Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I hope the House will agree that by my speaking early, it will give Members an opportunity to respond to what I have to say. I also wish to indicate that I will be obliged to leave at 6.15 p.m., when I will be replaced by the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon. I need to fly to London this evening. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address this House on this important issue. At the outset, I express my appreciation to Senators for the re-scheduling of this debate which allowed me to be present today. Senator Frances Black and her colleagues have put some very important issues on the agenda, and I really wanted to be here to speak to them. I also want to recognise and welcome the presence of the Palestinian ambassador and Dr. Barghouthi, who I have had the opportunity to meet and talk to on a number of occasions. I would also like to pay tribute to the considerable work, and the sincere commitment, which has gone into developing this Bill from a number of different sources. From my discussions with Senator Black, I know that it has been put forward in a spirit of wishing to contribute to the well-being of the Palestinian people, and from a desire to bring an end to the construction of settlements on land in the occupied Palestinian territory beyond Israel’s internationally recognised borders. These are objectives which I, and the Government, fully share. I know they are also shared by Fianna Fáil, and I have discussed this Bill in depth with that party’s spokesperson for foreign affairs and trade, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, on more than one occasion, and indeed the Leader in the Seanad.

The relentless expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory is unjust, provocative, and undermines the credibility of Israel’s commitment to a peaceful solution to a conflict to which we all want an end. The introduction and settlement of communities from an occupying power to alter the demography of the area is unambiguously illegal under international law. The process of establishing settlements also inevitably involves violations of the rights of the occupied population through seizure of their land, demolitions, discriminatory treatment, including unequal implementation of planning laws, and other restrictions, including on movement. The Government has consistently and repeatedly condemned the construction and expansion of settlements. We have conveyed these concerns to the Israeli authorities at the highest level, and highlighted them in our interventions at EU, UN and in other international fora. We have also stated clearly to Israel that we believe that settlements are unjust and do untold damage. I raised Ireland’s concerns about settlements directly with the Israeli authorities during my visits to Israel and Palestine in July of last year and also a few weeks ago.

It is not a coincidence that in the first six months of being Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade I have chosen to go to Israel and Palestine twice. I have met the Israeli Prime Minister three times I have had the pleasure of meeting the Palestinian President twice, and indeed his Foreign Minister, Minister Maliki , on multiple occasions. I am interested in this issue, and I want Ireland to play a constructive role in helping to find political solutions.

I also condemned Israel’s recent announcement of plans for further settlement units in the West Bank in a statement on 12 January. I know that our concerns on these issues are shared by many Israelis. Senator Norris reminded us of that today in the letter he quoted from. Settlements are deeply damaging to the prospects of a peace agreement and are undermining the very basis of a two state solution, which of course is the only solution Ireland supports, and indeed is supported by the EU as a collective. I have been very clear to Israeli and US interlocutors, as well as within the EU, that settlement construction is an obstacle to the successful peace process that both have stated they want to see. It is extremely difficult for both sides to engage in good faith negotiations if, as they are talking, one side is quite literally pouring concrete on the space for negotiation. That is the impact of settlements. While people dream about a future for themselves in an independent state for Palestine, they are physically seeing their future neighbour pouring concrete on land they see as their own. That is why it has such a corrosive impact on the relationship between both communities and why it creates such political tension. We have repeatedly made this an issue, whether in the UN in New York last September, or in conversations we have had in Ramallah or Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has told me that he is committed to negotiations. I believe him, although I suspect there are some in this House who do not. I know how committed President Abbas is to the path of peace, and to securing a positive outcome for his people through peaceful negotiations. He would not continue to pursue that objective, given the history he has, and the fact that he has to manage in the context of occupation, if he was not committed to negotiations. I also know that, more than 20 years after the Oslo accords, he is finding it hard to persuade his people to continue to hope, and to continue to trust, that the establishment of the long-sought Palestinian State is near. Settlement construction is consistently undercutting Palestinians’ hope for the future and has an undermining impact on the belief that political negotiation can deliver for the hopes of Palestinian people.

Before I say a word about what this Bill is, I would like to say a few words about what it is not. This Bill does not propose a boycott of Israel. Successive governments have opposed boycotts of Israel, and I strongly disagree with those activists advocating a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions, BDS. I firmly believe that such an approach is counterproductive, and that it would not help to increase understanding in Israel of why the international community has such a concern about occupation. There are very many countries around the world about which we have serious human rights concerns. We do not seek to prevent trade with those countries, except in very rare circumstances in accordance with decisions at EU or UN level. It is important to put on the record, as I have done before, that I believe that activists are entitled to advocate for any non-violent political viewpoint as a matter of freedom of speech, in the context of the work that many NGOs do.

This Bill does not propose measures against Israel. A lot of careful work has been done to craft a Bill which relates to occupied territories only, and which does not aim to impact on Israel itself within its internationally recognised borders. This is a really important point for me, but despite that the Government is going to oppose this Bill, and I want to outline the reasons it will do so. Ireland has supported, and will continue to support, action at EU level which differentiates between settlements and Israel. I believe that Ireland and the EU should have good relations with Israel, a country with which we have much in common, but also a country with which we have disagreements. We have an extraordinary shared history - a very tragic one - that should remind us of the need to work together.

Before I move on to the political issues raised by this Bill, I want to refer to legal aspects, because that has been mentioned. Issues of international trade fall under the common commercial policy of the EU. Under Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, the common commercial policy is an exclusive competence of the Union. I have heard the argument that a public policy exception could apply to this Bill. However, I am advised that this argument is not well founded, and that the Court of Justice of the European Union interprets such unilateral restrictions on trade imposed by member states very narrowly. While all EU member states oppose settlements, and many feel as strongly as Ireland, the legal position is such that no member state has yet taken the step of taking action on a national basis on this issue. This Bill is proposing that Ireland be the first country to do so.

A number of other legal concerns have been flagged to me in this Bill. However, rather than going into these in depth, I would like to focus this evening on the political question of how Ireland can best use its influence on the Middle East peace process, for the good of Palestinians and Israelis. If a way around the legal and practical challenges were found, and the Bill were adopted, the impact on settlements would be minimal. However, the cost to Ireland’s ability to influence the Middle East peace process in a positive way could be significant, particularly at this time, given the amount of time and effort that we have put into building relationships over the past six months. The Middle East peace process has been a priority for me since I took up the role of Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I know those proposing the Bill share my view that Ireland can play a positive role in the Middle East peace process. I want to set out how I think we can do that. Ireland can be a positive influence on the Middle East peace process by engaging directly with the parties. That means engaging with both parties, Israelis and Palestinians, in a constructive, direct and open way. In addition to the very good relations that Irish people have with the Palestinians, it is important that Ireland also has a good relationship with Israel. Ireland and Israel share a lot of history. The sixth President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, was born on the island of Ireland a hundred years ago this year. I am regularly asked in the Dáil whether I have raised issues of concern with the Israeli Government. Often, I am able to answer that question by saying "Yes, I have". I have had frank and open conversations with the Government and Prime Minister of Israel on issues of common interest and in respect of matters of concern. I have also listened and heard Israeli concerns about fears for the safety of their families and the security of their state in the future. This dialogue, although imperfect, currently provides valuable opportunities to raise difficult issues and to press for action towards peace, which is ultimately what we want - a negotiated peace solution with both parties at the table feeling they are being heard in terms of legitimate and fair aspirations. If adopted, the Bill would, rightly or wrongly, be seen very negatively in Israel. At this critical moment in the Middle East peace process, it would undermine the impact the Government may have in its direct interaction with the Israeli Government.

This is a critical moment for the peace process. I have been very clear about my disappointment at and disagreement with the US announcement on Jerusalem last month. Ireland joined 127 other member states at the UN to restate our long-held position on Jerusalem. It is important to say to the House that in advance of that decision, when we understood it was coming, I contacted the US embassy in Dublin directly to outline our opposition to that approach because we knew it would cause significant political division and polarisation which is exactly what has happened since. The US Administration has big ambitions in the Middle East. Many have given up on this conflict but this Administration has not and that has the potential to be a positive thing. It is important for Ireland to engage with the US team that is preparing the Middle East peace initiative. I have done that on multiple occasions, meeting the key figures involved. Ireland has a perspective to bring, in advocating for a balanced and fair approach and in drawing on some of the lessons of our own peace process. The perspective among Palestinians towards the US has changed in the past couple of months because of the Jerusalem issue. It is all the more important now that Ireland and other countries can play a role in reassuring Palestinians that a peace process is possible involving the United States and also other countries as well.

I am a committed multilateralist and a committed European. Ireland has its greatest impact of all on foreign policy when it acts in concert with others. Working with our EU partners allows us to magnify our influence. Over a period of many years, Ireland has been an important and effective voice in the EU on the Middle East peace process. Ireland’s influence has been important in ensuring that the EU adheres to long-established positions, including on the two-state solution, on the acceptable parameters of that solution and in highlighting the impact of the occupation on Palestinians. We have that influence because we are clear and consistent but also because we work with others. We are not isolated. Ours is not a principled voice in the wilderness, rather we work with other countries whenever we can find common ground. We work to bring the whole EU debate forward, which is what we are trying to do now. A number of debates that have happened at the Foreign Affairs Council would not have happened if Ireland had not insisted on ensuring that the Middle East peace process was on the agenda. For example, Ireland supported action at EU level on labelling settlement goods, which was mentioned earlier, and that was subsequently implemented. Acting with our EU partners, we have ensured that goods from settlements, when imported into the EU, are excluded from the low tariff rates applied to Israeli goods. I would be open to consideration of whether the EU’s approach on settlement products could be tightened up further, when the political climate in the EU allows for that. Reaching consensus at EU level is hard. It requires work and a lot of patience but it is worth doing because Ireland is at its most effective when we work within the EU to amplify the impact of our convictions. It can mean policy does not always move fast and perhaps we do not get the headlines we would like to get. Sometimes the results of our efforts are not apparent to all but I know how much Irish diplomatic energy has gone into achieving better, fairer, more consistent EU positions on the Middle East and on a full range of global issues because I have been working with our team on that.

Many believe that by adopting this Bill, Ireland would send an important signal to the Palestinian people, and that is true. I understand that such a signal would be well-received by many but the day after, the lives of Palestinians would probably remain the same. The memory of the signal may fade over time and Ireland’s reputation would be of a country willing to go it alone rather than a country determined to influence, persuade and bring others with us. I strongly believe that Ireland can best support the Palestinian and Israeli peoples by remaining a strong and engaged partner in respect of the Middle East, by continuing to exert a positive influence in the EU, and by continuing to advocate with the US Administration, which I will continue to do when I go to the US in three weeks' time. It is for this reason that I have recommended that the Government oppose the Bill. Our approach on the Middle East needs to constantly be reassessed. I hope my speech is clear on this: our approach in our efforts to try to achieve a negotiated two-state solution that is fair to both sides should be focused on intensive diplomacy on straight, blunt discussion in our efforts to try to persuade and also in our efforts to try to get a stronger more unified position within the European Union, which is the way the European Union can really be persuasive with an Israeli Government.

In the meantime, we will continue to support the Palestinian Authority and Palestinians generally. We spend approximately €12 million a year on humanitarian assistance and supports mainly through education. We will probably double that figure this year in some of the new projects we have agreed to work on. We are committed. We have 85% of our peacekeepers in this region - in the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. Let us be clear, we are a small country that is and wants to be engaged in this issue, with an objective to try to get a result. A result means a negotiated peaceful solution, not simply Ireland making a statement. While statements are important, they do not necessarily deliver outcomes that we need. There was a lot of optimism last September and October about a new US initiative and, speaking to very senior Palestinian politicians, there was real hope that a new US initiative would move the process forward in a major way. The Jerusalem statement has been a huge setback and all of us who are interested in trying to find a solution here, need to find a way to create a new political engagement that can allow us to get back to where we were in September and October expecting an initiative from a US team. The structure needs to be different now; it needs to involve other countries.My focus is on trying to get that structure back rather than adding to the polarisation on either side of the Atlantic on this issue. The perception is that the EU is supporting Palestinians and the US is supporting Israelis. We need to close that gap, not widen it. That is why I believe that at this time, this Bill will have a polarising effect rather than one of encouraging political solutions. I am open to persuasion in future if we get nowhere on political engagement. I strongly believe that we need to maintain a relationship with both sides, in a respectful manner, listening as well as talking. If we do that, Ireland will remain politically relevant in helping progress a new initiative that ultimately can deliver a workable two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis. Until that happens, we will always be in a position of managing conflict in a way that is totally unsatisfactory and in a way that is causing so much misery, particularly for Palestinians in the West Bank and especially for those in Gaza.

I hope that gives a sense of where the Government is coming from in this regard. I look forward to hearing more contributions.