Arthur Morgan
Ceist:6 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the proceedings in which the Government were involved at the UN 2005 World Summit relating to proposals to establish a human rights council. [26932/05]
Other Questions.
Human Rights Issues.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:67 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his position during negotiations relating to the proposed human rights council at the UN 2005 World Summit. [26937/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 67 together.
The report by the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, In Larger Freedom, proposed an agenda for action at the UN 2005 World Summit which took place last month. The central premise of the Secretary General's recommendations was that "we will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights." Against this background, and among other proposals, he recommended that the existing Commission on Human Rights, CHR, be replaced with a smaller standing human rights council. The Secretary General justified this on the basis of his view that the CHR suffers from declining credibility and professionalism and is in need of major reform.
In the view of the Secretary General, the creation of a human rights council would accord human rights a more authoritative position, corresponding to the primacy of human rights in the Charter of the United Nations. He stated it would be for member states to determine the exact status and composition of the council. In contacts with foreign minister colleagues in pursuit of my role as envoy of the Secretary General in the lead up to the summit it was clear to me that there was a broad measure of support for the Secretary General's report, not only in the wider Europe but also beyond. However, this support was not universal.
Together with our European Union partners, Ireland warmly welcomed the Secretary General's proposals which we regarded as an opportunity to strengthen the United Nations human rights machinery. As the Secretary General stated, it would elevate human rights to a more authoritative position within the UN system. A key objective for the EU has been and will remain that the human rights council should preserve the best features of the Commission on Human Rights. These include its country and thematic special procedures and NGO participation, as well as the right of human rights defenders to call Governments to account.
The European Union, under the Luxembourg and UK Presidencies, maintained this position in the negotiations with other states in the lead up to the summit. However, as other states had different views on aspects of the Secretary General's proposal, it was not possible to reach complete agreement in advance of the summit. Nonetheless, the outcome document agreed at the summit commits member states to create a human rights council. There is as yet no agreement on whether the council should be a principal organ of the UN or a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. It will be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner. It will address violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. It will also promote effective co-ordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the UN system.
The summit outcome mandated the president of the General Assembly to conduct negotiations to establish the mandate, functions, size, composition and other institutional aspects of the council and the process of discussion is now beginning.
While the Minister stated that the proposals to emerge incorporated the best aspects of the Commission on Human Rights and the concept originally proposed in the August draft outcome, does he agree the outcome is a watered down version of the original proposal? Amnesty International, for example, described it as a betrayal of human rights. What is the Government's view of the final outcome? What will be the Government's priorities in terms of the negotiations on the out-workings of this council?
The Minister has also stated in the past that implementation of the UN change agenda would be a major priority over the coming months. I argued consistently here for a debate on UN reform prior to the summer recess. We did not manage a proper debate; we had a short debate. How will the Minister engage with this House and the Irish people on the UN change agenda suggested? What will he do to ensure people at local level feel ownership of the UN, the process of change and that which is suggested for the future? I suggest he might talk to the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who undertook public meetings on development aid which worked well. That is a model which might be suggested for use in the case of UN reform.
In my few words to the UN General Assembly when I gave the statement on behalf of Ireland, I indicated that in my view some of the better elements of the Human Rights Commission should be retained, and particularly I referred to the NGO participation which we believed was important in order to keep Governments and nation states to account.
On the question of how we see it pan out, we very much support the EU position, which was our position and was agreed at EU level, to raise the human rights council to a principal organ or, indeed, a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. At present, it is a subsidiary body of ECOSOC and we believe it should be raised in order to raise the aspect of human rights to a higher level. There are issues as to whether it should be done, as currently, by a simple majority or by a two thirds majority. There are issues on the size of it also. The one good aspect of it is that it will be a standing body which will meet on a constant basis rather than on a six weeks per year basis as is the case with the existing commission. While the outcome document does not flesh out what the structures of this should be, the fact that the entire membership of the United Nations has agreed to replace the existing commission means, in effect, there is a death sentence hanging over the existing commission, and they know that.
The leadership of the new chairman, Mr. Jan Eliasson, who succeeds an excellent chairman, Mr. Jean Ping, is particularly relevant. Mr. Jan Eliasson is from Sweden where, as Deputies will be aware, the issue of human rights is strongly held. He has complimented Ireland on our stance on this particular aspect and has said to me on many occasions that when Ireland speaks on UN issues he can welcome everything we say. We are regarded as a strong ally on the reform agenda. As I stated previously on an earlier question, we will give any further assistance possible in that respect.
Although the council will replace the commission and there is a commitment to setting it up as soon as possible, there are no parameters set out in the decision of the United Nations. What membership rules have been agreed? What timeframe does the Minister envisage for a set of parameters and rules for the new council? Is it six or 12 months down the line?
Towards the latter end of the discussions a number of countries which found fault with the peace-building commission even though previously there was general agreement. There is a time limit on the formation of it, that is, by the end of the year.
Given the broad spectrum of opinion on the human rights council, it is accepted that it will take some more time. There is no time indicated. We would be pushing — already discussions are taking place at UN level under the chairmanship of the presidency — to move this forward but it will be some months, if not years——
Years.
——before the council is put in place.
Is he saying there will be no commission for years?
It is all very well saying that——
I am just asking the question.
I am trying to explain. There are 191 countries in the UN.
I know that.
Depending on the part of the world to which one goes, they have a completely different view, right across a myriad of these issues such as terrorism. What is terrorism in one part of the world is the complete opposite in another part.
We all know that but I am merely asking a simple question.
It is exactly the same on the human rights council——
We will not have a commission and there is no agreement on a council.
——that human rights abuses in one part of the world are regarded from a different perspective. That is why there are so many differing views right across the world on how the human rights council will be put in place.
But we do not have any agreement. That is the bottom line.
There is agreement in principle on the formation of a human rights council to elevate human rights to a position higher than it holds today within the infrastructure of the UN.
Middle East Peace Process.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the ongoing efforts by the Israeli Government to extend the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem in order to separate the city from the rest of the West Bank area and to change the demographic balance within the newly redrawn city. [26842/05]
Joe Sherlock
Ceist:31 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of new housing units approved in general in the past 12 months by the Israeli authorities in the occupied territory of the West Bank; his views on the extension of the borders of the municipal areas of Jerusalem; and if such settlement activity is a breach of international law and the principles of the roadmap for peace. [26846/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 31 together.
The Government and our partners in the EU firmly believe the quartet roadmap remains the best framework for the achievement of a lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The roadmap requires action by both parties, including a freeze on all Israeli settlement activity in the Palestinian territories.
The Government has consistently taken the view that the transfer by an occupying power of its own population into occupied territory constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The establishment of settlements by the Israeli authorities in the occupied Palestinian territories, including in east Jerusalem, is contrary to international law. The Government has conveyed its concerns on settlement activity directly to the Israeli Government on many occasions. I raised them when I met with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom in Jerusalem on 12 July.
It is the clear position of the European Union that the parties must comply with international law, and that no party should take any unilateral measure which prejudges questions relating to final status. The EU will not recognise any change to the 1967 borders other than those negotiated between the parties. In my address to the UN General Assembly on 19 September, I specifically called on Israel to desist completely from any further steps which could jeopardise the viability of the two-state solution.
I remain concerned at recent announcements by the Israeli Government regarding plans for the enlargement of settlements in the West Bank and the expansion of the boundaries of east Jerusalem. As Deputies will be aware, the Government is also seriously concerned at the continued construction of the separation barrier on occupied territory, which represents an obstacle to the implementation of the roadmap and, therefore, to the prospects for a lasting settlement.
These concerns are shared by the international community. At its most recent meeting at ministerial level, on 20 September, the international quartet reiterated its concern at settlement expansion and at the route of the separation barrier, noting that it appears to prejudge the final borders of a Palestinian state.
The most recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which I attended in Luxembourg on 3 October, welcomed the successful completion of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank as a significant step towards implementation of the roadmap. The council also expressed grave concern at the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the continuing construction of the separation barrier in occupied Palestinian territory. The conclusions adopted specifically refer to the situation in and around east Jerusalem, which is having a detrimental effect on the lives of Palestinians and jeopardises a final status agreement on Jerusalem.
The Government, and its partners in the EU, will continue to work closely with Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the period ahead to encourage them to build on the progress of disengagement, to meet their obligations under the quartet roadmap, and to renew efforts towards a lasting settlement based on the terms of the roadmap.
I visited in the past few weeks, for the second time this year, the area to which the questions nominated by me refer. I was referring specifically to the recently recognised town of Ma'ala Adumim, which was founded in 1975 and which has a population of 25,000.
The conclusions of the meeting on 3 October to which the Minister referred make no reference to the illegality of the expansion of settlement in the general area of east Jerusalem. The issue is that 8,000 settlers were removed from Gaza and from four settlements in the northern part of the occupied West Bank. Some 35,000 housing permissions were given between September 2004 and September 2005 across 19 different occupied areas in the general area of east Jerusalem, the net effect of which is to cut off Bethlehem from Ramallah.
I put it to the Minister that it endangers three fundamentals, namely, the final status of talks relating to Israel and Palestine, the viability of the Palestinian state and the future of east Jerusalem. The settlement policy of the Israeli authorities should be the central element of a European Union statement in which the illegality of the expansion of that settlement policy should be mentioned. I was in Ramallah just after the anniversary of the International Court of Justice ruling on the war. People asked what Europe is doing about the vindication of the decision of the International Court of Justice, which is just over a year old.
I agree with the Deputy. I said earlier that we believe continued expansion of the settlements is illegal and contrary to international law. We have said the same with regard to the wall. This is an extremely complex issue. Ultimately, the only way we can bring any stability to this area is through negotiation. Those negotiations are ongoing. Presidents Abbas and Sharon will meet later this week, which is welcome because there is some understanding.
There are issues, for example, the continuing expansion and the construction of the wall. I saw the wall when I was there in July and I raised the matter with Foreign Minister Shalom. He said it was a temporary structure but what I saw did not look temporary. He said it was a structure that could be taken down when matters settled and his people were safe. I made the point to him that it looked extremely like a permanent structure. I assure the Deputy that we participate strongly and fully at European level with regard to this situation. The significant removal of settlements from Gaza must be welcomed. However, it should not be seen as an end, but as a first step towards the implementation of the roadmap.
When I left Ramallah, it was clear that the military orders had been made for the possession of what was regarded as state land. What is effectively being extended beyond east Jerusalem is half the size of Paris. The net effect will be to cut off on the north side of the south axis any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. There is no indication in any talks that Israel intends either to halt settlement activity or to remove settlements from occupied land.
As an observer, I put it to the Minister that given the status of the talks, the issue of east Jerusalem is probably the most difficult. On the one hand Palestinians, in the absence of a plan for greater Jerusalem, have no housing permission and face the demolition and division of their houses, while on the other hand we have an open-ended expansion of what is referred to as "the thickening of settlements". This is outrageous.
There are two systems of law in operation, a military system of law for Palestinians on their land and Israeli law for occupied land that is illegally held and from which settlements are expanding. East Jerusalem and the expanded settlement policy must be put at the centre of discussions. I do not agree with the Minister that one should try to be optimistic, because there are few signs on the Israeli side of the suspension of this activity.
The Deputy has not put a question, but made a statement with which I cannot disagree. We can only work through international diplomacy on this issue. The quartet has actively condemned this and it would have much more influence in trying to get the Israelis to cease what they are doing, which is contrary to the tenets and principles laid down in the roadmap.
I welcome the Minister's stance so far, but we need a to take a harder line. How far must Israel go before Article 2 of the Euro-Med Association agreement with Israel is triggered? The issue does not have any link with the ability of the European Union to offer financial assistance to Palestinians as was stated previously. Has the Minister or a Government representative demonstrated their displeasure or had any communication with the Irish multinational, Cement Roadstone Holdings, in terms of its contribution to breaching international law? CRH is a flagship company in this State. Has the Minister made his displeasure felt or asked CRH to withdraw from any contract for the building of the wall which, at this stage, almost encircles Jerusalem.
It is probably incorrect to say that Cement Roadstone Holdings is involved in the construction of the separation barrier. It holds a minority shareholding of approximately 25% in the company involved, Nesher Cement. The Government has no power over such private companies.
With regard to the Euro-Med Association agreement, Sinn Féin tried to get support from other parties at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs to be even more critical with regard to the association agreement, which, if it were to be suspended, would require consensus within the European Union. From what I understand, it would not get that consensus. There is a strong argument that suspension would seriously undermine the strong role the Union has in this area. It has given and continues to give substantial financial and other support to the Palestinian Authority. If we were to suspend the association agreement, it would put that assistance in jeopardy.
Will the Minister agree to bring a proposal to the general council that an official of the European Union should be appointed to monitor the human rights clauses in the association agreement?
Is that to the general council of the European Union?
Yes, of Foreign Ministers.
That is something we could look at. We would, in the normal run, have to get consensus from the others.
Colombian Peace Process.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the European Union will issue a declaration on the Colombian peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26903/05]
The General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted conclusions on Colombia at its meeting this Monday, 3 October 2005. Ireland was actively involved in the negotiation of these conclusions, which principally address the recently enacted Colombian justice and peace law. That law provides an overall legal framework for demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of illegal armed groups into society. The law, which was adopted through a lengthy democratic political process, strikes a difficult balance between peace and justice. The overall assessment of the council was that, if implemented effectively and in a transparent manner, the law will have a positive effect on peace-building in Colombia.
The conclusions also address the need for a negotiated peace settlement and call for illegal armed groups to demobilise. They also call on all parties to the conflict to respect human rights and international humanitarian law and commend the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. The conclusions also confirm the readiness of the European Union and its member states to assist the Colombian Government and civil society in providing support for communities affected by the internal conflict, victims groups, local reconciliation activities and the reinsertion and demobilisation of child soldiers.
In addition, the European Union welcomes the continued involvement of the Organisation of American States, OAS, in supporting the demobilisation of paramilitary groups. Ireland has committed €390,000 over a three-year period to the OAS peace and verification mission in Colombia. The OAS mission's mandate is to provide comprehensive support to the Colombian peace process with a focus both on the demobilisation process and on the strengthening of institutions concerned with the rule of law. Our support was welcomed by the Foreign Minister of Colombia when I met her in New York on 19 September. In our discussions of the overall political situation in her country, she explained that her Government has found the Irish experience of similar issues very informative.
Can the Minister elaborate on his discussions with the Colombian Foreign Minister? Were the activities of the Colombia three resurrected during the EU discussions earlier this week? Did the Minister have any discussions with the Colombian Foreign Minister about the damage done to Ireland's reputation by the activities of the Colombia three? Was the question of possible discrimination against Irish citizens raised at any level? Irish citizens are the only people in the EU who have to apply for visas if they wish to travel to Colombia. They have to go to London for an interview if they wish to visit Colombia for reasons of business or pleasure. Visas are not required by the citizens of 44 non-EU countries if they wish to go to Colombia, but they are required by Irish citizens. Surely the Minister agrees that the visa requirement for Irish citizens is an indication of the damage that has been done to Ireland's reputation as a member of the international community. Has the plight of our citizens, who have to travel to London in advance of any visit to Colombia, been raised at any level? What action does the Minister propose to take on this issue?
The issue of the Colombia three was not raised at EU level, at least not in my presence, during the discussion on the Colombian peace process last Monday. As I said earlier, it was raised during my meeting with the Colombian Foreign Minister, Ms Barco. During that meeting, I outlined the Government's position on the issue, which has been enunciated clearly by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I on many occasions.
Deputy Allen also asked about the visa requirements for Irish citizens. It has been the case since November 2001, shortly after the arrest of the Colombia three, that all EU citizens other than Irish citizens can travel to Colombia for tourism and business purposes without a visa. I intend to raise the issue with the Colombian authorities. Colombia no longer has an honorary consul in situ in Ireland, unfortunately, although I understand that it intends to appoint a new honorary consul. In the meantime, it appears that Ireland citizens who want to go to Colombia have to travel to London in advance. I understand that we will revert to the previous arrangements after a new Colombian honorary consul has been appointed in Ireland.
However, Irish citizens will continue to be required to apply for visas if they wish to go to Colombia.
Yes, they will. That requirement is an unfortunate consequence of what has happened.
EU Enlargement.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:9 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the situation with regard to EU enlargement and the Cyprus question; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27079/05]
The United Nations has the lead role in the search for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. The EU enlargement process provided the impetus for recent efforts to find a settlement, which were made by the UN Secretary General in the first half of 2004, during Ireland's EU Presidency. At that time, Ireland maintained close contact with the relevant various parties to encourage their commitment to the negotiating process and the achievement of an agreed outcome.
The accession to the EU of a united Cyprus was not possible on 1 May 2004, as a consequence of the results of the referendums in Cyprus on 24 April 2004. The Republic of Cyprus has been a member state of the EU since 1 May 2004. The application of EU's laws and regulations to the northern part of the island has been suspended in the absence of a comprehensive settlement.
In May 2004, the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, submitted a comprehensive report to the UN Security Council on his mission of good offices. He noted that the unsuccessful outcome of the referendum represented another missed opportunity to resolve the Cyprus problem. He concluded that there was no apparent basis for resuming the good offices effort while the stalemate continued.
The process has remained under consideration in the Security Council. Following discussions with the Secretary General in May of thisyear, the President of Cyprus, Mr. TassosPapadopoulos, sent an envoy to New York for preliminary and informal talks with senior officials in the UN secretariat. As a result of the discussions, the Secretary General asked the under-secretary general for political affairs, Mr. Kieran Prendergast, to travel to Cyprus, Athens and Ankara to listen to the views of all parties on the future of the mission of good offices on Cyprus. Mr. Prendergast reported to the Security Council in June that despite certain positive elements, the substantive gap between the stated positions of the parties appeared to be too wide. The Secretary General and the UN officials continue to monitor the situation closely. The Government has strongly supported the UN Secretary General, Mr. Annan, in his mission of good offices.
I would like to discuss the EU enlargement process. As part of its preparations for the opening of accession negotiations and in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council meeting of December 2004, Turkey signed the Ankara agreement protocol on 29 July last to take account of the accession of the new member states, including the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey also issued a declaration stating that its signature, ratification and implementation of the protocol did not amount to the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus referred to in the protocol. In response, the EU agreed and issued a counter-declaration on 21 September last recalling the status of the Republic of Cyprus as a member state of the EU. The counter-declaration also noted that the recognition of all member states is a necessary part of the accession process. It underlined the importance the EU attaches to the normalisation of relations between Turkey and all member states as soon as possible.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In the context of the counter-declaration, the EU member states agreed on the importance of supporting the efforts of the UN Secretary General. They agreed that a just and lasting settlement would contribute to peace, stability and harmonious relations in the region. The EU remains ready to accommodate a settlement of the Cyprus problem based on the Secretary General's proposals and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. The objective we all share is an agreed comprehensive settlement that will allow the people of Cyprus to live together as citizens of a united Cyprus in the European Union.
Does the Minister agree that the accession talks involving Turkey are based on sand if agreement is not reached on the recognition of Cyprus? Was pressure brought to bear by Austria to link the opening of accession talks with Turkey with the opening of accession talks with Croatia? Was the UN war crimes prosecutor, Ms Del Ponte, asked for evidence of Croatia's level of co-operation with the war crimes tribunal? Did she give any evidence to support her assertion that Croatia is now complying with the tribunal?
A task force, involving representatives of a number of EU member states, met Ms Del Ponte before the start of the discussions on Croatia's accession to the EU. The EU Foreign Ministers made their decision on the basis of a report that was issued to the General Affairs and External Relations Council by Ms Del Ponte.
To be fair, the issue of Croatia's accession was not linked at any stage with the issue of Turkey's accession. They were dealt with as two separate issues during the discussions. Ireland's position on the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, which was maintained throughout the EU discussions, is absolutely clear. We do not feel that the opening of negotiations on EU membership with Turkey should be conditional on that country's recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. However, we continue to acknowledge the need to move towards the normalisation of relations between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus as the accession talks develop.
We anticipate that the accession talks will continue for a considerable length of time. The conclusions which were adopted indicate that Turkish accession cannot be countenanced until the acceptance of the next phase of financial perspectives, which will kick into place in 2014. It is recognised and understood that Turkey cannot accede to the EU until it recognises fully all states, including the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey's accession to the EU presupposes, in effect, Turkey's recognition of the Republic of Cyprus.
Written answers follow Adjournment debate.