H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

On the issue of Greece, my Government's position is very clear. We appreciate the fact the Greek Government would like to negotiate a solution to the existing economic crisis and debt problem. This is certainly a positive message. We also recognise the fact the Greek Government has a democratic mandate. As far as the European Council is concerned, I must emphasise that the Council can and will even tomorrow discuss the situation in Greece but decisions concerning the problems arising from assistance and possible modification of those provisions are for the eurozone finance ministers. This probably will be the correct way to negotiate any alteration of existing provisions.

With regard to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, I recognise what Deputy Crowe said that the issue is complex but the Council has given a clear mandate to the Commission to pursue negotiations. Democratic scrutiny is important. I have had assurances from the members of the Commission that of course the Commission is looking for a balanced deal with the United States, which respects the interests of both sides, both the European countries and the United States. The negotiations will continue for some time because the Commission would like to assure a fair and balanced deal for both sides. In that process there are elements of democratic control, not only NGOs, the world conference but also elections to the European Parliament and contacts with elected members of the European Parliament, not least of course, members of the government. There are many mechanisms to acquire more information and probably these means should be employed by citizens. The Latvian Presidency will not be of any particular assistance in the process.

I will comment on the CSDP and the role of NATO. NATO is a defence alliance and at the same time it is an important organisational structure providing security and addressing humanitarian crisis and peace operation throughout the world. The EU through the CSDP mechanisms co-operate with NATO for the purpose of peace operations. Ireland, as far as I know, is also co-operating with NATO, being a member of the partnership for peace arrangement, with the purpose of conducting joint peace operations. This is how I see the relationship between Ireland and NATO. What I said about co-operation with NATO does not necessarily extend to territorial defence. The EU unfortunately is not a defence alliance, even though the treaty contains the Sovereignty Clause.

In respect of the Eastern Partnership of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the ambitions and interests of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus should be taken into account when thinking of the future of the Eastern Partnership. One can negotiate with those countries. It is important that they remain as participants of the process. With time their positions on certain issues may change. Certainly during this process, we can only keep the existing context and welcome those countries as participants of the Riga Eastern Partnership summit.

I did not fully grasp the points made on the increased military involvement in Ukraine. I would say that I oppose any military involvement or intervention in eastern Ukraine but at this moment there is only one party which is engaged in military intervention in eastern Ukraine. Certainly this is not the EU and these are not EU member states.

In Central Asia, the very important issues are the fight against drugs and the position of Iran in that respect. The EU is doing a great deal and we need to raise awareness of what it is doing. For more than a decade the EU has funded two significant programmes in that part of the world, the Board of Management Programme for Central Asia, helping those countries to establish civilised borders and to control migration, trade and everything else across borders; second, the Central Asia drug action plan initiative is also funded by the European Commission. These are two major instruments. In addition, one can involve many international structures. In Malta there are bilateral projects, involving not only EU member states and countries such as Iran but the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in Vienna. That structure is very active in Central Asia doing research and controlling the drugs traffic across central Asian countries to Europe. This is a matter for international co-operation and the EU can certainly play a positive role and is already doing so.

The next question is how to improve relations with the Russian Federation. I already mentioned that there is certainly one possibility which is to send our message concerning our values and views to the Russian public as actively and widely as possible. There is a deficit of information inside the Russian Federation on developments elsewhere and how people in Europe perceive developments in Eastern Ukraine and other places. Much more active exchange of information using European funds for information in the Russian language intended for the Russian population would be a means to improve our relations with the Russian Federation in general. It is not only about dialogue between governments. This is also about public diplomacy and everything else.

I already tried to answer the question on Greece by saying that the Presidency of the European Council can probably not take any significant initiatives to address and modify the existing assistance programme to Greece. Simultaneously, the European Council is having a debate on the social and economic situation in Greece, but the meeting of the eurozone ministers for finance would probably be the correct institution through which to formally address those concerns.

I was asked about the European perspective of Eastern Partnership countries. Certainly, a European perspective exists, but it might be rather remote. When we speak on Eastern Partnership countries, we must recognise that while they have signed the association agreements, these have not yet even been ratified by all European member states. This is only the beginning of a very long process which might in time lead to membership as a subject for negotiations and probably as an ultimate reality. That is not going to be within a few years but rather we should speak in this context of a decade or two.

I have already said concerning the initiative of Germany and France that all complementary initiatives are welcome from the point of view of the Presidency. I have heard also of similar views of the High Representative who spoke in Dublin two weeks ago. Therefore, one can only appreciate the new initiative should it be productive. Concerning Greece, we addressed the issue of negotiations.

The last question I was asked was on counter-terrorism. The Presidency would like to do whatever is possible to improve counter-terrorism measures in Europe but we must also recognise three important factors. First, counter-terrorism measures are mostly national competencies of EU member states. Second, they normally involve sharing information and co-operation between security and intelligence services. Third, there are already a number of European documents and initiatives on this subject. Therefore, we believe that the European Council should certainly continue to debate the matter while paying particular attention to better implementation of existing measures. Before producing new declarations or adopting new documents, one could simultaneously consider full or better implementation of the agreed measures. I thank the committee.