Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he will have in advance of the EU-Latin American summit in Rio de Janeiro in June; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8210/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
John Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Shannon on 23 March 1999 with the Prime Minister of Russia, Mr. Primakov; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8760/99]
John Gormley
Ceist:4 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Prime Minister Primakov; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8918/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting last week with the Russian Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8999/99]
Gay Mitchell
Ceist:6 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Ireland by Russian Prime Minister Primakov. [8858/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together.
I will attend the EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit on 28 and 29 June. There are currently no plans for Heads of State and Government to hold preparatory meetings outside the framework of this summit. However, I expect to hold a number of bilateral meetings en marge of the summit and proposals for trade related visits to Mexico and Argentina are under consideration.
I met the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Primakov, with the Tánaiste at Shannon on 23 March. The Prime Minister was on his way to Washington, where he was scheduled to meet representatives of the IMF and the US Administration. As the House is aware, this visit was cancelled at the last moment, due to developments in Kosovo. During our meeting, Prime Minister Primakov set out Russia's position on Kosovo and I undertook to pass his views to the European Council, which I did in a letter to the President of the Council immediately after the meeting. I told Prime Minister Primakov of the concern of the Irish Government about the dangers of a new humanitarian catastrophe in the region.
We also discussed the outlook for the Middle East peace process. The Prime Minister told me about the meeting he had in Moscow with Prime Minister Netanyahu the day before we met and I informed him of my impressions from my visit there in January.
The Prime Minister invited me to visit Moscow in September with a business delegation and I agreed to do so. We decided that the Ireland-Russia Joint Intergovernmental Committee for Economic and Business Co-operation would meet before my visit. We decided that agreements on the prevention of drug trafficking and on fighting serious crime would be signed during my visit. We touched on the issue of beef exports and the Prime Minister assured me there would be no political obstacles put in the way of Russia buying beef from Ireland.
Did the Taoiseach convey to Prime Minister Primakov his opposition to NATO air strikes as a contribution to solving the ongoing problem in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia, to avoid what he described in his reply as "a humanitarian catastrophe"? Will he outline the Irish priorities for the EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit? Is there an Irish agenda distinct from the EU one?
Our discussion with Prime Minister Primakov involved him explaining his difficulties. I expressed my view that if one enters into military action it is difficult to end it and to achieve compromise. His view on this matter is well known, but at that time the strength of his view was not known, and it was opportune that we met the day before the European Council meeting because I was able to relay his views. At that stage he had spoken to US Vice-President Gore and he was able to inform me that bombing would take place – he was ahead of me and most people in that regard – and he was within half an hour of deciding not to visit the US. He said he would continue to make every effort he could, which he was doing yesterday, and I hope he continues to do that.
What view did the Taoiseach express to Mr. Primakov about the air strikes?
I expressed the view that military action could exacerbate the problem. He told me the decision had been made and he was aware bombing would take place later that evening.
Did Mr. Primakov ask the Taoiseach if he supported the strikes?
No. He knows we are not part of NATO or a member of the Security Council, which are making those decisions.
On the other matter, a group is working on this and the visit should be used to promote an Irish agenda. We have examined a number of matters. While it would not be suitable to have a trade delegation in Rio de Janeiro at the same time as the summit, we should use the session, the first of its kind, to follow an Irish agenda. I hope the group working on an agenda can devise one. Other countries are doing this and that is also my intention.
On the EU-Latin America meeting, does the Taoiseach see merit in creating an EU drugs enforcement agency to complement the US DEA? Will this come up for discussion at that summit? Does he intend to raise the drugs issue at that meeting and, if so, in what context?
On his meeting with Prime Minister Primakov, does the Taoiseach agree the reason it is increasingly difficult to stop the bombing in Yugoslavia is that there is no "plan B", that is, no alternatives are being put forward at present? Did he discuss possible alternative actions with the Russian Prime Minister? What are the alternatives to the bombing? If we could put forward alternatives there might be some hope of ending it.
In reply to the first matter, a key issue of the summit will be to get a better understanding of drugs matters. The EU Commission is drafting a document which I hope will be the basis of an agreement at the summit. No person outside the Commission has seen that document but drug enforcement and co-operation will be a large part of the agenda.
As I said in reply to Deputy Quinn, discussions with Mr. Primakov consisted mostly of listening to his views on what could be achieved. My view is that every war must end. The basis of compromise has been suggested. Discussions are taking place with a number of Heads of State with a view to making some progress. Because I have been with Prime Minister Blair for the past 48 hours I am well aware of those discussions. Every effort is being made to broker a compromise and to stop Mr. Milosevic's campaign of action in return for an understanding that the bombing campaign has failed.
Will the Taoiseach accept the view expressed by Mr. Primakov that the bombing of Yugoslavia was in breach of international law and that it would destabilise the region? Will he accept the bombing has been counterproductive in that it has strengthened the hand of Mr. Milosevic and provoked the humanitarian crisis? Is it preferable that the UN rather than NATO is part of this peace option?
I am getting into the case again about what the Security Council did or did not do. That argument has been well made. Kofi Annan, a person for whom I have tremendous respect, has a difficult job and he explained a few days ago the difficulties with Security Council resolutions when action is necessary to deal with humanitarian catastrophies. Recently I read a document on how many humanitarian catastrophies had happened before any bomb was dropped last week. The bombing may have brought things to a head but it did not start it. There was no bombing campaign at Racak when 45 people were blown away or in several of the other incidents. I do not subscribe to the view that the UN bombing started all of that.
I wish to enlighten the Taoiseach because yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, informed us the bombing had resulted in an increase in retaliatory attacks. Does the Taoiseach accept that assertion?
I read what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said this morning. Of course it has made the situation worse but it did not start it. I do not think we should get into that. These campaigns were going on all over the place for a long period. I have seen a list of the atrocities which occurred practically every day and ten times some days. The bombing campaign has increased the number of atrocities, but they have been taking place for a long period.
Will the Taoiseach confirm, as stated in the newspapers, that he was the last EU Prime Minister to meet Russian Prime Minister Primakov? Has he or the Minister for Foreign Affairs been in touch with Prime Minister Primakov since the meeting at Shannon? Given that Mr. Primakov has publicly stated he would try to intervene with Slobodan Milosevic and that the Taoiseach met Mr. Primakov, did he do anything to encourage the kind of negotiation that is required with Slobodan Milosevic to bring to an end what is happening there?
I have not been in touch with Mr. Primakov since our meeting at Shannon. Mr. Primakov has been in touch with all the key players directly as late as last night.
Are we using any of our diplomacy?
We are not required to do that. He has direct contact with the US President, Prime Minister Blair and other leaders. What he asked me to do was to ensure his views were put before the Presidency prior to the start of the meeting. I did that within about two hours of the end of our meeting. I also repeated those views in full at the European Council meeting.
If the Taoiseach accepts the bombing has made the situation worse, it makes sense for the Government to call on NATO, and for the Taoiseach to use his influence in whatever forum he can, to call on those people to stop the bombing. Given what he has said it seems to be the logical step.
We seem to be drifting back to yesterday's questions.
I am commenting on what the Taoiseach said.
These questions relate to the Russian Prime Minister.
Exactly. I am sure the Russian Prime Minister made known his views on—
Will the Deputy please ask a brief supplementary question?
Did Mr. Primakov make known his views on the UN? Is it his view that it would be preferable to have UN rather than NATO involvement? Is that also the Taoiseach's view?
If the UN Security Council had been able to take a unanimous decision, it would have been UN involvement, but that was not possible. That is why a decision was taken by NATO and allied forces. On the question of whether the bombing has made the position worse, bombing always makes things worse. However, it did not start the crisis because it has been going on for a long period. The debate we have had here in the past few days is useful. I am amazed the events at Racak and elsewhere in the past number of months did not tax our minds.
In view of the discussions the Taoiseach had with the Russian Prime Minister and Ireland's ability to express its view on issues of this kind, does the Taoiseach see merit in appointing an ambassador to NATO so that our views can be expressed directly to NATO and, if so, is it intended to do this in the near future?
No.
The Taoiseach conceded that we are now facing a humanitarian catastrophe. He accepted that the bombing has undoubtedly made the position worse. Bearing in mind the reports coming from the region as we speak that two or three neighbouring states face destabilisation – which will have consequences for the rest of Europe – rather than the paltry sum of £400,000 offered by way of assistance, the Minister of State, sitting behind the Taoiseach, who has £30 million to spend on a mega party to celebrate the millennium, should divert at least one-third of that money to avert a millennium crisis on this continent. Will he give serious consideration to making substantial resources available through Trócaire, Concern, Goal, etc. and to accepting refugees who will never be able to return to Kosovo? If we cannot participate in the tangible solution, can we participate in the humanitarian solution by way of substantial aid, and not £400,000 which is about half the price of one cruise missile?
Deputy Quinn is correct in saying there is a major refugee problem. While the international community hopes a resolution will lead to people returning, that will be unlikely for a large number of people as has been proved in the Balkans in the past decade. We have already indicated that this country will have to play its part. I do not think £400,000 will resolve the problem, but the Irish contribution is one of the largest. If there is an international effort, I would not rule out this country playing its part with refugees. We have always been good at that since the 1940s and the 1950s when we accepted Polish refugees and later Vietnamese. This issue is being examined by the UN, the International Red Cross and others. I indicated a few days ago that we would play our part.
We heard reports in the media this morning that the three countries in question, Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia, have indicated they cannot cope with the influx of refugees. We do not have to wait for an international lead, given that we have well equipped and respected humanitarian agencies. Will the Taoiseach undertake to contact those agencies to ascertain if we can provide effective assistance and to open our doors to refugees who cannot return because their homes have been burned. If we cannot be players on the political scene, we can be players on the humanitarian scene.
As I indicated, that will be done. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, has already spoken to the agencies. Ireland has a part to play and it should play it.
NATO is the only force capable of getting the attention of Mr. Milosevic and under the Partnership for Peace every neutral country has appointed an ambassador to NATO, who is usually also the ambassador to the Western European Union. Why is Ireland not proposing to make a similar appointment? This would ensure that we had the ear of NATO and could put our concerns directly to it. Is this another matter on which the Taoiseach will make a U-turn in the future?
Did Mr. Primakov indicate to the Taoiseach his intention to suspend Russia's membership of Partnership for Peace? Does this call into question Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace?
Mr. Primakov stated that President Yeltsin would suspend Russia's contacts with all agencies. Deputy Mitchell is aware of my views on movement with regard to Partnership for Peace.
The Taoiseach did not answer Deputy Mitchell's question.
He does not know how it works.