Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Sep 2005

General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.

I hope everyone had a good summer. The first item on the agenda is a discussion with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in advance of the forthcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. I welcome the Minister and his officials. Members have received the usual brief for today's meeting and the conclusions of the last meeting of the Council on 18 July. If the Minister is agreeable, I propose to take general affairs and external relations issues together after he has made his presentation.

I agree. I am grateful for the invitation to attend the joint committee and pleased to have the opportunity to engage in an exchange of views. With me from my Department are Ms Breffni O'Reilly, Mr. Rory Montgomery and Mr. Jim Kelly.

Under the heading of enlargement, the Council will discuss Turkey and Croatia with the focus on the opening of accession talks with the former. The committee will recall that the European Council agreed last December that Turkey had met the Copenhagen criteria to a sufficient extent to allow for the commencement of accession negotiations and asked the Commission to bring forward in time a draft framework to allow such negotiations to begin on 3 October this year. The draft negotiating framework was tabled by the Commission at the end of June and has since been under discussion by member states. While it is hoped final agreement can be reached at COREPER tomorrow to allow the Council adopt the framework formally on Monday, the possibility of further discussion over the weekend has not been ruled out. While unanimous agreement on the negotiating framework has not yet been reached, we are happy with it from a national perspective. It reflects in a balanced way the realities of the scenario. It is important for the European Union to honour its long-standing commitment to open negotiations with Turkey with an view to its eventual accession.

In recent years Turkey has made considerable progress in political and economic reform. While this is commendable, the negotiations will be lengthy by any standard. It is recognised in the negotiating framework that Turkey's accession will not be possible until there is at least agreement on the financial perspectives for the period 2013 onwards which are currently under negotiation. Moreover, no particular outcome is guaranteed. The onus is very much on Turkey to continue to deliver in a sustained manner on its commitments and to demonstrate its willingness and ability to take on all aspects of membership.

At the December Council Turkey committed itself to signing a protocol to the Ankara agreement in association with the European Union to take account of the accession of the new member states, including the Republic of Cyprus. While Turkey's signing of the protocol on 29 July was welcome, it was regrettable that it felt it necessary to issue a declaration to the effect that signature did not amount to recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. In response, the European Union agreed and issued a counter declaration on 21 September emphasising that recognition of all member states was a necessary component of the accession process and stressing the importance the Union attaches to the normalisation of relations between Turkey and each member state as quickly as possible. We continue to use the UN framework as the one under which the Cyprus question can and should be resolved.

The Council will review progress on Croatia's co-operation with ICTY since its last meeting. The European Union remains committed to Croatia's membership and the commencement of negotiations on the basis of the framework agreed last March. Ireland continues to look forward to the earliest practicable opening of accession negotiations with Croatia. I hope that as soon as the required unanimity can be achieved on the last outstanding issue of co-operation with the tribunal by the former general, Ante Gotovina, who remains on the run and in hiding, a decision on the opening of negotiations will be taken at the earliest opportunity.

External relations matters will include a discussion on Iran, focusing on the recent developments at the IAEA board of governors which last week adopted a resolution on the country's non-compliance with its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty sponsored by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the so-called "EU three". Ireland's position is that Iran must fully and proactively co-operate with the IAEA to resolve all questions relating to its nuclear programme in a spirit of transparency. Resolution of these issues will help to restore international confidence in Iran's declared wish to maintain a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes only. We are fully supportive of the leadership of the EU three in this matter and hope Iran will make good use of the time before the board of the IAEA next considers the matter, probably in November.

The Council will also consider recent developments in the Middle East peace process following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip and subsequent developments, including the violence of recent days. The Government welcomes strongly the completion of the initial difficult phase of disengagement. The Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority demonstrated considerable courage and commitment in bringing the process of disengagement to this point. I recognise the serious political challenges which face leaders on both sides and the difficult domestic political environments in which they must operate in the weeks and months ahead. The difficulties have been emphasised by the increase in militant Palestinian activity over the weekend and the Israeli response, as well as by events involving Prime Minister Sharon's Likud Party. It is important for both sides to maintain the determination to build on the progress made. They must continue to work for agreement on the steps required under the Jim Wolfensohn action plan on the free movement of goods and people between Gaza and the outside world, including the West Bank.

It is in everyone's interest to ensure Gaza has a real possibility of stability, security and economic recovery. Parties in the European Union believe disengagement cannot be an end in itself, but must be a first step towards the full implementation of the Quartet road map. Both sides must, with the strong support of the international community, avail of the opportunity available to build momentum in the long search for a permanent peace. The European Union will play its part. I welcome the commitment to support both sides which was agreed by the Quartet at its meeting in New York last week. The road map sets out clearly the obligations of the parties involved. The Palestinian Authority must strengthen its efforts to ensure security and an end to terrorist attacks, which action is all the more pressing in the light of the disturbing developments over the weekend. It is equally important for Israel to demonstrate appropriate restraint in its response to terrorist attacks. It is also essential for it to take no further steps which might jeopardise the viability of a two-state solution. Continued settlement expansion and the building of the security barrier in occupied territory remain real obstacles to peace. As the Quartet statement underlines, settlement expansion must be frozen if a return to the full implementation of the road map is to be achieved.

The focus, in the context of the western Balkans, will be on Kosovo. As members will be aware, the framework for EU policy is that agreed at the Thessaloníki summit in June 2003 which reaffirmed the European Union's commitment to the eventual integration of the countries of the western Balkans into EU structures. It is especially important, in the aftermath of referenda in the Netherlands and France earlier this summer, to reaffirm our long-term commitment to the region. The Council is expected to approve without discussion the opening of negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia and Montenegro. Kosovo is entering an especially important phase as consideration of its final status is expected to be the dominant issue in the region in the coming months. The UN Secretary General has asked the special representative to prepare a comprehensive review of the implementation of standards in Kosovo which, if sufficiently positive, will be followed by an international process to agree the status of Kosovo. It is not yet clear, however, if the review will be available before our meeting on Monday. If it is not, I expect our discussion of the matter will be quite brief.

Ministers will be invited to take note of information provided by the Presidency, general secretariat and Commission on preparations for the EU-Russia summit in London on 4 October and, if necessary, provide further guidance. At the last summit on 10 May road maps were adopted for what are known as the four common spaces or areas of particular mutual concern. These include economic issues, justice and home affairs questions, culture and external security issues. In the short period since the discussions have focused on advancing implementation in a few key areas, notably energy and EU assistance for socio-economic recovery in the northern Caucasus. The Presidency and Commission continue to hope for a deal at the summit on the sensitive linkedissues of visa facilitation and readmission of third country nationals from the European Union to Russia. This issue is to be further considered atCOREPER tomorrow.

There is also a prospect of further useful discussion at the summit on selected regional issues, particularly Belarus, Moldova, Uzbekistan and the role of the OSCE. The efforts made, in particular, by the special representatives from Moldova and central Asia to engage Russia constructively on these issues appear to be helping. It is also expected the Council will have a separate discussion on Uzbekistan. This is the fourth occasion on which Ministers will have discussed events which took place on 30 May last in Andijan, where credible reports indicate that up to 500 people may have been killed by Uzbek security forces. I hope the Uzbek authorities will realise that the European Union will neither forget the matter, nor accept the explanations they have offered thus far.

From the start, Ireland has been among those countries seeking a stronger reaction from the European Union. The case for an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened and investigate the actions of the Uzbek security forces remains compelling. In the absence of an inquiry there is a general sense that the European Union must do more. While the exact detail of what will be agreed is still being discussed in Brussels, options include the suspension of parts of the EU-Uzbekistan partnership and co-operation agreement, the introduction of an arms embargo and a visa ban on those considered responsible. The problems many of those trying to report the event in Andijan have faced and continue to experience are of great concern. The European Union is correct to highlight this issue in the draft conclusions. Respect for human rights and universal freedoms must remain a central aspect of the Union's relationship with Uzbekistan. Appropriate action in the United Nations and OSCE frameworks is also being considered.

There may be an opportunity at the Council to discuss the follow-up of the UN summit in New York, at which Ireland was represented by the Taoiseach, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and me. Ireland would welcome such an opportunity as it would enable Ministers to give further impetus to the European Union's efforts to work with others to implement the summit's outcome, in particular the establishment of a peace building commission, the provision of a strong mandate for the Human Rights Council and the follow-up on terrorism and reform. As I made clear in my speech to the United Nations last week, this will remain a priority issue for the Government in the period ahead.

The Council is scheduled to adopt a declaration as an A point on the Colombian peace process, in particular on the new justice and peace law which sets out the arrangements to govern demobilisation of former paramilitaries. I had a very good discussion on this issue with my Colombian opposite number in New York last week, during which she made clear to me how helpful the Colombian authorities found study of the Good Friday Agreement and the position in Ireland. The issues involved in such questions are complex and difficult as we, in this country, know well. I am well aware of the human rights questions which arise with regard to Colombia. In circumstances of this nature, a balance must be struck between justice and peace. However, the overall assessment of the Council is likely to be that effective and transparent implementation of the new law, together with progress on implementing the recommendations of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, will have a positive effect on peace building in Colombia. I thank members for listening to my views.

I thank the Minister for appearing before the joint committee to give members an overview of forthcoming events. A delegation from the joint committee which visited Turkey earlier this year was impressed by the move towards greater democracy. We heard many organisations express the view that the heavy hand of the state was lightening as a result of the prospect of accession talks. Having said that, how will the European Union deal with the continued refusal of Turkey to recognise Cyprus as a sovereign entity? I perceive the refusal in the Turkish Government's most recent declaration on the matter as a refusal to recognise the structures of the European Union. Surely any move towards talks will be built on sand if the issue of Turkish recognition of Cyprus is not faced up to fairly and squarely. What is the point of opening discussions if this major question and the contradiction it involves are not definitively addressed?

While I do not have details of the European Union's response to the Turkish declaration, two reports received by the joint committee indicate that the Union issued such a response. I would like details of it. People must be told in unambiguous terms that failure to recognise Cyprus constitutes a failure to recognise an entity of the European Union and, consequently, that all subsequent action will be built on sand.

The Minister referred to the United Nations summit. Will he outline the extent of disagreement on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? I read several statements issued by the Department on the outcome of the summit. Does the Minister not agree that failure to reach some degree of agreement on the treaty is irresponsible and makes it almost inevitable that ongoing proliferation will eventually result in nuclear technology falling into the hands of undesirables who could hold democratically elected governments to ransom? Surely there is an onus on the international community to reach agreement on the treaty. Will the Minister flesh out the areas in which disagreement persists?

What is the Minister's response to my concerns about the stance being taken towards Iran which is facing considerable pressure? Individuals who work in systems in conjunction with Iran have informed me they believe the Iranian people are being backed into a corner and that there are double standards. While I agree that every pressure must be put on the Iranian authorities to be transparent in the development of the country's nuclear programme, we should contrast that position with the circumstances prevailing in Britain, our nearest neighbour, which is able to proceed with the development of its nuclear industry without consulting anyone. Double standards are being practised. A body of opinion holds that the more conservative elements in the Iranian political system are winning out as a result of the policy of backing Iran into a corner. What are the Minister's views on this issue which is not black and white?

Did the Minister, in his discussions with the Foreign Minister of Colombia, raise the discrimination practised against Irish citizens? Citizens of Ireland, of all the EU countries and states beyond the Union's borders, are alone in being required to apply for a visa if they wish to visit Colombia. They must travel to the Colombian embassy in London and provide detailed information before they are even considered for a visa. Did the Minister address this issue with the Foreign Minister of Colombia?

On the issue of Cyprus and Turkey, when I met the Foreign Minister of Turkey before the summer on my travels in connection with my UN role, I raised the fact that Turkey had not yet signed the protocol. As Turkey had already indicated publicly that it would include a declaration with the protocol, I implored the Turkish Foreign Minister who informed me that the declaration would be made within days of my visit to ensure his country used language that was as non-confrontational as possible. Turkey issued a declaration within a fortnight of our meeting which was not well received by most of our EU colleagues, particularly Cyprus which was put out by the position taken by Turkey.

Ireland's position has always been that while recognition of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey is not a precondition for the commencement of negotiations, it is an indispensable element of ultimate accession. There is no way in which a country can join a club of whatever number and not recognise one or more of those countries. We have made that absolutely clear. As time moves on, we believe the negotiations will lead to a normalisation of relationships between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus. There is a general understanding that that would be the position. The important thing is to try get over the initial difficulties of starting the talks, which I hope we will be able to do in the not too distant future.

The review conference on the non-proliferation treaty and the UN summit was very unsuccessful. The result of that conference was pretty depressing. It was the first time for quite a long time that there was not a fairly benign result from the conference. As the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, it was a disgrace that the UN member states had not moved on the recommendations in regard to non-proliferation. This is one of the major aspects of it that touches on the issue of where Iran is at the moment. We have emphasised time and again that the issue does not simply relate to proliferation but also to disarmament.

It is correct to say that there is an element of double standards in that countries are entitled under the non-proliferation and disarmament treaty to have nuclear energy for peaceful means. Over recent years, Iran has been less than forthcoming in regard to what it is doing. Any examination that has taken place has shown that there are significant deficiencies in the level of information it has been prepared to give. When it was investigated thoroughly by the inspectors for the IAEA it was found not to be telling the full story and that is why with great justification the EU has become, in effect, the pusher and arbiter in this issue. This is probably one of the most important issues on our agenda and will be for some considerable time, because other countries are looking very closely at how this will proceed.

Regarding Colombia, the issue of visas was not raised other than the visas or non-visas of the Colombia Three. The issue of visas for ordinary Irish people travelling to Colombia did not arise but I can raise that in future with the Minister.

Am I correct in saying that we are unique in the European Union?

I do not know. I will have to check.

It is my information that we are the only member state of the European Union that requires a visa. It is a fall-out from the well-known excursion.

I am not aware of that. I will have to check on it. I am not sure if we are unique. There were two aspects to my discussions with the Minister. The first aspect was the effort by the EU to assist in the peace process. Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden have been participating in an agreement to assist with finance in that peace process. I also said we would be positive towards Colombia at official level in the run-up to this week's Council meeting so that the conclusions would be positive towards the Colombian peace process. To be fair to the Minister, she indicated the grave difficulties they have trying to deal with terrorism, which is a significant problem. She told me their President was a great fan of the Good Friday Agreement and had incorporated many of the principles of the Good Friday Agreement into a proposed law. We also discussed the issue of the Colombia Three.

For the information of the Minister, it was his reply to a question I tabled just before the recess in June that confirmed we are unique among European Union countries. That was the response I got from the Minister.

I do not know if it is appropriate for Foreign Ministers to discuss this, but one item that appears to be missing from the agenda is the question of the European Union constitution. There appears to be a conflict between the Heads of State and the President who has stated there will be no movement in the next three years, whereas the view up to that was that there would be a period of reflection and then there would be some movement on the constitution in late 2006. Is there a difference of opinion between the President and the Heads of State on this?

Everyone has an opinion but, ultimately, it is the Heads of State who make the decisions. It was the view of the European Council that there would be a period of reflection for some time and that we would come back to the issue in the first half of 2006. Our view, which the Taoiseach expressed yesterday, is that we should have this period of reflection to try to educate our people as much as we can on the issues in the interim period. We have been very fortunate. Either President Barroso or the President of the Parliament, Mr. Borrell, referred to the fact that the Forum for Europe was a model that should perhaps be used in other countries to assist them in that process.

As a Government, we believe that irrespective of what happens ultimately, the more we can tell our people in regard to the EU and its infrastructure and institutions, the better. We will be trying to engage with people between now and whenever a decision is made. We had indicated we would bring forward a White Paper on the constitution and that is still our intention.

I have a few brief questions and will not repeat what has already been said. I assume this is the first Council meeting since the summer recess.

We had an informal one in Cardiff on 1 September.

The message that has come loud and clear from the European people since the two referenda and the German election is a fear of rapid enlargement and the quick entry of Turkey, in particular, to the European Union. I would have thought the Council would have heard that and would have responded by saying, irrespective of what had happened in the past in regard to the negotiations with Turkey, that it simply is not acceptable any longer for Turkey not to recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus and that discussions would not start with Turkey until such time as that unequivocal declaration was made. It still means that the part of Cyprus that is occupied and is disputed and the aspirations of Turkish Cypriots must be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides, but when that is resolved then that portion of Cyprus will be integrated into the Union in exactly the same way as the former Republic of East Germany was integrated into the European Union.

In the context of listening to what European citizens have said about their fears of a rapid enlargement, which is certainly the message that is coming through, proceeding with business as usual does not appear to indicate that the Council is listening to what the people are saying. My comments would equally apply to Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania. One must ask if it would be advisable to force the timetable for Bulgaria and Romania to join the Union without meeting the necessary standards of compliance with the acquis communautaire. While going ahead with it on the present timetable has many advantages and keeps faith with previous commitments it does not respond to the overwhelming rejection expressed in the two referenda.

The same applies to the special partnership the CDU in Germany would prefer to have with Turkey. We should be honest with the Turks and say the process of enlargement may need to be slowed down to enable proper integration and the timetable now is quite different to that a year or two ago.

The Council does take account of what the people say. Nevertheless commitments have been made regarding Turkey. It was never a condition of the opening of accession talks that it should recognise Cyprus. It was understood that process would be dealt with under the UN remit. It was always the case that these negotiations would be lengthy and there will not be a rush to bring Turkey into the EU.

The issue of Turkey's accession was raised and agreed in principle in 1964. Agreements were made in recent decades to admit Turkey. It is accepted that we must take account of people's views in this regard. We also have a duty to ensure that we provide stability in that part of Europe and the accession of Turkey would help stabilise that part of the world.

Turkey is moving towards compliance with the conditions laid down for entry to the EU which are the same as those applying to other countries which have entered the EU. The same is true for every other country that may want to enter. There is an outstanding issue in regard to Croatia which has fulfilled all the criteria. Bulgaria too has fulfilled virtually all the criteria for EU entry and both countries will soon be ready to join. It would show bad faith for us to tell those countries we have pushed to fulfil these criteria that we are having second thoughts. That would send out a bad signal.

There are several other countries, including the Ukraine, which have a legitimate claim to be part of Europe. The European system will hasten slowly on these issues because of the strong feeling about them in some European countries.

I was on the committee's trip to Turkey last year and am in favour of Turkey's accession to the EU. The EU offers a great opportunity to resolve the problems that exist there. I do not agree with Deputy Quinn about the link between the rejection of treaties and the failure to recognise Cyprus. There is a fear of Turkey in general, of jobs being lost and of immigration but I do not see a causal link between a failure to acknowledge the existence of Cyprus and rejection of the treaty in the Netherlands and France.

On that trip we identified certain continuing problems in Turkey. The country is adopting new laws but these have not filtered down to the administration of justice. For example, there is discrimination against minority religions. The Minister could raise that concern in the forthcoming discussions.

I do not know much about Uzbekistan but the Minister's comments suggest a general malaise about the failure of the UN and the EU to react to gross violations of human rights, even as far back as the events in Rwanda. What happened in Uzbekistan is clearly unsatisfactory. Does the Council have a target for what it wants to achieve in and demands of Uzbekistan? Will the Council be able to say that its continuing negotiations with Uzbekistan have achieved something?

I am aware that nuclear facilities in Siberia have several times fallen into the wrong hands. International agencies are unable to identify where all the nuclear capability is now and there is a fear of dirty bombs and terrorism. Is that on the agenda for the forthcoming summit or does the Council raise this concern in its negotiations with Russia?

We have raised the issue of minority religions in Turkey in negotiations. I welcome the Deputy's view following the committee's visit to Turkey. We will continue to raise these issues, particularly in regard to justice where there is work still to be done. In my frequent meetings with the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Gul, I have the impression that Turkey is willing to move as quickly as possible on these issues. It has already done so to an extent.

The incident complained of in Uzbekistan happened on 13 May and the Council in its conclusions in May, June and July called for an independent international inquiry. The Uzbek authorities have not acceded to that request. We will adopt more stringent measures at the Council in the coming days. That will refer to a partial suspension of the partnership agreement with Uzbekistan. It will also refer to a ban on the export of arms and military equipment to Uzbekistan, and a visa ban on those believed to be responsible.

It has been raised at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. At the UN the EU plans to introduce a resolution on human rights in Uzbekistan at the third committee. There is continuing discussion at the OSCE involving the Moscow mechanism in regard to human rights investigations. The view is strongly held that although the Uzbek authorities are not co-operating, we should put more pressure on them regarding this issue and make it clear to them that we have not gone away, as it were.

The EU and Russia are working hand in glove on the issue of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. This will be discussed at the summit.

The Minister was in New York last week where I assume he had discussions about the plight of illegal Irish immigrants in America. His announcement of extra funding for immigrant centres, particularly on the eastern seaboard, was widely welcomed.

I am interested in the initiative led by President Bush to deal with undocumented people, many of whom are Irish. Over the summer months we learned many legislators had been brought into the White House for briefings on the new initiative the US President is pushing. After reading first reports of it, I found the plan worrying in that any illegal individual would have to pay a fine, leave the US, return to their home country and then re-apply for entry. There will be no guarantee of citizenship at any point in the future. While on a committee trip with the Committee of Public Accounts, we met Congressman Jim Walsh.

I know the Minister is aware of this issue and he has dealt with several instances of individuals being incarcerated for up to three months. However, we have a major stake in this. The estimates of illegal Irish in the States run from 5,000 people to 50,000 people. There is much going on within the Republican Party. As one Republican Congressman informed us, the US Administration feels that it cannot go to the floor of the House of Representatives until a majority of Republicans would support it. A lobbying job needs to be done as we have a major stake in this. I believe it deserves extra attention. Over the next several months, keen efforts must be made on this problem which has not been resolved for many of those individuals who remain in the United States illegally and are unable to return home.

When I was in New York I took the opportunity to announce extra funding, an increase of 40%, for emigrant centres and groups that look after Irish people in the States, which was broadly welcomed. I met individuals from the various centres around the States at one location to have a long discussion with them on this issue. We are aware of the issues arising for the undocumented Irish people in the States. In the first week of November I will be in New York, Boston and Washington. We have spoken to all Congressmen and Senators who are favourably disposed to the Irish issue. It would be excellent if the McCain-Kennedy Bill were put on the US statute book.

That is very unlikely.

However, there are other Bills which are on the other side of the equation. The feeling is that the US President, Mr. Bush, is sympathetic to a solution of this issue. If he can get his party to agree to a middle ground, we would be doing very well. I am not altogether sure of what this middle ground is. Our people are hoping that whatever is done will be a pathway to citizenship or residency.

We have been actively lobbying at embassy and consulate level. The emigrant centres by law are not allowed to lobby. It is up to individual Irish people in the US to lobby their representatives. The Taoiseach and I raised this issue with the US President, Mr. Bush, on 17 March in the Oval Office. As he said himself, if it was simply a matter of the undocumented Irish, it could be solved tomorrow. However, there are 9.5 million Mexicans coming into his constituency. He indicated that this is an issue that he wants to be dealt with. The negotiations as to what legislation might emerge from the mix have been delayed by several issues, not least hurricane Katrina. I assure the committee we are in daily contact with all players to promote the best aspects of the McCain-Kennedy Bill. I appreciate the all-party support in this respect.

While progress was made in the Middle East peace process, particularly in Gaza, it has not been matched by similar progress on the West Bank. This means the good will and the opportunity for progress in the Middle East will be wasted. We have seen some of the results of this in recent days with attacks from both sides.

What will the Council be doing to raise the issue of the international quartet and of the settlement that was outlined? Will the EU be increasing its aid to the Palestinians? Will it help them in building sea ports, airports or normalising the border with Egypt to ensure Gaza itself becomes economically viable, which it is now not? On the western Balkans, the Minister said the Council is expected to approve without discussion the opening of negotiations on the stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia and Montenegro. What is involved in this agreement? How long are negotiations expected to last or is it open ended?

On my UN travels I was in Ramallah and Jerusalem before the summer. I saw for myself the incredible difficulties under which people must live there. It is only when one goes there that one sees what is at issue. I remember certain individuals on this island suggesting a wall should be built along the border. That is what the Israelis are in effect doing in locations in and around Jerusalem. I have had many meetings with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Shalom. I met Shimon Peres when I was there, emphasising that we understand the need for the Israeli Government to protect the Israeli people in whatever form, provided it is done on correct lines. The answer was that this wall would be removable. However, it is a substantial wall and will not be easily moved once it is up.

We have committed aid to the Palestinian Authority as part of the money agreed at the G8 summit. Ireland has agreed at EU level that we will come to the plate in that respect. The flesh on the bones of this aid has not yet been discussed. Again Jim Wolfensohn and the international quartet are working on these particular issues. A donor conference will be organised on assistance some time later in the year. It is regrettable that there is continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, which we have condemned. The international quartet released a statement recently where it reaffirmed that any agreement on the final status issues must be reached through negotiations and a new Palestinian state must be truly viable with contiguity in the West Bank and connectivity to Gaza. The Quartet believes settlement expansion elsewhere must stop and that Israel must remove unauthorised outposts, the development of which is unfortunately continuing. I agree that recent events unfortunately show the tinderbox that the area is. The emphasis must be to ensure Gaza is economically viable and that there can be egress and ingress. Mr. Jim Wolfensohn who addressed the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Cardiff on 1 September gave us a full briefing on how he saw this developing. It is very difficult. While we are critical of Israel, when one sees what it did on the ground, leaving the rights and wrongs of why it was there in the first place to one side, the fact that the settlers were moved has caused great angst among some people. The glasshouses were one issue, but the debate also extended to places of religious worship and graves. I would not underestimate the significant decision by the Israelis in that respect.

When I was there, I was told that it had been the first sign of proper co-ordination between the Israelis and Palestinians regarding disengagement. There had been very little contact, but I was told by the Palestinians, in particular, that there had been proper discussion of how it might be done. Unfortunately, I understand that, now that it has been done, they are back to square one. I assure members that the European Union is taking a very active role in the area. When I was there, I bumped into Javier Solana who was leaving a meeting with President Abbas when I was about to meet him.

On the other issue mentioned, the agreement between the European Union and Serbia-Montenegro, as with all such matters, there is no guaranteed outcome. It could be a year or more, depending on developments in Serbia, and there is also the question of the Montenegrin referendum. It covers the normal issues in such agreements, including economics, migration and so on.

I welcome the Minister back after the summer. I might bring him back to Europe and the need for reform. For years I have been a member of a tennis club and I was also once a member of a golf club. I found it much easier to change the rules from inside than outside the club. I have also noticed that sometimes the newer, smaller or less important EU members can have changes occur if they show enthusiasm and commitment.

I raise this issue because I feel what has happened in Europe recently, particularly the German election and the negative referendum results in the Netherlands and France, almost shows a sense of paralysis developing in the larger nations. I was startled by the words of Mr.Berlusconi and the strongly anti-European rhetoric I heard used in Italy. To what extent is it possible for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, representing Ireland, and for us as Irish people to grab the opportunity, using that enthusiasm that is generally shown in Ireland, to push for reform and change? I sense that in other parts of Europe they are almost looking for someone to come in and help. Having returned from recent visits to eastern Europe, I am very impressed at the great regard in which Ireland is held. We may have the opportunity to do something about this now. The Laaken declaration of a few years ago which initiated the effort to bring the peoples of Europe closer to the European Union led to the convention and the treaty. Clearly, this has not worked, but if a kick-start is to come, it could come from a small nation that is very highly regarded. Does the Minister have any views on Ireland's ability to act as initiator?

I thank the Senator for his comments. We remain positive regarding the need for reform of the European Union. Our record on the way in which the draft constitution was finalised is a testament to how we can succeed and punch above our weight. The Senator mentioned the high regard in which we are held, but that is true not only in the accession countries. In my travels as UN envoy I visited over 25 countries and everywhere we went the people whom we met wanted to know the reason for our success. I recall that I was supposed to meet Mr. Shimon Peres regarding the Middle East peace process, but we spent two and a half hours discussing what he wanted to know about how Ireland had succeeded. He is probably 30 years older than I am. He wanted to know how Israelis, a very innovative people, could in some way emulate what Ireland had done. We spent a considerable time together and he was an extremely interesting man in that respect.

We are more than willing to push forward, but the problem is that many of the bigger countries, as the Senator says, have been paralysed by significant economic difficulties. The situation of the Portuguese is not good. In France there is 10% unemployment. The position in Germany is similar. To a certain extent, the bigger countries are having to engage in a great deal of soul-searching regarding their future within the European Union. I firmly believe that, while we had a good chance of getting the constitution passed, now that it has been rejected by the French and Dutch, we must step back and do as Deputy Quinn says, reflect on what people say to us. That is very important and we should not be rushed into considering further reform. However, it has not left the agenda as far as the Foreign Ministers are concerned. We have had some initial discussions and most countries feel they must engage with the public, just as Ireland did after the first "No" vote on the Nice treaty. Ireland is being used as an example and the concept and model of the National Forum on Europe will probably be copied by many other countries. We will be ready, willing and able when the discussions get started for real, but that will not happen until well into 2006.

I am sorry if I raise anything that the Minister has already addressed. I apologise for being a little late.

Bearing in mind the divided opinions on the opening of discussions on Turkish EU accession, with good and bad points on both sides, I regret that, while the European Union raised nothing beyond the Copenhagen criteria, Turkey has demonstrated bad faith to say the least by relating its specific declaration to Cyprus when signing the protocol. In that vein, do we, as a member state and a sovereign country, have a formal position on the decision by Turkey to add recognition of Cyprus to the declaration? What do we intend to do about this in the short, medium and long term?

As I said, I have asked my officials to circulate the declaration agreed by the European Union to counter what was contained in the declaration brought forward by Turkey. It made the position quite clear, that while recognition was not a precondition to the starting of talks, it followed, as night follows day, that if Turkey was ever to accede to the European Union, it had to be able to recognise all existing member states. I made this point, emphatically, to the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdullah Gul, in Ankara. I also reminded him of my difficulties when I met him in New York. The night before I visited him in Ankara I stayed in Athens. I had a breakfast meeting with the Greek Foreign Minister and flew directly to Ankara for my meeting with Mr. Gul in the afternoon. I had intended to travel directly to Cyprus the next morning. However, at Turkey's insistence, I had to travel via Beirut. I was not allowed to fly directly from Ankara to Cyprus. I told Mr. Gul that I regarded it as an abomination that I, as the representative of an EU member state, was not able to travel directly from an aspiring state to another EU country but I did not receive a reply on either occasion. While we are committed to holding discussions and negotiations, there is no way Turkey can ultimately join the European Union without first recognising all existing member states. In my discussions at EU level I have often raised the example of how Ireland and the United Kingdom joined. We had Articles 2 and 3 and the constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. I point out that this did not change our relationship. In fact, the European Union allowed it to prosper and ultimately facilitated an understanding which, thankfully, has led to the current situation.

I have postulated as an example the way in which the United Nations could ultimately deal with the Cypriot issue. It is recognised in the counter declaration that the process will be looked at again by it. Mr. Kofi Annan, particularly, and his staff have made great efforts to try to solve the problem. The Turks will make the point that they were willing to accept the Annan plan but, unfortunately, the Greek Cypriots were not.

I have two quick questions. There is no mention of Iraq in the Minister's presentation. Does he anticipate the UK Presidency will give a comprehensive report since Britain is heavily involved in the occupation of that country?

That matter is not on the agenda, but it had been on it for our last meeting.

My second question is whether the Colombian Minister raised with the Minister the response of the Government to the illegal return to this country of the so-called Colombia Three.

Yes, she asked to discuss the issue with me. She referred to the fact that the extradition request had been received in this country. I said that to the best of my knowledge we had received it, but that it had just arrived. I indicated clearly that it was not a political issue, that it would be dealt with through the Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions and, ultimately, the courts. I assured her that so far as Ireland was concerned, no more than Colombia, we did not wish, without referring to a particular case, to be a haven for people evading justice. I also made it clear to her that the matter would have to take its course through the independent process of government, that we could not order the arrest of anyone, and that it would be best if the matter was left to the legal process to sort out.

I thank the Minister.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.45 p.m. and adjourned at 3.55 p.m. until Wednesday, 5 October 2005.

Barr
Roinn