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

I welcome the ambassador. As Deputy Smith stated, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade came before the committee yesterday. There is a general consensus among those of all parties and none in the Houses of the Oireachtas with regard to condemning what is happening in Ukraine. We have been brought to the brink in respect of this matter and I hope people will pause and consider the direction in which matters could potentially move.
I disagree with the ambassador's comments on nuclear weapons. If Ukraine had access to nuclear weapons, Russia would have moved in much more quickly. Will he outline his opinion on how the EU has dealt with the crisis in Ukraine since it first began? At yesterday's meeting, there appeared to be consensus on the point that Ukraine was placed in an unfair position in that it was given only two options, namely, to tie its future to the EU or to tie it to Russia. Many of us believe that it might have been possible to reach a compromise between the two. Those responsible for negotiating with the Ukraine on behalf of the EU should be given their P45s. I am of the view that the individuals in question performed poorly and that they were not very supportive of Ukraine in the lead-up to the current crisis.
Russia is playing out its hand and has taken de factocontrol of Crimea. I commend the authorities in Kiev on showing such resolute restraint in the face of the aggression we have seen. What should happen now? Is the ambassador of the view that a political deal can be struck by the parties involved? Could such a deal be arrived at soon? Is he of the view that sanctions should be imposed on Russia until it removes its forces? Many people believe that the EU is merely huffing and puffing and that there is very little it can do. If sanctions are imposed, they will have an adverse impact on many countries throughout the EU. I do not know how effective sanctions would be in the context of affecting Russia's strategy in Ukraine.
Like many others, I am very concerned about the level of involvement of the far right in pro-EU protests and violence in Kiev. This matter was also touched on at yesterday's meeting. Those on the far right have used the power vacuum in order to secure posts in the new Ukrainian Government. I include in this the new Deputy Prime Minister and the head of the defence forces. As his country's ambassador to Ireland, I do not know if Mr. Reva can comment on that matter.

The Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and National Defence Committee is Andriy Parubiy, who was the founder of the Social National Party of Ukraine, which in my view was a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis and whose membership was restricted to ethnic Ukrainians. Alongside him is the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and National Defence Committee, Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of Right Sector, a group of hardline nationalist street fighters who previously boasted they were ready for armed action to free Ukraine. We now have the new Deputy Prime Minister, Oleksandr Sych, who is a member of the far right Svoboda Party which the World Jewish Congress called on the EU to consider banning last year along with Greece's Golden Dawn. There has been a huge increase in anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish citizens in Kiev and the Rabbi of Kiev has advised Jewish citizens to leave the city. There are shades of the past in the attacks on Jewish citizens and people.

The ambassador may not be able to answer, but many of us cannot understand how a neo-fascist party like Svoboda has been given the Deputy Prime Minister's position as well as two other ministerial posts. I realise that Svoboda got 10% of votes in the last election, but now seven Government Ministers have strong links to the extreme right. I find it extremely worrying. It sends a disturbing message to all ethnic and linguistic minorities in the Ukraine. I note that when the new Government came to power, it removed Russian as a national language. How was this done? Was that mistaken? In this tense and hostile environment, why was this decision seen as necessary and important? It sent out negative signals.