On behalf of the Select Committee, I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider a Supplementary Estimate of £1.572 million under subhead I concerning contributions to international organisations. Briefing material received from the Department has been circulated. I am sorry that it was not available earlier. I hope members had an opportunity to read it. I invite the Minister to address the committee.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 38 - Foreign Affairs (Supplementary).
With the permission of the Chairman, I will circulate a short statement on the Middle East and Afghanistan, which will be part of the contribution I want to make today. I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for allowing time for the consideration of a Supplementary Estimate of £1.572 million in the Vote for the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The need for a Supplementary Estimate arises because of an overrun of over £3.5 million on programme subhead I - contributions to international organisations - particularly because of the increased costs of Ireland's mandatory contributions to UN peacekeeping operations. The overrun will be offset to some extent by net savings of £675,000 on administrative budget subheads and by savings of £1.275 million on the cost of the Nice and International Criminal Court referenda.
When the Estimates for 2001 were being decided, the most up-to-date forecast for UN peacekeeping spending in the year from July 2000 to June 2001 was between $2.7 billion and $3 billion. On the basis of those figures, it was projected that Ireland's peacekeeping contributions for the 2001 calendar year would amount to £6.63 million. However, expenditure during the year has been significantly higher than anticipated and the UN now estimates that peacekeeping expenditure in the year from July 2001 to June 2002 is likely to be between $3 billion and $3.4 billion. The missions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor are proving particularly expensive, with Ireland having contributed over £1 million to each this year. As a result, for the 2001 calendar year, Ireland's contribution will be £10.2 million rather than the £6.63 million originally estimated.
As members of this committee will already be aware, all member states of the UN contribute to the running of the organisation on the basis of an agreed scale of assessments related to global GNP. Member states are obliged to contribute to all missions, not just those in which they participate. While the regular UN budget is relatively predictable, this is not the case with the peacekeeping budget. It is impossible to forecast accurately the level of expenditure under this subhead due to the unpredictability of expenditure on conflict prevention and crisis management. There is also the possibility in any given year of the creation of new peacekeeping operations or the expansion or downsizing of existing operations in response to political developments. While our contributions to the UN are mandatory and payable on demand, we have no crystal ball to forecast political developments in troubled regions of the world that impact on the budget.
The mid-1990s saw a decline in UN peacekeeping following the closure of several major operations in the former Yugoslavia and Africa, notably Bosnia and Somalia. There had also been a trend towards peacekeeping by regional organisations. However, more recently, the pendulum has swung back towards the UN because of structural or financial limitations involved or because of the desire for the political legitimacy conferred by the UN. In recent years we have seen an increase in the number of conflicts where UN peacekeeping operations have been deployed. The scale and cost of UN peacekeeping has, therefore, increased, arising in particular from the establishment by the Security Council in 1999 of three large missions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor.
Ireland's role in UN peacekeeping is a centrally important signal of our commitment to the ideals of the organisation. This commitment remains strong and steadfast. While our participation in southern Lebanon has now ended, a guard and administration company is presently taking up duty in the UN mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea with an advance party already in place. It is important to recognise that the changing and more complex nature of peacekeeping in today's world involves additional tasks such as humanitarian assistance, the protection of human rights and civilian police work. Ireland continues to play its part in these new arrangements through our involvement in the UN transitional administration in East Timor and the multinational forces operating under UN authorisation in Kosovo and Bosnia. Some 520 Irish personnel currently serve with UN mandated missions.
Ireland has consistently shown its commitment to the UN through its role in conflict resolution around the world. As members of the committee will be aware, the importance we attach to the work of the UN has been highlighted by the Taoiseach and me at a number of UN meetings in the past year. Ireland's membership of the UN Security Council, and particularly our presidency during the month of October, has enabled us to reinforce this commitment.
Over the past few days there has been a very serious deterioration in the Middle East. Two appalling suicide bomb attacks killed 26 Israeli civilians at the weekend and Israel has responded with great force. Yesterday, I wrote to Shimon Peres, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel, expressing the Government's sympathy and utterly condemning these attacks on Israeli civilians. I said that no cause justifies the deliberate taking of innocent lives and went on to urge the Israeli Government to persist in the path of peace. While I agreed it was essential that those directly responsible should be brought to justice, I pointed out that going beyond this legitimate requirement would only serve the cause of those who are opposed to peace. I voiced the hope that, even in this hour of great tragedy, the Israeli Government would continue working to find a way to move forward and to bring an end to this conflict which had taken such a toll of human life and I assured Minister Peres of Ireland's strongest support for that process.
I also issued a statement stressing the urgent need for the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to move quickly to renew security co-operation with the aim of ending the cycle of violence. I said they should take all necessary steps to resume negotiations which would lead to a just, comprehensive and lasting solution. The statement also called upon the Palestinian Authority to do everything in its power to arrest and bring to justice the perpetrators of these awful acts and to prevent the repetition of such acts. Finally, I expressed the Government's grave concern at the Israeli helicopter attacks yesterday afternoon in the vicinity of President Arafat's headquarters. I called on Israel to desist from such attacks and to exercise the greatest restraint and prudence so as not to risk a further escalation of the conflict with unpredictable consequences.
I have written a second letter today to Minister Peres conveying my deep concern and disappointment at the extent and severity of the Israeli retaliation. We fear that this will lead to further escalation of the violence and see it as reinforcing and driving a vicious cycle of attack and reprisal. We do not agree with the Israeli description of the Palestinian Authority as an entity that supports terrorism. We do not see what other partner Israel can have in fighting the terrorists, nor do we see how destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority and attacking its police stations and security forces can possibly help the Palestinian Authority to deal with the men of violence, as demanded by Israel. At the same time these Israeli attacks, together with the continuing incursions into Palestinian territory, closure of Palestinian towns, and settlement building, undermine the domestic political support which President Arafat needs if he is to combat terrorism effectively. We have repeatedly said that the only way to end this dreadful conflict is to resume the peace process. There is no military solution and to rely on force is to give in to despair. There is a political solution to this problem. The path to peace is quite clear, what is needed is the political will to pursue it.
I call on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian, to take the steps which they know are necessary. In particular, l call on the Israeli Government to cease its current military action against the Palestinian Authority and to set about rebuilding its security and political partnership with it as it is this alone which offers any hope of escape from this dreadful conflict. Ireland is strongly in favour of a return to the negotiating table and we will do all we can, together with the other member states of the European Union, to support a renewed peace process. We support the statement of the Presidency yesterday on that matter.
I welcome reports from the UN-sponsored conference in Bonn that an agreement on a transitional power-sharing administration in Afghanistan has been reached and will hopefully be ready for signature by all parties tomorrow. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm the Government's full support and encouragement for the UN special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, and his colleagues.
There is an urgent need to address the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The magnitude of the crisis will depend, to a large extent, on how quickly the security situation can be brought under control. I am particularly concerned at the latest reports of faction fighting in Mazar-e-Sharif and the possible link between this fighting and the control of humanitarian aid. Ireland has consistently used every opportunity at the UN Security Council to express its concern at the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, including the continued insecurity which is preventing deliveries to certain areas, and has sought regular briefings on developments. Security must be brought under control to allow for the distribution of humanitarian assistance, particularly as conditions on access routes deteriorate with the approach of winter.
I welcome the progress in the campaign against aI Qaeda and the Taliban and hope that the fighting can be brought to an early conclusion with the minimum of casualties. With regard to reports of extra judicial killings in Afghanistan, I call on those involved in the fighting to respect international law, particularly in relation to the treatment of prisoners. Regarding last week's events in Mazar-e-Sharif, I stress that, notwithstanding the prevailing conflict and the sustained cycle of violence in Afghanistan, it is essential that human rights and humanitarian obligations are respected. It is necessary, therefore, for the facts of what took place in Mazar-e-Sharif to be fully established and publicised. Only in this way can the claims of human rights violations be allayed. I understand that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights intends to send two field missions to the region to investigate reports and I look forward to their assessment.
As a supporter of Ireland's UN peacekeeping efforts it would be impossible for me to oppose this Supplementary Estimate and I am, therefore, glad to endorse it. However, the backdrop of general increases made by the Government which I gather are now running at about 24% rather than the 12% which was estimated is one of the reasons why we are now in such a financial mess. While endorsing the increased moneys we will be paying to the UN peacekeeping operations, I am glad to see the Department has been able to find savings for a major share of the increased cost from within its own budget, particularly in administration. Despite the support that I and every other committee member would give to UN peacekeeping missions and Ireland's participation therein, I am glad the Department has been able to find savings within its Estimate so that the brunt of the increase is not going to be added on to the already bloated financial figures for 2001.
This is an opportunity for the committee to record the closing of the peacekeeping chapter in Lebanon. I wish to pay tribute to all those who served in UNIFIL. It is appropriate that we should record our appreciation and thanks to all those who gave such outstanding service under the flag of the UN. It is also appropriate for us to recall, as was done in such a dignified fashion recently, the 47 soldiers who did not come home and gave their lives in the cause of peace.
The Minister referred to Afghanistan. It is vital that we have a political solution to keep pace with military developments. I am delighted that agreement on an interim administration appears to have been reached in Bonn. Achieving a settled outcome in Afghanistan will obviously involve a very difficult political process. Will the Minister indicate whether Ireland will support the process if asked? The political process in Afghanistan will be put together by the Afghan people in the main and we will most likely give financial support at a humanitarian level towards the effort there. Will the assistance of Irish military police or civilians be sought by the new administration and if such a request is received, what will be the Government's response?
I am pleased that, at every level in the Oireachtas, there has been an emphasis on our concerns about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. It is important we emphasise the need to respect international law. Many of us were concerned and horrified by what appeared to be extra-judicial killings there. I am not suggesting they are involved in a parlour game but, while I appreciate the difficulties on the ground and the savagery that can result, it is important that the civilised world insist, in so far as it is possible, that proper standards are maintained. We should support every effort to ensure that the full facts are brought to light and made clear. This may be the only deterrent to any repeat of what appear to be extra-judicial killings in Mazar-e-Sharif and elsewhere.
This not a time for a full-scale discussion on the Middle-East, although it would be welcome. I am horrified by what has been happening, particularly by the appalling standards of the Israeli Government. This is not to say I excuse the suicide attacks from the Palestinian side, but state sponsored terrorism is unacceptable under international law because it is in breach of UN conventions. The Israeli Prime Minister, from the day he marched up the Temple Mount, has felt that, by force majeure, he can walk over the Palestinians. At this stage he is not walking but putting heavy boots on top of them. I cannot accept this from any government that pretends to be acting in a civilised manner. This is in breach of international law, a fact that must be pointed out to them.
I have always opposed terrorism from any source. There is an onus on the Palestinian Authority to restrain and restrict the terrorists, mainly Hamas, who operate from its territory as much as possible. I understand the difficulties but every effort must be made by them to do so. It is ironic that part of the action of the Israeli Government is to bomb the Palestinian infrastructure so that it is further restricted in dealing with these terrorists. It seems a mindless, heedless activity largely designed to impress the Israeli people. I endorse the call to both sides to stand back from the conflict and accept that the only solution will arise through negotiation.
The pieces of the jigsaw are there. Senator George Mitchell, who rendered such signal service to us in Ireland, has also rendered such service to the Middle East. The people who are not prepared to negotiate must be indicted before the bar of international opinion. Those who lay down preconditions for negotiation and say they are entitled to dictate them must be so indicted. Those of us who have been sympathetic to the Israeli cause must be prepared to say to them bluntly that if they are not prepared to negotiate, they must be condemned. I say to both sides: "Get back to the table and set about debating, discussing the current situation and above all putting in place the pieces already there that will achieve a permanent solution." If that is not done, the prospects for the Middle East are horrendous.
Since we have strayed from the peacekeeping Supplementary Estimate, I will make some comments on the enlargement of the EU.
We have not really strayed from it, but we might now.
I appeal to the Minister, six months after the failure of the referendum on the Treaty of Nice, to accept the imperative of facing up to the consequences for us if Ireland is the country that delays enlargement of the EU. The current position is such that we may end up in a minority of one in being the only state not to have ratified the Treaty of Nice. Our political credit was badly damaged last June and I am further concerned that it will be further burnt unless positive action is taken to address the consequences of that failure. It is imperative to facilitate the early enlargement of the EU. It would be disastrous if we were the only member state preventing that and we are close to being in that position. We need to take into account the concerns raised by the electorate last June but, more importantly, we need to put in place a positive programme of concrete action to demonstrate that we are taking those concerns seriously.
I will not be side-tracked by the Forum for Europe but if the Minister and other parties wish to talk about it, I have no difficulty. Will the Minister accept that there is a need to put a concrete package of measures in place? We need to introduce a concrete package of measures and to start implementing them so that by the time this issue is referred back to the people, whether by this Government or one containing my own party, it will have been demonstrated that the concerns expressed in the referendum have been taken into account.
Such a programme of action is easy to draw up. However, I have prepared a paper - not the last word, but a consultation document - and the measures suggested therein would take quite some time to implement. The Government's programme will probably not be too different to mine. If the Government's delay in introducing and implementing its programme continues, the window of opportunity will be lost and we will be faced, at the end of next year, with isolation in Europe as we hold up enlargement of the Union. I say this without any political aggravation, knowing that the Minister has broadly the same views on the matter. I ask the Government, as we approach the last days of 2001, to put forward a programme that can be debated and to start implementing it, otherwise we will be totally isolated in the EU.
In relation to the Supplementary Estimate, on behalf of Fine Gael I am glad to endorse the proposal to provide sufficient funds to pay our full dues to the UN peacekeeping budget.
I did not rule the references to the Nice Treaty out of order because one of the savings on another subhead is £1.275 million which has not been spent on the treaty but went towards a reduction of the overrun on UN peacekeeping. I was therefore able to accommodate Deputy O'Keeffe's remarks.
A Chathaoirligh, you will be glad to hear that I will stay within the terms of the Supplementary Estimate and the Minister's remarks. Concerning the general principle of the increase required in the form of a Supplementary Estimate and some of the remarks made by Deputy O'Keeffe, it is my view that the Department of Foreign Affairs is under funded. I have held that view for a very long time. I recall, for example, that the last time there were substantial reviews of the United Nations and its system by people like Erskine Childers and Brian Urquhart, they reported in 1992-4 a massive increase in the number of conflicts which required peacekeeping. As the Minister said in his speech, the costs of peacekeeping go beyond those in which one is a direct participant. It is in fact a general obligation.
Rather sadly, it reflects the prevalence of conflict over normal conditions in international relations. However, if we are to put resources into conflict prevention and resolution beyond that which we put into peacekeeping and peace maintenance greater expenditure will be required. I have no difficulty supporting that part of the Estimate. Some questions arise directly about other aspects of the cost. I am not questioning the costs; we got very good value for money in our representation at the UN Security Council and in the amount of work carried out by staff. I recall that one of the achievements of Ireland's final days in the presidency of the security council was that Somalia became once again the centre of attention. The more recent statements of the representative of the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in Somalia are very worrying. The country is on the verge of economic collapse, raising questions about the degree to which a civilian population can be held accountable for the actions of those who may be using their country as a haven. I visited Somalia in 1992, in the middle of the famine and before the visit of the then President, Mrs. Robinson. The population, many of whom were in the refugee camp in Mandera in Northern Kenya, was absolutely devastated, not just in the camps but throughout the country.
What is likely to happen now in Somalia? I would like the Minister to make a report on the issue. I welcome the return of Somalia to the centre of attention but am worried about the implications that Somalia may become a target and by the economic sanctions, which are affecting the civilian population to an unacceptable point, in terms of justice and international law. I would like the Minister to return on another occasion to a discussion of the degree to which the relationship of civilian populations to positions taken by those who claim to lead them can be sustained either morally or in terms of international law. We cannot skirt around the issue forever. We cannot speak of Hamas as representing all Palestinians, of Saddam Hussein as representing all the children of Iraq or of people who may be sheltering in Somalia as representing all Somalians.
The Minister spoke about the Middle East. It is very important that people are unequivocal in their condemnation of the appalling, cowardly behaviour of the suicide bombers who target the civilian population of Israel. I absolutely, unconditionally condemn that. However, the actions of members of an organisation such as Hamas cannot be equated with the Palestinian Authority. It is appalling that a state can label the representatives of those with whom they differ across the table as speaking for a terrorist organisation. It makes the possibility of political or diplomatic discourse remote and it argues for the use of force. This is a massive step backwards. We should also be unequivocal in describing executions from helicopters as appalling. It is a very dark period in international affairs when the language of retribution replaces the language of diplomacy.
There had been some tension in relation to the situation in Afghanistan and the responses to the events of 11 September, which I have of course condemned. The urge for retribution is sometimes encouraged in speeches by the US Secretary of Defence, Mr. Rumsfeld. Some of his language, I believe, encouraged a breach of the Geneva Convention. The weak point in the Minister's own statement on Afghanistan is in the fourth paragraph, where he hopes that the fighting can be brought to an early conclusion with a minimum of casualties. The Geneva Convention is explicit, in a number of respects, in Article 3. It does not say, for example, that civilised behaviour will prevail in relation to conflicts in which the West is participating. It is universal in its application, in its requirements and in every intention, every time it is spoken of. I find it very hard not to conclude that it has been breached, although initially I am willing to wait for the result of investigations.
The Minister needs to give us an idea of the degree of co-operation that he identifies as being forthcoming from the UNHCHR for field missions he refers to in his statement and the date at which we might expect that. He also needs to provide assurances about the Security Council which has, after all, facilitated actions in Afghanistan with two resolutions, 1368 and 1373. I do not intend to delay this afternoon's meeting. Resolution 1368 is questionable in terms of international law. Even if that was not the case, there is a duty of care in relation to the implementation of both resolutions under the Geneva Convention, a matter which should be discussed at the Security Council. As regards the question of the possible extension of the conflict beyond Afghanistan towards Iraq, the Minister might tell us what information he has received from the Security Council. I hope he can give us assurances in that regard.
My final point is important in terms of the discussion about humanitarian aid. The international agencies continue to express concern about the fact that the borders which might be open to facilitate the distribution of aid are not open. The Minister might comment on the talks in Bonn. Like him, I welcome progress at those talks. However, they do not refer, even in the periphery, to the breaches of the Geneva Convention or its requirements. There is a tendency to regard the humanitarian dimension as a residuum to what might be agreed. The humanitarian aspect is essential.
With respect to the two field missions by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, it seems the only way to secure compliance with the Geneva Convention is if the Security Council accepts the responsibilities it has taken upon itself with its two resolutions to place itself centrally on the ground. It must establish mechanisms for the appropriate taking of prisoners and their safety and treatment in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It cannot be acceptable in 2001 that oil is poured down burrows and then set on fire or that people are summarily executed. Perhaps the western attitude is badly revealed by the suggestion that there are territories in the world where the Geneva Convention does not apply and that it is a western mechanism. It is not a western mechanism. It precedes the United Nations and comes after World War I. It was intended to guarantee the rights of prisoners in a universal sense. If one looks at the text, it is not an argument that one is not in control. One cannot take a prisoner, claim to lose control and then reconstitute the person. One has a duty when taking a prisoner to disarm him or her and then all other property and aspects of the person must be regarded as part of his or her integrity.
As chairman of the Irish Red Cross, I was in New York at the weekend where I met my American counterpart. I had the opportunity to look at Ground Zero and the experience was horrific. I am grateful to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who put at my disposal a delightful official who brought me to see the sorry and tragic site. While I understand the mind of the American people, I do not in certain instances appreciate what is being done in their name. One must visit the site to appreciate in depth the feeling of the people of the United States of America.
I commend the Minister and his excellent officials for the presentation of this document on peacekeeping. As a former Minister for Defence, I acknowledge the work being done by the Army and those who have operated as peacekeepers in the name of Ireland for the past 23 years in south Lebanon. They worked in dangerous conditions and a number of their colleagues met their deaths in the service of the country. I express my appreciation for the fact that the Defence Forces have distinguished themselves in that part of the world in the name of Ireland and peace. I express my sorrow as a former Minister at the loss of their colleagues during those 23 years.
As regards Afghanistan, I strongly support the views expressed by Deputy Michael Higgins. I am pleased the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is sending in a couple of missions to examine what happened to the prisoners, as outlined by Deputy Higgins. I am satisfied from what I heard from people in the United States, other than those in the Minister's Department, that there is concern about what happened to the prisoners. It appears the Geneva Convention was not operated as far as they were concerned. However, that remains to be resolved. I hope that as a result of the inquiries of the United Nations High Commissioner's two missions we will get answers to the concerns expressed by those of us who strongly condemn what appears to have been an atrocity committed in the name of what is considered to be a peace mission to end Taliban rule. I am not making a case for the Taliban which appears to have all the elements of a strange people. I want the Minister to make a statement on the outcome of the mission being conducted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It appears, as a minimum, that human rights were transgressed and that the Geneva Convention was not operated.
I am glad of the existence of Mr. Colin Powell, who was an army general, and his restraint of a number of warlike characters surrounding President Bush. I hope when the operation in Afghanistan is over, which I hope will be sooner rather than later, President Bush urges restraint in relation to places such as Iraq, Somalia and Sudan. I was in Iraq recently in the company of Deputy Michael Higgins, Senator Lanigan and Senator Norris and what we saw at first hand was not pleasant. The operation of the sanctions regime against the population does not enhance our reputation as a country with a deep commitment to peace. I am not making a case or representations on behalf of Saddam Hussein, who is a bad man. What he did to the Kurds and his own people is unforgivable. What was done to the Americans on 11 September was and is unforgivable. I am not making a case, but expressing a point of view which is reflected in this country. I hope the conflict does not extend to Iraq or Somalia. Like Deputy Michael Higgins, I was in Somalia and find it difficult to see what more can be done to it. We talk about Ground Zero, but in Mogadishu there is not a brick on a brick. The suggestion may be that terrorist organisations operate out of Somalia, but that has to be proved.
There are other issues raised by this excellent document from our officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Minister should urge caution. He has an important role to play in the Security Council which he has handled extremely well, as have the officials. There are question marks over some of his decisions, but that is for another day and, perhaps, another place. I urge him to express a strong view on the country's behalf that caution is needed before extending the conflict in Afghanistan in the name of peace. Having left the United States of America yesterday, I say respectfully that the Americans might concentrate on the defence of their own country rather than conflict.
Returning to the views expressed by other Members on the Middle East, I am concerned that Hamas be seen as the enemy of both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. There is no doubt that it is a terrorist organisation and should be condemned out of hand. One can only gasp at the mind of a person who is prepared to blow him or herself up in the name of an unidentifiable cause with horrific consequences. I am pleased to see that the Minister has written two letters to his Israeli counterpart, who has distinguished himself also in his office as he appears to be among the more cautious members of the Israeli Cabinet. His Prime Minister should listen to him given what he urges.
I condemn roundly what is being done to the Israeli people, particularly the young and the elderly. It is unforgivable. The Israeli reaction must also be considered. It is difficult to comprehend what is happening in Palestine. For those reasons, I would appreciate if the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials who have done such an excellent job in the name of peace take it upon themselves to urge both parties, in the name of peace and a decent world order, to bring the conflict to an end as a matter of urgency. The world is afflicted by outbreaks of war of different sorts, none less horrific than the other. We, in Ireland, have an important role to play, especially as a member of the Security Council.
I commend the Minister and his officials for the presentation on the matter before us today, the Supplementary Estimates for the United Nations peacekeeping contribution. I presume that our contribution is increasing annually rather than decreasing. Our current assessment is 0.296% which will rise to 0.297% in 2002. The amount for 2003 is 0.294% which does not appear to be an increase to me. There may be an explanation for this. Mathematics, among other subjects, is a great weakness of mine. I hope the Minister will clarify the position.
I, too, wanted to raise the last question raised by Deputy Andrews. Is it a typing mistake or is it anticipated that in 2003, as we pay a percentage of global GNP, it will have gone down?
Like Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and others, I pay tribute to the many fine Irishmen and women who have been involved in UN peacekeeping. Many of my relatives have served with distinction on such missions.
I also pay tribute to the role of the Garda, which is more recent, at a time when the Garda is not always written about in favourable terms. Even one or two members serving in any part of the world contribute in excess of what their numbers would imply. I saw gardaí in action first hand in Namibia during elections there. They played a leadership role and were at the right hand of the heads of the mission. We should not forget them. Only a small number of gardaí are used on such missions. Can the Minister tell us if there are further requests for them on other missions? Is this a growing aspect of peacekeeping? The Minister talked of crisis management and the need for civilian protection, a side of peacekeeping which ought to expand.
I commend the Minister because it is not often that a Department can save £1.95 million. How did the Minister for Finance allow that much spare money in his Department's subheads when the time came to make savings? Normally the Minister for Finance does not allow so much money to be available at the end of the year as he announces that he is paring down budgets. I note that the Department saved £675,000 in its administration budget, a sizeable amount. Can the Minister give us a picture of on what he saved the money?
More interestingly, I want to know - perhaps this is the reason the country rejected the Nice treaty - the reason £1.275 million was saved on the costs of the Nice treaty and International Criminal Court referenda? That is also a mystery. For what purpose was the £1.275 million set aside and why was it not spent if it was set aside to assist in running the referenda? It cannot be because the Minister thought that he would engage in more advertising and canvassing than anticipated because the McKenna judgment has been in force since before the referenda. Therefore, it is not the case that he wanted to spend the money, but could not do so because of the judgment. That was known last year when the budget was being prepared for these referenda. I am at a loss to know why £1.27 million was saved. If it had been spent would there have been a better chance of getting a "yes" vote? That question may be simplistic but I look forward to a reply.
The cost of our involvement in UN peacekeeping is growing all the time. The UN estimates that the peacekeeping expenditure in the year July 2001 to June 2002 will be between £3 billion and £3.4 billion. We are looking at a 34% increase in contribution for 2001 alone. Is it anticipated that there will be the same percentage increase for the six months of 2002 or has all our expenditure gone into the basket for 2001? Should we anticipate that in excess of £10 million will also be spent then? Are there any costs associated with Irish civilians involved with peacekeeping missions or are they generally hired by agencies such as the UN? Are there civilians deployed with the Irish Army or the Garda who are covered by our contribution?
Paragraph 6 on page 2 mentions the memorandum of understanding concerning 850 military personnel in the UN standby arrangement system, UNSAS, in 1998. This was designed to increase UN capacity to react to emergency situations. Does the 850 include the 520 currently on UN mandated missions or is it a separate standby force of 850? I wonder about that because it is not very clear here. If it includes the 520 it would mean we are 320 down on the commitment we gave and I would like to know if there is any reason for that.
It is not permitted to put the money owed to Ireland against payments to the UN peacekeeping budget. Is that our rule or a UN rule? If it was permitted would it put more of an onus on the US to pay in full what it owes to the UN?
The talks in Bonn on Afghanistan look positive and we welcome that. Is it envisaged that a UN force will go in to bolster and support whatever agreement is reached? Like everybody else I am appalled by the pictures I have seen on television and I wait with interest the report of the UN High Commission on Human Rights. It is important we know where the guilt lies for what actually happened and if there were blatant breaches of the Geneva Convention those involved should be brought to account. They may be the same people who will end up in positions of power after the Bonn talks. We should know what has happened and I hope the report is not put on the long finger by the UN commissioner or those involved in the investigation. Will the Minister ensure that the report is expedited? It should not take very long to assess exactly what happened in the prison.
Deputies M. Higgins, Andrews and others have been keeping a watching brief on the Western Sahara. It seems to be like "Groundhog Day" with the situation never being resolved. We thought there would be a referendum and quite a large number of Irish troops and gardaí were there to monitor the election. Things were like that about four or five years ago and yet the situation has not been resolved. It seems to have gone from the agenda yet there must still be people suffering because of the conflict. We saw people living in tented towns in the middle of the desert hoping to get back to their homes. Is there any chance of movement on that issue?
My final question has to do with Sierra Leone which is the largest UN mission. Is that mission working and are things improving there? We have quite a number of missionaries there and from time to time we get reports from them. The UN has 16,700 soldiers there, a huge deployment, and I would be interested to hear whether it is working and whether people's lives are safer because of it. How long more will they need to be there before there is any stability or peace in the country?
I compliment Deputy Cowen on his work as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am satisfied that he has an open mind on all issues and feel no anxiety that he has prejudices, something I respect. I know he listens to everyone and forms his own opinions. He makes his statements honestly, while obviously in consultation with his advisers, and I have total confidence in him.
I would like to make reference to what is happening in Israel and in Afghanistan. In the case of the former, we refer to the fact that suicide bombers killed 26 Israeli civilians over the last few days but over 200 people have been maimed, injured and traumatised for the rest of their lives. I have a nephew who lives in Tel Aviv and I speak to him frequently on the telephone. People here may not be aware that over the last couple of months - it may be a shorter time - 80 suicide bombers were apprehended by Israeli security people. Over 80 people went out with the purpose of killing innocent civilians. Many of them like to target schools, kindergartens and places where there are civilians. The 80 who were apprehended were not shot dead but were arrested and incarcerated. There are about 25 incidents a day and we do not see many reports about that.
Israel does not target civilians: it targets property. This morning I was annoyed and irritated by Richard Crowley on radio referring to Hamas and Jihad fighters as resistance fighters. Other people here who have no sympathy for Israel nevertheless realise that Hamas and Jihad fighters are terrorists and they refer to them as such. When a reporter for our national radio and television station refers to them as resistance fighters he is making a point which is recognised by a number of people. I wish sometimes that some of the speeches which Mr. Arafat makes in Arabic were translated and sent over here so people could read what he is saying to his own people. He incites them in many instances.
No one wants peace more than Israel; they are fed up to the teeth. Every time something like this starts, everybody who is Jewish suffers. All I can say to these people is that the Jews will never quietly walk into the night again: they will never go quietly. They have said that if anyone attempts to kill them they will fight back. War is bloody and dreadful. I saw some awful pictures today, worse than I have ever seen on television. Sky made a statement that they did not wish to show some of the more sordid images and that they would censor them. However, I saw one person carrying a young Arab on his shoulders who was like a carcass, blown apart, with blood dripping from him and his legs gone. He was just a piece of meat. It brought home the horror of it. A picture speaks a thousand words but this spoke a million words. Ben-Yehuda Street is like Grafton Street in Dublin where everybody assembles, has coffee, goes into the shops. That picture was terrible.
I hope that sense will prevail. I urge the Minister to continue with his work. I know this country is respected by both sides and particularly by the Palestinians. They have always had a lot of support from people here who feel they have a legitimate cause. Be that as it may, the Minister has influence which I know he can exert.
I wish to speak about Afghanistan for a moment. We hear about time travellers. Going from here to Afghanistan is like travelling back to the seventh or eighth century. People talk about standards which we respect and the civilised behaviour which we believe exists in the West, but such standards or behaviour do not exist in Afghanistan. I do not think there will ever be a role for the United Nations. I would not like to see Irish soldiers going to Afghanistan because of the tribalism and dangers which exist there. I hope it will be sorted out but it will take a long time. We do not have to deal with the reality of what is happening, or worry about a nuclear device being set off here, but if al-Qaeda decided to bomb Sellafield tomorrow, then we would be dealing in realities. The type of people who are engaged in world terrorism have only one plan and that is to destroy everything we have in the West. We must be very vigilant.
Sitting suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Supplementary Estimate. I have always supported the American and British action in Afghanistan. It is only human for people to react in that manner having been so viciously attacked. People should not immediately jump to conclusions when a news story emerges from the scene of the action. I read a very lengthy article in The Sunday Times this week, which gives a totally different tale of events in Mazar-e-Sharif than what we were generally led to believe. The entire matter was instigated by the Taliban and its cohorts, the foreign fighters. There were just as many people on the Northern Alliance side killed in the ensuing action along with one American. There is no reason to believe the Americans or British were involved in any atrocities. Wars are pretty dreadful and in a country like that they have a reputation for being particularly savage.
We discussed the problem here at some length in the presence of the American ambassador, Mr. Egan, one week after the atrocities in New York and Washington. There is no need to dwell on that further.
I have very profound views on what is happening in the Middle East. It is about time the European Union along with the rest of the so-called civilised world in the west stood up to the Israelis and demanded that they live up to the terms of the Oslo agreement and stop provoking the Palestinian population. Having said that, I condemn what happened in the last few days and the suicide attacks in areas where young Israelis were congregating resulting in the death of at least 20 people. However, I condemn those who blame Yasser Arafat for those and similar atrocities. It reminds me of the time when people blamed John Hume for atrocities in Northern Ireland. Arafat is the only moderating force of any relevance in Israel, Palestine or whatever we might call it. He has done wonderful work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. He is walking on a tightrope between the extremists and the ordinary people who make up over 90% of the Palestinian population. I am absolutely disgusted when I hear people like Mr. Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, saying that Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority will have to be destroyed or got rid of because they are not doing their job. They are doing their job to the best of their ability and in any organisation there will be all sorts of grades of efficiency and commitment. This is equally true for the Garda Síochána, for an army, for Members of the Oireachtas or for the Palestinian Authority.
This committee should be aware that the problems in Israel are not brought about by Yasser Arafat. If anything they are brought about by Prime Minister Sharon, whose reputation as a military commander in Lebanon in the early 1980s was one of the most despicable in the world and was comparable to the activities of some in Bosnia. On many occasions people have asked whether he should be brought to trial in The Hague on war crimes, and that is worthy of consideration.
I am a very strong supporter of the American action in Afghanistan and throughout the world in general because without them where would we be. We would be defenceless against any ugly nation or tyrant that decided to cut loose. I was amazed by the apparent - I use that word advisedly - support for Mr. Sharon in Washington over recent days. The message coming through seems to be that physical targets can be hit but not humans. In other words, the infrastructure may be destroyed but there is to be no killing. What has happened? Already today, two Palestinians have been killed and 120 have been injured, many of them seriously. Most of those injured were children. A school in an area was attacked by one of the gunships. On the basis of the past record, we will see a lot more of this in the ensuing days. That is deplorable.
I believe the Chairman and all the members of the committee have visited Israel. I have been there several times, once as a member of a delegation from this committee. It was not a very pleasant experience, although the climate was pleasant. The Israelis were inclined to speak down to us. They claimed that the Irish UNIFIL troops in southern Lebanon were taking the side of the Palestinians, almost as if they were collaborating with Hizbollah or Hamas. I am not sure if other members also got that impression, but I certainly did. On one occasion, we were lectured by two very senior Israeli army officers about their displeasure regarding the performance of the Irish troops. Having spoken to a number of Irish Army officers who have served in southern Lebanon, it is my impression that they were highly impartial and did their job as it should be done. I find the Israeli attitude towards us and the western world in general extremely arrogant. I resent that and it should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.
It should also be borne in mind that, over the last 13 months since the rebellion, if that is the correct term, which was probably instigated by Mr. Sharon's visit to a holy shrine of the Palestinians, 800 Palestinians have been killed. "Murdered" is probably the correct term because many of them were killed at point blank range by Israeli tanks, helicopter gunships and heavily armed soldiers. Many of those killed were children who had been throwing stones - apparently that offence carries the death penalty in Israel. When an Israeli dies, it is regarded as murder - perhaps there is a certain parallel with Northern Ireland - but when a Palestinian is killed, he is described as a terrorist, even though he was only throwing stones.
I remind the Minister that I said in the Dáil on 23 May - I tried unsuccessfully to raise it with the Taoiseach today on the Order of Business - that the Irish Government should break off diplomatic relations with Israel. That is not a big deal but it would create ripples and perhaps it would give a lead to the free world to the effect that countries should be more objective and fair-minded in their dealings with the situation between Israel and Palestine. It would be a significant gesture. As matters stand, we are seen to be sitting on our hands and hiding behind our membership of the United Nations and the European Union. Ireland is also an individual country and we are entitled to do what I have suggested without reference to anybody else. Ireland has experienced for the past 30 years, in a similar form, what is now taking place in Israel and Palestine. We need to make other countries sit up and think.
I believe a great deal of the troubles in the Middle East, Afghanistan and northern Africa emanate from the attitude of the Israelis towards the Palestinians. The Americans and the western world are seen to assist the Israelis and persecute the Palestinians and their reaction is in terms of murderous violence. Ireland should be seen to do something about the situation. The Minister may reject my suggestion - he may be advised to that effect - but we should take our courage in our hands and act on this issue.
The free world should show its resolve by telling Israel of its disapproval of that country's hardline prime ministers. Netanyahu was followed by Sharon and who will be next? The current Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, is an exceptional individual, as is Yasser Arafat. They can relate to one another. Israel should be told that, unless a moderate person like Mr. Peres is in charge there, that country will not be supported morally, militarily, financially or politically. Unless Israel is made to toe the line, this conflict will deteriorate and spread and the bin Laden concept will never be eradicated. The Palestinians have a just cause and they have reason to complain and to feel hard done by.
United Nations personnel have been mobilised and sent into Afghanistan, appropriately armed and equipped for the situation in which there are murderous gangs with which to contend. The UN should also be mobilised to intervene in the situation in Israel and Palestine in an effort to curb the violence. I am old enough to remember when Prince Bernadotte was murdered, in or about 1948, while representing the United Nations or, perhaps, its predecessor, the League of Nations. People throughout the world were horrified and the situation was partly resolved shortly afterwards with the establishment of the Israeli state. UN forces should again be sent in to see that the Palestinians and the Israelis get a fair resolution of the problem. That is not currently happening.
I was a member of the Council of Europe for about seven years during which time I was leader of the Irish delegation. I saw an Israeli influence in the Council of Europe which is totally out of keeping with that country's population. It has its finger in every pie and seems able to exert great influence. A couple of million Israelis in America seem able to dictate American foreign policy. We go along with it blindly as does the rest of western Europe and the free world. It is a very stupid and unfair way to behave. The Palestinian people must get a fair crack of the whip and a lot of injustice and conflict will be eliminated if that happens. That conflict will go on indefinitely if action is not taken.
Unfortunately, there is another vote in the Dáil. I had hoped that I might say a few words after giving way to everyone else but I will ask the Minister to reply now. Otherwise, we will have to come back again.
I will deal with some of the financial matters on the Estimate. There was a query on the £1.2 million under-spend in referenda on the Treaty of the Nice and the International Criminal Court. An allocation of £4 million, £3 million for the Treaty of Nice and £1 million for the ICC, was provided for these referenda. Of this amount, £3.5 million was paid over to the Referendum Commission to cover the costs of the referenda campaign. A sum of £0.5 million was retained by the Department to cover costs in respect of preparation and distribution of a summary of the White Paper on the Treaty of Nice. The Referendum Commission achieved savings of £1.3 million because it was possible to share the costs of publication, postage, advertising, media presentations, etc. between the three referenda which were conducted at the same time. In relation to any further referendum on the Treaty of Nice, the abridged Book of Estimates for 2002 provides for a budget of €3 million to cover such an eventuality.
On the question of possible Irish involvement in any force that might emerge in respect of Afghanistan, I understand the transitional power-sharing arrangement agreed in Bonn envisages that the new interim authority will request the UN Security Council to consider authorising the early deployment to Afghanistan of a UN-mandated force for Kabul and its surroundings. The process of putting in place a new administration will need to be undertaken in a secure environment and the various options for restoring long-term security would have to be examined carefully. The UN special representative,Lakhdar Brahimi, has made it clear that his preferred option is for an all-Afghan force supported in the interim by a multinational element. Security Council Resolution 1378 adopted at the UN on 13 November endorsed this approach. If asked at some future date to contribute personnel to a UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan, the Government would as a matter of course give serious consideration to such a request. Should the Government decide to seek Dáil approval to send troops on a particular mission it will take full account of the security situation in the area, the mandate of the mission and other factors such as the equipment and skills necessary for the mission.
In relation to the continuing military campaign and the security situation, concerns have been raised about particular incidents. I made it clear at the Security Council that Ireland unequivocally condemns any situation where factions or anybody involved in these hostilities are not in compliance with the Geneva Convention or do not abide by the principles regarding the conduct of war, international human rights and humanitarian law. In the interests of maintaining confidence in the progression of those principles, we need to ensure that the facts are established. There are varying views among committee members here. It is a dangerous situation. People are refusing to surrender and it is a situation where there is fundamentalist thinking. There is an absence of clarity as to the circumstances surrounding what happened in Mazar-e-Sharif where there was huge loss of life and few prisoners taken. The question arises as to how this happened. We must acknowledge that the UNHCR has the responsibility to assess that situation. We can try to clarify what went on and take the necessary positions thereafter.
A number of queries were raised in relation to western Sahara where progress is disappointing. The stand-off continues and the progress towards a referendum has been stalled. The representative of the UN Secretary General, Mr. James Baker, continues to work with Saharans and Moroccans to establish whether progress is possible. The Government continues to uphold the right of Saharans to self-determination.
On Sierra Leone, there has been significant improvement over the past ten months. There has been a substantial extension of the area under the control of the UN force, considerable progress on disarmament and demobilisation of armed groups, and the human rights situation has improved although in rural areas the situation is bad from a structural point of view.
I was asked by Deputy Owen about peacekeeping operations. They include civilian administrators and military personnel. The costs are included in the budget. Irish citizens are involved in the civilian elements. I do not have the national breakdown available but the civilians are not recruited on a contingent basis as is the case with UNSAS. Regarding Deputy Owen's inquiry, that standby commitment of 850 personnel includes the 520. We are simply saying that in the event of an emergency we can go up to a figure of 850. Despite the prevalence of conflict situations and our involvement in ten of the 13 UN missions world-wide, we have plenty of capacity should we agree to participate on a case by case basis.
I made the point on humanitarian law strongly when I addressed the Security Council last month. We want to see the facts of what happened established. There is a particular onus on those present on the ground. We look forward to the UNHCR missions and hope that we can get greater clarity on what happened in that situation.
Regarding Somalia, there is a real problem due to it being a failed state without authority. The people of Somalia cannot be held responsible for activities of individuals or groups within their midst. We would hope that any action in relation to the campaign against international terrorism would not bring further harm to the people of Somalia.
Regarding the Middle East, a considerable range of views has been expressed which indicates the frustration we all feel at the absence of political progress towards a just and lasting peace. Of course, I listen to advice and make my own decisions. We do not advance the cause of the Palestinians by breaking off relations with either of the parties. We have learned from the Irish peace process that such gesture politics have no lasting effect. The European Union has a common position and it has been gaining in credibility and influence on this issue. There have been continual visits by EU foreign ministers and the high representative, Mr. Solana. Three Europeans were on the Mitchell commission which produced the Mitchell report which serves as the route map for progress. Mitchell has been accepted as the way forward. It places difficult obligations on Israel regarding withdrawal, the opening of the territories, ensuring that they get out of area A and allowing the Palestinian Authority to provide basic infrastructure and development. The report is also hard on the Palestinians. It envisages significant security co-operation between the Palestinian Authority police and the Israelis which is not currently happening.
There is a total absence of trust in this area. Neither side believes that the other is a genuine partner for peace. This is the problem. Selective evidence can be assigned by both sides to uphold that point of view. We have not been sitting on our hands, and I have visited the region. I have spoken to Shimon Peres and to Yasser Arafat and President Katzav. I have continued in contact with Mr. Peres. I attended an EU meeting in Brussels where much frank discussion took place. There is an absence of political will and a total absence of confidence in either side. The internal domestic situation in Israel is such that, due to the failure of moderate opinion to garner sufficient support, there is a realignment in Israeli politics. The fact that Shimon Peres is part of that Government is an attempt to maintain a moderating influence in difficult circumstances for him.
The question arises of whether one should continue to find a way forward. The Mitchell report, which proposes international monitors, represents the way through this problem. We will not have to go back to basics if the political will can be found. Prime Minister Sharon will have to remove the preconditions that are handing the peace process to the enemies of peace on both sides. His insistence on preconditions has created a political vacuum which is being maintained by those with no interest in peace and whose violent actions make the clock start to tick.
We will continue our efforts which have been even-handed and upfront. When we have seen disproportionate use of force we have voiced our concerns in a manner which is intended to influence events rather than merely be seen as a dramatic gesture. I honestly believe that our actions in this regard will greatly help to shape and influence events to the benefit of the ordinary people on the ground whose problems we have to bear in mind at all times.
I take the point that recent events are only the most recent in a continuing cycle of violence in the Middle East. Emotions are high and frustrations are evident in this committee, but it is a time for cool heads and to follow the route map that has been made available. It is to be hoped the Israeli Government will, in time, make clear to those with influence, including the United States Government, the circumstances in which dialogue can be resumed. Similarly, it is to be hoped Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority can reassert control in their own area to ensure they can engage in effective security co-operation as envisaged by the Mitchell and Tenet proposals. I stated in my correspondence with Shimon Peres that the rhetoric of war against the Palestinian Authority does not calm or assuage tensions or help attempts to find a short-term solution for a situation that is worsening hourly.
The Government and its partners will continue to do what they can, bilaterally and based on the personal relationships we have tried to develop, to reach the clear common European Union position, that is, to look for progress based on the Mitchell proposals. The European Union will continue to discuss the matter with the US Administration, to see if its influence can be used to bring to an end this terrible and deteriorating situation.
I thank the committee for listening to my sentiments. I recognise that many of its members have a genuine and deep concern for the Middle East and I will take their views and experience into account. I ask that we maintain a national position on the matter to help us shape events and influence both sides rather than taking an easily identifiable and partisan position which would minimise our influence.
I thank the Minister and would like to make a few remarks about the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Like others, I applaud the fact that a considerable amount of money was saved by holding the referenda on the Nice treaty and the International Criminal Court on the same day. If the money had been spent, it would have gone to the Referendum Commission for the publication of ridiculous advertisements. At least a quarter of the money would have been spent on arguing the reason the world should not have an international court for criminals.
The problem stems from the McKenna judgment, one of the most foolish and ridiculous to have been delivered in an Irish court. The sooner it is changed, the better. It was interesting to read an informative article by a former chief justice who was a Member of this House for many years, an advantage that many chief justices do not have. He was a member of a Government for many years and then forced to live in the real world. His views on the McKenna judgment are worth propagating widely. I hope its effect can be changed, whether it has to be done by way of referendum or otherwise. Perhaps the Supreme Court, on mature reflection, will consider that the previous judgment was not binding and find a more sensible way of approaching these matters.
As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe put it today, it is a matter of profound importance to this country's standing that, as one of the greatest beneficiaries of the European Union, it does not stand in the way of its enlargement and further development. Our partners, especially the applicant states, are mystified by the electorate's decision in June. Some counties are quite upset and find it incomprehensible that Ireland made such a decision.
Looking at the peacekeeping situation generally, it is not recognised in this country that well over half the United Nations' peacekeepers are in Sierra Leone where well over half the cost of peacekeeping is incurred. A great deal of this country's expenditure, including an additional £3.5 million provided in this Supplementary Estimate, is devoted to Sierra Leone about which perhaps we do not hear much because we have no troops there, although we have troops in many other places. There are 16,700 United Nations troops in Sierra Leone, a relatively small country, to where a total of 17,500 troops are mandated to go. The Minister said things have quietened considerably in recent months, particularly since troops went in. If they are no longer needed, I would like to see them transferred to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there is an appalling war. We know very little about the problems in the Congo, as no Irish troops are involved, and the United Nations should intervene if a crisis similar to that in Rwanda and Burundi is to be avoided. I hope this can be done when some of the many troops in Sierra Leone are withdrawn.
I have listened carefully to what was said about the Middle East and allowed the debate on the Supplementary Estimate to go on as I do not believe in stopping people from speaking on important matters. The crisis in the Middle East and central Asia is the most important international dispute at present. This Supplementary Estimate does not refer to another £1 million to straighten, widen or resurface a road in County Kerry, but to matters of the most fundamental importance, not only for Ireland, but for mankind. The problem in the Middle East is one of the powder kegs, if not the powder keg, in the world today. It is specifically centred on the part of the Middle East that was formerly all Palestine and is now Israel and Palestine. I recall when we met the UN Secretary General, Mr. Annan, during our visit to the United Nations at the end of October he made a point of expressing his concern about the effect of the conflict in Afghanistan on two other places which he regarded as the most dangerous in the world. He meant that in terms of how there could be a spillover into much larger conflicts. Those two regions were the Gaza Strip in Palestine, and Kashmir. He pointed out that in Kashmir there was a conflict between two countries which are now nuclear powers and which have not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and so do not feel bound by it. They have reserved to themselves the right to resort to the use of nuclear weapons if their perceived national interest demands it.
Mr. Annan is right. We talk very little about Kashmir here. It is a remote place and if you do not have Irish people in a country you tend not to bother with it. We are not the only ones like that. The Americans never talk about anything unless there are Americans involved or they have interests there. We know much more about what is happening between Israel and Palestine and it is a much more sensitive matter. I do not go along with everything Deputy Deasy has said, in particular I do not agree with breaking off diplomatic relations because that sort of thing does not achieve very much. However, it is worth considering that the free world's view of that problem is coloured by American interests and by the American influence on our thinking. I have been to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank twice and anyone who has been there cannot but be struck by the awful conditions the people live in, particularly in Gaza. Gaza is a narrow strip of land about 25 miles long and five miles wide on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. There are 1.2 million Palestinians confined to that space. You think that is bad enough until you go there and discover that one third of that tiny strip is occupied by Israel's army and Israeli settlements. Only two thirds of that tiny strip is available to support almost 1.2 million people. They are not allowed to trade abroad or to travel. They can only import provided they do so through Israel, arrangements which are financially very onerous. It must be remembered that many of the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan were evicted from their homes and their lands in 1948 or in 1967 and they remain evicted. By and large, the Palestinian people are in a worse social and economic state today than when they were first evicted in 1948. The reason President Arafat does not have anything like universal support within his area is that he and the Palestinian Authority have not been seen to bring economic benefits to their people in the attempt to make peace. They have not brought economic benefit, but it is not their fault. They have been prevented from doing so.
Europe has contributed a lot of money to the Palestinians and I am glad we did, but it is wasted money because they have nothing to show for it. The influence of the EU in the Middle East is very, very small compared to that of the USA. That is one of the reasons for the imbalance there. Europe should seek to assert itself to a much greater extent. I am glad that what assistance Europe tried to give was monetary and not anything else. The Americans have, of course, seen fit to arm the Israeli armed forces, particularly the air force and the army, with unlimited quantities of the most modern and effective weaponry in the world. In the last few days people have been trying to portray an imminent war as being between two states, which is ridiculous. Israel is a heavily armed sovereign state while Palestine is not a state at all. It does not even control its own population, through no fault of its own, and it is only armed with the lightest of weapons which are of no relevance in the conflict.
I deplore what those who do not want peace have done in Haifa and Jerusalem in the last few days. They have done it for a purpose, but they have done it against the wishes and against the interests of President Arafat. The reaction against him and his authority is excessive to say the very least. It grieves me to find that his own headquarters have been attacked and his only means of getting in and out of the West Bank and Gaza - two helicopters some country gave him - has been destroyed. The one possibility the Palestinian people had of direct contact with the rest of the world, the air strip at Gaza, was dug up last night and this morning by Israeli bulldozers. That cost a lot of money to build, by Palestinian standards at least, and it was only in use intermittently because the Israelis would not let them use it most of the time. Now it is gone. There is no port because they have not even been allowed to build a pier in Gaza although they have a 25 mile Mediterranean coast. They have no means of trading with or travelling to the rest of the world, except through Israel, which is very difficult for them. We should think about these aspects of the matter to help us realise why there is conflict in the Middle East.
I hope the EU will be able to assert a stronger and deeper influence on the problems there. It has a duty to assert itself where an injustice exists, as it does there. In selfish terms the time may be coming when we have to think about intervening in the interests of self preservation. If that conflict widens, as it could well do, it could make things very unpleasant for the EU and its neighbours which are not members of the Union.
I was glad to hear what the Minister had to say. I do not find it necessary to disagree with any of it. I hope he will be able to go further in getting the EU to assert a greater influence on the Middle East and to act as a counter weight to the particular USA influence. That influence is clearly not helping to alleviate the awful conditions for people caught in a conflict that is potentially highly dangerous for the entire world.
I am glad the committee unanimously supports this Supplementary Estimate.
I thank the Chairman for his wonderful contribution. The Minister's presentation was also excellent. Why can we not quantify the points made by the Chairman about giving the Palestinians some type of independence, a form of financial support which could be put to gainful use and structures of the type mentioned?
Many of the structures we helped build and finance were destroyed in the past 72 hours.
I suggest the Minister addresses the issue in the Council and asks that the European Union retains the capacity to make contact with the Palestinian Authority. I agree that the destruction of access to Gaza is an appalling breaking down of the possibilities of achieving a reconstituted peace. We should also ask the European Union to ensure it builds a deeper and better relationship with the region.
We should also ask the Americans, in conjunction with the European Union, to promote industrial development. Why not do something concrete?
During my last visit to the West Bank, I met two men from Limerick who were seconded by Shannon Development to advise on the development of trade for the benefit of Palestinians on the West Bank. We met in a hotel in Ramallah. When I asked how they were getting on with exports, they replied they were not getting on at all. When I asked the reason, they told me there are no exports because the Palestinians are not allowed to export anything. I asked how they could help develop trade if it is only trade among the Palestinians. They agreed with my point and also that the Palestinians do not have money to buy anything from one another. They are not allowed to move goods from the West Bank to Gaza and vice versa. They were not even allowed to move stone from the West Bank, where there is an abundance, to Gaza which has none in order to build a pier for fishing boats.
There is water rationing in Gaza alongside swimming pools.
What is the scope of the committee to pass an emergency resolution? I have no serious problems with the points raised in the Minister's speech and no difficulty supporting or proposing an emergency resolution. It could deplore the actions of those who cause murder and mayhem in Israel, while making it clear that we consider the Israeli response to be utterly unacceptable in that it reinforces the cycle of violence and undermines efforts at peacemaking by those interested in seeking a peaceful resolution on the Israeli and Palestinian sides and, in particular, by those outside.
We should ask the European Union to engage more deeply to fill the vacuum.
We must make clear that we envisage the way forward to be in line with the points made here and signposted by the Mitchell report.
We will try to put together a resolution on those lines. I will circulate it to members for their comments or approval.
If one was to examine this in depth, one would find that, while not comparable to its influence on America, the Israeli influence on the European Union is not far behind. Herein lies a major part of the problem.