Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jan 2018

Vol. 964 No. 3

Other Questions

Trade Missions

Mick Wallace

Question:

5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the planned trade missions for 2018 and 2019; if it is policy not to raise human rights issues on specific trade missions; if restrictions are put in place by the host country regarding same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3649/18]

In November, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, stated in the Dáil that Ireland has a reputation for being consistent and vocal on humanitarian issues. However, the facts do not support his declaration. According to Amnesty International, we are facilitating a racist system of abuse and exploitation of refugees and migrants by the Libyan coast guard, detention authorities and smugglers in order to prevent people from crossing the Mediterranean.

There also appears to be a record of failing to raise important humanitarian crises when the Irish have something to sell. There are some dreadful things being perpetrated by our allies and trade partners but we look the other way. When will we live up to the reputation we claim to have?

To try to answer the question the Deputy tabled, proposals for trade missions are developed by Enterprise Ireland in consultation with the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation on the basis of priority markets and specific interests of Enterprise Ireland client companies. Proposals for 2018 are currently being finalised and, once approved, the schedule of planned trade missions and events for 2018 will be made public. The schedule for 2019 will be considered in the second half of this year. Several events have already taken place in 2018, including a Ministerial trade and investment mission to the USA in January.

Trade missions in 2018 and 2019 will seek to enable Enterprise Ireland client companies to expand their footprint and take advantage of global growth opportunities, particularly in the context of the international economic challenges facing Ireland, including the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

The Deputy will get the rest of the formal reply from the Official Report. In response to his question, of course Ireland has a responsibility to raise human rights concerns. There was a long conversation at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Libya in the last few days, of which I was part. The Deputy cannot expect Irish companies to be fully briefed on all human rights issues either. It is a responsibility of Government to ensure that our policies are consistent and that we work with the European Union to advocate for the advancement of human rights and to protect vulnerable communities. We do not always succeed in that. However, Ireland has been consistent in the EU and the UN in speaking out and backing up our statements with the financing of humanitarian assistance. There is a whole series of examples of that.

We need to work with our companies. We are working now in terms of a human rights dialogue with businesses in Ireland, to make businesses more aware of their own responsibilities in terms of how they source and who they source from, work with and so on. That will become more a part of international business in the future.

There are some very complicated situations. Taking Libya as an example, there are no simple solutions there. We are trying within the European Union to provide humanitarian assistance in the Mediterranean. We have picked more than 16,000 people out of the sea, many of them children. I will not stand for Libya being used as an example of Ireland not fulfilling its international obligations in respect of the genuine human rights concerns that exist.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Trade missions will focus on the Eurozone and key markets with which the EU has or is currently negotiating free trade agreements. Ministerial-led trade missions and international events are essential to supporting Irish companies expand their global footprint and realise their full growth potential.

My Department works closely with the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Enterprise Ireland and other State agencies, both at home and overseas, to support Enterprise Ireland led trade missions, and to ensure that firms based in Ireland are enabled to take advantage of new market opportunities. This approach is set out in the Government’s trade strategy, Ireland Connected: Trading and Investing in a Dynamic World, which was published in March of last year. The embassy network also plays an important role in supporting and deepening trade and investment relationships around the world, by raising Ireland’s visibility in markets, proactively addressing market access issues, hosting high-level events in support of Irish business, brokering introductions and offering guidance on local markets and business culture.

Ireland has always been at the forefront internationally in raising human rights issues through bilateral contacts and through the European Union and the United Nations. We have never shied away from addressing human rights issues. However, the primary focus of a trade mission is to encourage business-to-business links and encourage investment and employment opportunities. If we want to be effective in addressing human rights issues with countries, we must do it in an appropriate way and at the right opportunity, so that our concerns are taken seriously and acted upon.

The human rights unit of my Department is currently leading work on the implementation of Ireland’s national plan on business and human rights, which I launched on 15 November. The plan is a whole-of-Government initiative that has been developed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with the support and co-operation of a number of Government Departments and State agencies. The aim of the plan is to promote responsible business practices at home and overseas by all Irish business enterprises, in line with Ireland’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights globally. The plan is directed at Government and State agencies, Irish companies operating at home and overseas, and multinational enterprises operating in Ireland.

The plan mandates a number of actions to be carried out across Government, the implementation of which will be overseen by the implementation group of the national action plan on business and human rights, which will be established in the coming months.

I would be the first to admit that our boats have done some good work down there, although I disagree with the military aspect of Operation Sophia. Let us go back to the trade missions. I had a debate here with the previous Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, in 2014. He actually said that trade missions were not the time or place to raise human rights abuses. When the Minister and his colleagues sit down with Governments like those of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - I am not talking about the companies - do they raise human rights issues? There has been a fair bit of trade with the Saudis. For the life of me, I do not know how the Government is having problems dealing with the Russians when it can deal with the Saudis. I am in favour of talking to everybody. However, the Saudis are destroying Yemen. They are creating millions of refugees. There is starvation and cholera of unbelievable proportions. Is the Government raising these issues when it discusses trade with them? That is my question to the Tánaiste.

The straight answer to that is "Yes". When I visited the Middle East a couple of weeks ago, I was in Cairo on the first day of a four-day visit and we had a really good meeting. I met for nearly three hours with my counterpart, the Minister for Foreign Affairs there. We did raise human rights issues. However, we did so in the context of a discussion on a range of matters. From my experience, whether in the European Parliament or here, building personal relationships on the basis of mutual interest allows us to create the space to have honest conversations about human rights concerns as well. It must be on the basis of not lecturing people or being seen to do so. It is necessary to have a real conversation based on genuine human rights concerns.

When I served as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I took two very large trade missions to China. As a result of the relationships we built up, we started to have an honest understanding and a conversation around human rights concerns that we have. Chinese Ministers are happy to talk about that if it is a respectful conversation.

Trade missions are primarily about opening up trade opportunities. They are also an opportunity for Ministers to raise questions relating to human rights in an appropriate setting. By and large, I think I have used the opportunity to do that whenever it has presented.

I am glad to hear it. I do not doubt the Tánaiste's integrity. The mission statement of his Department's national plan on business and human rights, which was brought out in November, states that it aims to promote responsible business practices at home and overseas by all Irish business and enterprise, in line with Ireland's commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights globally. Does that fit in with the fact that we are still selling dual-use weapons to the Israelis? The Tánaiste sat down with Mr. Netanyahu a couple of weeks ago-----

We are not selling weapons to anybody.

When he sat down with Mr. Netanyahu, did the Tánaiste raise the fact that Israel has an apartheid regime at home and is engaged in genocide in Palestine?

I raised a whole load of issues with Prime Minister Netanyahu, including the responsibilities of Israel in the context of occupation. We spent a lot of time talking about what needs to happen in terms of assisting Palestinians in Gaza in particular, where there are significant socioeconomic and environmental pressures linked to the availability of water and power, overcrowding, housing, education, health care and many other issues. Some 1.3 million of the 1.9 million people living in a very small area now rely directly on food aid coming through UN organisations. Those kinds of pressures may potentially lead to a new round of violence and misery because of the increasing pressure on Palestinians living under those conditions. There is an understanding around that.

On numerous occasions, I have raised my view in regard to expanding settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the context of trying to work towards an agreed settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. I have raised these issues and we have had pretty robust conversations. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a blunt talker and does not agree with me on everything. That is no surprise to people. It is really important that we have such conversations in order that we can build up an understanding of the concerns-----

Is the embassy in Dublin being closed?

I certainly hope not and I also expect not. In fact, I asked him a direct question on that issue and I expect that we will not see the closure of the embassy. He said he did not intend to take the Israeli Embassy out of Dublin. To be fair, after that conversation, which was at the very end of our discussion, when I asked him to please not pull the embassy out of Dublin because we need to maintain the current relationship, he said he would not. Thereafter, his Finance Minister has had the embassy in Ireland on a list for consideration in respect of savings on embassies. Other than that, I hope and expect that the Israeli Embassy in Ireland will stay in Dublin.

Good Friday Agreement

Brendan Smith

Question:

6. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has had discussions with political parties, statutory agencies or Departments in respect of an appropriate commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. [1626/18]

Brendan Smith

Question:

17. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his plans to date with regard to an appropriate commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. [1625/18]

In marking the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in a significant and comprehensive manner, we would be doing more than just commemorating the successful completion of an historic agreement. We would be reminding people in leadership roles in all parts of these two islands of the crucial importance of the three strands of relationships that fundamentally underpin the Good Friday Agreement and how using those three strands between the two communities in Northern Ireland, between North and South and east-west between the two islands provides us with the opportunity to protect all of our interests post Brexit.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 17 together.

I thank the Deputy for these questions. A programme of events at home and abroad is being developed to highlight the important anniversary and to mark the achievement of the agreement, which continues to be the cornerstone of our commitment to peace and reconciliation on this island. My Department is engaging with other Departments on the island of Ireland generally and through our overseas embassy network at home and abroad with a range of individuals, groups and institutions that are considering and planning conferences, seminars, cultural responses, acts of commemoration and other initiatives to mark the 20th anniversary of the achievement of this agreement.

The Government’s programme will include events in Dublin, Washington, London, and Belfast. These will include a revised production of Rising to Reconciliation, which was developed for the 18th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement and uses poetry, images and music to reflect on the troubled journey towards peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland. Events to mark the people’s vote for the agreement on 22 May are also under development. I hope to announce more details on the programme in the coming weeks.

All of these events will also be an opportunity to reflect on the peace process, as the Deputy suggested, past and present, to remember the loss of life during the years of conflict and to look back at all that has happened on the journey of peace and reconciliation since then. This journey is of course an ongoing one and the continued imperative to work to realise the full potential of the Good Friday Agreement will form an essential part of the Government’s approach to the 20th anniversary.

We intend to work with all communities and political parties to make sure that the commemorations are respectful and accurate. We hope they will provide inspiration for the new leadership that is needed in the context of some of the challenges we currently face in terms of ensuring that the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement can function and be re-established.

I thank the Minister for his positive response. I welcome the fact that he intends to hold commemorations and events on our island, in Washington and elsewhere. We should also press for a significant input from the European Union to mark the achievement. The EU is not explicitly mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement but it also underpins the agreement.

The chair of the negotiations which led to the Good Friday Agreement, the former US Senator George Mitchell, acknowledged the importance of the EU recently. He said the agreement would not have been possible without the European Union, as our joint membership of the Union and the many bilateral meetings held between British and Irish Ministers and officials every week, often on a daily basis, played a vital role in thawing and improving relationships between both islands. Those improved relationships led to the peace process and the finalisation of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Minister quite rightly referred to the significant date of 22 May 1998 when, thankfully, for the first time on the island since 1918, those of us who had the opportunity to do so cast a vote. We were a privileged generation, in that we were the first since 1918 who voted with the people of Northern Ireland on the same question. The Minister will recall that in our State, 94.39% of the people voted "Yes" and in Northern Ireland, 71.12% of the people voted "Yes", despite the major unionist party at that time not agreeing to what had been achieved. There was very little support in campaigning terms from Sinn Féin for the referendum. It was a remarkable achievement.

I sincerely hope that the events which will be held will not involve the usual invitation list. We want to get people involved from society in general in commemorating these events and marking what we achieved and where we came from. The Minister or his Department might consider involving schools, in particular second and third level institutions, in order to make that generation aware of the progress which has been made and the need to maximise the potential of the agreement from now on.

I know how personally committed Deputy Smith is to the peace process and its maintenance. We are still in a design phase in terms of what the commemorations will look like, although others are engaged in planning. Queen's University will hold a big event and an event also is planned in New York. We will obviously contribute and support those events. We will also host some of our own events. It is something on which we would like to get input from other political parties. If the Deputy has ideas and suggestions we will certainly try to take them on board.

Given my responsibilities, I am very conscious that the most important thing we could do to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement is to get devolved government up and running and functioning again, as well as the institutions which come from that in terms of the North-South Ministerial Council and so on. We have not had that for a year. We had some initial conversations on that yesterday.

This is not going to be easy but we have a responsibility, as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement with the British Government, to try to get those structures up and running. Many of the commemorations would be somewhat hollow if people saw the progress so many people worked so hard to achieve over the past 20 years being undermined and reversed, and without the essential institutions, which are at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement, and the process of reconciliation, which ultimately needs to be the number one priority for Northern Ireland.

I fully agree with the Minister. Properly marking the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement will remind us of what we all risk losing in the longer term owing to the short-term partisan gains of two political parties.

This year, 2018, marks the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, the 50th anniversary of civil rights, the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the centenary of the 1918 election. My deepest fear is that we would be commemorating these anniversaries at a time when Northern Ireland is without an Executive and Assembly. I sincerely hope we will have those institutions back up and running and representing the people of Northern Ireland.

I wish the Minister, Secretary of State Bradley and all the political parties represented in Stormont every success in the negotiations that began yesterday. It is reprehensible that the Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly have not been functioning for the past 12 months. The one mandate we all have on this island comes from the referendum of May 1998. The will of the people, endorsed by 94% of the people in this State and almost 72% of people in Northern Ireland, is not being implemented at present.

I was in Fermanagh and Armagh at the weekend and in Belfast on Sunday and Monday. I noted there is a yearning in those locations to get a government and local executive back in place without further delay. What has passed for politics in Northern Ireland for the past 12 months is totally unacceptable.

I am doing everything I can to facilitate a process to allow an accommodation between the two largest parties, and also engagement and involvement on the part of the other three parties, to try to get a fully inclusive Executive up and running again and making decisions for people in Northern Ireland. That is what everybody wants. It is a difficult political exercise because there were two very divisive elections, in the spring and summer of last year. I reassure people, however, that progress has been made over the past six or eight months, although that is often not covered. There is still work to do, however. There is a new Secretary of State in Northern Ireland who, like her predecessor, is absolutely determined to work with me and all the political parties to achieve what I have outlined. Those efforts will intensify in the coming days.

Arms Trade

Clare Daly

Question:

7. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the suspension by Norway of arms sales to the UAE; and if he will discuss this suspension with his EU counterparts with a view to agreeing to pursue a similar EU wide suspension of arms sales to the UAE and other members of the Saudi led coalition attacking Yemen. [3665/18]

In December of last year, Norway suspended exports of munitions and arms to the United Arab Emirates, UAE, as a precaution because of its concern over the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, not because of any of its military exports had actually been used. When we raised this issue before, the then Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, referred to trade missions and all the rest of it. That is unacceptable. I am wondering whether we can follow the lead of the Norwegians and advocate that there be an EU suspension of the sale of arms to the UAE as a result of the appalling catastrophe in Yemen.

I am aware that Norway has announced that it is suspending the export of weapons and ammunition to the United Arab Emirates, UAE. Ireland does not have an arms industry and therefore does not export arms to the UAE. There is no consensus at present at EU level on an arms embargo affecting the UAE.

On the problems posed by arms transfers to conflict regions generally, Ireland's efforts are concentrated on universalisation and implementation of the 2014 Arms Trade Treaty, ATT, which has been signed and ratified by all EU member states. In addition, the EU's Common Position on Arms Exports contains eight risk-assessment criteria that all EU countries must apply to licensing decisions for exports of military goods.

As with the Deputy, I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Yemen. The war, now in its third year, has triggered a humanitarian crisis and more than two thirds of the population are in need of urgent assistance. Ireland has been to the fore in raising human rights issues in Yemen at the Human Rights Council. Ireland has also provided over €11 million in humanitarian assistance to Yemen since 2015, and we are committed to maintaining that support.

Ireland has strong ties with the UAE, and within this relationship we are able to raise our concerns. My predecessor, Deputy Flanagan, raised concerns about the humanitarian situation in Yemen with the UAE Minister for Foreign Affairs, both during a visit to the UAE in November 2016 and later in Dublin in February 2017. Concerns about the conflict in Yemen have also been raised at official level with other regional actors, such as Iran.

At the Foreign Affairs Council in December 2017, I urged stronger EU action on humanitarian access in Yemen, which was raised in this House, and more robust political engagement by the EU. My officials and I will continue to raise my concerns on humanitarian access at EU and international levels, whenever opportunities arise. We also raised this at UN level.

The Minister is correct that all sides need to sit down and negotiate a political solution but that will not happen without some serious arm-twisting. The European Union has the power to do that. The Minister, as a representative of a small, neutral country, has an opportunity to be at the forefront in advocating a suspension of arms sales to the region.

I appreciate that the Minister is genuinely motivated but I just do not get it because there is a contradiction between what he is saying and what he is doing. It is a bit like telling one's children not to eat sweets and then buying them sweets. That is what the EU is doing when demanding an end to humanitarian abuses and deploring the starvation etc. at the same time as facilitating countries to carry out the abuses in the first place and giving them the arms to do so. We are not directly involved but I advocate Ireland being to the fore in the EU in arguing for a change in this regard and demonstrating to the Saudis and UAE that we are not into what I have described. There is an incredible irony in that the humanitarian disaster in Yemen is even worse than that in Syria. The Irish Government supports full-scale sanctions in every respect regarding Syria. We are not arguing for sanctions covering all goods; we just want an end to the sale of arms. How could anybody not advocate and articulate that viewpoint? I just do not understand it.

We have advocated very strongly the viewpoint that the EU needs to take a more robust political approach to trying to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, which is essentially a funded civil war, with funding and arms coming from outside. There are a number of countries responsible for this continuing. The EU does need to play a constructive and determined role in trying to bring an end to it. Ireland does not have the capacity to announce trade embargoes on its own because trade policy is the collective responsibility of the EU. In any case, many countries would argue it is easy for Ireland to say what it is saying because it is not exporting anything in the arms category. Our announcement would be a somewhat hollow gesture but I do believe Ireland needs to be a country that advocates much more robust engagement by the EU. It should demand of the EU and its foreign affairs team answers and actions that can result in a more proactive response than has been evident to date.

All I am asking the Minister to do is to discuss these issues and raise the issue of a suspension of arms sales with his counterparts in the EU. I do not believe that is unreasonable. What I find incredible is the contradiction in policy.

We know that war crimes have been committed in that area. We have more than enough evidence to go on in terms of the appalling humanitarian crisis that exists. How can the Minister square the circle whereby the EU approved an embargo on arms sales to Venezuela in November because of electoral irregularities but we cannot find it in ourselves to advocate an end to arms sales to Yemen, where war crimes have been committed and the worst humanitarian crisis anywhere on the globe is unfolding? The EU stands over sanctions on everything, not just arms, to Syria. This has actually had a humanitarian impact but nobody is calling for an end to arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which are responsible for war crimes in the area. That is appalling and I believe the Government should be making such a call. It would give meat to our words and would mean that we are not just telling the parties to behave themselves but are actually removing some of the weaponry that facilitates the slaughter that is ongoing.

Ireland has advocated in this area. We worked, for example, with the Netherlands, which took the lead on a motion at the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC, to insist on an international, independent inspection team to investigate accusations of war crimes. That created quite a lot of tension at the UNHRC but Ireland was very strongly supportive of what the Netherlands was trying to do. It is also important to say that there are two sides in this war; in fact, there are many more than two sides. This is not a one-sided conflict whereby those who are sponsoring one side in this war are responsible for all of the atrocities. This is a horrible, nasty civil war where both sides need to be scrutinised by the international community and forced into a negotiated solution and that is the approach that Ireland has taken.

I thank the Minister. The next-----

My question-----

Does the Deputy wish to proceed to question No. 8 now?

The Acting Chairman was just about to call Deputy Wallace.

Uimhir a hocht. Deputy Wallace has 30 seconds to introduce his question.

I am sorry-----

There is no need to apologise.

I did not realise how officious the Acting Chairman is-----

The Deputy is even more officious.

He is just enthusiastic.

International Sanctions Application

Mick Wallace

Question:

8. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to the EU's agreement in December 2017 to continue sanctions against Russia into 2018, the position of Ireland on the sanctions; his views on whether Irish involvement in the sanctions is having a negative effect on particular industries here; if he has had discussions with the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or Finance regarding forgone trade revenue due to the sanctions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3650/18]

My question is linked to the previous one. At the time of the imposition of the ban, Russia was the second most important destination for agrifood exports from the EU which were valued at some €12 billion in 2013. Almost half of this trade is subject to the ban. These sanctions highlight the partisan and hypocritical nature of the international sanctions regime. Highly politicised sanctions are being used in a situation which the EU and the US played a central role in escalating. Is Ireland vocal in its support for these sanctions, do we oppose them or do we stay silent on these matters? In 2014, Ireland had exports to Russia which were worth €722 million but in 2016 that had dropped to €364 million.

The sanctions to which the Deputy refers were introduced when I was Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We had been planning a huge trade mission to Russia that we had to cancel because of their introduction. In that context, I am very clear on the impact of the sanctions but that does not mean that imposing them was not the right thing to do.

In 2014 the EU imposed targeted economic sanctions against the Russian Federation in response to its actions in undermining the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The duration of these sanctions is linked to the complete implementation of the Minsk peace agreement aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The ongoing conflict has cost over 10,000 lives, forced 1.6 million to flee their homes and created a humanitarian crisis which has left an estimated 3.4 million people in need of assistance and protection. Any relaxation of the restrictive measures can only be considered when there is clear evidence of concrete progress on the ground in eastern Ukraine. The lack of progress on the implementation of the Minsk deal and Russia’s failure to rein in the separatists provide a clear and continuing basis for keeping the measures in place. In December, the European Council agreed to a further roll-over of the sanctions to 31 July 2018 and Ireland fully supports this decision.

The restrictive measures have impacted on trade between Russia and the EU. In Ireland’s case, the direct effect has been minimal as the majority of goods and services we export to Russia are not covered by the EU restrictions. On the other hand, the economic downturn in Russia and the Russian countermeasures introduced in 2014 to ban a range of EU agrifood exports have had a negative impact on our bilateral trade. However, after falling sharply in 2015 and registering a small increase in 2016, I am pleased to note that two way trade with Russia rebounded significantly last year, with exports expected to reach around €470 million, an increase of €120 million on the previous year.

This is an EU collective position. If the European Union is going to be effective in the context of international politics, its members must act together. Otherwise, our position is substantially weakened. If Ireland is going to have an impact on big international crises, the way to do that is try to influence the collective approach of the EU. Ireland on its own is not going to be able to do much heavy lifting.

We should act evenly but that is not happening. In February 2014, the US and the EU supported an illegal and unconstitutional neo-Nazi led coup in Kiev. According to the constitution of Ukraine, the constitutional court of that country was supposed to review the case for the removal of President Yanukovych and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration had been followed. Then the supreme court could certify that the case was worthy of impeachment but none of this happened. A Bill that did not have the required 75% support necessary for his removal was simply passed. The EU and the US had no problem with this illegal coup or with the fact that neo-Nazis took the top spots in the new administration. A few months prior to that, Victoria Nuland, the then US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, revealed that the US had invested a lot of money to help get rid of Yanukovych. An overwhelming majority in Crimea voted to secede to Russia and only then did the international community call foul play. The idea that we would use sanctions as a political stick in this situation just does not stack up.

The Tánaiste has said that this is a collective position on the part of the EU and that Ireland on its own cannot do anything. Does he not remember the time that Ireland went out on its own and advocated for the end of the use of cluster bombs? We were not making or dropping such bombs but we were a serious player in the debate at that time. We can have a strong voice as a small, neutral country, but we are not actually neutral. The very fact that we are still allowing Shannon Airport to be used as a US military base undermines any notion that Ireland is neutral.

I have great respect for the way the Tánaiste looks at things in some ways and I believe he is genuine. However, his alignment to US foreign policy distorts his position. That is very unfortunate, given that he is such a genuine person.

I want to get to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's question so I ask the Minister and Deputy Wallace to observe the time limits. The Minister has one minute in which to respond.

I will be brief because we do not have time to get into an in-depth debate on Ukraine. I have been to Kiev. I went there as an election observer and I do not necessarily accept Deputy Wallace's interpretation of what happened. Ireland takes an independent stance all of the time, particularly at UN fora. However, when the EU makes a collective decision for good reasons then it makes sense for Ireland to support that so that the message is very clear that Europe is united on an issue, in order to try to bring about change. We are united on the issues in eastern Ukraine and it makes sense for Ireland to be part of that stance. Of course, we would like to see a change and improvement in relations between Russia and the EU. It makes practical sense for that to happen but in the context of the Ukraine in particular and the reasons for the sanctions being imposed in the first instance, they are justified.

The Tánaiste said in response to Deputy Clare Daly's question that there is no consensus in the EU regarding an arms embargo on the UAE.

Can he honestly stand over the European Union view that it is not necessary to consider imposing an arms embargo on countries such as the United Arab Emirates, UAE, and Saudi Arabia given what they are doing in Yemen? There may be two sides to the conflict in Yemen but I ask the Minister to pick a battle in our lifetime than was more unfair than the current war in Yemen. Can he justify the lack of appetite in the EU for the introduction of an arms embargo against the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in light of the sanctions imposed on Russia as a result of the conflict in Ukraine?

The European Union is not a perfect structure when it comes to foreign policy.

I am asking the Minister for his opinion.

There are certain conflicts and issues on which the European Union is able to create a firm consensus and when we can do this, the European Union acts together. However, when we cannot do this, EU countries act separately, which undermines the Union's authority and effectiveness. There are plenty of examples of this.

The question the Deputy asked relates to Russia, on which there is consensus in the European Union. Many people would like the relationship with Russia to change and improve. Many view the Minsk process as a test of this and linking sanctions to progress on the implementation of the Minsk agreement and process is a test. The European Union would act on sanctions in a positive manner if it believed it was appropriate to do so.

On a point of order, I would like to correct the record. The Minister stated Ireland does not have an arms industry. In 2016, arms sales from Ireland amounted to €60 million and we sold arms to a value of €3.5 million to the UAE. I did not correct the Minister when I spoke and I would like that matter corrected.

Question No. 9 replied to with Written Answers.

EU Agreements

Maureen O'Sullivan

Question:

10. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the position regarding the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement and the ratification of same. [3670/18]

My question relates to the EU Union-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement, on which the EU has been working for some years. Where does Ireland and the EU stand on ratifying the agreement?

The Government fully supports the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement, PDCA, which was signed by each EU member state and the Cuban Minister for Foreign Affairs in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council in December 2016. This is the first bilateral agreement between the EU and Cuba. Its signature marked a further positive step forward in relations between Cuba and the EU, which have improved considerably in recent years.

The agreement is robust and comprehensive, consisting of three main pillars, namely, political dialogue, co-operation and sectoral policy dialogue, and trade and trade co-operation. The core aim of the PDCA is to open channels of dialogue and co-operation between the EU and Cuba to assist the modernisation of the Cuban economy and society, strengthen human rights and democracy and work together to achieve the sustainable development goals.

In July 2017, the European Parliament voted to endorse the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement. While most of the agreement has been provisionally applied since November 2017, its full application will require ratification by the EU once member states have completed their internal legal procedures. As matters stand, nine member states have done so and the remaining member states, including Ireland, have yet to complete their internal procedures. I look forward to working with colleagues in the Oireachtas to complete Ireland's internal legal procedures and preparations are under way towards this objective.

The entry into force of the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement and improvements in the EU-Cuba relationship will, in turn, have helpful consequences for the Ireland-Cuba relationship. Ireland has a positive relationship with Cuba, which was further cemented by the successful visit of President Higgins to the island in February 2017, during which a memorandum of co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Cuba and the Government of Ireland was signed.

My assessment is that the PDCA provides a solid framework and welcome opportunity to strengthen both EU-Cuba and Ireland-Cuba relations. I look forward to continued positive developments in the period ahead, including the completion by Ireland of the internal legal procedures necessary for EU ratification.

The EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement is good because Cuba could certainly do with having a positive relationship with the European Union. We are all aware of the difficult position Cuba finds itself in as a result of its relationship with the large neighbour on its doorstep. The embargo imposed by the United States for many years affects the lives of ordinary Cubans and prevents economic growth on the island. While we had a chink of light during President Obama's period in office, the agenda of the United States appears to be driven by a small group of Cuban-American representatives. The general mood in Cuba is much softer.

It is good the European Union is working on the various areas covered by the agreement. Will the Minister indicate when he expects the agreement to be ratified? As he indicated, the President visited Cuba recently. I hope the Government will be able to welcome a ministerial delegation from Cuba at some stage.

It is positive that relationships are being normalised and we are moving away from Cuba's isolation. While I do not have an exact timeline on ratification of the agreement, I anticipate that we will try to progress the matter this year. I will revert to the Deputy with an accurate timeline because I do not want to give a date that we will not meet.

Cuba receives a bad press on the basis of its relationship with the United States. However, on humanitarian issues, it is often the first country to become involved when countries experience great humanitarian need. It never receives any recognition for this. Cuba was the first country to send humanitarian aid to Sierra Leone and Haiti. It also does much work training young men and women from the developing world as doctors and nurses. It played a key role in the Columbian peace process and was to the fore in supporting it and ensuring it could happen. It is facilitating the ongoing and necessary negotiations with other groups that have not bought into the peace process. It is positive that Ireland is moving on this issue and important that the agreement is ratified as soon as possible.

It is important to be upfront about the serious concerns about human rights issues in Cuba, particularly with regard to civil and political rights, the exercise of free speech and freedom of assembly. The way in which we address our concerns should be through political dialogue, rather than isolation. That is the direction in which the process is now moving. As I indicated, we will support ratification of the agreement and go through the necessary formal legal processes in the Houses to achieve it. I concur with the Deputy that engagement, dialogue and understanding are the direction in which EU-Cuba relations are moving, which is much different from the direction in which we were moving a decade ago.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Top
Share