Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:10 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the status of the Quartet plan on the Middle East; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14671/04]
View answerWednesday, 19 May 2004
Questions (11, 12, 13)
Seymour Crawford
Question:40 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the Middle East peace roadmap; his view on whether the European Union, the United Nations and Russia have been sidelined in the process by the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14492/04]
View answer
Gay Mitchell
Question:127 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the actions which have been undertaken by the Government to make clear, in particular to the Israeli authorities, its concern at the failure to progress the road map agreed by the Quartet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14883/04]
View answerOral answers (10 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 40 and 127 together.
The current status of the road map is that neither party has met its commitments under it and that it is unlikely that the original timeframes envisaged in the road map can be met at this point. That said, the road map remains the preferred and only option of the international community and both parties have repeatedly declared their intention to implement it. The road map contains all the elements, which will be essential if a just and comprehensive settlement based on the objective of two states living in peace and security side by side is to be achieved.
I led the delegation of the European Union at a meeting of the Quartet in New York on 4 May. I was accompanied by the high representative, Javier Solana, and the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten. Other delegations were led by the Secretary General of the United Nations, the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of Russia. Discussion at the meeting was intense and focused on the principles underlying the peace process. All were agreed that the road map still represented the best way forward.
A statement was issued after the Quartet meeting in which all four participants reaffirmed their commitment to the road map and the principles of the peace process, which include the following: a settlement to be negotiated and agreed between the two parties on the basis of the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and other relevant documents; no prejudgment of final status issues; and unilateral initiatives to be consistent with the road map and the two-state solution.
The meeting also identified a series of measures to be taken by the Quartet in conjunction with the parties and international organisations to monitor progress and compliance by all sides. The special representative of the European Union for the Middle East peace process is currently pursuing more detailed discussions with our Quartet partners with a view to taking these measures forward. The meeting of the Quartet was conducted in an atmosphere of frankness and openness to differing views and on the basis of a shared determination to achieve a just and comprehensive peace. I do not consider that any member of the Quartet has been sidelined.
I took the opportunity of my meetings with the Israeli and Palestinian Foreign Ministers in Dublin on 5 May to make clear our continued commitment to the road map and our expectation of compliance by both side as set out in the Quartet statement.
Given the possible sidelining of some members of the Quartet, is the Minister satisfied their role is as significant as was intended? Can he indicate whether or not they are all included in the ongoing debate? We have all seen instances in which President Bush has encouraged a particular line at a specific time. That there is not always a chorus of support suggests some of the people involved are being sidelined.
All members of the Quartet are entitled to hold bilateral meetings with whomsoever they wish. The Tullamore declaration, which resulted from the Foreign Ministers' Gymnich meeting, made our position very clear. We are anxious to ensure the basic principles which have informed the peace process remain intact. While it is open to people like the supporters of the Geneva accord to surmise how the ultimate design of a full and final settlement may appear, it is important to avoid a scenario in which people believe negotiating cards are being taken from any party's hand. The reiteration that these matters must be agreed among the parties regardless of the views expressed at bilateral meetings was an important restatement of a fundamental principle which must be adhered to if we are to have a working negotiating process.
I support the Minister in any initiative which can be taken. This matter is far too important for any partisan advantage to be taken. I put it to the Minister without pleasure that it is very hard to reconcile the Sharon plan with the Quartet's fundamental proposals. As I listened to his reply, I agreed with the Minister that it is important for all parties to the Quartet's original proposals on the road map to play all the cards and maintain all the key components he listed. The Sharon plan does not do that. The Tullamore declaration and the other statements have indicated a willingness to consider proposals if a withdrawal from Gaza can be reconciled with the road map. It is clear the Sharon plan rows back on some of the fundamentals of the road map and the Quartet's original proposals. This is particularly true in the case of UN resolutions on settlements and a series of other areas.
I do not know how the Minister can answer this. Is it the case that the Tullamore declaration put the best possible face on a clear breach of the road map in the Sharon plan? If that is the case, is it not true that the original judgment that one could somehow operate with the Sharon plan on a temporary basis has been proved entirely false by recent events? I say that with no celebration. We must return to the original principles if we are to make any progress.
I will answer as best I can. The Tullamore declaration is a very clear restatement of the EU's view of the road map and the way in which this process should work. It has the merit of being a far clearer exposition of our position than any previous statement one can find. That degree of clarity was required when the declaration was made.
In the context of Mr. Sharon's unilateral withdrawal, I agree that unilateralism will not solve the problem or, by definition, bring about a negotiated settlement. There has been total gridlock in which the process has gone nowhere due to requirements of sequencing and the raising of certain issues. In that context, we are prepared to consider the potential of a declaration that a full withdrawal from occupied lands will take place if it meets certain criteria and can be shoe-horned into the road map process. While many pessimists claim that will not happen, it is the responsibility of the Quartet to ensure it does. Any withdrawal from Gaza must be full and complete. There can be no question of the Israeli Defence Forces returning whenever it suits or determining according to its own security requirements that a reoccupation should take place. There must be an assurance that those who leave the Gaza settlements do not move to the West Bank. There can be no question of moving settlers from one occupied territory to another.
We must make it clear that we will support a proposal and work with people on the basis that it is part of a two state solution. Any process must ensure an orderly transfer to the Palestinian Authority. If we allow unilateralism to proceed without any effort by us to control it or create circumstances in which a proposal can be used to effect positive change, there will be total chaos in Gaza. There will be a withdrawal simply to suit Israel. We contend strongly that as the occupying force, Israel has responsibilities in terms of the reconstruction of Gaza. The European taxpayer cannot be expected to build up the port and airport if they are to be thrashed in five weeks or five months. Certain assurances are necessary and a monitoring system must be put in place. The Secretary General of the UN has spoken about the opportunity provided by the Sharon plan despite its unilateral nature to bring in a monitoring presence. It may be possible to establish a process of withdrawal like the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon where a UN presence was achieved to ensure it was complete and in line with international law.
While this is not the most hopeful time in the Middle East peace process, the Quartet has a responsibility to consider any initiative which comes our way to establish whether it can be used as a mechanism to reactivate a road map which has been moribund for months. We must ask if we can use this as an opportunity to effect an orderly transfer to the Palestinian Authority to build up its capacity to operate within Gaza again. We wish to ensure the withdrawal is not merely to the outskirts of Gaza with the creation of a reservation. The economic life of Gaza must be reinvigorated and prospects for its inhabitants provided. The Palestinian Authority must have control over its airspace and ports and access to the sea. There are many ways in which the daily lives of the Palestinian people in the area can be improved if the international community decides to engage based on certain criteria which are consistent with the road map ultimately becoming operational.
Is the Minister satisfied the EU has a sufficiently major role and will be allowed to play it in the same way as the USA and other players?
I can see how the Tullamore declaration requires the best possible spin to be put on the meeting between Mr. Sharon and President Bush. I am being positive but one must exercise judgment. The Sharon plan did not provide airspace control or a number of other functions to the new Palestinian entity. Since its announcement, there has been an expansion of the settlements on the West Bank and an appropriation of property in east Jerusalem. All the indications are that Mr. Sharon never had any intention of living with the Sharon-Bush plan described by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The present American position is akin to riding two horses. On the one hand, there is a commitment to the road map through the Quartet and, on the other, there is the co-sponsorship of a proposal that cuts the ground from under the road map's significant proposals.
Though I agree that the Sharon plan is brilliant in its vagueness, I disagree with the Deputy's argument. We will not accept withdrawal from Gaza unless certain criteria set out in the Tullamore declaration are met. It was interpreted by helpful colleagues as putting a good face on the plan. Though not many positive aspects could be drawn from the interpretation of the bilateral meeting, we drew what we could from it and held to those promises at the Quartet meeting. It was reconfirmed at the meeting that the final status issues are for negotiation between the parties. We must work with what we have in a way that does not undermine the road map. Criteria have been set that need to be met for us to participate constructively in making withdrawal from Gaza a contribution to the operation of the road map.
There are those on both sides whom it suits to claim that the sole supporter of Israel is the US and the sole supporter of Palestine is the EU. That simplistic approach is used by those who do not want to see the EU, the US, the UN and the Russian federation bring their respective and various strengths to bear on the different parties to implement a common analysis set out in the road map. That is why the Quartet is an important new feature in attempts to resolve this conflict. Unfortunately, I admit, it has not brought the success I would have liked. However, we will continue to work through the different political and diplomatic channels to convert this difficult background into a positive one.
On the ground, it is now near impossible for the Palestinian Authority to meet the preconditions that are set down for the next stage. The events at Rafah undermine the only negotiating party for the Palestinians, leading to a growth in influence of extra-constitutional groups. I do not see the US relationship to the Sharon plan as anything other than an abuse of power. One wants to see the exercise of power as a commitment to the whole process rather than to a singular party which is now altering an alternative challenge to the road map.
At the international Quartet meeting in New York, the US made a public recommitment to the road map as the only basis to a full and final settlement to this problem. There is a need to build up the capacity of the Palestinian Authority. One can contend that part of Israeli policy has been to give the impression to the wider world that there is no interlocutor for peace on the other side. However, the Palestinian Authority needs to be as proactive as possible. This weekend the Arab League conference must use the opportunity to confirm there is an interlocutor for peace on the other side, based on UN resolutions.
The Palestinian Authority should also take the opportunity to test the bona fides of its prospective partner as to whether the withdrawal from Gaza can be a building block to the full implementation of the road map. The international community, the EU in particular, has established criteria consistent with road map which will determine our support, or otherwise, for it. The direct engagement by the US Secretary of State and the US National Security Adviser with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority was an important development. It is hoped that this re-engagement will help overcome the stasis seen in the past due to the policy of isolation of Mr. Yasser Arafat.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.