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

To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on whether EU member states should be allowed to send military weapons to the Syrian opposition groups; if he supported or opposed this position at the Informal Meeting of the EU’s Foreign Ministers in Dublin on 22 and 23 of March. [15824/13]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress made at the 22 and 23 March EU discussions on Syria; the future steps that will be taken by the European Union to address the problems; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15823/13]

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

I propose to respond to Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.

At its meeting on 14 and 15 March the European Council asked the Foreign Affairs Council to discuss EU policy on Syria, in particular the question of the sanctions regime and the arms embargo in place until 1 June. These issues constituted the major topic of discussion at the informal meeting of EU Foreign Affairs Ministers which took place in Dublin on 22 and 23 March and which I co-hosted with High Representative Ashton. It was obvious at the meeting that all EU partners wanted to see an end to the relentless violence that had been visited upon the Syrian population in the past two years and the departure of Assad within the shortest possible timeframe. It was equally clear that all member states remained fully supportive of a negotiated solution to the conflict and the assiduous efforts being undertaken by UN and League of Arab States special envoy, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, to broker a political settlement. There is no disguising, however, that there are genuine differences of opinion about the best way of getting to that point.

A small number of member states have argued that to apply greater pressure to the Assad regime to engage seriously in political dialogue, the European Union should consider lifting partially the arms embargo in place to allow the supply of weapons and military equipment to opposition groups, notably the Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian Army. I have made it clear to my colleagues in the various discussions which have taken place Ireland's strong reservations about any proposal to lift the arms embargo. This view is shared by a large majority of member states which also oppose further militarisation of the conflict. Lifting the arms embargo could trigger an arms race in Syria and neighbouring countries which, given existing threats, would be extremely perilous for the stability of the entire region. It is also clear, based on the advice of people such as Lakhdar Brahimi who are centrally involved in efforts to promote a political resolution, that arming opposition groups would seriously undermine whatever prospects there may be to make political progress, even if these remain fragile.

Despite the differences between us, there was a strong collective commitment at our Dublin meeting to maintaining EU unity on the subject of Syria. Without such unity, the European Union's ability to exert a positive influence on the situation and other key actors would be greatly diminished.

It was agreed that we should continue to discuss this complex issue, notably at the next Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 22 April, with a view to reaching agreement before the end of May, when the entire package of sanctions against Syria will be due for renewal. I assure Deputies that, together with our European partners, Ireland will continue to address the crisis in Syria as a matter of utmost priority. We will use whatever influence we have in our current EU Presidency role to support and promote the Union’s efforts and initiatives towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

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

The breaking news on television is that a mortar attack was carried out on Damascus University. It is reported that 15 students were killed and 30 injured in an attack on the canteen. We should express our sympathies to the families of those killed or injured. The attack was reportedly carried out by Syrian rebels and is another attack on innocent civilians in a bloody conflict. It has happened on all sides. The UN reports that 70,000 people have been killed since fighting began. We see an increase in the strength and deadliness of attacks. A recent report referred to a chemical attack in Aleppo, with the rebels supposedly involved in that attack. Britain and France have repeatedly threatened to veto the renewal of sanctions on Syria if they do not get their way.

I appreciate that the Tánaiste opposes further militarisation of the conflict. We need to see a complete cessation of hostilities, not an escalation, which is what will happen if we lift the embargo. Everyone is aware of the review of the embargo on sanctions by 1 June. Britain and France have previously threatened to go their own way. I accept the EU is divided on the issue. Will the embargo be binned or is there a chance France and Britain will do their own thing? What implications will it have?

I attended the interparliamentary conference at the weekend along with the Tánaiste. In debates on Syria, there was broad agreement across delegates from all countries, including Britain and France, that this was the wrong path. I welcome the firm statement by the Tánaiste today. People want to know what we can do in respect of Ireland being an honest broker. Are there channels of discussions with the EU during the Presidency? How can we enhance the channels and is there a possibility of a cessation? That is what we are looking. Is the possibility a pipedream at this stage?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Tánaiste's statement. He is adopting the right approach. It is an important issue and I tabled a number of Priority Questions on it over the past months in view of the correspondence we receive from interest groups and the absolute humanitarian crisis that has erupted. Some 70,000 people have lost their lives. The Save the Children report referred to boys and girls being maimed, tortured and killed. Is the EU conveying to the United Nations that the United Nations has failed to act decisively on this issue? We know the type of veto Russia has been using. Can the Tánaiste assure us the Assad regime is not directing humanitarian aid to its supporters? The Tánaiste has received correspondence and seen media reports on aid being diverted by the Assad regime so the people most in need do not receive much-needed and belated humanitarian aid from across the world, including the European Union and the Irish overseas development aid programme.

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

I did not see the television report to which Deputy Crowe referred but I join him in expressing my sympathy and the sympathy of the Government to those who have been killed in Syria.

There is a continuing slaughter of people in Syria, as the Deputy said. Current UN estimates are that 70,000 people have been killed, although that may be a conservative estimate. Approximately 1 million people have been driven out of Syria altogether and are in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. Approximately 2 million people have lost their homes. There is a huge humanitarian crisis.

One of the areas where the European Union is making a big contribution and where we, as a country, have made a very significant contribution is in the provision of, and funding for, humanitarian aid. The question of where humanitarian aid gets to is a problem. I recently discussed with OCHA and the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva what needs to be done at a practical level to ensure humanitarian aid gets to where it is needed.

As regards the political path and the question of how we get a resolution to the crisis in Syria, it must be based around what Dr. Brahimi is doing. He is the UN representative and the representative of the League of Arab States. That must be supported by the UN Security Council. It has not been possible to get a robust resolution at the UN Security Council largely because Russia and China have vetoed efforts to get such a resolution. The European Union and individual member states have had discussions with Russia and China about the position they are taking on this because there is a necessity for the international community to speak with one voice on the issue. As a country, we have taken a number of initiatives to try to encourage that. For example, during the OSCE ministerial conference in Dublin, we facilitated a meeting between Dr. Brahimi, Foreign Minister Lavrov and the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with a view to getting some progress on the situation.

It is against a backdrop of a degree of frustration that political and diplomatic progress is not being made on Syria. Meanwhile the Assad regime continues to be supplied with arms, as do some of the extremist forces in Syria. The question of whether the arms embargo should be lifted has been raised by some member states in the EU Foreign Affairs Council. There is a sanctions regime which, including the arms embargo, remains in place until 1 June. It will obviously be reviewed by the Foreign Affairs Council between now and 1 June. On the last occasion we looked at this, it was agreed there would be a variation of the embargo to allow for the delivery of non-lethal equipment, including protective gear, flak jackets, helmets and material that would protect people from attacks on them.

It is probably overstating it to say the European Union is divided because there is a unified position on Syria which has been agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council. However, it is no secret that some member states are seeking a relaxation of the arms embargo.