Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 17 September 2014
1186. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on the actions of the Ambassador to the United Nations in relation to the Israeli bombing of Gaza; if he made any representations regarding possible human rights violations and war crimes in that conflict. [33411/14]
View answer1229. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason Ireland abstained on a vote at the UN Human Rights Council in relation to the need to establish a commission of inquiry into human rights violations in Gaza and the violations of international law by Israel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34843/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1186 and 1229 together.
On 23 July there was a vote at the UN Human Rights Council on a resolution entitled: “Ensuring respect for international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. Ireland, together with our EU partners, abstained on the resolution.
There has been much misinterpretation of this vote, and I have previously explained the context in a debate in Seanad Éireann on 31 July. I am glad now of the opportunity to clarify the matter also on the record of the Dáil.
It is important to stress two points. Firstly, all Irish diplomats, whether posted at the UN or elsewhere, act in accordance with instructions from the Minister or the Department, and it is invidious to attempt to personalise their actions. Secondly, Ireland did not oppose the resolution at the HRC, or the establishment of an investigation into breaches of international law in the recent conflict in and around Gaza.
On the day before the HRC vote, EU Foreign Ministers had met in Brussels and, following a lengthy discussion on Gaza, had agreed a set of Conclusions with regard to Gaza and the wider Middle East Peace Process which took substantial account of my own intervention in the debate.
At the Human Rights Council, Ireland made a very clear statement in the debate on the resolution, including the following:
“ Irish people have been appalled by the upsurge of violence in Gaza, and especially the very high and unacceptable level of civilian casualties. Ireland condemns both the firing of missiles from Gaza into Israel by Hamas and other militant groups, and the killing of
hundreds of civilians in military attacks by Israel on targets in Gaza which fail to respect the requirement under international law for any military action to be proportionate and
discriminate. It is clear to us that neither side is paying adequate regard to the cost of their actions on innocent civilians.”
Ireland further stated that it agreed that any breaches of international law should be investigated.
The EU group at the HRC, including Ireland, had however signalled a number of problems with the resolution, and had negotiated with the Palestinian delegation to try and resolve these. These reservations were not about the general thrust of the text, but about the precise terms of the resolution we were being asked to agree with – which is something we must always take into account.
The specific issues included: that the resolution should clearly condemn all relevant actions, including firing of rockets at Israeli civilian targets; that any investigation should cover all alleged breaches of international law, by either side; and that the existing UN mechanisms should be used to carry out the investigation, rather than setting up a new mechanism.
The last point related both to our desire to see a speedy and effective investigation – the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was already established on the ground in the West Bank, ready to go – and to a long standing concern which has arisen a number of times at the HRC of establishing new bodies to investigate specific issues rather than using the mechanisms which are already established for the purpose. We had expressed these concerns before, and the sponsors of the resolution were fully aware of them when they drafted their text.
Ireland and the EU group worked hard in negotiations to try and improve the resolution on these points. We hoped until a late point that these negotiations would result in a text that we could vote in favour of. Unfortunately this didn’t happen – at a very late stage the Palestinian delegation received new instructions which terminated the ongoing negotiations, and possible compromise solutions which had been discussed were taken off the table. This left us with little choice. The problems with the text were not resolved, and so the EU group took a common decision to abstain.
It is important to be aware that abstention on a resolution in an international forum is not the same as a ‘no’ vote, and nor is it simply ‘sitting on the fence’. Countries who abstain are, in most cases, signalling that they are not trying to block the resolution, but they have specific difficulties with its terms which prevents them supporting it. This was stated directly by the EU at the session, and was fully understood by other countries present. It was also always clear to us that the resolution was going to pass – it did not depend on Ireland’s vote.
EU members at the HRC try to vote together where possible, to maximise our influence there. In this case, had the EU not decided on a common abstention, the indications were that no other EU partner was considering a ‘yes’ vote, while perhaps four of the nine EU members might have voted ‘No’ instead. This would have resulted in a worse voting outcome for the resolution and in the longer term would have weakened the influence of the EU, which Ireland seeks to leverage, at the HRC.
It is also clear that, having negotiated at great length to try and achieve certain improvements, only to have the other side terminate negotiations, if we had then nonetheless proceeded to vote in favour of the unchanged text notwithstanding the unresolved problems, our own credibility in all future negotiations would have been seriously damaged.
Once the resolution was passed, as we knew it would be, Ireland made clear that we will fully support the Commission of Inquiry in fulfilling its mandate. This remains the case and I look forward to receiving and considering the report of the Commission in due course.
