Item No. 1 is the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and his officials. I call on the Minister to make his presentation. Members of the committee will then have an opportunity to respond.
Forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I welcome the opportunity to review the lengthy agenda for next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council which will be the fourth under the Czech Presidency. Before embarking on a preview of next Monday's meeting, I take the opportunity to brief the committee on developments at the March Council. The Council focused on preparations for the spring European Council on 19 and 20 March. The agenda featured the European economic recovery plan, the western Balkans, Belarus, Afghanistan, Sudan and EU-US relations.
The Council examined proposals for spending €5 billion on energy projects and other infrastructure investments under the European economic recovery plan which were subsequently agreed at the spring European Council. Ireland strongly supported the recovery plan which includes funding to the tune of €110 million for the Ireland-Wales electricity interconnector.
The Council discussed the eastern partnership as part of the preparations for the spring European Council which adopted a declaration on the subject. It is part of the European neighbourhood policy which is designed to bring the countries concerned, whether on the European Union’s eastern or southern borders, closer to the political and legal norms and standards of the Union.
The Council adopted conclusions on EUFOR Chad-CAR, welcoming the fulfilment of the operation’s mandate and underlining the exemplary co-operation between the European Union and the United Nations from the launching of the operation to its recent successful hand-over. We can be proud of Ireland’s involvement in the mission and, in particular, of Lieutenant General Pat Nash who had operation command. Having been appointed by EU joint action on 15 October, following Government approval on 2 October 2007, he exercised control of the 3,700 strong mission on the ground.
Discussions on the external relations side began with agreement of the Council conclusions on Bosnia-Herzegovina. The conclusions expressed concern about the current political situation in the country and, in particular, in regard to nationalist rhetoric. They also welcomed preparations for a possible transition from the Office of the High Representative to a reinforced EU special representative and the appointment of the Austrian diplomat Valentin Inzko to the position of EU special representative.
This was followed by a discussion on Belarus, specifically a proposal to extend the visa ban on certain Belarussian officials by a further 12 months. At the same time, the suspension of the visa ban would be renewed for a further nine months. At the end of this period, a review would be carried out which could lead to the lifting of restrictive measures if it were found that there had been sufficiently positive developments.
There was then a brief discussion on Sudan which focused on the humanitarian situation there, following the expulsion of NGOs by President Bashir. High Representative Solana and Commissioner Michel briefed us on both the worsening situation and possible next steps.
Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner briefed us on the serious humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. This was followed by a lunchtime discussion on preparations for the EU-US summit in Prague, as well as events in the Middle East and preparations for the Durban review conference.
Turning to next Monday's GAERC, there are a number of significant items on the agenda. With the Chairman's permission, I propose to address, first, the general affairs items and then turn to the external relations issues.
The general affairs session is scheduled to open with the Commissioner for External Relations and the European Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, presenting to the Council a number of Commission reports on the European neighbourhood policy. Ireland is a strong supporter of the policy which we see as an important instrument for strengthening relations between the European Union and neighbouring countries that do not, at this time, have a perspective of membership of the Union. We also recognise the value of the policy in promoting positive reform in our neighbourhood.
The GAERC will review the current state of the accession negotiations with Croatia. In spite of efforts by the Commissioner for Enlargement, the border demarcation dispute between Croatia and Slovenia remains unresolved. Commissioner Rehn will have the chance to report on his efforts and the Slovenian Minister will have the opportunity to brief the GAERC on his government's position. Ireland sees this dispute as a bilateral issue between the two states and we do not believe it should be allowed to impede progress in accession talks. My colleagues and I will discuss the current level of co-operation between Croatia and the ICTY, bearing in mind that full co-operation is a requirement for the conclusion of accession negotiations.
The preparations for the upcoming eastern partnership summit which is to take place in Prague on 7 May will also be reviewed. The Heads of State and Government of all EU member states have been invited to attend, as have those of all neighbouring countries involved in the initiative — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. As I said, Ireland is fully supportive of the European neighbourhood policy, including the proposed eastern partnership which provides a mechanism for sharing the benefits membership of the European Union can bring, but the partnership is neither a path to eventual accession nor a barrier to it. The question of EU membership is a separate matter.
There are two substantive items for discussion under Other Business. My colleagues and I expect to be briefed on preparations for the southern corridor summit which will take place in Prague on 8 May. The summit brings together high level representatives of the states involved in the proposed energy supply route from the Caspian region through Turkey into Europe. While Ireland has no direct involvement in the project, we welcome efforts to diversify European sources of energy supply with a view to increasing energy security. A declaration will be issued after the summit meeting.
The Presidency will brief the GAERC on the practical arrangements for the Troika summit on employment. The Presidency had originally envisaged a special European Council to discuss the negative impact of the economic downturn on employment and job creation. The Presidency subsequently changed the format of the meeting to involve the current and future Presidencies, the European Commission and the social partners. It is hoped this format will lead to productive discussions and positive outcomes that can be of benefit to all member states. The Council is also expected to be briefed on the preparatory seminars hosted by Sweden and Spain which will provide an input into the summit discussions on 7 May.
Turning to the external relations session, there are a number of important items for consideration. We will have a substantive discussion on the situation in Burma. I know that Members of the Oireachtas follow events in Burma closely and share my concern about the situation there. As the committee is aware, there has been a conspicuous absence of political progress in Burma since the terrible events of 2007. Repression by the military of monks, political activists and ethnic minorities continues. Although a number of political prisoners were released earlier this year, it appears the military junta is determined to maintain its iron grip on the country. There are now over 2,000 political prisoners, more than ever before. For this reason, foreign Ministers have decided to renew the Common Position on Burma in order that the sanctions and the visa ban can be maintained for another year. This decision will be formally taken at the GAERC. Council conclusions, however, will also issue. They will confirm that previous offers by the European Union to review the Common Position and consider positive incentives are still on the table in the event that genuine political progress is made.
It is planned that general elections will be held in Burma next year. The terms under which they will be held have been determined by the discredited constitution adopted last year and, as such, there seems little chance they will have any credibility. We have to accept, however, that the elections will take place whether we like it or not and that they will affect the political landscape in Burma for many years to come. In the circumstances, the international community will have to consider very carefully how it will respond to them. We will discuss this issue at the Council. There are mixed feelings, too, among the opposition parties and ethnic groups. Some have already decided not to participate, but some are keeping their options open in case there could be change which would make it possible for the elections to be meaningful.
I am very pleased that in January my Department was able to support consultation meetings involving a number of Burmese opposition and ethnic exile groups in Ireland, led by the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. These consultation meetings enabled the groups attending to have a broad discussion on future policies, including policies on the election, and all the participating groups — and more groups since — agreed on the importance of healing rifts and promoting unity among themselves. They also agreed to prepare an action programme, or common strategy, to challenge the regime proactively in the lead-up to the elections next year. This draft which is being finalised will be submitted for discussion and approval at a special convention of opposition and ethnic leaders to be held in Jakarta in May and backed by the Association of South East Asian Nations parliamentary grouping. I plan to report to my EU colleagues on the progress on this initiative and encourage EU Special Envoy Fassino to play a role in monitoring it.
The Government has long taken a strong, proactive stance on the situation in Burma and will continue to do so. We have argued for some time that a visit by the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, to Burma would be of the utmost importance and are hopeful this visit will take place later in the year, although firm dates have not yet been set. The new US Administration is conducting a review of US policy on Burma and the results of this review will be extremely significant in the months and years ahead. It continues to be important that the European Union works to engender broad international consensus in relation to Burma, in co-operation also with the Association of South East Asian Nations which has a valuable role to play in encouraging democratic progress in Burma, and with other neighbours such as China.
The next item we will take up is EU-US relations. Earlier this month the Taoiseach and I travelled to Prague to take part in the informal EU-US summit. There, with my EU colleagues, I met Secretary of State Clinton and set out our respective approaches in regard to eastern Europe, the western Balkans, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Developments in the Middle East were also discussed. The need for close co-operation on the European Union's part with the Obama Administration in efforts to revive the overall peace process is evident and I emphasised this point in the intervention on the Middle East which the Presidency invited me to make at the lunch with Secretary of State Clinton. I welcomed the engagement of the new US Administration with this issue and the appointment of George Mitchell as US Middle East envoy. I emphasised the need to maintain our commitment to achieving a comprehensive peace settlement in the region and supporting the Arab peace initiative. The Taoiseach was also invited to speak on Middle Eastern issues at the lunch with President Obama at which he specifically addressed relations with and between Syria and Lebanon.
The Taoiseach and the other EU Heads of State and Government and President Obama also discussed energy security and climate change; regional issues, including the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran; and economic issues, including transatlantic relations and the current financial crisis. The summit was an important step in the process of strengthening the EU-US partnership and the discussions we had with our US counterparts will help to ensure concrete outcomes from the formal summit which will take place in June.
Next week the Council will also discuss the Middle East peace process and review recent developments. It remains unclear whether Council conclusions will be adopted, although to do so would be timely, given all the developments since the Council last adopted conclusions in January. This will be a welcome opportunity for Ministers to review events since the useful discussion on the wider regional peace process which took place at last month's Gymnich, the informal meeting of foreign Ministers, in the Czech Republic which the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, kindly attended in my absence.
Three months on from the formal end of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, it is dispiriting to note the overall lack of progress evident on the ground. The crossings into Gaza have still not been opened on any kind of sustained basis, resulting in an ongoing very serious humanitarian situation in the strip and with no real prospect of meaningful and urgently needed reconstruction beginning soon. On the West Bank we continue to observe an unacceptable expansion of settlement activity and a growing phenomenon of forced evictions of Palestinian families, particularly in east Jerusalem. The European Union has issued a number of strongly-worded declarations in response, reiterating that such activities are completely contrary to international law and conflict with any desire to achieve political progress or revive the peace process.
Intra-Palestinian reconciliation talks are due to resume in Cairo later this week, under the very constructive Egyptian mediation, with a view to reaching agreement on a national unity government which can guide Palestinian affairs until presidential and parliamentary elections are held early next year. Discussions on a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the opening of border crossings regrettably remain frozen following the collapse of talks last month on a possible prisoner exchange deal centred on the captured Israeli solder, Gilad Shalit.
We now have a new Israeli Government led by Binyamin Netanyahu which took office on 31 March and is currently conducting a review of its policy on the Middle East peace process in advance of a planned visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington next month. However, the absence to date of a clear commitment on the part of the Netanyahu Government to the two-state solution, coupled with the well publicised remarks of Foreign Minister Lieberman that Israel no longer felt bound by the Annapolis process, is of serious concern and underlines the extent of the challenge now faced in trying to restore momentum to the political process.
It would be useful to send a clear message at the GAERC of the European Union's expectations that the new Israeli Government will abide by all previous agreements and also publicly commit to the two-state solution. A failure to do so will have implications for the proposed upgrade of relations which, frankly, it is difficult to see proceeding in current circumstances. We will also need to reiterate that the continued expansion of settlement activities and forced evictions of Palestinian families are unacceptable and only serve to undermine the position of moderate Palestinians, as well as erode overall confidence in the peace process.
I will also urge that the GAERC deliver a positive message of encouragement to current Palestinian reconciliation efforts and on the importance of reaching agreement on a new unity government. Such reconciliation remains vital both to address the humanitarian and development needs of Gaza, as well as to enable Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to resume. As with the new Israeli Government, any Palestinian unity government that emerges should be judged by its willingness to abide by previous agreements and engage meaningfully in a political process aimed at achieving two states living side by side in peace and security.
Some encouragement can be drawn at this stage from the very positive engagement of the Obama Administration in aggressively pursuing peace in the Middle East which will see the President holding separate meetings in Washington DC with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Presidents Abbas and Mubarak in the coming weeks. Senator Mitchell, during his visit to the region last week, made it clear that the Europeand Union and the United States were at one in believing the only effective solution lay in the realisation of the legitimate Palestinian expectations of statehood. Closer co-operation with Arab partners in support of the Arab peace initiative must also be pursued in the interests of promoting a comprehensive settlement in the region.
At the request of Romania, Moldova has been added to the agenda for the lunch discussion at the forthcoming GAERC. The discussion is likely to focus on the violence that erupted during protests after the elections and efforts to improve relations between the government and opposition to ensure stability. We welcome the assessment of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights that the conduct of the elections largely met international standards. I am glad Ireland was able to contribute one long-term observer and ten short-term observers to this important mission. However, we encourage the government in Moldova to address necessary reforms, including on the freedom of the media. In the aftermath of the protests which occurred, we also stress the need to uphold the rule of law, based on clear democratic principles and respect for human rights. Ireland shares the view that maintaining stability in Moldova is the European Union's primary objective. To this end, we support efforts to encourage dialogue between the government and the opposition and welcome the EU Presidency statement on the issue. In addition, Ireland continues to support efforts to reach a sustainable solution to the "frozen conflict" in Transnistria and calls on all those involved in the talks process to work to achieve this outcome.
Ukraine was added to the agenda yesterday at Germany's request. While no conclusions have been drafted, the discussion will focus on general political and economic developments in Ukraine, including the current economic crisis and the autonomous Republic of Crimea. It is expected the International Monetary Fund will shortly pay the second instalment of its loan to Ukraine based on reforms implemented by the government, including the balancing of the state pension fund. Ireland welcomes this development, as any default by Ukraine would have had a negative impact on the region which is already suffering the harsh effects of the global economic downturn.
On Crimea, we support the efforts by the European Union to facilitate dialogue between Russia and Ukraine to ensure stability in this autonomous region. In addition, we believe the Eastern Partnership continues to be an effective mechanism in ensuring the European Union's positive engagement with Ukraine and the wider region.
Two items have been added to the Council's agenda under Any Other Business — the situation in Sri Lanka and the Durban Review Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which took place in Geneva this week. The fact that Sri Lanka has been added to the agenda is a reflection of the humanitarian catastrophe in the northern part of the country. This has been caused by the intense fighting taking place between government forces and the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. As usual in situations such as these, it is the innocent who suffer. A two day pause over the Easter period has come and gone and hostilities have begun again with a renewed ferocity as government forces seek to consolidate their advantage. It is clear that tens of thousands of civilians are at grave risk as the war moves into what may well be its final, most intensive phase.
The most important issue is how best to protect those civilians who are suffering, either within or outside the conflict zone. I wish, therefore, to commend the excellent work being undertaken on the ground by organisations such as the ICRC, UNHCR and Médecins Sans Frontières, the activities of which Irish Aid has been supporting. We support the efforts of the UN Secretary General and the international community to assist in bringing about a swift resolution to the conflict, with minimum loss of life, and in supporting a negotiated long-term political solution and reconciliation. Although the formal military campaign may be drawing to a close, the only sustainable solution to Sri Lanka's ethnic differences will not be achieved by military means, nor through terrorist actions, but through a negotiated peace agreement which addresses the underlying causes of the conflict and through a process of reconciliation.
Moving on to the Durban conference, there may be a short discussion on this item. It is regrettable that concerns about the process led to the decision by a small number of western states, including five of our EU partners, not to participate in the conference. I always believed the Durban process was worthwhile and that the preferable course of action was to work within the process with a view to achieving an acceptable outcome document and follow-up to the conference. This was accomplished in that the conference outcome document adopted on Tuesday evening fully respected Irish and EU red lines such as on Israel, the holocaust and defamation of religion. There may at the Council be some preliminary collective reflections on the conference.
That concludes my comments on the agenda for the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on Monday next. As ever, I will be glad to hear the views of the committee which will feed into our preparations for next week's Council.
I thank the Minister. That is an extensive and, in many ways, sobering agenda that raises important issues.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. As it is a broad agenda, I will start with the topic that is conspicuous by its absence, the state of play on the Lisbon treaty. I am amazed that there will not even be a preliminary report by the Minister on the issue. Perhaps he will confirm that the referendum will take place in October and tell us about the progress being made on the legal formulation of the guarantees. We are disappointed that we were left out of the consultation process and do not know what has happened since December at the last summit when the 26 other member states indicated they were willing to offer guarantees to Ireland. What negotiations have taken place with the Commission and the legal secretariat?
The Minister mentioned the European Union economic recovery plan and welcomed the fact that Ireland was to the fore. It also secured €110 million for the interconnector between Ireland and Wales. It is extremely important for the diversification of energy supply that we have a direct line to Britain and mainland Europe.
In the context of the recovery plan, what is happening with the money that was made available in October for small and medium-sized enterprises? Why has there been such a delay in drawing that down? Why has only a meagre amount been drawn down? It is part of the overall European recovery plan. There is not much sense in our putting in place a recovery plan if Ireland does not participate fully in it. I would like some information on Ireland's participation in the various stages of the recovery plan to date.
Will discussions take place on the carbon emissions targets — the so-called 20:20:20 climate change targets — and sustainable development? Will there be discussions on the targets that various sections have mooted, particularly the ESB and Bord Gáis? We hope that we will reach the 40% sustainability target by 2020, and that by 2050 we will be re-exporting to the grid through the interconnector and moving sustainable energy supplies out of Ireland. Is that the kind of thinking and discussion taking place around the table in Europe? Rather than focusing only on the 20:20:20 formula, are countries moving more quickly towards sustainability? What impact has the recession had on the reduction of carbon emissions?
On the Troika summit on employment in Prague next month, I am disappointed that the decision to have a special European Council meeting on employment and unemployment has been rescinded, largely, it seems, through the actions of some of the major countries rather than the smaller countries. The key issue affecting the world, and certainly the European Union, is not necessarily finance but the retention of people in employment and the creation of new avenues of employment. It is just not good enough that this has been downgraded from a summit to a Troika meeting. That certainly gives out the wrong signals. I would have thought that Ireland would be more to the forefront in emphasising the need for the full, special summit on employment as was originally intended.
On the European neighbourhood policy and, by extension, the relationship with Israel, the lack of progress in the intervening period towards normalising the situation is extremely disappointing, as the Minister said. There are still problems with the border crossings and humanitarian aid, and we now face a new obstacle, because Israel appears not to be accepting the two-state solution and the Annapolis agreement. If that is the case, the clock is being turned back on what was internationally agreed. It seems that Israel is going down a unilateral path and that it is no longer interested in getting an agreed position through a two-state approach to the Middle East crisis of Palestine and Israel. If that is Israel's decision, it will have all sorts of ramifications in terms of the continuation of the settlements, the provision of the wall, the limitation on border crossings and the Palestinians' inability to rebuild the Gaza Strip. It is outrageous that the €3.5 billion that the international community donated at Sharm el-Sheikh has not been spent and cannot be spent because there is no access to the geographical location.
It is outrageous that the international community is standing idly by on the matter and that the European Union will, no doubt, just wring its hands at the GAERC meeting. It will say that Israel should open the crossings, allow humanitarian aid to go in, allow hospitals, schools and industry to be rebuilt, and allow the funding that the international community has provided to be made available, but will anything happen or will we merrily continue with the Euromed agreement between the EU and Israel with no sanctions? These issues must be put on the table. There must be the threat of sanctions. If there is no co-operation and there are no consequences for those who fail to co-operate, I do not know how we can go down the road of having good neighbourhood European policy arrangements; the current position is beneficial to one side in terms of trading agreements. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say about that and how he will present the case. I ask him to come back to us and let us know the situation.
I do not want to go on too long, so I turn to the events in Burma, which the Minister described in some detail. It is great that the general elections are coming up, but it is important that they be properly monitored. There have also been serious events recently in Thailand and Sri Lanka, and it seems that there is now a breakdown in Pakistan. The other day, we had a worrying statement from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the virtual breakdown of government in Pakistan, certainly in the north-west frontier area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is another area that could give rise to considerable problems in the near future.
Finally, we expected great things from the Durban conference, but it seems that, with the boycott and the walkout, little has happened. I would like a report on how these conferences are organised. They should not become grandstanding events for certain people to deal with issues that concern them but are not on the agenda as such. The conferences need to be far better organised and run constructively so that people do not abuse them in future.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and thank him for his wide dissertation on the broad agenda for next Monday's GAERC. I thank the Minister and his officials for their contributions, and on behalf of us all I thank the officials for their consistency, diplomacy and totality of service to all our citizens both on this island and internationally over the years. We deeply value and appreciate the tremendous work of the Department of Foreign Affairs in dealing with problems on behalf of Ireland and its citizens.
We wish the Minister well with this challenging situation. I listened to what he said. On a number of occasions during his speech he mentioned the serious financial situation prevailing in the European Union and indeed in the world. This is a real test for the Union. The time has come for it to make a major, macro decision that takes account of the global challenges and the Union's capacity from the points of view of growth, jobs, service demand and consumption. I have said in the past few months — looking back on the advances that we have made and the challenges that we face, and looking at the wider world — the time has come for the European Central Bank, in co-operation with the European Investment Bank, the skills sets that are available at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and perhaps with some IMF guidance, to create a new funnel of cash that will create sustainable economic growth in each member state and fill the vacuum that exists as a result of the global financial crisis.
Addressing the current crisis presents a test for the European Union. It must be imaginative, use all its resources and examine what is happening in the wider world in terms of where cash can be raised. If it has to be borrowed at a particular rate with specific guarantees and bonding arrangements, be it new derivatives or instruments, the Union must seriously examine this issue now. Otherwise, we will experience an inert period characterised by the loss of jobs and contraction; it would be disastrous if that pattern was to continue for much longer. There is a serious cashflow problem in the economy and those of other member states. The Union must be seen to make a decision to address the issue immediately and create a new programme that will give confidence to all member states. I hope the Minister can drive forward such a proposal. We wish him well in that regard, bearing in mind that he has moved from an economic brief to this wider global brief.
One of the hallmarks of the European Union is the European neighbourhood policy. It is an ingenious policy which has served the Union and the world well. I admire the commitment shown to it. It has been a consistent instrument within the Union. It was discussed at the last GAERC meeting, at which it was indicated that a report would be made available at the forthcoming GAERC meeting. In the current global crisis and having regard to the need to maintain global economic stability, it is critical that there be stronger bilateral co-operation between the European Union and Russia, taking account of how this would benefit economic capacities, give political comfort and provide for the Union's energy requirements.
Looking west, the leadership of President Obama has brought a new calmness to the global environment. We could bilaterally strengthen relations with the United States on a common global position on different issues. To the north and east, we could have greater bilateral co-operation between the European Union and Russia. In bringing them together we could have trilateral co-operation to ensure global stability from a security, safety, economic and financial point of view. If that could be achieved, with the European Union as the fulcrum of such trilateral co-operation, it would represent the way forward.
I am delighted the Government has sanctioned and reconfirmed the appointment of Lieutenant General Pat Nash in charge of a huge force in Chad. It shows the quality of the country, its people and army, and that, as a small country, we have the capacity to provide people of this calibre who can assist in dealing with international conflicts. It behoves all of us, as politicians, commentators and communicators, not to denigrate the services being delivered by the State, whether by the Air Corps, its staff or others. There is too much negative comment about the cost of running the Air Corps, jets and such matters. There is not much point in this small island nation having resources if we cannot use them. There is a price to be paid in having these services but we need them. We must admire the major contribution being made by the Army and the Department of Defence in all of the services delivered nationally and internationally during the years.
I agree with Deputy Costello's comments on unemployment. Perhaps the Troika summit can focus on the issue. I hope something strong will emerge from it because it is vital that the European Union drive forward a macro-plan to assist in sustaining employment and creating new and innovative programmes. I hope the Lisbon Agenda will be of assistance in that regard, although we may need to upgrade it in the current climate.
The situation in Burma is intolerable. Addressing it presents a test for both the European Union and the United Nations. I spoke about the situation in the country some years ago in Jakarta when I represented the Minister's predecessor. We strongly put the issue on the table and outlined Ireland's position on it. The Minister is right to continue to impose a visa ban until some semblance of normality is restored. I had family connections there which involved some trauma and difficulties many years ago and as such, have a strong personal interest in the issue. It is important that it is kept on the global agenda and that the European Union does its utmost to ensure progress is made in addressing it.
The conflict in the Middle East presents a real test for the European Union and the United Nations. It has been ongoing for far too long. There is a new government in Israel which perhaps has a much more hardline attitude than the previous one. The United States and the European Union are key players in ensuring the United Nations makes progress in dealing with the issue. Irish people have shown considerable goodwill towards the humanitarian efforts made in Palestine. I was shocked this week to learn that goods provided free by people in the west of Ireland — some second-hand and some new — could not pass through Egypt. Prime Minister Nazif is a great friend of Ireland. The Irish Government and the Egyptian Government have had a long and good relationship. I hope we can ensure at least that the humanitarian efforts made, regardless of how bad the situation is, will never be impeded. I hope the matter can be resolved as quickly as possible. If it has not been resolved, perhaps the Minister and his team might give it some attention. The conflict in Middle East presents a real test for the United Nations which has not delivered in a strong manner in meeting its responsibilities. Diplomacy is wonderful but some action must be taken to ensure progress in resolving this outrageous situation. The two-state solution is the only way forward but I am afraid we may have taken two steps back rather than forward. I hope the European Union will continue to drive the agenda forward as rapidly as possible.
There is a serious problem in Sri Lanka. As the Minister said, many innocent people are caught up in the conflict. I constantly receive complaints from the Tamil side whose representatives have told me that they are subject to discrimination and outrageous treatment on a consistent basis. It is matter for the European Union to alert and support the United Nations to ensure something is done to terminate this outrageous carry-on that has continued for far too long. It is a terrible tragedy and I hope something can be done about it. We wish the Minister and his team well in their work.
I thank the Minister for his presentation and regular updates to the committee. He mentioned the European economic recovery plan. I suggest that at the forthcoming meeting he talk to his counterparts in the European Union to ascertain the approach they are taking to their countries' economic problems. For example, the budget announced in the United Kingdom yesterday was very different from the one announced by the Minister for Finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said one could not cut one's way out of a recession. Many more moves were announced in his budget to provide an economic stimulus and increase the tax burden on the very wealthy. That is something the Minister could consider when he is at the meeting, namely, the different approaches being taken in other member states.
On the Middle East, the Minister has spoken about the need to send a clear message on the European Union's expectation that the new Israeli Government will abide by all previous agreements and also publicly commit to the two-state solution. He talked about the importance of the Palestinian reconciliation efforts and said the Palestinian unity government that emerged should be judged by its willingness to abide by previous agreements. I agree with both comments. I have said previously, although perhaps not to the Minister, that the Government needs to be much clearer and stronger in signalling that it supports the moderates on both sides in their efforts towards establishing a peace process. The point made about the reconciliation efforts is correct. We have to try. Obviously, President Abbas is right to be involved in these efforts, but we must also be clear on the issues involved.
Hamas is a fundamentalist organisation. It holds abhorrent views, a point on which I believe everybody here would agree with me. At a recent conference in Ireland supporters of Hamas made comments which were abhorrent. We can have no truck with such a philosophy or approach in resolving the conflict in the Middle East. I am not sure if the Minister is aware of what was said but coverage of the conference was carried in The Irish Times. What was said was worrying.
One of the people who attended was Richard Boyd Barrett who went along with comments that there should possibly not be a state of Israel or recognition of it. People who would have supported the efforts of the PLO are now supporting a group which is actually undermining the efforts of President Abbas, the work done previously by the PLO and the peace process. We must be clear that while we support the idea of reconciliation, if that is possible, we have no truck with Hamas and its current views. In sending that clear signal the Minister would be supporting the work of President Abbas. The people in question oppose President Abbas. Comments were also made at the conference about the moderates in Palestine. They are absolutely opposed to the work being done by President Abbas for peace.
We should make it clear that Ireland is an honest broker in this matter. We want talks between Israel and the Palestinian official government. Obviously, we must be critical and I would be as critical as others of Israel's recent actions. However, we must make it clear that we support Israel as a state. The Minister has made it clear that he believes in a two-state solution. We must continue to repeat this. We cannot send a wishy-washy signal that we have any truck with Hamas as it stands. I am anxious to hear the Minister's comments. Is he aware of the what was said at the recent conference?
I welcome the Minister and his delegation. I will confine my remarks to the Middle East as the other issues have been thoroughly discussed.
It is a matter of great concern to everybody, including the Minister, that three months after the ending of the aggression there is still no comprehensive approach to dealing with the blockades in a way that would allow people to get back to normal, if one can call Gaza a normal environment. It is an indictment of the European Union that it has been unable to involve itself to a greater extent in conflict resolution in the Middle East. It is important that the Americans play a role but it is on our doorstep. One of the fundamental difficulties has been that the European Union has been unable to resolve issues that arise on its doorstep. Unfortunately, there is still that inertia which we have allowed to continue. The Presidency should have pushed more strongly to take a central role in managing some resolution. Clearly, there are difficulties on all sides but the European Union has not pushed itself strongly enough.
Has there been any discussion of sanctions against Israel? Has there been any discussion about the neighbourhood agreement and the obvious breaches of it? If the European Union is to position itself as an honest broker, it must have teeth and command respect. Unfortunately, the Israelis do not appear to show respect for it. They look to the United States as an arbiter and clearly, up to now, would also have considered the United States to be their strong supporter. The European Union must take a much more aggressive diplomatic approach and try to acquire some muscle and teeth in its relationship with Israel. We should consider sanctions.
I apologise for my absence. I had to attend a critical vote in the Seanad.
The Minister covered a number of issues but I will focus on two, the first of which is the European economic recovery plan, about which I have some concerns. The feeling is that it has been rather underwhelming, in the sense that it appears to be more an amalgam of national recovery plans than a truly European economic recovery plan. I draw the Minister's attention to the proposal made by the Greens in the European Parliament that the European Union should consider a full-blooded economic stimulus package at European level, raising approximately €500 billion between private and public funds with the aim of creating at least 5 million new jobs across the Union in the next few years. We must consider such an ambitious programme, especially when it fits so well with both the energy and climate change objectives of the European Union. I hope the Minister will raise this issue when the economic recovery plan is being discussed.
The other issue I wish to raise was not mentioned by the Minister but he is aware of it, namely, the free trade agreement being negotiated between the European Union and Colombia. The Department has been kept fully briefed on the issue. Concerns have been raised. We are all aware that Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, certainly as far as trade unionists are concerned. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, wrote to the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, in March to highlight some of its concerns. If the Minister bears with me, I will read a small section of that letter. It states:
Dear Minister,
As you noted in your letter [the ICTU referred to a previous letter from the Minister of State, Deputy Roche] the European Commission decided on 9 December on the list of countries that would benefit under the GSP+ [that was the extension of the previous trade agreements in place between the European Union and Colombia] and Colombia was included in that list. In your letter you conclude that "the Commission considered that based on objective criteria Colombia qualified for GSP+. The compliance of beneficiary countries with the standards which entitle them to benefit under GSP+ is kept under constant review by the Commission and the possibility exists that such benefits may be withdrawn in cases of non-compliance."
The decision to include Colombia in the list of countries which would benefit under GSP+ is especially difficult to understand given that the EU claims that to qualify for GSP+ status a country must ratify and comply with the 27 Conventions on Human Rights and Labour Standards, including ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise and Convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining. Colombia clearly does not comply with these conventions.
During the last two months four trade union leaders were killed in Colombia:
— 20 February assassination of Leoncio Gurierrez of the SUTEV trade union.
— 15 February assassination of Guillermo Antonio Ramirez of the SER trade union.
— 12 February assassination of Luis Alberto Arango Crespo, president of the Fishing and Agricultural Workers' Association.
— 28 January assassination of Leovigildo Mejia of the ASOGRAS trade union.
In addition to the four murders, the regional trade union leader Jose Jair Valencia Agudelo, a member of EDUCAL trade union, is in intensive care in hospital having been shot six times on his way to work on 26 February. I am also extremely concerned that the EU has begun negotiations with Colombia for a bilateral EU-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which would provide Colombia with further economic benefits despite the country making almost no progress in ending violence against trade unionists, and we note that President Barack Obama and the United States recently rejected such a deal citing anti-trade union attacks as the principal reason for doing so.
I therefore kindly ask you to act in favour of opening an EU investigation into Colombia's labour and human rights performance as it is permitted to do under the regulation governing GSP+, as you also noted in your letter to me.
Any serious objective analysis of Colombia's compliance with the 27 Conventions on Human Rights and Labour Standards can only come to one conclusion: Colombia does not comply with these conventions.
Will the Minister respond to some of these concerns and indicate whether he would be in favour of seeking an EU investigation into Colombia's labour and human rights performance? It is a matter of concern that not alone was the GSP+ extended from 2009 to 2011 but that a new free trade agreement is being negotiated with Colombia. Given that the US Congress saw fit to reject a free trade agreement of that nature, questions must be asked about why the European Union is considering it. Perhaps the Minister will also raise the issue at the GAERC meeting.
I support Senator de Búrca's point of view which was well put regarding the situation in Colombia. I welcome the Minister and his officials. There were two votes in the Seanad as a result of a tied vote, so we were delayed but we were here for the earlier part of the Minister's contribution.
I welcome the Minister's comprehensive report prior to his forthcoming meetings. I appreciate that because it certainly briefs us on the links between the European Union and the Oireachtas. The €110 million received for the Ireland-Wales electricity interconnector is welcome. It proves the point that we are still receiving benefits from membership of the European Union. It will encourage those who are doubtful, to look again when the Lisbon reform treaty comes up in the autumn.
The position regarding the accession of Turkey to the EU is not mentioned in the Minister's report, so perhaps he will bring it forward again. As the Minister is aware, the situation in Cyprus is sensitive. As a member of the justice and human rights committee of the Council of Europe, I recently visited Cyprus and saw the ghost city of Famagusta. There is no other city in Europe that is empty and devoid of people like that. It is unoccupied and is a ghost city. The island is divided and the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus really calls for justice. It seems to have gone off the radar as far as the EU is concerned. There has been much dialogue in this regard and the meeting I attended was about the repatriation of remains from both the north and south of Cyprus for proper burial by the bereaved families. We have been active in that regard in the Republic. They have taken great encouragement from the political settlement in Ireland, which is used as an example to them of what can be achieved by dialogue.
The Minister may get an opportunity to put this matter back on the agenda, so I ask him to do so with a view to having further dialogue on the division of Cyprus, including Turkey's role in this regard. I do not think there is any likelihood that Turkey can become a full member of the EU without a proper and complete settlement in Cyprus.
I wish to ask the Minister about a number of issues concerning the forthcoming Council meeting. My first question is about the European Court of Human Rights, which has declared for 400,000 Latvian Russians who are treated as non-persons in their own state. It is very much in line with the EU way that they would be given full and equal treatment within Latvia. Speaking in the EU context, Russia is our largest and nearest neighbour, so it is essential that we have excellent relations with Russia. People who regard themselves as Russian and Latvian should be given full Latvian rights, including people who were born there. To do otherwise is not in keeping with the way the EU does its business.
The Minister should consider upholding the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for President al-Bashir of Sudan. It is essential that people who engage in acts of terrorism and genocide, whether state-sponsored or otherwise, should know that there will be a day of reckoning. That day of reckoning must be now. There have been such examples in the past, including in 1944 when President Roosevelt warned the Nazis of what would happen after the war. The message that there would be retribution seems to have made some small difference at that time. That will be important in future.
It is also important to continue to have good relations with the Crimean minority in Ukraine. There are difficulties with break-away republics in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There is also talk of the Transnistria region breaking away from Moldova. The EU must ensure that it has safe borders and becomes part of the healing peace process to promote co-operation. In other words, we should not give an opportunity for breakaway areas. The EU must do everything it can to ensure that the member states live in peace with their neighbours.
Part of the Middle East peace process should involve including the West Bank and Gaza in the preferential favoured nation status the EU is now giving to Israel. Israel certainly over-reacted in Gaza to the military action that was threatening the state. It is a democratic country, however, and it faces serious threats, including from Iran. That is another area in which we can take positive steps. One such step would be to include Gaza and the West Bank in that favoured nation status. It would give us an opportunity to use a carrot and stick approach to enhance the peace process in future.
Those are the main issues I would like the Minister to consider bringing to the forthcoming Council meeting.
Senator Maurice Cummins is next but we will shortly have to adjourn for a vote. I am sorry, Minister, but there is no other way around it. To be fair to the Minister and everybody else, I think we should have a full response from the membership.
The troika on unemployment is of paramount importance. In that regard, will we be putting forward proposals on employment? What does the Minister expect to get from that particular area of discussion? Although it is not mentioned concerning the forthcoming meeting, will the Minister provide an update on the situation in Bolivia concerning Mr. Dwyer? Perhaps he could inform the meeting on that situation also. Some points I wished to raise have already been referred to by other speakers.
I want to emphasise one or two points but I will not delay the Minister as some points have already been raised. I agree with Senator de Búrca's point on the European economic recovery plan to the effect that there must be a major input from the EU, which has clout. However, within that it must also be recognised that various European countries, including Ireland, have different requirements. They may well feel that one or other should suffer more than the rest, but that should not be the case. As Deputy Treacy said, this is an acid test for the EU and the European Community in general. Without a cohesive community response from the EU bloc there would be no recovery at all. If individual European powers went their own way, it would not work. For many other reasons, this is a time when the whole structure of the European Community will be tested, and it will be as strong as its weakest link. While the EU has been hugely effective for 55 years and has done extremely well, now is the time for all the constituent bodies to manifest their strength and show they are prepared to proceed on the basis of a united approach.
When dealing with the US in bringing about a resolution to the economic woes, we should engage as partners, which is important from the trade viewpoint in particular.
Various other points have been raised and it would be no harm to keep the pressure on for a resolution of the issues arising between Slovenia and Croatia, which have been discussed before. As regards EUFOR, the committee's previous visit to Bosnia was highly informative. We agree with the Minister about keeping in place the institutions which have stabilised the situation so far and about not taking the focus off the agreements.
I refer to Gaza which will be a major issue again. It should be noted that the analogy between the situation there and Ireland has not been lost on many people outside this jurisdiction. However, some incorrectly dismiss it. That is an analogy which can be used positively and effectively. The United States of America, in particular, from its own experience has found that to be the case. I know the Minister will follow that procedure. We must be aware of those who dismiss that analogy. It should not be dismissed because it is as relevant and as important as ever.
I do not propose to go into the points raised by other speakers other than to say the points the Minister made are in concert with those expressed by the committee in the past.
Deputy Costello raised the state of play on the Lisbon treaty and said he was surprised it was not on the agenda. It should be no surprise as it was never meant to be on the agenda for this Council. It was on the agenda for the March Council with a view for the June Council. That was always the way it was going to be and it will continue that way.
We have made progress with the Presidency and the legal services. Clearly, there have been some changes to the Presidency with the government changes in the Czech Republic. We will consult Opposition spokespeople and leaders in regard to the texts. However, the report of the Oireachtas committee fed into our position for the December Council and it is also feeding into the work on the texts around the key issues identified by our research into people's attitudes towards the treaty. The June Council will be a key one.
In regard to small and medium-sized enterprises, the banks have already announced their drawdowns from the European Investment Bank. That was announced publicly in regard to supports for small and medium-sized enterprises. I believe approximately €300 million is involved. Perhaps Deputy Costello was not aware of that particular initiative which was brought to a conclusion.
A number of spokespeople referred to, and commented on, the broader recovery plan. One could argue it is an amalgam but there is nothing wrong with that. One of the big contrasts between the US and the EU is that the EU has far more automatic stabilisers than the US which automatically mean significant investment in an economy when there is a recession through unemployment benefits, redundancy programmes and a range of employment support measures which vary across member states. For example, in some member states, people are not made redundant and are put on a two or three-day week. The states support the salaries for the remainder given the comprehensive social insurance systems they have.
The EU economic recovery plan is to the tune of approximately €400 billion. It is not far off the US stimulus programme. I will relay the idea of the EU as an entity above and beyond what individual member states do but we must bear in mind that will demand a contribution from countries which pay more into the EU than others. Not all EU states pay in. The budget is approximately 1% of gross national product, GNP. There are always significant discussions around that.
I prefer the thematic approach where, for example, we looked at energy and climate change. The recovery plan focused on prioritising that area, so Ireland got its €110 million for the interconnector which is so vital to energy security and supply into the future. Likewise, renewables and broadband will also benefit from support from the economic recovery plan. We will certainly relay to the Troika meeting the views articulated here.
There are varying views on whether we should have a full Council meeting on unemployment or the Troika of social partners and the European Commission. There is a view that what is now proposed will get more results, in so far as it will be more concentrated and compact, as opposed to the 27 member states turning up for a one-day summit event. Some of the larger states were concerned about what the outputs would be. What is important is the outcomes from this. The Commission is very keen on this and it will bring initiatives to the table as will the Presidency, the Troika and the social partners.
If we had everyone around the table plus the social partners, we would end up with 50 or 60 people. There needs to be common sense in terms of how we operate and develop these issues. The key issue is that there is a summit on unemployment and a facility to make an input to that.
On the EU neighbourhood policy, Deputy Costello was very critical of the Israeli position and the absence of any progress on the border crossings. I agree with him on that. We are very disappointed there has not been a freer and more liberal facilitation of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
I met John Ging recently, as did the committee, and Karen AbuZayd from UNRWA. Some very petty things are happening in terms of what is and is not allowed in from time to time. There needs to be a genuine show of generosity in terms of what is allowed in for humanitarian and reconstruction needs, in particular for schools, education, health, installations, power generation, the rebuilding of houses and so on. Materials for construction are vital in terms of the housing needs of the population there.
I refer to the broader EU. There were two perspectives from the Labour Party spokespeople. Deputy Costello was very anxious that the EU would come up with strong conclusions. There have been a number of important developments. A new Israeli Government has been formed which is important. There are concerns about whether there will be any resiling from the two-state solution. The European Union is very clear that there must be a commitment to the two-state solution, that is, two states living in harmony and in peace with each other. That has been clearly articulated to the new government in Israel.
Prioritisation of this issue by the United States Government is very important. We need to create a bit of space to facilitate some real engagement. Yesterday I met Secretary General Javier Solana who is responsible for co-ordinating the overall EU security and defence policy and our international relations. The key discussion was on the Middle East and on how we get movement in the latter half of 2009 on the Arab peace initiative, the Palestinian unity issue, the humanitarian reconstruction and the broader question of a settlement based on many of the principles contained in the Arab peace initiative and in the Annapolis process.
President Obama has given priority to this and has appointed Senator George Mitchell. We know his bona fides and his commitment to issues of this kind. We must try to see if there is momentum there to move this issue on to a settlement. Political will is the key to this. There must be political will on all sides because if there is not political will, it will not happen. We will have to measure that at some stage.
In regard to what Senator Tuffy said, we are very clear on our policies. We are not wishy-washy in regard to anybody. We are very clear in regard to how people must participate in the peace process. They must renounce violence. Hamas must renounce violence and accept the state of Israel.
We make the point that when this country went down the road of the peace process and when the provisional IRA and Sinn Féin initially came in, the major milestone they had to pass was the announcement of a ceasefire in 1994. At that stage, they did not accept all the principles which subsequently emerged in the Good Friday Agreement.
Our view is that the outputs cannot become inputs or conditions. When one begins a process, one begins with certain principles or beliefs but by the time the process of negotiation and peace building is over, one will compromise on those principles and one may well have to accommodate a different position from that which one started out with. We did that as a country when we changed Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. We had a territorial claim over Northern Ireland but we changed the nature of that claim because it was part and parcel of a peace process in which nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.
In line with what the Chairman said, we would like to bring from our experience that sense of not stopping a process from commencing by having conditions applying which may have the impact of delaying people being brought to the table. There are some fundamentals and a key one is the renunciation of violence. That must happen along with acceptance of the two-state solution. There are different arguments and manifestations in articulations of opinion from that community.
In terms of the Palestinian unity question, it is clear to us that in Gaza — the Egyptian mediation efforts are focused on this — there must be a mechanism developed which will genuinely facilitate reconstruction and which must take the realities into consideration. There are ways of doing this — maintaining the authority of the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas. We have been very supportive of President Abbas. For example, all of our aid goes through the UNWRA, and we give aid to support the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Having been to the West Bank and witnessed the Gaza conflict, one part I do not comprehend from the Israeli perspective is that much of that activity tends to undermine the moderates in the end of the day. In other words, the Gaza conflict marginalised the moderates more than makes sense. Some of the activities in the West Bank marginalise Prime Minister Fayyad and President Abbas more than they should and make life far more difficult for them within the Palestinian community overall. If one can see beyond the immediate issues, it seems that President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad deserve considerable credit. Very viable systems have been put in place in the West Bank and the European Union has been a great support.
Deputy Dooley made a good point. In many ways the European Union has been the leader in donor terms. That has not been matched by an equal strength on conflict resolution, although it is improving and increasing and there are significant efforts being made by the European Union. However, we will be doing it in partnership with the US and the Arab nations, based on their principles enshrined in the Arab peace initiative. We believe we must give it a push in that regard. It is in the strategic interest of the world that we get this issue resolved and on a pathway to progress. I hope that covers a number of comments that the various commentators have made.
Deputy Treacy raised an important point about the test for the EU in terms of the economic crisis. Let us not forget that at the summit of EU leaders in March last, €75 billion, an enormous sum of money, was committed by the European Union to the International Monetary Fund as a contribution to global enhancement of the capacity of the IMF to help countries across the globe who will be in difficulty. That was matched by other major regions as well, which gave a substantial boost to the IMF and its capacity to help out countries in difficulty. The summit also provided €50 billion for balance of payments supports within the Union, largely for the new member states from eastern and central Europe.
Third, the European Central Bank has been a major pillar for the Union, and the eurozone countries in particular, in the flow of liquidity and of credit. It has been an enormous support to the Irish banking and financial systems over the past year and a half, which point I cannot make strongly enough. We would have been in a far more difficult position if it were not for the intervention of the European Central Bank and the fact that Ireland is a member of the eurozone. That is just a bottom-line fact. However, I take the point from all of the members — Senator de Búrca, Deputies Dooley and Treacy and others — that they would like to see a more coherent, focused EU initiative on the economy, particularly on job creation. That was a common refrain from members.
In terms of the EU-Israel agreement, there is not much happening on that front and there will not be for some time.
In Burma, we have been supportive of the national opposition coalition. We facilitated the holding of a major meeting here recently so that it could work out its strategies in terms of the elections. Deputy Treacy raised that issue and stated he had a personal interest in it. There will be significant discussions this time out on Burma. Ultimately, the call for the opposition in Burma and others to make will be on participation in the elections. It is an appalling situation. There are 2,000 political prisoners at present. We will be doing what we can with the neighbouring countries to apply pressure to initiate and achieve change which must occur.
Deputy Treacy made a fine contribution on our performance in Chad. It would be useful at some stage for the committee to reflect on this because often European security and defence policy does not get the articulation it deserves. It was striking yesterday when High Representative Solana spoke in glowing terms of the role of the Army in Chad. It was not just that we were there. He spoke of the skill sets and the capacity that the Irish troops brought to the situation and the leadership of Lieutenant General Pat Nash in helping hundreds of thousands of displaced people from the conflict and refugees. That story needs to be get out much more than it has. It is not about a military aggrandisement agenda. It is about bringing a positive force to the world that can make a real difference to hundreds of thousands of starving people whose lives have been destroyed or up-ended by conflict. We can make a meaningful contribution through this mechanism.
In our meeting with High Representative Solana we did not ask about Chad. He brought it up. He has been out there, he has been in the camp, he has seen how we organise, etc., in a difficult situation. I must say I was proud to hear that. I pay tribute to our troops in that regard and Deputy Treacy was right to draw attention to it. I thank him also for his remarks on the contribution the Department's officials and public servants have made to Ireland abroad.
The situation in Sri Lanka was raised. We have been active on that issue as well. We are very concerned about the impact of the violence on civilians on both sides. There is evidence emerging of the Tamil Tigers using the civilian population as well and let us be clear about that. It is a desperate situation and a catastrophe from the humanitarian perspective. The LTT has rejected a call from the Sri Lankan army to surrender to prevent further bloodshed. We have made representations. The Sri Lankan ambassador in London came over and I met him to convey our concerns on the humanitarian side and particularly to facilitate the access of humanitarian supplies and aid. The European Union has led visits to Sri Lanka and United Nations officials have been there as well. We will continue to play a role in helping the civilian population deal with the outcome of the conflict.
On Israel, Deputy Dooley stated the neighbourhood agreement should have more teeth and muscle. My observation is that it is growing. I would not underestimate the growing impact of the EU. I suppose it raises the Lisbon treaty issue in so far as the treaty in a way was all about giving a stronger capacity to Europe in playing a role. This morning I was going over some of the parliamentary questions for this afternoon. If one thinks about it, President Obama, under the existing situation, is likely to meet 16 EU Presidents in eight years and deal with them as interlocutors on behalf of the EU every six months. What is really needed is continuity where genuine personal relationships develop. We, even as Ministers, all know that when one builds up a relationship with a person over a two to three-year period, one can get better quality discussions, better engagement on a policy front, etc. We spoke of Presidencies, etc. I have noticed at recent meetings that some serious heavy hitters from Europe are moving into the Middle East on a much more frequent basis engaging with Syria, Lebanon, Israel and all the major players. I would like to think that over time, building on the work of the Lisbon treaty, we can achieve stronger coherence in the engagement on facilitating conflict resolution.
Senator de Búrca referred to the economic recovery plan which I have addressed. I take her point on events in Colombia. We will raise the matter with the European Union.
I thank the Minister.
Trade agreements are important to enable countries to develop and grow. On the other hand, there has to be an approximation to the norms and values of democracies in the European Union. There is always a balance to be struck between the degree to which a country is moving towards these norms and resiling from them. The Senator's point which she strongly articulated is that these norms are nowhere near being attained in the context of the behaviour of the Colombian authorities towards trade unions. I will follow up the matter and come back to the Senator on it.
Senator Leyden referred to Turkey. Turkey has not fulfilled its obligations in respect of full non-discriminatory implementation of the additional protocol of the association agreement by opening its ports and airports to vessels and aircraft from the Republic of Cyprus. Approximately eight specific negotiating chapters cannot be opened because of this, nor can any more be provisionally closed until Turkey fulfils its commitments in that regard. Following the start of fully fledged negotiations between the leaders of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities, the Commission encourages Turkey to support a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue. The issue is ongoing and has not gone off the boil. People are anxious that the process that has commenced yield results.
Perhaps the Minister can raise the issue with his colleagues on the margins of the meeting.
On Sudan, we will maintain support for the decision in regard to President al-Bashir, from which there should not be any pulling back.
The European Union is clear about the strategic importance of the EU-Russia relationship. On the other hand, we must be careful, for example, about what happened in South Ossetia and so on. A balance must be struck. However, Ireland has played a constructive role and we have advocated continued engagement, while also dealing with the issue of South Ossetia and Abkhazia through a process established following the conflict.
Senator Cummins referred to Bolivia. The issue will not emerge at the GAERC. However, we issued a press release which has been circulated. Mr. Derek Lambe quickly went to Bolivia and we received good co-operation from the Bolivian authorities in seeking the recovery and release of the body of Michael Dwyer and also facilitation of repatriation. We are concerned about the conflicting accounts of the very violent incident that occurred. We are very sorry that a young Irishman has been killed in such violent circumstances and believe, as a country, we have a legitimate right to inquire about the circumstances surrounding his violent death. I spoke with the acting foreign Minister last evening and laid out our position and registered in a formal way our interest in having all papers pertaining to the case and all issues relating to the investigation released to us. We agree with the reported comments made on behalf of President Morales on an international dimension to any inquiry. It is very regrettable for the family to whom our sympathies go. I reiterate that our only interest at this stage is to find out the facts of the case. We are not prejudging what happened. We do not have all the facts and want a credible process put in place to gives us the full facts.
We will address the next item on the agenda following the division in the Dáil. I thank the Minister for attending.
Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed in private session at 1.30 p.m. The joint committee adjourned at 2 p.m. until 2 p.m on Tuesday, 28 April 2009.