Mr. David Cooney:

That is an issue discussed at all meetings of secretaries general. One of the reasons for my going to Jakarta was to examine the possibility of setting up a small mission there. While doing so might be possible, there are downsides in that a country cannot operate its own consular activities out of an EU mission. For a country like Ireland, it can be expensive to collocate. We have low overheads in terms of operation. While an EU mission would have high security risk, we have a low security risk. Therefore, if we bought into its operation we would end up having to pay high security overheads. Such issues need to be considered.

Irish embassies and missions travel extremely light, in terms of staff, resources and overheads. While on the surface it might seem a no-brainer to join with the EEAS it will not always work out because it can be quite expensive to do so. The EEAS has rather high overheads in terms of security and other operating costs. We are looking at it and are certainly open to it but much depends on what one wants to do. My own assessment is that if one wants to be taken seriously in Asia one has to take oneself seriously. In the EU we can operate one person-one diplomat missions because everybody knows who we are. We are all members of the EU and are not trying to put on a show. Anyone who wants to do business in Asia and wants to make contacts must have its own identity and a reasonably decent residence to which to bring people. Different assets are required in different places.

We are very much open to the idea but it does not automatically follow that because there is an EEAS mission it is the natural host for everybody else. I believe the EEAS is doing a good job. It proposes to review its operating regulation in the next year with a view to doing things better. I would give it a good mark for its efforts to date. A lot of the criticism was borne out of over-expectation. People thought it was possible to just wave a wand and create an EU foreign service over night. It takes a little longer than that. The EEAS is not perfect but it has done well.

On Syria, the situation there is hideous. On the political situation and where we are, it is complicated. Often the presentation is simplistic. It is not quite as simple as there are good guys and bad guys. Almost the entire international community, including President Putin, recognises the Assad regime was the cause of what happened. The protests against the regime were the result of a failure to reform and respond to the demands of the people. The attack on the people by the Assad regime was unacceptable and appalling by any criteria and it continues.

Deputy Byrne's comment that it is not all one-way traffic is true in that atrocities are being committed by both sides. The EU recognised this at its main meeting. It also condemned the atrocities committed by opposition groups, while pointing out that it still believed the balance of unacceptable human rights violations rested with the regime. There is no doubt but that all parties are involved. There is now also, unfortunately, an increasing ethnic-religious element to the conflict. It is no longer a matter of people protesting against the regime. Deep divisions are now emerging between the different communities, which will make it even harder to put the country back together if and when some type of peace is restored.

It is correct that the international community has put its weight behind the convening of a conference embracing all parties on the basis of the Geneva declaration of last year. It is rowing in behind the American and Russian Governments. The west has not gotten involved militarily - at least overtly. This is different from what happened in Libya. Russia is clearly involved in arming the Assad regime. It believes it has a significant strategic stake in Syria. Unfortunately, the situation is not without parallels to the type of cold war conflicts which occurred prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, in which there were seemingly interminable conflicts with one side backed by the then Soviet Union and the other backed by the west.

On the EU position, we very much regret that the EU was unable to continue the arms embargo on Syria. The Government believes that sending more arms into Syria is adding fuel to the fire. To be fair to those who took a different approach, I do not believe their analysis is that sending in arms will make matters worse. Their approach appears to be based on the fact that Assad will not deal until he feels under military threat. There are people on the opposition side who say that because it appears that the Assad regime is in the ascendency in the military conflict there is no point in having a conference because Assad will not deal. However, we are of the view that sending in more arms to what is already a violent region will not assist the situation. On humanitarian zones, our analysis is that any military external intervention of that nature will only heighten the conflict at this stage and could broaden it.

The humanitarian situation on the ground is appalling. There are huge numbers of Syrians living outside Syria in Turkey and Jordan. The Tánaiste has visited Turkey and the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, has visited Jordan. Ireland has been to the fore in its humanitarian effort and has contributed €8.5 million. We have just committed a further €1 million. We are doing our part. It is true to say that some states that have committed money have not followed through as assiduously. I am not sure that is the case among EU member states, but I do not have the figures with me. My expectation would be that member states have followed through. If I can establish the position on contributions from EU member states, I will forward the information to the joint committee. As can be seen in the answers the Tánaiste has provided in reply to parliamentary questions on Syria, Ireland has been very vocal about its expectation that countries will follow through on their commitments.

This is an extraordinarily complicated situation. Clearly, we have been to the forefront in terms of the ICC and supported the Swiss initiative calling for those guilty of crimes against humanity to be referred there. Crimes against humanity have been committed. That should apply to people involved on both sides of the conflict. We would be happy to see that being pursued by the Security Council of the United Nations. Even when the conflict is over, as it will be one day, those responsible should be pursued. If I have omitted anything on Syria, I would be glad if members let me know.

The next country on my list is Turkey, where a very disquieting situation has emerged. Turkey is a candidate for membership of the European Union and we are in negotiations on its accession. Ireland has traditionally been a supporter of Turkish membership. We must recognise that Turkey is a country experiencing change. It is change that is necessary if it is ever to become a member state of the EU. One of the most striking aspects of the change we have seen is that we now see the emergence of a real civil society in Turkey. Many of the demonstrators are members of civil society who are making a statement about the kind of society they want to see. Not everything we are seeing about Turkey at the moment is negative. Clearly, there are a number of aspects of any functioning democracy. One aspect is the rule of law, another is the right to peaceful assembly, and a further right is the right to demonstrate peacefully. As the Tánaiste has recently said in replies to parliamentary questions, we regret that the Turkish authorities appear to have ignored the appeals of the European Union to act with restraint. Some of the things we have seen on television and the heavy-handed response of the police in some cases - which has been admitted by the Turkish authorities, who have promised to investigate - are matters of regret. We have also seen scenes of violent demonstrators attacking police and property. Some believe that these are not demonstrators but are in fact agents provocateurs, which remains to be determined. It is a worrying situation. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of the protestors are totally peaceful in their intentions but have been met with what one would have to call heavy-handed and violent treatment from the security forces.

What is the impact of this on Turkish accession? Turkey is a country in transition and the Government continues to see it as a future member of the European Union. We support Turkish membership and, during our Presidency of the Council of the European Union, have been doing our best to reinvigorate the accession process and open Chapter 22 of the enlargement process on regional policy. We should not reject Turkey because of what is happening but need to make our views clear that we find the police reaction disturbing and inconsistent with EU membership. That does not alter the impact of where we would like Turkey to be. I am quite convinced that the vast majority of the demonstrators who are on the streets and being manhandled by the police would like to see Turkey's progress to EU membership continue. The EU represents the kind of society many of those protestors would like to see. It is a difficult moment but the interests of those who want to see Turkey continue to move forward would not be best served by bringing down the shutters on the enlargement process. Hopefully, this situation is simply a step backwards in what is otherwise a forward progress.

I have not talked about the Austrian decision to pull out of UNDOF, the UN observer mission on the Golan Heights. The Austrian decision was provoked by a serious deterioration in the security situation. It is an unfortunate development. Obviously, the Austrian Government must take the decisions it feels are necessary, but the international community, through the United Nations, will have to do something to plug the hole. UNDOF is a significant and important peacekeeping presence. The UN is working very hard to identify a troop contributor to fill the gap.

Deputy Crowe asked if the Syrian arms embargo issue revealed cracks in EU policy. While it does, we must be realistic about it. We do not have a common EU policy on every issue. We strive very hard to have one but all of us retain the right on occasion to say "No, we cannot go along with this." We must recognise that, as there have been many occasions, particularly regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, on which Ireland has been the member state saying it cannot agree to a position. We are still at the stage of best endeavours and it will be a long time before we are in a situation in which we agree on everything. Ireland, including the members of the committee, will want the State to take a very firm position on some issues which would require us to say to our partners that we cannot agree to a common position. The Israel-Palestine issue is one on which we have a clear national position which we are not prepared to abandon at this time in favour of a common EU position. While it may be inconvenient in the case of the Syrian arms embargo, we must recognise that we are sometimes the member state that is holding out.

We have been very much to the fore on the issue of Palestine and settlement goods. Members of the Dáil and Seanad have been very active in demanding that we take that position. The Tánaiste has taken that forward in the EU and we have made progress. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy commissioned a study of this and we have brought it to the EU table. The Tánaiste has been very clear that he does not expect any unanimous endorsement of this. If we are realistic, we must expect that to be the case. What may emerge are guidelines that those countries who so wish can follow. That will be a positive development. We clearly wish to see a common EU-wide policy on that but, for the reasons I set out, that may not happen. We will continue to be active. We think citizens have the right to know whether what they are buying is a good produced in Israel or an illegally occupied Palestinian territory. That is where we want to go. The Tánaiste is determined to continue to take a lead on that.

The situation in Mali is very complex. We must look back to where this conflict came from. The origins of the recent conflict effectively arose from a Tuareg uprising against the Malian government. Many people feel the government in Bamako did not take sufficient account of the particular identity and regional diversity of the Tuareg minority. There have been previous Tuareg uprisings that were fairly heavily put down by the Malian forces. The Tuareg forces got the upper hand and the coup d'étatthat took place in Bamako arose from the fact that the Malian government forces were effectively collapsing in the face of the Tuareg military campaign. Some people ask why we are supporting a government that is the result of a coup d'état. The situation in Mali did not arise because of the coup d'état. Although we do not support it or agree with it, the coup d'étatwas, in effect, a response to the disintegration of government writ in Mali. With our EU partners, we are involved in trying to support a process, which is now governed by a UN Security Council resolution, to put in place a new dispensation in Mali that will have support across the country and recognise ethnic diversity. The reason Ireland is assisting with the EU training mission is precisely to develop armed forces in Mali that are capable not only of keeping peace and order but of doing so in a way that respects the ethnic diversity and human rights of people in all parts of Mali.

In respect of the humanitarian situation, we have been putting money in there. Ireland announced at the donor conference on 15 May that we would not only give more money but support human rights monitoring. We are in dialogue with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to identify specific ways in which we can support that work most suitably. The UN is putting together an integrated, strategic peacekeeping mission in Mali that will cover not just military but police and rule-of-law aspects and will replace the current African mission. It will be a major undertaking but, again, Ireland will be very supportive of that. We certainly feel there can be no long-term solution to the situation in Mali without addressing the situation of the Tuareg and recognising their human rights and particularly regional diversity. Does anybody else wish to speak about Mali?

Again, the situation in Bahrain is very complicated and difficult. Bahrain is a particularly sad case because it was to the fore in the Arab world on many fronts, particularly in terms of the openness of its society and its recognition of women. I remember when I was ambassador to the UN, the ambassador of Bahrain was elected as president of the General Assembly, one of only three woman to be so elected. It fell to me by coincidence, as head of the Western European and Others Group at the time, to welcome and recognise this. This was a time when Bahrain was being lauded as a model for other Arab states to follow. Sadly, we see that it is a country riven by religious division. The Government has made very clear its unhappiness with and condemnation of the events that took place there and the ongoing crackdown on and abuse of civil and human rights activists. We support the effort that is under way to enter into a national dialogue. Dialogue is the only way this will be resolved peacefully. I cannot see it being resolved in any other way at the moment.

The EU has also expressed its criticism and condemnation of what is happening. It is probably true to say that not all member states are as outspoken as we are on the issue but we do not miss any opportunity to raise our concerns with Bahrain. We see that it is a situation that can be turned around with the right policies. It is not a lost cause and we urge the government there to take the right path. Does Mr. Kelly wish to say a bit more on the EU approach? Is there anything he would like to add?