Foreign Conflicts

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 June 2013

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Questions (6, 31, 64)

Bernard Durkan

Question:

6. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which the international community continues to endeavour to make a positive intervention to secure peace in Syria; the extent of the efforts made by the EU-UN to achieve safety corridors, no-fly zones or safe havens with a view to giving some degree of protection to civilians who continue to be the victims in the course of the ongoing civil war; if there are specific plans to follow up on recent discussions at the G8 meeting in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30748/13]

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

31. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views regarding the decision of the EU not to renew the arms embargo on Syria; and if he will encourage his European counterparts not to send weapons to any side in the conflict. [30758/13]

Thomas P. Broughan

Question:

64. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has recently discussed the conflict in Syria with Prime Minister David Cameron or with other Heads of State from the member countries of the EU; and if he will report on any such discussions. [25465/13]

Oral answers (14 contributions)

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Joe Costello)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 31 and 64 together.

With the death toll in the Syrian crisis now estimated at more than 93,000 and an unprecedented humanitarian emergency affecting Syria and its neighbours, it is more urgent than ever that everything possible be done to de-escalate the crisis and to promote a political settlement. That is why Ireland and its EU partners fully support the US-Russian initiative to convene a Geneva II conference, building on the Geneva communiqué of June 2012, with a view to mapping out a genuine transition towards democracy in Syria. EU Foreign Ministers made it clear at the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 May that the Union will spare no effort in helping to create the appropriate conditions for a successful convening of the conference.

I also welcome the strong endorsement and political commitment to work for the earliest possible convening of the Geneva II conference which was contained in the communiqué adopted by G8 leaders at their meeting in Enniskillen on 17 and 18 June. I urge all parties involved to direct their actions towards ensuring that Geneva II takes place and that it succeeds in its goal of securing agreement among all Syrians on a power sharing executive to oversee transition and reform.

The Tánaiste has already expressed his regret that the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 May was unable to agree to renew the EU arms embargo against Syria. The Government remains firmly of the view that the provision of further arms and weapons is unlikely to assist international efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully. It is, however, important to underline that all 27 member states of the EU remain fully united in their desire to promote the earliest possible end to violence and a political resolution leading to transition in Syria. In the Council declaration that accompanied the Council decision on renewal of the sanctions package, it was noted that no member state intending to do so will proceed at this stage with the delivery of arms to Syria. The Council will also review its position before 1 August on the basis of a report from the High Representative on the developments related to the US-Russia initiative and on the engagement of the Syrian parties.

In relation to calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria, this would obviously necessitate broad international agreement and could only be authorised through a UN Security Council resolution specifically mandating such a step. Regrettably, the Security Council has not been able to agree any resolution on Syria since the conflict erupted in March 2011 and it appears most unlikely that the political will exists within the Council at present to reach agreement on such a proposal.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. How much consideration has been given at EU, UN or G8 level to the viability of establishing no-fly zones? Notwithstanding the experience of the western Balkans, to what extent have safe havens been considered with a view to protecting civilians? To what extent has the international community established a position on regime change in countries experiencing civil wars?

Deputy Joe Costello

The European Union did not consider that no-fly zones necessarily offered a way forward. In many cases, such zones could only be created after specific authorisation by a resolution of the UN Security Council. As I have indicated earlier, given that the Security Council has been unable to agree on any resolution in respect of this matter, it is unlikely that it would agree on a proposal to enforce no-fly zones.

In regard to safe havens in the Balkans, it is natural that displaced persons would first seek refuge in their own countries or, if that is not possible, cross borders to neighbouring countries. It would be quite a distance to the Balkans in that respect. Neighbouring countries have, however, been generous in accommodating refugees.

Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq have taken large numbers of refugees despite the fact that this is putting huge pressure on their own resources. These are very poor countries in their own right.

Deputy Seán Crowe

This conversation is giving me a feeling of déjà vu. We remember the situations in Iraq and Libya. When people spoke about chemical weapons in those cases, consideration was given to no-fly zones and invasions. The position in either country is far from a success story. Does the Minister of State agree that the suggestion of bringing more weaponry into this conflict will not help anyone in Syria or any of the other countries in the region?

Deputy Joe Costello

That is the issue. The Tánaiste has been arguing that point much more than I have, for example at the Foreign Affairs Council when it considered whether it would be appropriate to lift the arms embargo to allow the opposition to acquire some weapons. While member states agreed to look for a solution, they could not agree fully on the way forward. It was eventually decided to lift the arms embargo. Neither of the countries that were anxious to lift the embargo at the time - Britain and France - has actually supplied any weapons to date. It is very difficult, certainly from this country's point of view, to understand how the supply of weapons might increase the chance of peace. The opposition is very divided. Some of the more militant Islamic opposition groups, such as al-Nusra Front, have divided further. They have split again. The clear danger when one provides arms is that one has no indication of how those who get them intend to use them. On the other side of the equation, there is a split between the two great powers - the US and Russia. It is likely to be a tit-for-tat situation. The provision of arms is certainly unlikely to provide any solution.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I think the Tánaiste needs to be commended on taking the position that the embargo should not be lifted. Anyone who looks at history will see that it is pure madness to pour more arms into Syria. It is likely to cause more problems than it will solve. Two years of sanctions did nothing to sort out al-Assad, or bring him to the negotiating table. As it turns out, he seems to be more eager to go to the negotiating table now. Some of the western powers want the rebels to do likewise. Secularism in the area has been undermined by the western powers over the past 30 or 40 years. We have facilitated a civil war between Sunnis and Shias. The more western involvement in this conflict there is, the more hardship will be experienced by the peoples involved. Like the American backing for the Taliban in the 1990s, this seems to be based on the idea that "my enemy's enemy must be my friend". It could yet result in British or American forces fighting alongside al-Qaeda in Syria. The thought of it is just frightening. I encourage the Government to be strong in making the point that intervention in Syria would amount to madness.

Deputy Clare Daly

The Tánaiste has done well in arguing against the lifting of the embargo. I honestly think we could do a lot more. We tend to understate the influence we can have on the world stage. I think the examples of Libya and other countries show the damage that comes from taking sides in a civil war. Is it not the case that the peace talks are being held up by the American-backed rebels rather than the Assad regime? America is looking to arm the rebels in order to enhance their position at the negotiating table at a later stage. The lifting of the embargo will make the humanitarian disaster worse and will set back the objective of peace. If arms are travelling to Syria, can the Minister of State assure the House that Shannon Airport will not be used for that purpose? Can he assure us that checks will be carried out in that regard?

Deputy Joe Costello

On 27 May last, the Ministers agreed to extend the restrictive measures for 12 months but without the arms embargo, on which no further agreement could be reached. It was also agreed that the high representative will draw up a special report on political developments in advance of the Council meeting on 1 August next. That will give Ministers an opportunity to review the situation. It seems at this point that the Geneva II peace conference offers the only real prospect for any progress to be made. All of the steps that have been taken so far have been unsuccessful. As the Tánaiste indicated, it may not be possible for it to take place on 9 July, as was intended, because of Ramadan and for other reasons. One can read as much as one wishes into the positions the various superpowers are taking on one side or the other. For a long time, the US has been proposing that weapons be supplied. The EU has been very reluctant to get involved in that in any way. Britain and France have broken the agreement to that effect that was in place until recently. At the same time, they have agreed not to supply any arms until the matter is reviewed on 1 August.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I thank the Minister of State for his extensive and comprehensive reply. I compliment him and the Tánaiste on the extent to which they have committed themselves to peaceful intervention in the region. I note what the Minister of State said in his response about no-fly zones. Can he comment on the extent to which the international community has proposed the notion of safe havens - notwithstanding the experience in the western Balkans in an earlier generation - with a view to establishing such locations in this region or on its borders, and to which members of the civilian community might have recourse in the event of their human rights being violated or their lives being at risk?

Deputy Joe Costello

I am not sure of the extent to which consideration has been given to the western Balkans as a possible safe haven.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

No, I was not suggesting that. I mentioned the experience in the western Balkans as an example of the background to this suggestion.

Deputy Joe Costello

The areas on the borders of Syria are safe havens, in effect.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Okay.

Deputy Joe Costello

There is the Zaatari camp in Jordan, the camp in Turkey and the camp in Lebanon. A number of the neighbouring countries, most notably Jordan, have taken a large number of Syrian nationals into their communities. They have been located in people's homes, especially where there is a sort of racial connection. There has been a good response from the neighbouring countries that are under stress themselves. The United Nations is involved in all the camps on the borders. UNICEF and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement are also very much involved. All of these organisations are extremely active in all of these camps. They are seeking to engage internally in Syria as well at present. We must not forget the work of our own agencies. GOAL has received permission from Turkey to work there and across the border in Syria as a registered agency. Oxfam and UNICEF, with which we are very much related, are very active there as well.