Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that we are behind time and that our witnesses must head to Dublin Airport at 3.45 p.m. I apologise to our witnesses for the delay in commencing the public session of the meeting. We were discussing another matter in private session and it overran.

On behalf of the committee I welcome Mr. Pierre Vimont, the Executive Secretary General of the European External Action Service, EEAS. He is accompanied by Ms Jutta Edthofer, the Antici counsellor, and Mr. Keith McBean, the Irish Ambassador to the Political and Security Committee in Brussels.

The EEAS is a very young organisation, having been established in December 2010. Mr. Vimont and his colleagues have faced the challenge of putting in place a very large organisation with a shared organisational culture, which is a daunting task given that the staff is drawn from so many various backgrounds. Parallel to these organisational challenges, the EEAS has had to establish itself as an effective actor in international affairs on behalf of the European Union and has played an important role in Serbia and Kosovo, in talks with Iran and in efforts to bring about a resumption of talks in the Middle East peace process. These few lines sum up a very daunting task.

The committee is interested to hear how the EEAS approaches the challenges which determine its policy priorities and how it interacts for this purpose with the institutions of the European Union and the member states, in particular the state holding the Presidency, which we will do in the first six months of 2013. I commend High Representative Catherine Ashton for her commitment in interacting directly with the committees on foreign affairs of EU national parliaments at their twice yearly interparliamentary conferences. Since I became Chairman of this committee I have attended three Presidency meetings and Baroness Ashton has been there to brief chairpersons from throughout the EU and she also holds question and answer sessions. I am very impressed with her and her role. I hope over time the relationship between her and these committees can develop. It is important that this happens. In the meantime, we look forward to welcoming Baroness Ashton. I believe she will be here for OSCE meetings in the first week in December. We will host a meeting during the Irish Presidency, in the third week of March, and Baroness Ashton has committed to attend it.

I wish to advise Mr. Vimont that he is protected by absolute privilege in respect of utterances to this committee. However, if he is directed by the committee to cease making remarks on a particular matter and continues to do so, he is entitled, thereafter, only to a qualified privilege in respect of his remarks. He is directed that only comments or evidence connected with the subject matter of the meeting are to be given and he is asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible, he should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside of the Houses or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Once again I apologise for the delay.

Mr. Pierre Vimont:

I thank the Chairman, and there is no need to apologise as I was late myself so I feel responsible. My only urgency is to catch a flight later but until then I am at the disposal of the committee for any questions the members would like to raise.

My presentation will be brief and will focus on the reason I am here, namely, to prepare for the rotating Presidency which Ireland will hold at the beginning of 2013. The EEAS must do this because the workings of the institutional system makes very close collaboration with the rotating Presidency very important for us. The Chairman mentioned the High Representative several times. As she has two hats - she is also Vice President of the Commission - she has an almost impossible task and therefore needs assistance from the rotating Presidency in some of the work she must complete.

This is mostly with third countries in the meetings we organise or visits to those countries and in regard to our regular reports to the European Parliament on meetings with foreign Ministers. That is one of the reasons we must work closely.

The other reason is that, in our daily work, working parties such as the EU Political and Security Committee, PSC, and COREPER, the daily work of the rotating Presidency is intertwined with the daily work of the EEAS. On a regular basis, we must share our knowledge and our updating of the situation in order to work in the best way possible. The third reason is to know the priorities of the Irish Presidency and precisely to join our common forces as we prepare the agendas for meetings in the Council and for our contact with foreign countries. For these reasons, it is quite important to start working now and to be ready for the six months of the Irish Presidency.

The second observation concerns the state of play in the EEAS. It is a young institution, less than two years old, having been set up in January 2011. This is an ongoing process and a work in progress. We need more time to be as efficient as possible but we have managed to deal with the daily work in practical terms. We must keep working with the rotating Presidency as each one begins. We have set up a network of EU delegations all over the world. Our headquarters is working properly and we are chairing different working groups in the PSC. The High Representative has three councils, including the foreign affairs Ministers, defence Ministers and development Ministers. This is improving by the day but we still have much to do. I can take as many questions as the Chairman wishes.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to have some interaction with members.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and I hope they have a safe journey back. I have not been a member of this committee for long and I am not familiar with many of the terms referring to the organisations involved. I am not familiar with the role played by the EEAS so I found the briefing document interesting in the questions it raises.

Is the EEAS planning any activity on trade with Israeli settlements in light of this committee's proposal for an EU-wide ban on trade on settlement goods? This arose from the discussion on what was happening in Gaza. Does the EEAS have a role? I am supportive of the ban on Israeli settlement goods in order to emphasise that the ban is only on goods produced in Israeli settlements. We support it because of the illegality of the settlements and the human rights abuses that took place. It seems that ethnic cleansing is taking place and different NGOs gave us the background to what is happening in the settlement areas. Does the EEAS have a view?

Regarding EU sanctions, in the Middle East the High Representative has ensured an ongoing European contribution to efforts to bring about a resumption of talks and to highlight the humanitarian situation in Gaza. This is a concern shared by Ireland. The EEAS refers to sanctions policies, another area that has developed significantly over the past year and a half, and the recent resumption of discussions on the Iranian nuclear programme has been in part attributed to the tough measures imposed in January of this year, including a ban on crude oil. We know the Israeli Government is not signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, and it seems to have nuclear weapons. It certainly has nuclear power and is able to enrich nuclear fuel. We have no ban or similar efforts in respect of Israel, despite what is happening in Gaza. There seems to be a contradiction with what is wrong in one part of the world and what we are doing in another. Perhaps it is beyond the remit of the EEAS to comment on these matters. We are placing sanctions on one country yet we do not do anything to another country involved in the same thing.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I am examining the role of the organisation in respect of human rights. The ambassador referred to working on reform in terms of crisis response and crisis management structures. Will it apply where there are significant abuses of human rights? As the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, we have presentations, meetings and briefings with a number of countries and agencies concerned with human rights issues. Today, three of us had a meeting on the appalling situation in Bahrain, where doctors are prevented from treating injured people because they were protesting. Other meetings concern what happened in Syria. It is all very well having human rights principles but we do not have the action to follow from the principles. Is there a major role for the EEAS in that respect? What power will it have to intervene in those horrific situations? I am struck by the irony of certain countries sitting on human rights commissions and committees when such countries are to the fore in human rights concerns.

Dan Neville (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps this point is too political but Ireland is a neutral country. We are very protective of our neutrality. The EEAS is part of the common foreign and security policy. How does that fit with a neutral country, which is defensive of its neutrality and any implication that this might be compromised?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are most welcome. I apologise for not having read the briefing note. We were called into two meetings, one of which concerned an issue in Malawi and another concerned the delegation from Bahrain talking about human rights. I apologise for not being well briefed and if I put questions that may not be applicable.

What is the relationship between Europe and the African Union and the Arab League? The latter two are important international players in the field and at the heart of areas of substantial conflict.

We have had disturbing reports of how High Representative Ashton was handling Bosnia-Herzegovina, particularly Republika Srpska. There was an argument that matters were unfolding rather than getting better. In a nutshell, we can hit every area of conflict, excluding Palestine, Syria and Bahrain but we do not have time.

Perhaps Mr. Vimont would comment on the three issues of the agency's relationship with the African Union, the Arab League as players in the international field and on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Vimont to the committee. I recently met him in Brussels as part of a delegation on the Palestine issue and was impressed by his grasp of the situation and with some of the views he expressed on behalf of the European External Action Service.

Establishment of the European External Action Service has allowed Europe to act in a more coherent fashion in terms of the application of foreign policy, which is to be welcomed. A criticism appropriately levelled at the European Union in recent years was that there did not exist a type of resourced operation which allowed us to act in a coherent manner. While, as we are all aware, the service is experiencing some teething problems, they are matters that can be addressed if the political will to do so exists and resources are made available.

In terms of the Palestinian question, the international community has been rightly accused of inaction in recent years in terms of it allowing the situation to drift. When a situation like that drifts, the prospects of vulnerable people, including those on the front line, are damaged. It appears to many of us that the prospects for peace and a lasting settlement in Palestine are distant at this point given what we know about illegal settlements and various other activities. It also appears that the Palestinian question is always at the mercy of the US electoral cycle. It is self-evident that the European Union should be playing a much more proactive role in the resolution of the intractable problem on our own doorstep in our southern neighbourhood.

I would appreciate if Mr. Vimont could outline the role he sees the European Union playing in the context of the EEAS in terms of the resolution of the Palestinian question and if he would comment on the prospect of an EU-wide ban on produce from illegal settlements, on which the committee took a position in recent weeks. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has a strong view on that issue in terms of how it applies to Ireland.

I had the opportunity to visit Tunisia in recent months, where I met with some senior public representatives of the new Administration. We are all aware of the Arab Spring and the consequences in that regard. A key concern of the Tunisian people, given their proximity to the European Union and historic relationship with Europe during colonial times and in recent times, is how the European Union can assist in bedding down democracy, trade and development and employment and so on in the Maghreb area in Tunisia and across into the Middle East to areas that are now hungry for democracy.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Vimont and wish him well in his challenging role. On the Bosnian situation which was raised by Deputy Eric Byrne, I recently read an article in which Mr. Paddy Ashdown stated that the policy of the international community in the past few years has been utterly disastrous. Perhaps Mr. Vimont would address that issue and would also comment on the renewal of the chapter 7 mandate by the Security Council in November. Some highly respected experts have warned of the ending of that mandate and the danger of the dissolution of Bosnia without the safeguards provided by the chapter 7 mandate.

I have two brief questions in regard to humanitarian aid and action. Will the EEAS become a signatory to the EU consensus on humanitarian aid? In regard to the important work of human rights defenders, what actions, if any, is the EEAS considering to ensure consistent implementation of the EU guidelines?

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back to Deputy Durkan later if there is time available for supplementary questions. I have one question for the ambassador in relation to the EEAS. What plans are in place to further the relationship of the EEAS with national parliaments, in particular the Croatian Parliament? Does the EEAS intend to develop its relationship with these parliaments? The relationship between national parliaments and the EEAS is important and should be built upon.

Mr. Pierre Vimont:

I will try to answer all of the questions asked. As regards trade in some products from Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, this is an issue with which we have been dealing for some time. It must be remembered that EEAS work can only go as far as member states allow. Also, this is a competence that belongs to our colleagues in the Commission, with whom we work closely. On an issue as political as this, we are of course very much involved. We have stated several times, including again recently, in conclusions from the Council that this issue is one of concern for the European Union. We have discussed this with member states several times. To be totally honest, we have not been able thus far to reach an agreement of the 27 members. What we are witnessing at the moment is member states individually trying to address the issue. Members may be aware that some UK companies have taken the decision to tag these products in terms of origin. The decisions which have been taken by individual member states or by enterprise or corporations in those member states are the only ones taken so far. We recently discussed this issue again with the High Representative who told us she wanted us to continue to put pressure on member states to see how far we can go. This is a matter of major concern for the Palestinian authorities with whom we are engaging.

On the general issue of the relationship between the EEAS and the Palestinian Authority, I remind members that the major donor in terms of financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority is the European Union. In spite of what is being said by many partners inside the region or from other entities around the international community, the European Union is providing most of the financial resources for the day-to-day work of the Palestinian Authority, in other words, the Palestinian administration. We are supporting the UN agency in charge of Palestinian refugees outside of the Palestinian territory, either in Syria, Lebanon or Jordan. I could go on. There is no doubt but that the European Union is the major partner for our Palestinian counterpart. We intend to continue that work. Where we can act we try, as we have done in the past, to do so through the provision of financial resources, statements and support for the Palestinian position. On some other issues which are rather controversial, including that of trade of products from the settlements, we have not been able to go as far as would wish to.

The issue of sanctions taken against Iran and against Israel on the issue of the use of nuclear energy for military purposes was mentioned. Members will be aware, in spite of what has been said time and again, that there is no clear evidence and so on in the Vienna agencies of nuclear weapons in Israel.

Iran, in contrast, has ratified the non-proliferation treaty and all the inspectors who have gone there are telling us that the Iranian authorities may be in violation of that treaty and of the commitments made by them with regard to it. From a legal point of view, it is coming not from the European Union alone, but from the international community, as there have been several resolutions from the Security Council on that issue. The Security Council has asked time and again for Iran to abide by the commitment it made to the NPT and this is why we are imposing sanctions. We have stated time and again that if Iran goes back inside the framework of the non-proliferation treaty and abides by the advice of the Vienna agency, then we will look again at those sanctions, and we are quite ready to do that. So far, they have not complied with this wish and this is why we are keeping on with this.

On the issue of human rights, we are trying to be as practical as possible. The example of Bahrain was cited. We are closely monitoring it. On several occasions we sent a mission from our staff there to have contacts with the Bahraini authorities. We have been in touch with the ambassador from Bahrain in Brussels and time and again have passed messages. The High Representative has been in touch with her counterpart in Bahrain and, to be honest with the committee, so far to no avail. We were hopeful at one point because, after incidents that took place during last year's repression, there had been a good report by an independent inquiry which came out with a strong recommendation on what should be done. We supported that report and asked the Bahraini authorities to implement those conclusions. We have not been very successful but we will continue to stick to our point.

On human rights in general, we have had adopted in the Council not only a clear statement of our commitment to human rights, but also the setting up of an action plan on what we want to do. We appointed a special representative, the former Greek foreign minister and former Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Stavros Lambrinidis, who is now in charge and with whom we are working closely. He is the one who will provide us with a clear indication of what we could do and what should be done everywhere we face difficult cases.

I totally agree on the matter of the contradiction which arises where sometimes there are countries on the board of the council of human rights in Geneva that should not be there. When a case like that happens, at the time of electing those countries, we try to use all our efforts and all our best endeavours to prevent that. On several occasions we have succeeded in convincing some of our partners to prevent that, but it is not always the case.

On the question of CSPD and the neutrality of Ireland, what can I say except that any kind of operation we launch in the field of security and defence can only be done with the approval of all member states by consensus. So far, and with the most recent operations we have launched on the ground, those are mostly of a civilian nature. It is about the training of military institutions so that we can support the rule of law in some third countries, such as in the Horn of Africa with Somalia, and it is about sending observers to Georgia. It will be, perhaps tomorrow if we go ahead in the Sahel, about training police or military officers to bring back stability in the north of Niger and perhaps tomorrow in Mali, if there is an agreement among member states. Once again, nothing in that field can be done without the support of all the member states and we intend to go on in that way because this is what the treaty requests.

On the relationship with regional organisations, such as the African Union or the Arab League, this is certainly one of the major priorities the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, has asked us to implement. We have had strong requests not only from the African Union or the Arab League, but also from ASEAN and others, to increase our partnership with them. This is a road for real improvement as we move along because we increasingly detect a common approach with many of these regional organisations and a sense of moving forward together. The African Union has asked us time and again to work with it. The Arab League has also done so. We will have a ministerial meeting with the Arab League at the beginning of November in Cairo and it is eager to set up many new processes in order to work closely together. This is an interesting road on which we could move as swiftly as possible in order to build a partnership with the different regional organisations, which, I hope, will help in stabilising to some extent the international community which is fraught with too many crises.

On Bosnia-Herzegovina, I have been told about the assessment made by Lord Paddy Ashdown on the disastrous situation as it exists at present in Bosnia, and he is certainly one of those who know best about that region. We are very much aware that the situation has been deteriorating recently and we are, through the action of our special representative, Mr. Peter Sørensen, in Sarajevo and through our capacity, putting pressure on the Bosnian authorities because they are very much looking for an improved relationship with the European Union and, tomorrow, the possibility of starting an accession process. We have told them time and again that we would not follow that road until there had been an improvement on their side and a fulfilment of the three or four clear goals we have set them in relation to the change of their constitution, the rule of law and justice in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are adamant on that and we intend to stick to that line. In the near future, arising from the report the Commission will release in the next few days, one will see this position reaffirmed very strongly.

Briefly, we are trying to do as much as we can for Tunisia. We have more or less doubled our financial assistance to Tunisia in the past two years, 2011 and 2012, and we need to do much more. We have offered to start negotiation on what we call the deep and comprehensive trade agreement, in other words, to make Tunisia more or less part of the European Single Market. We have offered them also negotiation on mobility of their citizens with all the necessary safeguards that would be necessary. We very much hope they will proceed along those lines so that we can promote economic and social development with that country. We are having regular political meetings. Their Prime Minister was in Brussels yesterday. There were meetings with the Tunisian President one week ago in New York. This is certainly inside the events that are taking place in the Arab world. It is one of the countries that we have, in a sort of way, prioritised compared to others if only because the scale of the problems Tunisia faces are manageable to some extent for the European Union. This is where I hope we could have, if we work well, a good success story in the future and we are very much underlining the importance and the priority that Tunisia is for us.

We are looking at the issue of humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid comes within the competence of Commissioner Georgieva but in the framework of the comprehensive approach that the EEAS is trying to promote in every national, regional or local crisis, at some point there will always be the humanitarian dimension. This happened in Libya one year ago, and today in northern Mali and Syria. We work closely with our colleagues from the Commission to ensure consistency, whether in political or diplomatic efforts, with what is being done in the humanitarian field.

In regard to national parliaments, what we are trying to do is more or less what I am doing today. Every time we visit a member state we have contacts with the national parliament if only to listen to any grievances against the EEAS but also to try to improve and take stock of some of the good ideas and to inform it about the ongoing process. As the Chairman said in his introductory remarks, the twice yearly meetings with national parliaments, at which the High Representative attends on a regular basis, are very important to us. When the parliamentary assembly of the WEU disappeared we all agreed that we had to find another way of working with national parliaments as it was important for us to get regular inputs from them. We are aware of that and ready to take stock of whatever observation or recommendation we can get from national parliaments.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Vimont. Our Vice Chairman wants to ask a brief question. Our visitors have to get a taxi.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Recognising the work of High Representative, Catherine Ashton, to what extent is there a respect for the objectives and the work of the EEAS in countries such as Libya, Iran, Egypt and Syria? For example, is the EEAS regarded as a necessary evil or nuisance? There is a subtlety that should not go unnoticed. To what extent is the EEAS respected, rather than feared? When a submission is made that should be taken note of, is it ignored? The tendency is for warring factions in various places to ignore everybody. The EU, by virtue of its financial contribution in these areas, does have a right to follow up and ask whether it is being taken seriously. Syria is a classic example. To what extent is the fear of being dragged before the International Criminal Court a factor? To what extent has it been used by the EEAS as a means of promoting the positive progress in respect of the situation presented?

Mr. Pierre Vimont:

Perhaps I can explain a few elements. The Deputy asked about Syria. We have maintained our EU delegation to Syria, therefore, we are in contact with the Government of Syria and express strong messages, time and again, about the need for the Syrian Government to take notice of what the international community has repeated time and again. Of course, we are a nuisance and Syria is not happy with that and has told us so. At the same time, it respects us because we have remained in Damascus saying we want to be close to the people of Damascus and Syria at a time of great suffering and try to help them as much as we can through humanitarian assistance. We should do much more and this is what we are trying to do. The fact that we are there is important.

In the case of Iran, the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, chairs the EU 3 plus 3 group, in other words the group that is negotiating on behalf of the international community to try to find a solution to the whole issue of the nuclear programme. She has regular contacts with her counterpart. Every time they have decided they should meet they have arranged a meeting without difficulty, which means they may not like what the High Representative has to tell them but they come, listen, discuss and, perhaps, contradict her but we are considered as a legitimate partner, which is not bad.

On the question about the International Criminal Court and whether there should be a referral to that court, that is a complicated issue. Do we have to push that issue as quickly as possible at the beginning of a crisis, with the risk of closing any possibility of finding a solution to make the leader involved in that crisis step down from office? There is a need to think about this issue.

With regard to Syria, more than half of the member states are of the opinion that we should have a referral to the International Criminal Court. A few member states wonder whether we should wait a little longer. It was decided among all of us to discuss that issue with Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, the joint special representative of the UN and the Arab League for Syria. We would not want to jeopardise his efforts and the plan he is trying to set up to try to find a political solution to the crisis. If Mr. Brahimi is of the opinion that we should go ahead with a referral to the International Criminal Court, then the 27 of us will meet again to decide if we should go forward on that issue. It is a tricky issue on which, every time, we have to look at the pros and cons and find the right balancing act. While we have not yet decided on a referral to the International Criminal Court, we are trying to use, as much as possible, all the evidence we can gather and work very closely with the commission of inquiry in Geneva to have the principle of accountability with regard to what is happening in Syria implemented as fully as possible

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador and his team for appearing before the committee. Our discussions were useful. Perhaps we can look forward to a further discussion in the future. I hope there will be many opportunities for the parliamentary committee to interact with the EEAS. There will be an opportunity next year at a meeting in Dublin to interact with the EU High Representative, Baroness Ashton. I wish Mr. Pierre Vimont well in his efforts to consolidate the EEAS as a very successful organisation.