Vol. 1053 No. 6
52. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the outlook for the remainder of 2024 in terms of the conflict in Ukraine; how this will impact Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20890/24]
I thank the Tánaiste for his leadership over the past two years on the issue of Ukraine, as Taoiseach and as Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask him to provide an update on the outlook for 2024 in terms of the conflict and the implications for Ireland. I also ask him to provide an update on upcoming events in Europe in respect of the conflict in Ukraine.
I thank Deputy Griffin for his question and kind remarks. Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine remains a grave threat to all of Europe. Russia is demonstrating a clear desire to continue escalation and has projected momentum on the battlefield in recent weeks, taking advantage of Ukraine’s shortage of military material, particularly air defence, by launching fresh offensives and bombardments along the front line. At the same time, Russia has intensified its attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. The situation remains fluid and unpredictable. It is more important than ever that we continue to work to maintain support at EU level as Ukraine enters what will likely be an even more challenging period ahead.
While the direct impact on Ireland may be limited compared to neighbouring countries, we have witnessed over the past two years that no country is immune to the indirect effects of this war. Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine has threatened global food security, disrupted trade routes, displaced millions, and undermined the multilateral order. Ireland is also vulnerable to hybrid attacks and cyberattacks from Russia, including the purposeful use of disinformation. Taken together, Russia's actions represent a fundamental threat to European security. Working with our EU and international partners is the only way that we can collectively defend against the direct and indirect impacts of Russia’s war.
As they defend their own territorial integrity and sovereignty, Ukrainians are also defending Europe's fundamental and universal freedoms. Ukraine's ten-point peace plan focuses on the core principles enshrined in the UN Charter, including the right to live in peace and security. I welcome that Switzerland will host the first summit on peace in Ukraine on 15 and 16 June. While Russia has no interest in entering serious negotiations based on core tenets of international law at present, this summit represents an important first step in bringing the international community together at a senior political level to agree on the principles of a future just and sustainable peace. In the run-up to the summit, Ireland will continue to work towards building a common understanding among global partners for a comprehensive, just, and durable peace.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. I also welcome the forthcoming summit, which is important. Whether anything meaningful will arise from it is yet to be seen but all possible efforts must be made. I ask the Tánaiste to elaborate on Ireland's position on the use of seized Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine. Does he believe that those assets should be sold or should interest from those assets be used? Certainly, we know there is a huge amount of money involved.
I also ask the Tánaiste for his views on the effectiveness or otherwise of the sanctions to date. I am interested in some European banks which are doing particularly well in Russia at the moment and whose profits there have soared since 2022. Perhaps the Tánaiste could raise that with his European counterparts if given the opportunity in the future.
Ireland welcomed the agreement reached at EU level in February to set aside the revenue generated from Russia's immobilised sovereign assets to support Ukraine. The windfall revenues earned and generated from the assets that are immobilised at the moment will be used to support Ukraine. Our view is that when a country like Russia illegally invades another country and destroys its infrastructure, it cannot be left to the rest of Europe and those who abide by the UN Charter to reconstruct. When we look at various wars in recent times, we see this phenomenon of levelling entire cities. We have seen it in Syria, with the levelling of Aleppo, for example. Entire communities and towns are just levelled. We see it in Gaza and we have seen it in Ukraine. There has to be accountability and the use of the immobilised assets is one avenue. We are actively engaged in discussions on how the revenue can be transferred and used to aid Ukraine. The latest proposal provides that 90% of the available net revenue would be channelled through the European Peace Facility, while 10% would be channelled through the EU budget. It is important to co-ordinate with international partners, including the G7, to give careful consideration to applicable laws and to take into account the views of the ECB. The latter has concerns about the euro. My view is that the level of destruction is such that Russia has to pay for some of this.
I welcome all such moves. They are all heading in the right direction but the question is whether enough is being done. The question of using the revenue generated rather than realising the full value of assets is something that needs to be revisited. The EU also needs to co-ordinate with other world leaders in terms of a response to this. This is one of the most horrendous conflicts in human history, not to mention our lifetime. Of course, psychopathic leaders like Vladimir Putin will stop at nothing. It is always someone else's children who are sent over the front line. When we have people like that, there has to be a robust response from the civilised and democratic world. As a country, we must continue to provide any assistance we can to Ukraine. We need to be leaders in that regard to assist the people who are suffering in that country at the moment. There are many people suffering in Russia as well, who do not want to have any part in this war. There are hundreds of thousands of people affected in Russia, who do not want their children or their soldiers over there. We need to continue with our efforts on every front.
The World Bank estimates that the reconstruction bill for Ukraine will be $486 billion over the next decade. That will continue to rise each day. We are engaged in discussions on short-term recovery efforts including the provision of prefabricated homes to support communities. We have made financial support available to do that. A recovery conference will be held in Berlin in June.
There have been 13 targeted sanctions packages so far, with over 2,000 individuals and entities now subject to European Union restrictive measures. Ireland has frozen approximately €1.9 billion of funds belonging to such individuals and entities. Discussions on a fourteenth package are ongoing. We will continue to support measures to effectively implement sanctions and combat circumvention, particularly any work to limit Russia's access to sensitive items and battlefield goods. We support the work of the EU sanctions envoy, Mr. David O'Sullivan, an Irishman who has done a great deal of effective work on the circumvention issue on behalf of the European Union.
53. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the latest worrying statements by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Israel Defense Forces, IDF, action in Rafah will speed up Ireland’s recognition of the state of Palestine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20882/24]
I ask the Tánaiste whether the latest worrying statements by the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, on IDF action in Rafah will speed up Ireland's recognition of the state of Palestine. I note that there has been some movement in that regard and I ask him to provide some chink of light to the tortured and beleaguered people of Gaza.
I am extremely concerned by the start of Israel's ground offensive and military operation in Rafah. The international community has been clear that the humanitarian consequences of a large-scale offensive in Rafah would be catastrophic. I urge the parties to make every effort to come to an immediate ceasefire deal.
All hostages must be released and further civilian casualties must be avoided.
The question of recognition is one that has been the subject of ongoing consideration in line with the programme for Government. As I have previously stated, it is my intention to bring a formal proposal on recognition to the Government following the completion of discussions with international partners. We have had advanced discussions in the past number of weeks with a number of countries, including members of the Arab contact group. Specifically, I discussed the issue with the Jordanian and Egyptian foreign ministers and with a number of like-minded countries within Europe. We will continue those discussions this week with some other member states and non-member states. The specific timeline is near but fluid. The number of countries that may join is also fluid. Other countries will make decisions in accordance with their own timelines.
The entire context was around what we can do to support regional efforts to return things to a political pathway and create peace. We have worked with Arab members, including Jordan, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, in terms of the Arab peace initiative, particularly around the question of recognition. We had hoped for a ceasefire and the publication of that initiative. Given the consistent efforts to undermine the two-state solution, it is now timely to deal with the recognition question. A recent meeting convened in Riyadh by Saudi Arabia and Norway, which was attended by Ireland, underlined the importance of taking concrete steps towards the realisation of a Palestinian state in the context of the two-state solution.
When I put forward this question last week, I hoped we would not find ourselves in a position where Israel had already closed off Rafah. While the real ground offensive has not yet started, Israel certainly has moved in the tanks. The reason the full ground offensive has not started is that the United States is withholding arms and bombs. Today, 9 May, is Europe Day. We in Europe really are at a critical place. When I am out canvassing at the doors for my party's European candidates, a large number of people raise with me the direction in which Europe is going. They are not at all happy about it.
The Tánaiste mentioned that other countries might come on board with an initiative. The date mentioned on the 9 o'clock news last night was 21 May. Sharon Ní Bheoláin could not contain a sigh when she was talking about what is going on in Gaza. Our timeline should not be affected by whether other countries are coming on board. We should go ahead with the date that was mentioned. It was reported last night that Israel has closed a maternity hospital. It is no longer taking admissions. Babies do not wait. I hope to God we do not wait while other countries decide whether to come on board.
Ireland and Spain have a very clear direction of travel on this matter. I have said consistently over the past number of months and, indeed, since the Government was formed that, in line with the programme for Government, co-ordination with others and getting as many member states as possible on board is important for Palestinians' right to self-determination and their right to their own state because it has impact internationally. On Friday, there is an important vote at the United Nations General Assembly, which we will support, on a proposal seeking admission of Palestine to the United Nations and to the enjoyment of the rights that apply there. This follows the Security Council's failure and the decision by the US to veto action. Unfortunately, there are legislative issues in the US in terms of tied aid and the provision of humanitarian supports. We are very clearly supporting this initiative. We believe there could be a very significant vote at the UN General Assembly in favour of admission. That is on Friday. Following that, working with Spain and potentially others, I will bring proposals to the Government in terms of the recognition of a Palestinian state.
I take this opportunity to salute the students at Trinity College for protesting and for rejecting the genocide that is going on in Gaza. This type of protest is really worrying governments, as well it might. It should worry the professors as well who are giving out about the students. It is the students who are giving a bit of learning to the professors. They hit Trinity College where it hurt. They hit it in the purse by blocking people from getting to see the Book of Kells. That is where we should be hitting Israel as well. Will the Tánaiste indicate in his supplementary answer what is happening with the Illegal Israeli Settlements Divestment Bill? The students have given us a lesson in how to do it. In less than a week, they managed to get Trinity College to divest its Israeli investments. We should be divesting from Israel as well. The success of the Trinity College students really exposed the privileged naysayers who said we cannot act quickly. We can do so. The students won for humanity, for Palestine and for Europe as well. We are in a new political situation. The Tánaiste mentioned the hostages. We know Netanyahu does not care and never cared about the hostages. He is an opportunist. We should take the opportunity now to make sure we hit Israel where it hurts.
I would appreciate more clarity on the timeframe for recognition. Last night, several media outlets reported 21 May as the date being set. They did not make that up; they got it from the Tánaiste's office. There is nowhere else from which they could have got it. In essence, it is confirmation that Ireland is working with other states to come to the point of recognition. That will be a welcome position. I really hope it happens. One of the reasons so many of us have been frustrated with the delay in coming to the point of officially recognising the state of Palestine is that it is an important first step. However, it is only a first step. It was never the end point.
Recognition is crucial to set the context for the real work that needs to happen. At the moment, there is virtually no Palestine to recognise because of the impact of illegal settlements in the West Bank and the annihilation of Gaza. If and when we recognise the state of Palestine, we will have an obligation to ensure such a state is viable. That means, in the first place, taking action against the other state, Israel, that is engaged in war crimes, to prevent that state from further such action. It also means continuing our ongoing work of supporting Palestinian relief agencies and supporting the movement of Palestine from being an occupied state, operating under severe oppression, to a viable and independent state for a sovereign people.
We should have long ago recognised the Palestinian state. We might not be in this horrific situation had the world acted sooner on the crimes of Israel against the Palestinian people. Let us be clear. In the face of the genocidal assault and massacre taking place in Gaza, belated state recognition will not stop the horror. Recognition is welcome but it is not going to stop the horror. The question the students in Trinity College are asking is the same one Palestinians and others are asking. I handed letters to the Taoiseach yesterday from medical workers and Mothers Against Genocide. Palestinians are asking for sanctions to prevent the commission of further massacres and genocide by the apartheid state of Israel. Another question for the Tánaiste is about what Palestinian state we are recognising. Should that recognition not accompany the derecognition of the apartheid State of Israel, which is built on the ethnic cleansing and apartheid system inflicted on the people of Palestine?
What is happening in Rafah and Gaza is absolutely shocking and unacceptable.
In our view, it represents a clear violation of international humanitarian law. We have made that clear. Ireland has made submissions to the International Criminal Court, and was one of the few countries to make a strong oral presentation. We had made a written submission long before this war started. We have been strongly supportive of the UN agencies, in particular UNRWA. Our recent intervention in Israel's allegations against UNRWA were particularly effective and impactful in turning the tide back towards UNRWA, with countries removing their suspensions and providing aid to the agency once again. Ireland's advocacy has been well appreciated in that regard.
On the issue of recognition, Deputy Carthy is wrong. The date did not come from my office. Our understanding is that RTÉ's EU correspondent approached GIS and the Taoiseach's Department and mine and stated that the media in Slovenian circles had picked up that date. From my understanding, that is the origin of the story. That RTÉ correspondent is particularly resourceful in terms of his contacts and so on. That specific request was made to us.
Our view is that co-ordination matters. I disagree with Deputy Boyd Barrett, as a number of countries doing it together is far more impactful.
The Government cannot delay it either.
We never said it was just one strand. It is interesting that Deputy Boyd Barrett argued trenchantly for this for a long time but, once there was the prospect of it happening, he dismissed it, said it was not really that significant and asked whether we could move on now. His asserted solution fails to understand the complexity of the situation, for example, the Arab population within Israel itself.
Exactly. The two-state solution will never work because of the Arab population.
We have to work in the real world. I respectfully suggest that the Deputy keeps shifting the goalposts.
54. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government intends to support the reappointment of European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, for a second term. [20781/24]
119. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding the proposed reappointment of Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission, considering her interventions in respect of Israel's aggression against the people of Palestine. [20813/24]
We know that Ireland has worked with Ursula von der Leyen on a number of issues, particularly Brexit, in which regard she and her Commission have been commended. However, does the Tánaiste accept that, through her actions in respect of what Israel has done, she has not only undermined her own position, but also the credibility of everyone in the EU who ever wants to act as an advocate for peace, justice and international rule? She has never apologised or sought to atone for those actions. Does the Tánaiste accept that those actions have made her position untenable and made any prospect of a second term as Commission President unviable?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 54 and 119 together.
On 7 March at the European People's Party congress in Bucharest, Ursula von der Leyen was officially named her party’s candidate for a second term as President of the European Commission. In her first term, President von der Leyen has been a strong advocate for the protection of Irish interests, particularly throughout the Brexit process. The Sinn Féin Party was strongly supportive of President von der Leyen and her stance in respect of Brexit. She also provided important leadership in the EU and support to Ireland during the Covid-19 pandemic and has provided consistent leadership on the EU's multifaceted response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
Ireland is currently conducting extensive consultations, both internally and with our European partners, in order to decide which nominee to support in the European Council. There are still a number of factors that need to be taken into account before support for any one candidate can be announced. The outcome of the European Parliament elections at the beginning of June, for example, is a crucial factor for all member states in determining who to support for the role of President of the next European Commission. Following the elections, we must come together in the European Council and propose a nominee, who must then be approved by the European Parliament.
The Taoiseach underlined Ireland’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his meeting with President von der Leyen on 11 April, including calling upon the Commission to respond to the request made by his predecessor, jointly with Prime Minister Sanchez of Spain, for an urgent review of Israel’s compliance with its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel Association Council. Since the Hamas attack on 7 October, we have worked to turn the EU's position on Gaza around. Along with others, we have been effective in broadening not just the Commission's response. In terms of the humanitarian response from the Commission, Commissioner Lenarcic has been an exceptional Commissioner who does not get acknowledged enough for his work on the Middle East. There is now a broader understanding across the Commission of our perspective and the perspective of others on the issues, including the violation of international humanitarian law that has occurred and the necessity for Israel to act within that law, which, in our view, it is not doing.
Likewise, we have been particularly effective in our support for UNRWA and other UN organisations. When Israel made allegations against a number of UNRWA staff, quite a number of countries immediately pressed the pause button on their aid to Gaza. We did the opposite and actually increased our aid, announcing a €20 million allocation to UNRWA. That was effective. With other EU member states and countries from outside Europe, we then advocated to restore funding to UNRWA. Many countries have acknowledged that, without UNRWA, we simply cannot reconstruct Gaza. The European Commission, including its President, communicated directly to me and to the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, the Commission's decision to change its perspective on this matter and restore funding to UNRWA following the report from Ms Catherine Colonna, which gave UNRWA a clean bill of health.
Regarding what transpires after the European elections, we will all be in a better position to assess the likely candidates for a number of positions across the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission.
This is not a time when we can engage in the usual political bartering for positions. I say this regardless of whether Ursula von der Leyen has been perfectly politically correct in everything else she has done. She has not, by the way. I have acknowledged that there are areas in which Ursula von der Leyen was of substantial assistance to Ireland, but on the humanitarian issue that will globally define the credibility and status of states and international organisations for generations to come, she has severely damaged the credibility of the EU's stated purpose to be a vehicle for peace, justice, human rights and the rule of law. When she stood in Tel Aviv the day after an Israeli minister announced to the world that it was Israel's intention to starve the people of Gaza of food, water, electricity and medical supplies and she said that Europe stood with Israel, she became an unviable voice for Europe. I do not know how the Government, which has been on the right page concerning many aspects of this conflict, has not said that clearly. If Europe is to have a role in international conflict resolution and peacebuilding, Ursula von der Leyen cannot be President of the Commission, as that would negate any prospect of us playing that role at global level.
Ursula von der Leyen damaged the credibility of the EU in her actions and utterances and through her partisan interventions in support of Israel during the onslaught on Gaza. In offering Netanyahu and his regime unconditional and unqualified support, she has effectively provided political cover for the genocidal destruction that is happening.
Ireland needs to take a stand on this. I do not think it is good enough for the Tánaiste to say that elections will be taking place and we will wait and see the outcome of that, with the normal business of negotiation, where we will support them and they will support us. We need to take a stand on this, as does the State, and EU election candidates need to take a stand on this issue.
There are clear rules and procedures governing how a President of the Commission is elected or appointed. They are tied up with the elections and there is a two-stage procedure. First, there is the appointment of the Commission by a qualified majority. The European Council will propose a candidate for President of the Commission but then that candidate has to be elected by a majority vote of the Parliament. The second stage then is the appointment of Commissioners and so forth. That is the reality of it. On whoever comes forward, there has to be a judgement on the broad range of issues which will confront the European Union.
On the humanitarian side, Europe is probably the largest contributor to humanitarian causes across the world, including the Middle East and Palestine and has been consistently so under successive presidents of the Commission. Sinn Féin never acknowledges this for whatever reason. That is why we have worked so hard to maintain both the development funding and the humanitarian funding from the European Union. The US is also actually a very big contributor to the Middle East on the humanitarian side.
Many who speak and who articulate loudly on the political elements are not as strong, at times, on the humanitarian dimension. All of the humanitarian supports which come from the European Union are just taken for granted and never get a mention from anyone in the Opposition. They are just dismissed. We should not underestimate and should have a balanced approach as to the positives.
I agree with the Deputy in that I did not agree with the initial response by the President of the European Commission. Equally, I have to acknowledge that the European Union, both Council and Commission, has probably been, beside the US, the largest provider of humanitarian support to both UN agencies but also to NGOs, to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in Gaza, and to UNWRA in Lebanon, in Jordan and across the Middle East.
If it will provide any consolation to the Tánaiste, I will of course acknowledge that Europe has huge expenditure of humanitarian aid. Some states within the EU are much better than others and there is not a universal approach but I also acknowledge that the EU has funded very important projects in Palestine. It has funded schools, hospitals, healthcare centres, youth clubs and women's centres. In all instances it has watched as Israel has gone in and destroyed those very buildings which Europe has paid for. Europe shrugged and did not look for even a cent back from the Israeli regime. It is all right on the one hand if we say that we are actually providing humanitarian aid to a region such as Palestine, but if that humanitarian aid is being negated and completely countered by the actions of a state and that state bears no consequences for that, then I would argue the logic of that position.
If there was a single Commissioner who in any way equivocated on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, never mind giving carte blanche to Vladimir Putin to continue, the Tánaiste would have no difficulty in standing up in this Dáil and saying that person was inappropriate for this job, and he would be right. In this instance, Ursula von der Leyen did huge damage, particularly across the global south, to European efforts to secure international support to pressure Vladimir Putin to stop his illegal invasion of Ukraine. That one issue alone should be enough for us to have the courage and conviction to say that somebody who has undermined the European institutions, and certainly spoke without any authority on our behalf in a way which undermined our efforts at securing peace in the Middle East, should not be considered.
The problem is that what the Tánaiste is saying today is that as Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Green Party MEP candidates go around, no only knows for sure when it comes down to it in July whether they may actually put their lámha suas in support of that person for the position. That is not the way in which to conduct these elections. Every single Irish political party should say categorically that we will not support Ursula von der Leyen for Commission President because she has undermined everything we have set out to achieve in the Middle East peace process.
Regarding the Tánaiste's response, it is deflection to say let us look at this thing in the round and that we are not being fair and are not looking at the humanitarian contribution of the European Union. Ursula von der Leyen is not entirely responsible for the humanitarian contribution of the European Union. What she is responsible for is her own public utterances, which demonstrate clearly on her own behalf, and not on behalf of the people of the European Union, her unconditional and unqualified support for Israel in its actions. I believe the vast majority of Irish people were offended by that and by the public imagery and the articulation of that position. On that basis, with no apology and the consistent stand on that position, she is not fit for the role. I believe we need to take a stand and our MEP candidates need to take a stand. It is not enough to say we need to look at it in the round. We can look at it in the round, and if we look at it in the round, we come to the same conclusion: she is not fit for the role.
Ursula von der Leyen is directly complicit with the genocidal massacre that Israel has committed in Gaza over the past seven months. She greenlit the massacre and she should be unceremoniously sacked. People should state publicly that she should not remain as the President of the EU Commission. They should say publicly, "Ursula von der Leyen; sack her." Say publicly she should be sacked for her complicity with genocide.
Some of us warned the Government about this. When she came to this House in December 2022, most of this House stood and gave her a standing ovation. I was one of the few who did not and challenged her directly at that time about her cosy relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu because she visited Israel only a few months before, stood beside him, and said not a word about his Government's intention to effectively continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The writing was on the wall for her role in encouraging and greenlighting Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. Had we called her out then, we might not be looking at the horror we are facing now.
The Deputy is correct in that the Ceann Comhairle, on behalf of this Parliament, invited President von der Leyen at the time, in acknowledgement of the role of the President of the Commission in respect of Brexit and of resolutely defending Ireland's situation vis-à-vis the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union.
Yes, many parties gave a very warm response, including Sinn Féin and others, to President von der Leyen at the time. We do not underestimate the role of the European Commission and of the European Union more generally, and all of the member states, in supporting Ireland's position in not having a hard border, in the peace process and continued support through the European Peace Facility. The European Union has been a very progressive force for peace in Ireland; do not forget that, and that is more generally.
I find it interesting that, in a classic populist approach, the entire European elections now seem to boil down just to one person. Of course, it is not about that at all. It is about how we believe the European Union should evolve into the future in the member states working together on social, economic, trade and public health policies. Those are the issues, together with whether we are pro-European Union or not.
Deputy Boyd Barrett is against the European Union and he always has been, so he uses every opportunity to have a cut.
I am not, actually.
You are. You are against the European Union.
I am against its current direction.
No, you are against it full stop, and you have always voted against it. Always. You have never had a good thing to say about it. There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here too.
It has good environmental directives.
Sinn Féin historically has been against the European Union. It is in its DNA to be against the European Union.
The Minister was asked three questions and he has not answered any of them.
I would genuinely like to see who is going forward after the elections and so forth. In any case, I am well used to it at this stage in terms of the flip-flopping and the perspectives. At one level, they will attack-----
This is too serious for the Minister's messing.
It is very serious. That is why the Deputy needs to get serious. I sometimes do not know whether it is the Davy Stockbrockers-----
Tá an t-am caite.
One second, please. The Chair allowed all of them to interrupt. I want to finish my comments with the following.
The Minister is over time.
Everyone has been over time. I want to make the point that we sometimes get a Davy Stockbrokers view of Sinn Féin policy, we sometimes get a kind of view from the Deputies in here but it depends on who they are talking to, and whether they are talking to the financiers or the developers. They change their tack all of the time.
I do not mind the Minister playing politics but on this issue, he should not.
The same applies to Europe. Sinn Féin spokespeople will sidle off to Europe and have their meetings with the Commission, have their meetings with civil servants and tell them all they have a different view from the one they articulate publicly in the House.
Tá an t-am caite.
That is what happens with Sinn Féin at the moment. They are talking to different people all of the time with different policies and different perspectives.
55. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to report on his most recent communications with his European counterparts in relation to imposing sanctions on Israel in light of the International Court of Justice’s recent ruling that there is a plausible case that Israel may be committing genocide in Gaza; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20911/24]
I hope it is clear at this stage that there is no level of atrocity that Israel is not willing to commit against the Palestinian people. It should have been clear long before now for a state that was built on ethnic cleansing on an ongoing basis, on apartheid and on a 17-year-long siege of Gaza, but now, when we look at the massacre in Gaza, it should be clear.
Under the genocide convention, states are required to prevent, not just punish, genocide. What is the Government going to do to prevent what is clearly a genocide?
I will answer the question the Deputy has tabled and I will then deal with the specifics of his further questions.
Sanctions are a tool of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and part of a comprehensive approach to the pursuit of EU foreign policy objectives, along with political dialogue and other complementary efforts and instruments. Ireland actively pushed for agreement at EU level on sanctions against violent settlers in the West Bank in addition to further sanctions on Hamas. I welcome the recent adoption of these sanctions and will continue to make the case for targeted sanctions on individuals and entities under the EU global human rights sanctions regime where there is evidence of consistent violations of human rights.
In respect of the case initiated by South Africa against Israel under the genocide convention at the International Court of Justice, I welcome in particular the order for additional provisional measures made by the court on 28 March requiring Israel to ensure the unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, in recognition of the dire situation unfolding in Gaza. It is for the ICJ itself to decide whether its orders have been respected by the parties in any given case. I expect that the court will consider compliance with its provisional measures orders during the merits phase of this case, and that this consideration will be reflected in its final ruling in due course.
As I have confirmed previously, although the Deputy may not have been present, Ireland is continuing to work on its intervention in respect of this case. I have said that we will intervene. We are going to file an intervention under Article 63 of the genocide convention. It will be focused on broadening the definitions and parameters by which this issue can be considered, and we are working on the humanitarian dimension and the prevention of aid going into Gaza in particular.
South Africa has been given until October to file its substantive case - what is termed the memorial - and it will do that in October. We will file our intervention and we are already working on it. Obviously, we want to see the substantive case from South Africa as well, which is exactly the situation that applied with regard to Ukraine.
People Before Profit put a motion to the Dáil in November of last year asking the Government to take a case against Israel for genocide under the ICJ and it voted against it. Now, belatedly, because South Africa did what Ireland should have done, the Government is saying there will be some class of intervention. I suppose later is better than not at all, but when we consider the horror that has ensued for the people of Gaza and continues, the Government should be ashamed, frankly, of its failure to support that call in November of last year.
Setting that aside, the convention requires not just punishment after the fact and Article 1 says “prevent”. What the students in Trinity College have done is to seek to prevent by imposing economic damage on a state capable of committing genocide. Are we going to follow the lead of the Trinity students and impose sanctions now that will hurt the state committing genocide? We can do it. We should audit everything in the Houses of the Oireachtas, we should look at every single support given to Israeli companies and, of course, we should expel the Israeli ambassador. We should do things that will impact on a state that is committing genocide.
When the Deputy spoke earlier about the International Court of Justice, I do not think he was upfront with the Irish people in terms of how it works, and he was deliberately populist and polemic about it. That has been the case on many issues around this question. Ireland wants to be credible in terms of how it legally intervenes in international courts so that when we do it, we do it with purpose, we do it with credibility and we do it in an informed and substantive way that gets results at the court level. When we go through the international courts, of course, those interventions by themselves are not going to resolve the immediate breaches of humanitarian law that are occurring. We are very clear in Ireland. We had also become involved in the ICJ previously in terms of the legality of the occupation and the obligations. We have financially supported those courts, so Ireland has put its money where its mouth is. I respect the courts and I do not treat the courts as political platforms. I believe that when we make a legal intervention, it has to be substantive, it has to be informed and it has to be with a view to getting a result and an outcome, not just for some political grand statement at a particular point in time through a motion or whatever.
The Deputy knows that deep down but he will never say it because it is much more attractive to keep pretending that this side of the House somehow does not share his empathy with the people of Palestine or does not share his horror at what is happening. We do. We have condemned it and we have been strong in international fora in condemning it. I get the sense all of the time that the Deputy is endeavouring to drive a wedge within the House when the overwhelming view of the Irish people is one of condemnation of what is happening in Gaza and of doing everything we can to end it.
I have been campaigning for Palestinian rights since I was there in 1987 - I lived there - and my position has been very consistent over a very long time, as has been the movement in this country of solidarity with Palestine. My position is that, in relation to the apartheid state of Israel, we need to do what was done to the apartheid state of South Africa. A state based on apartheid and ethnic cleansing has no place in the civilised world. Surely we now have the evidence that is the case, even if the Minister and the Government did not accept it before. A state capable of genocide is not a normal state. A state built on apartheid, ethnic cleansing and the siege of Gaza is not a normal state. Stop treating it like a normal state. Treat it like the apartheid state of South Africa.
Of course, Governments were eventually forced to recognise that because of the actions of those like the Dunnes Stores workers, who said they were not going to handle goods from a state that was capable of this horror. We should do the same. That is what Mothers Against Genocide are doing, and I handed a letter to the Taoiseach, Deputy Simon Harris, yesterday. Hundreds of doctors are appealing for sanctions now. Stop this horror. Stop treating the state doing this to the Palestinians as if it is some sort of normal state.
Come on. Is the Deputy seriously suggesting we can effectively dismantle the Israeli state?
The Dunnes Stores workers played a big role.
Come on. The Deputy's solution fails in any shape or form to deal with the complexity of the situation. It is not as simple as he has put forward at all. It is a long history, as the Deputy correctly pointed out. It is not as simple as recognising one state and de-recognising another and attempting to dismantle it. That would cause untold further violence and upheaval. In our view, Palestinians and Israelis have to live side-by-side in harmony and in peace. That is the only solution into the future.
And a free Palestine.
That is why we condemned 7 October and Hamas. That form of jihadism and rapine was unacceptable too. The Deputy has never done that. He has never condemned it-----
Hamas was not even around in 1987. It did not even exist.
-----because of his particular view. I believe Israel has no strategic approach to the Middle East and has failed abysmally in developing a strategic approach. I believe earlier generations of leaders had a better approach to the idea of a two-state solution and getting there but it is a far more complex situation than the Deputy is articulating here today, to be fair.
Israel is not interested.
Ireland is doing everything it possibly can. It may not appeal to the sort of popular rhetoric the Deputy will engage in from time to time. By the way, Ireland is recognised in the Arab world for its leadership on that question, and maybe the Deputy could acknowledge that from time to time.
57. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an update on his Department's interaction with the British Government on the 30 April implementation of new Brexit-related customs checks on EU goods using Britain as a land bridge; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20538/24]
Will the Tánaiste provide an update on his Department's interaction with the British Government with regard to the 30 April implementation of the new Brexit-related customs checks on EU goods using Britain as a land bridge, and will he make a statement on the matter? It is that issue that has been brought up in the past while regarding interactions with the British Government on a whole pile of issues. It was the Tánaiste's former party leader and former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who said it at an EU affairs committee meeting. He spoke about the fact that during his time, and we all know we have all gone through Brexit, there was a huge amount of interactions between officials. I think we find that, between here and Britain, that is not the case at this time. The Tánaiste might give me an update.
Officials from across Government have been engaging with their British counterparts since last autumn on the introduction by the United Kingdom of its post-Brexit import controls. Britain remains a significant market for Irish exports, especially for agrifood, so ensuring a smooth transition for businesses has been a constant Government priority. I am glad to report that the transition to the first phase of new UK controls at the end of January went broadly well, thanks largely to the level of engagement and preparation by all Irish stakeholders across the supply chain, including through the Brexit stakeholder forum, which I chaired earlier this year.
The 30 April phase saw the introduction of physical checks on European Union goods going into Great Britain, with the exception of goods from Ireland. While Irish exports to Britain are not impacted in this phase, Irish operators sending goods under transit across the United Kingdom land bridge are currently adapting to the new requirements. Irish officials have been engaging with their British counterparts to ensure they understand the importance of the United Kingdom land bridge for Irish traders and that they take a pragmatic approach to the introduction of the new controls.
I have discussed these issues on a number of occasions with my British counterparts, who fully recognise the importance of our two-way trade in goods and have agreed to work collaboratively with us to ensure a continued smooth trading relationship. We will continue to engage with the British authorities, particularly around the introduction of physical checks on goods from Ireland, which we understand will take place in spring 2025. We will, of course, continue to engage with Irish stakeholders, as we have throughout Brexit, to support them in adapting to the new trading environment.
I welcome the fact there seems to be a significant amount of interaction in dealing with this. I also welcome the Tánaiste's own interactions with regard to all the stakeholders. Can I take from his answer that, at this time, he does not foresee any major issues with regard to this particular implementation and that if there are, we have sufficient facility to deal with it? We all know the issue and, in fairness to the Government here and businesses across this island, Brexit was something that was forced upon us. It is a reality we have to deal with.
I have a wider question, and that relates to official interactions with the British Government on those numerous issues. We all know what has happened with the issue of migration, and it probably was not that helpful that it played out in the public domain in the way it did. As I said, it was the issue that was brought up by Bertie Ahern at the EU affairs committee. He said he believed there were a lot more official interactions during his time and that was able to deal with some of these issues before they would necessarily blow up in the way we have seen recently.
So far, the transition to the latest phase of controls seems to have gone well. There have been no reports of delays or congestion impacting Irish land bridge movements through Britain's east coast ports. We remain vigilant, however, because the longer term impacts of the new controls on Irish business and trade patterns will take some time to emerge. We will continue to engage with stakeholders.
The controls introduced at the end of January did represent a significant change to the way Irish businesses export to Britain, especially agrifood businesses. Since the end of January, Irish businesses exporting to Britain need to make customs declarations for consignments in advance of sending their goods. If they are exporting medium or high-risk SPS goods, which includes agrifoods, they must also pre-notify each consignment on the UK SPS import system, and in some cases obtain an export health certificate from the relevant competent authority in Ireland.
To date, we have not seen a significant change overall in exports to Britain as a result of these specific changes, but it is early days and we are continuing to monitor trade patterns very carefully given the importance of the British market for Irish exports, especially in agrifood. We have a Brexit stakeholders' consultation group, which I met with only very recently, and we meet on a regular basis to take stock of this. Our officials are constantly in touch as well.
It is obviously absolutely necessary that the work of this consultation group and all those other stakeholders would take place. We need to make sure we allow for the free flow of goods as easily as possible, with all the difficulties Brexit has caused. We know a huge amount of effort has been put in, particularly at this end, from the point of view of ensuring mitigations. The European Union has been very good in the solidarity it has shown to Ireland.
However, we will constantly have issues as long as the Border remains in Ireland. There has to be a huge piece of work carried out by this Government in making preparations for possible constitutional change. I do not think it would shock the Tánaiste that I would say that. Even beyond that, when we are talking about the European Union, I think we welcome the support. That is the support that was provided by Ursula von der Leyen, but I do not think it gets her off the rap regarding her support for a genocidal Israeli regime.
In the run-up to the introduction of import controls, all relevant Departments engaged directly with affected Irish stakeholders, especially in the agrifood, transport, ferry and port sectors through webinars, meetings, training and online briefing materials. Government veterinary inspection services, in particular the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, made extensive preparations to facilitate the increase in demand for export health certificates. This included intensive engagement by local veterinary supervisory teams with individual food businesses exporting to GB. We had specific engagements with the Irish Exporters Association and the Irish Business and Employers Confederation. I chaired a meeting of the Brexit stakeholder forum in January, which focused on the new UK requirements. In addition, the Government ran extensive communications on radio and in print and a social media campaign throughout December and January to make sure all affected traders in Ireland were aware of the new UK requirements.
58. Deputy Joe Flaherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs for a report on his recent visit to Jordan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20766/24]
I commend the Tánaiste on his recent and very successful trips to both Egypt and Jordan. He has personally taken a firm lead in shining a global light on the continuing horrors in the Middle East. News reports this morning regarding a formal recognition by a number of EU states on 19 May of Palestine as a state are a direct result of the Tánaiste's cast-iron efforts in this regard. Will the Tánaiste comment on how this has transpired and what we can expect on 19 May?
The Tánaiste literally has one minute.
I travelled to Egypt and Jordan in April as part of this Government’s continued efforts to address the crisis in Gaza and the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both Egypt and Jordan are at the forefront of regional and international efforts to halt the conflict in Gaza, address the dire humanitarian situation and resume a meaningful political pathway.
In Jordan, I met with Foreign Minister Safadi, as well as with King Abdullah. Our discussions focused on efforts to bring about an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of all hostages and full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza. It was clear that Ireland and Jordan are united in the view that unless we address the current crisis head on through a comprehensive plan that delivers on a two-state solution, we will not be able to ensure peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider Middle East. In this regard, we discussed how Ireland and like-minded partners could support regional efforts to restore a political pathway. This included an exchange of views on the positive impact that potential recognition of Palestine by a number of European states could have in lending momentum to these efforts, as well as efforts to support full membership of the United Nations for Palestine.
