JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Mar 2006

Middle East Peace Process: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Rory Montgomery, political director in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Michael Gaffey, also from that Department. They are accompanied by Ms Therese Healy. We look forward to hearing what they have to say.

On 8 March we met Ms Sarit Michaeli, B'Tselem, Israel and Mr. Hamdi Shaqqura of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Gaza. We heard about the humanitarian circumstances in the occupied territories and people's fears since the recent election of Hammas to power in Palestine. Today we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail. I understand that Mr. Montgomery will make two presentations and that Mr. Gaffey will join in, as required, when it comes to answering questions.

Mr. Rory Montgomery

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to appear before the committee. I wish to stress the willingness of the Minister and the Department to build on today's meeting and to maintain a continuing dialogue with the committee on these two very important issues as we move forward. Mr. Michael Gaffey is the director of our Middle East section and has a good deal of experience of the region, having been posted to Iraq and Egypt in the past. Ms Therese Healy will contribute on the second item. She is the deputy director of the Department's disarmament and non-proliferation section.

Yesterday in Brussels, at the General Affairs Council meeting, EU Foreign Ministers again devoted considerable attention to developments in the Middle East peace process. As the committee is aware, we have reached a critical point. We are awaiting the formation of a new Palestinian Authority, following the elections on 15 January. We also await the outcome of the Israeli general election on 28 March, a week from today.

Nothing has happened in recent weeks that has changed the basic reality that the only way in which a lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be found is through the negotiation of a mutually acceptable and viable two-state solution. This must entail the coexistence, in peace and security, of the state of Israel and a truly viable Palestinian state, with agreed international borders.

In the swirl of often dramatic and violent events, including those in recent weeks, this goal may at times seem unreachable, even unrealistic. However, the Government and its partners are determined that the EU must remain engaged in the process, with a clear and balanced message for all parties. The pursuit of progress through unilateral actions by either or both parties is simply not a viable option in the longer term.

It is easy to point out that none of the timelines in the Quartet road map of 2002 has been met. Undoubtedly, the road map will need to be revisited when the situation becomes clear. However, it continues to represent the essential set of principles and sequential parallel actions required of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority if we are to achieve a settlement and provide the hope of a secure and prosperous future to the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples. Both parties will be obliged to take difficult decisions. The focus in recent months has been on the obligations on the Palestinians. It is correct that we have spoken with great clarity to Hamas on its obligations as it prepares to assume the responsibilities of government. However, we need to reiterate that the Israeli Government has very important decisions to take also.

Members of the committee set out their views on Israeli policies and practices at the meeting — the transcript of which we read with great interest — held earlier this month. The Government fully agrees that, under both the road map and international law, Israel must act to end the expansion of settlements on occupied territory, the construction there of the separation barrier — the wall — the demolition of Palestinian homes and the imposition of harsh restrictions on Palestinian residents. Within the EU, Ireland has been consistently active in stressing this crucial dimension of the overall situation.

The international community warmly welcomed the successful withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from Gaza last autumn and we continue to hope that this could prove the first step towards a return to the implementation of the requirements for a two-state solution. The EU has stated, clearly and consistently, that all parties should refrain from any unilateral action that will further jeopardise the prospects for such a solution and that the Union will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 boundaries other than those agreed through negotiation. The Quartet, including the United States, on 30 January, also clearly stated what is required in terms of settlement expansion, the removal of illegal outposts and the route of the barrier. There is clearly a need for these views to be continually restated and for the appropriate pressure to be maintained. Realistically, the prospects of a settlement have been seriously complicated by the decisive victory of Hamas candidates in the democratic Palestinian elections in January. Ireland has been to the fore in arguing, within the European Union in particular, that the Union and the international community need to give the Palestinians time and space to come to terms with the unexpectedly strong showing by Hamas which achieved a clear majority of seats in free and fair elections. The way the elections were conducted is a tribute to the Palestinian people and the leadership shown by their democratically elected President, Mahmoud Abbas. The elections were to the Palestinian Legislative Council which will shortly appoint a new Palestinian Authority.

Hamas is a tough and disciplined organisation. While it has engaged in a vicious campaign of violence, it has observed a cessation for the past year. It has stated it rejects the Oslo process. Nonetheless, its participation in the elections and preparations to form a government display a certain pragmatism with regard to the process. The Hamas nominee for Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya, has presented his proposed government team to President Abbas in recent days and is expected to place it before the Legislative Council soon, although formal approval is considered unlikely in advance of the Israeli elections. When the details have been confirmed, any approved government will be assessed on its platform and actions.

It is vital that Hamas should take seriously the important and clear messages given on 30 January by the European Union and the Quartet on the conditions for engagement with the international community. Hamas has also received clear messages on the way forward from President Abbas and its Arab neighbours, as well as from Russia and Turkey when Hamas leaders visited Moscow and Istanbul in recent weeks. It would be a grave error for it to act in a way which would lead to the international and regional isolation of the Palestinian people.

Ireland strongly supports the requirement that the new government should renounce violence, disarm, recognise Israel's right to exist and accept existing agreements reached in negotiations between the PLO, the Palestinian Authority and Israel. To be frank, it would be naive of anyone to expect Hamas will simply accept these conditions immediately and simultaneously. I emphasise that if there is any evidence of a willingness to make progress on these essential steps, based unequivocally on the continued absence of violence, there should be a response from the European Union and the international community.

The issue of funding is a particularly difficult and complex one. Up until now, funding to Palestine has been aimed at two essential but rather different purposes, the obligation to provide humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people and the desire to support the peace process established by the Oslo accords through the funding of Palestinian institutions. In broad terms, about half of total EU funding goes to the United Nations, UNWRA and NGOs, and on food aid — the humanitarian basket — with the other half going to the Palestinian Authority. However, the effective disbursement of humanitarian aid often involves interaction with the Palestinian Authority. In turn, Palestinian Authority activities in areas such as health and education have a very important humanitarian dimension. I ask the committee to note the contribution to the Palestinian economy made by salaries paid to public officials in these areas.

The Commission and Council secretariat are, on a contingency basis, exploring alternative funding routes but the scope for changing the arrangements, especially in the short term, seems limited. We have heard and understand clearly the messages from President Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian civil society, the United Nations and the Quartet special envoy, Mr. James Wolfensohn, on the potential consequences of cutting funding to the Palestinian Authority. EU Ministers agreed on 27 February to approve the almost immediate disbursement of €121.5 million in aid, almost half of the annual total administered by the European Commission. We also strongly support the efforts of Mr. Wolfensohn to persuade the Israeli Government not to implement its decision to withhold the approximately €50 million each month in customs duties which it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

As regards Ireland's bilateral efforts, the Government will work to maintain the overall level of Irish bilateral assistance to the Palestinian people which amounted to more than €4 million last year. The Minister has made clear that we are determined that any difficult decisions which may need to be taken about the precise modalities of funding will not be at the expense of the welfare of the Palestinian people or the overall volume of our assistance.

Once a government is formed, however, its policies and actions will, inevitably, have implications for the continuation of assistance from the international community and for the shape that such assistance can take. We hope that the policies and actions will be such as to reinforce the arguments put forward, in the EU and elsewhere, by countries such as Ireland, which have consistently been and remain good friends to the people of Palestine. We very much hope that the Israeli Government that will be elected next week will also adopt policies and take actions that are consistent with the search for a just and peaceful resolution to this most difficult situation.

Chairman

We shall discuss that matter now.

Deputy Allen

I thank Mr. Montgomery for his contribution. We will not revisit ground covered on the previous occasion on which we discussed this matter because, as he stated earlier, our guests examined our comments in detail. I welcome his assertion that the elections were democratically run — a statement with which we agree — and that Hamas has an obligation to evolve from its current incarnation into a real political organisation. However, we must learn from our history because it took some time for the State to evolve and for the separation of the Army from the Government. The same was true in countries such as Nicaragua. We must accept that it will take time for the armed wing of the organisation to separate fully from the political wing.

With regard to funding, on the previous occasion on which we discussed this matter, we said that any squeezing of custom duty payments from Israel to Palestine would cause significant hardship. What is the official attitude to the difficulty of access to Bethlehem? Has any protest been made, for example, in respect of the difficulty Christian pilgrims experience in gaining access. I visited the region in January 2005 with some of our colleagues. We saw the major obstacles and roadblocks preventing people from gaining access to the sacred sites. We also witnessed the difficulties that locals experience and the devastation of the tourist industry in Bethlehem. If the most sacred sites of any other religion were cut off, there would be global uproar. However, it seems to be accepted that Israel can cut off Bethlehem to pilgrims or to at least make it so difficult to access that people will not travel there. Nobody seems to have raised even a murmur on the matter. Have official protests been made on behalf of the many Irish people who visit the sacred sites in Israel and Palestine?

Is it correct, as we were recently informed, that the report on east Jerusalem had been suppressed by the EU Foreign Ministers? While I have seen only a summary of the report, no political action appears to have been taken on the matters detailed in it. Why is the report not being acted upon?

While I do not want to revisit matters addressed on the last occasion, I wish to raise, with senior officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs, an issue relating to UN funding. I watched a television programme the other night about a lack of accountability in UN funding to Iraq. Has the Government taken a proactive role in establishing the current location of the billions of US dollars earmarked for humanitarian and development aid in Iraq which now seem to be missing? Was any statement made on the matter on foot of yesterday's meeting of EU Foreign Ministers? Have Ministers expressed any views on the missing billions? The moneys in question which were given in trust to some UN agencies seem to have been ghosted away or misspent. It is certain that they are not being spent on humanitarian projects in Iraq.

Chairman

Let me add a little codicil to the question about Bethlehem. Is Ireland still giving financial support to the university there? It is the unanimous view of the committee that such support should be continued, particularly in the very difficult times we face.

Deputy M. Higgins

If I repeat one or two points I made on the previous occasion that the joint committee considered this matter, I will do so out of a sense of desperation. When I say I am very unhappy with the briefing given to the committee on the issue of Palestine, I do not intend to criticise Mr. Montgomery, whose opinions I value very much. There are serious omissions from the briefing in very significant ways.

Deputy Allen spoke about the report on east Jerusalem. That east Jerusalem hardly ever figures in the statements issued by the EU Council of Ministers, which is a scandal, appears to suggest there is a quiet and benign acceptance of illegality. I can say that on the basis of my experience as someone who, with the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Allen and others, visited the region in question last January. I joined a former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Andreas van Agt, and five other Ministers on a visit to Gaza last September, the week after the so-called withdrawal. At the time I spent about two weeks in Palestine — in Beit Jala, Beit Sahour, Bethlehem, Hebron and east Jerusalem. During the 12-month period in which the withdrawal of 8,000 people from Gaza received much attention throughout the world, there was not one word from the international community about the illegal granting of 30,000 permissions in respect of illegally occupied land in a horseshoe around east Jerusalem.

Most of the background material given to the joint committee today states correctly that Hamas faces certain obligations. I share the views expressed about the need for Hamas to operate within the context of international law. The document in question contains hardly a paragraph about east Jerusalem. A number of issues arise in respect of a series of other rights. The committee received a presentation from B'Tselem, an excellent organisation. What about Article 2 of the association agreement which refers to human rights, for example? What about the obligations under the Geneva Convention of an occupying power? How can the Council use language such as "contested territories" when it is referring to "occupied territories"? Where in the various statements is there a clear suggestion that Israel has to be bound by the human rights conditions of its association agreement? Where is it suggested that one of the conditions of the 2003-06 technical and scientific co-operation agreement will be compliance with international law? There is no such suggestion. Where is the reference to the B'Tselem reports on the rights to communication and movement? What about the blocking of the transit between Gaza and the occupied West Bank? What about the expansion beyond Maale Adumim into the Jordan Valley which cuts the occupied West Bank in two? Such an expansion would cut off Ramallah and other cities from any connection with east Jerusalem. Why did the Department state in the background briefing document that the final stage talks about the future of east Jerusalem can resume when Hamas has agreed everything? Hamas does not have to agree everything to insist on east Jerusalem being a crucial aspect of the agreements.

We can call the wall a barrier or, if one likes, a fence in some parts, but there is no mystery about its length — it is projected to be 621 km long. The green line is 315 km long because it winds in and out, as correctly indicated in the statement, to take in a number of communities and divide others. I find this hopeless. I say this strongly because I am reaching a point of near hopelessness. I find the statements arising from European meetings so bland, in so far as they never insist on compliance with international law, which is our only hope. When was there last a single reference to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, dated 4 July 2004? Why is there no reference to it in any statement?

Senator Norris

Hear, hear.

Deputy M. Higgins

The consistent thread running through all of the statements is impunity. Senator Norris knows what happened when we visited the cave people near Hebron. I know what it was like when stones and gravel were fired at us by a particularly extreme group as we passed down a street in Hebron. Does this matter at all? Why are we not speaking evenly? The Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs speak at this committee with sympathy. Most of the European Union countries speak with two tongues — one for their ambassador to Israel and the other for their representative in Ramallah. That was my experience and that of five other Ministers and two ambassadors when we visited the area last September.

I do not say this in an angry way; I simply give a list of the unaddressed issues that constitute what appears to be complete impunity in regard to international law and that turns to ashes in the mouths of some who, correctly, want to give an invitation to Hamas which has been accepted by the people. Hamas has been elected and now has responsibilities. The elections were fair and the Palestinian people were urged to hold them. As we accept the result, let us all stand back and see where we go from here.

Was there ever a reference in any statement from the Ministers to the concept of pre-emption? Is it acceptable to state following the launch of a rocket to attack a civilian prison in an occupied area that nothing much has happened? A lot has happened. There have been outrageous breaches of international law.

In Gaza, where we now prepare for starvation by blocking an opportunity for Iranian intervention to fill gaps made by other international agencies, 969,588 people out of a total of 1.3 million are refugees. I visited the area for the first time in the 1980s and when I returned last year, the level of poverty was worse. While I dutifully paid tribute to UNRWA, if UNRWA and the international community had been successful, they would not now be there because there would be a viable contiguous Palestinian state.

I know that if I say all of this now, it is supposed I do not care. The security of Israel is based on the acceptance of international law. When Senator Norris and I visited Israel, we met 27 organisations taking enormous risks at check points and every other place which were in favour of human rights. We have met B'Tselem and so on. We cannot really say we are vindicating international law or human rights if we keep on constructing speculative statements such as "Maybe Hamas will come right" or "Maybe this will come right". There is illegality. When have we last explicitly stated occupation is illegal, that the expansion of illegal settlements must stop or that what is happening in east Jerusalem is a disgrace? We cannot cut children off from their schools or old people from their medical centres. That will be said in Ramallah but is not being stated by our embassy to Israel. We will receive rafts of letters abusing us because I have said this but I say so because I have grown old talking about Palestine and bland, ineffective and evasive statements from the European Union that show no evidence of its wanting to vindicate international law, international human rights and the terms of its own agreements with Israel, including the technical and association agreements. A monitoring team should be established and given six months to ensure compliance by Israel with the conditions governing its relationship with the European Union. Thereafter, we should revisit the issue of the agreements and the treaty.

Chairman

Mr. Montgomery referred to the views of members on Israeli policies and practices at the last meeting of the committee. He stated:

The Government fully agrees that, under the road map and international law, Israel has to act to end the expansion of settlements on occupied territory, the construction there of the separation barrier, the wall, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the imposition of harsh restrictions on Palestinian residents.

Deputy M. Higgins

The European Union has not stated that explicitly.

Chairman

I appreciate that but it does stress that the Government has been consistently active in stressing this crucial dimension of the overall position within the European Union. This must be made clear, although I support what the Deputy has said.

Deputy Carey

I do not have much to add to what has been said by the two previous speakers as I have already expressed my exasperation over this matter. Elections have been held in Palestine to the satisfaction of the global democratic community and we are within an octave of elections in Israel where, frankly, there is extreme electioneering. I refer to the assault on the civilian prison in Jericho, for example. I see nothing else.

Traditionally, there has been all-party consensus on this issue at the committee. I do not see the emergence of a critical analysis of the developing position, nor do I see evidence of new insights. I am not referring to the position of the Irish Government but to that of the European Union, which is extraordinarily bland. Every time I read a statement by the Union I become increasingly depressed. This is because we are all afraid of offending Israel. I, too, have been to Israel and Palestine, albeit not as often as Senator Norris or Deputy Higgins, and have not seen such flagrant violations of civil and human rights anywhere else I have visited. This must be stated repeatedly, regardless of who we offend.

I have no doubt we will receive e-mails and letters condemning and criticising us for the stance we have taken but it is not good enough for us to sit back, fold our arms and hope all will come right. It will not, unless there is proactive engagement by significant players. Ireland, as a member of the European Union, should become a significant player. Perhaps it is time the European Union got over the fence or barrier and made a strong statement that it stands for law and order, human rights and justice.

I concur with what Deputy Higgins said. There would be great merit in appointing a monitor to perform a specific task within a specific timeframe. It is too much to expect that there will be further positive developments after the Israeli elections, that Hamas will enter discussions with those elected and that Iran will become engaged on one side and the United States on the other. The matter will not be that easy to resolve. For that reason we are an honest broker, even though our sympathies lie in a particular direction. Nonetheless, we see this as a problem which needs a solution on the side of justice and fair play.

Deputy T. Dempsey

I concur with what all other speakers said. It appears to be the lot of politicians to engage in endless talk when nothing is achieved. That is my experience of going to meetings. A month later I find I have almost forgotten what they were about. I wonder whether the talking shop forms part of an international act in which something has to be said; a body such as the International Court of Justice wastes time in stating the construction of a separation barrier runs contrary to international law; this ruling is totally ignored by the democratically elected Israeli Government, despite the fact that in constructing the barrier an extra 20% of land belonging to Palestinians is acquired; Israel cuts off water supplies and stops people from working on their farms. The Palestinians are being condemned for doing what most human beings would do in reaction to the savagery inflicted on them. I have no sympathy for suicide bombers or Hamas, but how is it to be encouraged if the reaction, having come through democratic elections to embrace democracy, is to invade prisons? If law enforcement agencies are crippled, how can any civilised coexistence or ambitions for a two-party state be realised? I want to ask Mr. Montgomery whether the Israeli Government does pay any attention. In my experience, short though it is, it does not. In the absence of this — I am aware that Deputy Higgins has proposed the appointment of a monitor — is there anything the European Union, the Government or this committee can do that would make a difference or in some way embarrass, if not force, the Israeli Government to recognise to some degree international standards of law and justice?

Senator Norris

I echo what the two previous speakers said. Deputy Higgins has not lost the fire in his belly, although he has said he has grown old in this discussion. It is extremely important to ensure the political health of this country that there are people active in public life who keenly feel the need for international standards. Tragically, the lesson is absolutely clear — human rights do not matter a damn. This comes from the very top, from George W. Bush and his acolytes in Israel. Believe me when I say I am not against either America or Israel in terms of what those countries have stood for. However, I have grave problems because it has been made utterly clear that human rights do not matter. They are a tissue of nonsense on which we can trample.

The briefing note states, "The US and Israel have made it clear they will not negotiate with a government which contains elements that have not renounced violence". These are the two most violent, aggressive, militaristic states on the planet, yet they are coy about entering discussions with similarly tainted persons on the other side. The Palestinian people could now turn the Israeli slogan on its head by saying they do not have a partner for peace either.

I turn to the outrage in Jericho and I am very glad my three colleagues raised the matter. I am sorry the Houses of the Oireachtas did not meet last week because we should have discussed it then. Contemplate the fact that this civilian institution in a separate state is subjected to an illegal attack. There are prisoners who are confined and whose movements are restricted, with no possibility of escape. They are treated to an attack that features missiles from helicopter gunships, shells from tanks and heavy machine-gun fire from infantry. This was done with the clear, callous and obvious collaboration of the United States and Britain. I condemn the people who left the jail. They were not fit to be there in the first place as observers or protectors if, at the first whiff of the possibility that the Israelis might turn up, they turned tail and fled. Shame on them. They had no business being there. Among other matters, they were present to protect the civilian inmates of the prison. It is a disgrace to them and both governments that they collaborated with the Israeli authorities. What about the two people who died in the incident? Did they have any rights or is it the case that human and civil rights do not matter?

I understand Deputy Higgins's suggestion of using monitors. I am growing old in this business of analysing the painful and agonising situation in the Middle East because I have people I love on both sides of this terrible civil conflict. However, it has moved way beyond monitors. For Christ's sake, what do we need to see further? We have seen the bombing of civilian prisons.

The text of the external association agreement between Israel and the European Union refers to a series of human rights protocols. I have been raising this issue at this committee and not just within the past year. The Chairman may be able to refresh my memory but I think I proposed a motion that we look for implementation of those human rights protocols. I do not think we need a monitor; the evidence could not possibly be clearer. The European Union has no interest in human rights, otherwise it would not tolerate the position taken by Israel in this disgraceful attack or the position taken by the United States on Iraq.

The wall is monstrous. We should be hauling Cement Roadstone before this committee to explain the reason Irish owned and controlled cement is being used in its construction but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I wish to make a general point on the subject of the Middle East. I do not know whether the careers of our three friends would survive an honest answer to this question. What was the Minister, Deputy Cullen, doing in New York on St. Patrick's Day? As an Irish citizen and a taxpayer, I am disgusted that an Irish Cabinet Minister should stand in New York to review returning troops of the 69th brigade who, among other matters, were involved in attacks on journalists in which a number of Italians and other civilians were killed. He took the salute, thereby aligning clearly the Government which is supposed to be neutral with the——

Chairman

I ask the Senator to return to the question of Palestine and Israel.

Senator Norris

I am talking about the Middle East.

Chairman

No, we are talking about Palestine and Israel.

Senator Norris

I am talking about the Middle East and the general moral framework. I do not care if it is a painful subject. These questions should be asked.

Chairman

They have been asked.

Senator Norris

It is all related. There would not be such a severe mess in the Middle East if people like Mr. Sharon who is now asleep and Mr. Olmert did not realise, because of the grand strategic plan of the neo-con thinkers in Washington, that they are protected.

Mr. Montgomery

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Michael Gaffey, to speak specifically about the situation in Bethlehem and to pick up on any other points I may miss.

I have read the transcript of proceedings at the previous meeting and I am aware of many previous exchanges on these topics. I understand the depth of feeling on the issue.

The Irish Government, in the myriad of EU and UN committees and at both official and political levels, has been one of the most active of European states in promoting these issues. I do not wish to quote at length from EU statements but it is not entirely fair to claim the European Union says nothing about the issues referred to or discusses them only blandly. For example, an extract from November's General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions states:

The Council once again underlined its grave concern at Israeli activities in and around East Jerusalem, including construction of the separation barrier, settlement building and house demolitions. These reduce the possibility of reaching a final status agreement on Jerusalem, threaten to make any solution based on the coexistence of two viable states physically impossible and are contrary to international law.

A similar statement was made by the European Council in December, partly due to pressure from us and from like-minded people. The reality is that statements of any kind and in any forum invariably involve a degree of balance and discussion and there is a tendency to focus on the most topical issue at any given moment. However, it is not fair to suggest the European Union has been negligent or indifferent to these matters.

Deputy M. Higgins

What about the International Court of Justice ruling, for example?

Mr. Montgomery

The statement that the route of the wall is contrary to international law is a clear reference to the ruling.

Senator Norris

They do not act on their recommendations.

Deputy Carey

The same statement was probably made on previous occasions.

Senator Norris

More words.

Chairman

We are all looking for a solution but have not come near to arriving at one. These are parts of the problem, as was made clear to us when we visited.

Deputy M. Higgins

I understand Mr. Montgomery's argument but, as he knows, there will be no east Jerusalem left to discuss by the time the final stage talks are reached because it will have been spoken for with planning permissions, extensions and the division into two of the occupied West Bank.

Mr. Montgomery

On the east Jerusalem report, to which Deputy Allen specifically referred, the Council had sight of what had been drafted by the heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah when it made its statement. It is true that publication of the document was intended but, in the interim, the Israeli general election was called and the Council took the view that it was inappropriate to publish at that time. The reality was that no consensus was reached on publication.

Deputy M. Higgins

It was entirely about housing permissions in east Jerusalem and about the illegal extensions on one hand and the blocking of permission on the other.

Mr. Montgomery

Exactly, it was about the entire situation in east Jerusalem. However, the key points on settlement buildings and demolitions were made in public by the Council's statement.

On the remarks by Deputy Allen on our own history and Hamas, we would all agree it is impossible to draw exact parallels between events. One significant difference in our peace process was that the republican movement gained electoral strength only in the context of the progress in the process, whereas Hamas has won a substantial victory without any such progress. Nonetheless, aspects of the psychology of transition are relevant across different situations. The Minister and his officials, myself included, have made points which arose from an analysis of our experience, one such being that the objectives being set should be prioritised in terms of what is important or deliverable in the short term. That is why we have placed a particular emphasis on the continued absence of violence. It is unrealistic to expect people to immediately or in the short term move on points of deep principle. What is important is that signals are sent which can be responded to. A point that goes to the heart of what is being said is that it is unlikely that there will be movement on one side until it has a sense of the context in which that movement has to be made. Until there is a sense that a credible political process can be instituted which will respond to movement, it is difficult to expect things to move in an ideal way.

On the association agreement, my understanding is that there have been intense negotiations between the Commission, primarily — leading on to the European Union side — and the Israelis on finding a better mechanism in which to examine and discuss the range of human rights issues involved. I am hopeful there will be progress on that front directly after the Israeli elections, although the effectiveness of such mechanisms remains to be seen.

On the fundamental question, the difficulty is——

Senator Norris

I do not wish to be rude, but Mr. Montgomery has raised a very interesting point. He has indicated with regard to the external association agreement, that there are friendly discussions between officials of the Commission and the Israelis. Did I take this up correctly?

Mr. Montgomery

There is a range of issues to be dealt with under the agreement. There has been a general desire on the European side to find a more effective way of discussing human rights issues, in particular. There have been ongoing discussions between the Commission and the Israeli authorities on trying to find more effective mechanisms.

Senator Norris

Does Mr. Montgomery agree that it diminishes the status of human rights entirely to have them provided for in a protocol, of which relevant sections are never activated despite massive violations?

Mr. Montgomery

I agree there should be mechanisms through which both sides could make known their concerns. If issues are mentioned in an agreement but not acted upon or even debated, there will be a problem. In other fora the European Union has repeatedly made its position clear on many of the issues mentioned by the Senator.

Senator Norris

My next point is crucial. Making a view known and constructive engagement, etc., are not worth anything on the evidence of scenarios played out around the world. The effective operation of clauses in impeding certain aspects of trade or imposing restraints on them is physical and tangible. To my mind, that is the sole reason for including human rights protocols. If they are not to be acted on, they should not be included. People could then be honest in proclaiming they are not interested in human rights, that they are more interested in trade and political positions. Words mean nothing in such circumstances, but there is a difference between pious ejaculations, on the one hand, and concrete action which will affect trade, on the other.

Mr. Montgomery

In a way, many of the matters raised ask the question whether it is worth continuing down the track we have been on in trying to encourage dialogue between the two sides or if unilateral action, even on the part of the European Union, would be a better way to proceed. Our sense of the matter, borne out by opinion polls taken on the Palestinian side before the elections, is that even many of those who voted for Hamas want to see a continuation of or a return to constructive dialogue. That is what the democratically elected leader, President Abbas, has said. It is a matter of judgment as to how the parties can be best induced to do this, given the balance of forces in the region and more broadly. The general sense within the European Union has been that it is not particularly constructive to speak of imposing restrictions or sanctions on Israel. There may be a debate on the legitimacy of this view.

Senator Norris

Nothing else has worked. Words have not worked. The violence, the utter contempt for human rights and the breaching of international law are getting worse.

Chairman

The Senator should bear in mind that we wish to hear the replies.

Deputy M. Higgins

Was there an international conference after the Israeli elections?

Mr. Montgomery

The idea of a conference has been mooted by a number of parties. The Russians continue to moot it. The trouble is that, for any conference to be effective, it would need the participation of all parties.

Mr. Gaffey will deal with the situation in Bethlehem. I hope I will be forgiven for not answering the question about St. Patrick's Day as I am sure it will be addressed in other fora. The events of last week in Jericho were shocking and deeply regrettable. The UK Foreign Secretary has offered an explanation of the actions of his country's monitors, but it is clear there are more questions than answers.

Mr. Michael Gaffey

I will comment briefly on the EU statements. The first point we all should bear in mind is that we now have a European Union of 25 member states. The Council meets every month and most months adopts conclusions which are the subject of amazingly intense negotiations on what may ultimately appear to be a bland announcement. It is fair to state Ireland is extremely active with one aim in mind — to maintain a balanced EU approach. Such an approach often involves us in arguing very strongly on precisely the issues the joint committee has raised. For example, last November there were two meetings, at the beginning and end of the month, of the External Relations Council which dealt with the situation in east Jerusalem. The Council outlined a series of concerns, stating that it was essential, even if action was not taken, that the European Union maintained its clear position on the illegality of certain courses of action. It stated that any settlement which could be judged to be a lasting and peaceful settlement through negotiations could not suffer changes not agreed to the pre-1967 boundaries. It is essential that the European Union states these positions clearly and regularly. As Mr. Montgomery stated, if the statements issued in the latter half of 2005 are examined, it will be clear that the European Union did make such statements, which are at times holding statements. The Government believes that when the current situation has been clarified and the Israeli elections are concluded, it will be important for the European Union and the wider international community to return the basics of what is required to achieve a fair and lasting peaceful settlement. This will involve speaking to and working with both parties. No matter what the difficulty is, contact with either party should not be broken.

One of the main issues which has caused anger and concern concerns the separation barrier or wall. Bethlehem has been seriously affected by its construction and that of the check points, with the continued expansion of settlements. All of these activities have served to cut Bethlehem off from Jerusalem. Effectively, it is being cut off from its natural population and lifeblood.

We have been very much to the fore in insisting the separation barrier cannot be accepted as a permanent feature or a new border and will have be removed. The EU has stated that and will continue to do so. It is essential that we highlight these principles at difficult times such as this, when nothing seems to be changing, in order that when, I hope sooner rather than later, the international community again addresses the dire need for movement toward the two-state solution the focus will be on the obligations of both sides. That is recognised not only by Palestinians but by a large section of the Israeli population, as opinion polls show. We must await the results of the election but, despite what seems to be a hopeless situation, there is a growing reality in the minds of Israelis as well as Palestinians that the only way through the impasse is to agree arrangements to share the land on the basis of the two-state solution. We should not give up on that yet.

Chairman

I will echo Mr. Gaffey by reminding the committee that the Israeli elections are only a week away. Deputies and Senators will be aware that the period immediately before an election creates particular difficulties. Palestinians will form a new government and have already nominated members. I hope that will encourage a fresh approach on both sides. It is particularly important to keep this on the agenda and we will follow developments closely. I thank Mr. Gaffey for outlining his Department's position and for answering questions in that area.

Senator Norris

The sharpness of the questioning does not reflect any disrespect for the professionalism of the three officials before us. I hope this useful meeting will enable them to attend European meetings armed with the knowledge that they have a strong support base for putting human rights back onto the agenda. The questions do not imply criticism of them but of the policies. We are very well served by the officials but want to strengthen their hand and let them know how passionately Members on all sides and of all parties feel on the issue.

Chairman

Deputy Allen did not mention it but he was a member of the delegation I led to Israel and Palestine, as was Deputy Carey. Deputy Michael D. Higgins accompanied us and has visited the area on many occasions. Senator Norris also visits both places frequently. We have a deep and genuine interest and want to see a peaceful solution. We will do anything we can to help the situation.

I ask Mr. Montgomery to make his presentation on the situation in Iran.

Mr. Montgomery

I thank the chairman and committee members for their kind words about the Department. They are much appreciated.

Europe has a clear strategic, political, economic and cultural interest in developing close, co-operative relations with Iran. Our relations do not boil down simply to the nuclear issue, but they are now dominated by it. Nonetheless, even at this point I emphasise that it remains the view of the Government, and of our EU partners, that a new departure in our relations with Iran can still be achieved through diplomacy on aspects of the Iranian nuclear programme, the human rights situation, Iran's contribution to the Middle East peace process, and on co-operation in the international fight against terrorism.

The international community has devoted massive efforts to dealing with the issue of Iran's clandestine nuclear programme since it was first revealed over three years ago. It emerged that it had been developed over a period of 20 years and involved the most sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle in clear breach of the reporting requirements laid down in its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. The international community has since been engaged in a twin-track approach to ascertain, through the work of the IAEA, the full extent and nature of Iran's nuclear programme and to identify ways to address the concerns about the programme and its possible future direction. These concerted efforts have encompassed inspections and analysis by the IAEA, as well as negotiations between Iran and other countries. To date the IAEA director general has provided 16 separate written reports, based on the agency's investigations. There have also been nine resolutions of the IAEA board of governors. The E3, within the framework of the Paris Agreement, and Russia, through its proposal for a uranium enrichment joint venture, have engaged in negotiations with Iran to try to achieve a peaceful diplomatic solution. It is important to situate Iran's behaviour and actions against this background.

Under the Paris Agreement of 2004 Iran agreed as a confidence building measure to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities while negotiations were under way, a measure which the IAEA board had declared essential. In return, Iran was offered the possibility of a new relationship with the European Union through co-operation in the political, security, economic and technological spheres. It was also agreed that it would not be referred to the Security Council at the time, although there was a legal basis for doing so.

The European Council endorsed this approach to negotiations with Iran in December 2004. Talks continued until August 2005, culminating in the presentation to Iran of comprehensive proposals for the negotiation of a long-term agreement. However, Iran summarily rejected these proposals and unilaterally decided to resume uranium conversion on 8 August 2005. Despite successive resolutions of the IAEA board of governors in August and September 2005 which called on it to restore full suspension of these activities, Iran pressed ahead with the process of conversion. At the time the board did not report Iran to the UN Security Council in order to allow more time for negotations. Exploratory talks between Iran and the European Union and the E3 took place in Vienna on 21 December 2005 and were to continue on 18 January this year. However, on 3 January Iran announced its intention to resume previously suspended research into uranium enrichment and, therefore, requested the removal of IAEA seals at several nuclear installations, which took place a week later.

Iran's announcement was widely condemned. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said at the time that it was inconsistent with IAEA calls for Iran to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment activities and that it was regrettable that Iran had chosen to resume uranium enrichment activities precisely at a moment when the European side and Iran had, just before Christmas, been exploring possibilities of resuming negotiations. At a meeting in London the E3, the United States, China and Russia called on Iran to suspend its enrichment activities and for the board of governors to report Iran to the Security Council.

Between 2 and 4 February the IAEA board of governors adopted a resolution requesting the director general, Mr. El Baradei, to report to the Security Council on the steps required of Iran and the board's previous reports and resolutions. Iran was given a further short period of time, until 6 March, to comply with these requirements. The resolution underlined the IAEA's continuing role in verifying Iran's nuclear programme and set out a list of confidence-building measures which Iran should implement. Iran chose not to implement any of these measures and immediately signalled that it would no longer implement the provisions of the IAEA additional protocol which it had been doing on a voluntary basis since December 2003 and which had afforded the IAEA inspectors greater scope to inspect Iran's facilities.

On 11 February Iran began so-called research and development into enrichment. The most recent report of the IAEA director general, dated 27 February, summarises these developments and the agency's overall assessment. It reaffirmed that Iran's active co-operation and full transparency were overdue and that, until they were forthcoming, questions remained about the past and current direction of Iran's nuclear programme.

At the most recent meeting of the board of governors from 6 to 8 March, the EU, through the Presidency of Austria, noted this assessment and expressed concern that, after three years of intensive work by the agency, it is still unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The EU further noted the agency's conclusion that full transparency extending beyond the legal requirements of the safeguards agreements and the additional protocol will be required to resolve the outstanding issues.

The EU has at all times made clear that it does not question the right of Iran under the NPT to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes conforming with its obligations. The questions are whether Iran's purposes are entirely peaceful and whether we are in a position to know this. In the EU's August 2005 proposals, to which the Iranians did not respond, it was stated that if international concerns about Iran's programme are fully addressed, the EU would be prepared to support the development of a safe, sustainable and proliferation-proof Iranian civilian nuclear programme. Key questions remain unanswered and major gaps continue to exist in the history of Iran's nuclear programme. These open questions relate to the history and extent of its centrifuge programmes — devices used in enrichment — and several other issues, some of which could have a nuclear military dimension.

As the committee knows, the matter is before the UN Security Council. In Brussels yesterday, the General Affairs and External Relations Council indicated that the Security Council should act to reinforce the authority of the IAEA. This is an important point because, while the matter may be before the Security Council, it is everyone's preference to resolve the matter through the IAEA, if possible. Iran was again called upon to meet in full the requests — including those relating to the full suspension of all enrichment and reprocessing-related activities — set out in the resolution of 4 February.

It is a matter of grave concern for Ireland, its EU partners and others that after nine resolutions by the IAEA's board of governors and 16 written reports by the director general, Iran has yet to comply with those resolutions and fully co-operate with the IAEA. There are many related issues and arguments that Iran has used to justify doing this but the fundamental point remains that if its interest is in developing a peaceful nuclear programme to meet its undoubted energy and other needs, the way forward is clear. Instead, Iran continues to enrich uranium.

We hope that Iran will reconsider its position. The chronology I have set out indicates the extent to which it has been given ample opportunity to do so. Iran will continue to have this opportunity. It will also have an opportunity to respond positively to the calls made by the board of governors of the IAEA, which will create the necessary conditions for negotiations to be resumed to pave the way for reaching a satisfactory diplomatic resolution to the issue. Iran is a country of some 70 million people and it has a rich and ancient civilisation and plays a major role in its region. It is a country with which we should have positive and complex relations — which, in many ways, is the case — but this issue is clearly a significant obstacle to the relationship achieving its full potential.

Deputy Allen

I thank Mr. Montgomery for his detailed presentation. He was right to say that Iran is a real nation with an ancient history and culture. I had the honour of visiting Iran and meeting many of its political leaders on a number of occasions. Those I met seemed responsible and cultured. As a sovereign country within the EU, we must approach this difficult situation with an open mind.

I was present at the UN's negotiations on the NPT last year and saw the failure of the international community to agree an agenda. The international community will reap the whirlwind of its failure. It is now almost inevitable that sooner or later, due to the failure to update the treaty, nuclear weapons and materials will fall into the wrong hands, which will have consequences.

It is against this background that there are double standards and hypocrisy among the international community. We have ongoing business with India which is attempting to gain a place on the Security Council, while attempting to expand its nuclear industry. The E3, two of its members are nuclear powers — France and the United Kingdom — is attempting to negotiate on behalf of the European Union, including Ireland, a non-aligned country. Are they the right countries to negotiate on behalf of the Union? Given their chequered histories, are they the right countries to negotiate with a country such as Iran? An explanation I recently received is that we do not have the ability, technology or expertise to negotiate, but expertise is international and we have our own research units and scientific support teams which would enable us to play an effective role in negotiating with a country such as Iran. Have the Foreign Ministers considered the European Union's role as a negotiator and the suitability of France, Germany and the United Kingdom to negotiate on our behalf?

The failure to reach agreement at the UN talks last May has knock-on consequences. I will not steal Deputy Higgins's proposal, but he will make the sensible suggestion that a balance must be struck. We should get the alternative view if the committee is to make a proper assessment of the situation. We should invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs to answer some of the political questions posed and seek opinions from other sources before we reach a conclusion on what is happening.

Iran has the right to develop a peaceful nuclear programme. Is its position being misrepresented? Are we getting the full truth and details of what is happening under its programme? In the interests of justice and balance, we should seek all views on the issue. My statement contained a number of questions that I wish Mr. Montgomery to answer. As some may be political, Mr. Montgomery may not be in a position to answer them. However, we must reassess our position as a member of the European Union in terms of its involvement in the negotiations.

Deputy M. Higgins

The Chairman will be glad to hear that I will be very brief as I only have a couple of points to make. I agree with Deputy Allen's suggestion that we should bring in both sides to make presentations. The newspaper article by the Islamic Republic of Iran's chargé d'affaires was interesting, in which essentially two points were made, the first of which was that Iran needed this development to meet the future energy needs of its population, avoid dependence on the supply of the necessary fuel from outside and advance the technology used at the same time. The second point was that it would not make sense to develop as a military nuclear power in the region as Iran did not need to do so. Experience of the Iran-Iraq war suggests that, through sheer numbers alone, in any military confrontation Iran could achieve a victory without the use of nuclear power. Diplomatic talks are taking place between the United States and Iran on this issue and the future of the region, taking into account the consequences for the Iran-Iraq relationship and the possible relationship between Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

I share members' disappointment at the failure to make progress on the non-proliferation treaty during talks in New York. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has also expressed his grave disappointment. The British, French and German ambassadors will be negotiating with the Iranian authorities on behalf of the European Union. Their statement condemning the appalling statements of the Iranian President is tendentious, although I very much agree with them. The statements by the Iranian President on the state of Israel were appalling. This committee, with the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, has referred to the ignoring of massive problems with human rights in certain instances, although that is not the issue in this case.

I have a problem with the IAEA being politicised. I do not understand it to be within its mandate to jump to an assumption but it has been doing this for 20 years in a clandestine way. I worry that it will be politicised and skewed as that would leave us in a situation where, when the process breaks down after referral to the Security Council, both the IAEA and the Security Council would be damaged.

There is an opportunity for a new initiative at EU level. Statements issued by the chargé d'affaires and the Iranian authorities suggest there is capacity for a broader EU diplomatic initiative. We should take this opportunity.

Deputy Mulcahy

I thank Mr. Montgomery and his colleagues for attending. I had to leave the committee room for a while but thank the secretariat for providing the background briefing note. I have been raising this matter at this committee for several months.

Everyone agrees that Iran should not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons but the problem is that the issue of nuclear power cannot be examined in isolation. However, this error is made in many reports, with the result that Iran is being singled out in an artificial way. This was highlighted in a series of articles in The Irish Times. In a particularly good article by Dr. Garret FitzGerald it was pointed out that the failure of the international community to condemn nuclear programmes in India, Israel and Pakistan had completely undermined the moral authority to criticise Iran. We must remember that Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty and, unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, has opened its facilities for inspection. That the latter three countries have not done so is completely unacceptable. In the past weeks, the USA and India have concluded a nuclear co-operation agreement. This began with a meeting in July in Washington and was completed in March when President Bush paid a return visit to India. This agreement will be seen as rewarding India for its illicit development of nuclear weapons. One of the most powerful nations on earth has rewarded India with a nuclear programme, albeit one for civilian nuclear technology. Nonetheless, it is unacceptable that anyone makes such an agreement when India has remained outside the non-proliferation treaty.

There has been a cascading domino effect. Who will be next after India, Israel, Pakistan and Iran? Several other large countries will notice that those who develop nuclear weapons outside the scope of the non-proliferation treaty have been rewarded and will be encouraged to develop a nuclear programme.

We are witnessing the unravelling of the non-proliferation treaty, which Ireland influenced through Mr. Frank Aitken. Ireland was the first signatory of the non-proliferation treaty in 1970 and has a proud heritage in this area. Ireland is also a member of the New Agenda Coalition, which includes Sweden and Brazil, that has issued progressive statements. Ireland has every reason to hold its head high. What will happen next with the non-proliferation treaty? It is time for Ireland to take the lead on the non-proliferation treaty and re-establish our heritage position as custodians of the treaty. I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to summon the New Agenda Coalition countries for a conference to inject fresh impetus into the non-proliferation treaty. This would consider Iran, whose development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and all other issues.

At our last meeting Mr. Montgomery stated that, regarding disarmament obligations, the nuclear powers have slowed down, if not reversed. Let us be open on this matter. I am not prepared to single out Iran as the sole bad boy as that would be hypocritical. I will take no part in it and to do so would fatally undermine the non-proliferation treaty.

There is an interesting commission on weapons of mass destruction and nuclear issues under the chairmanship of Dr. Hans Blix. This operates from Sweden, with the support of the Swedish Government and others. A comprehensive report will be issued in May or June. We should invite Dr. Blix to this committee to present the findings of his report, which would be a great honour for us. I am, however, reluctant to invite him because he has many other items on his agenda and is in his early 80s. However, some public figures get a new lease of life in their later years. He might accept an invitation to Ireland and we would benefit from his wisdom. What about inviting him here to give the findings of his commission? What about suggesting that our Minister for Foreign Affairs hold a conference of the New Agenda Coalition members in Dublin where we could also participate and see if fresh life can be injected into the process?

In the meantime I am glad to hear the Chairman's assurances that we will have a representative from the Iranian Embassy or Government, if one will attend our committee, and that we should also have Mr. David Donoghue, the Irish ambassador to Austria, who, although not a board member of IAEA, sits in as an observer. It would be important to hear directly from him how he feels the endgame of this process will be played out.

Senator Norris

I agree with most of what my colleagues said although I was not as lucky as Deputy Allen. Apparently many of the people he met who represented this regime are responsible and cultivated. That is not my view of this regime. In particular President Ahmadinejad——

Deputy Allen

That was ten years ago. The Senator must have been asleep.

Senator Norris

No, just dozing mildly, for which the Deputy's sonorous tones are responsible.

Deputy Allen

I thank the Senator.

Senator Norris

This is a mixed regime. I see few signs of cultivation about President Ahmadinejad, although he made some telling points on the international community's double standards. Iran's track record on human rights is atrocious. It stinks in the way it treats its own people. Like Deputy Allen, I have been there and had some interesting exchanges with them. Have the Iranian authorities acted in breach of their international legal obligations? In so many treaties, particularly the monitoring apparatus from Vienna, margins of appreciation are being exploited by the Iranian Government. Despite my contempt for this regime because of its appalling and unforgivable human rights record against its own people, the material from the Iranian chargé d'affaires made some telling points, and I quote:

Having been a victim of a pattern of deprivation from peaceful nuclear material and technology, Iran cannot solely rely on procurement of fuel from outside sources. Such dependence would, in effect, hold Iran's multibillion dollar investment in power plants hostage to the political whims of suppliers in a tightly controlled market.

That is unanswerable. We have seen what happened when the Russian Federation switched off the gas supply to some of its former satellite states. They are vulnerable and have experience in this area. The situation is less black and white than people imagine. On this point I agree somewhat with Deputy Mulcahy. Has Iran done anything in breach of law? It has walked on some people's corns and has been slow to produce evidence but has traditionally allowed inspections which, as Deputy Mulcahy pointed out, has not been the case with some other countries.

Sabre rattling by the authorities in the United States is not helpful and the scaling up of the rhetoric by senior figures of the American administration can only make matters worse. While we have a historical standing in this matter, it is easier to take a virtuous position on nuclear weapons when there is no prospect that a State like ours would ever acquire them, even if we wanted them. It is not morally difficult for us to be good people on this matter. I listened to a number of speakers who used words such as, "the international community cannot afford to permit Iran to have these weapons". Who is giving the permission? It is a question of persuading Iran away from these weapons. I am not sure who has the authority to permit or not to permit this. This is the kind of language that sovereign states, particularly primitive and fanatical regimes such as the Iranians, are likely to use.

Parallels have been drawn with the situations in Israel, India and Pakistan. In Israel Mr. Mordechai Vanunu operated as a whistleblower in the interests of the international community and peace and he was kidnapped in a kind of a prophecy of the way the Americans now behave with extraordinary rendition. He was snatched after a honey trap was proffered to him. He was incarcerated in Israel although he has been released. He is excoriated——

Deputy M. Higgins

He was released into east Jerusalem.

Senator Norris

Cathedral, one must get it right. We talk in this country of protection for whistleblowers. Should there not be protection for nuclear whistleblowers? If the principle exists in this country for whistleblowers within industry and the health services something should be done internationally on Mr. Vanunu's case.

If the Deputy's suggestion that the representatives of the Iranian Government are invited to this committee is taken up, I ask that the treatment of their own citizens and the question of human rights in Iran be directly addressed. I say this because of the case in which a 16 year old mentally handicapped girl was murdered by the authorities because she was a victim of rape and the case in which two young men, whose sexual relationship was reported to the morality police, were taken into custody, beaten for 14 months, humiliated in front of their neighbours in a public space and then hung, inexpertly, from a crane on the back of a lorry. I have photographs of this. It was a revolting, disgraceful, blasphemous act and I curse the people who treated those two unfortunate young people, who had their lives in front of them, in this unforgivable and un-Islamic way. We hear much about Allah the merciful. This savagery and ignorant butchery is intolerable and does not suggest to me that the people involved are anything other than hypocrites who are not responsible or cultivated.

Deputy Allen

I apologise for the fact that I must leave for the Chamber. Could Mr. Montgomery provide us with a report, if the Department has a position paper on the treatment of the Baha'i people in Iran? I have many friends in this country who are members of the Baha'i faith and who tell me horrific stories about the manner in which they are being treated there. I would like to confront any representative from the Iranian Embassy on this.

Deputy M. Higgins

It goes back to the 1970s.

Deputy Allen

The Deputy is correct. It goes back many decades. People have been dispossessed of their property, murdered and persecuted. As Senator Norris said, that type of treatment for any human being is unacceptable. Perhaps, the committee can obtain a report from the Department.

Mr. Montgomery

We will send a report. The specific issue of the Baha'i is one on which Ireland, due to the lobbying here, has been quite active at EU level. I took the opportunity to raise the matter with the Iranian chargé d'affaires when he called upon me to discuss some other matters recently.

Deputy T. Dempsey

In October 2002, I attended as a representative of the joint committee, a meeting organised by the Interparliamentary Association and facilitated by the UN. The subject of the meeting was the non-proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. At the meeting, my proposal that we arrange co-ordinated debates in the national parliaments of interested countries to review the progress or lack of progress on the non-proliferation treaty was unanimously adopted. I referred earlier to the number of meetings attended by politicians at which matters are discussed but following which nothing happens. While my proposal was adopted unanimously, I am not sure whether we can make anything happen. The idea is that, on an appointed day, every parliament in the democratic world that is interested in preserving life would debate the NPA for an hour or whatever. Such a debate would tie in with Deputy Mulcahy's suggestion. I ask the committee to try to discover what happened to my proposal. It may be that, like a junior hurling team somewhere in the country, it has simply gone into some dustbin.

Mr. Montgomery

I addressed some of the general points Deputy Allen raised when I came before the joint committee last December. It is undoubtedly the case that the issue with Iran would be easier and more clear-cut if the NPT was universal in its membership — Israel, Pakistan and India are not members — and if the progress towards disarmament in the 1980s and 1990s up to 2000 had been maintained. The fact that progress has not been maintained leaves those who are sincerely attempting to deal with the Iranian issue open to charges of double standards.

The USA-India nuclear deal raises a large number of difficult questions. Mr. Adrian McDaid, who came before the joint committee with me in December, has just gone to attend a meeting of the nuclear suppliers group, which is the body that sets the international standards for the transfer of nuclear materials. That body would have to change its rules to allow the India deal to proceed operationally, which will make for an interesting first debate at official level on these issues. It is already clear that not only are the USA and India in favour of the deal but also that a number of other important players, including Dr. El Baradei of the IAEA, support it. This raises particular difficulties for countries such as Ireland. It is an issue the committee may wish to consider and on which we will be happy to brief members as matters unfold.

The rest of the EU has confidence in the leadership in the negotiations of the British, French and Germans. While it is important to remember that the negotiations began outside an EU context, Mr. Solana and his people are now fully associated with them. The flow of information has been good. While the negotiations may be unorthodox in respect of the formalities, the European interest is being represented effectively by the negotiating parties. One of the reasons these countries involved themselves was to ensure the European perspective, rather than that of the United States of America, had a lead role in the process. The politicisation of the International Atomic Energy Agency was mentioned. One of the key elements of the Paris Agreement was that the matter remain within the IAEA and not be taken up by the Security Council at that time. For that reason, the involvement of the IAEA was inevitable.

On the question of Iran and its rights and interests in this regard, as stated earlier, Iran unquestionably has a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The question that arises is, are its intentions peaceful? Previously, a pattern of concealment was exposed by Iranian dissidents — not whistleblowers within the industry — who, having made this information public, forced the Iranian Government of the time to acknowledge that certain activities had been going on. That was a clear breach of its obligations under the NPT. Also, dealings between Iran and the AQ Khan network, known as the nuclear supermarket, only came to light following much denial. There is reason to be concerned.

I can understand Iranian hesitations and doubts about the reliability of assurances from third parties as to a source of supply. There is no question but that despite Iran's great hydrocarbon riches it has many energy needs. The EU offer in early August 2005 coincided with the election of the new President. However, it appears the regime had decided even before the President was elected to turn down that offer. It may be that the EU offer was inadequate but it would have served as the basis for negotiation, but that did not happen. Equally, the Russians made Iran an offer, which though interesting might have been difficult from an EU or US perspective, and they too have been frustrated by the reluctance of the Iranians to engage in serious negotiation on it. There has tended to be a pattern of expressions of interest or a willingness to look at things constructively and to then pull the rug from under people's feet. An example would be the return of E3 to the discussions before Christmas despite the fact that what they had asked for, namely, the suspension of conversion, had not happened. It was agreed the parties would meet again in mid-January but the Iranians had moved on a further step before that could happen. There are serious reasons for concern.

Deputy Mulcahy referred to Hans Blix. The Institute of European Affairs and the Royal Irish Academy, through the Swedish Embassy in Ireland, have invited Hans Blix to visit Ireland later this year once the work of his Commission is complete. I do not know if or when he will come but were he to do so and if the committee is interested in meeting him, the Swedish Embassy could act as a channel in that regard.

The New Agenda Coalition was also referred to. Its principal role relates to the disarmament parts of the NPT. It has not taken a joint stance on non-proliferation issues, the central point of our discussions today. I am not entirely sure it is necessarily the best vehicle to discuss the non-proliferation issues about which we are speaking. There will be ample opportunity for us, be it at nuclear suppliers group or EU level, to speak with like-minded countries such as Sweden who share our concerns in these matters.

Senator Norris spoke about human rights. I have already spoken about the position of the Baha'i. The relationship with Iran is a multifaceted one. I note that the rate of child executions there in 2005 was higher than in any previous year. Akbar Ganji who had been in prison for six years was released at the weekend. There are many other prisoners of conscience in Iran. It is a complex society. It appears, from what one hears and reads, that there is a real thirst among young people in particular for a constructive relationship with the west and for a measure of political reform. Even though the elections were controversial in many aspects, there is no doubt the liberal tendencies were beaten at the ballot box.

Senator Norris

I cannot allow Mr. Montgomery's last comment to go unchallenged. Approximately 90% of the candidates selected were dismissed by an unrepresentative theocratic election of old blackguards.

Mr. Montgomery

I am speaking about the presidential election which included a number of plausible liberal candidates.

Mr. Norris

I beg your pardon.

Mr. Montgomery

The human rights dimension is significant. Obviously, it is for the committee to consider how best to move forward. If we are to enter discussions with the Iranians, representatives of E3 might have useful comments to make about its role in the process. My colleague, Mr. Michael Gaffey, may wish to comment on some of the issues raised.

Mr. Gaffey

The dialogue, in particular the human rights dialogue, which the European Union attempted to build with the Iraqis has foundered because it is proving difficult to get the Iranians to engage in discussions and to agree dates in that regard. The last meeting was held during the Irish Presidency of the EU in 2004 and there have been suggestions that it might be possible to hold a further meeting in the coming months. The EU continues to work on the matter but it is proving very difficult.

Deputy M. Higgins

What is the position of the US-Iraq negotiations?

Mr. Montgomery

I do not know much about them. My understanding is that the talks are, at this point, primarily about Iraqi security issues. The American ambassador in Iraq was given sanction by the administration in Washington to engage in dialogue on security issues in Iraq. Reports issued during the past couple of days suggest the Iranians have chosen to avail of this channel which is interesting because it suggests there are tensions on the Iranian side, which often presents a monolithic approach, and that there are those who are interested in building a channel with the US.

A major difficulty of the entire process of negotiations up to now has been the continuing concern of the Iranians about where the Americans stand and the Americans, for understandable reasons, have great difficulty in engaging in direct broader dialogue with Iran. There is no doubt the US-Iranian relationship, even if conducted at any length or by way of proxy, is fundamentally important and includes broader regional security issues. It is encouraging that the Iranians have chosen to use this channel.

Chairman

I thank the officials for attending today. Perhaps Mr. Montgomery would communicate in writing with the joint committee on the continuation of funding for Bethlehem University.

Mr. Gaffey

I apologise, I meant to answer that question. We have a long-standing relationship with Bethlehem University for which funding of €150,000 was provided in 2005. The scheduled amount for this year is lower due to an expected rebalancing of funding for education. It is expected that funding this year will be approximately €75,000. It was hoped that Irish Aid would focus more on the education sector in terms of support for basic education through the PA Ministry of education. Approximately €1 million was expected to be spent in that area this year. That aspect, which is approximately 25% of the overall allocation for Palestine, could be affected by political developments because it is the focus of Ireland's involvement in aid with the Palestinian Authority.

Deputy M. Higgins

The checkpoint at the entrance to Bethlehem is causing people from Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Beit Sahour to be cut off from their land and is resulting in a worsening of the situation there.

Chairman

The university has done much work in providing courses for women in particular. Midwifery training, given women are unable to attend hospital to give birth, is crucial and may be affected.

Mr. Gaffey

I am fully aware of the situation. Ireland has a long-standing relationship with Bethlehem University.

Chairman

Yes. It is important the proposed €75,000 funding for Bethlehem University is increased to €150,000.

Deputy M. Higgins

The committee would favour the restoration of the €150,000 funding for Bethlehem University.

Mr. Gaffey

We will report the committee's wish in that regard to the Minister and to Irish Aid.

Chairman

Please do.

Mr. Montgomery

On funding generally, the commitment is to maintain the volume of spending depending on how the situation unfolds vis-à-vis the Palestinian authorities. As Mr. Gaffey stated, it may be necessary to do some rebalancing. Funding for the university will be one of the factors taken into account in that regard.

Chairman

The university, which is run by Irish people in the most difficult of circumstances, had guided missiles fired to within a few feet of its library. We all know from where these missiles originate, Uncle Sam. The university is run by Brothers of the Irish De La Salle who are training midwives to do crucial work in difficult circumstances. Previously, we provided the university with funding of €150,000.

Deputy M. Higgins

They are further cut off now by the checkpoint.

Chairman

Women are unable to pass the checkpoint at times of great distress. The situation is appalling. I do not wish to comment unduly on this matter as the committee has previously reported on it. Now is not the right time for Ireland to reduce its funding to the university. We are not speaking about what happens to the €1 million aid provided in other areas. We all know where and on what the €150,000 funding to Bethlehem University is being spent. People from all counties in Ireland are involved in the running of Bethlehem University.

Senator Norris

The committee supports the Chairman's remarks on this issue.

Chairman

The committee made a unanimous appeal on it earlier. As stated, what is the point in talking about this if nothing is going to happen? I ask the officials to convey the committee's views on the matter to the Minister.

I thank the officials for attending and for answering our questions. They have given us food for thought. The committee will follow up on the many important questions raised by members.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.35 p.m. and adjourned at 4.45 p.m. sine die.