Priority Questions.
1 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the way in which he views the interests of small member states of the European Union being protected in the context of proposals to reduce the size of the European Commission and to introduce greater intergovernmentalism into the institution via the appointment of a permanent President of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14850/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI do not view the proposed creation under the constitutional treaty of the position of permanent President of the European Council in the context of either the institutional balance between large and small member states or of a movement towards intergovernmentalism. The provisions on the President of the European Council as they developed in the Convention debate essentially reproduce the functions of the current rotating President. The role of the European Council President will be to chair the European Council and drive forward its work, to prepare the work of the European Council in co-operation with the President of the Commission and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council, to facilitate consensus and cohesion within the European Council and to present a report to the European Parliament. He or she shall also ensure the external representation at his or her level of the Union in the common foreign and security policy without prejudice to the role of the EU Foreign Minister.
A broad consensus was reached on the proposals at the Convention. Among the original supporters of the idea were Sweden and Denmark, two smaller member states that had recently held the Presidency. While the Government was not among those advocating this proposal, it recognised from an early point that as the Union continued to enlarge and develop, some change was both necessary and desirable. In the Government's opinion the new provisions as finally drafted do not cut across the role of the Commission nor undermine the position of smaller member states and they are acceptable on that basis. No participant in the Intergovernmental Conference opposes them.
The Deputy will be aware that the Presidency tabled for discussion this week a paper on the future composition of the Commission. It builds on its report to the March European Council and the Taoiseach's subsequent speech to the European Parliament. The Presidency's strong view is that any proposals on the Commission must meet the twin needs of efficiency and legitimacy. The discussion paper suggests these twin needs might best be met by maintaining one Commissioner per member state until 2014, whereupon a move would be made to a smaller Commission of a pre-determined size, composed on the basis of equal rotation among the member states.
The Government's suggested approach, which received broad support at the meeting of Foreign Ministers this week, would fully protect the rights of all member states, irrespective of size. This approach is fully in line with the provisions of the Treaty of Nice which states that once the Union comprises 27 member states, a decision must be taken to reduce the size of the Commission on the basis of absolute equality.
At the IGC meeting this week, significant progress was made on a wide range of issues of both an institutional and non-institutional nature. The discussions were positive and constructive and, if member states continue to take this focused approach, agreement can be found on a constitutional treaty to which all member states, large and small, can subscribe.
What is the Minister's response to criticism by the Finnish Foreign Minister that Ireland is treating the issue of the voting weights as a bilateral issue between Germany and France on one side and Poland and Spain on the other, rather than involving other member states? What is the Minister's response to the view that small member states are being asked to accept more majority voting and the loss of a seat in the Commission while larger member states seek to insulate themselves from the effects of these changes by lifting the weighted majority threshold as high as 65% and increasing intergovernmentalism generally through the creation of the office of a permanent President of the Council?
It was seen in the Nice treaty that the desire to achieve a result rather than to solve problems can lead to an imperfect solution. Will the Minister agree that no result at the June summit would be better than a fudge? There are difficulties in respect of some countries and also the possibility of the rejection of a referendum. Following what I heard at the COSAC meeting, I have the case of Denmark in mind where the referendum could be rejected if each member state does not have a Commissioner.
On the question of the weighted voting system to be adopted by the Council, the Government is continuing its bilateral discussions with everyone regarding the problem. This is one of the more difficult issues which must be resolved. It is not a question of dealing solely with a few member states. Therefore the Government is dealing with all member states. Next Monday, 24 May, an opportunity will arise within the IGC format at a meeting which I have convened on that day to deal with these wider institutional questions. This will allow for a collective discussion on these matters.
The Presidency is making available on the world-wide web all its documentation pertaining to those issues where a broad consensus has existed and pertaining to proposals for the orientation-type debates that are taking place. The aim is to inform the Presidency and inform everyone of the range of views that exist. This means when the Presidency puts forward a proposal, people will have a clear understanding of why the Presidency is proceeding in a certain way in an effort to achieve full consensus. In reply to the first part of the Deputy's question, those issues will be discussed in plenary session of the IGC next Monday.
The last thing Ireland or any small country wishes is the notion of gridlock in decision-making. We need decisions at European level. The integration of the Irish economy into the wider European economy has been the greatest economic development in this country since independence. It has brought us the standard of living we all now enjoy in the main but not exclusively. The extension of qualified majority voting, QMV, is a facet of every treaty that has been signed since Amsterdam and Maastricht. Increasing numbers of QMV decisions have been taken in a wider range of areas. It amounted to 30 in the case of the Nice treaty. We were prepared to move on 47 out of 49 in Nice. The collective decision ultimately was just 30. In the proposed draft constitutional treaty it has been suggested by a colleague of mine that up to 42 new areas will move to QMV. That is to be welcomed because it will create more effective decision-making.
Moving to QMV from unanimity does not in itself guarantee more effective decision-making. Another part of achieving that is the type of voting system that will be agreed at the Council. This has yet to be fully discussed and decided upon.
There is no question of a fudge, as the Deputy suggests. It is a question of achieving a balance. It is not the role of the Presidency to be an advocate for one particular country which on one side of the argument might be very much in favour of further integration and further QMV and in another situation might not be as advanced as other countries. People have different positions on a wide range of issues. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The ambition of the Presidency is not dimmed. The Government's approach is realistic but will also ensure that advances are made on the present treaty provisions as agreed at Nice and before.
2 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views and those of the other European Union Foreign Ministers on the establishment of a high level independent international tribunal to examine compliance with the Geneva Conventions on all sides since the invasion of Iraq. [14777/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra5 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a clear protest against the torture of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers when President Bush visits Ireland in June 2004; if he has already made such a protest to the US administration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14865/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 5 together.
The Government has publicly and strongly condemned the mistreatment and abuse of prisoners in Iraq by US and UK forces. It made its concerns known directly to the US and UK authorities when the allegations first came to light.
The Government fully supports the recent insistence by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, that all detainees should be fully protected in accordance with the provisions of international human rights law. Moreover, Security Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003 calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law. The treatment of prisoners of war is specifically covered by the third Geneva Convention.
On Monday, the EU Council of Ministers, acting on the initiative of the Irish Presidency, adopted the following conclusions. The Council expressed its abhorrence at recent evidence of the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraqi prisons. It condemned any instances of abuse and degradation of prisoners in Iraq, which are contrary to international law, including the Geneva Conventions. It welcomed the commitment by the relevant governments to bring to justice any individuals responsible for such acts involving the abuse of Iraqi detainees, and their commitment to rectify any failure to adhere to international humanitarian law.
I have also been active in ensuring that similar statements were included in the Presidency conclusions issued after last week's EuroMed ministerial meeting in Dublin and in the joint communiqué adopted at Monday's meeting between the European Union and the Gulf Co-operation Council.
The issue of the abuse of prisoners by US personnel was raised at last Friday's meeting between G8 Foreign Ministers and President Bush and the subsequent ministerial meeting, both of which I attended. President Bush and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, condemned the mistreatment of prisoners in the strongest possible terms and expressed the Administration's determination that those responsible should be brought to justice. I am confident this matter will be raised next month at both the G8 summit and the EU-US summit.
Several formal investigations led by senior military officials are under way. The US military has filed criminal charges against a number of soldiers who are accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners and several senior officers have been reprimanded. As regards the UK, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, briefed the EU External Relations Council yesterday on his Government's investigation into allegations of prisoner abuse. He made clear that such abuse would not be tolerated, all allegations were being thoroughly investigated and anybody found to be responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners would be brought to justice. He confirmed that recent photographs published by the Daily Mirror showing abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British troops were forgeries.
In addition to these inquiries into the specific allegations of abuse, an independent report on human rights in Iraq is being prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This report will examine the period between April 2003 and May 2004. It will cover, among other issues, the treatment of prisoners in detention. Given that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is regarded as independent and that preparation of its report is already under way, I do not consider it timely to seek an independent international tribunal to examine compliance with the Geneva Convention since the invasion of Iraq. I await with interest the publication of the high commissioner's report. In addition, the US and UK Governments are now clearly focusing on their own internal investigations.
The recent evidence of prisoner abuse in Iraq has reminded the entire international community of the need to respect and maintain international law regarding the treatment of prisoners. The Government will continue to work to reinforce this point and thereby ensure that something positive may yet come from this appalling episode.
On a point of order, did the Minister indicate that he was answering Questions Nos. 2 and 5 together?
Yes.
He certainly did not answer Question No. 5.
The matter does not arise.
It is not the first time he has failed to answer a question.
I am grateful for the Minister's long reply. In one sentence, he disposed of the substance of the first question which asked whether he favoured an independent international tribunal, as favoured by Amnesty International and others, to examine compliance with the Geneva Convention on all sides since the invasion of Iraq.
While his statement on behalf of the Presidency on Monday evening is welcome, the absence of a statement by the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Presidency for such a long time after the atrocious acts in question took place caused great concern. Was the Minister aware of the report issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross last year? Does he agree the report suggests systematic abuse, rather than aberrant behaviour by a few individuals or those who have already been punished, to whom he referred? This raises a further question as to why, in the long period since the publication of the report, during which the Minister informed the House that he could not provide figures on the number of prisoners being held in Iraq, the issue of the systematic torture and abuse of prisoners was not addressed.
Is the Minister in a position to state that all those detained by US and British forces have available to them the protections of the Geneva Convention? He quoted the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who has indicated that many people are citizens in disguise and that he will not accord the protections of the Geneva Convention to all of those detained. Is the Minister indicating that the Secretary of State's position has changed or that all prisoners are now in the same category of protection? Is this not a matter of interest to the Presidency of the European Union?
Is it the Minister's view that a female reservist aged 21 years from West Virginia who lived in a trailer park before joining the US army has suddenly invented these horrors with a couple of other people, given that photographs are available showing people standing around supervising torture and breaches of the Geneva Convention? The Minister is unable even to indicate how many people are being held prisoner in Iraq, the prisons in which they are being held or the level of protection they have been afforded.
Is the Minister suggesting that because the photographs which appeared in the Daily Mirror have been proved to be fake, British soldiers have not committed abuses? The British Ministry for Defence has sat on cases reported to it last year in breach of every known convention. Is it not disgraceful that we have been silent and waited so long to express an opinion?
I do not agree with the Deputy. The Government has publicly and strongly condemned the mistreatment and abuse of prisoners in Iraq by US and UK forces. I made the point regarding the statement by the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Straw, on the photographs in the Daily Mirror for the purpose of providing information to the House. Mr. Straw also clearly stated that any member of the military under UK command would be answerable for any mistreatment, abuse or non-compliance with Geneva Convention requirements. I made the same point regarding the United States.
As regards the question on whether I support an independent tribunal, I simply made the point that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, which is regarded as independent, is conducting such an investigation and I await the findings of its report.
I did not personally have the contents of the Red Cross report but as soon as these matters came to light, the international community demanded that they be dealt with in a proper, transparent and comprehensive manner. Democracies must respond in a manner which shows that those who do not comply with requirements or meet their responsibilities will be held to account. We must also ensure that such incidents never happen again.
I share Deputies' abhorrence at what happened. I am simply informing the House that independent investigations are taking place, the outcome of which we await. We also await the results of the current congressional investigations and the manner in which countries whose forces have been involved in this type of behaviour deal with it.
Instead of using mealy-mouthed words in the House, will the Minister and the Taoiseach condemn these acts of abuse and torture to George W. Bush's face when he arrives here in June? There seems to be a pattern whereby the Minister claims, on the one hand, that he is on the side of the Americans while, on the other, that he is representing the values of the European Union.
Let us get to the nub of the issue. Does the Minister accept the reports published by the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International? In particular, does he accept the most damning evidence provided by Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine who has stated that abuse and torture were systematic and part of a secret operation approved by Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice of which George W. Bush was aware? If that is the case, does he agree the best possible protest he could make would be to withdraw facilities at Shannon Airport for the American war effort in Iraq? What will it take for the Minister to act in a responsible way and to show he totally abhors this abuse and torture?
I will probably never be able to compete with the level of indignation the Deputy experiences while he questions everyone else's sincerity when they do not engage in the semantics and rhetoric in which he engages all the time.
It is not rhetoric.
I represented the EU Presidency correctly on this matter. I have had no criticism from colleagues about it. I stated our position clearly at every meeting and engagement the EU had with Arab countries, the Gulf Co-operation Council and President Bush and Secretary of State Powell. When the EU-US summit takes place in Ireland, these matters will be discussed, as they will at the G8 summit. We will make that clear consistently, as we have done.
Processes are in place to deal with these appalling events. Six congressional investigations are taking place in respect of the country concerned. The human rights commissioner's report is independent and I hold the International Red Cross in the highest esteem. I met the director general both here and in Geneva before Ireland took up the Presidency, and possibly during it, if I recall correctly. I need no lectures in this regard. I accept there has been an appalling breakdown, which needs to be addressed transparently. That is what democratic societies do.
Why will the Minister not withdraw the facilities provided at Shannon?
Shannon is a constant fixation of the Deputy's. The present political and diplomatic effort at the UN is to bring forward a resolution that will address the hand-over to an interim Government in Iraq from 1 July, consistent with transitional administrative law and to be decided upon by Iraqis themselves, and how the UN can create a political transition to end occupation and restore sovereignty to Iraq.
What has that got to do with Shannon?
Exactly.
I call Question No. 3. Twelve minutes were allotted for the two questions and they have concluded.
The Minister did not answer the question about Shannon.
The Chair has no responsibility in that regard.
3 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the action he can take to help ensure the safe repatriation of the Colombia three following the recent trial verdict. [14784/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraSince the judge's decision in the case was announced on 26 April, officials from our embassy in Mexico, which is also accredited to Colombia, have been in close contact with the Colombian authorities, as well as the Dutch Ambassador in Bogota, who is representing our interests, and the Irish Honorary Consul in Bogota and they have reported back to me on a regular basis.
The judgment permits the men to be released from prison under "conditional freedom", on payment of a bond which is refundable at the end of their sentence. The amount of the bond for the three men is approximately €17,000. My Department has indicated that, to secure their early release and at the request of the defence team, it is willing to advance the funds to facilitate the payment of this bond, to expeditiously secure their safe release on the basis of a firm undertaking to repay this sum.
The present position is that the Attorney General of Colombia has lodged an appeal against the judgment in the case. The men's lawyers made a petition to the judge to allow them to leave the country after their release from prison while the appeal was being heard. Both the Taoiseach and I sent personal messages to the Colombian President and Foreign Minister respectively reiterating the desirability of facilitating the men's early departure from Colombia as the best way of ensuring their safety.
The judge ruled against the petition of the defence and, consequently, the men are required to remain in Columbia for the duration of the appeal. I have asked the Colombian authorities to expedite the hearing of the appeal so that this case can be concluded as quickly as possible. I assure the Deputy that, as from the start of this case, the Department of Foreign Affairs will continue to do its utmost to ensure the safety and well-being of the three men.
Both I and the families of the three men are appreciative of the work of the Minister and his officials. I have followed this case at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Minister has been interested in it and has done everything to the best of his ability, as have other Members, including Deputy Finian McGrath, who attended the trial. Appeals in Colombia can take years and there is no safe place for the men there. They have been found innocent of the main charge and they have served two years and nine months in appalling conditions in prison for a relatively minor offence. Does the Minister agree justice demands the men should be permitted to leave Colombia pending an appeal?
Will he clarify whether he or the Taoiseach has made direct contact with President Uribe or members of the Colombian Government? That is required to ensure the men are repatriated. Given that they have been found innocent of the main charge and have spent a long time in dreadful conditions in prison, will the Minister and the Taoiseach take the next step, which is to contact President Uribe directly and ask that these men be repatriated?
Contacts have been made on the basis of instructions from us and they are made through our ambassador and the Spanish. It helps to ensure that is done properly. The person making contact speaks with the full authority of the Government.
The problem in this case, as always, is the Colombian Government cannot interfere in the judicial system in the same way I cannot in Ireland. By the same token, given that the case has been sent to three appeals judges and the previous judge is no longer in the picture, I will make representations in every effective and appropriate way I can to convince people they should allow for the conditional freedom to be effected in a way that will enable them to come home and return to Colombia when the appeal is ready to be heard. I share the legitimate concern of people about the time an appeal will take and we also are making our views known on that matter. The question of influencing the situation for the better remains our top priority and we will continue to do everything we can.
4 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the further action proposed, following the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, to ensure that all parties fully comply with their obligations under the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14852/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Independent Monitoring Commission was set up by the two Governments and has three main functions. It is mandated to monitor and report on paramilitary activity, security normalisation and participation by the Northern Ireland parties in the political institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement.
Its first report on paramilitary activity was published on 20 April and its conclusions and recommendations have been accepted by the two Governments. The commission has since been requested to make a report on security normalisation and has indicated that it intends to do so by July. Regrettably, due to the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is not currently possible for the commission to carry out its functions in relation to participation by the parties in the institutions of the Agreement.
The restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, the stable operation of all the political institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and the full implementation of all its commitments remain the Government's key priorities. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear on many occasions, the requirements for the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland include an end to paramilitary activity of all kinds, as required by paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration and, in that context, a commitment by all sides to full and wholehearted participation in the political institutions of the Agreement.
The Government will continue to engage with all parties, including in the context of the current review of the operation of the Agreement, with a view to the earliest resolution of these key issues of trust and confidence.
Is the Minister aware that, according to the commission's report, violence and crime are increasing in Northern Ireland? The report states that many paramilitary groups remain active and have the capacity to reopen a terrorist campaign. It also states that, while the number of murders has reduced, it is still high but has not exceeded 18 since the signing of the Agreement. However, the report points out that is not an insignificant number and the number of shootings and assaults between 1999 and 2002 was almost double the number between 1991 and 1994.
Given Northern Ireland's population of 1.17 million, is the Minister aware that the report indicates that these figures would be the equivalent of 63,000 shootings in Britain at the same time? The report describes what it calls horrible violence. Is the Minister aware that a paramilitary group is suspected of hijacking a vehicle on the Border earlier this year which contained a consignment of tobacco worth €3 million? Is he concerned that an organisation has the capacity to fence and distribute such a consignment and use the proceeds to fund political activities?
The report states politicians must respond to this challenge. What further action is proposed in light of the very grave findings in the report?
Obviously, I am aware of the full contents of the IMC report. As the Deputy stated, paramilitary activity has not been eliminated from Northern Ireland, although we are in a totally different position qualitatively than we were in at the height of the conflict.
One depressing aspect of the report that might not have been highlighted so much as others is that the level of loyalist paramilitary violence is higher than it was before the ceasefire. The Deputy can be sure that, through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, there exists the fullest possible co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI with a view to dealing with all criminal activity. All activity of the kind mentioned by the Deputy is being fully investigated all the time. One would have serious problems with some sophisticated heists that may provide funds for other activities. This is obviously an issue for the Garda to investigate and on which it must provide evidence.
The wider issue in this context concerns the need for political progress in Northern Ireland. In the absence of politics and, more particularly, working politics, paramilitarism fills the void. This is in the nature of divided societies and it is a legacy of the violence we have seen over the past two generations. There is a need to address it. The Irish and British Governments are committed, through this review process, to trying to bring about a restoration of the institutions. The relevant discussions are obviously more difficult than before, but they need to take place. The whole purpose of the engagement of the Irish Government is to bring to an end, once and for all, all forms of paramilitary activity and to ensure that the restoration of the institutions is consistent with the objectives and values of the Good Friday Agreement. It is not easy but we will not falter in our efforts. I believe the right circumstances can be created to deal with this matter appropriately.
Does the Minister agree there is another issue to be considered, namely that people seem to be involved in paramilitary organisations who are quite comfortable in their "cash, no-VAT" businesses? To draw them away from this is difficult. If somebody steals cigarettes to the value of €3 million, he obviously has business outlets in which to distribute and sell them. Is the Minister concerned that this culture still exists and that there is a financial disincentive for people to abandon paramilitarism because they have such business interests?
As the Deputy knows, there are people in every society with conditions such as those in Northern Ireland who try opportunistically to benefit, financially and otherwise, from such conditions. Unfortunately, this is a reality and we need to use all the forces of law and order to deal with it effectively. The level of co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána is at its maximum and there is certainly no reluctance in either jurisdiction to co-operate to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the rule of law.
We now have the Assets Recovery Agency and the Criminal Assets Bureau. Many developments have taken place and more tools are available to law enforcement agencies to deal with the problems. We must continue to support them in every way we can by providing resources and the other requisite supports they need to deal with this menace.
6 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the procedures in place for the transfer of persons and goods to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, now surrounded by European Union countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14531/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraArrangements regarding the transit of persons to and from Kaliningrad were agreed at the tenth EU-Russia Summit in Brussels on 11 November 2002. Both the EU and Russia consider that these arrangements have operated smoothly to date.
In light of the enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004, a detailed customs arrangement for the transit of goods to and from Kaliningrad was agreed in December 2003. Until a formal agreement is concluded, this arrangement will implement the principle of freedom of transit of goods between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of Russia.
The Joint Statement on EU Enlargement and EU-Russia Relations, adopted at the first EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council on 27 April 2004, commits the EU and Russia, as soon as they are ready from legal and practical points of view, to conclude a comprehensive agreement on the interconnection of the EU and Russian customs transit regimes. This agreement would also be applicable to the transit of goods to and from Kaliningrad.
In view of the very obvious tensions that have existed between the region in question and Russia in recent years, including tensions over the transfer of goods, people and services to Kaliningrad, will the Minister ensure that steps are taken during the Presidency to bring about a healing of the differences that exist and which could cause serious problems?
As I stated, I attended the first EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council on 27 April last. This is a very significant development in that it mirrors the idea of sectoral councils in which meetings take place between justice and home affairs Ministers, transport Ministers and finance Ministers. In other words, there is now an institutional framework for a far greater degree of co-operation and dialogue between Russia and the EU to deal with some of the problems that have arisen in the aftermath of enlargement.
One of the important objectives of our Presidency was to ensure the Permanent Partnership Council agreements were signed prior to enlargement. As one knows, these negotiations went right up to the wire and were concluded very successfully to the satisfaction of all the applicant countries.
Will the Minister indicate what he considers to be the status of Kaliningrad? Is it a governorship, an autonomous trading area or a special trading area with the European Union? In other words, do its relationships, as referred to in the question, require the assent of the Russian Government on every occasion?
Before the Minister replies, I will allow a very brief question from Deputy Durkan.
Will the Minister in his reply, refer to the 300,000 stateless Russians in Latvia, which, as he knows, have caused problems in the past? Under the new conditions that prevail——
I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister to reply. We are running out of time.
Under the new conditions that prevail, it is important to deal with the associated tensions earlier rather than later.
On that point, we are absolutely satisfied that the newly acceded countries meet the Copenhagen criteria, which involve respect for minorities. The Commission is engaged with the Governments of the relevant countries in promoting programmes that will enable the rights of minorities to be vindicated and validated in every way possible, consistent with the territorial independence and integrity of the countries in which they live.
Kaliningrad is an integral part of the Russian Federation. Given Kaliningrad's strategic location, any potential prospects for its development should obviously be explored by both Russia and the European Union in the years ahead.
7 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his travel plans and overseas engagements to the end of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14535/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs holder of the EU Presidency, Ireland hosts a wide range of regular meetings in Brussels as well as representing the Union at a range of meetings in Ireland and in third countries. In this regard, the following is a list of my confirmed overseas engagements until the end of the Presidency.
Tomorrow and Friday, I will be in Moscow for the EU-Russia summit. I will attend the Arab League summit in Tunis, which is on Saturday, and the EU-Latin America-Caribbean summit in Mexico next week. On 14 and 15 June, I will chair the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg and I will attend the European Council in Brussels on 17 and 18 June. There will also be a GAERC meeting next Monday, 24 May.
Following the conclusion of the Presidency, I will review my travel plans for the remainder of 2004. However, I can confirm that I will attend the General Affairs and External Relations Council meetings in July, September, October, November and December, God willing. I will also attend the meetings of the European Council in Brussels in November and December.
With regard to the Arab League summit, does the Minister intend to use his considerable influence in that area with a view to accelerating the discussions that have taken place in a haphazard way between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
When the last scheduled summit of the Arab League was postponed, I went to Cairo to speak to the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mr. Maher, and President Mubarak. I spoke to my Tunisian colleague yesterday on the phone and I am looking forward to attending the Arab League summit in Tunis. Arrangements have yet to be confirmed but I hope, given that we are holders of the Presidency, that I will be able to address the league on the efforts we continue to make in the development of our neighbourhood policy through developing a strategic partnership with the Mediterranean and Middle East region.
With regard to the peace process, I welcome the recent meetings between the Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice and Abu Allah in Berlin. Despite what is happening in Rafah and the continuation of a difficult situation, let us hope that the re-engagement taking place shows there is an interlocutor for peace on the Palestinian side, as there always has been. Perhaps the Arab League will be able to reiterate its commitment to the Beirut initiative which sets out a prospect for normalisation of relations between the Arab world and Israel on the basis of a negotiated settlement based on the 1967 borders with final status matters to be negotiated between the parties directly, as confirmed at the Quartet meeting in New York recently.
Does the Minister agree that the thousands of dispossessions and people rendered homeless in Rafah make the meeting particularly urgent? Will the meeting facilitate an initiative that will respond to what is happening at present, which probably renders the more positive aspects of the agenda fragile? Will the Minister say what has been happening, by way of a European Union initiative or an initiative on his behalf since events in Rafah were drawn to his attention?
Javier Solana and Marc Otte, the EU representative in the region, have been doing what they can to impress upon the Israeli Government the severity of the actions being taken in Rafah. They involve not only destruction of property but also deaths. The concern is that the action in Rafah is in preparation for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. It is the quartet's strong view that such a withdrawal could have the potential to reactivate the roadmap if certain criteria are met. Obviously, the Arab League will have something to say about the situation there at present.
I will meet Saeb Erekat today at 4.10 p.m. before meeting a delegation from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. I will get an update from him. The Arab League must deal with statements on the present situation in the Middle East, its preparedness to put the Beirut initiative on the table and a commitment from the region regarding reforms and the need to meet the significant requirements and needs of that part of the world as outlined in the 2002 UN development report from Arab intellectuals. The important point the EU has been making in its interaction in the Euro-Med process, the G8 process and in the EU-US context — I met the Secretary of State in Washington in preparation for the EU-US summit — is there must be recognition of the importance of reform deriving from the region itself as the only way to sustain progress in this area.
May I ask another question?
There are two problems, Deputy. The first is that we have run out of time on this question and the other is that we are going outside the remit of the question. There will be an opportunity on Question No. 10 on the same subject.
8 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps being take to progress the Lisbon agenda in the final weeks of Ireland’s Presidency of the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14526/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Lisbon agenda was considered at the spring European Council on 25 and 26 March, chaired by the Taoiseach. Discussion focused on the priority issues of sustainable growth and employment. Following the successful outcome of the European Council, the focus of work in this area is on ensuring that key Lisbon agenda dossiers are finalised or advanced before the end of Ireland's Presidency.
The Irish Presidency has secured agreement on a number of important Lisbon agenda dossiers. These include the transparency and financial instruments markets directives of the financial services action plan, the second railway package and the revised trans-European networks guidelines. Agreement has also been reached on the reform of EU Regulation No. 1408 aimed at making it easier for EU citizens to access social insurance entitlements in other member states. The introduction of the European health insurance card on 1 June will simplify access to necessary health care for any European citizen while on a temporary stay in another member state.
In addition, political agreement has just been reached in Council on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and we also hope to reach agreement on a further dossier, which is the Europass. These two dossiers are aimed at facilitating citizens in having their educational and professional qualifications recognised throughout the Union. The June European Council is expected to note progress achieved on a number of major dossiers relevant to the implementation of the Lisbon agenda.
We are also engaged in the process of preparing Ireland's national contribution to the mid-term review of the Lisbon agenda. All member states were asked at the spring European Council to prepare national inputs to the mid-term review in consultation with national reform partnerships. These national inputs, in addition to the report due in November this year by the recently established independent high level group headed by Wim Kok, will be considered by the European Commission in its report to the spring European Council next year.
It was indicated that Ireland would become the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. However, many people now indicate that Ireland is at the lower end of the European scale in terms of research and development. Given that Europe is at the lower end of the scale in comparison with the US, Ireland, as a competitor in the worldwide economy, is at a serious disadvantage unless recognition is given to the targets for 2010 and the need to make headway in bringing the country back to the position it held eight or nine years ago.
Many initiatives have been taken by the Government and its predecessor on funding both pure and applied research through the establishment of Science Foundation Ireland and the significant moneys made available for it. This has been well received by the heads of our third level institutions where this research is taking place. Clearly, there is a need to improve the level of funding throughout Europe for research and development. It is one of the Lisbon agenda indicators which is not being met.
According to recent reports on investment coming into Europe, Ireland has been high up on the list after Britain and the Netherlands, as a recipient of significant high technology industrial investment. This is being resourced and labour is being provided from the investment we make in our educational system and the sciences generally.
We started from a low base ten or 15 years ago. When I was Minister for Health and Children, I recall the Health Research Board pointing out to me that there was a need for greater research facilities. The Government has been proactive in this area. I do not accept we are falling behind or complacent, or that we are not doing anything. While I do not suggest we are at the height of our powers in this area, I believe that thankfully many well qualified research scientists have returned to Ireland on the basis that the Government has been receptive to ideas as to how we might build research facilities here. I agree there is more to do but we are not at the back of the class, and Europe has much more to do.
Does the Minister agree that in addition to competitiveness and innovation the Lisbon Agenda also included the fundamental principles of social Europe? Is the Minister not concerned that so far in terms of social protection, the gaps have widened between countries with adequate social protection and Ireland, for example? Compared to Sweden with 33%, Ireland has 14%, which is second last. Is it not the case that the social dimension of the Lisbon agreement is growing further away from our attainment with incredible results in terms of inequality?
We must study exactly what these statistics mean. Some countries, which traditionally have had very high levels of social protection, are now facing reforms in these areas, particularly in terms of future pension provision. They are even coming under pressure to reform areas of basic benefits. In that context being prepared to consider reforms does not mean walking away from the principle of social protection but it means ensuring that social protection is sustainable into the future. Thankfully for us we are making the sort of future pension provision of which other countries are envious, even though our policy has been criticised in this House as we have not made use of the money for present requirements. However those, like the Deputy, who make the case for a social Europe and having social protection systems such as pensions in the future recognise the need to make that provision now. It is a question of balancing priorities.
The Deputy's wider question about the competitiveness of Europe and how we can ensure we do not move to what the Deputy would regard as a laissez-faire capitalist model is one of which I would also be mindful.
The Minister has gone right.
I am coming over to meet the Deputy.
9 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the conditions laid down for the use by foreign military aircraft of Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel; if his attention has been drawn to a recent incident in which a US military aircraft at Baldonnel flew a skull and crossbones flag; his views on whether this is appropriate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13389/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra105 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has raised with the US authorities the flying of a skull and crossbones flag on aircraft using Irish facilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14503/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 105 together.
I refer the Deputies to my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 212 of 6 April 2004 on this matter. In that reply I stated that the use of Shannon Airport by the US military is a long-standing practice, which has been in place for a number of decades. In this regard, the carriage of US troops by civilian aircraft carriers takes place in accordance with the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order 1973, as amended in 1989, for which the Minister for Transport has responsibility. This legislation is concerned specifically with the carriage of munitions of war and weapons and allows the Minister for Transport to issue exemptions for the carriage of such goods. There is no requirement for the identification of any specific military unit being transported.
Permission for foreign military aircraft to land, which is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, must take place in accordance with the provisions of the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, and is normally granted on certain conditions, including that the aircraft be unarmed and not carrying arms, ammunition and explosives.
Records show that the landing of the C-130 at Baldonnel military aerodrome in late March took place in conformity with these criteria. The flying of the Jolly Roger by that aircraft, which is an informal flag with no particular status, was raised with the United States Embassy. The embassy confirmed that the hoisting of unauthorised flags on US military aircraft is not permitted. Any further action would be a matter for the US authorities and we have made it clear we do not want to see a repeat.
The question remains as to why this airplane landed at Baldonnel rather than Shannon. Apparently it was suggested that it was flying between a US airbase and Sicily. When it happened a spokesperson for the Department of Defence suggested that the airplane was not flying either to or from a war zone. Who is in a position to establish the veracity of that? They were hardly going to a bridge conference in Sicily.
The flying of the Jolly Roger is a kind of what might be called US Air Force "laddism". These flags, which the Minister's reply states are unauthorised, are flown as the airplane goes into combat. That part was established. While I am not straying from the question, we know what informal "laddism" does in armies. Does the Minister regard it as offensive and unnecessary? Given that it landed on the Irish Air Corps strip in Baldonnel, is it not extraordinary that if the airplane complied with everything the Minister said — I do not question that if he tells me so — why did it land at Baldonnel and not use Shannon, for example?
I do not have that information here, but I can get it for the Deputy. I agree that the hoisting of that flag is not to be repeated and it is accepted as such.
Was an explanation sought or given as to why the flying of that flag should have been allowed? As we know from our school days, the flying of the Jolly Roger could denote piracy, poison or death. I presume it was meant to convey one or all of these in a way that encompassed bravado or "laddism", as my colleague, Deputy Michael Higgins, said. In the field of international relations it is not a great idea and some explanation should be provided for the incident.
The matter came to my notice on publication of the newspaper carrying the photograph, whereupon my officials on my behalf promptly brought the matter to the attention of the United States Embassy. We were clearly not happy with the situation. The embassy was very co-operative in investigating the matter and confirmed that the flying of livery by a US military aircraft other than officially sanctioned flags was against military regulations. The question of further action is a matter for the US authorities and I understand that the issue has been taken up internally by them. I particularly wanted to ensure such an action would not happen again and I am confident this is the case. I will find out for Deputy Higgins why the airplane landed at Baldonnel rather than Shannon, as I do not know,
10 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the status of the Quartet plan on the Middle East; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14671/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra40 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the Middle East peace roadmap; his view on whether the European Union, the United Nations and Russia have been sidelined in the process by the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14492/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra127 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the actions which have been undertaken by the Government to make clear, in particular to the Israeli authorities, its concern at the failure to progress the road map agreed by the Quartet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14883/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 40 and 127 together.
The current status of the road map is that neither party has met its commitments under it and that it is unlikely that the original timeframes envisaged in the road map can be met at this point. That said, the road map remains the preferred and only option of the international community and both parties have repeatedly declared their intention to implement it. The road map contains all the elements, which will be essential if a just and comprehensive settlement based on the objective of two states living in peace and security side by side is to be achieved.
I led the delegation of the European Union at a meeting of the Quartet in New York on 4 May. I was accompanied by the high representative, Javier Solana, and the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten. Other delegations were led by the Secretary General of the United Nations, the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of Russia. Discussion at the meeting was intense and focused on the principles underlying the peace process. All were agreed that the road map still represented the best way forward.
A statement was issued after the Quartet meeting in which all four participants reaffirmed their commitment to the road map and the principles of the peace process, which include the following: a settlement to be negotiated and agreed between the two parties on the basis of the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and other relevant documents; no prejudgment of final status issues; and unilateral initiatives to be consistent with the road map and the two-state solution.
The meeting also identified a series of measures to be taken by the Quartet in conjunction with the parties and international organisations to monitor progress and compliance by all sides. The special representative of the European Union for the Middle East peace process is currently pursuing more detailed discussions with our Quartet partners with a view to taking these measures forward. The meeting of the Quartet was conducted in an atmosphere of frankness and openness to differing views and on the basis of a shared determination to achieve a just and comprehensive peace. I do not consider that any member of the Quartet has been sidelined.
I took the opportunity of my meetings with the Israeli and Palestinian Foreign Ministers in Dublin on 5 May to make clear our continued commitment to the road map and our expectation of compliance by both side as set out in the Quartet statement.
Given the possible sidelining of some members of the Quartet, is the Minister satisfied their role is as significant as was intended? Can he indicate whether or not they are all included in the ongoing debate? We have all seen instances in which President Bush has encouraged a particular line at a specific time. That there is not always a chorus of support suggests some of the people involved are being sidelined.
All members of the Quartet are entitled to hold bilateral meetings with whomsoever they wish. The Tullamore declaration, which resulted from the Foreign Ministers' Gymnich meeting, made our position very clear. We are anxious to ensure the basic principles which have informed the peace process remain intact. While it is open to people like the supporters of the Geneva accord to surmise how the ultimate design of a full and final settlement may appear, it is important to avoid a scenario in which people believe negotiating cards are being taken from any party's hand. The reiteration that these matters must be agreed among the parties regardless of the views expressed at bilateral meetings was an important restatement of a fundamental principle which must be adhered to if we are to have a working negotiating process.
I support the Minister in any initiative which can be taken. This matter is far too important for any partisan advantage to be taken. I put it to the Minister without pleasure that it is very hard to reconcile the Sharon plan with the Quartet's fundamental proposals. As I listened to his reply, I agreed with the Minister that it is important for all parties to the Quartet's original proposals on the road map to play all the cards and maintain all the key components he listed. The Sharon plan does not do that. The Tullamore declaration and the other statements have indicated a willingness to consider proposals if a withdrawal from Gaza can be reconciled with the road map. It is clear the Sharon plan rows back on some of the fundamentals of the road map and the Quartet's original proposals. This is particularly true in the case of UN resolutions on settlements and a series of other areas.
I do not know how the Minister can answer this. Is it the case that the Tullamore declaration put the best possible face on a clear breach of the road map in the Sharon plan? If that is the case, is it not true that the original judgment that one could somehow operate with the Sharon plan on a temporary basis has been proved entirely false by recent events? I say that with no celebration. We must return to the original principles if we are to make any progress.
I will answer as best I can. The Tullamore declaration is a very clear restatement of the EU's view of the road map and the way in which this process should work. It has the merit of being a far clearer exposition of our position than any previous statement one can find. That degree of clarity was required when the declaration was made.
In the context of Mr. Sharon's unilateral withdrawal, I agree that unilateralism will not solve the problem or, by definition, bring about a negotiated settlement. There has been total gridlock in which the process has gone nowhere due to requirements of sequencing and the raising of certain issues. In that context, we are prepared to consider the potential of a declaration that a full withdrawal from occupied lands will take place if it meets certain criteria and can be shoe-horned into the road map process. While many pessimists claim that will not happen, it is the responsibility of the Quartet to ensure it does. Any withdrawal from Gaza must be full and complete. There can be no question of the Israeli Defence Forces returning whenever it suits or determining according to its own security requirements that a reoccupation should take place. There must be an assurance that those who leave the Gaza settlements do not move to the West Bank. There can be no question of moving settlers from one occupied territory to another.
We must make it clear that we will support a proposal and work with people on the basis that it is part of a two state solution. Any process must ensure an orderly transfer to the Palestinian Authority. If we allow unilateralism to proceed without any effort by us to control it or create circumstances in which a proposal can be used to effect positive change, there will be total chaos in Gaza. There will be a withdrawal simply to suit Israel. We contend strongly that as the occupying force, Israel has responsibilities in terms of the reconstruction of Gaza. The European taxpayer cannot be expected to build up the port and airport if they are to be thrashed in five weeks or five months. Certain assurances are necessary and a monitoring system must be put in place. The Secretary General of the UN has spoken about the opportunity provided by the Sharon plan despite its unilateral nature to bring in a monitoring presence. It may be possible to establish a process of withdrawal like the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon where a UN presence was achieved to ensure it was complete and in line with international law.
While this is not the most hopeful time in the Middle East peace process, the Quartet has a responsibility to consider any initiative which comes our way to establish whether it can be used as a mechanism to reactivate a road map which has been moribund for months. We must ask if we can use this as an opportunity to effect an orderly transfer to the Palestinian Authority to build up its capacity to operate within Gaza again. We wish to ensure the withdrawal is not merely to the outskirts of Gaza with the creation of a reservation. The economic life of Gaza must be reinvigorated and prospects for its inhabitants provided. The Palestinian Authority must have control over its airspace and ports and access to the sea. There are many ways in which the daily lives of the Palestinian people in the area can be improved if the international community decides to engage based on certain criteria which are consistent with the road map ultimately becoming operational.
Is the Minister satisfied the EU has a sufficiently major role and will be allowed to play it in the same way as the USA and other players?
I can see how the Tullamore declaration requires the best possible spin to be put on the meeting between Mr. Sharon and President Bush. I am being positive but one must exercise judgment. The Sharon plan did not provide airspace control or a number of other functions to the new Palestinian entity. Since its announcement, there has been an expansion of the settlements on the West Bank and an appropriation of property in east Jerusalem. All the indications are that Mr. Sharon never had any intention of living with the Sharon-Bush plan described by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The present American position is akin to riding two horses. On the one hand, there is a commitment to the road map through the Quartet and, on the other, there is the co-sponsorship of a proposal that cuts the ground from under the road map's significant proposals.
Though I agree that the Sharon plan is brilliant in its vagueness, I disagree with the Deputy's argument. We will not accept withdrawal from Gaza unless certain criteria set out in the Tullamore declaration are met. It was interpreted by helpful colleagues as putting a good face on the plan. Though not many positive aspects could be drawn from the interpretation of the bilateral meeting, we drew what we could from it and held to those promises at the Quartet meeting. It was reconfirmed at the meeting that the final status issues are for negotiation between the parties. We must work with what we have in a way that does not undermine the road map. Criteria have been set that need to be met for us to participate constructively in making withdrawal from Gaza a contribution to the operation of the road map.
There are those on both sides whom it suits to claim that the sole supporter of Israel is the US and the sole supporter of Palestine is the EU. That simplistic approach is used by those who do not want to see the EU, the US, the UN and the Russian federation bring their respective and various strengths to bear on the different parties to implement a common analysis set out in the road map. That is why the Quartet is an important new feature in attempts to resolve this conflict. Unfortunately, I admit, it has not brought the success I would have liked. However, we will continue to work through the different political and diplomatic channels to convert this difficult background into a positive one.
On the ground, it is now near impossible for the Palestinian Authority to meet the preconditions that are set down for the next stage. The events at Rafah undermine the only negotiating party for the Palestinians, leading to a growth in influence of extra-constitutional groups. I do not see the US relationship to the Sharon plan as anything other than an abuse of power. One wants to see the exercise of power as a commitment to the whole process rather than to a singular party which is now altering an alternative challenge to the road map.
At the international Quartet meeting in New York, the US made a public recommitment to the road map as the only basis to a full and final settlement to this problem. There is a need to build up the capacity of the Palestinian Authority. One can contend that part of Israeli policy has been to give the impression to the wider world that there is no interlocutor for peace on the other side. However, the Palestinian Authority needs to be as proactive as possible. This weekend the Arab League conference must use the opportunity to confirm there is an interlocutor for peace on the other side, based on UN resolutions.
The Palestinian Authority should also take the opportunity to test the bona fides of its prospective partner as to whether the withdrawal from Gaza can be a building block to the full implementation of the road map. The international community, the EU in particular, has established criteria consistent with road map which will determine our support, or otherwise, for it. The direct engagement by the US Secretary of State and the US National Security Adviser with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority was an important development. It is hoped that this re-engagement will help overcome the stasis seen in the past due to the policy of isolation of Mr. Yasser Arafat.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
