Item 2 deals with preparations for the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on 21 and 22 October and the European Council meeting on 24 and 25 October. I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for coming to the committee as part of his preparations for the upcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in Luxembourg. It is important to note that this Council meeting will also see the final preparations for the European Council meeting which will take place in Brussels on 24 and 25 October. Today we have an opportunity to hear about the preparations being made and to offer our views. The Department of Foreign Affairs has provided a briefing on all agenda items. The briefing follows the structure which the Council meeting will follow - a session on external relations and a session on general affairs which includes the European Council.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I am glad of the opportunity to appear before this committee. This meeting takes place in advance of the next General Affairs and External Relations Council to be held in Luxembourg on 21 and 22 October and the European Council meeting which will be held in Brussels on 24 and 25 October.
This will be the first meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in the format agreed at the Seville European Council in June 2002. The Council will meet over two days and will have separate agendas each day. The first session will deal with external relations and the second will deal with general affairs. The meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council will focus on preparation of the European Council as agreed at Seville. Two items have been listed for discussion at the forthcoming European Council, namely enlargement and Kaliningrad. I propose to focus on enlargement in my introductory remarks followed by a few words on the Middle East and on human rights in Iran. I will also comment on the current situation with regard to Iraq although that subject is not on the Council's agenda.
The meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council will help ensure the EU is in a position to negotiate the final issues with the candidate countries regarding enlargement. It will take place in the immediate aftermath of the Nice referendum. The Government hopes it will be in a position to report that Ireland has ratified the Treaty of Nice. This will allow the EU to meet the major goal it set itself of completing the enlargement negotiations this year and so providing the means to achieve the historic task of accession by ten countries in 2004. The meeting will have before it last week's Commission progress reports on accession which underline for us the significance of the decision we have to take in casting our vote on the Nice treaty this Saturday, 19 October. By saying "Yes" to Nice, we will open the door to ten new member states and future partners in the European Union.
The Government welcomes the progress reports on the accession negotiations and will take the opportunity at the General Affairs and External Relations Council to say this and to encourage the Brussels European Council later that week to accept the recommendations made by the Commission. They clearly conclude that ten countries meet the requirements of membership and are ready to finish negotiations at the end of 2002 and to sign a Treaty of Accession in Spring 2003. It will then be up to them to take the final decision to join the Union.
It is now clear beyond all doubt that speculation on how a smaller number of new members might be accommodated is entirely pointless and redundant. The enlargement process has been long and arduous. The candidate countries have made huge efforts, and the transformations they are continuing to undergo have involved commitment and courage. It is now up to the Union to play its part. If enlargement is to take place as planned Nice must be ratified.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Governments and peoples of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Cyprus and Malta on their success in fulfilling the demanding standards for EU membership. Through much hard work, they have adapted their countries and their economies to meet the criteria laid down in Copenhagen in 1993, namely stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union; and the ability to take on the obligations of membership.
The intention is that the new member states will join in 2004. Ireland will then hold the European Union Presidency. If enlargement takes place on schedule, we will have the honour of welcoming our new partners in what will undoubtedly be a moment of major historic significance for our Continent. On Saturday, the Irish people will have a unique opportunity to make their contribution to ensuring peace, prosperity and stability across Europe.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council and the European Council will focus on the issues which remain to be addressed in the limited time available to complete the enlargement negotiations. The Presidency wants all common positions to be agreed at the October summit so they can be put to the candidates at a specially convened summit on 28 October in Copenhagen. The timetable is now very tight and this requires that we address as many technical and financial issues as possible at the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council and European Council.
Turning to the external relations session of the Council, the situation in the Middle East has not improved since the last General Affairs and External Relations Council. The lifting of the siege on President Arafat's headquarters on 29 September was a welcome development but does not represent full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1435. The terrible carnage in Khan Younis on 7 October has further embittered relations between parties. High representative Javier Solana will brief the Council on his recent visit to the region during which he met leaders of Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt. Foreign Minister Peres will join Ministers for lunch which will provide an opportunity for a frank discussion and exchange of views. I hope to have the opportunity to make Ireland's perspective on the situation in the Middle East clear to him.
A six week period up to mid-September elapsed without civilian casualties within the Green Line. Israel failed to respond while more than 50 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces. The Israeli Government needs to make a real commitment to the peace process. In the statement I issued deploring the violence at Khan Younis on 7 October I said, "it is more than ever vital for both sides to return to the negotiating table and to work together with the international community in a serious and determined effort to build peace."
I welcomed the Quartet statement of 17 September as a useful beginning. We hope to see a definitive Quartet road map ready for adoption at its meeting in Copenhagen in early December. It is hoped Quartet representatives will meet again later this month to continue work on the road map.
The definitive road map will need to be explicit, both on measures to be taken and timeframes. This is essential if it is to offer the Palestinians the necessary political perspective on the ending of the occupation and the establishment of a state of their own. It must incorporate political, economic. humanitarian and security steps which are parallel and reciprocal. The burden of responsibility must be shared equitably between Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides must accept their obligations. Conditionality must not be excessive and it should not provide pretexts for either side to evade its responsibilities. It is not enough that the process should be performance driven. It must also be time bound. It is important all states support the work of the Quartet. It is encouraging that the United States, whose active participation is essential to any peace process, seems to be engaging again. Prime Minister Sharon will soon visit Washington and a senior US representative will tour the region soon afterwards.
The GAERC will also consider the European Union's policy on the human rights situation in Iran in which Ireland, in common with its EU partners, has long-standing concerns about the human rights situation. The authorities in Iran continue to make use of the death penalty and torture. Equally, there is institutionalised discrimination on the basis of religion and gender. In common with our partners, the Government has conveyed its concerns about these shortcomings to the Iranian authorities and takes a continuing interest in measures which might lead to an improvement in the situation within Iran. For many years the European Union has co-sponsored resolutions at appropriate international fora calling on Iran to comply with its existing obligations under international humanitarian law and ratify those international human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which it has still not ratified.
In recent months the European Union has been in discussion with Iran concerning the possibility of a human rights dialogue. The GAERC will consider a recommendation that the dialogue go ahead with a view to working with the Iranian authorities to address the concerns which we have repeatedly articulated during the years. The GAERC will also consider whether the European Union should this year sponsor a resolution at the UN General Assembly concerning the human rights situation in Iran. The ultimate aim of our policy is the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground. Ireland believes this can best be advanced by pursuing both courses in parallel.
Although the question of Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions is not on the agenda, I would like to make some comments on the current situation. Under the terms of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. All member states of the United Nations are bound by the UN Charter to carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Iraq is, therefore, obliged to comply with the conditions imposed on it by the Security Council.
The Government shares the growing international concern that the Iraqi regime poses a potential threat to regional security. Up until now Iraq has consistently failed to meet its obligations under international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions. Iraq's decision to admit weapons inspectors without preconditions and in accordance with those resolutions is clearly a highly important development and to be welcomed. Past experience shows that the performance of the Iraqi regime must be judged on action, not words.
We look forward to the earliest possible agreement on the return of the inspectors and the rapid commencement of work on the ground. We have watched closely the recent discussions of Hans Blix, head of the UN weapons inspection team, and Mr. Al Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the Iraqi authorities. These talks have resulted in provisional agreement on practical arrangements for the future work of the inspection team, although some issues remain to be finalised on the modalities of access. The question of access to presidential sites has not yet been addressed.
The Government believes diplomatic means continue to offer the best hope of resolving the current situation. Every effort should be made to avoid the use of military force which could have grave repercussions for the stability of the region. Discussions on Iraq are under way among the permanent five members of the Security Council. We are ready to study any proposal for a further Security Council resolution which would bring further clarity to the conditions under which the inspectors would operate and strengthen their ability to do their job. The Government is of the view that any decision to deploy military force in the event of continued Iraqi non-compliance should be taken by the Security Council. The Iraqi Government has the power to avoid further escalation by acceding in full to the demands of the Security Council in conformity with its obligations under the UN Charter. Such compliance would lead to the suspension and eventual removal of the present sanctions, thereby alleviating the current economic hardship faced by the Iraqi people.
I am happy to take questions from members of the committee on any of the agenda items scheduled for discussion at the GAERC and the European Council.
Perhaps we can review the agenda. We are now dealing with part 1 which deals with external relations. There are 11 items listed in the index, the first of which is the adoption of the provisional agenda which need not concern us. The second requires committee approval of the list of A items. We do not yet have that list. Perhaps the Minister will arrange for us to have a copy when it is to hand. We will now deal with Nos. 3 and 4, the Middle East and the western Balkans, and take Nos. 5, 7 and 8 together followed by No. 6, Russia, when we come to deal with Kaliningrad under the general affairs section.
Can we talk about Iraq?
Yes. We can have a discussion on Iraq because the Minister has introduced it. We can deal with it under Nos. 1 and 2.
On a point of order, will what happened in Bali be discussed at European level?
Yes. I am glad the Deputy raised that matter on which I was going to suggest the Minister make some comment. It is sure to come up, either at the General Affairs and External Relations Council or the European Council. Perhaps the Minister will comment when he has gathered his thoughts.
I will make a statement now. It is possible that this matter will come up for discussion over lunch at the General Affairs and External Relations Council.
The explosion on the island of Bali last Saturday in which almost 200 people died is the latest in a worrying series of terrorist incidents in Indonesia. On Saturday there were also explosions near the US Consulate in Bali and the Philippine Consulate in Monado on the island of Sulewesi. On Sunday I issued a statement strongly condemning this senseless act of violence. There can be no justification for murdering innocent people in this callous manner. This shocking attack achieves no political purpose other than to strengthen the resolve of the international community to fight terrorism.
I join the committee in extending condolences to the people of Indonesia and those other countries whose nationals have died in this atrocity. I understand there are reports that an Irish national may have been among those who lost their lives. Three Irish nationals have been injured and efforts to trace a number of others are ongoing. My Department is following up on these reports. I have sent a consular official from our embassy in Singapore to Indonesia to provide assistance. Furthermore, my Department has issued travel advice to Irish nationals not to travel to Indonesia or Bali at this time.
My Department will continue to monitor developments in the region as some of the militant organisations likely to have been behind Saturday's outrage are believed to have links to al-Qaeda.
The United Nations Security Council yesterday adopted Resolution 1348, which condemned the attack on Bali in the strongest terms as well as other recent terrorist attacks in other countries regarding them as a threat to international peace and security. Ireland played a full and active part in these discussions. The resolution further urges all countries to work together and co-operate with the Indonesian authorities in their efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice.
We are now dealing with items 3 and 4 on the agenda. Deputies may comment on the situation in Bali and Iraq if they so wish at this time.
I thank the Minister for taking time out to meet with us again. I agree with what the Minister had to say regarding the liberty to be given to the weapons inspectors in Iraq. We should, as the Minister stated, judge that by actions and not words. Has any progress been made on a draft resolution coming before the Security Council? There was talk that a draft resolution was being discussed by members of the Security Council. Obviously, there are differences regarding the context of such a resolution. In the event of weapons inspectors not being given the freedom to do their job, is a draft resolution being prepared?
It is appropriate that this committee pass a resolution sending our condolences to the relatives of those who died and those wounded. We should, in any such resolution, utterly condemn the terrorists who committed this heinous act. We should also voice our support for the UN resolution in so far as we can seek to have the perpetrators of this appalling act brought to justice.
It is important we are clear where we stand as regards Iraq. We should stand full square behind the position of the United Nations. It is clear that Iraq has consistently breached UN Security Council resolutions. I had an opportunity last year in New York to meet with Hans Blix and others in attempts to inspect the weapons situation in Iraq. It is quite clear they were thwarted at every turn. I had heard talk of a new UN resolution. I am not sure if the Minister has any indication of the possible terms of such a resolution. Perhaps he could indicate what might be contained in any such resolution.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could give an indication as to the position in the event of there being no new UN resolution and the continuing refusal or failure on the part of Iraq to give full access to the weapons inspection team. It is important we are restrained in language when dealing with the Middle East. It is difficult to be restrained following the killing by Israeli forces - I will not use the word "murdered" - of 54 Palestinians last month. It is difficult to remain restrained when an Israeli missile is fired into a crowded street in Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip killing 15 people and wounding over 100 people. It appears Mr. Sharon feels he is licensed to kill at will. I feel utterly frustrated at the inability of the international community to bring home to Mr. Sharon the consequences of the continuation of that kind of murderous activity. I know the European Union is limited in this regard.
I would like if the Minister could carry from this meeting my very strong views and concern at the continuing activities of Israel which is killing Palestinians at will. They do not appear to have the slightest interest in finding a political solution to the problem.
I join with the Minister and previous speakers in condemning the heinous attack on Bali and in extending our sympathies to the relatives of those who died and those who are injured.
I have one specific question for the Minister. The briefing note on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was obviously drawn up before the election turn out at the weekend which was less than the 50% required. Has the Minister or his Department done any evaluation of the likely impact of having a re-run of that election and whether it is likely to have any destabilising effect on Yugoslavia or its surrounding states?
I am sure we all wish to join with the Minister in supporting the contents of the proposal put forward by Deputy O'Keeffe regarding Bali.
A dossier has been published by the British Government to the British Parliament - I raised this matter with the Minister of State at our last meeting - and we have received the very strong views of President Bush and his Administration. Would the Minister be in a position to provide some independent dossier to the Dáil in the event of the Security Council, the European Union or the GAC having to make its decision on Iraq known? I do not know what are the sources of independent information, be it the UN, the CSSP, Church sources or, perhaps, embassies abroad or at home. It is important this is done because it could, at sudden notice, come before the Dáil and we could be asked to vote on the matter. We are bereft of independent information. I wonder if it is possible for us to make Deputies aware of independent sources through which they might assess any possible resolution or steps regarding Iraq.
I note there is to be a frank discussion with Foreign Minister Peres over lunch. I know from experience that real business is often done over lunch. People can open up and express what is in their heart. I had a meeting this week with UNRWA regarding Palestine and the need for assistance for children suffering malnutrition. I understand the level of malnutrition among Palestinian children is as high as 25% and I ask the Minister to raise that issue to see what can be done to put pressure on the Israeli authorities through the European Union, but also through some of the sponsoring neighbouring countries, to improve the supply of food and aid to these children in particular.
I wish to be associated with the comments of other members of the committee on the situation in Bali. I broadly agree with the Government's position on the crisis in the Middle East but I have one question for the Minister. While there has not been full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1435, the Minister stated that the Government would support a decision to deploy a military force in the event of Iraqi non-compliance. While the two situations are not the same, some parallels do exist and I would like the view of the Government on that aspect.
I have one further question on Iraq. I fully support the Minister in his view that we need to pursue this issue through the United Nations Security Council but what would be the view, informally or otherwise, of the other EU member states in relation to the situation in Iraq and the action that should be taken? The position of the United States is well understood, as is the position of the United Kingdom, which is a member of the European Union. In so far as he can, will the Minister give an indication of the views of the other EU member states on military action in the region, and particularly the need to have a UN mandate?
I will take the questions in the order they were asked so that I can deal with them comprehensively. In relation to Deputy Mulcahy's question, there is no resolution available currently on Iraq. As I said in my statement, discussions are continuing among P5 members in particular. We have indicated our views, which are consistent with international law. We support the position of the Secretary General of the UN and the need to ensure that we use whatever means are available to us, including diplomatic, to resolve this problem if at all possible and, to take up the view of the Secretary General in his General Assembly statement, that in the event of continued defiance by the Iraqi regime, the need for the Security Council, in the interests of multilateralism, to discharge its responsibilities. However, we continue to hope that the efforts of the Secretary General and many who work within the UN can bring about a resolution to the problem without the necessity for the Security Council to consider military action under Article 42 of the UN charter. Until we have that resolution it is not possible to discuss it.
I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe that we stand four square behind the UN. As he said, a foreign affairs committee delegation met with many of the people who were dealing with this problem at a time of continued defiance by the Iraqi regime, non-compliance and attempts by some member states to break the sanctions regime. We had a very thorough and objective view from the UN regarding the actual intentions and actions of the Iraqi regime throughout that period. I disagree with any notion that there were actions the Iraqis could not take to resolve the problem in the interests of their own people. That remains the case and I would like to see emphasised in discussion on this question at Security Council level the need to maintain unity, enhance legitimacy in international law and show resolve to this regime that it cannot continue to defy the international community. In the absence of demonstrating resolve to regimes such as this, one has found that no progress has been made. It can be argued quite forcibly that the demonstration of resolve and the insistence upon compliance with resolutions has brought about a situation where the Iraqi regime, in discussions with Hans Blix and others, made some progress regarding agreeing practical arrangements for the inspectors to return to Iraq, although there are some critical areas on which non-agreement persists, presidential sites being one of them. We will continue in good faith to support the efforts of the United Nations to resolve these problems. These practical arrangements allow for the early return of the inspectors so that they can discharge their responsibilities and, under the terms of existing Security Council resolutions, identify and eliminate this capacity which has for ten years been designated as a threat to international peace and security by the United Nations. We continue to support the Secretary General in his efforts.
Regarding the reference to the Middle East by Deputy O'Keeffe, I share his sentiments. It is important that we make progress on these issues. Regarding what is happening on the ground, it is important to make known to the committee that after a period of six weeks, during which there were no terrorist attacks against targets within Israel proper, despite the killing of 54 Palestinians by Israeli forces, the period 17 to 19 September saw an attack on a Palestinian elementary school by Israeli terrorists and two suicide bombings in which a number of Israelis were killed. Israel responded to the attacks by sending heavy forces into Ramallah and laying siege to the compound of President Arafat. Israeli forces demolished all but one of the buildings in the compound and killed a further ten Palestinians. In the wake of international condemnation, including strong statements by the United States, Israeli forces withdrew from the compound and its immediate environments on 29 September but remained in Ramallah and maintained a curfew. Beyond this, Israel is refusing to engage politically with the Palestinians.
Israeli forces staged a major raid in the city of Khan Younis in the Gaza strip on 7 October. Some 15 people were killed and more than 100 wounded as a result of a missile fired by an Israeli aircraft into a crowded street. President Arafat wrote to the Taoiseach on 28 September thanking him for Ireland's efforts to secure Security Council Resolution 1435 and thanking him warmly for Ireland's support for the rights of the Palestinians.
Members can be assured that, from our point of view, there is a necessity for international humanitarian law to be respected in the first instance, together with an insistence that Israel react and interact with the quartet, which constitutes the political initiative, to move this process forward. That must happen quickly and we will continue to make those points consistent with the position of successive Irish Governments and which should be encompassed in respect of a comprehensive peace settlement. There is no major surprise in that. We need to see compliance with Security Council Resolutions 224, 338 and others. We also need the establishment of two states, including an independent state of Palestine which has relations with Israel, so that both are secure behind internationally recognised borders. There must also be a commitment from the international community to ensure the viability of that state is not continually threatened by violence, insurrection, invasion or occupation.
Regarding the matter raised by Deputy Pat Carey, it is regrettable that it was not possible to elect a new Serbian President in the second round elections on Sunday. At this stage the precise next steps must be determined. A mechanism will need to be found for the organisation of a new round of presidential elections. Three possible scenarios are being discussed: one, that the existing electoral laws will apply; two, that new electoral laws will be passed; and three, that the elections will be deferred. Under the first two options, careful consideration of the timing of the new round of elections will be required; Ireland will support a call at the Council that the Serbian authorities resolve this issue as soon as possible. It is our view that early resolution of this uncertainty will be important for the overall stability of the region.
The Chairman raised the issue of Iraq. The dossiers that have been publicised relating to the Institute of Strategic Studies and other independent agencies which have an expertise in this whole area of armaments and capability in terms of weapons of mass destruction and so on are quite clear about the fact that Iraq has this capability. It is not clear why it needs it, but it is very clear that it is not supposed to have it under the terms of the Security Council resolutions. Those of us who are multilateralists by instinct and conviction must uphold the credibility of the multilateral system by insisting upon member states' compliance. It is to be hoped the ongoing diplomatic and political efforts will successfully resolve this problem without resort by the Security Council to the ultimate sanction available to it under international law should this defiance continue.
I agree with Senator Dardis's points about the humanitarian issues constantly brought into focus by the crisis in the Middle East with which the Palestinians have lived for a long time. There is no doubt that these episodes of violence and the continuing occupation by the Israelis of the Palestinian Authority territory brings with them huge human suffering, which chokes economically any prospect of the Palestinian Authority or its people being able to make a living. The closure policy ensures they cannot travel into Israel for the purpose of taking up employment. The humanitarian crises that have developed in places such as Bethlehem have resulted in the tourism industry being decimated and many enterprises being cut back to nothing. It is appalling. If it were not for the United Nations, one wonders what the outcome would have been. We will continue to support the UN agencies which, for a very long time, have been providing basic essentials for the Palestinian people in these circumstances. We will insist in our meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, that the Israeli Government, whatever the nature of its politics, respect international humanitarian law.
Collective punishments are being used against the Palestinian people as a response to legitimate security threats. No one for one moment underestimates - we should not either - the tremendous impact of the suicide bombings on the national psyche of Israelis. That sort of wanton terror is totally unjustified and not acceptable. Developing a security track with a political one is the only way to resolve the problem. We need to make sure those who have leverage and influence with the Israeli Government can work with others to devise a route map sufficiently detailed and equitable in terms of burden-sharing for the Palestinians and the Israelis to ensure we make progress on these issues and alleviate the hardships and sufferings of many of the people concerned.
Deputy Harkin mentioned the need for Security Council resolutions to be complied with. I agree. Compliance with one Security Council resolution is not dependent on compliance with another. They all stand on their merits. In relation to Iraq, however, we are talking about the aftermath of the Gulf War, when it invaded, was ejected forcibly from, a country. Certain international obligations were placed upon it by the international community, which it has continuously defied. This has been ongoing for more than ten years and cannot continue. Iraq represents a threat to international peace and security and has weapons of mass destruction which it has used on its own people and is now seeking the capability to use them on others. In the post-September 11 world in which we live it would be a very irresponsible world that would not confront this situation with the necessary resolve.
Incidents we have seen since confirm that the international fight against terrorism will be a long running one that will test the resolve of the international community. We must show sufficient courage and fortitude to stand up to the terrorists. The situation in the Middle East to which the Deputy referred does require compliance by Israel with Security Council resolutions and all political pressure must be brought to bear on the Israeli Government to do so. This has been the consistent policy of successive Irish Governments and we will continue to seek this. One must recognise, however, that there is a political situation and a security situation which need to be resolved. It is similar to our own peace process. Clearly, the conditions need to be created to ensure all meet their responsibilities. That is not in any way to suggest there is one law for the goose and another for the gander. There is not. One can speak of the need for consistent implementation of Security Council resolutions, as the Deputy does in her question, but that does not mean one resolution is dependent on another. Similar political determination must be displayed in respect of compliance with all resolutions no matter how difficult the situation. In Iraq it is quite clear-cut. It can, of its own volition, solve this problem. It can do so overnight if it wishes.
Deputy Haughey asked about the position of the European Union. There is no common position established on the resolution because we have not yet got one. The Deputy will have seen from the German elections, for example, the position of the outgoing Government, which was re-elected. This was that, even in the event of a Security Council resolution, it would not support action against Iraq. I note that Germany will become a member of the Security Council on 1 January of the coming year. What will be the view of the German Government then? I do not know - one can only speculate. Germany makes the point that its concerns relate to regional security matters and being satisfied with the containment of Saddam Hussein based on present policies. It feels this policy could be continued. There is a growing view, however, in the international community - as personified by the Secretary General of the United Nations - that the time has come for the Iraqis to take the necessary steps to resolve this matter, I hope through political and diplomatic means, as I have suggested.
There are varying views about the nature of the process of moving towards military action in the event of non-compliance. There are varying views about this process in the USA, the United Kingdom, France and other countries in Europe. It is true that everyone recognises the status quo cannot continue. It is a question of finding a common base from which we can proceed. It is the view of the Government that the need to maintain unity and legitimacy within the framework of the United Nations is an important factor in an effective response by the Iraqi regime in order to resolve this matter once and for all in a way that is satisfactory to the international community.
Is there a likelihood of a common position being adopted at the Council meeting?
It is not on the agenda. This Presidency is taking on board the recommendations of the Seville Summit in relation to the need to focus on specific items on the agenda. As we know from previous Council meetings and formats, when one is preparing for these meetings and touring capitals heads of Government suggest different items that should be on the agenda for discussion. This means there is a very large agenda and many issues are touched upon but not dealt with in depth as a result of the priorities set out by the Presidency. The Presidency is taking at its word the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Seville, with which I agree, that the issues to be discussed in Brussels at the informal Council summit will be enlargement and Kaliningrad. It depends on developments at the UN Security Council whether or not by this time next week we will have before us a resolution for consideration which may prompt debate and discussion at that meeting. At present it is not envisaged that it will be part of the formal deliberations of the Council for the reasons given to the Taoiseach by the Danish Prime Minister this morning during his consultations in preparation for the European Council meeting.
We are in an evolving situation. Discussions are continuing in New York. There is speculation as to when or if a resolution will be tabled. We must await events in the coming days to see the outcome. Should there be a resolution which does not require a vote, there may be some discussion at the European Council meeting in Brussels. I cannot predict the outcome one way or the other. In the event of the absence of a common position, it has been agreed among member states that we will seek to inquire as to the possibility of adopting a common position to see what precisely the terms of a resolution might be.
I do not know whether the committee wishes to formally pass a resolution on Bali. I have a draft one drawn up by the advisers which reads:
The Select Committee on European Affairs, appalled and outraged at the terrorist bombing of innocent civilians in the city of Kuta and other regions in Bali, resolves to offer its condolences to the victims and their families, condemns the terrorists for the murderous attack on innocent people in Bali, supports UN Resolution 1348 on this issue, calls on the Indonesian authorities and the international community to seek out the perpetrators of this vile act and bring them to justice. The select committee asks the Government to take note of this resolution and to include it in whatever actions and measures it takes in responding to the outrage.
That should meet the concerns expressed and perhaps it can be incorporated in the minutes of the meeting. I thank the Minister.
Items 5, 7 and 8 deal with the Kimberley process, Iran and the Ivory coast. It is good that the Iranian issue is being considered in such detail, that there is a report and dialogue and the General Affairs Council will now decide whether to pursue the recommendation. I am pleased the process is proceeding in that direction. Even though the General Affairs Council has not decided automatically to allow this dialogue because there are outstanding issues, it is good to note the issue is being considered by the General Council.
As this is a serious meeting, I would like if someone could tell me what the Kimberley process is about.
It is to do with diamonds.
On the Kaliningrad issue, what questions are the EU likely to ask in that regard?
We will come to that in the next section when we have finished with external affairs. I said at the beginning that we might discuss Russia and Kaliningrad when dealing with enlargement.
In relation to Iran, it is quite clear that human rights in that country have deteriorated considerably. I suppose the fundamentalists are becoming involved in Shiah-type punishments, stoning, amputations and so on. I agree with the Minister that the European Union should take a strong position on this matter. On a lighter note, I noted in this morning's Irish Examiner that a Mullah Hassani in the city of Urumiyeh at Friday prayers last week called for the arrest of all long-legged, medium-legged and short-legged dogs and their long-legged owners. I suppose in a way it is a joke, but it shows the extent to which these mad Mullahs will go. If that is their attitude in regard to dogs, God help the poor humans who come under their control.
Will the Minister clarify where we stand in regard to the UN resolution because the note does not make it clear? Is this country pressing to go ahead with a UN resolution irrespective of progress made in regard to dialogue with the Iranian authorities? Does the Minister believe we should keep open our options until we see whether such dialogue produces results? The time is short for any such results so perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.
We strongly favour pursuing a resolution on Iran in the General Assembly.
Items 9, 10 and 11 deals with the Association Council with Israel, the European Economic Area Council and the northern dimension which deals with the Baltic Sea states.
On item 10 which deals with the European Economic Area, I asked at the last meeting about the situation in regard to the International Criminal Court. What is the situation in regard to bilateral agreements with the accession countries, European Union members or the United States in regard to a derogation under the International Criminal Court? Is that what the discussion will be about?
That is not on the agenda.
It says that at the end the meeting will review current international issues of mutual interest, including the Middle East, Iraq, the International Criminal Court and the current status of the EU enlargement negotiations.
That is not on the agenda.
It is at the end of the briefing note in front of me.
It is stated we will discuss that. If it does come up for discussion, it must be noted that a common position has been established and agreed by the European Union as a result of legal experts looking at the matter. This does not affect the impunity question, the basic issue that we wanted to retain in respect of upholding the integrity of the court. I can give the Deputy a detailed brief, if he wishes, but the common position was agreed at EU level as a result of much work by legal experts to leave open the possibility of bilateral agreements with the United States, but not in a way that affects the impunity question.
One of the items listed under the heading "A" alludes to the EU annual report on human rights. It would be useful if members of the committee had copies of this report when and if it appears. Burma is mentioned in one of the documents, not in the other.
It is due to be approved at the GAERC meeting, and we can circulate it afterwards.
We move on to the second part of the agenda, the general affairs section. I understand the resolutions, decisions and opinions of the European Parliament are not available in the form in which they will be submitted to the Council. As with the A list of items, I ask that they be made available when received by the Department.
We should deal separately with No. 5, probably the most important item on the Council's agenda, pertaining to the preparations for the European Council meeting in Brussels which will be devoted almost entirely to the question of enlargement, with the aim of making enough progress to allow negotiations to be concluded before the end of the year. On No. 5, which covers Kaliningrad, enlargement and the European Council meeting, Deputy Carey has a question.
In the context of discussions with Russia, what points is the EU side likely to raise on behalf of applicant members, particularly in respect of Kaliningrad?
Will the Deputy ask his question again?
What are the questions likely to be raised by the EU side in respect of Kaliningrad in its discussions with Russia?
It is a question of making sure the sovereignty of Lithuania is respected in whatever arrangements are to be reached in the Russia-EU dialogue on the question of Kaliningrad, an area where this issue arises. It is important we continue to develop positive EU-Russian relations. Ireland is not a party at this time to the border control chapter of the Schengen Convention. We consider the operational questions regarding these matters are primarily for the parties concerned. We also support non-interference in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lithuania and Poland. At the meeting of the General Affairs Council on 30 September all EU member states agreed to make a special effort to accommodate the concerns Russia has raised about the future transit of persons between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia.
The European Union will support Russian efforts to promote the economic development of Kaliningrad and strengthen cross-border co-operation along the borders of Russia. Discussions on defining the necessary conditions for the eventual establishment of a visa free regime are something at which we should look when we have dealt with the current problem. The Lithuanian Government has expressed concerns. The view of the Presidency is that these concerns need to be accommodated and cannot be overlooked. It is an issue of continuing discussions with Russia in terms of getting it to come forward with proposals that acknowledge the fact that there are sovereignty issues involved for Lithuania in this matter.
I have one comment on enlargement. Bearing in mind the referendum next Saturday, I wish the European Council well at its meeting on enlargement on 24 and 25 October. I can only imagine the consternation that will ensue if the referendum in Ireland is not carried because the process of enlargement will be thrown into complete disarray. I endorse what has been said by the Minister in that regard.
The ten applicant countries, in so far as they say prayers, are praying for a "Yes" result in order that we can open the door and allow them to complete their enlargement negotiations. It is hugely important the effort being made to bring home to the people of Ireland the importance of a "Yes" vote continues right up to the final moment. I have not the slightest doubt that Ireland's position in international relations will be in utter crisis if there is not a "Yes" vote. I am concerned that Ireland would be a pariah in Europe, friendless and alone, if we pulled down the shutters again.
I plead for a vote in the national and European interest and the interests of those countries which want to join the European Union. All those interests combine to reinforce the absolute case for a "Yes" vote next Saturday. The enlargement discussions at the European Council meeting can then proceed on the basis that there is a welcome from Ireland for the candidates which wish to join the European Union.
I have two issues to raise with the Minister, the first of which concerns Russia. I note that there is to be an EU-Russia summit in November. I am glad to see that the level of co-operation between Russia and the European Union is being stepped up. Western Russia is certainly very much a part of Europe culturally, and has been during the centuries. Will the Minister or his Department be attending that summit or will we have representatives there because I would like to be informed about what happens at it?
I welcomed to Dublin a former President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. It was said President Putin would be coming to Dublin. I wonder if there is any interconnectivity between that possibility and the EU-Russia summit. I would welcome the Minister's comments.
With regard to the question of enlargement, I notice in the briefing note that Romania and Bulgaria were given the year 2007 as a target date for membership, and that more assistance has been proposed for Turkey, but not a starting date for negotiations. Has the Minister had a briefing on the constitutional changes taking place in Turkey and is he in a position to evaluate how deep those changes are and the level of the reform process in Turkey? Are we satisfied the EU-Turkey relationship can proceed in a positive way?
I have three questions, one relating to the EU-Russia summit. The documentation alludes to the stability and security of Europe and beyond. Will the issue of Chechnya be raised because it is sometimes difficult to believe what was stated in the The Sunday Times last week about summary executions still taking place? There was a disturbing photograph of two young people being led into a field from which they never re-emerged. We in Ireland should ensure that the ongoing conflict in Chechnya is on the agenda in any debate involving the European Union and Russia.
A conference in Copenhagen next December may have to deal with accession related questions, such as the position regarding Cyprus and Turkey. What is Ireland's position? The Government is determined that the timetable on enlargement should not be delayed. Regardless of the outcome of the Nice treaty referendum, we should try to ensure that this does not happen.
On the question of enlargement, I note from the Financial Times today that in the event of the referendum not being passed there are no alternative plans which would allow for enlargement of the European Union. I urge and hope the referendum will be passed for all the reasons I have previously outlined. In the hope and expectation that the referendum will be passed and that the enlargement process can then proceed, will the Minister indicate that there is a likelihood that enlargement could occur when Ireland holds the Presidency in 2004?
Will the Minister outline the position on the Kaliningrad arrangements? The question of Irish citizens having to produce a passport within the European Union has been a concern of mine for some time. I understand the reason for it because I was involved in the Amsterdam process and the common travel areas is the difficulty. We have the right to opt in to the Schengen Agreement. Is a lesser agreement available to Russian citizens travelling to Kaliningrad and, if so, would that set a precedent for Irish citizens travelling within the Union? It could mean that we would not have to carry a passport. Could this issue be explored in the lead up to the Irish Presidency?
Thank you, Chairman. I note your involvement in the Amsterdam process. I will look into the point you raise and secure a detailed brief on the present position and whether it would have wider application. The purpose of the Kaliningrad negotiations is to find a solution which does not offend or dilute the sovereignty of Lithuania. At the same time it recognises that the geographic location of this part of Russia presents an issue and we must try to find a way around it in terms of the transit of Russian nationals to and from Kaliningrad. It is proving a very difficult issue to address and it will be discussed at length at the Council meeting. Perhaps as a result we will have a better idea of what way the matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.
It is more likely that the EU-Russia summit preparations will be an A item at the Council. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the summit because on the European Union side attendance is confined to the Presidency in office and Secretary General Solana, who will represent the Union. We attach importance to improving relations with Russia. They will be very important in what I hope will be the post-enlargement world. The main subject of interest at the summit will be the Kaliningrad situation, which will be discussed under a separate item at the Council.
The issue of Chechnya will be raised, as it always is in the context of EU-Russia meetings. I share Deputy Ó Snodaigh's concerns about the missing. It is important that people are allowed to seek to locate those missing in conflict. The OSCE and other international bodies have worked well in upholding the human rights of those caught in these conflicts.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh expressed the hope that regardless of the outcome of the Nice treaty referendum, there will be no delay in the enlargement process. If there is a "Yes" vote we will be able to keep within the timescale envisaged. If there is a "No" vote I would not be too glib about the alternatives. The Danish Prime Minister - Denmark holds the Presidency at present - who visited the Taoiseach today, and the Chairman have indicated that there is no obvious or easy alternative to the Nice treaty. It is the legal basis by which enlargement can be provided.
Enlargement is a political process and is inspired by the political wish to extend the zone of stability, security and prosperity across the Continent and to support the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe that arose in the aftermath of the implosion of communism. In fairness to the European Union, it must be acknowledged that however differing are our views on the merits of the Union, it is a treaty-based and law-based Union. Any additional competence given to an acceding member state in terms of the rearrangement of institutional matters within the Union require treaties among nation states. We are concerned here with the Nice treaty, an international agreement between nation states. The most recent argument from the "No" side that the treaty would lead to impending federation flies in the face that it is a treaty between independent sovereign states seeking to make arrangements for the enlargement of the Union which everybody is supposed to wish and understand. Yet, for some reason, a totally illogical position is being taken by members of the "No" lobby, including Deputy Ó Snodaigh's party, which suggests that we should proceed with enlargement but not with the agreed legal basis on which it will be done. That is an illogical argument and enlargement cannot be brought about in that way.
If we do not agree to this treaty we will have to provide another legal basis on which to proceed. How that can be done without the agreement of the 15 member states would provide another layer of constitutional complexity in European law that not even the best legal experts can resolve. We must be clear that it is not the case that irrespective of a "Yes" or "No" vote we must keep to the timetable for enlargement. There is no prospect of keeping to the timetable by voting "No". We should take account of the views of applicant countries which confirm that the ratification of the treaty is an essential element.
We know that we cannot unpick treaties. For example, nobody suggests we should unpick the Good Friday Agreement, which was brought about by hard-won compromises and the necessity to take it as a package and implement it in full. The Nice treaty is Europe's agreement on enlargement and we are not in a position to unpick it and allow the deck of cards to come down on top of us. Were that to happen other member states would want to unpick it and we would end up in a mess. If it is accepted that we cannot unpick our own agreement for an agreed Ireland I fail to see why we can claim to unpick a European agreement for an agreed Europe. It is a great pity that when it comes to Europe reductionism is regarded as a good policy position whereas in Ireland it is regarded by the same party as a bad position. That is difficult to understand.
We will continue, with those who are interested, to push towards eroding impoverishment, intolerance and prejudice. Those of us in the "Yes" lobby hope to continue to put the case for the importance of the Nice treaty as the only agreed legal basis by which enlargement can take place. All the countries will be looking to us on 19 October, so let us hope all of our citizens take upon themselves the responsibility and the opportunity to use their franchise and acknowledge the importance of the treaty, not only for ourselves, but for the European Union and the applicant countries who are expectantly and respectfully awaiting our decision.
We must make sure that others do not make the decision for us. In the previous referendum 18% of the total electorate said "No" and 16% said "Yes". Let us hope that on this occasion, as a result of the efforts of all concerned, we have a fully participating electorate in what is a matter of not just national, but clearly of international importance. I hope people will inform themselves about the treaty if they have not done so already. There is a plethora of information available from the Referendum Commission and wider civic society groups on the political process.
That is my hope in the last few days of the referendum campaign which is consistent with my position at all times on this treaty that I negotiated. I sat for one year in an Intergovernmental Conference and am aware of the opening positions and the outcomes. It is an excellent treaty for Ireland and I hope the people will ratify it next Saturday.
I asked the Minister a question about Ireland's position on Cypriot and Turkish accession.
I am sorry about that. A question was raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others regarding Turkey and Cyprus. Progress on reform has been made and we have been fully briefed on it and will seek to encourage further developments. There is a need to meet the Copenhagen criteria for accession to the EU. We very much support the reforming parties in the Turkish political process who are now facing elections and we hope that with the encouragement of the EU the road they are taking is one that will be helpful in the aftermath to the formation of a government that can continue with this course. Once the criteria have been met, Turkey can formally enter negotiations.
UN sponsored talks in regard to Cyprus are continuing. We are still hopeful that agreement can be reached if the necessary political will can be mustered. All want to see the whole island enter the EU in 2004, however, it is clear that failing agreement, the Republic of Cyprus can enter the Union in 2004. The clear common position of the EU is that we hope for a political settlement that will see a resolution of the issues in Cyprus between the communities on both parts of the island, but that is not a prerequisite for accession to the EU, although it would be a very welcome development.
The European Council meeting itself will clearly consider enlargement. Will it also consider a report on the Convention on the Future of Europe? What other major items are the meeting likely to address?
We arrive on Thursday evening and begin with a report from the President of the Convention, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, who will give us a progress report on the working of the convention. It is not expected that there will be a substantive discussion in regard to the report, which will be for information purposes to brief Heads of State and Government as to how the process is proceeding.
That evening we will have a discussion at Heads of Government level and return to the enlargement questions the next morning. The position of Kaliningrad will be discussed over lunch and conclusions will be reached that evening, after which we expect to arrive back here.
It is a very tight agenda complying with the Seville Council decision that informal meetings and Council meetings be generally conducted in a very business-like manner on an agenda decided by the Presidency. He has indicated this morning his intention to keep the agenda as outlined with a possible proviso in regard to political developments.
The Chairman raised a question regarding the Convention on the Future of Europe. I know we are not going into it in great detail today, but arising out of my experiences campaigning on the referendum, there is a very strong view that the European Union should not become a federal superstate. I am somewhat anxious about the convention and believe that if the final report moves in that direction it will be rejected by the people in a subsequent referendum.
There is widespread support for the enlargement process and the Nice treaty but when one discusses the future direction of Europe, there is concern about the creation of a potential federal superstate. Is that the view of the Minister? If he does not want to go into it today, perhaps we can look into it some other day. I would like to get a report back on how the Convention on the Future of Europe is going.
Mr. Giscard d'Estaing did an interview in the Financial Times last week to which I refer Deputy Haughey. It might assuage many of the fears he may have about the convention. It can be taken as read that the creation of a federal superstate will not arise out of this convention or any other Intergovernmental Conference process. The convention process and the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference process thereafter, which arose from the Nice declaration, is precisely due to the recognition by EU governments of the need to address the democratic deficit as perceived by the citizens and to try and redress the sense of disconnection people feel. It is an attempt to simplify people’s understanding and comprehension of how the European Union works, what it does, where the allocation of competencies should be, what should be done at European and national level and how it should be tied into maintaining the integrity of the Single Market.
The convention recognises that, from the beginning, there have been common institutions in the European Union that have worked very well, including for small countries. These include the Commission and the Court of Justice, for example. The belief that there is an irreversible path heading towards a federal superstate is far beyond reality. The idea that a French Government or Irish Government, as we know it, will not exist in ten years time is simply not going to happen. What is already agreed at the convention is the need for strengthening subsidiarity and spelling out precisely what that principle should mean. A greater role for national parliaments is an accepted position already coming out of the working groups of the convention.
One is aware of the more fanciful theories that have been abounding from europhiles for years regarding the finalité of the process, as if we were all going to walk away from the need to recognise that it is about a union of peoples and states. Deputy Haughey does reflect an issue which I have heard while canvassing, but we must concentrate on what we are dealing with on 19 October, namely, the logistical requirements of providing for an enlargement of the European Union; a legal basis for that enlargement to take place; and the conclusion of negotiations to be confirmed by Copenhagen when ten member states, hopefully, will become full members of the Union in the first six months of 2004, during our Presidency.
If we vote "No" and delay that timetable which is an inevitable outcome of a "No" vote - not a possible or optional outcome, but an inevitable one - we will lose the opportunity to enhance the prestige and reputation of the country by ensuring that we, during our Presidency of the European Union facilitated an historic enlargement in the first six months of 2004 by the formal accession of those ten states. People should reflect on this as they assess the risks for and against. In this balance-sheet approach to the Nice treaty any concerns anyone may have about any aspect of it are far outweighed by the enhancement of Ireland's prestige and reputation during our presidency in the first six months of 2004 marking the entry of these ten states and also by the wider macro-economic and social arguments for a "Yes" vote which will allow us to continue to make the progress we made on foot of enlargements, maintaining jobs, increasing investment and providing for a social infrastructure which would only have been dreamed of by our political predecessors prior to our entry to this Union.
I agree with Deputy Haughey. I am very strongly pro-European. The difficulty is that we cannot continue with widespread inter-governmentalism. We do not want a federal state. What we are developing is partly intergovernmental and partly pooled. There is no name for it in political science and people go to extremes in describing it. They say we are heading for a federal state. It is a pity there is no name for it, I call it quasi-federal but that does not do justice to it. It is a unique adventure in civilised government that governments sit down together to discuss the future of Europe by agreement. Although it is a dry process it is an exciting one. People in the future will look back on the history of Europe and see this.
Are there any questions on item four, progress in other Council configurations or items six and seven, both concerning proposals for regulations to establish a European solidarity fund?
I hope we will not draw on the flood fund.
The conciliation meeting with the European Parliament on floodings is to take place en marge of the Council. Any questions on that?
I thank the Minister and his officials and wish him well, particularly at the European Council Meeting. I hope he can bring them some good news.
I will call on your assistance in the meantime for the final few days of the campaign.