Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Last Tuesday, when he took questions in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I asked the Tánaiste about the Libyan detention centres, forced returns, the Mediterranean and the recent impasse. His response to me was very strong, namely, that migrants stranded in the Mediterranean need a much better co-ordinated and collective response from the EU instead of the ad hoc, case-by-case management seen to date. The Tánaiste was critical of the EU being unable to agree collectively on an approach to migration and rescue. He stated that a new system which will ensure survivors' well-being is being planned and that Ireland will be part of it. That is very positive. Other positive aspects are the OECD Development Assistance Committee, DAC, peer reviews from 2014 and the mid-term review from 2016. I understand that the current review, which will be published next year, will also be positive. The reviews from 2014 and 2017 highlight Ireland's commitment to the least developed countries and the quality of our programmes there, which are focused on poverty and hunger reduction. We have an excellent record in providing untied aid and there is a commitment to move beyond the 0.7% threshold. However, that considerable regard for Ireland is being undermined by aspects of the increasing EU securitisation agenda. The OECD DAC has concerns that overseas development aid can be used for activities that harm human rights.

I wish to raise two issues. First, the European Peace Facility, EPF, which plans to make more efficient the deployment of military missions. The EPF involves a component to train and equip foreign government military actors in fragile states by, among other things, providing weapons. It has a potential budget of $10 billion for the next six years. Compare that with $3.7 billion budget for the preventing conflict instruments of the EU. There are concerns regarding governance and accountability if there is an oversight role for the European Parliament. Where does Ireland stand in this regard, particularly in the context of the positives I have just outlined? I accept that Ireland is trying to reach a coalition with like-minded states but it is obvious that more needs to be done to ensure that there is a publicly accessible list of the eligible equipment for the EPF which would exclude weapons and ammunition, ensure that civilian peace-building alternatives are considered first and to ensure accountability techniques for the potential misuse of military assistance and, of course, the protection of civilians. There must also be transparency, so that there will be a timely disclosure of all EPF documents such as the proposals for action programmes and that they go to national parliaments and foreign affairs committees. How can Ireland be the positive voice on humanitarian and human rights issues while at the same time not be as active on the EPF, which has the potential for over-reliance on force as a means to resolve issues?

See this speech in context