Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I apologise that I was not present for the earlier part of the debate. I always enjoy coming to the Seanad and listening to the debates, which are always good, vibrant and stimulating. Unfortunately I have another appointment at 6.30 p.m. with the new US envoy to the North, Mr. Reiss, so I will not be able to stay as long as I would like. However, I will study Members' contributions in due course once they have been printed.

I welcome this opportunity to inform the House about our Presidency programme and action in respect of the Middle East peace process. There have been few positive developments in the region in recent months and I must be frank and state that prospects for progress in the short term are not overly encouraging. Nonetheless, I attach great importance to this issue, and during our Presidency we shall play an active role in international peace efforts, in particular as a member of the international quartet of the EU, Russia, the US and United Nations.

We have conducted an intensive round of meetings in the last few weeks. Beginning in December, the director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry visited Dublin, where he had intensive discussions with me and with officials of my Department. The Palestinian Foreign Minister, Nabil Shaath, came to Dublin on 9 January for meetings with the Taoiseach and myself. I then visited Israel on 15-16 January, where I had discussions with President Katsav, Prime Minister Sharon, Foreign Minister Shalom and the leader of the opposition, Shimon Peres. I subsequently travelled to Egypt where, on 17 January, I met President Mubarak, Foreign Minister Maher and the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amre Moussa. On Monday of this week, senior officials of my Department had meetings in the occupied Palestinian territories with President Arafat, Prime Minister Qurei and Foreign Minister Shaath. Prime Minister Qurei is due to visit Dublin next Monday, his first visit outside the territories, to meet the Taoiseach and myself.

Our aim has been to urge an end to violence and to explore with the parties possible means for breaking the current deadlock on the implementation of the road map agreed by the quartet and endorsed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1515. I have made considerable efforts to build confidence in the Presidency and the European Union as viable interlocutors. I gave particular emphasis to this matter in a speech which I delivered at Tel Aviv University on 15 January, the text of which is available on my Department's website.

The road map contains a series of steps to be taken by both parties with a view to building confidence and security, leading eventually to a Palestinian state. It is time bound and was intended to be implemented over two years. It sets measurable objectives for both sides and provides for the development of international monitoring mechanisms. Unfortunately, neither side has fulfilled its obligations under the road map. Either for political or practical reasons, the steps envisaged in the first phase of the road map have not been taken.

During my recent visit to Israel and Egypt, and in my discussions with the Palestinian Foreign Minister in Dublin, I advanced the idea that perhaps, in the first instance, smaller steps should be taken. I suggested that if the significant initial steps envisaged by the road map are too difficult or steep at this time, they might be broken down or implemented in phases. These small steps could begin to address the concerns of Israelis about security and action against terrorism, while relieving the suffering which Palestinians face in almost every aspect of their daily lives. They might also revive the contacts at political and security level which are necessary if progress is to be made. This idea was well received by the Palestinian side and found some interest with the Israeli leaders whom I met. It also attracted support during my discussions with the President and Foreign Minister of Egypt as well as the Secretary-General of the Arab League.

I hope to develop these ideas in discussions with Prime Minister Qurei during his visit to Dublin next Monday. We shall also discuss other developments in the region, including the prospects for a resumption of high level contact between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Following our contacts with the parties, the Taoiseach has this morning issued a statement calling, on behalf of the European Union, for the Palestinian and Israeli Prime Ministers to meet as soon as possible as a first step in the resumption of meaningful dialogue between the two parties. I hope that such contact might be possible within the coming days.

Prior to my most recent visit to the region, I had contacts with US Secretary of State Powell and representatives of the other members of the quartet. I outlined the purpose of my visit and our thinking on ways of bringing forward the peace process. To Secretary Powell, I emphasised the need for US engagement and the necessity for this engagement to be visible to the parties. The Secretary General of my Department also had talks with senior US officials in Washington last week. Two high level US envoys visited Israel last week and met with Israeli and Palestinian representatives to review possibilities for action. I also had bilateral discussions on the Middle East in recent days with a number of EU colleagues, including the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Spain, UK and Netherlands. They, like most of my European colleagues, strongly support Presidency efforts to assert Europe's role in efforts to bring peace to the eastern Mediterranean.

A major obstacle to progress in the peace process is the construction by Israel of a separation barrier which extends deep into the Palestinian territories. This has been the subject of statements by the European Union and others who have urged Israel to consider the long-term consequences of this construction. The barrier figured prominently in my discussions in Israel two weeks ago. My officials examined sections of the barrier earlier this week and were deeply disturbed by what they saw. The barrier is in places a wall, at least in those sections which cut through urban areas. The wall is extremely high and passes within feet of houses occupied by Palestinian families. It also encloses considerable tracts of agricultural and barren land.

The Israeli authorities have assured me that the barrier is being constructed for security purposes only and is reversible. One can only hope that this is so. However, the Palestinians see it as an attempt to unilaterally redraw the 1967 borders. Nobody could ultimately object to the building of a separation barrier on Israeli territory or even one which followed the Green Line. What is objectionable about the current wall is that Israel is largely building it on land falling within the occupied Palestinian territories.

On 21 October last year, Ireland and our European Union partners co-sponsored a resolution in the General Assembly of the United Nations which called on Israel to stop and reverse construction of the wall and asked the Secretary General of the United Nations to report on Israeli compliance. When, at the end of November, the Secretary General reported that there was no evidence of Israeli compliance, the General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in occupied Palestinian territory.

This resolution was adopted on 8 December last. The European Union abstained on the vote. The decision to abstain was taken after intense consultations and was based on the conviction of many member states that transferring the matter of the wall to a legal forum would do nothing to advance the political process necessary for peace. Abstention did not in any way suggest a change in the European Union's position that the wall was in contravention of international law.

On receiving the resolution of the General Assembly, the court invited member states of the United Nations to submit statements or information to the court which might be of assistance in its deliberations. Some member states of the European Union felt that it would be desirable for a common position to be submitted to the court. Other states had a strong preference for individual national submissions to the court. After considerable discussion, including at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 26 January, it was agreed that there would be a common EU submission and that individual member states might make national submissions based on established European Union positions. The common submission reflected the texts of Presidency statements to the UN General Assembly on 20 October and 8 December. The texts of these statements were annexed to the covering letter.

Essentially, the Union's position is that the building of the wall within the occupied Palestinian territories is in contradiction to international law but that the General Assembly's request that the ICJ issue an advisory opinion will not help the efforts of the two parties to relaunch a political dialogue and is therefore inappropriate. However, contrary to some press reports, the EU has not asked the ICJ to refrain from issuing an advisory opinion. There would have been no consensus to adopt such a position.

In addition, the Government authorised me to submit a national statement. This statement, which is fully consistent with the EU common position, sets out the legal basis for Ireland's opinion that the construction of the wall in the occupied territories is in violation of international law. In all, ten of the 15 current member states of the Union submitted national statements to the court.

Both statements were transmitted to the registrar of the International Court of Justice in The Hague last Friday. The written submissions of all interested parties, including the Israelis and Palestinians, have now been received by the court. It is expected that oral submissions will commence on 23 February and that the court will deliver its advisory opinion to the General Assembly late this summer. The rules of procedure of the International Court of Justice do not permit me to make the text Irish submission publicly available at this time but it is firmly grounded in well known Irish positions on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territories and the applicability of international humanitarian and human rights law in this case.

As the motion before the House urges, it is my intention to remain closely engaged in the search for peace in the Middle East. I have already outlined the extensive contacts which we have recently undertaken. I hope to pay a further visit to the region myself a little later in the Presidency. The possibility of high level Presidency representation at the Arab League summit meeting in Tunis in late March is also under consideration should it appear that the summit will take concrete action on the peace process.

In the meantime, the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories continues to be a matter of grave concern. Development Cooperation Ireland will continue its work in the Palestinian territories. This will involve a visit in the coming days by a programming mission to develop a country programme for implementation over the next three years. Development Cooperation Ireland's existing interim programme for 2003-04 allocates €3 million to assistance to the Palestinian people. The Minister of State at my Department with responsibility for Development Cooperation Ireland, Deputy Tom Kitt, intends to visit the Palestinian territories later this year to inspect the implementation of Irish programmes.

The European Union will also continue its extensive funding in the region. The plight of the Palestinian Authority is a cause for grave concern. It relies far too heavily for its continued existence on funding from the Union. I appeal to other donors to play a greater role and for Israel to release funds belonging to the Palestinian Authority.

Humanitarian and human rights issues are always prominent in our thinking on this conflict. The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is fully applicable to the occupied Palestinian territories and should be observed by the Israeli occupation forces. The Palestinian people live under military occupation, subject to restrictions on movement, curfews, arbitrary detention and daily petty humiliations. Significant numbers of Palestinians continue to be killed in the course of Israeli military actions. Ireland has consistently urged the Government of Israel to address humanitarian issues as a means of countering the atmosphere which generates support for terrorism.

It is important to remember that Israelis are also suffering. Innocent men, women and children have been the victims of random terrorist violence, including suicide bombings. Israelis have a right to live in a society free from the threat of terror. Again, we have urged the Palestinian Authority to do all that remains in its power to act against those who plan and execute suicide bombings and other acts of terror. Not only are such actions wrong in themselves, they are the most potent weapon available to those who seek to justify the building of the separation barrier.

The outlines of an eventual settlement to Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been clear for some time; two states, living side by side in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. As long ago as 1980, my distinguished predecessor, the late Brian Lenihan, called for the establishment of a Palestinian state in his Bahrain Declaration. This subsequently became the policy of the European Union and is now universally accepted as one of the requirements for a comprehensive settlement. The two-state solution is at the heart of Resolution 1397 which was adopted by the UN Security Council with strong support from Ireland when we sat on the Council in 2002. The two-state solution is the basic premise of the road map presented to the parties by the international quartet in April of last year.

Amid the gloom currently prevalent in the region, there are some small signs of hope. The Geneva initiative promoted by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabo is a welcome indication that rational discussion between senior representatives on both sides is possible. This plan points to some ways in which the difficult final status issues such as Jerusalem and the right of return of refugees might be addressed. I was pleased to see that the authors were in Brussels to brief the European Union's High Representative, Dr. Solana, earlier this week. Discussions about dates for a visit to Dublin are in progress and I look forward to welcoming them in the near future. Other initiatives among civil society representatives are also in train involving academics, political figures and former military and intelligence officers. This all serves to show that dialogue is possible, even on very difficult and emotional issues.

I am also encouraged by suggestions that the Arab League may move to reiterate its initiative adopted at the Beirut Summit almost two years ago. This idea, advanced by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was that in return for Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries, relations with all its Arab neighbours would be normalised. Normalisation would involve de jure recognition of Israel by the entire membership of the Arab League, the establishment of diplomatic relations, the establishment of trade links and the opening of possibilities for technical and investment exchanges in all sectors. At the time this proposal received insufficient attention in Israel, but with the road map on the table this initiative could prove to be complementary. It might also serve to reassure Israel as to the wisdom of proceeding towards a peace agreement with its neighbours, Syria and Lebanon. I urge the leaders of the Arab League to use the opportunity of their forthcoming summit to advance the prospect of normalisation to Israel once again. They should emphasise their desire for a comprehensive peace which can only be of benefit to all the countries of the region. I also urge the Israeli leadership to consider carefully the benefits and advantages they could reap from a normal relationship with their wider neighbourhood and assuming their proper role in their natural economic and political region.

The recent proposal by the Syrian President that talks on a peace agreement should resume is also encouraging. Israeli President Katsav's suggestion of talks in Jerusalem was welcome in many respects. Prime Minister Sharon's suggestion that talks should resume without pre-conditions is positive. However, an insistence that talks cannot resume where they last left off should in my view not itself become a pre-condition for negotiations. At the time of the last peace negotiations in 2000 under the auspices of the US, the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria were not very great. The talks should be resumed without preconditions on either side and with the support of the international community.

Inaction in the peace process is not an acceptable option while Israelis and Palestinians are being killed and the situation on the ground moves further away from a negotiated settlement. The Government is convinced that with political will on both sides and an end to violent activity, it will be possible to make early progress towards the realisation of the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, within borders based on those of 1967, in peace, security and prosperity.

Israelis need not live in a fortress, surrounded by hostile neighbours, where they are in danger of walking the streets or driving the roads, where young soldiers — boys and girls — are placed at constant risk and where a great part of their national resources are consumed by the burden of defence.

Palestinians need not live in hopelessness and indignity, where young people are encouraged to blow themselves up, where homes are bulldozed and destroyed, where employment is scarce to non-existent, where people are not free to travel around their country and where emigration seems to offer the only escape route.

We must help the people of Israel and Palestine to find the courage and wisdom to build a new peace — courage to face down those who would reject compromise and wisdom to understand that putting an end to the insecurity and suffering of their neighbours is in their own long-term interest. If we can achieve this, the Holy Land may yet become a land of peace and prosperity.