Priority Questions
1. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will provide an update regarding the actions he has taken to progress the completion of the Haass talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15505/14]
View answerIt is most disappointing that there has not been a successful conclusion to the Haass talks, which concern issues of the utmost importance to the people of Northern Ireland and of all of this island. We need a satisfactory means of dealing with the contentious issues of parades, flags and contending with the past. Time is not on our side to reach a successful conclusion. The lack of a successful outcome will give further momentum to the very disappointing spate of dissident activity and the increase in the number of bombings that have unfortunately occurred recently in Northern Ireland.
The Government welcomes that the political talks on parades, flags and identity issues and dealing with the past have resumed following a break over the St. Patrick’s Day period. As the Tánaiste has said previously in this House, it was disappointing that the party leaders had not made more progress in their discussions before St. Patrick’s Day, following the substantial work done under the chairmanship of Dr. Richard Haass and Dr. Meghan O'Sullivan before the new year. It is regrettable that the Ulster Unionist Party, UUP, is not participating currently in these discussions which are focused on issues of genuine and great concern to so many people.
The Tánaiste met with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Monday of this week to discuss the talks and the support which both Governments are giving to the process. They are both firmly of the view that Northern Ireland urgently requires a new way forward on dealing with the past that can command public confidence. They agreed also that the early successful conclusion of the political talks represents the best opportunity to make progress across all three important areas of parades, flags and identity issues and dealing with the past. Maintaining the status quo in relation to these issues is not a feasible or satisfactory option for anyone. The Tánaiste has spoken recently with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and with the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP, and the Alliance Party. All have confirmed to him their commitment to reaching a deal. There is an expectation now that they will deliver. These are all difficult issues with the potential to destabilise political and civic life in Northern Ireland if left unresolved.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
As the Tánaiste said at the Alliance Party conference in Belfast last week, the Northern Ireland Executive parties can count on the full support of both Governments as they carry this work forward. Getting the frameworks for peace and reconciliation right and fully functioning is important for stability and security. It is vital also that greater priority be given to setting the right conditions for economic growth and job creation, especially for young people. We all have a common interest in that. The Government wants to see an early agreement as we believe it is in the best interests of Northern Ireland, and the Tánaiste will continue to engage closely with the British Government and the Northern Irish parties over the coming weeks towards that end.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome the particular phraseology he used towards the end of his contribution when he said there is an expectation of delivery. We hope that can be achieved. My one concern, which I have reiterated in this House on numerous occasions, is that there does not seem to be the urgency attached to these talks that there needs to be. We missed the end of year deadline. St. Patrick's week should have been another milestone to try to reach conclusions. We are now into the European and local elections phase. After the end of May we will be into the parading season. None of those times is conducive to making progress on some contentious political issues. It is time for both Governments to take a more hands-on approach to these very important issues.
We must remember that both sovereign Governments are co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement. We need to see progress on the issues concerning our entire island, be it the Downing Street Declaration, the Good Friday Agreement or the St. Andrews Agreement, all of which were driven very much by the leadership of both sovereign Governments. The issues to be concluded in the Haass talks are of extreme importance as well.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I can categorically assure him of the urgency and priority that is being given to the successful conclusion of these talks and negotiations. We are aware of the very difficult and dangerous backdrop to these discussions, to which the Deputy referred. We all know that since 2009 dissident and terrorist groups have now been responsible for the deaths of two British Army personnel, two PSNI officers and a member of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The ongoing threat posed by many of these groups is very dangerous. We are aware of the very positive backdrop that is to come from the State visit that is due to take place next week. I recounted in my earlier answer to the Deputy's question the level of engagement and contribution the Tánaiste has made to this issue in the past number of weeks alone through direct engagement with the leaders in Northern Ireland and direct engagement with the Government of the United Kingdom.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I want to reiterate my commendation of the work of the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Sinn Féin Party prior to the end of the year in making a genuine effort to reach agreement. It is most regrettable that the UUP has now withdrawn from those five-party talks. I believe that more urgency needs to be attached to this. If we have it in the back of our minds that progress cannot be made until after the European and local elections, then we will be into another season of marching with all its attendant problems. Could the minister of State give us a very clear commitment that the Government along with its co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, the British Government, will give these talks that extra momentum and give the process leadership to ensure that these contentious issues are dealt with? We do not want to have a weekend such as the one we had in Lurgan very recently or increased dissident activity. We had all hoped that this was gone from our island. That trouble caused by a very small minority in Northern Ireland cannot be allowed to fester.
The key line in my earlier answer is that there is an expectation that all parties that are involved in this must and should deliver. It is crucial that momentum is maintained to deliver a prompt conclusion to these vital negotiations. I also want to acknowledge the role that all parties are playing in this and to articulate my regret that the UUP has withdrawn. I have already made clear the huge level of commitment and priority the Government places on a prompt conclusion of these negotiations. As I said, the Tánaiste has already engaged directly with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and with the leaders of the key parties in Northern Ireland and is maintaining his engagement with the Secretary of State, Ms Villiers, in regard to these negotiations. It is vital we allow all those who were involved directly within the framework to continue their work to deliver a prompt conclusion to these negotiations while underpinning throughout all of this the very strong commitment of both Governments to seeing a prompt and successful conclusion to these negotiations to ensure the dangers of the past can be averted for the future and to ensure all communities in Northern Ireland have the safe and secure future that everyone in this House wants to see happen.
As Deputy Crowe is not present, Question No. 2 cannot be taken. We will proceed to Priority Question No. 3 in the name of Deputy Mick Wallace
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the basis for his assertion that the use of Shannon Airport by the US military is not in breach of Ireland's policy of neutrality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15684/14]
View answerThe Tánaiste has previously stated that he strongly supports neutrality and that it is a central element of Ireland's foreign policy. Given this clear commitment to the idea of neutrality, why does the Government continue to allow Shannon Airport to be used by the US military?
Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, which has been pursued by successive Governments, is characterised by non-participation in military alliances. This policy has been underpinned by a set of complementary values which includes the protection of human rights, support for development and the promotion of disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
Ireland’s policy of military neutrality has gone hand-in-hand with our belief that international engagement is critical to enhance co-operation and to reduce conflict in the world. Ireland has consistently sought to engage directly in the promotion of international peace and security through our bilateral contacts and multilateral efforts with the United Nations and the European Union. We have a long-standing and recognised record of participation in international crisis management, which is underpinned by our commitment to fulfil our obligation as members of the UN to provide assistance in any action which the Security Council takes in accordance with the United Nations Charter. This is founded on the basis that primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security rests with the UN Security Council.
Successive Governments have made overflight and landing facilities available at Shannon Airport to the United States for well over 50 years. These arrangements do not amount to any form of military alliance with the United States and are governed by strict conditions. These include stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and do not engage in intelligence gathering, and that the flights in question do not form any part of military exercises or operations. I therefore see no incompatibility between the use of Shannon Airport and our traditional policy of military neutrality.
In 2006 the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, said "not knowing is not good enough". He also said "Why has the Government not complied with the request from the Human Rights Commission to inspect the aircraft through Shannon?" I do not know how he can have that position when in opposition and have a different position when in power. Now we do not want to know if there is anything on the planes. It was interesting to hear what Shannonwatch said yesterday:
Recent disturbing revelations in relation to the behaviour of Garda management and the Minister for Justice give new significance to statements made by members of An Garda Síochána about instructions not to search suspected CIA rendition and US military aircraft at Shannon Airport.
Over the last eight years, Gardaí of various ranks have told members of Shannonwatch that an "instruction" or "policy decision" or "letter of advice" has existed in relation to the searching of these aircraft.
Can the Government clarify whether the Garda has been strictly instructed that under no circumstances are gardaí to search these planes even if they suspect that there are arms on board? How are we to know about that? No one in his or her right mind would take America's word for anything given its history. Wikileaks has strongly brought this to the fore. If we want to know whether Shannon is being used for military purposes, the dogs on the street know that we need to look, otherwise how can we possibly know?
I thank the Deputy for his question. I want to respond to two of the main questions he has put to me. On the first one regarding the allegations and claims that Irish airports have been used in some way for extraordinary rendition, I want to emphasise again to the House that the Government has on several occasions made it very clear to the United States Government that it would be illegal to transit prisoners for rendition purposes through Irish territory without the express permission of the Irish authorities, acting in accordance with Irish and international law. The United States authorities have made it very clear to this Government in response to that point that they have not done so and would not do so without seeking the permission of Irish authorities.
On the point the Deputy put to me regarding the inspection of airports, a system for dealing with requests for landing of military aircraft at Shannon Airport already is in place and already is fully implemented. It is kept under full review to make sure it is fully complied with. As already has been indicated to the Deputy, a practice is in place, which is in accordance with international practice, that foreign military aircraft passing through Ireland with the permission of the Government are not subject to routine searches or inspections. The principle of sovereign immunity applies automatically to foreign state or military aircraft, as it applies to our own.
The Minister of State should stop there and I will return to him.
However, I so do in making clear to the Deputy the point the Government has made in respect of the claim of extraordinary rendition and the assurances and commitments it has received in return.
Were a boat to land in west Cork and were the Garda to suspect there were drugs on board, would gardaí ask the person who owns it whether he had drugs on the boat or might they search it to ascertain for themselves whether there were drugs on board? The same point applies to the aeroplanes. One will not know whether the law is being upheld and whether America is doing what it states it is doing unless one takes a look.
Will the Government consider holding a referendum to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution? A recent Red C poll commissioned by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance last year shows overwhelming public support for neutrality, standing at 78%. Moreover, that figure rises to 85% for young people under the age of 34. The Government surely can agree that Ireland could demonstrate its commitment to neutrality by acceding to Chapter V of the Hague Convention of 1907. Members have discussed this matter a number of times but will the Government consider enshrining the aforementioned Hague Convention in order that Ireland is a signed-up member thereof? This would do away with a lot of the confusion. Ireland either will be a neutral country that takes a neutral position or it will not and will take sides. Sadly, it appears very much as though Ireland is taking sides.
I thank the Deputy for the question. In respect of neutrality, as the Deputy would expect I am a strong supporter of Ireland's neutrality. In my current role, I can discern the huge benefit it brings to Ireland to allow the Government to conduct its foreign policy in line with the values I believe Irish people to have. On the Deputy's point regarding a referendum, there are no such plans to hold a referendum. As the Deputy will be aware, the Hague Convention to which he referred includes a highly specific definition of what is a country's neutrality or what it should be. Ireland has a long-standing commitment to military neutrality and to the complementary values thereof, as I articulated in my earlier response to the Deputy. Moreover, the practice that is in place regarding the use of Ireland's airports by aircraft from other countries recognises this.
As to the point made by the Deputy regarding the arrival of a ship that potentially has drugs on board and the question asked as to what would be the response, the key response is that as the Deputy will be aware, if concerned individuals have concerns that the law and policy are being broken, they should provide evidence of that to An Garda Síochána.
4. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will provide an update on Ireland’s position regarding the escalating crisis in Ukraine; if he has held discussions with the Ukrainian or Russian ambassador on this topic; if he is satisfied with the actions being taken at a European Union level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15506/14]
View answerRussia's seizure and annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region has caused the deepest crisis in East-West relations since the Cold War, thereby leading the United States and the European Union to impose sanctions on Moscow. They have stated they will strengthen these sanctions if Russia moves beyond Crimea into eastern Ukraine. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, had the opportunity to engage on different occasions with the ambassadors of both Ukraine and Russia. The joint committee held vigorous debates and a strong exchange of views in respect of particular issues that have arisen as a result of the illegal activity by Russia. What was the outcome of the discussions, if any, the Tánaiste or the Minister of State had with representatives of both countries?
Ireland has strongly condemned Russian actions from the outset of this crisis. The annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol following the illegal referendum on 16 March is a flagrant violation of international law, including some of its most fundamental norms. For its part, the Ukrainian Government is to be commended on the measured response it has shown in the face of this provocation. There is an urgent need for Moscow to take steps to de-escalate the situation and this must include engaging in serious talks with the government in Kiev without further delay. In view of the seriousness of the situation, the Tánaiste called in the Russian ambassador on 3 March to express his deep concern over Russia’s actions and asked him to convey this to his authorities in Moscow. The ambassador also met a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 19 March and again on 31 March and was informed of the Government's firm view that the referendum in Crimea was illegal and that it did not accept the outcome. Senior officials in the Department also continue to have regular contact with the ambassador of Ukraine, who has expressed his government’s appreciation for Ireland’s support and solidarity.
At the EU level, the deepening crisis in Ukraine led to the convening of two extraordinary sessions of the Foreign Affairs Council. There also was an extraordinary Heads of State and Government meeting on 6 March, as well as the European Council meeting on 20 and 21 March, which had a comprehensive discussion on developments. At the latter meeting the member states and Ukraine signed the political provisions of the association agreement with Ukraine. In addition, the Union is providing financial assistance to the new government in Kiev worth up to €11 billion. At that meeting, the EU leaders also set out a three-stage framework, of which the Deputy is aware, on measures that have been taken or which could be taken, were the situation to destabilise further.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The first two phases, namely, suspension of talks on visa matters and a new agreement on trade, as well as travel restrictions and an asset freeze against Russian and Ukrainian officials, already have been implemented.
The conclusions adopted by the European Council on 20 and 21 March recalled that any further steps by the Russian Federation to destabilise the situation in Ukraine would entail far-reaching consequences for relations in a broad range of economic areas. In this respect, the European Council has tasked the Commission and the member states to prepare possible targeted measures. Ireland is engaged in the continuing discussions with our partners in Brussels on this matter.
The EU has a special responsibility for peace and stability in Europe. It will remain at the forefront of efforts to facilitate and engage in a meaningful dialogue involving Ukraine and Russia, including through the establishment of a multilateral mechanism, with a view to finding a political solution.
I will come back to the Minister of State.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have stated in this House previously, as has my party leader, Deputy Martin, that Fianna Fáil fully supports the Government's position in condemning the illegal actions by Russia. We believe the decision by the European Council to extend the list of persons subject to sanctions was a reasonable reaction. It is welcome that at least the European Union is working together on this issue. Moreover, the propaganda that has been put out by the Russian authorities and the Russian Government on a constant basis must be counteracted. The message again must be put across clearly that the referendum that was held was completely illegitimate. Are there further proposals by the European Union to have further meetings or discussions at Council of Ministers or Heads of Government and State level or with other international blocs such as with the United States, NATO or with whatever international organisation with which it believes it should be engaged on the concerns about the Russian build-up, as well as the concerns about possible action being taken in eastern Ukraine?
I thank the Deputy for his question. An informal meeting of foreign affairs Ministers will take place tomorrow and on Saturday morning. The main subject for discussion tomorrow is Ukraine and the situation that is taking place in the region. Shortly thereafter, within the next two weeks, there will be a meeting of the foreign affairs Ministers of the European Union at the Foreign Affairs Council, within which I again expect the situation in Ukraine, in Crimea and in the neighbouring region will be the subject and focus of discussion. All of this will take place within the framework that has already been identified. We are now in phase 2 of the framework, where measures against individuals have been put in place, as well as a broader set of measures pertaining to relations between Russia and individual member states and the European Union. I again emphasise it has been made clear that the situation will be reviewed were a further escalation of the situation to occur.
I thank the Minister of State. One of the most recent comments I have heard in this regard was that approximately 40,000 Russian soldiers were deployed on the Ukrainian border, which could pose a particular threat to southern and eastern Ukraine.
Further Russian intervention would be a historic mistake. We hope these difficult but important issues can be resolved without the need for further sanctions. We all know how trade sanctions will affect the tentative economic recovery worldwide. Decisions must be taken if someone rides roughshod over people's rights. We hope it will be possible to avoid moving to stage 3 sanctions. The EU must send a clear message that it will stand up for the rights of small states and of people to keep their territorial integrity without interference.
States have the right to have their borders protected by international law and their people have the right to make decisions in accordance with domestic and international law. It is in Ireland's national interests that those international laws and values are upheld and articulated. We have argued, and the EU has recognised, that the response to what is already a historic mistake and crisis should be careful and deliberate. The Deputy referred to some of the other consequences that could arise. We are aware of the loss of human life, the violation of international law, of the huge difficulty the state of Ukraine is in. I emphasise it is important that the state of Ukraine put in place an inclusive government in accordance with domestic and international law that recognises the rights of all groups and minorities in their own territory.
The next question is in the name of Deputy Crowe and as he is not present it cannot be taken.
