Vol. 936 No. 1
48. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Question No. 712 of 17 January 2017, if his Department will perform an audit of all landings of military aircraft at all airports here with a view to establishing the number of other military planes that have landed at airports here without first seeking permission to do so from his Department. [3057/17]
86. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his plans to avoid a repeat of an unplanned landing of a British military aircraft at Shannon Airport in December 2016 (details supplied); his views on whether procedures regarding landing of foreign military aircraft here need to be reviewed in view of that incident; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3094/17]
The Minister revealed to me in response to a question last week that the RAF had landed an airplane without permission at Shannon. He told me this was an accident and that the RAF was very sorry. It is a little like the time the Hercules C130 landed with the 30 mm cannon visible, which the Minister told us was an administrative error. At best, this demonstrates a lack of oversight, at worst, a blind eye. I want to know what the Minister is doing to ensure compliance. Will he instruct an audit to find out how many other aircraft are landing without permission? How does he think they are getting permission, given the job of military aircraft is to be engaged in military operations?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 86 together.
The Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, made under the Air Navigation and Transport Act 1946, gives the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade primary responsibility for the regulation of activity by foreign military aircraft in Ireland. As the Deputy will be aware, permission must be sought in advance for landings by all foreign military aircraft and, if granted, is subject to strict conditions. These include stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed, it must carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and it must not engage in intelligence gathering. Furthermore, the flights in question must not form part of military exercises or operations.
Tough and robust procedures are in place in my Department with a view to ensuring the conditions for securing permission for foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State are clearly understood and properly applied now and in the future. These procedures are kept under ongoing review. Comprehensive records on requests received and decisions made are retained for the purposes of monitoring and oversight, and are drawn on as needed, including to provide information to this House as appropriate.
As I set out in my response to Question No. 712 of 17 January, in that instance permission to land was not sought in advance from my Department. On foot of my instruction, my officials contacted the British embassy. The embassy explained that this had been an error due to a communication breakdown within their system. The embassy confirmed that the purpose of the landing was refuelling and that the flight was unarmed, carried no arms, ammunition or explosives and was not engaged in intelligence gathering, nor did it form part of any military exercise or operation. I should point out that there were 21 requests for permission for RAF aircraft to land in Ireland in 2016. In each case the correct procedures were followed.
The Minister's excuses are getting ever thinner. The only thing these aircraft do is engage in military operations, so what does the Minister think they are doing, for example, on the two occasions every day that the US military land in Shannon, if they are not involved in such miliary operations? The point is that it is clearly insufficient for the Minister to rely on diplomatic assurances. His answer to me would seem to suggest the reports he gets come after the landings, which is insufficient.
Will the Minister comment on military contracted aircraft? Twice this month we have had aircraft from Sun Country Airlines and, only this week, Miami Air International landing in Shannon with civilian call signs and then changing those call signs to military ones. How is the Department tracking those airplanes? These aircraft have been tracked to destinations which are at present involved in bombings in Syria and are then coming back to Shannon and changing their code from civilian to military. What measures does the Minister have in place to monitor these airlines to ensure they are in compliance with the rigorous conditions he has outlined to the House?
Our monitoring is robust. I reiterate that my Department at all times has thorough and robust procedures in place with a view towards ensuring the laid down legal conditions for securing permission for foreign military aircraft to overfly or to land in this State are clearly understood and properly applied. These procedures are kept under review. My responsibility as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is in respect of military aircraft, military overflights and military landings. Issues relating to civil aircraft are matters for my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. I would be happy to convey the points raised by Deputy Daly to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.
However, under the order of 1952, primary responsibility for the regulation of activity by foreign military aircraft in Ireland rests with me as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Again, the practical implementation of this provision reflects Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.
There is one minute left, so I ask Deputy Daly to make her-----
"Thorough and robust" is an abuse of language in this scenario. When an aircraft changes its sign to a military sign, when the Minister knows that this week the aircraft proceeded to an airbase engaged in bombing raids in Syria, what does he think that aircraft was doing there, if it was not involved in military operations, when another one went to a position on the Syrian border that is used by the US to launch drone strikes? There were 70 requests for landings by the US military in Shannon in June of last year, when NATO was running its largest war game since the Cold War in Poland, compared with 40 in January and 37 in August. We have been repeatedly assured by the Minister that these aircraft are not involved in military exercises. Will he tell us what they were involved in during this spike period?
The Minister has a very short 20 seconds.
I am satisfied that when these requests are received by my Department, the regulations are fully complied with and the law is adhered to. Our focus is on ensuring that the information sought and provided regarding flights and aircraft fully demonstrated full compliance with the conditions as applicable. I can point to matters such as the times at which the landings take place. These are operational issues for the pilot in consultation with the airport in question. They do not affect a decision as to whether the aircraft meets the strict conditions. However, I am satisfied that our regulations, codes of conduct and laws-----
This is disgraceful.
-----are strict and robust and that the information we seek-----
The evidence would contradict the Minister.
Deputy Daly has asked the question.
-----is supplied accordingly.
49. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the findings that Saudi Arabia has used cluster bombs in its recent bombardment of Yemen; if he has raised this issue with his counterpart in Saudi Arabia, particularly in view of Ireland's work on the Convention on Cluster Munitions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3041/17]
62. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Saudi Arabian Government has confirmed that it has used cluster bombs in its aerial bombardments of Yemen (details supplied); and if he has raised the issue with his British and Saudi counterparts. [3049/17]
In October, speaking about the success of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and Ireland's central role in its adoption, the Minister said, "A hundred countries are now parties to that convention and such is its success that even for those states that have refused to become parties to it, the use of cluster munitions has been so stigmatised that they will avoid or deny using them." In May 2015, the Minister called on all states, including those that have not signed the convention as well as non-state actors, to refrain from using these weapons. When the Minister was in Saudi Arabia last November, did he repeat this call when he was face to face with Saudi Ministers or when he was interviewed by the media there?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 62 together.
I assure the Deputies that I have taken careful note of recent reports of the use of cluster munitions, including their use in Yemen. These well-documented reports of the use of cluster munitions by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen are a cause of deep concern. Ireland's concern has been expressed by my officials at the sixth meeting of states parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions held in Geneva in September 2016 and at the debate on conventional weapons at the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in October.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Dublin in 2008. Ireland has been a major supporter of the movement to ban cluster munitions from the very outset of this initiative. The convention entered into force on 1 August 2010 and as of January 2017, a total of 119 states have joined the convention.
The Government of the UK has confirmed that cluster munitions used by the Government of Saudi Arabia were exported by the UK in the 1980s, before the convention entered into force. The UK is a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
In November of last year, I led an Enterprise Ireland trade mission to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during which time I raised the conflict in Yemen at a number of meetings. I expressed my concern about the appalling humanitarian situation resulting from the conflict and about attacks which have directly impacted on civilians in Yemen. I have unreservedly condemned all deliberate targeting of civilians and have urged all parties to this conflict to respect international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
Together with the Minister of State for the diaspora and international development, Deputy Joe McHugh, I recently announced that Ireland will provide a further €2 million in humanitarian funding to meet urgent needs in Yemen resulting from the civil war that has intensified since March 2015. The donation of €2 million brings our total humanitarian funding for those affected by the conflict to more than €4 million since the beginning of 2016. This will be issued through the UN, trusted NGOs on the ground and the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC.
I met the president of the ICRC, Peter Maurer, in Dublin in November, during which time he told me his organisation is grateful for the continued and solid support of the Irish people. We share many of the ICRC's policy approaches with regard to matters of disarmament. It is critically important that the International Committee of the Red Cross remain an important humanitarian partner for Ireland, operating as it does in some of the most difficult and challenging environments across the world, including Yemen.
We have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and conduct trade with it. Am I to understand that the Minister has confronted Saudi Arabia on its use of cluster bombs in Yemen? Has Ireland condemned its military efforts in Yemen, where unbelievable atrocities are taking place? I am not so sure. Perhaps the Minister will get back to me on that. With the help of US weapons and intelligence, the Saudis have been bombing and blockading Yemen for a number of years. Since its beginning, the Obama Administration sold $115 billion in weapons to the Saudis, more than any previous US Administration. The Minister made the point that the UK sales occurred before the late 1980s. However, the US is still selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, and they are being dropped on Yemeni civilians. It beggars belief that a neutral country such as Ireland would not be screaming from the rooftops that this is an incredible atrocity and is totally unacceptable and that we want no part or parcel of it. Has the Irish State made direct, serious complaints to the Saudis on this issue?
I share the Deputy's concern about the harm to civilians caused by the use of explosive weapons with wide-area impacts in populated areas in recent times, particularly in Yemen. Ireland is engaged with other states and civil society on approaches to establish strict compliance with international obligations on this issue. Ireland will continue to play a leading role in this regard, and I have raised the issue of Yemen and the humanitarian suffering in Yemen directly with the authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I am anxious to ensure that Ireland's internationally recognised position as a leader in this regard continues. The state parties have agreed by consensus to implement their outstanding obligations in respect of the Convention on Cluster Munitions with the aim to implement all of them by the year 2030. I assure the Deputy of my active participation on behalf of Ireland in this regard.
I call Deputy Seán Crowe. I will let Deputy Wallace contribute further. There will be plenty of supplementary questions.
I do not want to go over old ground. I think we all agree that the Saudi-led military campaign has been brutal, murderous and highly illegal. Thousands of Yemeni civilians have been killed or injured by the coalition's reckless and indiscriminate bombing of homes, hospitals, schools, factories and even funerals. The coalition has also triggered a humanitarian crisis in the area. The Minister referred to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which was adopted on 30 May 2008 and entered into force two years later. It bans the use of cluster bombs and commits the signatories to work to prevent their use by anyone else. What exactly does this mean? We know the British Government has admitted that it was its cluster bombs that were used in the conflict and we know that cluster bombs are particularly indiscriminate. Children are attracted to them because they are colourful and have a toy-like appearance. Again, will the Minister raise this issue directly with the British Government? Ireland and the UK have signed up to an agreement in this regard.
We say we will work to prevent other people using them but the Brits are supplying them to people to use. What does being a signatory mean?
Ireland continues to play a positive and active role in that regard. It recently issued a statement strongly condemning the use of cluster munitions in Yemen and Syria and we expressed our concern at reports of their use in Libya, Ukraine and Sudan. We also spoke of the challenges facing the convention in terms of new contamination sites and new victims from the use of these weapons in the current conflict. The statement also focused on the need for further and greater engagement in the matter of international co-operation, assistance and updating our work in humanitarian demining, which is linked to our obligations under the convention. The total Irish expenditure on this last year was €2.97 million. In the period 2006 to 2016, it was €38 million. We value our important role in this regard and will continue to help encourage other states to move this issue higher up their agendas.
At an event last April, Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution who has 30 years' experience as a Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, officer stated that if the United States and the United Kingdom told King Salman of Saudi Arabia on the night of the event that the war had to end, it would have ended the next day. He said the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot operate without American and British support.
The Minister has told us he has raised his objections with the Saudis. We are on good terms with the Americans and the British. Given that the war cannot continue without their help, has the Minister expressed that also to them? In view of the fact that we accept that Saudi Arabia is committing war crimes and is in breach of international law, have we considered imposing trade sanctions on it?
The Government and I want to see an end to the conflict in Yemen. I regret to say that the situation has not progressed for some time. I understand, however, that the peace roadmap, as set out by the UN special envoy and his team, remains on the table. He continues to work to bring the parties together. I exhort all parties not only here but also at the table of the EU Foreign Affairs Council to encourage every opportunity to bring the parties together. As Deputy Wallace has said several times, the process has had some setbacks. The only solution to the conflict in Yemen remains a political one. For the sake of the civilian population who continue to suffer as long as this war rages, I hope the parties will soon agree to reopen negotiations. I urge those with influence in the region, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can play a role in this regard, to use that influence to put an end to the conflict. It is a reflection of wider tensions in the region but the people who suffer are those directly involved, the people of Yemen whose humanitarian situation is dire and continues to deteriorate. There is a responsibility on the international community to exhort all parties to enter into negotiations with a view to finding a political solution to a very difficult and challenging conflict.
We agree that they should be banned. They are criminal weapons. We speak out but what happens next? Where are the sanctions for those who use and those who supply those weapons? Does the Minister agree that countries need to immediately suspend all further weapon sales to Saudi Arabia? What is the next step for the 120 countries that have signed this agreement to ban and prevent the use of these weapons by anyone else?
We will continue to encourage other states to join and ensure there can be an international consensus on a ban on cluster bombs. There are now 119 states and there are others which could be encouraged to join them. I underline that those states which are party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, CCM - as Ireland has been for some time and as has its neighbour, the United Kingdom - will undertake never in any circumstances to use, stockpile, transfer or assist in any way with the engagement of cluster munitions.
50. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 41 of 23 November 2016, if he is satisfied that the migration compacts currently being negotiated at EU level do not violate Ireland's international obligations of non-refoulement; his views on whether all the countries involved are safe and suitable for meeting the needs of those escaping conflict and violence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3042/17]
The principle of non-refoulement in international law forbids the rendering of a victim of persecution to his or her persecutor. Generally, the persecutor in question is a state actor. According to Article 33.1 of the 1951 UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees "No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." In the past year, the EU has concluded deportation deals with Turkey and Afghanistan and is thrashing out further migration compacts with Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Ethiopia and Senegal and there is talk of deals with Lebanon and Jordan. These deals have been criticised by human rights groups for commodifying refugees and allowing their protection to be outsourced to countries ill-equipped to protect them. Is the Minister happy that all the countries involved are safe and suitable for meeting the needs of those escaping conflict and violence?
The European Commission set out a new results-oriented concept of co-operation with third countries on 7 June 2016, known as the migration partnership framework. Draft migration compacts were drawn up for the first five priority countries identified: Niger, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Ethiopia.
The objective of these migration compacts is to: improve co-operation on readmission and return of those not entitled to reside in the EU; prevent irregular migration and counter smuggling and trafficking in human beings; reinforce the current international protection system for refugees in the partner countries; and, crucially, address the root causes of irregular migration. Ireland has consistently been very clear in all discussions on the EU's response to the migration crisis that addressing these root causes is essential and that the actions which the EU takes, using instruments which are funded primarily from development budgets, must be used for development and humanitarian activities.
Discussions within the EU and with the priority countries as outlined are continuing, and a progress report was presented by the European Commission to the European Parliament, European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council in December 2016. The progress report details the co-operation to date with the five priority countries and sets out the early results, notably reduced irregular migration and increasing returns. Despite making some headway, notably in Niger, progress on the partnership framework will require time and commitment to achieve significant results.
Ireland supports migration compacts as a key instrument to stem irregular migration and prevent human trafficking and will continue to engage positively in the process. We are in particular involved in work on that with Ethiopia, one of Irish Aid's key partner countries.
Human rights and humanitarian values are at the core of the EU and member states' approach under the partnership framework. The EU and its member states are committed to enhancing human rights safeguards in all negotiations on migration and mobility and to ensuring co-operation frameworks with third countries are built on these principles.
Issues relating to non-refoulement are, in the first instance, a matter for my colleague the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality. I am advised that the partnership framework approach does not impact upon Ireland's legal framework or procedures in respect of the deportation of persons from the State, including with regard to the principle of non-refoulement. Before any decision is made to deport an applicant, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality has to be satisfied that the applications made by the person concerned for asylum, for temporary leave to remain in the State and for subsidiary protection, together with all refoulement issues, were fairly and comprehensively examined.
In response to my parliamentary question in November, the Minister said he was happy with the provisions in the EU-Afghanistan joint way forward on migration. He seemed satisfied that vulnerable refugees would be protected there upon deportation. However, the Department of Foreign Affairs travel advice for Afghanistan has the instruction "do not travel". Therefore, Irish citizens should under no circumstances go to Afghanistan because it is not deemed safe enough for us, but we are happy to deport refugees there, including women and children.
In his response, the Minister also referred to the fact that this deal is not a formal agreement and therefore creates no rights or obligations under international law. This informal deal drastically affects the lives of up to 80,000 of the world's most vulnerable people. It is unclear where they will stand as regards their rights under international law. The EU's shift from value-based diplomacy to bargain diplomacy is worrying. It is well known that in exchange for accepting deported refugees, Afghanistan will benefit from increased financial aid from the EU. We met Afghans in Calais and none of them wanted to go back because they left for fear of their lives. Going back was not an option for them. How in God's name can the EU send people back to a country they left in fear for their lives?
Negotiations are ongoing on the migration compacts, as agreed through the EU and partner countries. They should certainly be supported. Operational results have most notably been demonstrated, for example, in areas like Niger in Africa. The number of migrants crossing the Sahara via Niger has been reduced from a high of 70,000 in 2015 to a low of 1,500 in November 2016. In addition, over 100 smugglers involved in human trafficking have been prosecuted. Support from the EU has been critical in this regard.
I agree with the Deputy that the situation in Afghanistan is extremely challenging and difficult. It remains an area for which our travel advice is such that citizens should not travel there in normal circumstances. Discussions on the compacts are continuing between the EU and partner countries. When these are shown to be successful I am sure that further countries will be chosen. The House can be assured that Ireland will remain actively engaged in the process.
We are talking about a negotiated arrangement with the country of origin. However, leaked memos have shown that the EU suggested stripping Afghanistan of aid if the government did not co-operate, and all the while acknowledging that the security situation in the country is getting worse. In a country that relies so heavily on foreign aid and where domestic revenue makes up just 10.4% of GDP, the benefactor holds all the power in deals like this. According to Dr. Liza Schuster, a migration expert based in Kabul, the Afghan deal is an example of how developed countries are able to push through their agendas in countries where there simply is not the capacity in ministries to push back.
Currently, more than 9 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. According to the UN, hunger is a particularly grave issue affecting 1.8 million malnourished people of whom 1.3 million are children aged under five. This is aside from the fact that the majority of those who left and do not want to return went due to the Taliban or ISIS. Some were threatened because they worked for the US military over there.
The Minister may say we are negotiating with the Afghan Government, but I still do not understand because it is not an open process in that sense. It is not fair to send them back there.
Our time has elapsed, Minister.
I will drop a note to the Deputy on the point he has raised. I also wanted to refer to Calais which was mentioned by him previously, so I will drop him a note on that as well.
52. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the concerns he has regarding recent developments in Turkey; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3039/17]
The Turkish Parliament has approved a new draft constitution paving the way for a presidential system of government. If that is passed by referendum the reforms would let the president retain ties to a political party. Effectively, therefore, Mr. Erdoan could resume leadership of the AKP which he co-founded. The new powers of the constitution include provisions which would allow President Erdoan to stand for two further electoral cycles, potentially allowing him to govern until 2029. Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs have concerns about these recent developments in Turkey?
Recent developments in Turkey have brought the country to international attention frequently over recent months, and I remain very concerned about the situation there. Turkey has been the victim of many terrorist attacks over the past year, carried out by ISIS or by the PKK and its affiliates. Over the course of 2016, more than 600 people lost their lives through acts of terrorism in Turkey. Already in 2017, Turkey has suffered three utterly appalling acts of violence.
I issued a statement on 1 January following the despicable shooting at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul in the early hours of New Year’s Day, in which 39 people were tragically murdered. In addition to this deplorable attack, two people were killed in a car bomb at a checkpoint in Izmir on 5 January, and four policemen were killed following an explosion in Diyarbakir, south-east Turkey on 16 January.
The increasingly volatile situation in the south-east of the country is a matter of real concern. I once again extend my condolences to the families of all those affected by these horrific acts of violence, and to the people of Turkey. I unequivocally condemn terrorism in all its forms and repeat that Ireland, along with our European partners, stands in solidarity with Turkey in its fight against terrorism.
While it is clear that the Turkish authorities face very difficult challenges, I continue to have serious ongoing concerns about democracy, the rule of law, human rights and freedom of expression, in particular freedom of the media, in the country in the aftermath of the attempted coup in July 2016 and the extended state of emergency, which is still in place.
The concerns of the EU, which are fully shared by Ireland, were set out in a detailed statement on 8 November last. Unfortunately, these concerns still persist. I have repeatedly raised these concerns at meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council with my fellow European foreign ministers. Turkey has also been discussed at European Councils where the Taoiseach represented Ireland. It was the subject of intensive debate at the December General Affairs Council in the enlargement context, where the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, also spoke of Ireland’s concerns. I also raised our concerns at the Council of Europe last September. Along with our EU partners, we will continue to monitor the situation in Turkey closely.
We all roundly condemn the recent terrorist attacks in Turkey. We pass on our condolences to the Turkish people and Government. However, I specifically asked about the Government's view on proposed changes to the Turkish constitution. Those would confer additional powers on President Erdoan. If those changes come to pass, does the Minister see that affecting Turkey's bid for EU membership?
Deputy Wallace alluded to the continuing operation of the third-party arrangement on the migrant deal with Turkey, which I have questioned the Minister about before. Does the Minister think these changes will affect that deal? I have been critical of the deal and I do not believe we should be part of that arrangement.
There appears to be a major crackdown on civil rights in Turkey. Some 90 journalists are still in prison following the attempted coup. These matters need to be addressed, so I would be interested to hear our Government's view on them.
I condemn human rights abuses in Turkey and have already expressed that concern on behalf of Ireland at meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels and also at the Council of Europe in the presence of the Turkish Foreign Minister. I have also had an opportunity for direct engagement with Turkish representatives recently.
The EU member states, including Ireland, are keeping the situation in Turkey under constant review. I acknowledge that the trends in recent times are negative. As a candidate country for EU membership, Turkey is expected to adhere to basic democratic norms and respect European values. The clear back-sliding in this regard, as evidenced by Deputy O'Brien, is a matter of concern.
The European Union is considering how best to influence Turkey and encourage a commitment to the return of what we would regard as essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This was discussed at a meeting of the General Affairs Council in December. I assure the Deputy that this discussion will continue in the coming months and Ireland's voice will be heard.
53. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has discussed the stated proposal by the President of the United States of America, Mr. Donald Trump, to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem with any of the interested parties on the basis that this move may contribute to divisions in Palestine and Israel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3093/17]
71. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the President of the United States of America, Mr. Donald Trump’s, plan to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and that this planned move is a reversal of existing US policy (details supplied); if his attention has been further drawn to the fact that the move is a violation of Resolution 181 of the UN General Assembly and that senior Palestinian officials warn that the move could provoke regional violence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3029/17]
This will be one of the most urgent discussions we could have. Following the amazing demonstrations across the planet after the inauguration of President Trump, one of the most feared factors connected to his presidency is the question of his promised move of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will notice that all the international diplomats clued into this in any way are warning of a major provocation in the region and that moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem will provoke a violent reaction in the area. Moreover, the European Union and United Nations have condemned it. Has the Minister condemned it or will he do so? What has he said or done about this highly provocative move?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 71 together.
President Trump has signalled on a number of occasions that he intends to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem as a signal that it is the capital of Israel. This would be a matter of real concern but it remains to be seen what actually happens. Previous US presidents have signalled the same intention but in office have recognised the difficulties such a move could cause. It would be likely to be seen as most provocative across the Arab world and in particular in Palestinian east Jerusalem. It should be recalled that there have been repeated calls in recent years, including by the United States as a member of the Quartet, to avoid destabilising actions in Jerusalem in view of the sharply rising tensions there. The position for diplomatic missions in Israel is governed by UN Security Council Resolution 478 from 1980, which called on all UN member states with diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to "withdraw such missions from the Holy City". Ireland’s embassy was established in Tel Aviv subsequent to that resolution.
The status of Jerusalem is one of the major "final status issues" to be decided as part of a comprehensive peace deal between Israel and its Arab and Palestinian neighbours. Israel claims all of the greater Jerusalem area as its capital and not just the area of west Jerusalem that lies within Israel. Ireland and the international community as a whole envisage Jerusalem as the location of the capitals of both Israel and a state of Palestine. We look forward to establishing two embassies there in that context but to do so now, in advance of that comprehensive settlement, would be unhelpful for the reasons I have mentioned.
That is a very lame response. As a country and internationally we should be very concerned by the commitment from President Trump to move the embassy to east Jerusalem. Within 48 hours of his inauguration, or even before the inauguration, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel stated there was no longer a need to co-ordinate construction in Jewish neighbourhoods in east Jerusalem and that Israel will build where it wants and as much as it wants. I have a map in my office and I am sure other Deputies also have it. It indicates the very drastic changes to the occupied areas of Palestine over the past few decades. It is being encroached upon in a very serious way. This action will both provoke and unleash major violent reactions in Palestine and Israel and will further destabilise the region. Jordan has already warned that this will feed into the actions of Islamic fundamentalists and give them more fuel. That is why we must be concerned about it. It has global implications and, in particular, for the future of the people of Palestine and how that will affect diplomacy across the world.
I have consistently called for the Israeli Government to cease demolishing Palestinian structures, including houses and infrastructure such as water and power networks, as well as animal housing, in the West Bank and elsewhere. The European Union has raised the issue of demolitions with the Israeli authorities, condemning them on behalf of EU member states. EU missions, including our own, are active on the ground in trying to protect vulnerable communities, including through numerous diplomatic visits to sites and communities threatened with demolition or forced relocation. I had the opportunity 18 months ago to visit a settlement area. I heard at first hand the justified concerns of residents and people with holdings in the area. Ireland has consistently argued for a strong response to such practices, including seeking compensation. We will continue to do so.
The other issue raised by the Deputy concerns the suggestion of moving the embassy. Lest there be any-----
It is the main issue I am raising. Will the Minister comment?
Lest there be any doubt, I hope the US Administration recognises that the question of Jerusalem is much broader than the location of the capital of Israel.
The question has been asked but I will respond to the Minister's comments. I have no doubt but that the current American Administration is probably the most pro-Israel administration in the history of the United States. This is a provocative act to try to humiliate the Palestinian people. There is a lethal cocktail that has a maniac called Donald Trump and another psychopathic maniac called Benjamin Netanyahu. What will the Minister do about this and what will he relay to the American ambassador and Israeli ambassador, who should be expelled from this country?
I repeat that this a matter of concern. It is not yet an act and it remains to be seen what will happen. Previous US Presidents have made similar signals but the issue remains as is. I am conscious of repeated calls by the European Union, the Quartet and others in recent years about this. I make a call again this afternoon for all parties involved to avoid any destabilising moves in Jerusalem, which as we know has been the scene of sharply rising tensions in recent years with violence, fatalities and loss of life. I am particularly wary of the damage from the use of language of provocation, which often does no more than inflame matters further and be unhelpful. I have expressed my concern and I have underlined that concern in the House this evening.
I hope the Minister will relay the concern to the Israeli ambassador. As I stated, that person should have been expelled from this country a long time ago. If Donald Trump tries to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, it will provoke an intifada in Palestine. The people of Palestine have every right to not only wage resistance against Americans but also against the Israeli occupiers. We will see Donald Trump's trajectory, as he is probably the most pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist President of all time. His action will be met with much resistance not only from the Palestinian people of Jerusalem but from Palestine as a whole.
I recently attended a conference in Paris with representation from over 70 states and organisations.
At the conference I restated our firm consensus view that the two-state solution is the only outcome that can result in peace and stability.
That is not possible.
It is my hope that the US Administration will acknowledge the fact that the question of the status of Jerusalem is more than simply a question of the location of the capital of Israel.
There is also the issue that Deputy Bríd Smith and others have raised. The purported annexation of large areas of the West Bank is, in my view, contrary to the fundamental principles of international law. I am mindful of the need to ensure that no acts are undertaken on the international stage that might give rise to further heightening of tensions within an area of considerable challenge.
The Israeli ambassador should be expelled from the country.
Deputy Bríd Smith has waived her supplementary question. Deputy Paul Murphy can ask a final supplementary question.
I thank Deputy Smith. The hope that Donald Trump is not going to follow through is looking like a faint hope. Let us consider what Trump has done in recent days. He has signed executive orders relating to the Dakota access pipeline, for example, and he has made statements on the wall and immigrants. They may well follow through with this.
Does the Minister not agree that moving the embassy is not simply of symbolic value? It is about obliterating any chance or hope of a Palestinian state. That is what it is about and that is the message it sends. It forms part of the strategy of the Israeli elite establishment on settlements, the populations of which have doubled since 1993. It has led to the destruction of 15,000 Palestinian homes since 1993. It is to put Palestinians effectively into Bantustans, which are like little Gaza territories dotted throughout historical Palestine. One of the first messages of the Government to Trump should convey opposition to this.
This is a matter of concern. I have said that publicly and I am saying it now in the Dáil. I say as much on behalf of the Government. Let us see what happens.
We have only a short time left. I call the next question. Deputy Durkan has 30 seconds. I will give the Deputy one minute after that and then I will give one minute to the Minister.
51. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the timing he expects for the various stages of the Brexit negotiations in view of the Brittish Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May’s speech; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3097/17]
54. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to outline the extent to which he continues to have discussions with the United Kingdom authorities and his EU colleagues in the context of the proposed UK exit from the European Union; the extent to which the full implications for this island, the UK and the European Union continue to be evaluated; whether any parameters have been established within which the feasibility of an EU without the UK has been examined in view of the contradictory positions indicated and established; if any progress has been made with a view to addressing these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3051/17]
79. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the speech the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, gave on 17 January 2017 concerning the British government’s position on Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3048/17]
83. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the recent statement by the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, in relation to her Government's Brexit strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3045/17]
The question seeks to ascertain the extent to which all the relevant parties in the European Union and the United Kingdom are fully conscious of the implications and the possible consequences of a UK exit from the European Union.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 51, 54, 79 and 83 together.
The UK Prime Minister, Ms May, provided some further clarity in her address of 17 January on the objectives on the part of the UK for the negotiations on its withdrawal from the European Union and its future relationship with the EU. It was not the clarity we would have wished for. We regret the fact that the British Government has chosen to leave both the Single Market and the customs union. Anyway, clear sight of the British Government's intentions at least allows us to focus our preparations on realistic scenarios for the future.
What matters most is where the negotiations end rather than from where we start. Ireland will work to ensure that the negotiations are conducted in a constructive and orderly way. We will encourage the British Government and our EU partners to do so as well.
We enter this next phase with four clear objectives: first, to minimise the impact on our economy; second, to protect the Good Friday Agreement; third, to maintain the common travel area; and fourth, to ensure the integrity and unity of a renewed European Union.
Prime Minister May has made clear that she wishes to have the closest possible economic relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I welcome that. She has made clear that the United Kingdom will wish to maintain the common travel area and avoid a return to a hard Border between the two parts of the island. I welcome that too. I also welcome the high priority that the European Commission lead negotiator, Michel Barnier, gives to this issue and to the wider question of maintaining the Good Friday Agreement.
The recognition of the importance of the Good Friday Agreement and the common travel area by the United Kingdom and our EU partners is the result of painstaking work by the Taoiseach, other Ministers and Irish officials, including those in our embassies throughout the European Union. I have previously set out in some detail the scale of the diplomatic engagement that has brought us to this point, including the discussions at political or senior official level with our EU partners, numbering over 60 in total.
As yet, we are only in the early stages of a cross-government and diplomatic engagement unlike anything we have seen in our recent history in terms of scale and complexity. Ireland is one of the few EU members to maintain resident diplomatic relations with all EU member states. That network will be deployed intensively in support of our efforts. In light of the clarity offered by the UK Prime Minister, Ms May, this work now enters a new and important phase.
Is there recognition of the possible economic and political implications thereafter - in the widest sense - given that some people seem to celebrate the prospect?
I have held discussions with each of my 26 EU foreign ministerial colleagues. Indeed, I can add Foreign Secretary Johnson to that list since I have met him on a number of occasions. I have been impressing on them the importance of the trading relationship between Ireland and the UK and the importance of maintaining the common travel area. As the Deputy will be aware, we have enjoyed the common travel area with the United Kingdom since the early 1920s. I have also impressed on them the important role played by the European Union in our peace process. I have been engaging at that level. I wish to recognise the important role played by the Taoiseach as a member of the European Council. He has engaged with his colleagues at EU Head of Government level. We are fully prepared for what is a difficult and challenging encounter. We trust the negotiations will commence on target in late March. We are ready to make our case in the strongest possible way.
In recent days I spoke with all EU ambassadors in Dublin. In Brussels last week I spoke with the Spanish foreign minister because there had been a change in personnel there. I have made preparations for a visit to Helsinki as part of an ongoing process to deepen engagement, especially with our like-minded colleagues within the European Union.
