John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on any progress the EU has made in relation to its sanctions on Iran; the progress that has been made in negotiations with the regime in relation to their nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33523/12]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given the major concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme as documented in a series of UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions since 2006, and given Iran's continuing unwillingness to engage seriously on these concerns or to address the serious findings highlighted in the IAEA's reports, the international community has had to impose several rounds of increasingly tough restrictive measures.

These include an EU embargo on Iranian petrochemical products and a ban on crude oil imports to the EU which took effect on 1 July. The June Foreign Affairs Council agreed that Iran's engagement in talks up to that point had given no basis for postponing the measure. I have no doubt that these measures, by the EU and others, were instrumental in triggering Iran's belated acceptance of talks in recent months.

There have been three rounds of talks between Iran and the E3+3, in Istanbul in April, Baghdad in May and, most recently, in Moscow on 18 June, as well as some follow-up technical discussions. A further round is expected but not yet scheduled.

While Iran has engaged in these talks in a somewhat more realistic manner than before, hopes raised by the April meeting have regrettably not been borne out yet. Iran's negotiators have engaged with the issues, which is an improvement, but in a manner which so far suggests that they are seeking only to spin out the process, and not to actively work to reach a solution. There is no agreement among the E3+3 that a further round of talks is warranted, but Iran will have to demonstrate more serious engagement if the talks process is to go anywhere.

Ultimately, the grave issues arising in terms of Iran's nuclear programme can only be resolved through diplomatic negotiations and not by any other means. Ireland, with its EU partners, will continue to lend strong support to High Representative Ashton and the other members of the E3+3 as they pursue the twin-track approach which is aimed at persuading Iran to negotiate seriously - and which now appears to be paying some dividends.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Tánaiste for his response. The two critical elements in the negotiations at present are that Iran would stop enriching Uranium to the 20% level and that the 1,200 kg already enriched would be exported out of the state and in return for that the world powers would make concessions to help Iran develop its civil nuclear programme, they would help bolster safety at the existing nuclear facilities and they would help Iran obtain spare parts for its civil aircraft. That appears to be the critical issue on offer. Is the Tánaiste of the view that progress in that regard would justify the removal of sanctions?

I am conscious that the Minister wearing his trade hat - or the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, seating beside him, wearing his - has responsibility in the area of the €80 million-plus value of trade relations we have with this country. Notwithstanding the valid points made by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, does the Minister see Ireland as being a trading partner of Iran? Having had some traditional relations with it, I am conscious of the diplomatic efforts in this country of Ambassador Panahiazar, who is constantly asserting the fact that his country is not, nor has any desire to be, involved in the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Does the Minister consider there is any potential for Ireland to play any significant additional role to what is currently happening within the EU?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important to make the point that when sanctions were agreed, particularly when the crude oil sanction was agreed, its application was not applied immediately. It was decided to apply it from 1 July and the purpose of that was to encourage Iran to engage seriously in E3+3 talks. If there is serious engagement at the E3+3 talks and satisfactory progress is being made on them, then the sanctions can either be eased or withdrawn. The only purpose of the sanctions is to cause Iran to engage seriously in those negotiations. We believe that the Iran nuclear issue can only be resolved by negotiation and agreement but it requires Iran engaging in a meaningful way, not just turning up and engaging in process talk and spinning it out. There must be a real meaningful engagement. There is a willingness on the EU's part to engage seriously and meaningfully in those talks. If sufficient and satisfactory progress is made, then sanctions can either be relaxed or withdrawn.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make it clear that I have no time for the Iranian regime, nuclear weapons or nuclear power. Can the Minister explain the extraordinary double standards that apply when it comes to the treatment of Iran as against the treatment of Israel? Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians, illegally occupying their land and territory, denying them rights at every level, has launched more wars than any other state in the Middle East, has a nuclear arms arsenal, has refused to sign up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and flouts all international laws in this regard but no sanctions are imposed on it. However, Iran has signed up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency has said it is not developing a nuclear arms programme, and sanctions have been imposed on it. I do not understand it. Iran has never launched a war against anybody. The supreme leader of Iran, no matter what the we may think of him, has said that nuclear weapons are an evil and that they should never be developed in Iran. Why is it the case that all these sanctions and pressure are put on Iran and no sanctions or pressure are put on Israel which has 200 or 300 nuclear weapons and refuses to sign up to the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have had my say in terms of the points that Deputy Boyd Barrett made. Blatantly shocking double standards continue to apply in this regard to Israel. The decision to close our embassy in Tehran was a bad one. Have we considered inserting ourselves into this situation? Have we considered Ireland's role as one of the driving forces behind the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a neutral country, although that has been undermined by the use of Shannon for military stop-offs? Have we considered playing a constructive role in the Middle East and in conflicts such as this because my understanding from engagements with the Iranian ambassador is that Iran would see Ireland as a neutral country and an honest broker? I presume the United States would view us similarly, considering our umbilical relationship with it. Is this something we have considered? What is the Minister's vision for foreign affairs? Where does he see Ireland's role in terms of those conflicts in that region?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ireland has a very long and proud track record of promoting non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and that position remains absolute and consistent. This is position is not applied differently to Iran or to anywhere else. We want to see a nuclear-free zone with countries completely free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This means no nuclear weapons in Israel, no nuclear weapons in Iran and no nuclear weapons anywhere else. We all understand the horror that can be inflicted on the region and on the world by the outbreak of a nuclear war. The reason for sanctions on Iran is simple; the IAEA has made a report which has been considered by the European Union. Iran is a party to the non-proliferation treaty. A country cannot be a party to the non-proliferation treaty and ignore its obligations under that treaty and if a country ignores its obligations there has to be some action and some sanction. In this case, the sanction that has been applied is that Iran has been told it should engage in discussions so that the problem is hammered out using the E3+3 format. Iran will be permitted to use nuclear energy for peaceful energy purposes but it cannot develop nuclear weapons. The European Union is asking Iran to engage in talks. Ireland supports that position and we will continue to do so. Our role in respect of the Middle East generally has been a very positive role in promoting a peaceful solution in the Middle East. I am very proud of the fact that Ireland played a very active role in securing an agreed European Union position which is a very strong position, on the settlements issue in Palestine. Ireland has a very strong record on that issue both within the European Union and at the United Nations.