SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 2009

International Agreements: Motions.

Chairman

I remind members to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off completely because they interfere with the recording equipment.

The committee will now consider the following motions referred to it by Dáil Éireann on 24 February 2009:

(i) That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part, signed at Luxembourg on 15th October 2007, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 24th January 2008.

(ii) That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, signed at Luxembourg on 16th June 2008, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 20th January 2009.

(iii) That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 25th May 1998, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 22nd January 2009.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, and his officials. I propose that following the Minister of State's introduction and briefing, committee members will be invited to speak on the motions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche)

I apologise at the outset. The nature of what we are doing here is necessarily complex and given that I have an aversion to jargon, I will try to edit as I go.

As members of the committee will be aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has proposed that Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the stabilisation and association agreements between the European Communities, the EU member states and the Republic of Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has also proposed that Dáil Éireann approves the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Communities, the member states and Turkmenistan. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has been asked to consider these issues.

The three agreements with which we are dealing involve mixed competence, in other words, some of the issues covered fall clearly within the exclusive competence of the Union — economic and trade relations being the primary example — while some others are competence of the individual member states of the Union. The main examples of the issues which remain within the competence of the member states are political issues and issues in the area of justice and home affairs, for example, those related to migration and visas are clearly matters for national competence.

Where EU agreements with third countries involving mixed competence arise, they are negotiated on behalf of the European Community and the member states and the third country or other region concerned on the basis of a mandate agreed by the Council of Ministers. When negotiations are completed the agreements are signed on behalf of the Community and the member states. Before they can formally enter into force, they must be ratified or approved on behalf of all parties, including the individual EU member states. Therefore, it is a necessarily complex process.

As the ratification process in the individual member states can sometimes take a considerable length of time, arrangements are usually made for the European Community to enter into an interim agreement with the other party. Such an interim agreement covers only those areas that fall within the exclusive competence of the Community — mainly economic and trade matters — and which can be applied immediately pending formal ratification of the main agreements by the individual member states.

Interim agreements are in force with all three countries with which we are dealing today. I propose to deal first with Montenegro and then with Bosnia-Herzegovina. The motions which Dáil Éireann has been asked to approve are:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part, signed at Luxembourg on 15th October 2007, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 24th January 2008.

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, signed at Luxembourg on 16th June 2008, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 20th January 2009.

By way of background, in June 1999 the General Affairs and External Relations Council agreed to establish a stabilisation and association process for south-east Europe, the aim of which was to strengthen political and economic stability in the region. By any objective standards, it has been a successful process. It provides for the negotiation of stabilisation and association agreements for the countries of the region in return for compliance with certain conditions. The main aim of the stabilisation and association agreements is to bring the countries involved closer to EU standards in areas of democracy, the rule of law, human rights considerations, etc.

In June 2003, the Thessaloníki EU-Western Balkans Summit confirmed the EU's support for the European perspective of the western Balkans countries. At Thessaloníki, the EU further expressed a readiness to assist these countries in their preparation for future integration into European structures and ultimate prospective membership of the Union.

The EU's policy to support a European perspective for each of the countries of the western Balkans has been a major factor in bringing stability to the region as it continues its recovery from the wars of the 1990s. Ireland remains committed to this policy. It is a very successful peace process.

Since its separation from Serbia in 2006, a peaceful transition to democracy has taken place in Montenegro which is a positive example for other countries of the region. The process contributes to the stability of the western Balkans region as a whole. The forthcoming parliamentary elections in Montenegro, scheduled for 29 March, are expected to confirm that Montenegro continues to adhere to acceptable processes for conducting elections. Such an outcome would be viewed positively by the international community, including EU member states, particularly in light of the recent application for EU membership lodged by Montenegro on 15 December 2008. Consideration is being given to referring Montenegro's membership application to the Commission for an opinion, a process which will take up to 15 months. Any decision on such a referral would have to be taken by the Council and it is hoped that agreement on this issue can be reached at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, in March.

The November 2008 GAERC, on the other hand, noted that there was regrettably a lack of progress achieved since the signing in June last of the stabilisation and association agreement with Bosnia-Herzegovina. Despite increased EU engagement and support, there was a lack of political progress and there is also a deterioration in the political atmosphere accompanied by a gradual drifting apart of the communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and this process will clearly be difficult to reverse. This development was marked in particular by an apparent failure to move towards fulfilment of the conditions required for transition from the Office of the High Representative, OHR, to that of EU special representative. Ministers also had an opportunity to discuss Bosnia-Herzegovina at Monday's GAERC where concern was expressed about recent developments. However, there was a widely shared recognition that transition from OHR remains the best way forward, provided all the necessary conditions are met by the political leadership in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The November GAERC meeting also highlighted by contrast the progress made by Operation ALTHEA in accomplishing its mandate. Accordingly, the Council considered that preparations for restructuring the operation should continue, taking into account the future role of the EU special representative. Since the November GAERC meeting, it is fair to say there has been some measurable political progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina, most notably in the agreement between representatives of the communities reached in Banja Luka last month. While this must be welcomed, it remains to be seen whether there is a consensus on implementing the agreement.

The stabilisation and association agreements with Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have been ratified by all the EU member states and have already entered into force. An agreement was signed with Albania on 12 June 2006 but, pending ratification by all the member states, it has not yet entered into force. Following consideration by the committee and with the approval of Dáil Éireann, Ireland ratified the agreement with Albania on 11 June 2007.

A stabilisation and association agreement and an interim agreement with Serbia were signed on 29 April 2008. However, at the time of signature, the Council of Ministers decided that the procedures for formal ratification of the stabilisation and association agreement and implementation of the interim agreement would begin only when it decided unanimously that Serbia was co-operating fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY. As members will be aware, a number of issues have arisen in respect of the ICTY.

There are no proposals to enter negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo which celebrated the first anniversary of its declaration of independence on 17 February 2008. Immediately following the declaration, EU Foreign Ministers agreed a common response reaffirming the European Union's willingness to play a leading role in strengthening stability, including by means of the ESDP rule of law mission — EULEX KOSOVO. It also agreed that member states would decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations with Kosovo.

EU member states, including Ireland, have recognised Kosovo's independence. After the coming into force of the new Kosovan constitution on 15 June, the European Union's main aim has been the smooth transition from the UN mission — UNMIK — to EULEX KOSOVO. The latter declared initial operating capability on 9 December throughout Kosovo, including in the Serb majority areas in the north, without serious incident. That is a welcome development. The mission is expected to reach full operational capacity in the coming weeks and includes eight members of the Garda Síochána and one support staff member from the Department of Defence. During a visit to Kosovo last December the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence met members of the 233-strong UN-mandated KFOR peacekeeping force and Garda members of EULEX. The visit also included a meeting with President Sejdiu and Prime Minister Thaci.

The stabilisation and association agreements with Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina follow the standard format and are similar in form and content to those with Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro and Albania. The agreements cover a wide range of issues focusing on: trade liberalisation in goods and other trade-related issues — for example, services, government procurement, intellectual property protection and competition issues; political dialogue; trying to bring legal systems into something approaching approximation; regional co-operation; and other areas such as industry, the environment and energy. With regard to trade in goods, the aim of the agreements is to progressively establish a free trade area among the European Union and the countries of the region on the basis of reciprocity but in an asymmetric manner.

The European Union has, for the most part, largely liberalised its import trade with the countries of the western Balkans. In 2000 it granted autonomous trade measures to beneficiary countries and territories of the region. As the agreements are being negotiated, implemented and developed, the appropriate changes and amendments to the scheme of autonomous preferences are being made. Croatia has been recognised as a candidate for membership of the Union and negotiations are entering the decisive phase, with the possibility of completion by the end of 2009 or soon after the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has also been granted candidate status. However, no date for the beginning of accession negotiations has yet been agreed.

Chairman

As there is a vote in the Dáil, I suggest we suspend proceedings until it is completed.

Sitting suspended at 4.55 p.m. and resumed at 5.10 p.m.

Deputy Dick Roche

I will now deal with Turkmenistan which is in a different category than the other states we have been discussing. Turkmenistan is not likely ever to be a candidate for membership of the European Union. The motion which Dáil Éireann will be asked to approve is:

That Dáil Éireann approves of the terms of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Turkmenistan, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 25th May 1998, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 22nd January 2009.

The purpose of the agreement is to allow the European Union to update its relations with Turkmenistan which is of interest to the Union for a number of reasons. The promotion of human rights and democracy is a key objective of the CFSP and the EU strategy for Central Asia. There is much the Union can do to assist Turkmenistan with the reform programmes instituted under the President to improve Turkmenistan's record in these areas. In the field of energy Turkmenistan is a potential key element in efforts to diversify EU energy supplies, given its large gas and oil reserves. It is located in a strategically important part of the world, bordering on Afghanistan, and plays a key role in regional security and the fight against drugs.

Following the death of former President Niyazov in December 2006, Turkmenistan has emerged from a long period of self-imposed isolation and has been opening itself to outside influences. It has made clear its intention to engage with the EU-Central Asia strategy and co-operate on issues such as human rights, energy relations and security issues. It now regularly takes part in meetings with the European Union and other Central Asian states, for example, in a structured dialogue with the European Union, covering all aspects of human rights. Given this new and expanding relationship with Turkmenistan, it is inappropriate that the Union's relations with the country are still governed by an agreement signed with the Soviet Union in 1989.

This partnership co-operation agreement is the final agreement between the European Union and the Central Asian republics which remains to be ratified and will replace the provisions of the previous trade and co-operation agreement between the European Union and the former Soviet Union. At the end of the 1990s the European Union concluded nine similar partnership co-operation agreements with Russia and the new independent states of eastern Europe, the southern Caucasus and Central Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Pending ratification, an interim agreement has been in place since January 2000, based on the previous trade and co-operation agreement with the Soviet Union, governing the areas within the exclusive competence of the European Communities. Since 2004 joint committee meetings have been held within this framework, dealing with trade, economic and co-operation issues. In June 2007 the European Council adopted the EU-Central Asia strategy for a new partnership, providing the strategic framework for the European Union's relations with the countries of Central Asia, including Turkmenistan. Mention should also be made of the European Communities regional strategy paper on assistance for Central Asia covering the period 2007 to 2013 which sets out the European Union's co-operation objectives and delivery mechanisms in the region. Ratification of the partnership and co-operation agreement should be seen in this context.

While the specific challenges facing each country in the region vary, there are a number of common development problems. These include slow democratic transition, poor records of implementing human rights obligations, poor business and investment climates and widening income disparities and poverty. The partnership and co-operation agreement is designed to address the challenges facing Turkmenistan and promote the profile and interests of the European Union in the country. It is intended to reinforce stability in Turkmenistan and the wider region and consolidate its democracy. It promotes economic growth and sustainability through co-operation in a broad range of fields, including industrial co-operation, investment, supply of services, science and technology, education and training, consumer protection, enterprise restructuring and regional development. Co-operation on energy issues is provided for, governed by the principles of the market economy and the European energy charter.

The agreement also provides for co-operation in preventing illegal activities such as corruption, counterfeiting, money laundering and the illegal transaction of goods, including arms and industrial waste. The fight against drugs and terrorism is given particular attention, not least because Turkmenistan shares a border with Afghanistan.

Political dialogue between the parties at ministerial and senior official level is provided for in the agreement and may take place on a regional basis. The objectives of such dialogue are to strengthen Turkmenistan's links with the European Union and the community of democratic nations as a whole; to increase the convergence of positions on international issues of mutual concern; and to enhance co-operation on matters pertaining to the observance of the principles of democracy and the respect, protection and promotion of human rights. Respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights, particularly those of persons belonging to minorities, is an essential element of the agreement which contains specific provisions for co-operation on this important issue. This co-operation will take the form of technical assistance, including training, enhanced contacts and exchange visits, as appropriate, intended to reinforce democratic institutions. The agreement is concluded for an initial period of ten years, after which time it will be automatically renewed from year to year, provided that neither party wishes to end it.

I emphasise the importance of adopting these agreements. Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Turkmenistan are countries which have difficult histories and the potential, with our assistance and in partnership with the European Union, to enhance their political and economic freedoms in the coming years. By virtue of their geographical location, they are at the centre of regions to which the Union attaches the highest priority, namely, the western Balkans and Central Asia, and where the promotion of stability and the continued process of reform are in all our interests.

I thank the committee for its time and hope it will be able to recommend to the Dáil that the motions be approved. I will be happy to answer any questions raised.

Deputy John Deasy

As regards the concept of a partnership co-operation agreement with Turkmenistan, I have some questions on the subject of energy and illegal drugs. I do not wish to concentrate on Turkmenistan only; I also want to concentrate on other countries in the region. How is the European Union progressing the question of energy supplies from countries in the western Balkans and Central Asia, including Turkmenistan? It would be useful to hear the Minister of State's comments on the progress being made by the Union on the interdiction of drugs and the practical outomes achieved for the Union's citizens in these two areas.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

What other countries in the region have no agreement with the European Union? Are other agreements being initiated? The Minister of State said the partnership and co-operative agreement between the European Union and the Central Asian republics would be the final one. Are others not coming down the pipeline?

On political stability, there are impaired relations, to say the least, with some of the countries in question. There have been problems with Croatia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Kosovo. In that context, how does the Minister of State envisage matters working out? As the European Union moves forward, it is important to try to eradicate completely these political difficulties, particularly those that might lend themselves to violence in countries which might some day have access to the Union.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

Nothing would be achieved by delaying these three agreements but that is not my point. A number of issues arise and I take the opportunity to raise them in the context of the agreements. The text is bristling with problems that require more serious engagement than we can have with a perfunctory treatment of the agreements.

I have a difficulty with the language used in more than one place. For example, it is very important, particularly in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, to try to have a slight touch of humility rather than tendencies and inclinations towards hubris. At the end of his speech the Minister of State suggested "Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Turkmenistan are countries which have difficult histories [it is the way one puts it] and which have the potential, with our assistance and in partnership with the European Union, to enhance their political and economic freedoms in the coming years." I do not want to hold up these three agreements but this is not the first time I have come across text from the European Union indicating a certain thinking about what qualifies as modernity and development. In the dying days — like the dying wasp — of the neoliberal agenda, it is usually defined by an attitude towards, for example, privatisation, the banking system being placed in private hands, the elimination of all obstacles to free trade, the removal of guarantees in respect of pensions, wages, etc. These discussions have taken place in every one of these countries. In some previous model treaties of the same kind, whether one liked, people sought to refer to the protections they might have experienced — I do not use the word "enjoyed" — in a previous set of arrangements that were authoritarian and state directed. One finds in the text and the thinking behind some of these agreements a suggestion that it is a case of coming out of the darkness of the state into the bright sunlight of the market. I urge restraint in such thinking. No assumptions can be made, for example, as regards the quenching or trampling of human rights in statelet systems and their celebration in the context of the market. As a political scientist, I suggest there is not one whit of evidence for this. Certainly, if one believes in unity of rights, between civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, one would not find substance for it. While I do not intend to go on, I have a few points to make.

There is a good point, of which the Chairman will be aware, regarding the agreements referred to in the text of the presentation. It states: "In June 2007 the European Council adopted The EU and Central Asia: Strategy for a New Partnership". That is one of those agreements that will not have been debated in the House. It was responding to an entirely changed geopolitical environment. Even since this speech was written matters have changed regarding the Russian Federation, the United States and Turkmenistan. There is a lesson for us in all of this — that these matters are not narrowly European but in fact geopolitical in terms of some of their implications. Certainly, that is the case when I turn to the agreement on Turkmenistan.

I understand the useful distinction between what is, if one likes, Community competence and the competence of member countries, thereby requiring ratification by all the signatories to the founding treaties. Members will excuse me in being pessimistic about the reference to migration and visas. This reference, on the first page in many cases, is a representation of one of the defeats of the European Union. There are 8.5 million undocumented persons in the European Union and the figure is heading towards 10 million. The discourse on the rights of people in an absolute sense, irrespective of status, by which I mean documented or undocumented, was probably more advanced during the time when the late Dr. Hillery was European Commissioner for Social Affairs than it is now. It is one of the sad casualties of extremist neoliberal thinking as represented by our existing nominee to the Commission.

I have said the three treaties are bristling with points we obviously cannot deal with now. For example, the role of the high representative in the region, to put it politely, did not yield a great diplomatic result. The Minister of State said: "In June 1999 the General Affairs and External Relations Council agreed to establish a stabilisation and association process for south-east Europe." That is the second document that has not been discussed properly in Parliament. It refers, for example, to "the negotiation of stabilisation and association agreements for the countries of the region in return for compliance with certain conditions." It would be useful to be explicit on these conditions and able to suggest the distance they are able to achieve between one model of economy and another. The lesson across the European Union and its neighbours is that rescuing ourselves from irresponsible, international unregulated banking — banking with a light regulation touch — involves in every instance the state and now probably a supra-national initiative through the European Central Bank. Therefore, when blind statements like "certain conditions" are made, we need to ensure that flexibility is available to operate in new conditions, not only geopolitically but economically.

I wish to comment on some of the flourishes in this document. My admiration for the hard working people in the Department of Foreign Affairs is sincere. They did not invent some of the phrases in the document such as "the European perspective of the western Balkan countries". If that phrase is deconstructed, I suppose it means the countries in question are anxious to join the European Union for a variety of reasons. I agree with the section of the document that welcomes recent developments in Montenegro. I would like to give an example of the kind of language in respect of which we need to take some care. I refer to phrases like "its peaceful transition to democracy". I am not here to defend the conditions that prevailed in Montenegro, but it was a form of government.

I can save people a lot of time by outlining my view on this region, in general. Members of the Serb community in certain places have great grounds for grievance. Kosovo is referred to in a kind of theological way later in the document. Nobody has ever offered any justification for Ireland's rush to recognise Kosovo. Regardless of whether one was in favour of it, no logic was ever laid out to support it. As far as I can see, the previous mission in Kosovo, which is now handing over authority to the European mission, has not been able to establish that Serbs have returned in significant numbers to their homes in Kosovo. That was supposed to have been one of the tests of the mission. I may be wrong, but that is what has been reported to me. People involved in the group that is now leaving Kosovo and handing over to the European mission have said on the record that they did not feel they should push this aspect of the project. Those who are succeeding them should understand that the commitment in question was one of the fundamental tenets of the agreement that was reached in respect of Kosovo. Having said that, I welcome the co-operation of the Serbian authorities with international bodies that are investigating certain crimes.

I wish to speak about the handover to the EU special representative. I will confine myself to saying that the high representative had nothing to show and, in many cases, was deeply committed to his own rhetoric. There was a marked insensitivity to the nuanced and complex nature of what was being proposed on the ground by the different parties. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence visited Kosovo in December 2008. I am sure they were welcomed by the troops.

I wish to speak about the stabilisation and association agreements with Montenegro. It would be a good point on which to finish because I almost began on this point. The agreements are referred to in the Minister of State's speech. A wide range of trade-related issues such as liberalisation of the goods trade, services and government procurement are mentioned. Reference is also made to political dialogue, legal approximation, regional concentration, industry, environment and energy. We have to be able to achieve these aims of co-operation in a different context.

I was completely thrown by the document. I am afraid I am not sufficiently advanced to understand how one can be dealing with a country "on the basis of reciprocity but in an asymmetric manner". The old reciprocity norm was the foundation of one of my subjects. In many cases, I had a certain notion of exchange theory — what went out should come back. Who am I to stand in the way of advancements in linguistics as well as politics?

The proposals being made in respect of Turkmenistan are quite exciting. It is an area of huge importance in many ways. Not only is Turkmenistan a source of energy, but it is also calculating its relationships with the different poles of geopolitics in an interesting manner. In many cases, it is good that we are involved.

I reiterate that the document makes it clear that it is correct that we should deal with human rights as a conditionality, even if we never implement it, as in the case of the Euromed agreement. It is also stated that certain countries have had a slow democratic transition, poor records of implementing human rights obligations, poor business and investment climates, widening income disparities and poverty. I repeat that it is the demonstration of probity that will enable us to strike a higher note in relation to all of these arguments. In the meantime, there is much merit in respecting the difficult historical background of these countries, as well as the complexity of their populations and those of their neighbours.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

I do not think I will have time to develop the existential asymmetric exchange theory that has been espoused by Deputy Higgins. I have a couple of questions. The potential offered by Turkmenistan's large gas and oil reserves was one of the issues raised by the Deputy. How important are those reserves in the development of these agreements? To what extent has the potential of these energy reserves been exploited? How much potential is there for further exploitation of such reserves?

I would also like to ask about the expansion of the EU. I heard someone say recently that when Croatia joins the EU, that will be it for a long period of time. Do the recent economic and financial troubles highlight the fact that the EU is almost at an unmanageable size? Should we ensure we do not give false hope to countries that wish to join the EU? I would like to be convinced that the EU does not have an urge to expand and build an empire. That is how it appears to me.

On a lighter note, I wish to inform the committee that last Friday, the song "Et Cetera" was selected as Ireland's entry in this year's Eurovision Song Contest. Will Ireland's agreements with Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Turkmenistan help our chances of improving our position in the contest?

I support what Deputy Deasy said about the issues of crime and drugs. There appears to be some potential to ease the problems in that area. I would like that potential to be developed.

Chairman

I would like to add to that. The partnership and co-operation agreement with Turkmenistan will replace the trade agreements that were agreed with the former Soviet Union. Turkmenistan was almost completely isolated under its former President, Mr. Niyazov. As Turkmenistan's closest international partner, how does Russia view the partnership agreements? I am aware that Russians were suppressed or not supported under the previous President of Turkmenistan, although they enjoy more freedoms and are in a better position at present. What is Russia's view of the current position?

Deputy Dick Roche

The general Russian view is that the partnership and co-operation agreements and opening up of Turkmenistan are welcome. As the Chairman indicated, under the previous regime Turkmenistan was something of a black box which was closed to general scrutiny. Apropos of the Eurovision Song Contest, to which Deputy Higgins referred, it strikes me that if it is possible to use the words "asymmetry" and "reciprocity" in the same sentence in an existential manner, we will have more hope than we had when we sent a turkey to the contest at significant expense to the taxpayer. That decision seemed to take surrealism to a high point.

Deputies Ardagh and Deasy raised the issue of energy and gas resources. Turkmenistan will become increasingly important as a result of the significant energy resources at its disposal and its geopolitical location. It is an intriguing country because it straddles an important route, the reason for its historical importance. It is also an increasingly significant gas producer, holding the fifth largest reserves in the world. To respond to Deputy Deasy's question, its ranking is based on proven reserves and it may have further reserves. It will clearly be a major player in gas production. Given that Turkmenistan also possesses substantial oil reserves, it is an economically important country. Gazprom, the Russian gas company, is its main customer and pumps substantial amounts of gas from Turkmenistan through its systems.

As members will be aware, a lively debate is taking place on the possibility of interconnection to the south in an effort to avoid the problem which arose last year when Ukraine and the Russian Federation were involved in a dispute about gas being transported through the system. Europe, particularly central Europe, is vulnerable in this respect. My Bulgarian colleague informed me of tragic events during the recent crisis when people were found frozen to death in older flats and dwellings in his country. This is a life and death issue which could be raised during domestic debates on the significance of the European Union. The crisis was resolved in no small way through the extraordinary intervention of the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, who held the Presidency of the European Union at the time. To return to Deputy Deasy's point, Russia's plans to improve its national energy efficiency are primarily focused on modernisation. This should help to conserve energy in the region. The European Union has a real economic interest in this area.

I accept the point that a little less hubris and a little more humility is important. If ever a country gave a practical demonstration of such hubris, it was when people in the financial services centre stated last year they would vote "No" in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty "for the craic". As one fellow famously put it to me — I regret I must raise both hands and admit he was a former student of mine — as he leaned across the table during a debate: "It would be a bit of fun to give them all a slap on the face." If there was ever a demonstration of the combination of hubris, arrogance and ignorance, that was it. Unfortunately, this attitude stalked the land last year. I accept the Deputy's point that some of the language is exotic. To be fair to the European Union, however, its relationships have not been based on an arrogant view of its importance. From time to time, hubris crawls into it — we are all human — but one thing that can be said about the European Union is that it has been an astonishing, positive force for good.

On a specific point, I recall during the Italian Presidency which preceded the Irish Presidency that on several occasions I had cause to travel to Bulgaria, a country which at the time was engaging in major efforts to tackle corruption. We would not tolerate the scale of these efforts if they were made here. For example, most members of the judiciary were dismissed. The rest of Europe did not sufficiently recognise that Bulgarians regarded certain matters as a trespass on the sovereignty they had fought long and hard to win and protect. I take the point made by Deputy Higgins. The outcome of the process was highly beneficial. Another astonishing measure taken in Bulgaria was the decision to bring in Crown Agents, a company from the United Kingdom, because the country could not get to grips with corruption in its customs service.

While it is true that corruption in the region persists, it is not unique to the Balkans. A fair amount of corruption stalks the streets and financial services agencies of the West but we do not recognise it as corruption. To be fair to the European Union, it has operated as a powerful catalyst to normalise relations and improve the lot of people in eastern Europe. The people who benefited the most from the reducing corruption were the citizens of the countries in question. We should ensure we do not behave as if we are pinnacles of perfection, as this is not the case.

Deputy Higgins also asked about the replacement of Mr. Miroslav Lajcak as special representative. Following his announcement last month that he had been appointed Foreign Minister of the Slovak Republic, the position of special representative has become vacant. Five countries, Austria, Estonia, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom, have nominated candidates for the position. It is good to have competition for the post. The appointment of the new EU special representative was discussed at last Monday's General Affairs and External Relations Council and it is hoped a decision will be made later this week.

A question was asked about the general Central Asia strategy being pursued by the European Union. This strategy has been successful and intriguing and helped to moderate development in the region. There is no doubt that after the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, a large gulf opened which had to be filled. This is not to suggest we in the West or the European Union know best but we do have experience which we can impart arising from centuries of having less than acceptable regimes. Central Asia is strategically important from the point of view of energy supplies. The general issue is that if we care about justice, human rights and democracy, we must assist the countries of the region as best we can. We should not do this with strings attached and I do not suggest Deputy Higgins made that argument. We should do so because we believe it is the correct approach to take. The strategy, if it is to work and promote stability, will offer a win-win scenario for all of us. Instability, for example, if Turkmenistan chose to return to isolation, would not be in anyone's interests. I recently met some representatives from Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and it is interesting that they look to Europe to help in a neighbourly sense.

Deputy Ardagh asked an interesting and intriguing question — it was not an existential one — about whether the European Union had over-extended itself and whether its growth could be circumscribed. I disagree that some form of colonialist attitude prevails. I am sure I am not the only Member present who agrees with Deputy Ardagh on the matter. It is wrong to give countries false hope and if ever a case demonstrates this, it is the manner in which the European Union has negotiated its arrangements with Turkey during the years. For some time, I have believed Turkey and the EU have a special relationship but there has been a lack of candour in the development of it, particularly relating to Turkey's membership hopes. It must be addressed. I agree with Deputy Ardagh that the EU should not be giving false hopes.

EU membership has done much good for Bulgaria and Romania and will do so in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. In aspiring to become part of the EU, there is a willingness to adopt EU as well as universal standards.

One interesting issue during the Convention on the Future of Europe, which was not picked up on, concerned where Europe starts and stops geographically. There were some exotic suggestions during a recent EU Presidency that Israel should be invited and then Syria and so forth. These are flights of fantasy. Europe does need, however, to define itself. The arrangements with the Council of Europe are in a somewhat different category because of the nature of the intergovernmental focus.

Russia has a positive view of the trade agreement. It is rather bizarre that the current arrangement is with an entity that no longer exists, the former Soviet Union.

The best action the EU can take in tackling illicit drugs is to help build local capacity. I take the Deputy's point on this. However, if someone arrived into Ireland and said we had to put our entire customs system in the hands of some non-national agency because we were not trusted to run it, I believe we would react negatively. That is what happened with Bulgaria. Countries, particularly those aspiring for full membership, are willing to take extraordinary steps. The EU is involved in building capacity locally, particularly in police training and customs. It operates in these areas through the OSCE. It should give us pause for thought when people in this country argue that we should isolate ourselves from developments in these areas. There is self-interest to be served by us all if we can bring up capacity in other countries. Regional administrative capacity building — a cliché for which I apologise before Deputy Higgins notes it – will assist in doing a better job in this field.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

What other agreements, if any, are coming down the track in the Turkmenistan region?

Deputy Dick Roche

This will be the last agreement in Central Asia.

The Deputy is correct about the regrettable controversy between Slovenia and Croatia about the waters off Piran and Izola. The sea area is rather barren of minerals with oil and gas reserves located further south. It is more an historic issue about access rights to ports. It should not be allowed to come in the way of Croatia finalising its accession. Croatia has every reason to feel hard done by. It has done much work for its accession. The matter could be resolved by an outbreak of goodwill on both sides. While from an outside perspective it may seem to be a small issue, it is a significant point between the two states. There is an historic dimension to this as the ports involved belonged to the Venetian republic.

The energy importance of Turkmenistan is significant.

Deputy John Deasy

The briefing makes it clear that the current President of Turkmenistan, Berdimuhamedow, has better relations with Russia than his predecessor. Where is the EU in this struggle with Russia and its violent unpredictability when it comes to natural resources? This is important from our energy supply viewpoint. Obviously, there is a struggle between the EU and Russia to have an influence over Turkmenistan. If Gazprom has already signed contracts with Turkmenistan, where stands the EU?

Deputy Dick Roche

A colourful individual in the Lisbon treaty referendum claimed he had quick inputs into Gazprom through a gentleman called Boris Jordan but that is for another debate.

We need to be careful about characterising Russia's relations with its neighbours. The West has been making judgments about Russia which are very unwise.

Deputy John Deasy

Yet it was the Minister of State who spoke about people dying of the cold in Ukraine.

Deputy Dick Roche

No, I spoke of people dying in other countries. People died of the cold in Bulgaria because the gas supply between two neighbouring countries had been cut off, yet it had nothing to do with them. That is why Russia and Europe should have a separate policy. To be fair, the Russians were prepared to sit down and negotiate.

Related to Deputy Higgins's point, we need to be careful before we characterise Russia's policies with its neighbours. We would not characterise western powers' relations with their neighbours in such a way. There seems to be a lack of an even-handed approach to this. Russia believes that it is historically a great nation and who are we to say otherwise? Europe can play a different and moderating role in a world that could become bipolar very quickly. I have often made the point that we need to be very careful before we become judgmental with Russia. It has its views on its sphere of influence, as do other countries with which we are more friendly. We do not recognise spheres of influence, but it is a reality that Russia believes it has close relationships with countries that were united with it previously in some shape or form.

Deputy John Deasy

I understand that, but the point of these PCAs in the first place is to have better relations on issues like energy. I understand the historical relations that Russia has had and continues to have with countries such as Turkmenistan. How is the EU's policy on matters like energy proceeding? What benefit will we see from this PCA?

Deputy Dick Roche

I apologise if I have misunderstood the Deputy. We need both Russia and Central Asia. It is not a question of one or the other. If the EU is to have a mature relationship with its neighbouring areas, it should have good relations with both. We should not cast Russia as a demon or a negative player in this. Russia has its own interests that it wants to defend. That is not unusual. Other large countries have their interests and they want to defend them also.

I mentioned the breakdown. Romania and Bulgaria were very badly hit, especially their heavy industries. They had a terrible choice to make between keeping furnaces running for steel mills and cutting gas supplies to homes. That was an horrific choice to make for a government with few resources. That is all the more reason to normalise our relationships with Russia and make sure that we do not become levers in its arguments with Ukraine. I am not in a position to judge where right and wrong are on that, but I am sure there was no monopoly of right and wrong on either side.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

It is one of the big disappointments that such little use is made of the UN Economic Commission for Europe and its office in Geneva. The very best papers on the future of the EU's energy dependency in an independent, refereed work that is of a published standard have come from that office, as is the case with its work on Latin America and Africa. However, this work is never quoted. On the other hand, the OECD is not a research body and effectively recycles people's prejudices on what they want, yet this body is regularly quoted. The absence of reference to the UN commission's excellent, independent scholarly work is one of the most interesting omissions from European discourse.

Deputy Dick Roche

The Deputy and I obviously read the same works. It may be the academic prejudice, but the ECE has produced some extraordinary material, especially for a small organisation about which most people have seldom heard. Jan Kubis from Slovakia has just become secretary general, and it has had some experienced secretaries general from central Europe.

We need a diversity of energy sources. Deputy Deasy's point on Ireland is correct. We are at the end of the pipeline. We were incredibly lucky during the recent dispute that our energy was still coming from the North Sea via the UK. That supply will not last forever, which is why we need interconnection and why the north and south routes need to be developed across Europe. That is why we need to look at north-south interconnection as well as east-west interconnection.

The development of a coherent energy policy is one of the things that will come out of the final ratification of the Lisbon treaty. We need to get Europe much more focused on that area than it has been until now. We also need to bring our own limited resources on-stream and look at alternative energy also.

Chairman

We do not give enough attention to areas like Turkmenistan. When their representatives come here, we meet them and look after them. We should probably develop a better relationship. It is interesting to hear the Minister of State talk about what we might have to offer, especially since we have so few energy resources. Nonetheless, GDP per capita in Turkmenistan is €1,310, notwithstanding all its resources. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is $2,656 and in Montenegro, $3,116. However, GDP per capita in Ireland is $43,000. It is obviously going to come down from that figure, but there may be ways in which we could help them. We can co-operate elsewhere.

Deputy Dick Roche

The Chairman and I both have a common experience in the development of public administration. We have had a very interesting experience in the evolution of public administration in this country. Due to our recent past, we would be a little red faced if we were to teach people about bank regulation. However, our general public administration moved from a period of conflict to an evolution of constitutional and democratic institutions. It is intriguing that we took a model of public administration from the previous colonial power and used the best elements of that model in our own case. One of the most revolutionary things that happened in Ireland was the establishment of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission which led to the depoliticisation of public administration.

We have never played to our biggest strengths in Europe and that is one of the things we should examine. It is not about whether we know best how to do things, but most of these countries have no axe to grind with us. Looking at the three countries mentioned by the Chairman, or any other, there is no reason they should distrust us. We have some skills that we could use to the benefit of those countries, as well as in our own self-interest.