Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 65: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in Nepal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21766/09]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The situation in Nepal has deteriorated since I last replied to a Parliamentary Question on Nepal on 27 January.

The situation has been especially tense since the decision by the former Prime Minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (or " Prachanda"), to dismiss the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Gen. Rookmangood Katawal, on 3 May over a disagreement regarding the integration of former Maoist combatants and the recruitment of soldiers into the Nepalese army. The decision caused the Communist party of Nepal - Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) - to withdraw its support from Prachanda and his Maoist-led Government. In turn, the decision by the Nepalese President, Ram Baran Yadav, to veto the Commander-in-Chief's dismissal led on 4 May to the resignation of the Prime Minister himself.

The integration of Maoist army personnel into a reformed national army is a central element of the peace process, but one which unfortunately remains unfulfilled. It was a key principle to which all parties subscribed under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, but details as to how it would be implemented (including the number of former Maoist combatants who could join), were not agreed and the process of army reform has not yet begun. Recent reports of the recruitment of new personnel by the Nepalese Army, in contravention of the 2006 ceasefire agreement, has led to further dissension. It is vital that all sides comply with agreed commitments on this issue and work towards its speedy resolution.

I welcome the election of the new Prime Minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal, on 23 May. However, I note that the Maoists have said that they will not join the new Government. I call on all parties to act responsibly and in accordance with democratic principles in order to find common ground for peace and stability in the national interests of Nepal. It is important that all the political challenges facing the country should be resolved through dialogue and by peaceful means. In this context, the importance of making progress on the preparation of a new constitution before the deadline of 28 May 2010 set by the parties cannot be over-estimated.

Ireland is accredited diplomatically to Nepal through our Ambassador in New Delhi, who presented credentials there in April. Our Embassy in Delhi monitors developments in Nepal closely and remains in regular contact with parties there, including the Nepalese Government. The new Ambassador took the opportunity of his visit to Nepal in April to engage in political consultations with the Government and other parties and interests and to convey our views and concerns.

The EU is also actively engaged in Nepal and deployed an Election Observation Mission to monitor the elections in April 2008, to which Ireland contributed. Likewise, the UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) plays a vital role in facilitating the peace process. Its current mandate runs until 23 July. Ireland remains fully supportive of its work.

In 2008, Irish Aid provided funding of over €1.2 million to civil society organisations for development activities in Nepal. In addition, Ireland responded to the serious flooding in Nepal through a contribution of €89,000. A further €15,000 was provided towards the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in support of the Nepali Peace Process. To date in 2009, more than €650,000 has been allocated to civil society organisations for development activities in Nepal.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 66: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will call for the suspension of the EU-Mediteranean Association Agreement with Israel, if Israel refuses to fully co-operate with the UN Human Rights Council Inquiry into war crimes in Gaza. [21709/09]

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 71: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the commission of possible war crimes arising from recent events in Gaza. [21828/09]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 66 and 71 together.

During the course of the military operations in Gaza in December and January, I strongly and consistently condemned the use of disproportionate military force in the heavily populated area of Gaza, which carried with it a very high risk, indeed almost a certainty, of high civilian casualties. This was tragically proven to be the case. I also called therefore, on behalf of the Government, for a full investigation into military actions which might have been contrary to international law and/or international humanitarian law. These could include use of heavy weapons in close proximity to civilians, attacks on specific types of target, or inappropriate use of munitions such as white phosphorus incendiaries.

My condemnation of such military actions stands, whether or not they can be specifically judged to be war crimes, which depends on questions such as the intent in their use, the military value of the intended target, the efforts made to avoid civilian casualties etc.

It should also be clear that rocket attacks from Gaza, which are deliberately aimed at Israeli civilian populations, are contrary to international law and unacceptable.

I therefore welcomed the establishment by UN Secretary-General Ban of a panel of investigation into incidents involving UN facilities during the conflict. These included missile or artillery attacks by Israeli forces on or adjacent to UN premises, and the burning of buildings and humanitarian aid in the UNRWA compound following a phosphorus attack. Secretary-General Ban has now presented the Security Council with a summary of the conclusions of the panel, which includes strong criticism of the actions of Israeli forces in relation to a number of incidents. The UN is now pursuing these issues, including the question of compensation for material damage, with the Israeli authorities.

The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) has also established a panel to examine violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed during the Gaza conflict. It is regrettable and unhelpful that the HRC mandate referred exclusively to actions by Israeli forces. However, both the President of the HRC and the head of the new inquiry have made clear their view that the team must investigate allegations against all sides. The appointment of the distinguished former South African judge Richard Goldstone to head the enquiry adds greatly to its credibility. Judge Goldstone's three colleagues include a retired Irish Army officer, Colonel Desmond Travers. Unfortunately, Israel has said it is not prepared to facilitate this investigation, on the basis that the HRC Resolution and mandate which established it have already pre-judged the facts. Nonetheless I am hopeful that the enquiry will be able to carry out its work.

EU Association Agreements with our Mediterranean partners provide the framework for the conduct of our relations, including especially practical cooperation on matters of mutual benefit. They also allow for direct political dialogue, including on issues of concern. The Government has consistently been opposed to proposals for trade, diplomatic, cultural, academic, sporting or other boycotts against Israel. We need to encourage and support Israeli and Palestinian political leaders in their efforts to negotiate a settlement based on a two-State solution. A policy of boycotts or exclusion would clearly not contribute to that process. Nor would such a proposal have any prospect of being agreed by the Council: rather it would only marginalise Ireland's voice on these important issues.