Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Mar 2014

Recent and Forthcoming Foreign Affairs Councils: Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade

I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, and his officials to this meeting. The Tánaiste has had a busy number of days since he was invited to report on the regular meetings of the EU Foreign Affairs Council. Recent events in Ukraine resulted in his having to travel to Brussels yesterday to take part in an emergency meeting of the Council. We have heard the media's accounts of the outcome of that meeting, but the Tánaiste's attendance here is particularly timely, given his attendance at yesterday's meeting in Brussels and other recent meetings. He is very welcome and I now call on him to address the joint committee.

When the time comes for questions, I will ask members to keep their contributions sharp, short and to the point. We will try to bring the meeting to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible.

I thank the Chairman and other members of the committee for their invitation to attend this meeting. I welcome the opportunity to brief them on discussions at the Foreign Affairs Council in the first part of 2014.

It has been a busy two months, not least in light of ongoing developments in Ukraine. I propose to address this issue first, before updating the joint committee on the many other important issues that have featured on the Council’s agenda since the beginning of year.

As I stated after yesterday’s extraordinary session of the Foreign Affairs Council, what is happening in Crimea is the worst crisis which Europe has faced since the end of the Cold War. I have strongly condemned Russia’s actions over the weekend and call on it to immediately withdraw troops to their barracks. Russia’s actions are in clear breach of international law and of its obligations to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I have just come from a meeting with the Russian ambassador to Ireland in which I expressed our condemnation of Russia’s actions in Crimea, and requested that Ambassador Peshkov convey Ireland’s deep concern to his government.

The EU wants to see a peaceful solution to the current crisis and stands ready to engage in talks with all parties to resolve this crisis. We will work with the United Nations and the OSCE to facilitate a peaceful resolution of this dangerous situation. However, at yesterday’s emergency Council, the EU sent a very strong message to Russia. If the Russian authorities do not de-escalate this crisis, the EU will take consequential action, including suspending talks on visa liberalisation and on a new economic agreement, both of which are priorities for the Russian Government. Foreign ministers will continue to monitor this situation closely and we stand ready to implement further targeted measures as necessary.

It is worth recalling that it was the announcement on 21 November by Ukraine’s President Yanukovych, of his decision to postpone preparations for the signature of the association agreement at November’s Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, that triggered major protests in Ukraine late last year. The initial protests were overwhelmingly peaceful yet were met just over a week later by heavy-handed police action which only served to inflame the situation.

The issue has featured prominently in the agendas and conclusions of successive Foreign Affairs Councils this year including at emergency Council sessions devoted to Ukraine on 20 February and again yesterday. I believe that it was right for the Council to convene in extraordinary sessions, given last month’s violent clashes between protestors and security forces, which resulted in so many deaths, coupled with the deeply disturbing developments in Crimea since last weekend.

The situation remains extremely dangerous though thankfully there are no reports of armed clashes between Russian and Ukrainian forces thus far. As I made clear to Ambassador Peshkov a short time ago, there is an urgent need for Moscow to de-escalate the situation.

At yesterday’s emergency Foreign Affairs Council we adopted conclusions strongly condemning the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty by the Russian armed forces, as well as the authorisation given by the Federation Council of Russia on 1 March for the use of the armed forces on the territory of Ukraine. We agreed that these actions are in clear breach of the UN Charter and the OSCE Helsinki Final Act, as well as of Russia's specific commitments to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the bilateral Treaty on Friendship, Co-operation and Partnership of 1997.

We called on Russia to immediately withdraw its armed forces to the areas of their permanent stationing, in accordance with the Agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet stationing on the territory of Ukraine of 1997. We also commended the Government in Kiev on the measured response demonstrated so far in the face of this provocation.

As we have made clear from the beginning, the EU stands ready to facilitate a political settlement in Ukraine that is democratic, lasting and fulfils the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainian people. However, it is ultimately a matter for the people of Ukraine to decide on their own future and they should be enabled to do so without external pressure. The organisation of democratic elections in May, which are transparent, free and fair, will provide them with an opportunity to make that decision.

We continue to monitor the evolving situation. The risk of all-out conflict in Crimea, and Ukraine as a whole, is real. I believe that it is in everybody’s interest, including that of Russia, to do everything possible to step back and take de-escalating measures. It is fundamental that Ukraine’s territorial integrity, unity and independence be fully respected. The European Council has been convened for Thursday of this week to consider the matter further. We had the opportunity to review EU-Russia relations at the January Council, in preparation for the EU-Russia Summit which was held later that month in Brussels.

Inevitably, the issue of Russian pressure on Ukraine and other counties, including some EU member states, featured prominently in discussion.

The summit of 28 January was held in a more compact format than usual and focused on common interests as well as divergences, with discussion characterised afterwards by President Van Rompuy as open and frank. While noting that the EU's co-operation with Russia spans a wide range of global issues, he underlined, in particular, the benefits of the Eastern Partnership for all of our eastern neighbours, including Russia. The EU relationship with Russia is clearly in crisis as a direct consequence of Moscow's violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity at the weekend, an act which I have already condemned. Developments in respect of Ukraine will continue to have a defining influence on our relations with Russia in the weeks and months ahead.

More generally, on 10 February the Foreign Affairs Council reviewed developments in respect of the Eastern Partnership following the Vilnius summit in November last year. My colleagues and I agreed that it must be made clear to Ukraine that it still has the possibility to sign the Association Agreement when they are ready to do so. For the moment, the task in front of the EU is to sign the association agreements when it is ready to do so. For now, the task ahead of the EU is to sign the association agreements that were initialled at Vilnius with Georgia and Moldova. Ireland and a number of other EU member states have said that these agreements should be signed and provisionally applied as soon as possible and in any event by August at the latest. There is an expectation that in the run-up to signing both countries will come under economic and political pressure from Russia not to sign the association agreements but instead to join the Russian-led Customs Union. The EU believes that Georgia and Moldova should be free to make their own political and economic choices and will consider practical ways to assist them in doing so.

As members would expect, the Middle East and north Africa have continued to occupy a great deal of the Council's attention in recent months and will again figure prominently on its agenda for March. The appalling conflict and humanitarian crisis in Syria continues to be a major preoccupation for the EU and its member states and is addressed on a virtually ongoing basis by the Council. Strong conclusions addressing the humanitarian situation, expressing the EU's full support for the Geneva II negotiations and strongly condemning the escalating violence and the regime's indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, were adopted in January. The January conclusions also contain a clear call on the UN Security Council to adopt a long-proposed resolution on the humanitarian situation, aimed at putting pressure on all sides, but particularly the Assad regime, to remove all obstacles to the delivery of urgent humanitarian assistance. Having long called for such action, I very much welcome the fact that on 22 February the Security Council adopted a strongly worded resolution - UNSCR 2139 - which makes absolutely clear the obligations and duties on all sides to end violence and attacks on civilians and allow immediate and unhindered access for humanitarian agencies. I welcome the Council's expressed intention to take further steps if the necessary compliance is not forthcoming from any party to the conflict. What is now crucial is that the terms of the resolution be fully implemented and complied with by all sides involved in the conflict. On the political track, two rounds of negotiations within the Geneva II framework have now taken place though, unfortunately, with very little progress achieved to date. Joint special representative Brahimi is due to brief the Security Council in the coming days on the prospects for convening a third round of negotiations in the near future. This is also likely to be a major topic of discussion at the March Council.

It would have been unrealistic to expect any kind of quick progress or major breakthrough after just two rounds, given the vast gulf which continues to divide the two sides. I would, therefore, continue to urge the need for patience, as well as encouraging those with influence on either side to press for more constructive engagement, particularly on the part of the regime. The reality remains that Geneva II continues to be the only show in town as far as a political resolution of the conflict is concerned.

The Middle East peace process was briefly discussed by the Council in January and is due to be further considered at its March meeting. US Secretary of State John Kerry is continuing his valuable efforts to draft a framework which will allow the negotiations between the two sides to continue beyond the current scheduled end date of 30 April. Prime Minister Netanyahu held important discussions yesterday, 3 March, with President Obama on the framework document. President Abbas is also due to visit Washington and meet President Obama in the coming weeks. Secretary of State Kerry continues to enjoy the full support of Ireland and all our EU partners for his efforts. It is to be earnestly hoped that a balanced framework document, which will allow the negotiations to continue and work towards that comprehensive peace agreement, based on the two-State solution, which we all so passionately wish to see achieved, can be agreed in the coming weeks. The Council has already made clear, in conclusions adopted last December, that the EU is prepared to offer an unprecedented package of political, economic and security support in the event of a final peace agreement. Some internal thought is taking place within the Council as to whether it would be beneficial for the EU to elaborate further on what such a privileged partnership for both states might entail. For our part, Ireland is happy to work with partners on this, so long as it remains clearly understood that this offer is clearly premised on a comprehensive and final peace agreement being in place.

I am also continuing to strongly make the case within Council that the EU must prepare for all possible contingencies in respect of the current talks process, as well as addressing the actual situation on the ground which, regrettably, is not improving. In particular, Israel has continued to announce plans for settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Such announcements actively work against and undermine the current peace efforts and are not in any way consistent with a genuine commitment to achieve a just and permanent negotiated peace. I again call on the Israeli Government to review and rescind any such recent announcements and seriously consider a freeze on further settlement expansion as a potentially invaluable contribution to the current peace efforts.

The Council has also addressed the wider Middle East and southern neighbourhood region at its January and February meetings, including the serious regional impact of the Syria conflict on countries such as Lebanon and Iraq. The Council adopted conclusions on Iraq at its February meeting and expressed strong concern at the deteriorating security situation in the country, partly attributable to the Syria conflict, and urging Iraq's political and religious leaders to increase efforts to promote internal dialogue and reconciliation in advance of crucial parliamentary elections in April. The Council also reviewed recent developments in Egypt at its February meeting following the adoption of a new constitution in January. Egypt remains a key regional partner for the EU and it is important to do all we can to assist the Egyptian people as they continue their difficult transition away from the authoritarian past to a hopefully more democratic future. The Council made clear the EU's continuing concern about the deteriorating human rights situation within Egypt and the use of selective justice against the political opposition. The EU remains fully committed, through the High Representative's sustained engagement, to doing all it can to promote greater political dialogue and reconciliation within the country which remains absolutely necessary if Egypt is to resume a sustainable path to greater democracy and prosperity.

More positively, the Council also welcomed last month the recent political progress achieved in both Tunisia and Yemen, which offers real encouragement to all those countries in the wider region undergoing a process of political transition. In particular, the adoption of a new constitution in January represents a real and historic achievement for the Tunisian people and demonstrates the benefits which can follow when confrontation is avoided in favour of dialogue and compromise. Similarly, the Yemeni Government and people are to be applauded on the conclusion of their national dialogue which will hopefully now lead to a new constitution and elections in the coming months.

Iran was also briefly discussed by the Council in January, at which time High Representative Ashton reported on the agreement on implementation of the joint plan of action arising from the interim deal on Iran's nuclear programme negotiated in Geneva last November. Under that plan, Iran has been granted a limited amount of sanctions relief in exchange for freezing and, in some areas, rowing back on its nuclear and enrichment activities which have given rise to such international concern. The Council for its part formally approved the necessary amendments to the EU sanctions regime arising from the interim deal. Negotiations have now begun in Vienna on transforming the interim deal into a comprehensive agreement on Iran's nuclear programme, hopefully to be concluded by July. These are vital negotiations which High Representative continues to lead on behalf of the E3+3 and are fully deserving of all our support, although it is also necessary not to underestimate the considerable difficulties which still lie ahead for all involved.

Developments in Africa have also been a focus of discussions at the recent Council meetings. In January, Ministers discussed the continuing escalation of violence in the Central African Republic and - building on the December Council conclusions - agreed, in principle, to deploy a mission in support of the African Union-led peacekeeping operation. A special ministerial meeting on the humanitarian needs in the Central African Republic was held in Brussels on the same day as the Foreign Affairs Council and it was attended by the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Costello. Subsequently, the February Council adopted conclusions establishing the EU military operation in the Central African Republic, the aim of which is to contribute to a safe and secure environment in the Bangui area for up to six months, with a view to handing over to African partners.

The EU also welcomed the formation of a new transitional authority in the Central African Republic and reiterated the EU's commitment to support it in its efforts to implement the transition agreement, restore public order and meet the needs of the population.

At our January meeting, the Council adopted detailed conclusions on the worsening situation in South Sudan. In particular, we underlined the EU’s support for the peace talks that are being led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and we called on all parties to agree an immediate cessation to hostilities and violence. Given the worsening humanitarian and security situation across many parts of the country we urged all political and military leaders to protect the population and to act in the interests of the South Sudanese people as a whole.

At its next meeting on 17 March, the Council will consider the broader EU-Africa relationship, in advance of the EU-Africa summit which is due to take place in Brussels on 2 and 3 April.

At our meeting in January, we had a strategic discussion on Afghanistan, focused on how best the EU can support international efforts to assist the Afghan people in making the transition to a peaceful democratic state, based on respect for human rights. Ireland supports the EU’s commitment to continued engagement in Afghanistan post-2014, as set out in the conclusions adopted at the January Council. We expect to see ethical, free and fair elections in April of this year and urge Afghanistan to implement the commitments it entered into at the Tokyo conference last year to improve economic and political governance.

We briefly discussed Bosnia and Herzegovina at our meeting on 10 February, in light of the public demonstrations taking place there. Those demonstrations have been continuing and people have now formed citizens' plenums in major cities to better articulate their views. They are focused on issues such as the state of the economy, widespread corruption, the lack of progress towards EU membership and the inaction of Bosnia’s political leaders and institutions. The EU has consistently encouraged the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to work together to address the needs of their citizens. This is a message that my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, delivered very clearly when he visited Sarajevo at the end of January. We will be discussing developments in Bosnia Herzegovina and the EU’s strategy again at the March Council.

That concludes my overview of discussions at the most recent Council meetings. As always, I would be more than happy to answer any questions the members may have and I look forward to hearing their perspectives on the many foreign policy challenges that we face.

I thank the Tánaiste for his detailed statement. He correctly stated that Russia is completely disregarding its international obligations and international laws are being blatantly violated. Media coverage suggests there are currently 16,000 pro-Russian troops in control of the Crimean region's security and administration infrastructure. President Putin stated that the Russian-speaking soldiers occupying those key military sites were Russian special forces. Has it been established that Russian military forces have taken control of key targets in the Crimean territory and have these reports been independently verified?

With regard to energy supply, I think it was in January 2006 that the gas supply tap to Ukraine was turned off by Gazprom in Russia following the hike in the price. Members will recall that created serious difficulties for Europe as gas prices rocketed. Has the issue of continuity of supply or a price increase and the consequences of that for the European Union been considered or is there a fall-back position in place for the European community in general?

The German Foreign Minister was quoted today as stating that "he expected EU leaders to take concrete steps to punish Russia unless it shows a readiness in the next day and a half to work towards a diplomatic solution in Ukraine". I welcome the fact that the European Council is meeting on Thursday. Could the Tánaiste outline what a diplomatic solution in the Ukraine might look like at this point? I welcome the fact that he stated that the proposed association agreement is still in play and is still available to Ukraine.

The Tánaiste stated that with regard to Georgia and Moldova, "Ireland and a number of EU Member States have said that these agreements should be signed and provisionally applied as soon as possible". Is that a view of a number of member states or the view of the full Foreign Affairs Council?

With regard to Syria, there was a pledging conference of humanitarian aid some time ago and I know the initial reports were very disappointing in regard to the humanitarian aid and the funding pledged by the international community. Has that improved anything in the meantime since the conclusion of that conference because we are all still very conscious of the huge suffering of many millions of people in that general region?

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, continues his valuable efforts in regard to the Middle East. The Tánaiste stated that the current scheduled end day of 30 April has been extended. Is there a timeframe in place for the extension of the 30 April deadline or is there any indication in that respect?

In terms of the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting, in respect of the very draconian laws - anti-gay laws in violation of human rights for gay and lesbian people - that were signed by the Ugandan President last week, is it proposed there will be a message from the European Union to the Ugandan President and Government that this is a gross violation of human rights?

I will concentrate my few comments on the situation in Ukraine. I am known at this committee to have dissented somewhat from the popular views that have been expressed here to the effect that Tymoshenko was the hero of Ukraine, that she was the greatest democrat that existed, she is one of ours and therefore let us run with her.

I concur with the Tánaiste's condemnation of the role Russia has played. There are very dangerous tendencies in being selective with the truth. I am not impressed by the efforts of the diplomatic corps in the EU to date and I believe they rushed in in terms of the situation in Ukraine. They did not take due cognisance of the vast number of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Yanukovych would have gone in the next election. The people in the east and in the west of Ukraine were going to oust him in any case not because he was pro-Russian or anti-European but because he has ruined the economy of Ukraine. The tragic consequences of what is happening is that regardless of who wins the minds of the people of Ukraine, they are in a desperate situation financially and the Russians will not be able to resolve that on their own and neither will Europe.

I suggest that the West, particularly the European Union, should be very cautious of the people who are out there on the ground and coming in from various parts of the world to advice the Ukrainians on how to run their affairs. I note that Mikheil Saakashvili, the former President of Georgia, has been out there advising. This is similar to the Bertie Aherns of this world going around the world telling people how to build a tiger economy. Thankfully, he was rightfully ousted by the people of Georgia but not before he made catastrophic political decisions which resulted in the troops coming in from Russia who could have gone on to Tbilisi. I also note, and the Tánaiste might comment on this, that the former chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, said that Ukraine could live with both an association agreement and the customs union agreement - that there is no need to be that competitive about the types of the development that would occur in Ukraine.

I fear that the media, both in the West and in the East, have been playing to their own audiences.

It worries me no end that what is happening now is largely as a result of black propaganda that has extended throughout Ukraine from the east right across the country. However, I do not believe the Western press paid any serious consideration to those forces operating out of Kiev that called at the barricades for every man with a licensed gun to come to the square and take on the Government. In what I argue is an important issue, I do not believe the West really played any serious role in identifying the Right Sector and the role it played. While it was a human tragedy that the riot police killed so many people, prior to that I had not heard anyone in the West condemn those who shot members of the riot police in advance of the big vicious massacre, when at least eight to 12 police officers were murdered by gunshots at the barricades.

I will conclude by noting the West quite rightly always sought the release of Ms Tymoshenko. On her release, the lady in question appeared at the barricades, notwithstanding the fact that the Parliament was in session and was trying to get people to desist at the barricades and to wind down the campaign there because the parliamentarians wished to enter into negotiations about the future of Ukraine. However, she went to the barricades, where her first public statement was for people to continue to man the barricades. I consider that to have been quite irresponsible and do not think this lady or her party are contributing in any way to the stability of Ukraine. God help Ukraine if she should ever became the President, which she will not.

What to me appears most disturbing is that on the day on which Yanukovych abdicated, the Parliament, now deemed to be pro-Western, reversed an important public policy on the use of not only the Russian language but also the languages of the minorities. This was a complete affront to the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. Does the Tánaiste think the aforementioned pro-Western Parliament did the right thing by issuing, immediately on seizing power, a reversal of a policy in which the regions could have recognition for a second language? This affected languages other than the Russian language, including Hungarian and perhaps others. My worry about Ukraine is the west of the country is playing far too much to its Western audience and has neglected the vast Russian-speaking area of the country. I hope peace returns because as matters stand, there is now a deep wedge between the people in the east and the west of Ukraine. I wonder whether we in the West handled it properly.

I have a number of points to make. First, in respect of the condemnation, I believe it is supported by all parties in this House. The next question is, what comes next? People are talking about the need to punish Russia and the Tánaiste is contemplating possible sanctions in that regard. Will there be agreement right across the European Union on such sanctions? Will it come to that? While one is working off scraps of information being picked up here and there, it appears as though there are extremists on both sides, that is, both pro-Russian and pro-European. One party, which I believe is called Svoboda, was involved in the activities on the square, in the pro-European Union calls and so on. However, its leader, who supported the pro-European Union protests, has called for the elimination of political and democratic pluralism in Ukraine, for ethnic cleansing of the entire country and for the restoration of the status of Ukraine as a nuclear power. In addition, I have heard no one discussing the anti-Semitic attacks. The rabbi of Kiev has suggested that people from a Jewish background should leave Kiev because of what is happening on the ground there but no one appears to be expressing concern in this regard.

Everyone accepts that Crimea always has been of strategic importance and I do not believe the Russians will ever pull out of Crimea. I note other countries have invaded countries that are thousands of miles from their own country while stating it is in their own backyard and similarly, the Russians view Crimea as their backyard. We got ourselves into a zero-sum situation, that is, Ukrainians could either go with the European Union or with the Russians. There did not appear to be any sort of in-between point in that regard. Does the Tánaiste now accept that on reflection, this was the wrong position into which to try to push the Ukrainians? Does the Tánaiste accept that people need to pull back from this and there must be discussions with the Russians on how this situation will be resolved? Is the Tánaiste worried about the potential of young men, regardless of whether they are Russian, pro-Russian or pro-western and how it only requires a few shots to be fired and a couple more people to be killed and one will have a conflagration in the entire region? My major concern is this is what will happen.

Was the issue of anti-Semitism discussed at the emergency meeting? Will it form part of the focus in respect of the present difficulties? What was the majority view on the meeting? While the Tánaiste is talking about possible sanctions and so on, realistically, can countries that have huge ties with the Russian economy survive the imposition of sanctions regarding oil, gas or trade? I do not believe it would be so simple and I seek answers in this regard because I do not know what is the best solution. The statement issued in this regard stated:

The EU is ready to further pursue its efforts with the international community and international financial institutions, especially the IMF, to assist Ukraine. To this end, the EU and its Member States will lend their full support to an international assistance package to address the urgent needs of Ukraine.

I seek confirmation from the Tánaiste on any aid or financial support given to Ukraine. As the Russians have offered a similar package, is it possible that the European Union and the Russians could come together and come up with some form of solution? I refer to the bartering agreements and the €13 billion the Russians had proposed to wipe off the debt and so on.

Is the Tánaiste concerned about the other countries in the region, some of which are within the European Union, that have significant Russian populations? Is the Tánaiste worried this contagion could spread to other countries? Is he concerned there will be similar protests in those countries that have huge Russian populations? Difficulties exist in many of those countries, in that if one is Russian or Russian-speaking, one is more likely to be unemployed or to be poorer than one's Ukrainian counterpart and this pattern also extends to some of the European Union member states. Difficulties exist on how they are being treated, which in itself creates conflict.

I will turn to some of the other issues mentioned by the Tánaiste. On the Palestinian situation, the Tánaiste spoke of the discussions with the Israelis. In a major development in 2013, the British and Dutch Governments recently provided advice to their private sectors, warning them of the risks of having commercial investment links with the Israeli settlements. Does the Tánaiste intend to provide similar advice to Irish companies?

It came up when we had representatives from Trócaire here last week. The head of Trócaire could not understand why similar advice had not been issued concerning Irish businesses.

Given the Tánaiste's support for an EU-wide ban on settlement products, will he be using the forthcoming Foreign Affairs Council meeting to push for Council conclusions on this matter?

Does the Tánaiste believe that the Geneva-2 talks on Syria have progressed anything? Can those talks be built upon?

The Tánaiste also referred to Libya, so what plans does the EU have to support the development of democracy, peace and commerce there? On Sunday last, the Libyan Parliament was stormed by armed rioters who set fire to the grounds and looted furniture, as well as wounding a prominent lawmaker. The situation seems to be getting worse there.

I am glad the Tánaiste pointed out the positive developments that have happened in Tunisia and Yemen.

I have raised the question of Afghanistan with the Tánaiste previously. The poppy-field acreage has quadrupled there in the last three years, but was this matter discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council? Are there any talks on working with other countries in the region to prevent the heroin by-product arriving in Europe, including in this country?

I thank the Tánaiste for coming here today, although I know he is very busy at the moment. I also thank him for his comprehensive report and I welcome his efforts. Everyone is concerned about Ukraine at the moment. There has been a lot of discussion about whether Tymoshenko or Yanukovych is the better democrat, but that is not really our business. To the extent that we are involved, our business is to ensure that the people of Ukraine can make a decision without external pressure.

Deputy Crowe touched on a point that has some validity - the fact that, to an extent, we are contributing to the polarisation of people there who must either look east or west. There is perhaps no consideration of the genuine tensions that exist within the country. People say that they now have no choice but to look east because of their huge debt. Ukraine's debt is approximately €34 billion but we paid that for one bank. In order to stop a war, it would not be beyond the possibility of the rest of the world to come up with that sum. The real inhibiting factor is the long-term supply of oil which informs the views of Russia, Ukraine and, let us face it, ourselves as well.

The Tánaiste said it was still open to the Ukrainians to sign the association agreement. Is it realistic at this stage, however, to expect them to make such a decision, given the hell-fire that rained down on them as a result of making a decision not to sign it?

Is it realistic for countries like Georgia to feel that it is in their interests to sign an agreement with Europe, which effectively means turning their back on Russia? Are we being provocative in currently pushing for that?

I join in welcoming the Tánaiste and thank him for his comprehensive report. I strongly support his condemnation of Russia's actions in Crimea. I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste called in the Russian ambassador today. He outlined Ireland's unease and unhappiness with the Russian actions, but what sort of response did he get from the ambassador? Did he indicate that we are likely to see a de-escalation of activities in Crimea?

In his statement, the Tánaiste said that if there was not a de-escalation the EU would take serious actions. What are those actions likely to be and what impact will sanctions have for various EU member states? Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred to various association agreements. Are they unlikely to be signed now, considering the significant pressure that Russia will obviously exert on Georgia and Moldova?

The Tánaiste described the situation in Ukraine as the worst crisis since the Cold War, but the worst humanitarian crisis since then is the appalling situation in Syria. Did the Tánaiste discuss that crisis with the Russian ambassador? It was most appropriate to call the Russian ambassador in to discuss recent developments, but should he not also have been called in to discuss his country's strong support for the awful and sad regime in Syria?

There have been no more Srebrenicas or Rwandas, but the situation in Syria is heading in that direction with 8,000 people a day fleeing across borders. The figure will be 3.5 million by the end of this year, with half the population of Syria in dire need. Does the Tánaiste feel that we are not seeing the same type of public outrage that we should see in this case? Is the EU, including Ireland, taking a significant interest in the Syrian situation? Is the Tánaiste optimistic about the Geneva-2 talks? Will we see anything significant happening there in the coming months?

Gabhaim leithscéal leis an Aire mar nach raibh mé anseo ag tús an chruinnithe.

The right to protest is an important human right. In this case, it strikes me that at EU level we need to examine at what stage the protest crosses the threshold to become a coup. Members of this committee were in Cairo at the time of the protests there and we unanimously referred to the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi as a coup. I am concerned that some parameters are needed because the implications of this could be very serious.

It looks as if the withdrawal of Russian troops to barracks is at least a de-escalating step, which is what the EU called for in recent days. If the Russian army had moved into Ukraine, I do not think it would have been prevented from doing so militarily. There would have been a reaction by way of sanctions, however.

In these scenarios, we need to be careful that we are not encouraging people - although I am not saying that that happened - to go further in protests than they should go. In so far as any elected government or president becomes unpopular, that should change through the ballot box.

Given the history of Crimea and its fundamental importance to the Russian fleet for access to the Black Sea, it should have been anticipated that there would be a strong reaction from Russia in the event of its perceived interests being put at risk. I listened to many of the comments made. I read a report that Chancellor Merkel phoned President Putin on Sunday last. I do not know if it was spoken about at the Council meeting, but it appears to have paved the way for some common thread to address this together. There is a Russian interest. There is a very significant Russian population and a Russian-speaking population. There is also the risk and implications of spillover. People have mentioned the Baltic countries and the Caucasus where there are very significant Russian populations. There is a real need for greater engagement with the Russian authorities to ensure we do not get to these kinds of situations which can become flash points. If someone makes a wrong decision, it can be very difficult to retreat. To date, comments from the EU in particular have been helpful and encouraging in terms of resolving the matter through negotiation, which I welcome.

A question was asked about our reliance on Russian oil and gas for our energy needs. That is significant leverage of which Russia will be as aware as us. There is a great deal of trade in both directions and, as such, it could be quite damaging to have an impasse and a regime of sanctions between Russia and Europe. I heard someone mention that Holland exports approximately five times the amount of imports it receives from Russia. It is a very significant economic player. While I am critical of some of the things that have happened in Russia, there is a need to recognise that Russia is a very significant country for Europe's well-being as much as it is for many central Asian and eastern European countries.

I move on to Palestine. The joint committee previously adopted a motion approving a ban on the import of settlement goods into the European Union. We had a report at our meeting last week to the effect that a couple of countries, including Holland, had moved to impose restrictions on importations of settlement goods. I said then that we should explore with the Tánaiste the possibility of Ireland and other member states taking that initiative. It will be very difficult to get unanimity, but if a significant number of countries adopt the initiative, it will become a pressure point and assist with the negotiations which are under way. It is interesting that President Obama is reported as having said in the last couple of days that if there is a failure to reach agreement in the current talks, he sees Israel standing on its own. Presumably, that implies the USA will play its part in endeavouring to ensure that there will be agreement. That is very important as it has not always been the case in respect of American foreign policy.

On 5 February 2014, the EU Parliament consented to EU member states ratifying the arms trade treaty. It is now a matter for the Council of Ministers to make a formal decision. The Minister has been very supportive as has the Government generally and the joint committee. At what stage is the matter within the Council of Ministers and can the decision be expedited? In the context of many of the conflicts we discuss at the joint committee, it is undoubtedly the case that the illegal trade in arms is a very significant contributory factor to the humanitarian issues we see around us.

The Tánaiste mentioned the United Nations and the OSCE working together to facilitate a peaceful resolution. Does he mean part of that would include the monitoring by the OSCE of the elections that are coming up? Given that Russia is a member of the OSCE, which operates on the basis of consensus, how does the Tánaiste see the OSCE functioning without Russia? I understand that one country can veto a whole policy. Is the OSCE free to do what it wants in the absence of the support or permission of Russia?

There is a broad range of issues which have been raised for the Tánaiste's response. My only point would be in defence of Yulia Tymoshenko, on whose behalf I have put down numerous parliamentary questions over the last number of years, which is that she was in prison. She will not have been exhilarated that she was kept in prison for so long, which might account for some of her reaction on her release. That is understandable, albeit it may not have been the wisest thing to do. She had a great deal of time to think in prison and there were no preferred charges or proper trial.

Many countries which have had an association with Russia over the years - the Baltic and communist bloc countries generally - still have a resentment for ills that were never addressed during a regime of 50 years. It is quite an amount of resentment and it does not go away. It is very difficult to explain to those outside how deep that resentment goes, but it is there. I remember once asking someone in one of those countries about why the Russian minority did not receive fair treatment. The person replied "My father was taken prisoner in 1942 and was never seen again". That was typical of countless experiences. It is not by way of explanation but rather to try to understand the situation. While Russia is a large and powerful country and a significant trading block with a huge population, there are also consequences for Russia, as the Tánaiste has said. It cannot because of its power and strength decide to ignore what would normally be regarded as the democratic expression of views and opinions in the ordinary way.

I have to leave in a few minutes to take the Chair in the Dáil and apologise to the Chairman and Tánaiste. It is not a lack of interest that will take me away.

I understand. I was supposed to take that position myself. I thank the Deputy.

I would never have accused Deputy Mitchell of walking out on me. Rather than to go through each contribution individually, I will respond thematically.

I start with Ukraine and Russia, rolling back a little to 2009 when the EU embarked on the eastern partnership process with six states on the borders of the Union. It is not fair to say that progress towards association agreements has been rushed over the intervening five year period. The process has taken its course. There were hopes that an association agreement would be signed with Armenia. Something similar to the occurrence in Ukraine happened in the case of Armenia where the President decided overnight to go with the customs union. The association agreement was shelved. Considerable progress was made in Ukraine, which was not completed. I remember being at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in early November when we discussed the association agreement and the expectation then was that it would be signed at the Vilnius summit at the end of that month. Then-President Yanukovych decided he was abandoning the association agreement and going with the customs union. It is a pity the association agreement and customs union were seen to comprise a zero-sum exercise. The development of the six states involved, including Ukraine, ought to be considered to benefit Russia, the European Union and, in particular, the people of those states.

Having good economic relations with Russia and the European Union is to its advantage. That is why I say the issue of the association agreement is still on the table. The critical point is that the decision on whether to sign the association agreement is one that should be made by Ukraine which should not be subject to external influence or pressure. The European Union is not applying external pressure and nobody else should do so either.

Deputy Seán Crowe has referred to the fact that some very unpleasant individuals and forces became involved in the protests that followed the decision not to sign the association agreement. We must be very clear in distinguishing between the perfectly legitimate right of people to protest, make their views known and call for a change of government and the exploitation of these protests by violent and anti-democratic forces. That has complicated the situation in Ukraine. That said, there was no justification for the use of force by the Ukrainian authorities at the time in effectively shooting people in the square during the protests. There are issues that must be addressed in Ukraine, but they can be addressed by means other than the use or threatened use of military force.

A number of colleagues have mentioned the situation in Crimea. Deputy Brendan Smith asked about reports that 16,000 Russian soldiers were in Crimea. I understand the forces are mixed and that they also include Russian naval personnel based in the naval base in Crimea. I do not believe there is any independent confirmation of the numbers involved. I had this discussion with the Russian ambassador. One looks at a situation and sees Russian soldiers at various installations. Fair enough, the Black Sea fleet is based in Crimea, but my view and that of the Government and the European Union is that the place for Russian soldiers is in their barracks. I know that statements were made overnight that soldiers would be withdrawn to base.

Deputy Brendan Smith asked me to set out what a diplomatic solution would look like. There are a number of dimensions to it. One is progressing to elections, which was part of the 21 February agreement brokered by the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France and Poland. The second is economic and financial. Ukraine has serious economic and financial difficulties and I am aware that discussions are taking place in Kiev involving the IMF and the European Commission. I do not want to get into the details because I do not think it would be appropriate to do so, but, clearly, there is an issue of financial and economic support that comes into play.

The third issue that comes into play is a perfectly legitimate one. It concerns the rights of Russian speakers and different nationalities within Ukraine. Deputy Eric Byrne asked what I thought of the decision of the Ukrainian Parliament on the Russian language. I think it was a big mistake. I understand, however, that it has changed tack and reversed its position. Like any other country, Ukraine needs to be inclusive of all those who live within its borders and ways must be found to ensure people are included and feel included. Where there is no inclusion and issues of national identity and language rights arise, there are mechanisms in place for dealing with them. For example, the Council of Europe has very robust procedures for dealing with issues of language rights. In some respects, the OSCE was established to address the kinds of issue that are arising in Ukraine and has long experience of dealing with them. I would like to see an observer mission from it travel to Ukraine to look at these issues and what is happening in Crimea. Deputy Eric Byrne raised the issue of who was verifying what was happening and who the referee was. The advantage in having the OSCE is that Russia is a very important member. I have some experience in this regard because I chaired the OSCE for one year and would like to think the way in which it could make its decision would not be subject to a veto as such. It requires consensus, but that consensus is based on the commitments each participating state has made to comply with the principles of the OSCE. This is certainly one occasion on which and space in which it has a role to play and it should be enabled to play it.

Ultimately, the political issues and those around national identity and the transition taking place that have been thrown up by the crisis in Ukraine are capable of being addressed and resolved without recourse to military action or the threat of it. We must condemn Russia's use of the threat of military action and the use of its enormous military power to come the heavy on Ukraine. I appreciate that some statements were made overnight about troops being recalled to barracks, which is to be welcomed. The Russian ambassador reminded me today of the statement President Putin had made to the effect that while parliament had given authorisation for the use of military force on the territory of Ukraine, this had not been activated. Again, I draw some comfort from this. The threat of military action in Ukraine needs to be taken out of the equation. That having been done, there is certainly enormous scope and space for Russia to work with the European Union to address the very real problems in Ukraine.

At the special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday there was a very clear message, as one would have seen in the conclusions, about our condemnation of what had happened in Ukraine and the actions taken by Russia. However, there is also a very strong willingness on the part of the European Union to work with Russia on the difficulties in Ukraine. To address the point made by Senator Jim Walsh in particular, Russia is a respected partner of the European Union. It is one of its strategic partners. There is a very strong economic relationship between the European Union and Russia. As a country, we have a growing trade relationship with Russia. We have a joint economic commission with Russia and would like to see ourselves being able to make progress along these dimensions. This is not the 19th century.

This is a world which is much more complex and where information is available with the click of a button. The kind of behaviour we saw from Russia last week, and particularly over the weekend, has no place in modern diplomacy or relations between states. We cannot have a world in which big powers, with all of their military might, can act the heavy or breathe down the neck of a neighbouring state to force it to do things it does not want to do. As far as Ireland is concerned - I am confident that I am reflecting the views of the Irish people as a whole - we want international relations to be conducted in a respectful and peaceful manner that does not threaten the security and peace of the world. I sincerely hope the situation in Ukraine will be de-escalated but what we have seen over the past several days was the most dangerous moment Europe has experienced since the end of the Cold War. When a state engages in that kind of military build up, it takes very little to set off something that is difficult to get back into the bottle afterwards. I hope the efforts that are set to continue until the European Council meeting on Thursday and, perhaps, beyond will help to de-escalate the situation so that a resolution can be found.

On Uganda, I have issued a statement expressing our strong views on the legislation that was passed there. When I met President Museveni two years ago this was one of the issues I discussed directly with him. This legislation is wrong and it will have consequences for our relations with Uganda. For other reasons we have suspended our government-to-government aid programme with Uganda but the issue will be discussed by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Costello, and his colleagues at the Development Council.

The current round of Middle East talks is due to be completed by 30 April. If the partners agree a framework it is possible that negotiations could continue beyond that date but the important issue is that we continue to support the ongoing efforts in this regard. Deputy Crowe and Senator Walsh raised the related issue of settlement products. Officials working for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy are putting together a framework for a European Union approach to settlement products. To some extent this process is currently on pause because of the ongoing talks. As a country, we have reserved our position on proceeding with a national approach to the matter but I would first like to see whether the talks progress. On the specific issue of Irish businesses, I am not aware of any Irish business operating in the Occupied Territories.

They are buying goods from companies based in the settlements.

It is a matter we can certainly examine. In regard to the humanitarian response in Syria, the UN-devised humanitarian response plans require a total of $6.5 billion for their operation in 2014. This represents the largest humanitarian appeal in the UN's history. The international community has responded by pledging a further $2.3 billion in funding. In the six weeks since the second Kuwait pledging conference, $768 million has been provided by the international community, which corresponds to one third of the amount pledged. Ireland has respected all of the pledges we made to date and we are one of the most significant donors on a per capita basis. We are doing all we can to ensure other states follow our example in meeting their commitments in full and without delay so that the response can be scaled up to meet the enormous need for assistance.

I am aware of the report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime on opium production in Afghanistan, which estimated a worrying increase of up to 36% in poppy cultivation. The EU is currently devising a new partnership strategy for our engagement in Afghanistan after 2014 as part of an overall regional and international effort to support that country in its transition to democracy, with an emphasis on human rights and rule of law. The transition to a healthy economic model will help it to move away from dependence on drug production. The new EU strategy also aims to assist the Afghan Government in creating alternative livelihoods for those Afghans who are currently engaged in poppy production.

The European Council of Ministers approved the arms trade treaty yesterday and the way is now clear for Ireland to deposit its instrument of ratification, which we plan to do later in March.

Is the Tánaiste satisfied that United Nations Security Council resolution No. 2139 is being observed? I have been told it has been breached.

I am not satisfied that it has been observed. That issue will have to pursued in the coming weeks and months. I welcomed the approval of the resolution in late February. We should bear in mind that it is a recent resolution. It sets out clearly the obligations of parties to the conflict to uphold humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, as well as the actions which parties, including the Assad regime in particular, must cease. Our view is that it is a question now of implementing and enforcing it.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Tánaiste and his officials for attending this meeting. I hope the discussion will be of assistance and, dare I say, inspiration in the context of the important discussions that are now taking place.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 March 2014.
Barr
Roinn