European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the European Council in Brussels on 20 and 21 March last. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Minister of State for European affairs, Deputy Roche. The conclusions agreed by the European Council have been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The meeting was productive. We built on the work of the past three years of economic reform and re-committed all member states to achieving the European Union's ambitious ten-year Lisbon agenda.

The developments relating to Iraq are currently dominating the world agenda. In light of global political tensions, the European Council focused its attention on the issue of Iraq during the Council. I will be returning to this issue later in my statement.

We were all agreed that it is at such times as this that the economic and social reforms agreed at Lisbon in 2000 become vital. The current economic downturn makes it more essential to increase the capacities of our economies to grow and prosper. Moreover, an ability to tackle our common economic challenges together will buttress the public's confidence in the European Union's ability to act decisively and in a united fashion. This confidence has been shaken by the divisions within the EU on Iraq.

In advance, I wrote to Prime Minister Simitis outlining Ireland's priorities for the European Council. These included employment, regulatory reform, research and development, social cohesion and sustainable development. I also issued a joint letter and paper with Prime Minister Balkenende of the Netherlands, seeking greater action throughout Europe in relation to the internal market for commercial services. Furthermore, in a joint letter with Prime Minister Persson of Sweden I underlined the role and value of the SME sector in contributing to sustainable economic development.

The Council meeting commenced with an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox. Unfortunately, pressing parliamentary business at home prevented me from attending this part of the Council. I understand that Mr. Cox, with whom I had a brief meeting, confirmed that the European Parliament is fully playing its part in the Lisbon reform agenda. In particular, the Parliament remains on track in its legislative contribution and has pushed forward its own reform process.

The Lisbon agenda is not about making dramatic breakthroughs at European Council meetings. We are now into the fourth year of what is a ten-year project. The Lisbon agenda is the framework within which we in Ireland and European Union citizens everywhere will ensure our future prosperity and achieve a sustainable and fair quality of life for all. These are the bread and butter issues of the European Union. They are important for every citizen and every community here in Ireland and throughout the Union.

We reviewed progress on the Lisbon agenda, discussed the key issues and set priorities for future work. Since we agreed the Lisbon agenda three years ago, we have made significant progress. Five million new jobs have been created in the EU. Unemployment has also declined by two million. Other areas in which we have obtained results include opening up energy markets, creating a single European sky, putting in place an integrated Europe-wide financial market, agreeing a community patent and an agreement on the taxation of energy. However, the European Council recognised that much more still needs to be done. European leaders have renewed their commitment to pursue sound macro-economic policies to restore confidence and economic growth.

This year provides an opportunity to use the streamlined policy co-ordination instruments – the broad economic policy guidelines, the employment guidelines and the internal market strategy – and give them a new three-year perspective. By synchronising these instruments the European Council will be in a better position to review and adjust its policies as a whole. Improving the employment position is central to the Lisbon strategy. The new three-year employment guidelines, which are to be endorsed at the June European Council, will provide a basis for a simplified and more effective employment strategy. In addition, the European Council invited the Commission to establish a European employment task force, which will report in time for the 2004 spring European Council. I am confident this task force will give added momentum to the employment strategy by rapidly identifying practical measures to increase the European Union's employment levels. I welcome the nomination of Mr. Wim Kok to head this task force. I have known Wim, both as Minister and Prime Minister, for many years and I look forward to working with him again.

We agreed that competitiveness must once again be placed centre stage. In particular, we highlighted the horizontal role of the new Competitiveness Council in enhancing competitiveness and growth in an integrated way across all of its strands. The Council's work will complement the work done by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council to ensure that we deliver economic reform. The European Council meeting was also important for people engaged in small business, the backbone of our economic activity. In this context we invited the Commission to present a European entrepreneurship action plan before the 2004 spring European Council. This will pay special attention to making new business start-ups quicker and easier, as well as facilitating access to low-cost finance. One of the areas in which we called for special attention was that of regulatory reform. We need to reduce administrative burdens, have better consultation procedures and simplify existing regulations.

On the social agenda, the European Council underlined the importance of solidarity and social cohesion. We reiterated the importance of the interaction between employment, good economic performance, education and social protection policies. We welcomed the joint Council-Commission reports presented on pensions and on health care and care for the elderly. We called on member states to ensure the implementation of further reforms of pension systems, including increasing employment opportunities for older people. The European Council also invited member states, in their new national action plans for social inclusion – to be presented by July next – to set appropriate national targets for significantly reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion.

In the research and development area, we stressed that the momentum behind the Euro pean area of research and innovation and the information society must be maintained. The European Council urged member states to take concrete action to promote increased business investment in research and development, moving towards the ambitious objective set at Barcelona last year of approaching 3% of GDP. We also called for organisations to avail of the full potential of the sixth research framework programme. In particular, the participation of SMEs in research and development must be enhanced.

The European Council renewed its commitment to stronger cohesion across the Union and its leadership in promoting sustainable development. The European Council invited member states to accelerate progress towards meeting the Kyoto protocol targets, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the increase in the share of renewable energy. It noted the important role of environmental technologies in delivering the twin environmental and competitiveness goals. The Council also considered maritime safety and called for a comprehensive response on maritime safety in the light of the Prestige accident. Unfortunately we were not able to agree a tax package due to difficulties in relation to milk quotas raised by Italy.

The European Council has agreed to meet shortly with President Giscard d'Estaing to discuss the ongoing work of the Convention on the Future of Europe. This meeting is likely to take place in Athens on 16 April next, to coincide with the signing of the treaties of accession. As I signalled at the start of this statement, international developments dominated much of the agenda at this European Council.

We are now faced with the beginning of military conflict in Iraq. Our shared hope was that the conflict would end with the minimum suffering and loss of human life. Rather than dwelling on the well-known differences of our partners, we agreed on a forward-looking approach. The EU is committed to the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political stability of Iraq. We respect the rights of the people of Iraq, including all persons belonging to minorities.

We are all agreed that the UN must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis. We called on the Security Council to give the United Nations a strong mandate, particularly as regards co-ordinating assistance once the conflict in Iraq is over. The European Council has agreed that the EU will be actively involved in addressing the major humanitarian needs that will arise from the conflict. The EU supports UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's proposals to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. The European Council invites the Commission and EU High Representative Javier Solana to explore the means by which the EU can help the people of Iraq to live in freedom, dignity and prosperity. An Iraq under a representative government, at peace with its neighbours, is our common objective.

We also discussed the implications of the current crisis for the Middle East region. The EU will actively support regional stability. We are calling on all countries in the region to refrain from actions that could lead to further instability. The importance of progress in the Middle East peace process was underlined. We agreed on the importance of the immediate publication and implementation of the Quartet road map, which has been prepared by the UN, the US, the EU and Russia. We reiterated the importance of dialogue and co-operation with the Arab and Islamic worlds to underline that this is not a clash of civilisations. We also agreed on the need to work for a comprehensive multilateral policy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Ireland has a long tradition and expertise in this area, and we will actively contribute to this work in the period ahead.

The European Council gave particular attention to the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and adopted conclusions on the matter. There is a consensus among European leaders that the crisis in Iraq makes it more than ever imperative that this long-standing problem be addressed. Europe remains committed to the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security on the basis of the 1967 borders. President Bush has announced that he wishes to see the Quartet road map for a Palestinian state presented to the parties after the confirmation of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas. This announcement was welcomed by the Council. I understand that the new Palestinian cabinet will be presented to the Palestinian legislative council in about three weeks. Implementation of the road map will not be easy and will require parallel progress in the political, economic and security fields. Israel's policy of illegal settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute a significant obstacle to peace. The Council emphasised this and called for a reversal of Israeli policy.

The European Council regretted the failure to reach agreement on a comprehensive settlement on the issue of Cyprus. It supported the continuation of the Secretary General's mission and negotiations on the basis of his proposals. It urged all parties concerned to work for a settlement of the Cyprus problem and in particular called on the Turkish Cypriot leadership to reconsider its position. The Republic of Cyprus will proceed to sign its treaty of accession to the European Union next month. I regret that this will not be with a view to the accession next year of a united Cyprus. The Council also discussed other items on the international agenda, including the western Balkans and Korea.

To conclude on an economic note, we made significant progress at the European Council in Brussels. The Lisbon agenda touches the lives of European citizens in a real and material way. The outcome of the Brussels Council clearly demonstrates the importance of pressing ahead, both at EU and at national level, with the reforms needed to restore confidence and stability in our economies. Especially at this time, when there is a clear concern that the process of economic reform in Europe may be losing momentum, it is even more urgent that we press on with the Lisbon goal. The Lisbon agenda will be central to our Presidency of the EU next year. I am determined to work to ensure that the reforms first set out at Lisbon are advanced.

I intend that our own objectives for next year's spring European Council will be drawn from a number of critically important areas – creating and sustaining increased employment, making Europe more competitive, fostering greater social cohesion, making progress on sustainable development and consolidating all of the experience and good practice by member states in applying the Lisbon strategy over the past four years.

While the recent divisions within the EU on the issue of Iraq have been most unwelcome, last week's European Council demonstrated that even at times of deep division on a particular issue, the European Union is both able and willing to address the broader agenda. It is at times like this that the real value of the European Union can be seen. The Union provides a space and a structure where national disagreements can be mediated and placed in perspective. It is a stabilising force in Europe and in the world. It is in all our interests that it continues to be successful, as it has been for the past half century.

Mr. Kenny

I wish to share my time with Deputy Gay Mitchell.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach seems to have given a broader report than was reported in most of the media, which reflected on the European summit as being a meeting of glacial quality with people standing around in various corners not talking to each other as a consequence of the Iraqi situation. I was struck by two quotations from some time ago that I came across. When addressing the League of Nations in 1936, Eamon de Valera said:

Peace is dependent upon the will of great states. All the small states can do is resolutely to determine that they will not become tools of any great power and that they will resist every attempt to force them into a war against their will.

Speaking in this House in 1946, he said, "Small nations have a particular reason for wishing to have security maintained by combined or collective effort."

We had a stringent debate here last week on the business of Ireland offering facilities to US military aeroplanes passing through en route to the Gulf region. The collapse and failure of the European Union to agree a position on this speak of a failure of diplomacy in one sense. At a different level the fact that the United Nations failed to get agreement for a second resolution should not mean that the United Nations should become extinct or be cast aside.

For the past six to nine months the European Union failed to achieve a common approach to the Iraqi problem. That has now caused a serious crisis within the Union. The current rift between France and Britain is as great as it was for many years, which must be a cause of concern for European leaders. The fact that Germany and France have a division in so far as NATO is concerned also speaks for itself.

While the Minister for Foreign Affairs speaks of military neutrality and others will argue for political neutrality and the morality of neutrality, as a small country now defenceless, we now find ourselves in a position where for better or worse the United Nations Security Council is split, NATO is divided and Europe fractured. Given our traditional role as a small heretofore neutral country, there should be an emphasis by the Government on trying to put together a common European approach and speaking with a common European voice on the crisis with which we are now faced.

The Security Council and other United Nations structures set up after the Second World War were based upon a world order which was very different. For instance India, an English speaking democracy, with a population of approximately 1.2 billion does not sit on the Security Council, nor does Brazil or South Africa, except on a rota basis. France, as an allied nation in the Second World War, has a permanent place. The issue of these matters needs to be addressed in terms of how Europe views its foreign and security policy and its defence entity. This has become more prominent in recent times with Germany, France and Belgium calling for views on it. For many years Deputy Gay Mitchell has been proposing the concept of a common defence entity in which Ireland would be a vigorous participant in putting it together. This needs to be considered, given where we are today.

Not only should the European Union speak with a single voice in terms of its foreign and defence policy, it should also make a very strong case that the United Nations should have an overseeing role in the physical and political reconstruction of Iraq. This should not be led by an agenda by the United States alone or with one or two other countries.

I am struck by what the Taoiseach said about the quartet and the road map. Although I am not an expert in international law, it appears that 85% or 90% of the problems of Islamic countries seem to stem from the central crisis of the Israeli and Palestinian problem. The view that I get as a political figurehead, if one likes, is that were this to be sorted out, a great percentage of the controversy and difficulty people living in those countries have towards western countries would dissolve. In his capacity as a Head of Government in the European Union the Taoiseach should press for an analysis to try to bring a solution to this problem that has existed since 1948.

I was happy to hear the Taoiseach's words about the humanitarian effort to be put in by Ireland as part of the European Union. Obviously, there is an unfolding catastrophe in Iraq. I would have preferred if the United Nations had allowed Dr. Blix to complete his report one way or another and then decide on the unanimity or otherwise of another resolution for multilateral action to sort it out.

The Taoiseach stated the Council also considered maritime safety on which it called for a comprehensive response. The accident involving the Prestige was genuine as was the one involving the Tricolour. Europe should have a really effective maritime approach. If either of those ships had been carrying biological or nuclear weapons for terrorist activities, there would have been the most serious consequences. Given the expanse of sea we have, there should be increased focus on this.

There should be a concentration on unifying our political voice within the European Union. The United Nations should not become extinct. Europe should have a very strong voice in ensuring this. It should oversee in a really effective way the political and physical reconstruction if Iraq when the war is over. As Deputy Rabbitte pointed out, $68 billion for military funding and $8 billion for humanitarian aid speaks for itself. The idea appears to be to flatten and build it up again. When the Taoiseach meets the leaders next week, he should bring the humanitarian issue right to the top as this is an unfolding catastrophe.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am grateful to Deputy Kenny for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I was very struck by the Taoiseach's comment that the president of the Convention would come to a special meeting of the European Council at Athens in April. From the cold handshakes and the distance between participants at the European Council meeting it is clear that considerable patching up needs to be done. There is a long way to go to improve relations, not just within the European Union but also between the European Union's existing states and the applicant states and between some European Union member states and the United States. There is much upset and division as a result of positions taken on Iraq. The European Council meeting was not as productive as previous European Council meetings because of the diversion into this area.

From all that has happened it seems the ambitions of the Convention on the Future of Europe to present a draft constitutional treaty for perhaps 50 years – if it was ever a reality – are now dead. In replying to the debate, the Minister might deal with this issue. Further to the point made by Deputy Kenny, if there is to be a constitutional treaty for 30 or 50 years, the question of common defence has to be addressed.

In this House we have come to expect that foreign policy is dealt with in a very indifferent way – an Alice in Wonderland way as stated by Deputy Rabbitte, with words meaning whatever the Taoiseach says they mean. We need to be more clear about issues in this House. If we want to see a European Union defence architecture come about which suits our needs and wishes, we should be one of the architects proposing the entity we want. We can bury our heads in the sand, just as we did for the Iraqi war when the House had gone into recess and the Taoiseach indicated his true thoughts in an interview in Washington, or we can try to influence the agenda. If a European Union identity evolves, either on a treaty or other basis, when others will join it will be similar to those who will join EMU – it will be on the basis of rules made by others. It is time this House debated the need for a proper European Union defence entity. I have called for this debate for a long time. I hope the Taoiseach will take the opportunity to speak to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing when he is here in the coming days. I hope Ireland will take the opportunity to put across its views at the European Council meeting in Athens.

I note that part of the Presidency conclusions state, "The UN must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis." Can we not admit that the first casualty of this war has not been truth; it has been the United Nations? No matter what the European Council puts into its conclusions, it needs something much stronger than wording such as this to repair the damage done to the collective security afforded by the UN.

The conclusions continue, "We urgently need to address the major humanitarian needs that will arise from the conflict." I fully agree with this. It was clear long before now that there was going to be a conflict in Iraq. I asked in this House that the European Union put in place a proactive plan to bring humanitarian assistance to Iraq after the departure of Saddam Hussein. A significant part of the EU development aid budget goes unspent. We should now be trying to direct this towards humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

The conclusions also state, "We want to effectively contribute to the conditions allowing all Iraqis to live in freedom, dignity and prosperity under a representative government." I am sure this House would echo this sentiment and I hope to see it come about. It went on to state, "The Council invites the Commission and the High Representative to explore the means by which the EU might help the Iraqi people to achieve these objectives." Why is this invitation only being issued now? The Americans put their plans for a post-Saddam Iraq in place months ago. They placed advertisements in newspapers to which friends of that Administration were able to reply. The European Union should have been doing this long before now. It should not be left to the European Council to invite the Commission to do this as late as 20 March.

Another part of the conclusions state the Council, "will continue to work actively towards the reinvigoration of the Middle East Peace Process." As Deputy Kenny put it, this is something that needs to gain momentum. I saw the Taoiseach nodding in agreement as Deputy Kenny said this. We hope the Taoiseach and his colleagues will put every effort into ensuring this momentum is gained. I note that 2005 is now being spoken of. While the date is not too far away, it should not be forgotten, irrespective of what happens in Iraq.

I was taken aback to see the conclusions state, "In the international field, we reiterate our commitment to the fundamental role of the United Nations in the international system and to the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and stability." What is being reiterated? Is this the Council that has Britain, France and Germany in it? At least Britain made some effort. This looks like fiction emanating from the European Council.

The conclusions also talk about common foreign and security policy and European security and defence. I hope the Taoiseach will take account of the need to bring the issues into the open by having a debate on this. While we may agree or disagree, let us have a debate on the need for a common defence within the EU.

Mr. Rabbitte

Formally, last week's European Council meeting was the third in the series of annual spring summits to discuss progress on the so-called Lisbon agenda – the European Union's ten-year plan for economic and social renewal initiated at Lisbon in March 2000. The express purpose of the plan is to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive economy in the world. In reality, the formal Council agenda was overshadowed by the US-led war against Iraq and the divisions within the Union in respect of it. The post summit communiqué might suggest otherwise, with its paragraph after paragraph of turgid economic commentary on the Lisbon agenda and passing reference at the end to Iraq.

However, the real issues were Iraq and the division within the Union arising from the war. The focus of the summit was Iraq and there is little point concerning ourselves to any extent with what the Heads of Government had to say about the Lisbon agenda, since little time was spent at the summit itself around these issues. This is not to imply in any way that the Lisbon agenda issues are not important. Indeed it was one of the small tragedies of the current climate that so little time was devoted to issues that will determine all our futures. The issues of growth, prosperity and jobs, social cohesion, innovation and entrepreneurship, are all vital. That there was no time to make any real progress on these areas has its own implications for Europe's short to medium-term future.

As the Heads of Government gathered last Thursday in Brussels the External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, addressing the European Parliament meeting in extraordinary plenary session on Iraq, stated:

The challenge that we will face in the coming weeks and months, goes far beyond what Winston Churchill once called "the thankless deserts of Mesopotamia." I think we face a very clear choice in the coming months. Are we to go back to the way the world was run in the 19th century, a world of rival national sovereignties and balances of power, or do we try to rebuild the institutions and habits of global governance which have been so painfully constructed in the last half century? That is the clear choice that is going to face us. I know which side of the argument I come down on.

In drawing comparison with the 19th century system of imperialism, sovereign rivalry and shifting alliances and dominated by the British Empire, I do not think that Chris Patten, last Governor of Hong Kong, exaggerates the scale of the current crisis. I also know which side of the divide I come down on. Unlike the Government, I am on the same side as Commissioner Patten, the side that supports "the institutions and habits of global governance . . . so painfully constructed in the last half century."

I do not intend a replay of last week's debate on the war but the war cannot be avoided in this debate and we are, globally and in Europe, in a crisis as a result of this wrong and dangerous war. While physical casualties are already beginning to mount on both sides, before they can be counted there are other casualties. The multilateral global system has been severely damaged as a result of the American-led, so-called preventative war policy. The United Nations has been blocked, a fact which is being gloated over by senior American policy makers. As the President of the Socialist Group on the European Parliament, Enrique Baron, has put it, the Iraqi people are being punished twice, by suffering under Saddam and now risk being killed in an unjust war. Europe is bitterly divided.

We now live in the shadow of an American Government composed of men intent on world domination, or as these same men put it, "American global leadership", with war at the heart of their foreign policy. My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, referred to this issue in the House last week, when he spoke about how policy towards Iraq was developed and I believe it is a subject to which not nearly enough attention has been paid.

I do not believe the current policy of the American Government is one that has the support of the American people nor do I believe that it represents the majority view of the US political establishment or the American political system. However, it is a policy passionately advocated and pursued by those who, under the presidency of George W. Bush, currently rule America. These people, Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, have an imperial agenda. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins said, their talk is of the new American century. They have been advocating this vision of a Pax Americana with passion and conviction for more than a decade.

The agenda first surfaced in 1992 with the document known as the Defense Planning Guidance, co-authored by Wolfowitz, then an under secretary in the Department of Defence. The agenda goes under various names such as the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Project for the New American Century. On the one hand this doctrine talks somewhat innocuously of "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." On the other, however, the advocates talk openly of making the case and rallying "support for American global leadership"; increasing defence spending significantly and challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."

One of their publications, Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, outlines two of the main objectives they advocate in respect of defence and foreign policy. One is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" and the second is to "perform the ‘constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions". There is nothing here about commitment to multilateralism, to the UN, to principles of international law, to peace, to "the institutions and habits of global governance" and so on.

My colleague, Deputy Higgins, in referring to this ominous group, could have also drawn to our attention a letter they wrote in 1998 to then President Bill Clinton. They urged him then to "turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power" and further stated "We believe the US has the authority under existing [1998] UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." Could anything be clearer than that letter to President Clinton—

Mr. M. Higgins

Or more destructive.

Mr. Rabbitte

—or bear out Robin Cook's question that had Al Gore been elected would we be where we are today? These advocates were out of power then and now they are in power and fully implementing their agenda, which is not the agenda of ordinary Americans or most American politicians.

Ironically, however, it is the Tánaiste's agenda. This is the drum that she would have this country unquestioningly follow. She spoke after me in the debate last Thursday and I was quite shocked at her contribution, which was simple and simplistic. She is the one who advocates America, right or wrong, without in any way referring to the clique which controls its foreign policy, has sundered the UN and has set out clearly its objectives. As somebody in a letter to the Irish Examiner today stated, her position is the rhetoric of the school yard. It is no more complex that that. If the Tánaiste thinks our new position on foreign policy is supposed to be “right or wrong, we follow America” there is little point in us having this kind of debate in the House. The issues are more complex than that and of more interest to small countries, in particular, than simply saying, “America, right or wrong.”

I refer to Robert Byrd, who is the longest serving member of the US Senate. He made an interesting speech, with which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be familiar. He stated:

Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of pre-emption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

Senator Byrd's voice is, I believe, the true voice of America, although that for the moment, unfortunately, does not matter, as it is the militants of the project for the New American Century who currently hold power. Ordinary Americans and the rest of us are paying a price for this war-making and the world will still be paying a price long after these men are gone from power. It was stated in The Wall Street Journal on 19 March that:

For two centuries, foreign powers have been conquering Mideast lands for their own purposes, promising to uplift Arab societies along the way. But in nearly every incursion from Napoleon's drive into Egypt through Britain's rule of Iraq in the 1920s to Israel's march into Lebanon in 1982, Middle East nations have tempted conquerors only to send them reeling.

It was clear, even from the television pictures of the summit, how badly Europe is split on these issues. It was thought that the EU had developed at least the beginnings of a framework of common foreign and security policy and that this had been achieved through the provisions of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. We now know how fragile is that framework.

The original vision drawn up in the early 1970s for a common European foreign policy talked of ". . . a United Europe capable of assuming its responsibilities in the world . . . making a contribution commensurate with its traditions and its mission." That seemed to have been brought to realisation in the language used in the relevant provisions of the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam, language such as "member states shall inform and consult one another"; "whenever it deems it necessary, the Council shall define a common position"; "member states shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions"; and so on. Britain's behaviour within the councils of the EU shows this language to be, at best, aspirational and, at worst, empty. It may well be that Tony Blair saw himself and Britain acting as a brake on the present US administration's unilateralism and excess. The extent that that is so will probably be a matter for historians to determine.

What is also a reality is British commitment to Atlanticism and beneath the surface of the European common foreign and security policy project, there is a fundamental tension between Atlanticism on the one hand and the drive for European integration on the other. Time and again this tension has surfaced and so it has now, again. As a result of British Atlanticism to the point even of joining in the US unilateralist policy and "pre-emptive war", the foreign policy provisions of the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties lie in ruins and to its shame our Government is a party to that wrecking: so much for the policy of being "good Europeans".

Europe does not now speak with the single voice it thought it had achieved through the incorporation of the CFSP into the treaties. Europe is divided and speaking with two discordant voices. It is not in the European interest that this dualism persists or that any formulation, aimed at resolving the problem, simply attempts to paper over and hide the cracks. Equally meaningless will be to attempt to pursue such a policy of dualism and to adopt into the constitutional treaty – as is currently proposed – provisions such as the proposed Article 10.5.

Whatever the shape a reconstructed common foreign policy is to have, it will have to deal with the transatlantic relationship. However, the relationship between Europe and the US must be based on mutual respect and cannot be one of the EU as a vassal – the preferred relationship, it would appear, contemplated by the present rulers of the US. A key aspect of the common foreign and security policy must be in global affairs advocacy of and commitment to the multilateralism represented by the United Nations system, including the Security Council, and the rebuilding of the institutions and habits of global governance – to again use the terminology of the EU Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten.

Where do we stand in relation to that objective? In the eyes of Europe, it appears we have made our choice. We will, it seems, be amenable to those who exert the most pressure on us. We had an opportunity in the last couple of weeks to speak and act as genuine multilateralists and as full and equal partners in the European project, yet we chose to turn our backs on that role.

Mr. Sargent

Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Ó Snodaigh agus an Teachta Seosaimh Ó hUigín.

The International Herald Tribune said that no-one could remember a European summit more tense and surreal. I was caught up in the intense security operation in Brussels, as I attended a meeting last Friday of Green Party leaders around Europe to agree a declaration on the invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to believe that this war against Iraq is supposed to be making us feel more secure. It is certainly taking its toll on civil liberties and freedom of movement. It is also taking its toll on consciences. When we hear that some 100,000 children are at risk in Basra because of the bombardment from one of our EU partners, it is a surreal experience with which to deal.

I hope the EU summit's concerns about the humanitarian crisis will be addressed at this moment and not just in a post-war Iraq. The summit was supposed to be dealing with future economic, social and environmental action for the EU, furthering the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. I am pleased to see that the Presidency conclusions make commitments in the environmental area on such issues as accelerating progress towards the Kyoto Protocol targets, promoting renewable energy, setting targets on bio-fuels for transport, restoring bio-diversity and fish stocks and improving maritime safety. It will be interesting to see how many of these targets the Government will meet.

We are in the midst of a war which has not only divided the world, but bitterly divided the European Union and raised many doubts about the EU's common foreign and security policy. What messages did the war on Iraq and the disagreements over it bring to the EU and its future direction? A statement was agreed to at the summit, calling for the UN to have a central role once the war ends. We all know one of the reasons there is such division on this war is that the UN's central role in the conflict has been sidelined and usurped by the British and US Governments. There is an obvious hostility towards British and United States bombers decimating a country and those countries then expecting the EU and or the UN to pay for the damage.

In whose name are they destroying Iraq? Neither the EU nor the UN have backed this destruction. The British Government tried to get agreement from the EU on the running of post-war Iraq but agreement could not be reached because it is obvious that the Bush Administration intends to bypass the United Nations yet again and administer Iraq itself. The French led the objections to any wording that would seem to legitimise, in the EU's eyes, this illegal and immoral war. The EU must ensure it is not used in any way to offer such legitimacy, while helping to alleviate the suffering of victims of war, sanctions and tyranny.

The reaction of the EU has been interesting – the French, Germans and Belgians have now decided to have a private summit in April to forge closer defence ties. Will the EU now develop a two-tier defence structure or re-inforced co-operation? What will be the outcome of the fact that the fissures in the EU's common foreign and security policy have been shown up so clearly? The Green Party is particularly concerned about the relationship between the EU and the United Nations. The Greens have constantly criticised the evolving EU defence structures, the rapid reaction force, because the EU does not regard the force as requiring a UN mandate. The Government has insisted, in a political-type debate, that, as far as we are concerned, such a force requires a UN mandate. However, as recent events have shown, Ireland has no problem facilitating a military operation that is not UN-mandated. The EU itself, in its aspiring EU defence structures, is undermining and bypassing the UN. We must bear this in mind in the months ahead as the EU considers its new structures and constitution.

Iraq and the Iraqi war have horrified and divided the EU but that does not mean the EU will throw its weight behind the strength in the United Nations. Instead, I fear it will throw its weight behind EU defence structures which will lead to a further diminishing of the United Nations. We plead that the Government is not a party to kicking the United Nations in the teeth once again.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Is trua nach bhfuil an t-am againn a dhíriú isteach ar an chlár oibre a bhí ag an Chomhairle Eorpach sular thosaigh an cogadh. Bhí a lán rudaí speisiúla ann le himpleachtaí móra don tír seo. Ní fhéadfadh, áfach, ach aird a thabhairt don chogadh agus na himpleachtaí atá aigesean don tír agus don Aontas féin.

Cuirim fáilte roimh tír neodrach eile atá tar éis socrú i reifreann theacht isteach san Aontas Eorpaigh. Cuirfidh an tír seo, Málta, leis an ghúth neamspleách frithchogadh san Aontas. Fáiltím chomh maith diúltú Mhálta bheith ceangailte leis an chogadh san Iaráic agus an cinneadh a ghlac an Slóivéan, atá le theacht isteach san Aontas, a diúltaigh iarratas ó SAM aerspás aige a úsáid ar an bhealach go dtí an cogadh. Tá mé ag súil go tacóidh tíortha eile neodracha an Aontais le seasamh na Slóivéine agus Málta.

Is trua nach bhfuil an Rialtas ag seasamh leis na tíortha neodracha sin. Le tamall anuas tá muid ag déanamh athbhreithnithe ar a raibh le rá ag an Rialtas anuraidh i dtaca le conradh Nice – nach raibh baol ann do neodracht an Stáit.

I have come to a better appreciation of what the Government was saying during the referendum on the Treaty of Nice. At the time, it felt free to convince the public that there was no danger to our neutrality. In relative terms, I concede that the Treaty of Nice was not a threat to Irish neutrality, because the biggest threat is the Government's policy.

While the EU Council may have avoided discussion on the merits and demerits of unilateral attack on Iraq, I do not intend to do so. The Council and the Government may be comfortable with only discussing the mop-up operation after the war but it is still ongoing. People are dying and the Government has a moral responsibility. It has brought shame on the Irish people because of its support for an illegal war. It should have done the right thing when it was in the chair of the UN Security Council and done more in Europe to ensure there was full co-operation on the position that Germany, France, Belgium and the neutral states took in trying to ensure that there was a diplomatic solution to the crisis based on UN primacy. However, it has not done so, but rather auctioned-off Irish foreign policy to the highest bidder. It has kept its head down and talked for many months out of both sides of its mouth. It gave bogus commitments on neutrality and many other matters, not just to this House but, it appears, throughout the European Union also.

The Government also claims that it is fully committed to the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. On the contrary, however, it proved how willing it was to turn its back on that policy when it stated it would have signed the Vilnius Group letter had it been approached to do so, contrary to the CFSP. Nowhere is the contrast between what it should and is doing more apparent than when one compares its policy on the use of Irish airports and airspace with that of other European neutral countries. Austria, Finland and Sweden said they considered this war to be illegal and in breach of the UN charter and, therefore, invoked their rights and duties as neutral states.

We have been told which European states are part of the coalition of the willing but there are another 15 which are not named and wish to keep their support secret. I wonder if Ireland is one of those countries and whether the European Council was told of it's exact position. It is time the Government told the House where it stands. It must come clean.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Council of EU leaders on 20 and 21 March showed itself to be a pathetic and impotent institution, utterly unrepresentative of the majority of the peoples of Europe in relation to the biggest issue facing the world, the US-UK assault on Iraq. As the Council met, the world was witnessing an obscenity of unimaginable dimensions – the richest countries on earth pouring weapons of death and destruction onto one of the poorest peoples.

Even as EU leaders were meeting, the United States Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, was seen on television screens throughout the world revelling in extreme violence and deserving to be labelled for what he is, a criminal psychopath. He promised that we would see US violence at a level never seen before. While a huge majority of ordinary working people in Europe are vehemently opposed to the prosecution of the US-UK invasion of Iraq, the statement following the summit is, incredibly, silent on the substantive issue. It says the hope of the Council is that the conflict will end with the minimum loss of human life and suffering and that the European Union is committed to respect for the rights of the Iraqi people.

How could the Taoiseach, the leader of the people, put his signature to that statement, beside those of Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi? They showed what they thought of the rights of the Iraqi people as their schools, streets, homes and bodies of their children were being battered and broken by the bombs dropped by the same Blair, supported by the same Berlusconi and Aznar. How could the Taoiseach even sit in the same room with those carrying out this incredibly violent assault on the people of Iraq? The beastliness of what they have done is now transforming the beastly dictator Saddam Hussein into a hero among the Arab masses.

The Taoiseach, however, probably felt he was on weak ground since he assisted 30,000 of the bombers and killers on their way, through feeding them at Shannon Airport and refuelling their aeroplanes. Most of the Prime Ministers at the summit stated where they stood on the war but the Taoiseach did not. A national daily newspaper quoted how he approached the question of war at the summit: " ‘We are not cross with anybody, we haven't fallen out with anyone,' Mr. Ahern said before he left Brussels yesterday afternoon". Why did the Taoiseach's adviser not tell him that at a summit of EU leaders, with a catastrophic, murderous and criminal war under way that is slaughtering innocent men, women and children, he should not conduct himself as if he was passing around the hat among the cowboys and speculators who cram the Fianna Fáil tent at the Galway races?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carey)

I remind the Deputy of a ruling of the Chair, that citizens of foreign countries who occupy prominent positions should not be spoken of in a derogatory or insulting way.

Mr. J. Higgins

Should we tell the truth about them?

Mr. Kenny

Silvio will be most upset.

Mr. Gregory

Tell the truth.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is incredible that the EU summit could only manage some sentiments on the reconstruction of Iraq, the futility of which has been laid bare today. After starving the people of that country of crucial technology and medicines, with devastating consequences for ten years, the Bush regime shows its utter contempt for every human institution by promising half a billion dollars for humanitarian aid, $1.5 billion for reconstruction and $73.5 billion to blast the country to bits and shred and incinerate its people. A sum of $1.5 billion will hardly build two football sta dia, let alone reconstruct a nation of 23 million people.

To say the millions of people who make up the population of the European Union are ill served by their leadership would be an understatement. Their revulsion at this war has been unrepresented and unexpressed by EU leaders. As anti-war demonstrators have been saying in Ireland and elsewhere, regime change begins at home.

Mr. Kenny

The work of the Convention has now become practically full time for those who serve on it. Mr. Giscard d'Estaing will arrive in Ireland tomorrow for a few days to conduct business related to the Convention. How does the Minister for Foreign Affairs envisage its role in the future? How does he see it being progressed through the Intergovernmental Conference and into a treaty in the context of the current crisis? What is the impact of the Convention on this?

The presidential conclusions refer to North Korea. The world now faces three major problems. The first is the war in Iraq which might last much longer than expected. The second is the ongoing war on global terrorism and dealing with al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. The third is, as the conclusions say, that North Korea's non-compliance with its international obligations regarding nuclear weapons is a serious concern for the international community and detrimental to its own interests. What type of analysis or discussions took place at the summit and the Council about North Korea and are there proposals to deal with it?

The conclusions say the European Union is committed to the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political stability of Iraq, its full and effective disarmament in all its territory and respect for the rights of the Iraqi people, including all those belonging to minorities. Has there been a discussion about the political reconstruction of Iraq after all this is over? Given the numbers of Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis there, it might bring about a different regime when the current conflict is over.

Mr. Cowen

In relation to the convention, the President of the Council, Mr. Simitis, reported to the Heads of State and Government, the correspondence he had received from the president of the convention, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, suggesting that when the accession treaties are signed in Athens on 14 and 15 April, one morning of that two-day session should be given over to an attendance by the president of the convention to update the Council on the latest developments. It was to be held in Brussels but that was deferred and it was agreed to hold it in Athens next month.

He has also suggested that a special Council be held on 30 June to discuss and finalise the report of the convention. The EU Presidency is consulting with Heads of State and Government as to whether a majority believes it would be appropriate to hold a special Council meeting devoted to that issue alone, or whether it should be part of the Thessalonika summit due at the end of the Greek Presidency a couple of weeks before that. That discussion is currently going on and the President of the Council will let us know in due course as to what way he wishes to handle that. We expect a period of reflection after the report has been submitted to the Council. We will then move into an Intergovernmental Conference, the duration of which depends upon the presence or absence of consensus on the key issues to be addressed. The convention is still in the throes of all that work so it is too early to say and no decisions have been taken. There is nothing in the conclusions about that aspect of the arrangements.

We are committed to efforts to find a peaceful solution to the situation in North Korea. The spring European Council provided for a special Council session on North Korea. The format has yet to be arranged but it is expected that EU Ministers may be able to exchange views with countries in the region, notably the Republic of Korea and Japan. While a multilateral solution is essential we are aware that regional security issues are also at stake. From our point of view, the issue certainly warrants referral to the Security Council and, therefore, we welcome the decision of the IAEA board of governors to report this issue to the Security Council. We remain keenly aware of the concerns of other countries in the region that no action should be taken which will further aggravate this already serious situation. The Security Council's decision to take up the matter is a continuation of diplomatic efforts but we also support regional efforts to find a solution to the problem, which include North Korea meeting its international obligations, and which might obviate the need for the Security Council to begin taking measures to enforce such commitments. The Security Council's consideration of this issue is still at an early stage.

While we all hope the conflict in Iraq will be brought to an end as quickly as possible with the minimum loss of life, the post-conflict situation there is a matter where, clearly, the sovereignty of Iraq has to be respected. Therefore, the question of an alternative government being put in place which would have the support of the people of Iraq is the long-term objective in the aftermath of this particular phase of the military action.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is a funny way of respecting the sovereignty of Iraq, that is for sure.

Mr. Gormley

My question relates to our own status and how we are perceived by other neutral states. Would the Minister agree that at this stage we are actually perceived as unprincipled opportunists because of the way we claim to be neutral, yet we backed unilateral action? Does the Minister think this has been damaging to our reputation? Would he agree that a common defence, as has been proposed, will increase military spending? I specifically want to ask the Minister about the declaration that was made about the role that defence research and development have to play in the EU. We have welcomed the EU defence equipment policy, so does the Minister support Ireland becoming part of the arms industry?

How do we stand in relation to a common European security and defence policy? Does the Minister agree that if we did have such a policy on Iraq, we would have backed the British, Spanish and Italian stance, and that we would not be in the Franco-German camp?

Mr. M. Higgins

On a point of order, we are supposed to be able to ask questions and they need not necessarily be supplementary to each other. That is not what is in the Standing Order.

Acting Chairman

I apologise. I was going to call the Deputy next.

Mr. M. Higgins

I presume we will be able to take them all.

Acting Chairman

I am not sure. I understand that we have to finish at 7 o'clock.

Mr. M. Higgins

Then may I ask my questions to be of assistance to the Minister?

Mr. Durkan

On a point of order, it was agreed to have 20 minutes for questions.

Mr. M. Higgins

Whatever the Minister wishes – I can ask my questions now.

Acting Chairman

I understand the questions can resume at 8.30 p.m.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is not acceptable.

Mr. Rabbitte

It does not make sense to resume at 8.30 p.m.

Acting Chairman

Is it agreed to extend the period for questions by an additional five minutes after 7 o'clock?

Mr. Boyle

We cannot agree to that – not into Private Member's time.

Mr. M. Higgins

I find it inconceivable that the European Council would not discuss the consequences for foreign policy in general of the acceptance of the principle of pre-emption by a member such as Britain. I find it extraordinary that the Council would not discuss the implications of pre-emption and the support for it by a significant member such as Britain.

The Minister's speech referred to the delivery of EU aid for humanitarian assistance but it is entirely unclear as to whether or not it would be willing to allow such assistance to be militarised. The assistance referred to on page five of the speech mentions co-ordinating assistance, but it does not say whether it is for humanitarian aid or economic reconstruction. Does this mean that economic reconstruction will be mandated by the UN and only by the UN, or does it mean it will be exclusively offered on contract to Vice-President Cheney's former company and others?

Will the humanitarian assistance delivered by the EU be under the control of the United Nations? It is extraordinary that a European Council would meet for so long and discuss so much, yet there is not a single reference in the statement to the issue of legality upon which many members of the Council were divided.

Mr. Cowen

There is not agreement within the EU membership regarding the question as to whether one characterises the action that is being taken by the UK and the US as being pre-emptive. The Deputy is aware of the line of argument on that. There is not unanimity and therefore it could not form part of the Common Position.

Were any steps taken at the European Council meeting to repair the damage that appears to have been done to the cohesion of the European voice and, if not, when are such steps likely to be taken?

Mr. Cowen

In relation to what Deputy Ó Snodaigh had to say about humanitarian aid, the announcement by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, was that the figure of €5 million was additional. It is an initiative we are taking having met representatives of Irish NGOs. This assistance will be complementary to the efforts of the European Union.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 25 Mar 2003