Apologies have been received from Deputies Allen, Sexton and Kirk and Senators Ormonde and Dardis.
European Frontiers: Presentation.
Senator Ormonde is speaking in the Seanad and may attend later.
The first business on our agenda is a presentation followed by an exchange of views on the frontiers of Europe with Ms Salome Zourabichvili, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Georgia. I welcome the Minister and apologise for the delay in starting. Now is probably the worst time to have a meeting as both Houses began their business at 10.30 a.m.
Our format is relaxed. We usually ask people to make presentations and then open the floor to the members to have a one-on-one discussion. I understand the main emphasis of the Minister's presentation will be the frontiers of Europe, where it starts and finishes and the interaction she expects Georgia to have with the European Union in the coming years.
Ms Salome Zourabichvili
I am here to speak about the frontiers of Europe. It is right that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Georgia presents this issue because, in a way, our countries are far apart but quite similar in terms of size, population and both are frontier countries. Ireland is in the European Union but, at the same time, is on its extreme western border while Georgia is an aspiring member state on the Union's eastern border and the coast of the Black Sea. We are at a difficult juncture looking toward the EU with much hope, particularly after the resolution reached in the talks with Turkey on 3 October 2005. The latter was very good news for us. We are, however, preoccupied with our talks with the EU, the pace of which slowed down recently. We continue to anticipate the actual beginning of negotiations on the neighbourhood policy.
It is useful to present the committee with a little more information about Georgia. Being so far away, I am sure it is not on members' minds every day. That is good because it would otherwise mean that people continued to see our country as still being in crisis and enduring conflict. It is better if we are forgotten about to some extent. We do not like that the Caucasus is discussed as a place of instability where there are ongoing problems.
Our countries have something in common in that we are close to places of conflict. These conflicts, rather than other problems and questions of development, are to the fore of the international community's attention. We are also looking to Ireland with interest because it is a country of similar size with a similar history. Georgia was subjected to a colonial period, although this was under a totalitarian system. Ireland has not experienced the latter. The Irish model and the Irish economic boom is interesting and worthy of examination.
Georgia is entering an important stage of development. Fifteen years ago we achieved independence and two years ago there was a revolution. The first few years of independence were dominated by turmoil and can be considered, compared with what happened in other Baltic states, lost years in terms of economic and statehood development. We are back on track since the revolution in November and many reforms have been accomplished in respect of fighting corruption, the most dramatic ill of the post-Soviet era.
We have tried to establish the institutions and instruments of the modern European state and this is a long process. We have taken the first steps but there remains a long way to go. Our orientation is clear, our European identity does not need to be proven and we do not seek confirmation of this from anyone. We wish to join European institutions and it is strange that our desire to join the EU is dictated by security and stability concerns rather than economic aspirations.
We expect to join NATO sooner than the EU and we see the former as protection and a place that can offer security. The EU is a place where one does not have security problems as much as when one is outside. Moreover, it is a community of values and of democratic states and this will consolidate our democratic formation. It is an economic community with a large, single market.
Currently the main market for Georgia is Russia and the regional market. We aspire to being part of the European market. European aspiration is one of the main driving forces behind today's reforms, which aim to consolidate democracy. We are also working towards NATO integration and are in the process of implementing the individual partnership action plan. That is on track, we are in the middle of the process and hope to move on to the stage of membership action plan before candidature for membership.
Our relationship with the EU is at an interesting stage. The agreement with Turkey is good news but the internal turmoil in respect of the constitution and the discussions on enlargement are not good news. We accept this situation and are considering the offer of the neighbourhood policy. As there will be a pause we should establish the type of relationship with the EU that will be in the common interest of Georgia and the Union.
The relationship will also encompass the areas on the borders of Georgia, a geostrategic region through which will pass the main transit and trade lines between Europe and central Asia, India and China in the future. Most of the energy transit lines that will bring Europe diversification will also pass through. Yesterday we inaugurated the Georgian segment of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and it will become active before the end of the year when the Turkish segment is completed. This is very symbolic as it is one of the first of these major energy transit lines. It will be doubled next year by a gas pipeline following the same path.
We have an intense relationship with central Asian countries and primarily with Kazakhstan, which has joined this pipeline and will deliver its oil to the south Caucasus and onwards to Turkey and Europe. Kazakhstan is also looking to connect and trade with Europe for other products. Kazakhstan is on the route to China, which will be the main market and consumer of the next century. These factors make this region important.
The region is one of new democratic developments at the margins of Europe. The developments two years ago in Georgia, and one year ago in the Ukraine, are important for the future of Europe. Stability in our region is essential to the stability of Europe. Our region is also at a crossroads between the enclosed neighbourhoods of the EU and Russia. It is not an easy or calm place to be, especially when Chechnya is over the border and Russia has not completely renounced its old imperial past or has difficulties doing so. It is balanced between taking a new direction and returning to old habits. Regardless of whether we like it, that is the situation in which we find ourselves.
The European Union must design and elaborate a policy towards Russia and decide what it wants to do in that relationship. The first step to be taken and first substantive legitimate item for dialogue between Russia and the European Union relates to the region neighbouring both. That dialogue is beginning extremely slowly. The process is at its initial stage but it is extremely important. We do not want our region to be one in which only the United States and Russia are involved and only consider each other. The United States has been the main supporter of Georgian independence in recent years. It is one of our major allies and will continue as such. It has strategic interests in the region. The pipeline is one but it is not the only consideration. Those interests will remain in place.
At the same time, Russia is a neighbour and, as such, has normal interests in the region. That is perfectly acceptable to us so long as those normal interests are defended in a normal manner. We are trying to achieve normalisation of behaviour but we need the support of the international community. We also need the involvement of a third party, the European Union, because the best way to ensure stability in the region is to transform it into one of co-operation on the same interests. It is in everybody's interest that this region remains and develops as a transit region between east and west and north and south. The region is important with regard to rail links between Russia and the south and links between Iran and the European Union. For us and for the sake of stability, it is important that the relationship between Iran and the EU stabilises in order that we are not in the middle of new confrontations. We do not need them and nor does anyone else.
This strategic region seeks stability and democratic consolidation. All of our efforts are aimed at achieving that. However, we need the support of the international community and the European Union. One of the instruments we are developing is a neighbourhood policy. We are ready to discuss it completely and substantially. We have clear priorities and concerns with regard to what is at stake for the EU and our region, namely, the circulation of people, border control management and stability, democratic consolidation and transit infrastructure development. We need an interlocutor. The Commission is absent and has not started the negotiations requested by member states. We need Ireland's support so that this process will be pushed forward. If one cannot prove that the neighbourhood policy is effective, the question of enlargement will be discussed in a more critical atmosphere than is now the case.
The neighbourhood policy can be beneficial for those that want further enlargement and also those who doubt the necessity for this. In any event, whatever the prospects for future enlargements, the EU must define what type of relationship it wants to have with its neighbours. We are ready for that. We do not renounce our long-term European perspectives but we are ready to be partners with the EU in designing an effective neighbourhood policy and a model neighbourhood policy. This policy has not yet delivered and is not a success for those who negotiated it. We have learned from those negotiations and the policies designed through them. We believe our priorities and policies are better adapted to what a neighbourhood policy should be. We need to have somebody to speak with and the Commission to come forward ready for substantial negotiations.
That was one of the main messages I had in London yesterday when I met the British Presidency. It also an important message for Ireland because it is important that smaller countries in the EU support smaller countries on its borders. We must discuss how we can introduce more stability in and around the EU. I am grateful for this opportunity to express our views and to provide some information on Georgia. I am ready to answer any questions.
The Minister is welcome. When one reads about Georgia's recent history, one wonders where one starts a day's work in a country which is beset by so many problems. I will make two observations. I ask that the Foreign Minister does not take Ireland's position as solace. We received our independence in 1922. By the mid-1950s, two countries in Europe — the Republic of Ireland and the German Democratic Republic or East Germany — were losing population. An entire generation of senior Irish politicians and civil servants privately felt that Ireland in the mid-1950s faced economic disaster and social breakdown and that the independence movement had, perhaps, been a tragic mistake. One could fear that in private but one could not state it in public. Those were the depths to which we had sunk. During the 81 or 83 years of our independence, only the past 15 years have seen the type of success for which people such as the Foreign Minister, Ms Zourabichvili, now look towards us. It has not always been so and we made many mistakes. I offer that by way of consolation.
I read in the briefing note that the major Irish electrical company, the ESB, is heavily involved in Georgia. A history of the ESB is a history of how this country came from rural poverty to urban prosperity. Georgia is in good hands with that company.
The enlargement of the European Union is being endangered by its members trying to do too much, too quickly. I recognise that the prospect of membership of the European Union is a very attractive co-ordinating and mobilising objective, in economic terms, for the people of Georgia. I also realise that membership of NATO is a security objective for Georgia, given the region in which it is located. From our point of view, however, the recent rapid enlargement of the Union, the attempts to integrate the single currency and efforts to streamline decision making are slowing down the enlargement process and the progress we would like to make is not being made.
Whatever way the ultimate objectives regarding the destiny of Georgia are presented to its citizens, in the short term, that is, in the next ten to 15 years, adopting a very constructive and proactive neighbourhood policy between Georgia and the European Union is the best way forward. The representatives will be familiar with the debate on the opening of negotiations with Turkey and the same kinds of concerns would apply to the further, eastern expansion of the EU. However, that is not to say that we do not need to have good, positive relations with our neighbours. We also need secure and prosperous neighbours because rich countries do not go to war against, or cause difficulties for, each other. It is very much in the interest of Georgia, as well as of the EU, that it makes a success of the project in which it is in engaged and I wish the Republic of Georgia well in that regard.
I welcome the Georgian Foreign Minister to Ireland. There are many similarities between Ireland and Georgia in terms of population and so forth. The Minister referred to the fact that Georgia might not be on our minds every day, but we have not forgotten it. We are an outward looking country and young Irish people travel a great deal. We have pretty good information systems and keep up to date with what is happening in Georgia, particularly the developments there in the last two years, as well as developments in the European Union and its expansion.
No matter what developments take place outside of one's own country, one must get one's own internal administrative and economic systems right. Ireland joined the EEC in 1973 but it was probably about 15 years later before we realised that membership provided us with great opportunities. Membership of the EU would provide great opportunities for Georgia and I hope that the lead-in time is not as long as it was in our case. However, when we finally got our act together, rapid development and economic growth took place and our people were provided with good opportunities. We found that having our own house in order ensured that the potential of membership was realised.
I note that Georgia has a very strong agricultural base and we have a well developed food industry here. We support Georgia's application to join the EU but would also like to see co-operation between our two countries in the development of the agrifood industry. Any assistance that we can give in terms of research and development will be forthcoming. I wish the Minister the best of luck and I hope that Georgia has a short lead-in time in obtaining economic benefits from membership of the EU.
: The Minister is very welcome. I recognised immediately the strong links between Georgia and Ireland in terms of size, population and history. Our population is very similar in size; there are approximately 5 million on this island. We have a large neighbour with whom we have had difficulties over the years and we still have some border difficulties with that neighbour.
I was impressed when, during his visit to Georgia in May, President Bush referred to the country as being a beacon of liberty for the region and the world. He then went on to say that he was sure that Russia would recognise the benefit of having democratic states on her borders. To what extent is the difficult relationship with Russia capable of being solved in the immediate future? The President of Georgia refused to attend the celebrations of the end of the Second World War in Moscow in May. Is the relationship improving at all? I believe there was a problem recently when the Russian Federation refused to implement the border monitoring unit. Could Ms Zourabichvili outline Georgia's relationship with Russia and whether she believes it will present problems in the future?
Ms Zourabichvili
The relationship with Russia causes the most difficulties for me, as Foreign Minister, and for the Government in general, because it is such a close and powerful neighbour. We are totally dependent on Russia for gas and the main market for our goods is Russia. Therefore, anything that happens in the relationship with Russia directly affects development in Georgia.
The main problem we have with Russia is not knowing whether it has fully accepted Georgian independence. We do not know if it is willing to move towards a new type of relationship with its neighbours, one of normal influence through normal economic means and not involving the use of old instruments such as destabilisation through conflict or indirect domination of domestic politics. This is also true also for larger countries like Ukraine.
In general, we do not know whether Russia understands that it is in everyone's interest to have democratic countries on its borders, that this is not a threatening situation but one that can have a positive influence in Russia itself. We are still in very unclear water and the Russian authorities, particularly the President, seem to be going in two different directions. One direction is bringing about normalisation of our relationship and, in that context, we have seen the withdrawal of the Russian military bases in our country, which is a welcome development.
However, in the other direction we have seen a deterioration of the relationship due to measures and decisions taken by Russia on our frozen conflicts on the territory of Georgia. Russian peacekeepers and mediators are taking sides rather than acting as true mediators and Russia is contradicting the principles it has affirmed on respecting Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The main difficulty lies in reconciling the two different Russias that we confront and that makes normalisation a very difficult task for us.
However, we have no alternative but to complete the task because we cannot live next to Russia without having found a modus vivendi with our neighbour. That is something of which we are fully aware because history has taught us that lesson. To find that modus vivendi we need much more involvement from the international community, particularly the United States of America. The visit of President Bush was a welcome sign in that regard as it indicated that the US was becoming more involved in trying to find a solution to the conflicts and an improvement in the relationship. However, the European Union is also needed to avoid a one-to-one relationship, which was a situation typical of the 20th century.
In terms of dialogue with Russia, it would be more productive if dialogue were also simultaneously entered into with the United States and the European Union, whereby Russia would not be confronted but would be told the benefits that ensue from normalised relations with its neighbours. We hope that the coming year will bring positive developments by means of international organisations playing more active roles and possibly by putting the G8 format to better use to allow the type of informal dialogue which Russia needs. While we also require such dialogue, I am convinced that Russia needs to find its way for its own sake.
It is my understanding that Georgia wants the EU to play a greater role in border management. However, some within the EU believe that may not be wise because of the risk of involving EU countries in unstable areas. There are a number of Irish soldiers in Georgia, including one of my constituents who has been stationed there for the past year. Given that relations have not been normalised with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is it not unrealistic from the EU's point of view to have troops in that unstable area?
Ms Zourabichvili
That is an incorrect understanding of our requests. We have not asked for troops to protect the border. Nobody would provide those. We had an effective civilian border monitoring mission from the OSCE on one of the borders separating Georgia from the Chechen part of Russia, which provided for the absence of any incidents with Russia. Military incidents never occurred along the border in question but rather involved accusations. The result of not having a border monitoring mission might be an increase in mutual accusations and tensions. The presence of international civilian monitors was a useful confidence building measure and not a military measure to protect or separate the border.
We know that the EU will never introduce military personnel to places where they could be at the centre of confrontations between Georgia and Russia. We are asking the EU, as part of its neighbourhood policy and beyond the small mission in place in Georgia, to help us design a border management consultant strategy. Georgia is located in a transit region with sensitive borders, especially along conflict zones and with Russia. These borders will also have to be crossed easily if we want to have an effective transit region. We need both transparency and control and are looking for expertise and support in finding the right mix of the two and to put a European type of border in place. The process of designing and implementing a border management system should commence with us but should also involve trilateral co-operation with Russia. It cannot be done against Russia's wishes because that country would then use a veto to terminate the project. It could be a wide-ranging and stabilising project in terms of putting substance into the EU-Russian relationship.
I welcome the Minister. We would not have been free to discuss these matters 15 years ago and her visit is a good omen for the future.
I believe that most of the population of Abkhazia are Russian or Russian speaking. What are the Ministers' thoughts on the future of that region? Will she also inform us on Ajara, which we hear nothing about, and that region's relations with Chechnya? Is it a separate area with a different population or does she regard it as part of Georgia?
I join my colleagues in extending a warm welcome to the Minister. The comments of Deputies Quinn and Walsh should be of interest to her. I am aware, as the leader of the Irish delegation at the OSCE, that her colleagues regularly highlight the situation in the region and the needs of Georgia and that message is reaching the wider community. The more dialogue we have, the more contributions we can make. I hope as a result of the Minister's visit and future contacts the situation in Georgia and its surrounding region will improve.
Ms Zourabichvili
I will start with the easier subject of Ajara, which is only one region in Georgia and is populated with Christian and Muslim Georgians. It is located on the border of Turkey and does not present any specific difficulties. It is an autonomous region and, during the past decade, its leadership consisted of a small dictatorship within the larger state. Georgia has experienced two revolutions, one throughout the country and the other in Ajara, the latter resulting in a leadership that is normal to autonomous regions. Ajara is fully integrated into Georgian territory.
Abkhazia is a different story because it is located on the border with Russia and was the subject of a war shortly after Georgian independence. I am told this was a war waged by Russia against Georgian independence, which was the reason for our loss. A complex situation obtains in Abkhazia. It contained both ethnic Abkhazians and ethnic Georgians but this ethnicity represents the remnants of the Soviet totalitarian system which divided people by ethnicity rather than by citizenship.
There were formerly 250,000 Georgians and 70,000 Abkhazians in the region but the war forced all the Georgians and some of the Abkhazians to leave. Today there are approximately 45,000 Abkhazians, 40,000 Armenians and 30,000 Russians. Some Georgians have returned but are commuting because they do not have schools or the security needed to settle in border parts of Abkhazia. The primary question concerns these displaced persons. On the day they are allowed to return, we will explore the possibility for the region to decide its own future. It cannot express its will until the whole population has returned.
Meanwhile Russians are distributing Russian passports to everyone who lives in this region, while officially telling us they recognise Georgian sovereignty over Abkhazia. When they had peacekeeping forces there, they distributed citizenship and passports and encouraged Russian citizens and tourists to come to Abkhazia without visas for Georgia and to pass illegal frontiers.
This is unsettling behaviour which we must deal with without accommodating. The United Nations is involved in conflict resolution in this area but the problem is that both the conflict and the peace process are frozen. Our main efforts today are to reinvigorate the peace process and get it moving.
I thank the Minister for addressing the committee. I understand this is the first time a Foreign Minister from Georgia has visited Ireland. The committee wishes her a successful and enjoyable visit in Ireland. There is a great deal of interest in this subject and we wish her luck in her future efforts on possible EU accession.
Ms Zourabichvili
Thank you very much.
Sitting suspended at 11.22 a.m. and resumed at 11.23 a.m.
Business of Joint Committee.
Item two concerns the draft second annual report of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. I propose to defer consideration of this report to next week. Is that agreed? Agreed. I propose to defer the minutes, as they were not circulated. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The joint committee went into private session at 11.25 a.m. and adjourned at 11.30 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 October 2005.