Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Nov 2016

Situation in Syria and Ukraine: Discussion

I welcome the Russian Federation's ambassador to Ireland, H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov, to today's meeting to discuss, among other items, the situation in Syria and Ukraine. We are all shocked on a daily basis by the suffering of the people of Syria, particularly the people in Aleppo where the constant bombardment has affected so many lives killing and injuring thousands of civilians. The rest of the world has a duty to do everything in its power to ensure this ceases as soon as possible. As we in this country are very aware, this can only be achieved by dialogue between the opposing groups. The carnage and horrors inflicted upon the people of Syria cannot be allowed to continue.

Before I call on the ambassador to make his contribution, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off completely for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference with the recording and broadcasting equipment in the chamber even in silent mode. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I now call on H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov to make his opening remarks.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

I am very grateful for this invitation. The direct exchange of views on any issues of interest to both sides is positive and helpful to deepening the understanding between us, our countries and our countries' politicians.

First of all, it is my duty to say a couple of words about the bilateral relations between Russia and Ireland. I must stress that we are ready for business interaction on all levels, including contacts between parliamentarians of both countries. In previous years, Russian and Irish parliamentarians planned some positive initiatives, for example, the boosting of activities of the group of friends of Russia in the Dáil and the visit of the speaker of the Federation Council, the upper house, of the federal assembly of the Russian Federation, Mrs. Valentina Matvienko, to Ireland.

Unfortunately, I do not have the exact figures for this year, but in 2015, the volume of Russian-Irish bilateral trade decreased by 32.5% in comparison with 2014 and came to $1.1 billion. Russian exports fell by 19% and came to $271.6 million. Imports from Ireland dropped by 36% to $831.6 million. Therefore, Ireland is on the slightly more positive side from the point of view of our trade exchange. This year, we have very interesting projects of co-operation between Russia and Ireland, mainly in aviation. I am sure that these plans and projects will grow wider and deeper.

Ireland ranks in seventh place among foreign investors to Russia, behind Germany, the UK, China, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and Cyprus. As we see it, our task is to preserve gained potential of the trade and economic relations and, if possible, to increase it by introducing new projects in spheres of mutual beneficial interest. I must stress that economics and trade are not the only focus of our attention. We have very close relations and co-operation in fields of humanitarian activity, education, arts, culture and so on and so forth. The committee will know that annually in Russia we have traditional Irish events, such as St. Patrick's Day. We also celebrate a pancake day in Russia, as is done in Ireland. It is one of our biggest cultural events. Groups and artists from Russia come to Ireland from time to time to show their art. As far as I know, at the end of this month, there will be a ballet group from St. Petersburg and an opera group from Russia performing in Ireland. That is ongoing.

I prefer not to lecture. I prefer to answer questions.

There were two points on the proposal for our meeting - Syria and Ukraine. The main point of our position on Syria is that the only possible way to solve the Syrian crisis is through political means. As far as we understand, the results of the last contact between our President and President-elect Trump was that this point is mutual for both sides. We will see how we will manage it but the only forces that must be and are excluded from the peace process are terrorists, mainly ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. Those two forces are officially proclaimed as terrorist organisations. They are the main targets of our attacks in Syria and, as far as we know, they are the main targets of the attacks by the coalition led by the United States in Iraq.

As for Aleppo, unfortunately, too many fabrications and lies are circulating about this part of Syria including the bombing of civilians, the use of unconventional weapons and so on. The Chairman is right. Civilians are being killed there but the question is by whom. As far as we know, there are dozens of shelling incidents every day from the eastern part of Aleppo against the western part of Aleppo. Members will know that this eastern part of Aleppo is under the control of terrorists mixed with opposition forces. The western part is under the control of the Government of Syria.

Accusations and allegations have been made, particularly in recent days, that Russia is using its air force to bomb and so on. I stress and remind the members that as of today, it has been exactly one month since we used our air force in Aleppo. We stopped on 17 October, one month ago from today. Syria's air force is doing the same, therefore, allegations or accusations about Russia bombing schools, hospitals and so on in Aleppo are a complete lie. There was a briefing in the State Department yesterday at which the official representative, if I am not mistaken, spoke about six hospitals and one school that was bombed and so on. He was asked to show the address of the school and the hospitals. There was no answer. Every time we ask for the facts in terms of where, who and how, we do not get an answer.

With an array of American and Russian military satellites over this zone, which can control every square metre of the situation, it is very questionable as to why they do not show maps or video materials. Where is the evidence? If real evidence is shown, it is okay. If not, it is a lie. I am sure there will be more questions about Syria.

As for Ukraine, I will be very short. Our position is the Minsk agreements must be fulfilled. It is that the only way out of this situation in the eastern parts of Ukraine.

Before I call on Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, how does the ambassador see Russia's role in ensuring humanitarian access and protection of civilians in the Syrian conflict? With current reports of assaults on Homs and Idlib, as well as Aleppo, does the ambassador believe that the Russian and Syrian Governments are doing everything required to protect civilians as required under international law?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Not only do I believe but I am sure that we are doing everything we can. It is impossible to guarantee 100% the security of every civilian. Does the Chairman know that for more than one month we organised and guaranteed six humanitarian routes to eastern Aleppo, as well as two additional routes for the opposition, as we can call it, to leave eastern Aleppo? Unfortunately, very few people use these routes. Why? The radicals on that side of Aleppo closed these routes, meaning very few people have had a chance to go away from Aleppo.

In the Syrian Government part of Aleppo, there are camps and hospitals for people coming from eastern Aleppo. Just yesterday, we sent six children from Aleppo to Russia for treatment. They have special diseases which could not be treated in Syria itself. The six children, with their parents, are now in Russia going through this period of treatment. These are not wounds from shooting, but serious diseases like musculoskeletal diseases. Every week, we are sending our own humanitarian assistance to Aleppo.

Unfortunately, according to our information, when this assistance of food and medicine reaches the eastern part of Aleppo, the biggest part of it is caught by terrorists or opposition - whatever one wants to call them - and civilians get a smaller part of this humanitarian assistance. The same assistance is given via the Red Crescent of Damascus. In these activities, the United Nations humanitarian bodies are taking part also and we assist them in sending these commodities to Aleppo, and we are doing our best.

We are not aiming at any civilian populated zones with our shelling. War is war, as the committee will understand, but we have had very clear and good intelligence in place there of a technical nature, from space, by drones and by those working in the field. We aim our bombs and shelling only at the places where real terrorists are situated. It is rather difficult. By the way, as the committee will be aware, two days ago a rather big fleet of our naval ships came to the Mediterranean and we began our new shelling from these ships of the zones where terrorists are situated. They say several bases and a factory where they were producing explosives were hit by our rockets.

Also, we may be closer to part of the political solution of this problem. The committee will be aware that our military forces have been in Syria for more than one year. During this year, we managed to sign nearly 900 local peace agreements with local groups of opposition, groups of villages, smaller cities, towns etc. We feel that it is part of a real political process. Maybe some of these Syrians who take part are backing Assad and his team. Others call themselves "opposition", but they are not fighting. They have their arms, they have their munitions but they are not fighting with Damascus. They say that they are ready to take part in a wider political process. As for how it will be managed, a basis exists in the Geneva communiqué. The roadmap is clearly written in this but the negotiations are ready.

By the way, we, the Russian side, not only have contacts with Damascus and with our western or eastern partners about Syria, but have contacts, negotiations and talks with the representatives of the Syrian opposition.

It is ongoing. We are not angels and the committee members are not angels either. Bashar al-Assad is not an angel at all. We live in real life.

I will take two members' contributions at a time. I call Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan first, followed by Deputy Seán Crowe.

I welcome the ambassador. It is good to have this conversation, and the ambassador mentioned the importance of dialogue. Regardless of who is doing what to whom in Syria, we can all agree it is an appalling humanitarian crisis. When I looked at footage from the siege of Aleppo, it reminded me very much of the footage I saw of the siege of Stalingrad. The Russian people have been in that situation and I hope, just as so much went into the rebuilding of Russia, that people will be prepared to do as much when the time comes for the rebuilding of Syria.

On getting aid to civilians as well as access to food, water and medical aid, we talk about medical aid for the victims of the war but what has been forgotten is the vital medical aid for those who had illnesses before the war started, such as diabetes, asthma and a range of cancers. Those people have gone very far down the list when it comes to aid. There are dangers that the aid is selective, going to certain places but not to others and so forth. I wish to hear a little more on that. The ambassador mentioned that children are being evacuated, but will he say more about what Russia is doing? The ambassador is critical of the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Damascus, so will he elaborate a little on Russia's role in the humanitarian agenda? Many countries are bombing Syria. It is incredible that a peaceful protest years ago has degenerated into the current situation. This was a functioning country with access to medicine and education, regardless of the human rights issues there. My first question was about aid. Has Russia taken any refugees as other countries are doing? We are all aware of the refugee situation.

Second, will the ambassador go into more detail about the peace process and what he sees as Russia's role in it? Does he agree that all the players must be involved? He mentioned the roadmap but it would be good to hear more about it.

With regard to Ukraine, the ambassador said political dialogue is the way forward. There is an agreement for the Foreign Ministers to meet. Is that happening? How soon can we expect to see an end to that situation?

Russia has withdrawn from the International Criminal Court. Perhaps the ambassador would elaborate on that issue.

I welcome the ambassador. We would all agree that few of us here are angels, so there is agreement on that for a start. However, we can all accept that the situation in Syria is truly one of the worst humanitarian disasters we have witnessed in recent times. I wish to put it on the record that I do not see myself as a pacifist so I am not approaching this from that angle. However, we must be consistent with the principles of international law. I believe that the use of force can sometimes be necessary as a last resort to prevent the deaths of others or the repression of people. I have been horrified by the brutality, the violations of international law and the suspected war crimes being carried out by all sides in the conflict. That is my perspective.

I watched an interview recently with the UN ambassador to Syria. He spoke about the aerial bombing of eastern Aleppo. His belief was that Russia had come to the conclusion that the aerial bombardment was not working. Russia has resumed that aerial bombardment. It is supposed to be aimed at ousting approximately 900 whom the ambassador describes as terrorists. However, there is a population of 250,000 or more in that area. Does he believe there is a military solution to the conflict in Syria?

We have all watched reports about the hospital.

Is the ambassador stating the hospital that was supposed to have been bombed in the past couple of days does not exist? If so, will he elaborate on that?

The humanitarian corridors in eastern Aleppo have failed. The UN have vented their frustration that aid has not been allowed into Aleppo. What is the reason for the failure of the humanitarian initiative?

I am a supporter of the International Criminal Court, ICC, and it needs to investigate all sides in the conflict. President Putin signed an order to withdraw Russia from the ICC yesterday. Can the ambassador elaborate on and outline the reason that Russia is withdrawing? Is Russia seeking to block efforts by France and other EU member states who are supporting the efforts to launch an investigation into war crimes in Syria, and in particular to bring President Assad to the International Criminal Court? Mr. Peshkov posed a question as to who is sponsoring the jihadists in eastern Aleppo. Does he have a view on what countries in the region are involved? Will he elaborate on that? I have asked already whether this is a solution to the seven years of conflict. I reiterate that the only way forward is through dialogue, inclusive round-table talks, world leaders using their influence and so on. It is foolish to believe we can bomb to a solution to the Syrian conflict.

In regard to the Ukraine, I am in the minority on this committee, but I think the Ukrainian people have suffered under corrupt and ineffective governments for far too long. There has been a deterioration in the socioeconomic conditions and an effective bankruptcy of the Ukrainian State. This probably also is a minority position but I think some of the recent problems in Ukraine stem from the EU, US and Russia playing a zero-sum political game with Ukraine. Rather than trying to railroad Ukraine down one particular political route, I think the EU and Russia should have been working together to try to create some sort of beneficial and non-exclusive economic and political social relationship with Ukraine. I think that is the solution in that region.

I have a number of questions on it. The conflict has claimed 9,000 lives, tens of thousands of people have been displaced. In the opinion of the ambassador, why has so little progress been made in implementing the proposals outlined in the Minsk agreements?

The referendum that took place in Crimea on 16 March 2015 was another factor in escalating the crisis. As the referendum was held under the worst possible conditions, including poor security, a tense atmosphere, international pressure, the short run-in, the lack of open and democratic debate, press restrictions and the lack of dialogue preceding the referendum, would the ambassador agree the referendum was not in line with good democratic practice? I am not opposed to referendums to decide self-determination but there must be agreement on good democratic practice and I do not see it in this situation.

A Dutch-led investigation has concluded that a powerful surface-to-air missile system was used to shoot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine two years ago, killing all 298 people on board. It was trucked in from Russia at the request of the Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. What is the ambassador's response to that damning report?

The Turkish military shot down a Russian jet in November 2015, but recently there seems to be a warming between the two countries. Is he concerned about the serious issue of Turkey's role in continuing to arm, train and fuel jihadists involved in the Syrian conflict?

I invite the ambassador to respond to the items raised by Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan and Crowe, following which we will ask the other members to ask any further questions they may have.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

I will start at the very beginning. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked about humanitarian aid, medicine, etc. Part of this issue connects to Deputy Crowe's question about who is to blame for the humanitarian routes not working. I ask the committee to believe me when I say that Russia is not to blame. We open them and we do not block them. We try to use them. I will explain what we are doing with regard to medicine. Our hospitals are working directly in Syria. Mobile hospitals linked with our military base are working in Syria. Some of our non-military doctors and medical personnel are working in local hospitals. Of course we would like to do more, but we are doing what we can. We do not see any other foreigners doing the same things from a medical point of view. We are the only ones doing this work on this side of the situation.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan also asked about refugees. I do not think we have many refugees from Syria in Russia. Perhaps some families have moved to Russia, but I do not think very many have done so. Those who come to Russia from Syria tend to have family or ethnic links with people living in Russia. I know there are such links between Kurds. We have a rather big Kurdish diaspora in Russia. Some family members of people who have migrated to Russia - perhaps not forever - have travelled to Russia to stay with their relatives, etc. In many cases, those who are already living in Russia are from nations other than Syria, especially the nations of the Caucasus region.

I would not be able to tell the committee exactly how many foreign migrants live in Russia. I think it is between 6 million and 7 million. Most of them come from the CIS countries. The majority of these migrants are economic migrants rather than refugees. We have between 500,000 and 600,000 refugees - no more - and most of them come from the eastern parts of Ukraine. As the majority of them have refugee status, they have places to live, work, etc. The whole map of the migrants in our country can be completed with reference to Afghans who fled from Afghanistan when the mujihadeen came to power. There are some migrants from other countries, but not very many. The majority of migrants living in Russia are economic migrants from all parts of the CIS countries.

The next question Deputy Crowe asked about Syria related to the blocking of the French resolution at the UN Security Council.

The story of this resolution is interesting. On the eve of the sitting of the UN Security Council the Minister for Foreign Affairs in France was a guest of our Minister in Moscow. They discussed the contents of the resolution on Syria. They were working on the text of the document. We had agreement from the French side to include our position in the resolution. Both sides were glad and happy and said goodbye. Our French friend flew to Washington.

After talks with his American colleague, they proposed a draft to the sitting of the UN Security Council. Not even one paragraph of our position was included in spite of the fact that our French colleague said he would do it. This resolution was one-sided. Not one word was included relating to the crimes of terrorists, ISIS or representatives of other terrorist forces and so on. That is why we expressed our surprise to French colleagues and vetoed this resolution. That is the simple answer.

I will address both questions about the criminal court. I am unsure whether the committee is aware of it but neither the United States nor China is a member of this body. During recent years, South Africa and some other African countries, perhaps Ghana, stepped away from membership of this criminal court. The only reason is an absence of trust for the body. During the 14 years of the existence of this criminal court, it has spent $1 billion and worked on only four cases. In other words, it worked on four cases in 14 years. That is the answer. There is no trust and the court is not working at all.

Next is the question of Ukraine. By the way, how does the Deputy understand the word, "separatist"? That is my question.

Is Mr. Peshkov asking me how I see them as separatists?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Yes.

They are people who want to be separate from the country involved.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Do they want to separate from Ukraine?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

How does Deputy Crowe know that? Who told him? By the way, has the Deputy read the Minsk document?

No, I have not.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Please read it and try to find a paragraph where the Luhansk and Donetsk people speak about separating from Ukraine. They want to be part of Ukraine. However, at the same time they want to have far more autonomy within the frame of Ukraine. Ukraine is their motherland and they do not want to separate from it. I appeal to committee members to be more attentive in formulating their positions. They should be more attentive and closer to reality. These people do not want to separate from Ukraine. That is one point.

Their position is that they will be separate if they are successful.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

If they are successful they will have autonomy in Ukraine. That is the main idea of the Minsk document. My advice to the Deputy is to read it attentively. It is a very interesting document. All the points necessary to solve this situation in the eastern part of Ukraine are written there paragraph by paragraph. Everything is clear. The main idea is that the sides, Kiev and Lugansk and Donetsk, must fulfil the obligations they signed. As soon as they do that they will find a way out of this crisis, not immediately of course, it must be done step by step.

The Deputy talked about the role of Russia, Europe and the United States and other forces to help Ukraine but did not say a single word about what Ukraine must do. It must do something to solve its own problems. The Deputy is quite right about the level of corruption in the country. It is not just my opinion but that of the analysts, even those in the West who write about the situation in Ukraine, that the level of corruption is higher than before the coup d'état. I do not know how to solve this problem. It is not Russia's problem to solve the corruption problems in Ukraine.

As for co-operation we are ready for any kind of co-operation. There is a small town in the south of Ukraine called Genichesk. The Deputy might find it on Google maps. I tried and found it. The town has annual problems with gas. Before the coup d'état in Kiev it was taking gas via Crimea. When all these things happened it was partially using its own gas but that was not enough for the winter. Last year and this year the Crimeans opened their pipes to this town and are sending gas to it as a kind of humanitarian assistance because it does have money to pay. Maybe afterwards there will be an exchange of accounts between Russia and Ukraine on this issue but it does not matter because the Crimean Government decided to give this assistance to its neighbour. It is the only real way to achieve co-operation and mutual understanding. The same happened last year when the Crimeans sent gas to this city. On the contrary, Ukrainian radicals, not the Ukrainian Government or people, cut the electricity lines from continental Ukraine to Crimea. It was a humanitarian catastrophe and I do not know if the Deputy is aware of this fact.

Yes, I am aware of the incident.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Not everything we are doing is against Ukraine. We are ready for any type of co-operation with it, be it on gas, fulfilment of the Minsk agreement or any other type of co-operation. The next interesting thing is that the main slogan of Maidan People's Union before the coup d'état and afterwards was "Ukraine is Europe" - geographically that is nonsense because Ukraine was, is and will be part of Europe - and that it wanted to be part of the EU. That was all. We said okay. At the very beginning, during the time even before Yanukovych, we were telling our Ukrainian friends that if they wished to be a member or associated member of the EU, they were welcome, but let Moscow, Kiev and Brussels get together and see what the consequences of this association would be, especially the economic part. We will have to construct new economic barriers for Ukrainian commodities if Ukraine becomes a member of the European free market. Why? It is to guarantee the security of our own economy. We have special additional agreements with European countries on trade, the economy, tariffs, costs, prices and so forth. We were telling our Ukrainian friends, "You want to go this way. Okay, let us sit down and begin the account. Who will win? Not us, and not you." They did not want to do it, so now what do we see? The main slogan of the coup d'état was to sign the agreement of association with the EU. Then the process began. What do we have now? There is no result at all - no political association and no economic association. The reason is that now the Netherlands is against ratification of this agreement. What was the reason for the bloodshed, splitting the country and the beginning of civil war? It was to get nothing. We do not understand.

I think I have answered the question. Incidentally, I have the text of the Minsk agreement and I can give it to the committee.

I can access it.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

The Deputy should read it as soon as he has time.

Will the witness answer the question about the Malaysian flight?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

From the beginning we strictly took the position that an independent, neutral investigation was necessary on this issue. We have held that position until now. From the beginning we sent all technical data to the Netherlands. Up to now, we are not sure if the Netherlands has any technical data from the Ukrainian side. I mean the tapes of dispatcher talks between the tower and the aeroplane at the time.

We do not know whether America gave its technical data from satellites. We gave all the technical data we had - the tapes of dispatches, the tapes of our technical radar data and, at the same time, the engineering analysis from the company producing the Buk rockets. We gave everything to the Netherlands. We are not sure they are using our data. We are standing over the position that an independent neutral investigation is strictly necessary. If the Netherlands asks us to give anything more, we will give it.

I thank the ambassador. I call Senator Bacik to be followed by Senator McFadden.

I thank the ambassador for coming in to meet us and also for meeting me last Thursday when I met him and Mr. Ivanov. I appreciated the meeting. I conveyed to the ambassador the terms of an all-party Seanad motion, tabled at my instigation, that we had passed condemning the bombardment of civilians in Aleppo and other areas in Syria. Dialogue is important on these issues. As others have said, we are all in agreement about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Syria. We would all join in condemning outright the brutality ISIS and its allies have perpetrated on the civilian population. However, there are some clear issues for Russia's representatives to answer, in particular, Russia's involvement in the siege of eastern Aleppo, which has resulted in civilian deaths. I know the ambassador has responded to some questions about that. There is the matter of Russia's involvement in particular attacks which are fairly well established, in particular the attack on the aid convoy in September which led to the deaths of 12 aid workers. We had this discussion last week and I know the ambassador has said that these are fabrications and so on. Would Russia support international investigations into these attacks, into the deaths of civilians as a result of the bombardment and, if necessary, the bringing of President Assad of Syria before the International Criminal Court? Would the ambassador support investigations in that way? That is my first question about Syria.

To follow up on Deputy O'Sullivan's question on the peace process, the ambassador described Russia's involvement in negotiating 900 local area agreements to try to stop fighting. That is very welcome but does he see a way forward to restart the Geneva process and how will Russia try to bring that forward? With the election of President-elect Donald Trump in the United States, of whom many of us are critical, does the ambassador see a change in approach in negotiations on a resolution of the nearly seven year old war in Syria?

On Ukraine, there are some clear issues, if we are all agreed on them, that Russia illegally annexed the Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014. In response to that and in response to Russia's failure to play a constructive role in the implementation of the Minsk accords, the EU imposed sanctions which Ireland clearly supports. We were very concerned to see the report yesterday that Russia is repudiating the International Criminal Court, albeit that it is symbolic. I know the ambassador has pointed out that South Africa has signalled its intention to pull out. Burundi and Gambia are the other African countries which have similarly signalled-----

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Intentions.

Yes, their intentions to pull out. I know it is a symbolic gesture, but nonetheless it is a gesture that many of us would see as concerning. It does not bode well for Russia's intentions to engage with the EU and others in terms of achieving resolution of the issues in the Ukraine which have led to 9,000 deaths. What progress does the ambassador see happening with the implementation of the Minsk agreements?

I have read the package of measures regarding the implementation of the Minsk agreements. I realise that there has been some movement on the disengagement plan. However, a roadmap is supposed to be finalised with foreign Ministers by the end of November in order to address all aspects of the Minsk deal and how full disengagement from areas of conflict will progress. Can the ambassador indicate the progress on this process? In December, the EU Council will review the issue of sanctions currently in place until the end of January. Certain and clear deadlines are in place.

Reference has been made to Ukraine. The ambassador gave me a document, dated 9 November, from the information and press department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation concerning EU Council sanctions against Russia. The tone of the document was somewhat threatening in the sense of being rather critical of the EU sanctions. The document also states that Russia will take appropriate response measures. Can the ambassador indicate whether yesterday's announcement about the withdrawal from the International Criminal Court was a response measure? If so, will there be other response measures to the EU sanctions or can we see more constructive engagement with the Minsk process?

Senator Gabrielle McFadden is next. She will be followed by Deputy Barrett. Then the ambassador will take all the questions together.

I thank the ambassador for his time this morning. First, I am keen to say that some of us think we are angels. I have never been involved in anything following which I would have considered myself not to be an angel. As a country, we are used to conflict and terrorism. It is not unusual for us to listen to reports of terrible things that have happened to people. We are used to it.

As has been said by everyone else, the things that have happened to the people of Syria are atrocious. I am not going to repeat what has been said already. I have a comment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation before me. It states:

We paid attention to the irresponsible statements on Russia that have been popping up with disturbing regularity in connection with the events in Syria ... We cannot but condemn these actions that have been dictated by the biased view of what is happening in Syria and the distorted perception of our actions against terrorists.

Earlier, the ambassador used the word "fake". A saying in Ireland holds that there is no smoke without fire. Why does the ambassador think these opinions exist? Why does the world – I use the term widely – have these opinions? What does the ambassador think Russia can do to change the minds of people and to prove that these statements are fake or that these impressions are not true or correct?

Does the ambassador accept that Ukraine and its people are entitled to get on with their lives and make their own decisions on whether they wish to have associate agreements with the EU or anyone else? Does the ambassador accept that it is about time the Ukrainian people were allowed to do this? I have visited Ukraine twice in an official capacity. The misinformation one gets is horrifying in this scenario. I met university students in Ukraine. They have no intention of joining the EU. They want to be free to move between Europe and any other part of the world, and they should be allowed to do that. I am horrified by the misinformation.

Let us be truthful and honest about this: there is resentment on the part of Russia that Ukraine is now totally independent. Russia has taken over Crimea. Russia should let the Ukrainian people decide for themselves. They have a government. Russia should let the people decide whether they go west or east and whether to stay where they are at present. I see no attempt by the European Union to invite Ukraine as a member state or to interfere in any way with the Ukrainian relationship with Russia. It is an independent country and it should be allowed to remain independent and make its own decisions.

It is not for the European Union or Russia to interfere with Ukraine in making those decisions. It is as simple as that, as far as I am concerned. What is happening to Ukraine is a terrible shame, especially when one has had the opportunity, as I have had, to speak to young Ukrainians who just want peace and to get on with their lives and be able to travel freely, like every other citizen within the greater European boundaries. It is about time we all stopped codding each other about the pretence that we are not interfering. We are interfering with the independence of Ukraine and it should stop. The same is happening in Syria. I have been there on many occasions as a former Minister for Defence. I used to go there when I visited our troops in Lebanon. I used to meet the Minister for Defence who was also the Vice President of Syria. Again, what is happening there is a terrible shame. We can make all the excuses we want about bombings and killings, but the big question is who is defending what in Syria. Why are we trying to defend the indefensible?

Every part of the world has become unsettled and it is due mainly to interference by outsiders in solving internal problems. What are Russia's proposals for Syria? When does it intend to withdraw from it? What I would like to know is what is its desired end result in Syria. Equally, I would like to know what its desired end result in Ukraine is. Is this going to continue? Are young people never going to have an opportunity to call themselves Ukrainian and be proud of the fact that they are Ukrainians? Are they never going to have an opportunity to make their own decisions on whether they want to be part of a European entity or totally independent? In Ireland we had to put up with this for many centuries and know what it is like. It is about time we all stood back and asked the question as to what we are trying to achieve. In the meantime, thousands upon thousands are losing their lives and young people's careers and prospects are being severely damaged. I would like to hear from the ambassador what exactly is the agenda of the Russian Federation in both countries.

Following on from what Deputy Seán Barrett said, it is a question I would put to other players such as the United States, the European Union and Saudi Arabia. Is there a real desire to have a just peace in Syria? What is Russia's position or is it, as we are seeing, just a question of continuing to bomb until eventually somebody throws in the towel and there is a winner? There will not be any winner in Syria, least of all the Syrian people.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

I will begin with the last question. The main desire is to rebuild and reconstruct this poor country to make it as stable as it was before. On who will lead the country, that is not our business. It is not Ireland's business and it is not the business of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or any other country. Syria can manage and solve the problem by voting. For this process, the roadmap - the Geneva I and Geneva II communiqués - outline everything: how, when, what and so on.

One could ask how one should reach what is set out in the Geneva communiqués. I agree that when we are speaking about the situation in Syria we are speaking about a humanitarian crisis. I also agree that we are speaking about hostilities, but from time to time we forget with whom we are fighting and what is happening. I mean not only Russia, but others such as Iranians, Damascus, the United States and their team. We are fighting ISIS. We are fighting terrorists. This goal is our united goal. It is our common goal to fight those forces. I do not understand how we can fight without firing or bombing. I am not a military person. Perhaps the military knows some special way to fight without fighting but I do not know how. War is war.

The main thing then is that if we are a little more philosophical and look to the roots of all the events in the Middle East, not only in Syria, but what happened in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria and Syria. Can we blame Russia? Did Russia go to Iraq and explode the whole situation in that country? No. Did Russia begin the crisis in Syria? No. We went there only when the fire was very hot in that country, to help the legal government of Syria to fight ISIS, to fight terrorists. That is our common goal.

I pose a question to everyone. If one sees a reasonable way out of the situation to fight ISIS and not to harm civilians please tell us, advise us, and not only us but others who take part in the war against terrorists. It is very simple to theorise, to say something is good or bad but when one gets down to the ground and sees what is happening in reality, it is quite a problem to find a way out and solve the problems. All of us - us, the United States, their coalition, our allies - say that the only real way out is political. Everybody agrees on that but to reach that stage needs efforts from elsewhere, not only from our side and not only from Damascus, but from those in opposition who calls themselves moderate. If one calls oneself moderate, then one should show one's readiness for a political solution. One should agree to a ceasefire and leave the zones where real terrorists are active. Then we will have a real opportunity to fight the terrorists. When I say "we" I do not mean only Russia. I mean all those who are fighting terrorists in Syria, Iraq and other places. That is it.

How can it be solved? God knows, but we are doing our best to reach a deal.

The next question was about Ukraine and independence. The Deputy spoke about the Ukrainians and said, "let the people decide". So, he gives this right to Kiev but not to the people of Crimea. They do not have the right to express their will to live where they want to live, with whom they want to live and so on. Only Kiev has this right and the Crimean people do not. By the way, if -----

I was talking about the invasion. One doesn't invade and then ask people what they want.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Which invasion?

The Russian invasion.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

The Russian invasion. Even -----

Russia asked the people what they wanted after it invaded.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

First, we did not invade Crimea.

The Russians walked into Crimea and took it over.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

There was an attempt at an invasion but does the Deputy know who made that attempt? It was Kiev. It sent so-called trains of friendship full of well-armed military. Radicals were sent to Crimea to tell the people to behave themselves as the radicals deemed fit. Fortunately, local paramilitaries, with no assistance from the Russian military, closed the border and turned the trains back. That was an attempted invasion. Of course, the Deputy knows much more than I do about Russia and the Russian military in Crimea. He must believe me and try to be objective. If one gives a right to people to do as they want on one side, why not give the same right to people on another side?

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian decision on the European question was not only about visiting Europe. That was not the main idea. The main idea was to become an associated part of the European Union. Maybe some of them were dreaming about membership of the EU but they got a clear answer from Brussels that it would be impossible in the circumstances. Even the issue of association is now rather fragile. The main idea was to attempt to turn Ukraine's economic priorities towards Europe. As we see it, they were attempting to be fed by two mothers. They wanted to have good co-operation with Russia and, at the same time, very good co-operation with Europe. We said, "Okay, we are not against that". However, we argued that they must take up a calculator and determine the pluses and minuses of opening up their economic borders with Europe.

It is for the Ukrainian people to decide that. Ukraine is an independent country.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

They decided it -----

It is an independent country. Why should Ukraine not decide who it wants to do business with?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

It is an independent country, yes but what does it have now? It has zero, as I have already said. Why? It has zero because dearest Europe does not want this kind of co-operation with Ukraine. That is all.

I ask members to allow the ambassador to continue without interruption please.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

The issue of sanctions was also raised. Sanctions are sanctions.

You invented them. Well, not Ireland of course, but the EU introduced them and we answered. If you like them, leave them in place. If you do not like them, do not leave them -----

They were a response to Russia's illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea and its lack of engagement with the Minsk process, as I have said. That is the EU position.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

First of all, before speaking about the Minsk process, the Senator should read the document. Then we can speak about the details. Without knowledge of the actual document, it is nonsense to speak about it. I have a copy and will give it to the Senator. Regarding the sanctions, if Ireland wants to lift them, it can do so. If it does not want to lift them, then it leave them in place. Sanctions are not positive for Russia, for Ireland or for Europe as a whole. There is now some movement against sanctions in countries like Italy, France, Greece, Cyprus and so on. Will they be lifted? I do not know.

Russia has a role to play. The point is that the objective is to get Russia to engage constructively on the implementation of Minsk, on the disengagement from the area, some of which is underway. We have been briefed and have read -----

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Read the document and try to find even one paragraph which must be fulfilled by Russia. We are not part of this document. We are not part of the crisis. There are two sides, namely Kiev and Minsk, Luhansk. Our role is the same as that of Germany and France, that is, to supervise and help the sides to be constructive.

EU leaders have clearly said that Russia must use its influence with the players in Crimea. It is disingenuous to suggest that Russia has no other interest.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Crimea is not part of the Minsk document. It is separate and the issue of Crimea is closed. The Minsk document refers only to the situation in Luhansk and Donetsk. That is all.

I know, I have it here. It refers to self-government orders in certain areas -----

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

This is the usual one-sided view, that Russia must use its influence and so on. Why does the Senator not say the same thing to Berlin and Paris, that they must use their influence on Kiev? All of these kinds of processes are bilateral. One cannot applaud with one hand, as my friends in eastern countries say. Two hands are necessary to make applause.

What of the investigations in Syria?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

We are ready for any kind of investigations but they must be independent, not politicised and professional. That is all.

What about the response measures that Russia has said it will take? Is the announcement of the intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court, ICC, such a response measure?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

A response from us or from the EU?

A response from Russia.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

What kind of response? We are not members of this body.

It is still seen as an important symbolic gesture, as is the announcement by South Africa.

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

Well, first of all, we did not ratify this so we were not a member of or a participant in the work of this body. Yes, it is a symbolic gesture. The decision was taken because of the rather surprising decision by the prosecutor of the court that, in the context of Crimea, Russia and Ukraine are in a state of war.

Sorry, but I am not a specialist in mental diseases.

Will Russia take any other response measures, if this was one?

H.E. Mr. Maxim Peshkov

I do not know. I am not the person who takes such decisions.

I thank the ambassador. We appreciate his attendance at the committee. Since 2011, the indescribable conflict in Syria has been on our agenda at practically every meeting. All our members have outlined very serious concerns regarding the horrors, carnage and massacre of innocent people over five years in Syria. Those concerns echo the views of the Irish people. There is disbelief that the international community can still allow this carnage and massacre of people, and the lack of aid getting to people in most distress, to continue. We ask the ambassador to bring back to his government the very serious concerns of this country regarding the ongoing conflict, which must be brought to an end as soon as possible. We appreciate the ambassador's participation. Thank you.

The joint committee is adjourned until 1 December. We may have two select committee meetings before that regarding Estimates for foreign affairs and defence. We will notify members as soon as dates have been arranged.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.45 a.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 1 December 2016.
Barr
Roinn