Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I would never have accused Deputy Mitchell of walking out on me. Rather than to go through each contribution individually, I will respond thematically.

I start with Ukraine and Russia, rolling back a little to 2009 when the EU embarked on the eastern partnership process with six states on the borders of the Union. It is not fair to say that progress towards association agreements has been rushed over the intervening five year period. The process has taken its course. There were hopes that an association agreement would be signed with Armenia. Something similar to the occurrence in Ukraine happened in the case of Armenia where the President decided overnight to go with the customs union. The association agreement was shelved. Considerable progress was made in Ukraine, which was not completed. I remember being at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in early November when we discussed the association agreement and the expectation then was that it would be signed at the Vilnius summit at the end of that month. Then-President Yanukovych decided he was abandoning the association agreement and going with the customs union. It is a pity the association agreement and customs union were seen to comprise a zero-sum exercise. The development of the six states involved, including Ukraine, ought to be considered to benefit Russia, the European Union and, in particular, the people of those states.

Having good economic relations with Russia and the European Union is to its advantage. That is why I say the issue of the association agreement is still on the table. The critical point is that the decision on whether to sign the association agreement is one that should be made by Ukraine which should not be subject to external influence or pressure. The European Union is not applying external pressure and nobody else should do so either.

Deputy Seán Crowe has referred to the fact that some very unpleasant individuals and forces became involved in the protests that followed the decision not to sign the association agreement. We must be very clear in distinguishing between the perfectly legitimate right of people to protest, make their views known and call for a change of government and the exploitation of these protests by violent and anti-democratic forces. That has complicated the situation in Ukraine. That said, there was no justification for the use of force by the Ukrainian authorities at the time in effectively shooting people in the square during the protests. There are issues that must be addressed in Ukraine, but they can be addressed by means other than the use or threatened use of military force.

A number of colleagues have mentioned the situation in Crimea. Deputy Brendan Smith asked about reports that 16,000 Russian soldiers were in Crimea. I understand the forces are mixed and that they also include Russian naval personnel based in the naval base in Crimea. I do not believe there is any independent confirmation of the numbers involved. I had this discussion with the Russian ambassador. One looks at a situation and sees Russian soldiers at various installations. Fair enough, the Black Sea fleet is based in Crimea, but my view and that of the Government and the European Union is that the place for Russian soldiers is in their barracks. I know that statements were made overnight that soldiers would be withdrawn to base.

Deputy Brendan Smith asked me to set out what a diplomatic solution would look like. There are a number of dimensions to it. One is progressing to elections, which was part of the 21 February agreement brokered by the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France and Poland. The second is economic and financial. Ukraine has serious economic and financial difficulties and I am aware that discussions are taking place in Kiev involving the IMF and the European Commission. I do not want to get into the details because I do not think it would be appropriate to do so, but, clearly, there is an issue of financial and economic support that comes into play.

The third issue that comes into play is a perfectly legitimate one. It concerns the rights of Russian speakers and different nationalities within Ukraine. Deputy Eric Byrne asked what I thought of the decision of the Ukrainian Parliament on the Russian language. I think it was a big mistake. I understand, however, that it has changed tack and reversed its position. Like any other country, Ukraine needs to be inclusive of all those who live within its borders and ways must be found to ensure people are included and feel included. Where there is no inclusion and issues of national identity and language rights arise, there are mechanisms in place for dealing with them. For example, the Council of Europe has very robust procedures for dealing with issues of language rights. In some respects, the OSCE was established to address the kinds of issue that are arising in Ukraine and has long experience of dealing with them. I would like to see an observer mission from it travel to Ukraine to look at these issues and what is happening in Crimea. Deputy Eric Byrne raised the issue of who was verifying what was happening and who the referee was. The advantage in having the OSCE is that Russia is a very important member. I have some experience in this regard because I chaired the OSCE for one year and would like to think the way in which it could make its decision would not be subject to a veto as such. It requires consensus, but that consensus is based on the commitments each participating state has made to comply with the principles of the OSCE. This is certainly one occasion on which and space in which it has a role to play and it should be enabled to play it.

Ultimately, the political issues and those around national identity and the transition taking place that have been thrown up by the crisis in Ukraine are capable of being addressed and resolved without recourse to military action or the threat of it. We must condemn Russia's use of the threat of military action and the use of its enormous military power to come the heavy on Ukraine. I appreciate that some statements were made overnight about troops being recalled to barracks, which is to be welcomed. The Russian ambassador reminded me today of the statement President Putin had made to the effect that while parliament had given authorisation for the use of military force on the territory of Ukraine, this had not been activated. Again, I draw some comfort from this. The threat of military action in Ukraine needs to be taken out of the equation. That having been done, there is certainly enormous scope and space for Russia to work with the European Union to address the very real problems in Ukraine.

At the special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday there was a very clear message, as one would have seen in the conclusions, about our condemnation of what had happened in Ukraine and the actions taken by Russia. However, there is also a very strong willingness on the part of the European Union to work with Russia on the difficulties in Ukraine. To address the point made by Senator Jim Walsh in particular, Russia is a respected partner of the European Union. It is one of its strategic partners. There is a very strong economic relationship between the European Union and Russia. As a country, we have a growing trade relationship with Russia. We have a joint economic commission with Russia and would like to see ourselves being able to make progress along these dimensions. This is not the 19th century.

This is a world which is much more complex and where information is available with the click of a button. The kind of behaviour we saw from Russia last week, and particularly over the weekend, has no place in modern diplomacy or relations between states. We cannot have a world in which big powers, with all of their military might, can act the heavy or breathe down the neck of a neighbouring state to force it to do things it does not want to do. As far as Ireland is concerned - I am confident that I am reflecting the views of the Irish people as a whole - we want international relations to be conducted in a respectful and peaceful manner that does not threaten the security and peace of the world. I sincerely hope the situation in Ukraine will be de-escalated but what we have seen over the past several days was the most dangerous moment Europe has experienced since the end of the Cold War. When a state engages in that kind of military build up, it takes very little to set off something that is difficult to get back into the bottle afterwards. I hope the efforts that are set to continue until the European Council meeting on Thursday and, perhaps, beyond will help to de-escalate the situation so that a resolution can be found.

On Uganda, I have issued a statement expressing our strong views on the legislation that was passed there. When I met President Museveni two years ago this was one of the issues I discussed directly with him. This legislation is wrong and it will have consequences for our relations with Uganda. For other reasons we have suspended our government-to-government aid programme with Uganda but the issue will be discussed by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Costello, and his colleagues at the Development Council.

The current round of Middle East talks is due to be completed by 30 April. If the partners agree a framework it is possible that negotiations could continue beyond that date but the important issue is that we continue to support the ongoing efforts in this regard. Deputy Crowe and Senator Walsh raised the related issue of settlement products. Officials working for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy are putting together a framework for a European Union approach to settlement products. To some extent this process is currently on pause because of the ongoing talks. As a country, we have reserved our position on proceeding with a national approach to the matter but I would first like to see whether the talks progress. On the specific issue of Irish businesses, I am not aware of any Irish business operating in the Occupied Territories.