Vol. 622 No. 5
6 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the Basque peace process; and if in his view the political party Batasuna should now be removed from the EU blacklist of so-called terrorist organisations. [25201/06]
In replies to parliamentary questions on this subject on 4 April, the Minister for Foreign Affairs welcomed the announcement by ETA of a permanent ceasefire from 24 March. He also made it clear that next steps in the process were purely a matter for the Spanish Government and elected representatives to consider.
Today the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr.Zapatero, spoke to the media on the Spanish Government's assessment of the ceasefire and on possible next steps in the process. I await a report from the Irish Embassy in Madrid on this. Those steps could include Spanish Government contacts with ETA and arrangements for talks between political groups. Political parties that are in conformity with Spain's law on political parties, including its provisions on support for violence or legitimisation or terrorist actions, would be eligible to take part.
The Batasuna political party was made illegal in Spain following a judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court in March 2003 in the framework of the law on political parties. Batasuna was subsequently added to the EU list of terrorist organisations on 4 June 2003 by a unanimous decision of the EU member states. Removal of Batasuna from the list would require, in the first instance, an initiative by the member state most concerned. Any request in that context and against the background of the awaited report by the Spanish Prime Minister to the Spanish Parliament would be carefully considered at all levels by Ireland and the EU.
Does the Minister of State agree that the placing of Batasuna on the EU black list has involved other member state Governments, including the Irish, in an exclusionary approach? The Minister of State claims this is a matter for Spain alone. It is not because it is an EU-wide decision to put Batasuna on a blacklist. This is not helpful for the situation developing in the Basque country.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I asked if the Minister of State agrees. That is a question.
Batasuna is a political party, deemed by the Spanish Supreme Court to be operating illegally. The report was transferred to the EU where a decision was taken after much deliberation. It is now a matter for the Spanish authorities in the first instance to deal with the situation and satisfy itself as to the veracity and commitment of Batasuna to political activity only, as distinct from terrorist activity. We cannot pre-empt——
It is an EU decision.
——the integrity of the sovereign state of Spain to deal with this matter in the first instance.
Or our sovereignty also.
We have no right to make a presumption about activity——
Yes, the Minister of State does. He makes many presumptions. He just made one about Indonesia.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh's party is still the subject of investigation by the IMC.
——in another sovereign state until a report comes forward that is satisfactory to our colleagues in the European Union and ourselves.
The Minister of State just made presumptions about other matters such as Palestine.
The Deputy can rest assured——
We have not verified Deputy Ó Snodaigh's party yet.
——that the Taoiseach has had discussions pertaining to assisting Prime Minister Zapatero in this situation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and I, with my European colleagues and Fr. Alex Reid have been involved in assisting the situation in Spain.
I know who is involved.
It is important that we await the evolution of the process in Spain and a final report from the Spanish Government through our embassy before we take a broader, conclusive view of that situation.
7 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on instituting inspections of certain flights passing through airports here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25210/06]
I refer the Deputy to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Dáil Éireann on 13 June, in which he addressed the question of aircraft inspection comprehensively. As was pointed out in his statement, we were the first Government, when rumours of extraordinary rendition emerged, to raise with the US authorities our concerns about the matter. We were also the first Government to demand assurances that our territory would not be used for such purposes.
The Minister was the first to raise this issue among EU colleagues in advance of Secretary of State Rice's visit to Europe during the British Presidency, following which, at the Minister's suggestion, the Presidency wrote to Secretary of State Rice on the matter. To speak of a failure to act, which is the essence of the charge on positive compliance, against such a background of proactive intervention, is not reasonable. As we have also repeatedly made clear, the Garda Síochána has the powers it needs to investigate all allegations of illegal activity. In addition, there is no legal bar to the search of civilian aircraft of the type allegedly involved where there is a basis for doing so.
I also remind Deputies that to engage in the search and inspection of aircraft without any basis for doing so would be to set aside categorical, specific assurances which we, unlike almost every other state in Europe, have received from the US authorities, that in the context of extraordinary rendition, prisoners have not been transferred through Irish territory, nor would they be, without our permission. These assurances have been confirmed by the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. No other state in Europe, to the best of my knowledge, has this combination of clear, categorical assurances and confirmation from the highest levels of the US Government.
It remains the Government's position, therefore, that our obligations under international law are being fulfilled. I want yet again to stress that if we had reason to believe the US was in breach of its undertakings to us in the matter of extraordinary rendition, we would respond immediately. We are also open to examining, in consultation with partners, any practicable and specific proposals that may be made in consequence of the current Council of Europe and European Parliament processes.
In his performance today the Minister of State has shown he is the master of bluster. I will try again to get a straight answer. I did not succeed the last time.
It would help if the Deputy were to ask a question.
What are the proper arrangements and protocols in place for the notification of an incident of concern at an Irish airport? I refer specifically to Shannon Airport. Will the Minister of State please outline what are those protocols?
The Minister of State appears to be going back on the word given by the senior Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Is the Minister of State aware that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, told The Guardian on 16 June this year, “Given the fact that an incident like this has happened we would put the [police] on notice that perhaps they should start inspecting on a case-by-case basis”?
Is the Minister of State also aware that on 14 June the Minister stated, the Government "was now going to engage with the US embassy with a view to strengthening the verification procedures and if that entails inspection so be it. We have an open mind in relation to that"? Does the Minister of State still have an open mind?
My mind is never closed on any situation. We are totally open to ensuring that not alone are the laws of this land adhered to, by all people traversing and transiting our country, but also that international law is taken into account and fully implemented, as is our obligation as members of the European Union, the United Nations, and the IKO convention on aviation transiting our area. We are fully committed to all of those situations and these laws and regulations are in place to deal at any time with suspected criminal activity. We have absolute assurances that this is the position. Extraordinary rendition is not taking place. We accept those assurances until we have evidence to suggest otherwise. There is no other evidence and under no circumstances has there been any extraordinary rendition of prisoners through Ireland at any time. That is the de facto position.
We do not know that.
What are the protocols?
The protocols are wide ranging in that the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Transport have to be consulted in all of these situations——
But they were not.
——whether it is to do with people in the case of prisoners, goods etc. I have gone through the details already today in reply to other questions. People are using the particular instance involving a soldier to muddy the waters and create an idea that something is amiss and that we, as a sovereign Government, are not maintaining the integrity of our laws and the integrity of international law. We will not allow that to happen. It has not happened and it will not happen.
It did happen.
It did not.
We could have but did not request passenger name records from all US aeroplanes passing through Shannon from the United States.
Does the Deputy have a question?
In view of the European Court of Justice ruling on 30 May that deemed invalid the agreement between the European Union and the United States in regard to passenger name records, and given that negotiations will have to commence between the Council of Ministers and the US authorities in regard to this matter, will the Government demand a bilateral agreement on passenger name records? If the United States is demanding passenger name records from our Administration, will we do likewise under any new agreement reached as a result of the failure of the prior agreement?
It is my understanding that the situation pertaining to international aviation passenger records is currently being considered by the European Union and the United States' authorities in the interest of combating international terrorism.
The question is if we will demand it.
Bilateral discussion are taking place between the EU and US authorities on that matter. We also have an interest in aviation traffic between the United States and Ireland.
I know that.
During the years international traffic has been of benefit to this country, especially the mid-western region.
Will the Minister of State answer the question?
In any discussions we are having, or will have——
Will we demand it?
——on bilateral aviation matters between Ireland and the United States, all of these issues are discussed in the interests of the protection of citizens and all persons transiting internationally and the elimination of international terrorism.
Will we demand it?
We all have a fundamental responsibility in that area and we will not be found wanting in that regard. We will continue to co-operate in the international effort to ensure terrorism is eliminated.
The Minister of State has spoken many words but given no answer. Will we demand a reciprocal arrangement?
Does the Minister of State deny that aeroplanes involved in the extraordinary rendition programme used Shannon Airport? Will he categorically deny comments attributed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in Ireland on Sunday two weeks ago which stated, if it was up to him, full inspections would have begun a long time ago? He also stated he had argued at Cabinet for the inspections to begin and feels the Americans are making fools of us. Does the Minister of State deny that senior gardaí have confirmed preparations are under way for full, official inspections?
I do not know from which document the Deputy is quoting. I did not see that statement and I do not know its genesis. There has been no extraordinary rendition of prisoners through Ireland.
Does the Minister of State deny that aeroplanes which went through Shannon Airport were involved?
The Minister of State should be allowed to speak without interruption.
There will not be. We will not allow it or tolerate it. We have got assurances that it has not happened and it will not happen. We will see to it that this remains the case.
Does the Minister of State deny that the aeroplanes used Shannon Airport?
The Minister of State should be allowed to speak without interruption.
He is not answering the question.
Does the Minister of State agree that in regard to our international obligations there is no requirement on a citizen to produce evidence? The demand for compliance falls on the State. Is he not concerned that all of those who are interested in the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the UN committee, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and everyone involved in the campaign against torture, have said that diplomatic assurances are insufficient on this important matter? It is a red herring to suggest the onus is on the citizen. Does the Minister of State agree? In his response to the questionnaire supplied to the Council of Europe he correctly stated the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988 and the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998 allowed for inspections. He did not state, however, that not one single inspection resulted. Does he agree that compliance requires inspection and the responsible implementation of the State's obligations? One cannot substitute an unfair obligation on citizens.
We have spent a long time on this question.
I never said the onus was on the citizen in this situation. The onus is on the transiting state to ensure the necessary mechanisms are in position. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe has paid tribute to Ireland for the detail contained in the report we submitted. This is one of the few countries from which the Secretary General did not have to seek supplementary information.
I recently attended a meeting of the Human Rights Council recently in Geneva on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. The Secretary General commended and complimented Ireland on its standards, commitment to human rights and eliminating international terrorism. There is no doubt about our commitment nor the international recognition of the standards we will continue to uphold.
Therefore, a few inspections would not matter.
8 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position of his Department with regard to the ongoing international efforts to ensure that a peacekeeping force is dispatched to Darfur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23776/06]
61 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the establishment of a UN force for Darfur, Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25163/06]
150 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the establishment of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25370/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 61 and 150 together.
As Deputies will be aware, on 16 May the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1679 which paves the way for a UN force in Darfur and the transition of the present UN-authorised African Union, AU, mission in Sudan, AMIS, to UN command. A delegation from the UN Security Council undertook a mission to Sudan and Chad, as well as to the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 5 to 13 June. The visit is regarded as having been useful, although agreement has not been reached with the Government of Sudan on a transfer of peacekeeping to the United Nations.
Separately, from 5 to 22 June, a joint UN-AU technical assessment team led by the UN under secretary general for peacekeeping operations held wide-ranging discussions with Sudanese leaders aimed at strengthening the AU monitoring force in Darfur and preparing for its possible transition to a fully fledged UN peacekeeping operation. The team held consultations in Khartoum and Darfur to assess the immediate needs for strengthening AMIS which initially will be responsible for helping to implement the peace accord. The team also undertook an assessment of all the requirements for a possible transition from AMIS to a UN force in Darfur.
The under secretary general briefed the Security Council on the team's mission on Tuesday, 27 June. The UN Secretary General will shortly submit recommendations to the Council on all relevant aspects of the mandate of a UN operation in Darfur, further to Resolution 1679. It is understood the Secretary General's report will recommend that planning for transition should proceed but note that transition on the ground will not be possible without the consent of the Government of Sudan.
The United Nations has been engaged for some time in planning and identifying the military capabilities that may be required and commenced consultations with a range of member states, including Ireland, to accelerate the sourcing of these capabilities. Ireland has advised the United Nations that, due to the extension of our engagement in Liberia to May 2007, together with our other substantial commitments to UN peace support operations, we are not now in a position to provide capabilities for the prospective UN mission in Sudan. The situation will, however, be kept under constant review and I can assure the House, as the Taoiseach has personally assured the Secretary General, that Ireland remains committed to peace support operations under a UN flag, including in Africa.
The removal of obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian aid has been a matter of particular concern to the Government and I am pleased to report that, at Ireland's initiative, the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 June called for action in this regard by all parties in Darfur. Ireland fully supports the conclusions adopted on Sudan by the Council, as well as the declaration adopted by the European Council on 16 June. The General Affairs Council has stated the European Union will work for the full and rapid implementation of the Darfur peace agreement, DPA, and called on all parties to implement the agreement. The Council has made plain its willingness to take measures against those impeding the peace process, as well as its support for the International Criminal Court investigation into human rights abuses in Darfur. The European Union remains committed to helping AMIS through provision of planning, technical, financial and equipment support to both military and police components, taking into account the new tasks arising for AMIS from the DPA.
The Government has been particularly supportive of efforts to improve the situation in Darfur. Members of the Permanent Defence Force have served with the African Union monitoring mission in Sudan, while the Government has contributed €1.5 million in financial support to AMIS to assist with the recruitment of humanitarian and human rights officers and the construction of police stations to improve security in displaced persons' camps. From 2004 to 2005 the Government committed €10 million to Darfur for relief purposes. More than €1 million has been specifically committed to Darfur this year, as well as a further €3.8 million to all of Sudan, including Darfur. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan will testify to this, as he has done on many occasions.
The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, will travel to Sudan in the first week of July and meet representatives of the Government of Sudan, as well as representatives of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations, NGOs. He will also travel to Darfur to see the situation on the ground in displaced persons' camps.
It is estimated that the conflict in Darfur has affected 3.6 million people, including 1.8 million internally displaced persons and 200,000 exiled to Chad. Some 200,000 are dead. With this in mind, I am disappointed that we are so stretched we will be unable to contribute to the possible expansion of a peacekeeping force in the region. However, I commend the Minister of State on current efforts. We have to give credit where credit is due.
In view of today's announcement by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, regarding a new task force of specialists being set up to enter regions in greatest need, will some of the people concerned, when recruited, be sent to Darfur? What discussions have taken place to date on the allocation of specialists to the region?
We have 460 troops in Liberia where we were requested by the UN Secretary General to maintain a very strong troop complement. The Government has agreed to do so. Our rules oblige us not to have more than 850 members of the Defence Forces out of the country at any one time. We are participating in operations in Liberia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Congo at this time, which means we have reached our limit and are fulfilling our obligations under UN agreements.
Regarding the initiative, confirmed today, taken by the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, this team of specialists will be available to study all regions where support is needed and, if necessary, visit and actively engage in them. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and his team will continue to liaise with NGOs and our diplomatic teams around the world and, where necessary, our specialists will be available to assist in humanitarian operations.
In his meeting with his opposite number in the Government of Sudan in July, will the Minister stress that implementation of the Abuja agreement cannot be left solely to Sudan? Also, will he make proposals for the delivery of logistical and other support to the force that will change from being an AU force to an African sourced UN force?
The Abuja agreement is critically important and was discussed at the European Council by the Taoiseach and his colleagues. It was also discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, by the Minister and me, with our colleagues, and at the Council of Europe. Every diplomatic effort is being made with EU High Representative Solana, the EU Three and others to ensure the agreement comes into operation as rapidly as possible to see the region progress in the interests of humanity. The Minister will certainly raise the issue.
9 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in regard to all parties in Northern Ireland expressing their support for the PSNI; when he expects Sinn Féin to be in a position to take their seats on the policing board; the efforts he has been making in this regard in recent months; if he expects movement on this issue before, during, or after the summer 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25262/06]
The clear position of the Government is that all parties should give their support to the new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. Through the progressive implementation of the Patten report, the PSNI has undergone a wide-ranging transformation in recent years and is now one of the most accountable policing services in the world. The latest report of the independent oversight commissioner for policing, issued on 6 June last, confirmed that the "Independent Commission's vision of a new beginning to policing is both well under way and irreversible". Therefore, there are no substantive reasons in terms of policing reform for any further delay by Sinn Féin in endorsing the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland and taking their seats on the policing board and on the district policing partnerships.
Full political support for policing will benefit all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. It is also a critical element in terms of putting in place a new political dispensation in Northern Ireland. Early progress on policing will contribute to building trust and confidence in the period ahead. Nevertheless, we do not believe it would be helpful at this stage to raise this issue as a precondition or make it an obstacle to political progress in Northern Ireland. The Government has repeatedly made clear that there is a need to see progress in this regard without delay and we will continue to use every opportunity in the period ahead to press for positive movement.
Does the Minister for State agree that a certain ambiguity has been created by the contrasting positions of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs? Will he clarify the matter? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said that participation in the policing arrangements is not a precondition. At the same time, the Taoiseach has said that participation in the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland is a vital part of any new deal. I put it to the Minister of State that ambiguity has been created with regard to the structure of policing.
Would it not be better to deal with such transitional difficulties as are there, such as the issue of MI5 being the lead agency for intelligence gathering, as has been raised by Sinn Féin on occasion? It is time that the Government indicated its position clearly. Is it continuing to ask of Sinn Féin that it fully participate and seek such changes from within as would satisfy its criticisms or is it tacitly sending a separate message to the party that it is all right to stay outside? Which is it? Is it the Taoiseach's or the Minister for Foreign Affairs's version that is Government policy?
Our position has been very even-handed in Northern Ireland. We want to be fair to every party. We want total inclusivity, engagement and involvement. We want the democratic process to move forward. People are misconstruing the statements made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this serious issue.
The Government has been consistent in calling for the full endorsement of the new policing arrangements by all political parties without delay. As I stated, the latest report from the oversight commissioner for policing points out that 124 of the 175 Patten report recommendations have now been fully implemented, which is a considerable achievement. Among the outstanding issues, the absence of Sinn Féin from the policing board and the district policing committees is now one of the most significant. Therefore, it is vital that political support for the new arrangements becomes universal so that the reform process can be brought to full fruition.
That is the Taoiseach's version.
What the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have said is that we want progress. We want everybody to move forward together, we want to make the deadline of 24 November and we do not want any new preconditions to be created. In that way, we will know exactly where we are going. We had a text in December of 2004 which was an agreed text. We were almost at the finishing line, with everybody about to sit down together.
There are advantages in everything. We have the preparation for the government committee. I pay tribute to all those involved in that committee, especially MLAs Molloy and Wells. Much dialogue, discussion and negotiation is taking place at that committee. A start has been made. We want to continue with the dialogue and to build trust. We want everybody to endorse the policing services and become involved with them.
Every political party with a mandate in Northern Ireland has a serious moral, political and public responsibility to give leadership and to be engaged and involved to achieve a consensus that will build trust and confidence in order that a structure can be put in place to allow the people of Northern Ireland to do their own business, with the support of the two Governments. That is our goal and desire.
Therefore, it is the Taoiseach's version which is Government policy.
The Taoiseach is the man who gives the leadership to the nation.
Yes, of course.
Sometimes.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
