commissioner would be maintained in the future
Other issues which are being discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference include a possible extension of QMV, reallocation of votes in the European Parliament, changes to the organisation and operating procedures of the Courts of Justice and possible changes to the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. There is also some debate on the concept of flexibility within the Treaty, particularly the possibility of some degree of the easing of the rules for its application. I would be glad to discuss these issues with members this afternoon.
The Union, even in expanded form, cannot exist in isolation; it must operate on in a global political and economic environment. Together with its European Union partners, Ireland is playing its part in the new round of global trade negotiations. We believe that a comprehensive round of global negotiations involving a broad range of issues, to be completed within a reasonably short period of, for example, three years, is the best way to address the many challenges resulting from the rapid and far-reaching economic changes now facing the international community. Such a round would contribute significantly to managing properly and effectively the globalisation process, promoting equitable growth and encouraging development. It would respond in a balanced manner to the interests of all WTO members, particularly the developing countries.
Together with our partners in the EU we will continue to pursue this policy and will take into account, in particular, the needs of the developing and least developed countries. A significant development in recent weeks was the trade agreement successfully negotiated between the European Union and China which will facilitate that country's accession to the World Trade Organisation. I need hardly state that China's participation in the international, rule-based global trading system will be a major boost. I expect that Ireland's exporters will benefit significantly from easier access to the vast and developing Chinese market.
Global trade flows are heavily dependent on a peaceful and secure international political environment. Central to creating and maintaining that environment will be the United Nations. A priority of the Government programme is to strengthen the UN system and to enhance our contribution in key areas such as disarmament, peacekeeping and human rights. The Government is vigorously pursuing the campaign to have Ireland elected to non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council for a two year term, 2001-02. The election will take place in October. Ireland is seeking election on the basis of its long-standing commitment to the work of the UN. Our campaign also appeals to the principle that small and medium-sized as well as large states should have an opportunity to serve on the council at reasonable intervals. By 2001 it will be 20 years since Ireland's previous term on the council. The contest for election to the UN Security Council this years is competitive. Nonetheless our candidacy has attracted a strong level of support across all regions and the Government remains hopeful of a successful outcome. The United Nations Millennium Summit, which the Taoiseach will attend in September, offers a unique opportunity to give impetus to the reform process now under way. The challenges facing the UN and the immediate priorities for consideration have already been identified by the UN Secretary-General. We will work to ensure a successful outcome.
With regard to disarmament, the recent outcome of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York represents a major achievement - a new unequivocal commitment from the nuclear weapon states to eliminate totally their nuclear arsenals. At the conference, I set out the strong views which we, together with the other members of the New Agenda Coalition, share on the necessity to revitalise the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The final document reflects, to a large measure, the demands of the New Agenda Coalition making fully explicit what until now had been only implicit and vague in the treaty. However, there should be no room for complacency on this issue. The nuclear weapon states must now implement the commitments which they have given.
Ireland's role in peacekeeping continues to be an important signal of our commitment to the ideals of the UN, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Nobody is more aware than the UN itself of the deficiencies in peacekeeping operations which have led to the scenes witnessed in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and recently in Sierra Leone. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan has openly admitted that the UN has made grave mistakes. Other UN peacekeeping operations have been much more successful. We in Ireland can be very proud of the role our Defence Forces have played in the Lebanon since 1978. We have been asked to send additional personnel to UNIFIL and will respond positively. I have had discussions on the Lebanon situation with the UN in New York and with other troop contributors. The safety of Irish troops is of paramount concern to the Government.
We will have an opportunity this afternoon to discuss developments in regard to efforts to promote peace and democracy and to end or prevent conflict in many countries of the world. The Government takes a particular interest in the Middle East peace process, and in the humanitarian situation in Iraq. The resumption of hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea is tragic at a time when people in the Horn of Africa are suffering from drought and food shortages. We will support international efforts to bring lasting peace to the Congo and to Sierra Leone. We welcome the fact that a date has been set for elections in Zimbabwe and we will contribute tostrengthening the democratic process, including by sending election observers. We are working actively to promote reconciliation, reconstruction and nation-building in East Timor.
Our commitment to work in support of international peace and security is reflected, at European level, in our approach to European security and defence. This issue was a focus of discussion when l met this committee more than a month ago. Ongoing discussions within the EU focus on the Petersberg Tasks, on the basis of the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam and are not about mutual defence commitments. This work has two aspects - the military dimension embodied in the Petersberg Tasks, and the related civil aspects of crisis management, for example, disaster relief and humanitarian support. Since our discussion last month, this issue has been the subject of an exchange of views at an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in the Azores. At the recent General Affairs Council, it was agreed to establish an EU Committee on the Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management. The Presidency will present a progress report on the issue to next month's European Council in Feira and I expect that the forthcoming French Presidency will be mandated to continue this work.
Ireland is participating actively in Partnership for Peace and in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council which provides the over-arching political framework for PfP. Last week I attended for the first time the regular six-monthly meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Foreign Ministers. The security situation in the western Balkans remains a major preoccupation. Through our participation in multinational forces, such as KFOR in Kosovo and SFOR in Bosnia operating with UN authorisation, we are actively contributing to the international efforts. The future of Serbia remains the key to assuring stability and peace in this region. Together with our EU partners, we are encouraging the restoration of democracy in Serbia, so that it will be able to play its role in the process of reconstruction which is under way.
Another issue to be discussed at Feira is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Cologne European Council in June 1999 decided that a "body composed of representatives of the Heads of State and Government and the President of the Commission as well as members of the European Parliament and national parliaments" should elaborate a charter that "should contain the fundamental rights and freedoms as well as basic procedural rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and derived from the constitutional traditions common to the member states, as general principles of Community law".The convention - the name adopted by the body charged with formulating the charter - has held an intensive round of meetings and will shortly produce a first draft. The text deals with civil, political and citizens' rights, together with economic and social rights. It is important that, in this area, the EU should complement, and not cut across, the key role in the protection of human rights played by the Council of Europe.
As the committee will be aware, Ireland recently completed a six month term in the chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The chairmanship of the Council has been an important opportunity for Ireland, as a smaller member state, to advance the important work of the organisation. The political agenda of the council during our tenure was dominated by the situations in Chechyna and in the Balkans. On Chechyna, I held a number of meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, and conveyed to him the Council's concerns about the ongoing situation in the Caucasus. Ireland was able to secure a consensus decision in the Committee of Ministers instructing the Secretary General, in co-operation with Russia, to develop proposals for the Council of Europe contribution to resolving the crisis.
Members will also be aware that Ireland hosted a number of successful international conferences both during and immediately following our term in office. These included a conference on social development hosted by the Minister for Social Community and Family Affairs, a major human rights seminar, which I hosted, and a mini-session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council, hosted by the Ceann Comhairle.
I see the role of the Department as integral to the achievement of the Government's overall programme. While our foreign service is modest in size in comparison with our peer nations, we are determined to use it creatively and positively to further the interests of our people in working towards international peace and justice, global prosperity and sustainable economic development. I would be grateful for the committee's support for the Estimates proposals before us.
I express my appreciation to the Minister and his Department for the courtesies extended to me during the year in regard to matters about which I had to contact them. I join with the Minister in expressing hope, thanks and support in regard to what has happened in Northern Ireland in recent days. I very much welcome the signal step taken by the IRA in its statement and hope it will deliver on that speedily. I also welcome the UUP decision last weekend. I congratulate the Minister, his colleagues and predecessors who have been involved. I hope there will be a truly shared partnership Government which will bring about a truly pluralist society in Northern Ireland. I further hope that there will be support for Mr. Trimble and pressure will be taken off Mr. Adams and spread more widely throughout the republican movement but I would like us to give special thought to the position of the SDLP which has contributed in a selfless way down through the years. In some ways it is in danger of losing out as a result of parts of the Agreement. Perhaps we should think about how we can ensure support in every way we can for the SDLP which has been a major player in bringing about the peace process over a long period.
I am glad the Minister mentioned future EU security and defence issues. What are the additional staffing implications of the commitments in the Western European Union Petersberg Tasks? In addition to the CORPER 1 and CORPER 11 staffing, will an additional assistant secretary be assigned to work in the CSFP area. If so, what will his or her responsibilities be? Traditionally, Ireland has reacted to EU issues involving security rather than proactively staking out a position and domestic political debate on these issues has rarely gone beyond accusations of betraying our neutrality or safeguarding it in an ever more integrated EU. No attempt has been made to debate the basis of Irish neutrality, perhaps because it has been associated with so many different values. It was noted in the Institute of European Affairs publication, The Security of Europe: Actions and Issues, that Irish neutrality "was associated with a cluster of values ranging from an absolute version of sovereignty, anti-Britishness linked with the original line on partition, anti-imperialism more generally increasingly with an anti-American flavour to a morally superior position on the North-South dimension of global politics and especially from the early 1980s with their mood of impending nuclear holocaust, neutrality seemed to be equated with a quasi-pacifist rejection of everything nuclear".
As other political taboos have been breached, neutrality has remained the one political issue we dare not discuss. Whether people favour it or not, the reality is that European defence co-operation is now up for discussion and the indications are that the French, who will take on the Presidency in over a month, will try to advance this issue. The only question is whether Ireland chooses to help shape the nature of that co-operation or just wait for others to design the structure and then state a take it or leave it decision. For those opposed to any diminution of Irish neutrality, the position is clear - they believe we should avoid such EU discussions or, in the case of some, avoid any involvement whatever with the EU and when faced by decision on entry to such an arrangement, in referendum as set out in the Amsterdam Treaty, we should reject it.
Fine Gael believes that Ireland's interests are served by participating in an ever closer European Union and that the time has come for Ireland to play a greater role in European security. We believe Ireland should now define the circumstances in which it would be willing to depart from neutrality and take part in an EU defence entity. This is not a question of being forced into an arrangement we do not want; rather it is the logical next step in our involvement of over a quarter of a century in an ever closer union. That quarter century of membership of the EU has undoubtedly been good for Ireland, enabling us to develop the vibrant prosperous State we have today, albeit with serious problems to overcome in certain areas.
The question now is what role does Ireland want to play in the Europe of the 21st century? Fine Gael believes Ireland should have a proactive role, setting out our vision for the future rather than leaving it to others to set the agenda. The precedent of EMU whereby the rules have been set by those willing to participate initially, with all future members having to adhere to these rules, is a model likely to be repeated in relation to future security or defence arrangements. For this reason, it is in Ireland's interests to now consider what we want for Ireland and Europe. It is time for us to become one of the architects in designing future European security and defence structures.
Crucial in all of this is the Article 5 commitment of the Western European Union Treaty which reads as follows: "If any of the high contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other high contracting parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power". The effect of this commitment is that an attack on one Western European Union state must automatically be met with all the military and other aid and assistance in the power of every other Western European Union state. If such an article were to be incorporated in some future EU treaty, every state signed up to that treaty would automatically lose its right to decide whether to become involved and would be bound by these provisions.
It may well be that not all EU members would sign up to treaty defence provisions from the start but just as in EMU, the rules would have been cast in stone and changing them later would be extremely difficult. If Article 5 could be incorporated as a protocol in a future EU treaty, it would mean that certain member states, by use of the protocol, would come to the defence of another member state if attacked, only by their own explicitly taken decision, that is, not automatically. This would ensure that existing EU neutral states would have their position safeguarded to the greatest extent, as would other EU states, if they wished to exercise the protocol option. Our concern should not be to shirk our responsibilities or to refuse to come to the aid of a partner EU state. Our concern should be to ensure that should we do so, it will be by our own decision rather than as a result of an automatic provision.
Northern Ireland chairmen have been part of NATO since 1949. Following the Good Friday Agreement, constitutional provisions have been inserted which in time, may require us to take full cognisance of that fact. In time, we will also have to take full account of the changing EU security architecture. By now becoming one of the architects, we would best serve Irish interests. I hope that in the time available, we will have an opportunity to talk about our campaign for a seat on the Security Council - which I hope will be successful as certain difficulties have been created by the entry of unexpected candidates from Europe - and to review the posting of ambassadors abroad and how we might cost effectively expand such postings based on the document circulated earlier in the year.
The Minister's reference to human rights is welcome. I hope there will be regular and structured debates on this issue in the year ahead. The fact that we have a Sub-committee on Human Rights, which I am honoured to chair, is an indication of our interest in that area. I strongly advocate that the Minister does not side with those who want to put the EU enlargement process on the long finger. The idea of the European Union is to create peace and stability and we cannot have prosperity without those prerequisites. Our interests are best served by enlargement. If we do not want to return to what happened in the first part of the last century, when 60 million Europeans lost their lives, we have to integrate those states willing and able to take on the responsibilities of membership - we must equip them to do so and enlarge the Union as soon as possible.
I welcome the advances made on nuclear non-proliferation and I hope the Minister will continue to make that one of his priorities in the year ahead. Ireland has been interested in this issue for a long time and we should continue to make it a priority. I want to ask a question on one part of the Vote but I will leave that until later. In conclusion, I wish to briefly raise three matters. The first is the implications of the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The Minister referred to the Middle East in his contribution. What plans do the UN and the Irish Government have to ensure the safety of UNIFIL troops and Irish troops serving with UNIFIL in the Lebanon? Second, what has been done regarding Zimbabwe? There are a number of Irish people in Zimbabwe and people who were formerly Irish passport holders, some of whom are white farmers. We should concerned about them. If the Minister has not done so already, it is time to convey to the Zimbabwean Ambassador our concern about some of the more extreme and provocative statements being made by President Mugabe and others.
Third, regarding EMU, until the notes are in circulation, people will not be convinced as they should be about the need for the euro. Part of the problem with the euro being taken seriously internationally is the way it is represented abroad. The euro needs a "Mr. Euroland". I do not mean the head of the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank has one role but the ministers have another role, particularly the 11 Finance Ministers. A case could be made for a second Secretary General in the Council of Ministers who would be responsible for co-ordinating euro policy on behalf of ministers - not taking initiatives but conducting policy on their behalf. The problem is that when euroland is represented internationally at G7 or G8 discussions, France, Italy and Germany turn up with their ministers and their central bankers and the Commission and the President of the European Central Bank attend parts of the discussion - different people are present for different parts of the discussion which is ridiculous. A case could be made for looking at the international representation of the euro.
Will the Minister give us an update on the report of British monitoring of Irish faxes, e-mails and telephone calls, which were the subject of an examination by this committee last year? I will leave my questions on the Estimate until that part of the meeting.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and compliment them on their work. I welcome the developments which have taken place in recent days in relation to Northern Ireland. A substantial amount of progress has been achieved, especially as regards the vote, slim as the majority is in the Ulster Unionist Party. I wish the Minister well in developing the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The relationship between the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, would be very important in the conduct and development of the Agreement.
There is a glorious opportunity in the politics of Northern Ireland. The deal which has been struck is the best possible for both sides. There are no alternatives, certainly none is obvious to me. However, we must encourage a change in mindset in Northern Ireland. Remarks by the Unionists that Sinn Féin is not yet house trained and remarks by Sinn Féin that it is not stopping until there are no remnants of Britishness in Northern Ireland are unhelpful to both sides. It is time for the leadership of both unionism and nationalism to accept that they have arrived at the best possible scenario and situation in Northern Ireland. If there is a better one, I cannot see what its component parts could be.
The two sides have negotiated the best possible arrangement for the future of their respective supporters and it is now time for us all to rally behind the parties in Northern Ireland to ensure the institutions are up and running and that they become effective. The jury was out on the short period the Assembly and Executive were in being. It is important that the other institutions, executives and committees outlined in the Good Friday Agreement get up and running as quickly as possible. In the climate in which we live, there is a great opportunity for much greater economic co-operation between North and South and I hope that would be a focus of the Department in its dealings with the Northern parties on all sides of the divide.
I accept the Minister's and the Department's objectives regarding their mission statement, as outlined in the Minister's speech, to pursue Ireland's economic interests abroad by making full use of our diplomatic and consular network and to promote and protect Ireland's interests in the European Union as it deepens its level of integration and prepares for enlargement. I welcome the opening of the new missions abroad. It is something I support and I have supported the expansion of our diplomatic network to fulfil the obligations of our foreign service. There is a glaring omission which is accepted in the report presented to the Committee of Public Accounts, and that is the lack of diplomatic service in the southern hemisphere. I refer especially to South America. The fact that we do not have a mission in Brazil is a shortcoming given the Department's objectives and it is something the Minister should re-examine.
Anyone can see the effectiveness of our missions by looking at the study prepared for the Committee of Public Accounts. A contrast was made between the Embassy in Washington on the one hand, which has a highly political role and which has been extremely effective in our relationship with the United States and in the United States' involvement in Northern Ireland, and on the other hand, the opening of the Embassy in Warsaw, which has a highly economic influence and mission in that area. They are very solid examples of the effectiveness of our diplomatic service, from both a political point of view and the point of view of economic achievement. Will the Minister, in reply, elaborate on the Asia-Pacific strategy and how he sees the Department expanding in that region or what steps it is intended to take so that we can benefit from the new potential, especially with China joining the WTO, of further economic expansion into that area and further economic possibilities in that area?
One area about which I would have an express concern is our participation in and the preparedness of the Government for the Intergovernmental Conference. I understand the conference must report by Christmas of this year and I do not detect a great deal of urgency. We are all agreed on the priorities in retaining our Commissioner and the forgoing of a second Commissioner by the larger countries. Will the Minister elaborate on whether we have taken positions at this point and if he expects, as was suggested, that this Intergovernmental Conference will report by Christmas?
An important item on the agenda for the Department of Foreign Affairs is the seeking of a position of non-permanent member on the Security Council. This is obviously very important for Ireland. I know this campaign has been on the road for many years. Will the Minister elaborate on his assessment of our position at present? I am aware that it has become complicated. It is 20 years since we had representation. Anyone would accept that Ireland has played a role at the United Nations well outweighing our size and population. Any support one can give will be given to ensure we achieve our objective in this area.
The reform of the United Nations is an old chestnut. The Secretary General has outlined where he sees possibilities. Will the Minister again elaborate on whether there are any prospects that the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council will face up to the current realities? The composition of the Security Council does not reflect the realities of world politics facing into this century because they are very different from the politics of 50-odd years ago when the United Nations was established.
We continue to contribute to the European Union and to the Middle East peace process and there is volatility on the Israel-Lebanon border at present. Our paramount interest is the safety of our troops. Despite its inevitability, I welcome the withdrawal from south Lebanon of the Israeli troops, although it may have been done in a rather spectacular fashion. Will the Minister elaborate on the steps he sees as necessary now to ensure there is no outbreak of hostilities in that region?
I noted from the Minister's speech that we take a particular interest in the humanitarian situation in Iraq. We all take an interest. Will the Minister outline any initiatives which are being taken by Ireland, either at European Union or at United Nations level, regarding the ongoing disastrous humanitarian situation in Iraq, especially that visited on many young children who are starved of basic medical attention?
I welcome the Minister's statement on Partnership for Peace. I enjoy a Fianna Fáil Minister's contribution to Partnership for Peace despite the reluctance of his two predecessors at various stages to discuss Ireland's participation. It was a step in the right direction. We must contribute to the development of European security architecture and Partnership for Peace has a major role to play in that sphere.
Perhaps comments on Africa would be more timely if they were made at the overseas development aid part of our discussion, but I would like to make two points. I understand a new initiative is being taken on AIDS by the European Union and the United States of America in collaboration. I understand it has been or is to be announced today. Will the Minister elaborate on any Irish inputs to that initiative, especially given that the Taoiseach, on his visit to Africa, became aware of what has been a serious problem for many years, namely, the problem of the destruction caused by AIDS on the African continent? Will the Minister encourage his United States and European colleagues to see whether we can take a lead on that problem as well as on the potential political chaos throughout the African nations? The future is very bleak. It is difficult to find countries in Africa where there are bright economic or political prospects.
As mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, the conflict in Zimbabwe is one about which we must be worried. There was a time when we would all have perhaps been supporters and admirers of President Mugabe, but he seems to have lost the run of himself judging by his recent conduct. Perhaps the Minister could call for intervention from important Irish business people who certainly paraded their relationships with President Mugabe when they wanted to sell their newspapers in Zimbabwe many years ago. Perhaps they could now use their influence for good in that area.
Again, there will probably be an opportunity in tomorrow's discussion to dwell on the African situation and Ireland's contribution, which I applaud. It is a small contribution but very effective. However, in terms of foreign policy generally the African continent is one where we have seen very little progress. Huge contributions have been made, but I have been looking at the African situation for some time and there are very few countries where one could say with confidence that they will make the necessary journeys for political and economic development. I ask the Minister to take particular cognisance of this in conjunction with his European colleagues and to ensure that it stays high on the agenda.
I welcome the Minister back so soon after his last visit to the committee. I also welcome the fact that the former Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs has been appointed Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. This is an important appointment and will build on the excellent co-operation between these two Departments in areas of vital importance to national foreign policy and Northern Ireland policy. That personal relationship should strengthen further the liaison between these two Departments. I also congratulate Mr. Daithi O Ceallaigh on his promotion to the Northern Ireland desk, which is an area of considerable importance.
On that issue, the Minister referred to the work to be done developing the institutions, both British-Irish and North-South. As Irish co-chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body I would like to signal as a matter of support for the development of those institutions that there is no other wish on the part of the members of that body - as I interpret - than to be as helpful and supportive as possible to both Governments and to parliamentarians North and South in whatever institutional framework will evolve. There I include the role of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body because of the good relationships we have established over the years and the confidence that we have in the role Ireland can play in achieving what the Minister has referred to. We are ready to take what one might call a generous attitude. I am aware that the Unionist party has been promoting development of the Council of the Isles and though we at the British-Irish Parliamentary Body have come to no conclusions on this, for obvious reasons that it would be premature to discuss it, I hope that based on the joint understanding of the parliamentarians of both Britain and Ireland, we would be able to demonstrate that in a positive way and to demonstrate to the Unionist parties that they need have no fear of the elected representatives here regarding the institutional framework that may arise.
I congratulate the Minister on maintaining the initiative regarding Ireland's constant position on nuclear disarmament. It is not just reassuring but very significant that other member states of the UN recognise and respect that and it has enhanced our status in a way that we here may not appreciate. I link this to the general disarmament question. I support Partnership for Peace as long as it is a partnership for peace. I invite other Members who are concerned with international justice to reflect on the fact that the international armaments industry and the uncontrolled export of armaments are causing untold and continued suffering to harmless wretches who are always the victims. We are in a uniquely strong position, as a matter of justice and human rights, to protect the most fundamental right of all - the right to life and the integrity of the body. We see people being decimated, killed and destroyed and there is great scope, consistent with our policy in this area, for Ireland to remind its partners either in Partnership for Peace or the EU - I may sound like Cato in the old Roman Senate continuing to raise this issue, but our voice is strong and has credibility - that it is not consistent with the promotion of a partnership for peace to be exporting armaments to some of the most brutal tyrannies in the world. The victims are always the same - the innocent and helpless. I hope the Minister continues to develop an initiative in this area so that the respect we enjoy, which was reflected when we seek a seat on the Security Council and when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs the last time we were on that council, as well the support we received, continues to come from developing countries. I hope Members focus on the essential interest of international peace, and not just our international position, as much as we do on PfP.
It is also a scandal to see young children equipped to fight as soldiers. That surely cries out for some response. It is a terrible scandal and shows utter rejection of fundamental rights of bodily integrity and human life. Reference was made to the convention on the development of the charter of fundamental human rights. I am serving on that, as are the chairman and others, and I agree that it should complement, as the Minister said, and not cut across the role of the Council of Europe. Obviously with a convention group of over 60 people it is difficult to get an effective working charter, but we are working at it. I have personally spent more time in Brussels on this issue than I ever did as Minister for Foreign Affairs or Agriculture; that is a measure of the commitment we are putting into it. I hope we will have some consolation in a positive result shortly.
The Deputy will get bonus points for that. A room at the top of Rue de la Loi. A free holiday.
For those who were not able to occupy the room at the top of the hotel as constantly as I was.
I endorse what was said earlier by Deputy Mitchell about the SDLP. It is important that as this process evolves positively and as other parties were lobbying us today on the police situation and the Patten report, the consistent role of the SDLP should not be overlooked. It has been the foundation for most of the progress made and it is important that their representatives and supporters would feel confident that all of us respect and support that role and will continue to do so.
The Minister is aware and has promoted the fact that, above all parties in Northern Ireland, the SDLP has constantly focused on the need for a police force which is acceptable to every element of the community. Our experience since independence and the Civil War demonstrates that an acceptable police force, which is firmly embedded in the Republic of Ireland, is crucial to stability, harmonisation and reconciliation. The Patten report is firmly embedded in and part of the Good Friday Agreement and, hopefully, it will be implemented on the basis that without a police force acceptable to all the community, all the work done will be undermined. I thank the Minister and his officials for appearing before the committee and I wish them well in their endeavours.
I wish to express concerns about the situation in Lebanon now that Israel has withdrawn. Israel said it would withdraw within the year but must have got word that Hizbollah was preparing a farewell party and decided to get out well in advance of that date. Under the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, Irish UNIFIL positions had proper bunkers in which soldiers could take cover during shooting. The Minister will be aware that Hizbollah often fired from behind Irish positions. If it is going to fire into Israel from the border, I am concerned that Irish soldiers will not have adequate protection.
The Israelis have made no secret of the fact they will return fire if fired upon and I am concerned about the security of additional Irish troops going to the region. Has the Minister held discussions with the Syrians or, particularly, with the Iranian ambassador, as Iran trains and arms Hizbollah? The Lebanese Army appears unable to contain or control these groups, or it will have a difficult time if it tries to do so. Have our concerns been brought to the attention of the Syrian and Iranian authorities who are responsible for Hizbollah?
Have any discussions taken place with the Lebanese Government over its concerns about Hizbollah, which is not as disciplined a force as is sometimes reported? Have any representations been made to Iran regarding the 13 Jews on trial in that country, of whose pilght the Minister is aware? The judge in this trial is also the prosecutor and the trial is taking place away from public view.
Has the Minister any comment on the manner in which the Government of Fiji was overthrown? This situation has horrified many people. Has the EU taken a stance on this issue? I too am horrified by the child soldiers in Sierra Leone. It is horrific that children are kidnapped and made to fight like this. A report on television last night showed children on the Lebanese border wearing army uniforms. The rifles may have been toys but these children have been told what they will be required to do when they are older. The use of children in war situations is repugnant to all civilised, decent people.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and commend them for their work, particularly regarding Northern Ireland. Hopefully the progress made in recent times will be secured. I join other members in commending the SDLP for its work since the late 1960s. It seems to escape many political commentators that the SDLP is the second largest political group in Northern Ireland, after the Ulster Unionist Party, and represents the majority of Nationalist opinion.
In his opening remarks, the Minister stated the British Government has undertaken to take all necessary steps progressively to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements. Permanent vehicle checkpoints have been decommissioned on the Cavan-Fermanagh border as regards regulating the flow of traffic. In the past such checkpoints hindered people going about their daily business but these monstrous structures are still in place and, hopefully, the Minister and the Department will be able to secure a commitment from the British Government to remove these unsightly buildings as quickly as possible.
Subhead 2C covers support for Irish immigrant groups. The note attached indicates the support is only provided to groups in the US and Australia. Recent reports indicated that Irish people in London, in particular, have fallen on hard times. I have been contacted by one group in London which is seeking funding towards the provision of counselling services for Irish people of all ages who have fallen on hard times. Hopefully, support will also be extended to groups in Britain. At a time when the country's finances are in a healthy state, hopefully this subhead will be significantly increased to assist these people.
The Minister's speech was broad ranging and touched on a wide variety of topics. We recently had the benefit of the Department's document submitted to the Committee of Public Accounts on the cost-benefit analysis of representation abroad. This is a valuable document which does not overstate the position as we get good value. It is interesting that this year's Estimates include a large increase on the administrative side for a variety of reasons. I would not quibble with that as it is well justified. The current Exchequer situation allows us to spend more money is ways often advocated over the years by this committee and its predecessors.
I welcome the new embassies and consulates referred to by the Minister. However, there are three glaring examples of regions in which we should have, but do not have, representation at embassy level. We should have representation at embassy level in Brazil, which was mentioned by a number of Deputies. Our representation in South America is very weak, with no representation in Brazil or Chile, where we should have representation. We have no representation of any kind in the central Asian republics which constitute a large section of the inhabited world. Many of the republics are very important, particularly countries such as Kazakhstan where there is considerable diplomatic and commercial representation from most of the western world who realise its importance and the importance of its neighbours. It seems wrong to have no representation in such a huge stretch of the world and this should be urgently examined by the Minister and the Department.
I am surprised to find we have no representation in Norway, the second largest oil producer in Europe and one of our closest neighbours in western Europe. The reason given by the Department is that Norway is not a member of the EU, but I do not think that is an adequate explanation. I would very much like if Norway was a member of the EU, but we should have full representation there as it punches above its weight, to use a current cliché.
In the European context I and some other Members raised the question of Austria with the Minister and its current relations, not within the Union as such or with its institutions as that is not affected, but the attitude taken to a greater or lesser extent by the other 14 member states. In the month or two which have since passed I reflected on what I thought was the obvious lack of enthusiasm of the Minister for this situation, which I quite understand. I was hoping there might have been developments since and I urge him to think again about it. It could make many of us vulnerable if small member states are isolated for reasons which seem appropriate to others but which may cut across the exercise of electoral and democratic freedom within a state. In the several months which have elapsed since the election of the current Austrian Government I am not aware of a single instance, action or statement by them or any member of the Government which would give rise to concern. At least behind the scenes if not publicly there should be telephone communication with the 14 other capitals to see if the unsatisfactory position vis-à-vis Vienna could be rectified.
The Minister referred to UN reform saying it was being examined and that he hoped it would be successful. The one single area of the UN which above all else screams out for reform is the Security Council and the position of the five permanent members. It is out of date, unreal and incapable of change without the consent of each of the five permanent members. There is no way it will be reformed on the basis that each of the five must agree. Therefore I wonder if the Minister is correct in saying we have reasons to be hopeful. I would love to think we could be hopeful, but the UN Charter is drafted in such a way that it is dreadfully difficult to amend. It has only been amended a few times and then only in relation to procedural rather than substantive matters. I think it is correct to say that since 1945 it has not been amended in any substantive way. It is very important that it be amended now because if the UN cannot fill the post-Cold War vacuum in terms of peacekeeping and peace enforcement, then the vacuum will be filled by other means. In particular I fear it will be filled by what will be described as regional security bodies, and then the world will only have to wait until two of these regional bodies come into conflict with one another and nobody will be able to stop it.
I note the Minister made optimistic comments about recent developments in relation to nuclear non-proliferation. That is justified in respect of some of the longer established nuclear powers, but I wonder if it is justified in relation to some of the more recent members of that club as I do not think countries such as India and Pakistan, which have gone to such lengths to acquire nuclear weapons in recent years, are going to divest themselves of them too readily, unless they have an absolute guarantee that the other party will do the same. Similarly the position in relation to Israel as a nuclear power is very uncertain and I do not have great confidence that it will divest itself of its nuclear capability.
In the context of the Intergovernmental Conference the Minister said "There is also some debate on the concept of flexibility within the treaty and in particular on the possibility of some degree of easing the rules for its application" to certain member states in particular circumstances. He did not say whether he was referring to the Treaty of Rome. Usually the treaties are taken together as a unit. The concept of flexibility and that the rules can be eased for individual member states in particular circumstances is very dangerous - it cuts both ways. This Intergovernmental Conference is very important and I think it is insufficiently debated here. Some of the decisions which will be made at it will have farreaching consequences. They are mainly of an institutional nature, but the effect of institutional changes will be very considerable.
It is right to make the decisions before enlargement because difficult as it will be to make them now, it could prove impossible to make them after enlargement. They will have to take the projected enlargement into account which is one of the main reasons the changes are being made. If collectively the Union or individual member states get it wrong it will only be with the greatest difficulty that it will be possible to rectify things. I would like the Department to publish a fuller paper - not a White Paper but at least a full discussion document - on the position at the Intergovernmental Conference. In the past the Department has been reluctant to do so on the grounds that if it is to be properly described and discussed it might give away our negotiating position, but there is an obligation to try to inform public opinion. If the Government or the Department do not inform public opinion, people may get a major shock when they discover Ireland is signed up to agreements of a fundamental nature which were never really discussed.
There are many other issues in the Minister's speech which are very useful and on which I would like to comment but time constraints do not permit me to do so. The Minister said that Ireland has been asked to send additional personnel to UNIFIL and that we will respond positively to that. I welcome that because, as far as I aware, this is the first time the Government has indicated its intention to send more troops. That is very necessary given what happened in the Lebanon where the Israelis withdrew prematurely and more precipitously than anticipated, in accordance with a Security Council resolution. As a result, the United Nations was not prepared for the situation which arose over the course of a weekend. UNIFIL troops, including Irish troops, are in a very vulnerable position.
I am glad they will be reinforced but I would like them to be more heavily armed and equipped than at present. As bad as the situation in southern Lebanon was in the past - which saw us lose 44 soldiers over the past 20 years - it could become much worse now. Troops should be more heavily armed and better prepared to defend themselves, which could perhaps be assisted by freer terms of engagement than heretofore. The UN should ensure that, in the event of a very serious outbreak of hostilities on the Israeli-southern Lebanon border, arrangements will be put in place to evacuate all UNIFIL troops, which are currently in a particularly exposed position, at short notice.
I thank the Minister for his attendance and I congratulate him and his Department on their many considerable achievements in terms of foreign policy generally and especially in regard to policy in Northern Ireland and the very difficult negotiations which have been ongoing there for several years. Hopefully, we are now witnessing the beginning of the end of the most intractable problem to beset Ireland and, indeed, the world over the past 30 years.
I strongly support the Chairman's comments on Austria, an issue I have raised on numerous occasions and to which I intended to return today but, unfortunately, we do not have sufficient time to do that.
Thank you.
I will certainly do what I can to address the issues which were raised by Members and I thank them for their support for the Department. Such support is very important and much appreciated at this time. Obviously, there are some policy areas in regard to which different parties disagree but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Commendable solidarity and political restraint have been shown by all parties in regard to Northern Ireland policy in order that the very important work, which clearly had to be carried out away from the glare of the media, could prove successful. That success has been acknowledged and everybody should feel gratified by that.
Deputy Mitchell and others referred to the role of the SDLP and I want to record my admiration for the SDLP since its inception. I recall standing outside a gate for a national collection as a very young man; I did not see many of our political opponents there but perhaps we were just too strong in that constituency to expect their assistance on that occasion. Support for the SDLP in my party has always been consistent.
Policing has always been a central and consistent SDLP policy and has formed a part of its analysis which has been very clear and helpful to constitutional nationalism generally. It is important that we understand that the issue of policing and its quality in a divided society is a key factor in determining whether we will have a successful outcome to the political efforts which have been made on all sides to bring about a settled constitutional background against which institutional reform and development can occur, where decisions can be made by local politicians and where politics in Northern Ireland can once again find fertile ground.
The institutions have been at the core of the Agreement and in their implementation and practice they will provide the best guarantee of reconciliation in terms of politicians from different traditions working together on the basis of partnership and equality. Clearly, the core relationships which must be addressed in the resolution of this problem, both internally in Northern Ireland and in regard to Northern Ireland's relationship with the Republic and Britain, will all find expression within the institutions which are at the heart of the Agreement.
We hope that in implementing the Agreement to the letter, its spirit will be evident to all. Self-restraint and solidarity are required in the course of the implementation of these difficult and immense challenges facing the Executive, the Assembly and the other institutions which have a role to play in bringing the Agreement to fruition. We will work constructively at Government and intergovernmental level to complement what we hope will be a growing and politically mature relationship between Unionism and Nationalism in all their manifestations and among the various parties which have an entitlement under the Good Friday Agreement to be represented on the Executive. We hope to assist in the cohesion and coherence which is essential to the successful working of the Agreement over the days, weeks and months ahead.
On the neutrality issue, the Government's view differs to that expressed in Fine Gael's most recent policy document. The insertion of an optional Article 5 clause in an attempt to create a mutual defence union in the European Union is not what the EU is about. In my short experience of the General Affairs Council, I do not envisage circumstances arising which will result in the EU developing in that way. There are many countries such as Sweden, Finland and others which, together with Ireland, will be proactive in ensuring that the common foreign and security policy which emerges will respect the traditions of all member states. Denmark has a very strong attachment to ensuring that the CFSP develops in accordance with the Helsinki conclusions.
Our belief in that regard is strengthened given that recently the Commission's legal services division confirmed the developments that are taking place in relation to the setting up of a permanent military committee and a political and security committee under the aegis of the CSFP do not require a substantive Treaty amendment. This confirms that the direction in which this policy is heading is absolutely consistent with the Helsinki conclusions and the Petersberg Tasks in seeking to enhance the capability of the European Union in the area of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and crisis prevention.
Deputy O'Kennedy mentioned the international response required in relation to the armaments industry, which is the cause of so much unrest in various parts of the world where wars and violence is taking place. It is in the area of crisis prevention that one can perhaps deal on a pragmatic basis with the evils of the armaments industry. In other words, the European Union could develop the capability to deal with crises before they develop, such has happened when politics failed in Kosovo. A crisis prevention strategy would perhaps be a much better way of avoiding the consequences of war and the political instability it brings.
Despite the bombardment of Serbia, the Milosevic regime is still in place. The continuing sanctions are hitting the Serbian people but to what extent they are hitting the Milosevic regime remains to be seen. However, there are signs that democratic opposition forces are organising in a way which might bring democracy to Serbia.
The CFSP is a proactive policy. This country is not sitting back and allowing developments to take place which are inimical to our interests or inconsistent with our foreign policy tradition. We are proactively shaping CFSP together with our partners, some of whom happen to be members of NATO, which is a mutual defence arrangement. In his speech to the Institute of European Affairs, Mr. Javier Solana confirmed unambiguously that the European Union capability will be built on consensus and consistent with the Petersberg Tasks. It will not in any way involve emotive talk about European armies, etc. which diminish the possibility of an intelligent debate on these issues in this country.
The refusal to recognise that it is possible to contribute to common foreign and security policy issues in a way which does not involve us relentlessly or surreptitiously ending up in mutual defence arrangements or in an aggressive militaristic mode, which would be totally at variance with our foreign policy traditions, would be inconsistent with our interests given the influence we have as a result of the policies we have been pursuing successfully under the UN mandate in terms of peacekeeping and peace-enforcement. I look forward to continuing my disagreements with Deputy Mitchell on that basis. I know his views are sincerely held but I disagree with them fundamentally.
I favour enlargement for the reasons he set out. I agree with the Chairman that the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations are very important and will have long-term implications for this country. The discussions later in the year will be helpful from ours and the committee's point of view. There is a need for us to maintain a negotiating position. In broad terms, everyone knows what our position is in relation to institutions in terms of the commissionership, etc.
On flexibility, major speeches have been made by the German Foreign Minister and by President Chirac in recent days. We are prepared to discuss flexibility in principle. However, we adopt a cautious approach to this because there are already areas, such as EMU, where there is enhanced co-operation among fewer than 15 states. We need to know the areas member states have in mind. Integration with the European Union has been a beneficial policy both economically and politically for Ireland. Clearly we are anxious to ensure that the delicate institutional balance in the European Union is not disturbed so as to change the nature of the Union if one were to incorporate this new concept of flexibility or enhanced co-operation for a number of member states.
Under the current arrangements, a majority of states are required to utilise the existing mechanism under the treaties. There is a right of appeal to the Council by any member state which is unhappy with such a proposal by a majority of member states and which may eventually be adopted by the Council. This is referred to as an "emergency brake". It is suggested that this should not be restricted to a majority of states, that a minority of states could vote for this mechanism and that the emergency brake would not be required. As this has the prospect of becoming a two tier system, which we would not favour, we are prepared to discuss the idea but we want to see the flesh on the bones of the concept, so to speak. There is no point agreeing something in theory when we do not know where it is going. Obviously, we can see the dangers of where it could go if there is not proper prior discussion. This issue will be discussed at the Feira Summit meeting.
To answer Deputy Spring's point, we hope the Intergovernmental Conference will be completed at the Nice meeting. It is a pretty tight schedule given the length of time previous Intergovernmental Conferences have taken. Minister Vedrine who will take over the presidency of the Intergovernmental Conference from the Portuguese said that the French are not seeking to overload the agenda on the basis that they may not complete the important left-overs. The Amsterdam left-overs are pretty difficult problems to address. The fact that they could not be agreed in Amsterdam means we must focus on those issues. There are sufficient issues on the agenda to keep us going until December.
A number of Deputies raised the UNIFIL question. I discussed the issue of disarmament with the relevant UN personnel at the NNP Treaty Review Conference. Mr. Kofi Annan was not present but his Deputy Secretary-General dealt with it. We made it clear that we are anxious to be kept informed of developments. The UN sent Special Envoy Larson over there and he is currently in Syria. Prime Minister Barak indicated the withdrawal would occur before the end of July but he did not give a date, probably in case they would get a farewell party. That army is very efficient and left the area very quickly. There has been relative calm in the area where Irish troops are located.
A Government decision has been taken at the request of the UN to enhance our contingent in the area by a further 50. Some nine armoured personnel carriers are in the process of being transported to enhance the protection of our personnel in carrying out their duties in the area. Obviously, they will be present to confirm that the withdrawal has been orderly and has taken place in full. A number of border issues, such as mapping and so on, are being finalised so that there is a common understanding in relation to where the border begins and ends.
The Syrians have an influence over Hizbollah and the worst case scenario did not develop as a result of the withdrawal. There are still concerns but the matter is kept under constant review and we are in close contact with the UN and our own people out there. Touch wood, everything is going well at the moment. The paramount policy concern is the safety of our own people.
There are areas in the diplomatic service where we could do with further representation. South America is an obvious example. There are nine countries with Embassies in Dublin to which we do not reciprocate. That does not mean that we must reciprocate but there are some priority countries, such as Brazil and Norway.
There are also countries which have applied for accession to the European Union and the Government is anxious to develop a programme which would see us establish a presence in those countries. In an enlarged European Union, these are the states with which we would be aligned and we want to ensure we have a good relationship. These matters are under consideration at present.
I take the point on UN reform. Mr. Kofi Annan has done everything asked of him in terms of improving the workings of the UN. The responsibilities of member states and the resources of the UN are the key issues. The removal of the Security Council veto clearly requires unanimity and it is not on the horizon that it will be given up by all five permanent members. There are discussions taking place about areas where the veto could be limited and how one could demarcate the use of veto powers with a view to having its use reduced.
We should remember also that it is not 1945, there should be more than five states with permanent membership. There is an argument about where expansion begins and ends. Japan and Germany would have strong claims to membership but there are others who feel they should be on the council. The question of rotation is not to be underestimated. The UN Millennium Summit might provide a focus which will advance the issues.
The non-proliferation treaty review conference was a tremendous diplomatic success for Ireland and reflected well on our reputation. Deputy Andrews was involved in the establishment of the New Agenda Coalition and escaping from the dialogue of the deaf which was undermining the non-proliferation agenda. For the first time we have achieved for an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear member states themselves to get rid of their nuclear arsenals. That is a huge step and has not happened since Frank Aiken initiated the treaty. With India and Pakistan clearly breaching non-proliferation commitments in recent years and other states, such as Israel, developing a nuclear capability, we have moved from a position where the NPT was in serious danger of unravelling to one where the New Agenda Coalition, in putting forward its resolution, brought a coherence, cohesion and realism to the review proceedings. It won a strong resolution which enjoys the agreement of nuclear states and this country and the people who worked in that specialised area of diplomatic activity should be given due credit for the work they did.
I know from attending the New Agenda Coalition dinner at that disarmament conference that the Irish personnel were prominent in the drafting and persuasion which carried the day. Meeting the British Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Peter Hain, the next day to hear that he agreed with over 90% of the resolution was an indication that we had struck the right note. We created a real basis for the negotiations during the conference which enabled it to arrive at a unanimous and inclusive resolution adopted by all.
Zimbabwe is being kept under close review. In reply to Deputy Briscoe, I met the Jewish Representative Council, the Chief Rabbi and others in relation to the Iranian case and we are continuing as EU members, and on an individual basis using our mission in Tehran, to attempt to establish the position. The case is being heard in camera and there are major concerns about it. One must ensure, however, that interventions are not counter-productive. There is clear sensitivity to outside interference in that country. While we seek to hold it to international norms and standards, the approach has to be sensitive.
The EU has issued a statement expressing its concern about the situation in Fiji. It is a unique situation - the army has suspended the constitution. The Commonwealth holds a strong view on the matter and that will affect Fiji's membership. We will use the Presidency of the European Union to put forward the common position.
Deputy Smith raised the issue of Irish immigrant groups in Britain. We support the Díon committee under the auspices of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We donated £750,000 to it this year and, from my days in the Department of Labour, I know it does a good job. The Embassy and the ambassador are closely associated with the funding arrangements and the applications for grant aid come under that heading.
The Minister has overlooked the Austrian question.
This issue came up at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers in the Azores. Our Austrian colleague updated us on the programme and the record of her Government. The Austrians are seeking a review of the position of the 14 Heads of Government. I understand why the statement was made by the 14 Heads of Government but I also recognise the importance of not alienating the Austrian people and of ensuring that the Austrian Government demonstrates its clear commitment to the principles and values of democracy, something it seems to be doing. I reported to the Taoiseach the points raised by my Austrian colleague.
I had no problem with discussing the issue there. There are concerns about how a review of the present position can take place - it is an unprecedented situation. There are member states which hold the view that this is not a matter for the institutions of the EU and it is not a matter for proper discussion within Council. This being an informal meeting, however, it was possible to discuss the issue as colleagues. There are countries which indicated the need to reflect on the present situation to see what decisions, if any, might be taken by the Heads of Government of the 14 to progress this issue. It would be a matter for the Heads of Government, individually and collectively, to consider.
There have been some consultations and discussions among countries on this issue. The Portuguese Presidency will be reviewing the issue to ascertain the up to date position. Ireland's approach has been to recognise the basis on which this has happened. We have made a commitment to stick to the common position of the 14 states and we will reflect on the latest position put by Austria to see if any modification or change would take place on the basis of their performance and programmes. There are no decisions on that. The Taoiseach indicated to the House yesterday that he would be reflecting on the present position and that he would not be moving unilaterally but would move in concert with his 13 colleagues if a changed or modified position emerged from those discussions.
That concludes the discussion on Vote 38. A message to the Dáil will be proposed at the conclusion of the consideration of Vote 39, which will be discussed at 11 a.m. tomorrow.
The Select Committee adjourned at 6.02 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 1 June 2000.