Other Questions.
42 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts with regard to the formation of EU battlegroups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13045/06]
View answerThe ambition of the EU to be able to respond quickly to emerging crises has been, and continues to be, a key objective of the development of the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP. An important aspect of ESDP is the development of a stand-by military rapid response capacity, in the form of battlegroups.
Almost all EU member states have already made a commitment to contribute to a specific battlegroup formation. Apart from Ireland, the only countries that have not done so are Denmark, which is in a special position due to its opt-out in this area, and Malta. Ireland has indicated to its EU partners a positive disposition to taking part in battlegroups. In this context, and as I have previously reported to the House in Parliamentary Questions Nos. 241 of 2 February 2005, 36 of 28 April 2005 and 45 of 2 June 2005, I met the Foreign Ministers of Sweden and Finland in January 2005 and the Foreign Minister of Austria in April 2005. In the course of those meetings, I discussed a range of issues, including possible Irish participation in battlegroups.
As the Deputy will be aware, the legal, operational and other issues surrounding participation have been considered by an interdepartmental working group, established by the Minister for Defence, which included representatives of my Department. The report of the working group has been considered by the Cabinet committee on European affairs and, informally, by the Government. Following on from this, more detailed discussions with other like-minded nations on a potential contribution by Ireland to a battlegroup have now commenced. A delegation consisting of representatives from the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces met their Swedish counterparts in Stockholm on 10 March to discuss possible participation by the Defence Forces in the Nordic battlegroup, which is due to be on stand-by during 2008. As the Minister for Defence has already outlined to the House, our representatives outlined Ireland's position in respect of battlegroup participation and international peacekeeping generally and gave a presentation on the capabilities Ireland could make available to a battlegroup.
This offer is now being considered by Sweden, which is the framework nation for the Nordic battlegroup, and its partners. Further consultations between the Defence Forces and the Swedish armed forces and between officials of the respective Departments are likely. I would expect these to conclude within the next few months. Any decision on a specific contribution to a battlegroup would be subject to formal Government approval.
Does the Minister agree that the concept of a battlegroup is that of one which is capable of responding effectively and rapidly to global crises such as genocide? The Minister for Defence attended a recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Committee at which he set out his plans, which were in line with the Minister's previous comments. Could the Minister calmly clarify certain matters which I find puzzling?
A battlegroup is designed to provide a rapid response to crises. As the Minister noted, Ireland will be part of a battlegroup which also includes Sweden. This battlegroup will consist of approximately 500 personnel and will be located somewhere in Europe where it will be ready to respond to a global crisis. In the event that a call is made to send the battlegroup to respond quickly to a crisis, Ireland will be unable to take part in the operation because it must obtain the approval of the Government and the Dáil and receive a mandate from the UN Security Council — the triple lock mechanism. This mandate could take between one and three months to obtain or may never be obtained. Does the Minister see the potential for major embarrassment for Ireland in such a scenario whereby it is revealed as being unable to respond as part of a battlegroup because it is paralysed by the triple lock? Could he explain the obvious contradiction between the definition of a battlegroup and the triple lock mechanism to which we are tied?
It is true that we wish to participate in this battlegroup, largely because we have been exhorted to do so by the UN, particularly by the Secretary General, Kofi Annan. He has requested that Ireland does so as one of the countries in the UN infrastructure with the highest proportion of UN peacekeeping forces per head of population currently taking part in operations in difficult and dangerous parts of the world. However, this Government is adamant that there must be UN authorisation for the participation of our troops in any peacekeeping force and I believe our position is held by most Irish people. I accept that this may cause some difficulties in respect of particular requests for us to participate in a battlegroup operation but it is the current position of this Government and I cannot envisage any change in this policy.
I am not making a political point but Deputy Allen is saying one thing while the two parties with which his party proposes to enter Government hold completely different views in respect of this matter. The Government is adamant that we must acquire the approval of the Government and the Dáil and UN authorisation for Ireland's participation in any battlegroup operation. This is because of the discomfort Irish people feel about Irish troops engaging in conflicts without UN authorisation. The Irish people welcome and are proud of the participation of Irish troops in UN peacekeeping operations with UN authorisation. We are clear that any participation by Irish troops in battlegroup operations or any amending legislation we bring forward in order to participate in battlegroups will retain the concept of the triple lock. This may cause us difficulty in respect of particular events, although, hopefully, this will not occur. If it does, other countries which do not have this requirement must step in. We, however, have this requirement.
I asked the question because there is an obvious contradiction in respect of this issue. I am not attempting to make a political point.
No contradiction exists.
It is a matter of common sense. The Minister spoke about the view of the Irish people on the matter but this has never been tested. If tested, it would be revealed that the Irish people believe that Irish foreign policy should not be dictated by countries like China, which would have the power to veto any Irish initiative. This is the net effect of the triple lock. A major contradiction and potential source of embarrassment for Ireland exist in this regard so we must think the matter through. We should not take for granted that we know the view of the people on this matter when it has never been tested. From listening to people, I believe that they do not want our foreign policy to be dictated by China and other permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
Am I not entitled to reply?
There is a time factor at play.
The only contradiction that exists——
I was about to suggest to the Minister that his final reply be succinct because Deputy Gormley wishes to speak.
I will be brief. Does the Minister still agree that the title of the group is unfortunate? I understand he made this point originally. If such groups had been called human rights protection groups, which would reflect the move away from humanitarian intervention and towards humanitarian protection in UN thinking, it would provide an entirely different view. Is it not the case that different humanitarian protection groups could reply and respond with different speeds, given their constitutional context? When the time comes to legislate to accommodate any participation, could the Minister acknowledge this in, possibly, the title of such groups?
The Minister correctly pointed out that my party supports the triple lock. Has Ireland's participation in the battlegroups given rise to additional pressure on it to abandon the triple lock? Is the triple lock regarded as an impediment to full participation in the battlegroups?
It has not led to any pressure on us in respect of our participation in battlegroups. Our position is quite clear. A number of other countries which also require UN authorisation to participate, among them, Finland, and to a certain extent, Austria, have eased this requirement.
I agree with the point made by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. We found grave fault with the term "battlegroup". We would rather use the term "rapid reaction in relation to humanitarian", which is the terminology used by the UN. Irrespective of what we say or do in respect of our legislation, we raised this matter with many of our EU colleagues. As a result of certain issues relating to the military definition of the type of force which is being put together, it has become clear that "battlegroup" is the common term used throughout the EU.
Deputy Allen is mistaken in arguing that there is a contradiction. Our position is quite clear on the requirement imposed by the triple lock. The only contradiction in this debate is the position held by Deputy Allen's party and the other two putative parties in the alternative Government. These three parties should agree on a common position before they form an alliance.
43 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views of the Iraqi conflict on the third anniversary of the invasion of that country; the discussions to which the Government has been party to which have sought to clarify the prospects for the future of Iraq as well as the ongoing occupation of the country by coalition troops; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13123/06]
View answer48 Mr. McEntee asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has held discussions with his EU counterparts with regard to the alleged fraudulent handling of Iraqi money set aside for reconstruction work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13050/06]
View answer49 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent meeting with Iraq’s newly-appointed ambassador to Ireland, Dr. Salah Al-Shaikhly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13096/06]
View answer94 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the security situation in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13006/06]
View answer97 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the security situation in Iraq; if his attention has been drawn to UN concerns with regard to the safety of Palestinians living in that State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13025/06]
View answer109 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he will take to ensure a UN investigation into alleged misappropriation of Iraqi money during reconstruction works in the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13039/06]
View answer112 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has expressed the Government’s concern regarding atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq to the United States Government; his views on whether the coalition should withdraw troops from Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13091/06]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 43, 48, 49, 94, 97, 109 and 112 together.
Regarding the general political and security situation in Iraq and the allegations of the misappropriation of funds for reconstruction, I refer the Deputies to my previous replies to two Priority Questions. Despite very real progress in the establishment of democratic political institutions in Iraq, the Government and our partners in the EU are seriously concerned about the continuing violence in the country and the increased threat of civil strife. The formation of a new, broadly based Iraqi Government following the democratic elections held in December is now an urgent priority. The EU is determined to continue to support the Iraqi Government and people as they work to reconstruct their political and economic systems and society following years of dictatorship and war.
I would like to address a number of specific points raised by Deputies in these questions. It is important to recognise that the status of the US-led coalition in Iraq changed in June 2004. The international forces are now there under a UN mandate and at the invitation of the elected Iraqi Government. As recently as November 2005 the Security Council unanimously extended that mandate until the end of 2006. I look forward to the day when the Government of Iraq decides it has the resources and capacity to provide security for its citizens without outside help. Regrettably, that day has not yet arrived.
I met the new Iraqi ambassador to Ireland, Dr. Salah Al-Shaikhly, when he presented his credentials to President McAleese on 21 March. I was pleased to welcome him as the first Iraqi ambassador accredited to Ireland in more than 15 years. We had a useful discussion on the situation in Iraq and the prospects for progress. I assured him of the deep sympathy in Ireland for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Dr. Al-Shaikhly was frank about the difficulties facing Iraq at present but was anxious to emphasise that much of the country was largely free of the violence reported daily in the media. He also said that Iraq continues to need military assistance from international forces while looking forward to the day when the Iraqi authorities could assume full responsibility for security. Deputies will wish to be aware that I also underlined the great importance the Government and her family attach to the Iraqi authorities finding and bringing to justice the killers of Mrs. Margaret Hassan and locating her remains. The ambassador assured me that he would do everything he could to ensure progress on this tragic case.
I am aware of reports, to which Deputy Allen referred, concerning the situation of Palestinian refugees in Iraq, in particular the small group of refugees that left a camp near Baghdad and attempted unsuccessfully to cross into Jordan. Unfortunately, it is the case that increasing sectarian strife has raised the sense of threat felt by minority groups such as Palestinians, Turkomans and members of the different Iraqi Christian communities. The Government supports the statement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who urged the Iraqi Government, despite all the difficulties, to fulfil its obligations to protect refugees in its territory. Most of the Palestinians in question have been in Iraq for decades. Indeed, many of them were born in Iraq and I would agree with the approach of the UNHCR in asking the Iraqi authorities to expedite the process of granting them legal residency within the country as the best means of putting their status on a firmer footing. I would also agree with the UNHCR that the area of western Iraq near the Jordanian border is considerably more dangerous than the camps where they had been based.
I am of course concerned by reports alleging excessive use of force by international forces in Iraq. The Government has clearly stated its view numerous times that any use of force in civilian areas should be kept to a minimum and every effort must be made to avoid civilian casualties. The US authorities are fully aware of the Government's views and our specific concerns about incidents such as those at Abu Ghraib prison. At this time, the greatest threat to the Iraqi people comes from armed groups that are attempting to foment large scale civil strife and chaos through gun and bomb attacks on innocent men, women and children going about their daily lives. No one can excuse the use of force from whatever source directed against the civilian population. It is our duty at this stage to give our full support to those courageous Iraqis who are working in very difficult circumstances to create a new, united, democratic and prosperous Iraq following years in which their country's potential has been sapped by dictatorship and war.
We have discussed some of these issues through other Priority Questions but I will put them to the Minister as follows: The current head of security of the interim Iraqi Government suggests that it is in charge of approximately 30% of the country. More than 80% of all people polled in Iraq are in agreement that it would be the best outcome if foreign occupational forces left the country. At the same time, there is the issue of how to create security. Has the future federal structure of Iraq been discussed at the level of the European Council of Ministers? I previously put it to the Minister that the talks taking place between the United States and Iran, for example, is an attempt to determine if an agreement with the Shi'ite community would enable a withdrawal of US troops in the short term. However, this would inevitably lead to the exclusion of Sunni groups. We have heard nothing from any European Minister regarding the future of Iraq's Kurdish areas. Does all of this mean the likelihood of a break up of Iraq being the only means by which a withdrawal of foreign troops can be managed?
The Minister would find it difficult in international law to suggest that the nature of a country's occupation, originally without a mandate, could be changed even with a Security Council resolution. For example, does this mean that the new force involved in the task of reconstruction is now bound by all international conventions, including the Geneva Convention, in its relations and responsibilities to the civilian population? If so, why did Dr. Condoleezza Rice say that thousands of mistakes have been made in Iraq?
To the best of my knowledge, there have been no discussions with my officials on the structure, federal or otherwise, of the Iraqi Government. As I said in previous replies, the EU is adamant that the Government's formation is entirely a matter for the Iraqi people and that the Administration to be formed must be as broadly based as possible. All efforts should be made in that area.
As the Deputy knows, the UN mandate is sometimes misunderstood in terms of the presence of the multinational force currently in Iraq. On 8 November 2005, the UN Security Council unanimously mandated for the first time the presence of the international force to continue until 2006 or any earlier period. While it does not currently appear as though it will leave, troops must comply with all international laws and standards on human rights.
It is a fig leaf to an imperialistic occupation.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
