I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his delegation. I ask the Minister to outline his observations on the Council meeting. We are sorry Cork did not win any silver this year.
GAERC Meeting: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
No, but events have motivated us sufficiently for next year.
Time will tell.
As ever, I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet the committee in advance of the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting which is scheduled for next week. This will be the third session of the General Affairs and External Relations Council under the French Presidency and it will be chaired by the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner. The agenda is focused on external relations, which reflects the active role which the French Presidency has played in the search for a peaceful solution to the Russia-Georgia conflict. In addition, the current state of play of the world trade negotiations in light of the outcome of the recent Geneva meeting will also be discussed.
In July, when we last considered the world trade negotiations, I reported to the committee that the director general of the World Trade Organisation, Mr. Pascal Lamy, had called a ministerial meeting with the aim of achieving a breakthrough in the negotiations. As I am sure members are aware, these negotiations ended somewhat inconclusively in Geneva on 29 July 2008. In the end, the breakdown came as a result of disagreement primarily between the United States and India over a special safeguard mechanism for agricultural producers in developing countries. Together with our partners in the European Union, Ireland had wanted to see an ambitious, fair and balanced outcome to the negotiations and we shared in the disappointment expressed following the collapse of the meeting.
As matters stand, it seems unlikely the WTO negotiations could be resumed with any prospect of success in the short to medium term. It is not expected that there will be any substantive discussion on the WTO at next Monday's Council and no conclusions are foreseen. The Ministers responsible for trade will meet informally on Sunday evening. While I expect that there will be an exchange of views on the failure of the WTO negotiations, the main topics for discussion on that occasion will be trade and the environment.
Turning to the external relations agenda, the Presidency has produced a short, focused agenda with most discussion likely to focus on the situation in Georgia following the brief war and Russian military incursions of last month. Before turning to the GAERC agenda, I wish to briefly comment on the informal meeting of the EU Foreign Ministers known as Gymnich which I attended in Avignon last weekend. Discussions there centred chiefly on the crisis in Georgia, the future of transatlantic relations and the Middle East. Very productive exchanges occurred on these matters and I commend Minister Kouchner on the organisation of an excellent meeting.
On transatlantic relations, there was agreement on the importance of identifying a limited number of priorities to guide our future engagement with the new US Administration and work will continue on this in the coming weeks. Perhaps this is a matter in which the committee might be interested in terms of what the nature of the EU-US relationship should be into the future with a new Administration coming on board. Any views that would inform our position on this would be welcome.
The recent crisis in Georgia was also uppermost in the minds of the Presidency and Ministers in Avignon, not least in view of President Sarkozy's visit to Moscow yesterday. Partners remain united in support of the Presidency's effort to secure full implementation of the six point plan negotiated by President Sarkozy with Russia and Georgia last month. There was also a clear recognition in Avignon that the EU's relations with Russia cannot develop further until such time as Russia withdraws its troops and forces from the buffer zones adjacent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as called for by the European Council on 1 September.
A further item related to the Georgia crisis discussed briefly in Avignon was the EU's relations with Belarus. It was suggested that there now appears to be some grounds for reviewing our relations with Belarus in light of some recent positive developments. We raised issues pertaining to the Chernobyl children's project and I will discuss that later.
In terms of the external relations agenda for the Council next Monday, the conflict in early August between Russian and Georgian forces over the issue of Georgia's relations with its separatist regions has underlined how fragile peace and stability in parts of post-Cold War eastern Europe remains. At the European Council on 1 September, which I attended along with the Taoiseach, the EU reiterated its support for the full implementation of the six point peace plan agreed under the aegis of President Sarkozy and indicated that it would be willing to contribute to an international monitoring force to ensure this.
The European Council also offered its support for an international conference to advance the reconstruction of Georgia and envisaged a general building up of relations with eastern neighbours. It is expected that conclusions will be agreed at the GAERC to give effect to these commitments. The Council is also likely to approve the establishment of an EU civilian monitoring mission to Georgia.
President Sarkozy visited Moscow yesterday to press the case for Russia to fully meet its commitments under the six point plan and to consult on further steps to resolve the crisis. I welcome the agreement reached in Moscow which provides for a withdrawal of Russian forces from the buffer zones within one month and the commencement of international negotiations on South Ossetia and Abkhazia on 15 October in Geneva.
The events in Georgia have implications far beyond that country. Russia's disproportionate actions in response to Georgia's actions in South Ossetia on 7 and 8 August raised concerns in many quarters. Likewise, the decision announced by President Medvedev on 26 August that Russia would recognise the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states has been widely condemned internationally, including by Ireland and the EU, and has complicated efforts to find a negotiated settlement. These actions are already leading to some rethinking and re-evaluation of the EU-Russia relationship, although there is general recognition that the relationship remains an indispensable reality for both sides.
Serious concerns have also been raised in many of Russia's neighbours both by its actions and its rhetoric, in particular suggestions that it considers it has the right to intervene to protect its interests and its citizens elsewhere in what it perceives as its sphere of influence. There are issues which could potentially arise involving the formal borders adopted during Soviet times and the situation of ethnic minorities in almost all of the states that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the Russian Federation. The EU and the wider international community will need to reflect on all these issues in the coming weeks and months.
In the meantime, it is clear that there can be no business as usual as regards the further development of EU-Russia relations until such time as Russia pulls back its forces from the buffer zones adjacent to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The European Council Conclusions of 1 September have confirmed that negotiations on a new partnership and co-operation agreement with Russia will remain suspended until such time as this withdrawal occurs, hopefully within one month as agreed to yesterday in Moscow.
Recent positive steps have been taken by the Belarusian Government, most notably the release of all remaining political prisoners last month. The draft Conclusions will therefore welcome Belarus's actions on prisoners and indicate that, if the upcoming 28 September parliamentary elections demonstrate a commitment to improve the previously dire electoral process, the EU will consider further steps to improve relations. It is not expected, however, that there will be a debate at GAERC on this issue.
As I already mentioned, the EU's relations with Belarus were also briefly discussed at the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers last weekend. Clearly, there remain important issues for the EU to pursue with Belarus, including human rights as well as the restrictions the Belarus Government has indicated it wishes to impose on children affected by the Chernobyl accident from travelling to third countries, including Ireland, for treatment and recuperation.
I conveyed to my colleagues in Avignon the concern in Ireland at these restrictions and my intention to have detailed discussions with the Belarus authorities on this issue. I look forward to positive and fruitful discussions later this week with Belarusian representatives to resolve the difficulties which have arisen. Our ambassador in Moscow is in Minsk today for discussions with the authorities there and we have invited the chargé d'affaires in London to Ireland this week to pursue the issue further.
The Presidency has indicated there may be a short discussion which will focus on the unblocking of the application of the interim agreement on economic and trade issues signed with Serbia last April and the extent of that country's co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY. In a statement I issued on 22 July, I welcomed the arrest the previous night of Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader, who was indicted in July 1995 by the ICTY on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. This arrest highlights the commitment of the Government and people of Serbia to draw a line under the tragic past and move towards a secure and stable future in Europe. We urge the Government of Serbia to build on this success and continue its efforts to finalise full co-operation with the ICTY. We hope this will lead to the arrest of the two remaining fugitives, Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzic. This remains an essential condition for fulfilment of the country's European perspective.
The Council will also address a number of African issues, beginning with the continuing dire situation in Zimbabwe where the governmental crisis arising from last March's disputed presidential election remains unresolved. The continued suffering of the Zimbabwean people under a brutal, destructive and illegitimate regime remains very much on our minds. Since July we have been closely following developments in the South African-mediated talks between Mugabe's Zanu-PF, and the two Movement for Democratic Change groups. The situation appears to have reached an impasse, though President Mbeki arrived in Harare yesterday to make a further effort to broker agreement.
My EU colleagues and I believe that the vote on 29 March last was the clearest indication possible of the will of the Zimbabwean people and that any resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe must be in keeping with that result. This would inevitably require Mugabe ceding real power to the MDC, including over economic and security policy. Regrettably, this looks increasingly problematic, as Mugabe and his associates seem determined to hold on to power.
The European Union stands ready to bring further pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime if events require. However, it is Zimbabwe's African neighbours, above all South Africa, which retain the greatest potential influence and leverage on the current situation. Ireland will continue its support for humanitarian activities, health and education in Zimbabwe, via non-governmental organisations, missionaries and UN agencies. A recent positive development has been the decision to allow non-governmental organisations in Zimbabwe resume the provision of humanitarian assistance, though some worrying restrictions still remain. Irish Aid support to the Zimbabwean people has totalled more than €25 million since 2006.
A second African item the Council may consider is the continuing grave political and humanitarian crisis in Somalia and the related problems posed by piracy off its coast. As well as proving one of the most serious security challenges facing those trying to provide humanitarian assistance to the estimated 2.6 million Somalis currently in dire need, the piracy issue also affects important international shipping routes. The focus of any discussion at the GAERC is likely to be on how the EU can assist in implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1816, adopted last June, which calls for concerted international action to address the problem of piracy in Somali territorial waters. At the GAERC in July, I and my fellow Ministers for Foreign Affairs approved a plan for crisis management in response to this resolution.
Since then, work has been ongoing in developing this. A number of EU partners, including France, Denmark and the Netherlands, are already engaged in providing naval escorts for UN World Food Programme deliveries of humanitarian assistance attempting to reach Somalia by sea. The question of a possible ESDP operation also remains under consideration, though further work on this is required. The security and humanitarian situation in Somalia continues to be critical though it is clear that a purely security approach to Somalia's problems, in the absence of dialogue between the factions, is unlikely to be successful. Pressure needs to be put on all sides to ensure the Djibouti peace deal survives to alleviate the human suffering being endured by millions of Somali people and to allow unrestricted humanitarian relief to be delivered.
This concludes the GAERC agenda. I thank the members for their attention and will be pleased to respond to any questions or comments they may have.
I thank the Minister. I take it from his contribution that the WTO discussions are dead, off the agenda and parked ad infinitum. On a personal level I regret that. All sides in the developed world and the underdeveloped world would have benefited greatly if agreement had been reached.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on Georgia. I congratulate President Sarkozy, who in the past has been the centre of some recriminations from committees here, for his work. He has done good work with respect to the conflict in the region in the past month. It is not a simple situation. There is wrong on both sides. Can the Minister confirm that the European six-point plan envisages Russian troops going back to the pre-conflict position outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Does the Minister believe that will happen? I understand that a few hundred EU observers may be deployed to the area. Does he envisage any role for Irish military personnel being deployed into that area?
We are all disappointed that the Belarusian authorities have introduced an embargo on children leaving that country. However, again it is not as simple as is often portrayed. In the past the Belarusian authorities made an attempt to sign an agreement with this country over the adoption of children but could not get the approval of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, perhaps for constitutional reasons. I would like the Minister to expand on that matter. Have the Belarusian authorities sought any commitments or requirements from the Irish authorities that we have failed to provide in the past few years?
Since his previous appearance before the committee, I understand the Minister met the South African ambassador to discuss the issue of Zimbabwe. Did he relay to her our dissatisfaction at the role played by the South African President on the issue in the past? I accept he has made efforts in recent times. There seems to be a certain amount of shadow boxing. President Mugabe does not seem to have interest in getting agreement with the MDC. He is placing the bar so high that it is not in Morgan Tsvangirai's interest to sign up to an agreement under which he would have no real power. Does the Minister believe there is a commitment from President Mugabe for any sort of power sharing? I ask him to enlighten us as to the view of the South African President, who has a very important role to play and one he has not really played to date.
The Minister spoke about the Balkans and the conditions to allow Serbia to further its ambition regarding the EU. The Minister needs to bring the message to the conference that the prospect of EU membership has added greatly to the stability of the Balkans. It is very unhelpful for the French and Germans in particular to send out a message that ratification of the Lisbon treaty would be necessary for further enlargement. Can the Minister confirm that is not legally correct? Enlargement can take place under the terms of the Nice treaty. It is unhelpful from the point of view of Croatia and subsequently for Serbia and others that the message is going out that the Lisbon treaty must be ratified to allow these countries join the EU. The Minister should relay that message at the Council of Ministers.
On the issue of the Lisbon treaty, to which the Minister has not alluded much——
It is not on the agenda.
While I accept it is not on the agenda, in the context of enlargement, if the Lisbon treaty is not ratified what does the Minister believe will happen? I know it is a difficult question.
The Deputy should ask Declan Ganley.
Someone will——
Is the Deputy asking what will happen if the treaty is not ratified?
What will happen if the Lisbon treaty is not actually ratified? In that context, I have noticed that the Minister has floated some ideas over recent days. Perhaps someone has floated the ideas on his behalf. I refer to the possibility of decreasing Ireland's involvement in the EU common foreign and security policy, CFSP, for example. It is important to acknowledge that the CFSP has evolved over time. The Brahimi report had a big influence on the manner in which the UN operates its peacekeeping policy. It evolved not as a result of some ideology, but as a pragmatic approach to being of assistance in areas of conflict. It is unhelpful to suggest that we are considering a reduction in our involvement in such areas. Ireland's peacekeeping role has been the jewel in this country's foreign policy crown over many years. Rather than talking about issuing declarations to ease people's minds, we should explain exactly what is involved to the public. Many safeguards — some of which Fine Gael does not consider necessary — are already provided for in our Constitution and the various treaties, including the Lisbon treaty. We should not send out the message that we are seeking to row back in this regard. When Ireland's contribution in this area is explained the public, people tend to view the EU in a more favourable light. If there is to be a second referendum — nobody knows whether that will happen — perhaps the Irish people could be asked separately to affirm this country's involvement in the common foreign and security policy. Fine Gael believes that Ireland should participate fully in the CFSP, but that is not what is happening at the moment.
There is not much left for me to say, now that so many questions have been asked. I will try to throw one or two thoughts into the mix. I will start by picking up on what Deputy Timmins said about the Lisbon treaty, although I do not intend to go into it in any detail. The treaty is not on the agenda yet, but I assume it will be considered by the Heads of State and Government when they meet in the middle of October. It would not make much sense to pre-empt that discussion.
I agree with Deputy Timmins's comments about enlargement. The French Presidency has issued a statement suggesting that there can be no further enlargement of the EU until the Lisbon treaty has been ratified. That is not the way to do business in any circumstances, as the statement is not factually true. Countries like Croatia are hoping to make progress in the short term. When the EU decided to recognise Kosovo, it made clear it was doing so in the context of giving Serbia access to the enlargement process. In such circumstances, it should be made clear that the Lisbon treaty does not preclude enlargement per se. We are familiar with the logistics of the process of streamlining the EU institutions. That is not the point we are making. We are talking about the principles and the facts.
The Minister's first point related to the Gymnich meeting in Avignon. The term "Gymnich" is a new one on me. The disproportionate role played by the United States, compared to the European Union, in the Middle East is an issue that has been raised at this committee on many occasions. While the EU tries to act as an honest broker in the Middle East, the US seems to have the power to dictate any negotiations on a solution to the conflict there, even though it is clear that the US disproportionately favours one of the parties involved. It is difficult for the US to be an honest broker in this instance. It has contributed to the failure of all parties, on many occasions, to bring the talks to a successful conclusion. There is a great fear in the Arab world of the military and political roles of the US. The European Union provides most of the money that is spent on supporting people in the Middle East, particularly in Palestinian areas like the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It is time for the EU to remind the US, in no uncertain terms, that it has supported such people in difficult circumstances. It would be much more beneficial if the Union were to try to play a much more weighty role in such matters.
This brings us to the issue of the day, namely, Georgia. We find ourselves in another messy situation, one which was not of the European Union's making. The problem appears to have been needlessly allowed to get out of hand as the President of Georgia engaged in rather rash actions, seemingly with some nudging from the United States which appears to have given indications that help was on the horizon. Georgia's application to join NATO and soundings that had been made appeared to indicate to Georgia that it could put it up to Russia. However, the manner in which it chose to do so ended in a total disaster which has effectively handed the initiative on this issue to Russia.
The aggressive action was taken by the Georgians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. While there was provocation by the Russians, the military action was taken by the Georgians who expected the cavalry to ride in from the United States and European Union. Despite the criticism we have levelled against him, President Sarkozy was thankfully the man on the spot and produced a six point peace plan which was accepted by all sides. Although the terms of the plan have been breached from time to time in the interim, the initiative provides another example of how the European Union can act as an honest broker in circumstances of this nature. The United States did nothing but issue threats, accusing Russia of being the aggressor, even though this was not the case, and stating that all possible support would be given to Georgia. Meeting this commitment has not been possible in the circumstances and we are left with a very messy situation.
I am also concerned about the precedent established by the decision to recognise Kosovo. The European Union did not have an all-embracing position on Kosovo. Many countries, including Spain, are appalled by the decision to recognise Kosovo because it gives a certain degree of rectitude to the position of minorities within their jurisdictions. Serbia, as we were informed in no uncertain terms, regards Kosovo as an integral part of its jurisdiction. The European Union is more or less telling Serbia that enlargement will not proceed until Lisbon is ratified. This is not a satisfactory position.
The recognition of Kosovo provides Russia with a pretext for recognising South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev have cited the European Union's decision to recognise Kosovo, an integral part of Serbia, as a precedent which entitles them to act in this regard. These issues need to be clarified and the European Union needs to decide where it stands on the Kosovo issue. How many countries will recognise Kosovo or have done so already?
A European Union mission will be sent to Kosovo and an international reconstruction conference will provide funding and support for the region. Has the Department taken a position on whether and to what extent Ireland will get involved in either or both of these initiatives?
I also seek clarification on the restrictions imposed by Belarus on Chernobyl children travelling to Ireland. We have a solid track record in providing assistance and I understand there have not been any breaches, for example, people remaining here and so forth. It has been suggested in the media that Ireland has failed to make some formal recognition that was required by Belarus and certain documents have not yet been signed. What is the position in this regard? On Africa, the recent elections in Zimbabwe remain the crucial issue. Does the European Union have a role in this regard? What is the European Union doing in terms of Zimbabwe? Is it providing any funds on a humanitarian basis? It did not provide any monitors for the election. Is Mugabe allowing the EU within Zimbabwe's borders?
This country has a long relationship with Belarus. My own constituency is very active in this regard and we have a very strong organisation there supporting the Belarusians. Obviously, there have been difficulties in recent weeks pertaining to the American situation but I hope the matter can be resolved. This is also an opportunity for us to review our own activities in that there seems to be replication in terms of the same groups of children coming from Belarus into their teenage years. If we are to contribute in a meaningful way we should be able to ensure we are dealing with the younger children rather than having the same children coming for a number years who want to stay here when they become adults. We should examine the matter in a detailed way. It is important that the opportunity is afforded to children to come to Ireland to be looked after medically, educationally and developmentally for a number of years. We cannot continue with an ad infinitum attitude that children can come here year after year as they grow into adulthood, which has been happening to some extent.
The situation in Georgia was the big issue of the summer. It presents a big challenge and a test for the European Union, as my colleagues indicated also. I, too, wish to pay a special tribute to President Sarkozy, who has done an outstanding job during France's Presidency of the Union. He has given outstanding leadership and has kept open the dialogue with the Russians and brought them on board. While there is no conclusion, at least dialogue is taking place and progress is being made, which we must acknowledge. We thank President Sarkozy for that great work. It is very important that the European Union strengthens its position with the Russian Federation. We need a strong bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation, which is a major supplier of energy resources to the European Union and a big consumer of products from the Union, including Ireland. We must recognise that and its strength as a powerful force in the world.
As Deputy Costello indicated, we now have a situation where Georgia expects both the European Union and the United States to come to its aid urgently, which would add to a volatile situation. We should be mindful that, as a country and as a member of the European Union, we recognised Kosovo which weakens our credibility vis-à-vis the situation pertaining to the adjoining state to Georgia. We must send a clear message at the GAERC that the European Union fully recognises the key role that the Russian Federation has to play, the importance it has for the future development of Europe, especially for the expansion of the European Union, and that we must operate in an even-handed and honourable way with it. We should accept that we must negotiate a solution to the conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia and other states to ensure we have no further conflict or difficulties in the future. This is a great test for the Union and I hope we are up to the task. I wish the Minister, his colleagues and especially President Sarkozy, during France’s Presidency of the European Union, every success in getting a final, positive, sustainable conclusion to that worrying, volatile situation.
I thank the Minister for explaining the agenda for next week's meeting. I have a big concern, which I did not recognise until the situation in Georgia arose. One gunshot in Sarajevo in 1914 caused the First World War in which many millions died because that area was a tinderbox. That same tinderbox is in that part of the world, even farther east of Georgia. The fact that Russia moved in and has not yet moved out of that area in Georgia is a reminder of how weak we are. If Russia can move into areas where there are Russian minorities to defend them, what happens if it decides to do the same in Latvia and Estonia where there are large Russian minorities that have not assimilated into the communities there?
I was in Estonia recently and I recall the outcry when the monument to the Russian war dead was moved from Tallinn to a cemetery. We are very close to another tinder box scenario there. If Russia feels it can get away with defending its minorities in Georgia, what happens if it believes it is obliged to do the same in the Ukraine, if and when it joins the EU, Latvia and Estonia? It is a large concern and the manner in which we in Europe handle this will influence future Russian actions.
The concern is also linked to the Lisbon treaty. If we had a Lisbon treaty, we would have one permanent president and foreign minister for Europe. As Deputy Costello and others have pointed out, thankfully the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, was able to act in a manner, in which we approve, in Georgia. It is a reminder, however, how weak we are in Europe, particularly as we extend eastwards. This is a situation that requires more thinking because of the danger of what could happen. It is a reminder of what happened in the past and how it could happen again. France and Germany appear to take a soft approach to Russia while Britain, Sweden and some others would take a much tougher approach if they had their way. It is not an easy situation but it is one in which Ireland could play a large part.
Today I received a letter from a business contact in Lebanon in which he stated he appreciated the care Ireland has shown towards Lebanon which sits at the crossroads of major conflict and issues in the Middle East. He continued that with the presence of the European multinational forces on the southern borders of Lebanon, the situation has become much better. This summer they were blessed to have had a good tourism season which gave a shot in the arm to their economy. It is a reminder of the part we have played as a smaller country with no tradition of colonisation. I urge the Minister to continue to play this part.
I want to touch on the Belarus problem. For many of the Belarusian children who have come to Ireland since 1986, Shannon Airport was their point of entry. County Clare has several Chernobyl children groups, such as the Burren and east Clare groups. This morning I heard an interview with the leader of the Burren-Chernobyl group who is in Belarus. He claimed there is no ban on children coming to Ireland according to the relevant Belarusian authorities. There is a bilateral document the Irish Government must sign which has been with it since last April. What is the problem with the document that it has not been dealt with since last April? Most medical evidence has shown that for many of these children, coming to Ireland adds two years to their lives. The current difficulties have probably arisen because of the child who visited the United States and refused to return home. Will the Minister comment on the document received by the Department last April and explain why no response was issued, according to the Department of Humanitarian Affairs in Belarus?
It is dreadful to witness the extent of modern day piracy in the Somalian seas, particularly given the military might at the disposal of the United States and other countries. We heard recently that the crew of a French ship was kidnapped and held to ransom. Are there any plans to put in place a taskforce to deal with this issue? Has the United States Government installed any military personnel in the area to prevent this type of activity? I understand escorts are provided for some of the humanitarian shipments from the UN. Are there plans by the UN, EU or United States to install a military presence in the area? Somalia has a large coastline but tracking devices can be used. The coastline offers protection and personnel would not be in international waters.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the update on these important issues. The debate on the Lisbon treaty included a consideration of the purpose of the European project, and the Georgian conflict has now brought into sharp focus the original ideals behind that project. It is important that we have a debate, perhaps at a later stage, which allows us clearly to set forth the purpose of the EU in the context of the type of illegal conflict that has taken place in Georgia.
Have any discussions taken place with the Georgian President, Mr. Saakashvili? The Russians undeniably overreacted but, as other speakers observed, Georgia must take some of the blame for the conflict. While many international media concentrated on the larger debate regarding the relationship between the United States and Russia, insufficient emphasis has been placed on the gross irresponsibility of the Georgian President in taking the action he did. There is a role for President Sarkozy, as representative of the EU under the French Presidency, to engage President Saakashvili on this issue. The EU has been well represented in terms of President Sarkozy's response and I hope this will continue.
On the Belarusian issue, the Minister might take into account the difficulties encountered by many families in Ireland, particularly where children have stayed with them for prolonged periods. I am aware of several cases where Belarusian children, most of them orphans and many severely disabled, have died in this State and the Belarusian authorities have insisted that the bodies be repatriated even though there may be no parents to receive them. This is extremely harsh for the Irish families who have cared for these children and have been the only source of parental support. I ask that this issue be raised in the context of the discussions between the Minister's officials and the Belarusian authorities.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The conflict in Georgia raises several questions for the future. The most important of these is the potential for severe conflict in the area. Such an outcome was diverted on this occasion because Georgia is not a member of NATO. If it had been a member of NATO the situation would have been more serious than the Cuban missile crisis. One of NATO's main tenets is that an attack on one of its members is an attack on all of its members. President Saakashvili has done something, with military force, against what he calls his own people in South Ossetia. I am conscious of the fact that South Ossetia is close to Beslan, in North Ossetia, where many children were murdered in a school. To use the analogy of the bear, when the Russian people saw their cub being attacked, what response did President Saakashvili expect? He gave the public no confidence when he was seen chewing on the end of his tie during an interview with the BBC.
I strongly support US foreign policy and am probably in a minority because I support the McCain-Palin presidential ticket. If I had a million votes, they would get all of them. Notwithstanding this, a potentially very serious situation was averted. If Georgia had been a member of NATO we would have faced a serious crisis. Some countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union take the opportunity to have a go at Russia. This was seen in Estonia with the removal of the monument to Russian soldiers, which was done insensitively. We took the opportunity to remove a statue of Queen Victoria from this building and it was wisely given to the state of Victoria in Australia. The fact is, the monument to the Russian soldiers who fought in the Second World War——
In Cork they buried the statue of Queen Victoria in the ground for 70 years, but at least there was a map to guide people to where it was buried.
They are not called the rebels for nothing.
Where is she now?
She is retained in her splendour in the Aula Maxima in UCC. Such is the maturity of Corkonians that she was restored and kept in the city.
With full respect to the rebel county of Cork, the point I am making remains the same. A serious situation was averted in South Ossetia and I understand why the Russians moved in. I am opposed to violence so I do not agree with their actions, but I understand them because their own people were being attacked. The actions of Georgia against what the president calls his own people were extraordinary.
The second point I wish to raise with the Minister relates to the World Trade Organisation, WTO, talks, which are probably doomed to failure. Notwithstanding this, it is no harm to remind ourselves that Europe's future and the security of its food supply must be paramount. In European history, Greece had to get its grain from Pontus, now the Ukraine, due to a rising population. It needed a large navy to protect it in the Dardanelles Strait. This is going back some 3,000 years. If we start to take food from South America, which can produce more cheaply on 1,000 acres what is produced on 100 acres in Ireland, we will have to pay for naval support because a principle of any state, region or union is that it must be able to protect its food supply. I would rather see subsidies for Irish farmers to produce more than pay for a military machine to ensure security of supply.
I wish the Minister well in his work and remind him of the situation in Georgia and the need for this country to establish good working relations with Russia, which is an emerging economy with a very large sovereign wealth fund. We have benefited to the tune of €1 billion from the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. We have policies of establishing trade and better relations with India and China. Does it not make sense that we should have an excellent working relationship with the largest country in the world, which is on the EU's border and which probably has the largest reserves in almost all of the resources we need? We should continue to develop our relationship with Russia and ensure that Ireland has a policy in this regard.
I, too, welcome the Minister. On the Georgian conflict, Russia is re-energising itself after its closure from the rest of the world. When Russia was flexing its muscles in Georgia, had it further incursions in mind into other areas such as Estonia and others nearby which have a strong ethnic Russian population? It is a worry for Europe that in respect of those countries which operate by democratic means as Georgia did — it had an elected parliament and, although it was new to democracy, had gone through its workings — this was perhaps a trial on Russia's part to ascertain whether it would go further and seek to have a predatory role in those countries under the guise of care for its ethnic minorities.
I commend President Sarkozy, although he does not need my commendation. He was great to visit Ireland and I said so at the time while others criticised him. He came without delay, listened to and engaged in dialogue with all who wished to speak with him. Regarding Georgia, as President of Europe he was not content to go once, twice or three times. He went again and insisted that it would follow up on the plan had hammered out in the beginning. Left to themselves the Russians would not have done that. There is no doubt about it. He had to be super-active and he was, which is a very good omen for his Presidency.
On the issue of Belarus, an ambiguity has arisen. The Belarussian children have been coming here for 22 years. Obviously many have grown into young women and men. I have been approached by young women of 21 and 22 years of age who have been helped, in health and spirit, by visiting families in Ireland. We refer to children but people of 21 and 22 are adults. When comments are made about keeping these young women, people seem to be overlooking the fact that many are adults now.
The children did not stay frozen in time at 12, 13 or 14 years of age as they rushed off the aeroplane and into the arms of their loving Irish hosts. That was lovely and fuzzy, and makes us all feel good. There are young people in their 20s who have continued to come year after year. Is the Minister aware that there are familial tensions within some of those home environments? It is not all happy every after. I would approve of young children coming, getting health care, being nourished with good food and getting some summer weather but there are other angles which I think the Minister and his officials could check out. I would like to talk privately with the Minister about this.
The Minister heard all the various flashpoints and I have no doubt he will bear in mind the views of the members.
The points raised on Russia and Europe are valid. This committee discussed that at the last meeting of COSAC some months ago. It was obvious to all and sundry that it was important to have a good relationship between Russia and the European Union for trade purposes. However, another issue needs to be borne in mind. Senator Quinn and Deputy O'Rourke raised the question of what might happen in the future. There appears to be a post-Cold War change of style, which Europeans allowed to happen and about which they were, perhaps, unable to do anything. There is also the question of where the real power base is in Moscow at present. President Sarkozy was very careful in how he conducted his negotiations. He negotiated with his opposite number and did not talk to anybody else. There are lessons there. With regard to whether they may select other countries such as Latvia or Estonia, and I am familiar with the situation there, those countries are all members of NATO, and there has been a tendency not to touch NATO if they can avoid it. However, I notice they are sending a warship to Venezuela.
The members have raised the issues regarding trade, the WTO and reliance on Russian energy. There appears to be a change by Russia to a more aggressive policy that was not evident previously. This is happening in a new context. Previously, worldwide publicity seemed to be a dampening factor in matters of that nature but that is no longer the case. The Russians had no qualms about going into Georgia and hammering out what they considered an agreement. Other European countries have other, more established ways of hammering out agreements in a democratic context. We will wait to see what happens.
Perhaps the Minister will respond to members.
I thank members for their constructive comments. Deputy Timmins articulated his disappointment with the WTO negotiations and the fact that they were not successful. The indications are that they are unlikely to be resuscitated in the foreseeable future. There could potentially be a two year time frame before they are resurrected. I accept Senator Hanafin's point about the issue of food security in Europe and the strategic importance for a continent such as Europe keeping an eye on food security for the future. It was only towards the end of the discussions that the issue of international food security came back onto the agenda; it had not been there earlier in the Doha Round. Notwithstanding domestic issues in terms of the Common Agricultural Policy and so forth, food security is ultimately a strategic issue and we should continue to bear that in mind.
With regard to the situation in Georgia, the members generally congratulated President Sarkozy on the significant intervention he made in his capacity as President of the European Union. He has been effective. It is a long time since the European Union has acted in unanimity. The success of the EU Council was that it acted in unanimity with a clear focus on the implementation of the six point plan. With previous major crises, not least with regard to Iraq, Europe was divided. The President worked extremely hard both before and during the Council session to develop unanimity. That is not easy with 27 states, whose people come from different geographic regions and have different perspectives, experiences and so forth.
Also, the President focused on stopping the fighting; his main initial focus was on securing a ceasefire. Regardless of where one puts the blame, the bottom line is that in the conduct of international relations we must always assert the importance of avoiding the use of force by a protagonist. It is about dialogue and the utilisation of diplomacy, multilateralism and international organisations and agencies to pursue agendas. If we do not have the international rule of law, we have nothing. Therein lies the fragility of peace and stability across the globe and the fundamental issue at stake in the Georgia-Russia conflict.
A number of members, including Deputy Costello, have quite correctly raised the behaviour of the Georgian Government. There are issues in that regard. Our view and that of the European Union is that in time an international independent inquiry should be held to ascertain the chronology of events which led to the outbreak of conflict. The issues of South Ossetia and Abkhazia did not begin this year. They are a long-running sore. We would have been briefed at the GAERC meeting in early July by Foreign Minister Steinmeirer of Germany on the rising tensions in the Caucasus. Although not predicting what would happen, following his mission there on behalf of the EU he had a certain sense that things were getting hot or, to use Senator Quinn's reference, it was a tinderbox area.
The fundamental principles of multilateralism, avoidance of force and utilisation of international agencies to try to resolve conflict are the only way forward. In our view, the Russian reaction to the Georgian intervention was wholly disproportionate and there was needless loss of life. Again, there are various opinions as to what happened. Were people led to believe that if they went into South Ossetia, there would not be a reaction? People can offer their opinions on that and on the wisdom of that perspective which obviously the Georgian Government had in terms of its understanding of what would transpire subsequently. That is a fundamental lesson. In war, there is misinformation, spinning and all sorts of attempts to orchestrate opinion and an international independent inquiry might inform us on what happened and we can draw conclusions and lessons from that.
In terms of the agreement arrived at yesterday, there are a number of elements, including the withdrawal of Russian forces from around Poti and Senaki within seven days if guarantees are received on the non-use of force against Abkhazia and the withdrawal of all Russian forces outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia following the arrival in the buffer zones around South Ossetia and Abkhazia of an international mechanism consisting of 200 European Union monitors by 1 October at the latest. We are looking at making a contribution to that, although it will not be large. At present, Russia has approximately 2,500 peacekeepers in Ossetia. That was prior to the conflict and so forth. Other elements include the return of all Georgian forces to their barracks by 1 October, existing OSCE and UN observers to resume their previous duties in their zones of responsibility of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, respectively, the European Union to guarantee that there will be no recourse to violence and to actively prepare an observer mission and international discussions on the future of the separatist regions to open on 15 October in Geneva, which is important because it is creating an international mechanism to try to put the regions of conflict into a process of genuine dialogue to see how the situation can be resolved.
The international mechanism mentioned in point five of the six point plan will consist of the United Nations, the OSCE and EU monitors. Russia has said it wants the international mechanism up and running before it withdraws its additional forces from Georgia, so there is an onus on the EU to meet the 1 October deadline.
I take on board the points made about the importance of the EU-Russia relationship. There is an existing co-operation agreement but it needs to be updated. Talks were to be held this month on that but they have been postponed until the troops are withdrawn. There was a strong sense of the interdependence between Russia and the European Union. It is not a one way street, notwithstanding the dependence on oil and gas. If one has a commodity, one needs a market. The broad range of one's economic development is very much dependent on that large hinterland.
It is the view of EU member states — we are of this mindset as well — that it is important to maintain dialogue and to recognise the importance of going forward in a constructive way with the Russian Federation, again in accordance with international rules of engagement and respect for the international rule of law. This must underpin any relationship. We cannot just press ahead with economic relationships oblivious to whatever else goes on. That is not possible, desirable nor part of EU policy. On the other hand, we recognise there is interdependence. Progress has been made. Irish investment has increased significantly and continues to increase. It is noticeable there has been a significant decline in stock market investment in Russia as a result of the conflict. It can weather the storm, but no country is an island anymore. The idea that a country can continue to pursue action and not take on board the consequences is no longer valid. Russia probably recognises this, but we will deal with the issue step by step.
The fact the French Presidency was in place was important. France is a significant power and President Sarkozy played an important role. He is an activist, believes in getting involved and has set targets and goals with regard to the issue. People raised the Lisbon issue in this context. They see this situation as a manifestation of how if we had mechanisms in place, such as a permanent president of the Heads of State and a more consistent foreign affairs representative, this would become the mechanism by which Europe could enter into and intervene in the cause of peace and stability. The Georgian situation is a good illustration of where the European Union has an increasingly stronger international role in advancing peace and the universal values of democracy and the rule of law. That is Europe's great strength and what it brings to the table in any conflict situation. We have seen that in this situation, albeit there is still some distance to go in terms of how the crisis and conflict evolves.
As Deputy O'Rourke said, the situation with regard to Belarus has been going on for about 20 years and on a previous occasion there was an indication there would be restrictions. We are led to believe the latest catalyst in this regard is the American situation. There has not been official confirmation of a ban, despite our seeking confirmation on the issue, but the indication is they may be considering one. A draft document was sent last year to the Office of the Minister for Children under the Minister of State with responsibility for children. The Minister of State and the Department are of the view that the Child Care Act 2001 more than meets the requirements of the Belarus Government with regard to the protection of children, particularly in terms of Garda vetting and the various steps one would take to protect children.
We are open to accommodating Belarus. However, there are some legal difficulties for us in terms of the draft document it sent us. It is not the case that when a country sends a draft document we just sign off on it. If it is the case that Belarus wishes to have an international agreement, we are open to that and do not oppose it. We are entering discussions with Belarus with a view to trying to resolve the situation in the interest of the families concerned. I will speak to Deputy O'Rourke about the issues she has raised.
I have spoken with some of the groups who bring children here and it is clear that the children who come here are guests of the nation and of the families concerned. The Child Care Act deals with private fostering, particularly if children stay over 14 days, and all families and organisations must notify the HSE in such cases. We respect the right of any government to have concerns. Any government must concern itself with large numbers of children leaving its jurisdiction and ensure all the right protections are in place. We are sensitive to that and anxious to respond to the concerns. We have, for example, approved through Irish Aid some €600,000 to the Chernobyl project for the development of day-care centres in Belarus. The emphasis is, therefore, beginning to focus on creating the capacity and infrastructure in Belarus to provide adequately for communities affected by the aftermath of the disaster and who continue to be affected by economic and social underdevelopment, etc. However, coming here for a two-month stay in the summer and at the Christmas period has proved to be of benefit to those children. The matter of adoption would need to be addressed in the context of binding agreements, international law and so forth.
Morgan Tsvangirai is the clear recognised leader in Zimbabwe following the election. Our concern would relate to the allocation of the key justice, defence and economic portfolios, which would reflect the likely survival and stability of a coalition government there. It has been quite problematic. Clearly President Mugabe is hanging in there and anxious to try to secure the upper hand even in these negotiations. We have been applying pressure and I have met the South African ambassador. I have conveyed the views of both the Government and this committee to the ambassador and the South African authorities as to our preferred outcome to these negotiations. Along with the EU we have supported SADC in terms of monitoring the election. As members know EU monitors were not allowed to enter the country. However, we gave support to SADC to have monitors from the region in the country. That was effective and had an impact on the conduct of the elections, particularly the first one.
Regarding the Balkans, the EU perspective has helped Serbia. The prospect of EU membership was important even in the outcome of the election in Serbia and the emergence of progressive pro-European politics, which is in the ascendancy. The recent arrest of Radovan Karadzic and Serbia's co-operation with the international court is further evidence of that trend. We believe in trying to build on that momentum by continuing the positive engagement with Serbia.
Deputy Costello raised an important point regarding Kosovo. That argument has been raised regarding the consistency of approach between on the one hand the condemnation of Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the fact that some 41 countries have now recognised the independence of Kosovo. It is a complex situation. Complex legal issues in respect of the recognition of states in international law are involved. For example the Kosovo case places in opposition the UN Charter commitment to the right of all people to self-determination and its guarantee to protect the territorial integrity of states. While the exercise of self-determination does not normally allow for changes to frontiers outside of decolonisation, there are grounds to conclude that an exemption is permitted in the case of fundamental human rights abuses. The mass killings and ethnic cleansing of the 1990s in Kosovo made the restoration of Serb rule there simply unimaginable. The two situations are not as comparable as they may appear to be on the surface. We believe that South Ossetia and Abkhazia cannot be compared to Kosovo in this regard. Even at the time of the civil wars in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the early 1990s which saw them break free of central government control, approximately 200,000 Georgians were forced to leave the regions radically changing the ethnic mix particularly of Abkhazia from one where the ethnic Georgians were in the majority.
In the more recent fighting, while there were attacks in civilian areas by both sides, which I condemn unreservedly, civilian casualties thankfully were limited — although those deaths were still unacceptable. There was no evidence to suggest that Georgia targeted South Ossetian civilians for ethnic cleansing purposes. In fact allegations to the contrary emerged. There is no point in trying to play blame games. We believe an international investigation is the best way forward.
On the broader front of the views of Deputy Costello and others, including Senator Hanafin and Deputy Dooley, we need to be conscious of the Russian perspective, as does NATO. There is a significant sense within Russia which is felt by Russians that the two decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union have represented constant humiliation. Russia's latest intervention in Georgia may represent a reassertion of Soviet hegemony in the region. We have to be careful. The need to adhere to international rule of law is the bottom line. The use of force needs to be avoided as issues are being pursued. The European Union is conscious that its policy in respect of the former Soviet states needs to evolve properly and sensitively. It needs to bear this in mind as it continues to engage with Russia.
Deputy Timmins innocently asked what would happen if the Lisbon treaty was not ratified. The answer is that the treaty would not be ratified in such circumstances. He also raised issues pertaining to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. I do not raise the possibility of withdrawal from peacekeeping operations. I have acknowledged that a significant number of people voted "No" on the basis of their concerns about conscription, etc. There was a reaction from some in defence quarters. Some of my officials visited Copenhagen to examine the opt-outs secured by Denmark in the 1990s. We have not made any decisions on the way forward. We are continuing to examine a variety of options. It makes sense to do this in the aftermath of the referendum. In due course, I hope to share with the committee and publish the results of the research we have conducted. It is too soon to suggest that A, B or C will be done.
It is important to discuss all the issues. There is a need for a national discussion on Ireland's relationship with the European Union in the aftermath of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Such a debate should focus not only on Ireland, but also on wider issues. I am aware that the various political parties, within this Parliament and the committee, are debating how to make progress with the domestic process of consultation on Ireland and the European Union and how to reach consensus on Ireland's future participation in the Union. All of these issues will be discussed in that context. I agree with Deputy Timmins that peacekeeping has been the jewel in our crown — it is a good phrase. It does not have the public profile it should have because it has not been acknowledged in public discourse.
I note with interest Deputy Timmins's comments on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. I would like to think we can discuss such issues in a calmer context, away from the campaign trail, in a more informed and less frenetic way. During political campaigns people tend to be labelled on the basis of particular issues. Cardinal Brady raised important issues such as secularisation when he spoke about the church's perspective on the European Union. It would be timely if we were to consider such thinking in the context of a calm discussion on these issues. We need to avoid name-calling and branding as we debate the various social and moral issues. I hope we can have such a debate in due course.
The Chairman spoke about EU-Russia relations in the post-Cold War context, an issue with which I have dealt. The power of Russia stems from its economic strength which, in turn, is based on the increasing price of energy sources such as oil. Russia has quickly become a significant economic power. The enlargement, growth and development of the European Union have made it a significant international body and that strength is beginning to manifest.
A number of members spoke about enlargement. Legally, the enlargement of the European Union does not depend on the passage of the Lisbon treaty — it can happen under the Nice treaty. The next country in line to join the Union is Croatia. The ongoing negotiations in that regard are unlikely to conclude until next year. Like other EU leaders, President Sarkozy has made it clear that his approach is that there will be no further enlargement in the absence of agreement on the Lisbon treaty. They have articulated their position on that.
Senator Feargal Quinn used the term "tinderbox" to describe the region and I agree with him. Recent events are a reminder of the fragility of the situation. We were lulled into a certain degree of complacency in global politics, particularly in the region in question. The Senator is correct that one must always be alert.
From our perspective and in the context of the transatlantic relationship, it is very important to try to reassert the importance of multilateral approaches and strengthen international agencies such as the United Nations. If these organisations are undermined and weakened, the prospect of further conflicts of this nature grows. This approach is a fundamental foundation stone upon which Irish foreign policy is based and one which we must maintain.
On Somalia, as members will be aware, UN Security Council Resolution 1816 has been adopted. It underlines the serious threat posed to shipping, including vessels transporting humanitarian supplies, by piracy off the coast of Somalia. The European Union takes a two track approach in support of the implementation of the Security Council resolution. A full ESDP operation involving the European Union is proposed. Planning for the mission is ongoing but it will be some time before it concludes. To ensure immediate EU action is taken a lighter option of a co-ordination action group is being worked out. The implementation plan for this co-ordination action is being formulated and discussions are ongoing. The plan could be ready for approval by the time the GAERC takes place next week.
Did the Minister refer to enlargement?
Yes. I thought the Deputy was alert.
I regret to inform the Minister that he does not hold my attention for very long, except when he speaks in forked tongues.
Deputy O'Rourke asked if people were fearful. There is fear and people are uncertain, particularly in states with experience of the Soviet Union. We do not necessarily understand the mindset which informs this fear. For this reason, we must take on board, be conscious of and try to understand these concerns and fears.
I thank the Minister. He has covered the full spectrum of issues raised by members. It is no harm to ponder for a moment the history of Europe about which historians will readily tell us. Senator Quinn referred to a tinder box. The atrocities committed during the war in Kosovo would not have taken place if the aggressors had been fearful of retaliation. At that time, the Serbs believed they were in complete control and would not be subject to retribution or intervention. This indicates to the European Union what it needs to do. While the Union has economic clout, it remains to be seen how assertive it is. It was the precociousness, if that is the correct word, of President Sarkozy in sticking his foot in the door that brought a resolution in Georgia. The European Union needs to examine how respected its view is internationally, particularly by some of the major powers.
Members raised valid points. Events which would not have taken place a few years ago because of the focus of the international media now appear more likely. The wealth generated in recent years is a factor in this change.
The Minister has a great deal of inspiration and, no doubt, many aspirations as he proceeds to the GAERC meeting. We wish him well and hope he will bear in mind the views of members.