8 Feb 05 International Affairs

8. Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions on human rights with the Chinese authorities during his recent visit to China; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3358/05]

9. Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had with the Chinese authorities during his recent visit to China on the issue of lifting the EU arms embargo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3359/05]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.

As the Deputies are aware, I gave a detailed statement to the House last week on my attendance at the European Council meeting on 16 December last in Brussels, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who also attended the European Council, took a question and answer session at the end of that Dáil statement. I propose to briefly summarise the main points I made last week regarding my attendance at that meeting.

The future enlargement of the European Union was the principal agenda item at the Council. The Council also had a meeting with Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations.

We agreed that the accession treaty with Romania and Bulgaria should be signed in April this year. If they continue to abide by their commitments, this means these countries should become full EU member states in January 2007. The European Council agreed to open accession negotiations with Croatia on 17 March of this year. The Council also agreed that Turkey sufficiently fulfilled the criteria for EU membership. Accession negotiations with Turkey should open on 3 October next.

I did not have any formal bilateral meetings with other EU leaders on the margins of the December European Council.

I have to question whether the current system, whereby questions relating to the subject matter of a Dáil statement are deferred or postponed for a week rather than being disallowed, constitutes the best use of our time and resources, but I will go through the issues I raised last week. Last week, I indicated in my response to questions regarding my visit to China that I had discussions on the human rights and the arms embargo with the Chinese authorities and, in response to supplementary questions, I gave a detailed reply outlining the substance of those discussions. I do not propose to detail in full those replies again. In summary, the Deputy will be aware this was the third opportunity I have had within eight months to meet Premier Wen Jiabao. I have used every one of those opportunities to address the subject of human rights.

The Chinese authorities are well aware of our very strong feelings about this matter and are paying attention. It is and will remain a regular feature of dialogue between Ireland and China. While I recognise that respect for human rights in China is not at the level we would wish, the Chinese authorities continue to move in a positive direction. I was assured by the Chinese authorities that they are committed to continue making progress on the issue of human rights.

I discussed the Chinese Government's efforts to promote human rights and the rule of law with Chairman Wu of the National People's Congress. The Chairman looks forward to Irish and Chinese parliamentarians continuing this dialogue during the course of the year. Throughout my visit, I stressed that we would be interested in developing our bilateral co-operation in the human rights area, drawing on the experiences and resources available in NUl Galway which has been involved in official EU-China programmes in recent years.

The arms embargo was discussed during my visit and I acknowledge the importance of the question to China. I pointed out the European Council's recent reaffirmation of its political will to continue to work towards lifting the embargo. At the same time, the EU is anxious that a decision to lift the embargo should not result in an increase in arms exports from EU member states to China. This is consistent with China's assertion that its concern to see the embargo lifted is driven by a desire to normalise relations rather than to pursue arms. In this context, the European Council called for the early adoption of a revised EU code of conduct on arms exports. Work on that is progressing well at a technical level within the EU.

The current version of the code has been operational since 1988. It is a politically binding document and contains criteria for assessing applications for export licences for military equipment. These criteria include respect for human rights in the country of final destination and the preservation of regional peace, security and stability. I am hopeful that it will be resolved by the middle of this year.

(later)

Mr. Sargent: I note at the European Council summit that the issue of EU immigration policy was one of the areas covered. Can the Government say it fully lives up its international obligations in terms of immigrants and asylum-seekers? I note that Spain has recently regularised 1.5 million illegal immigrants. It seems that Ireland and some other EU states are reluctant or are refusing - I am not sure which is the case - to ratify the UN international convention on the protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families. Given that immigration was discussed, will the Taoiseach outline why the call for ratification from Amnesty International and others is not being heeded?

The Taoiseach will be aware of the Green Party's concerns about ongoing militarisation of the EU. I note that the EU Council welcomed the battle groups' proposal. I also note that the Irish Government wants to be a participant in the battle groups. Will the Taoiseach answer a question many wish to ask him? Given that Ireland is the only EU state demanding a UN mandate for use of its troops, how is it possible for Ireland to be part of an integrated battle group arrangement? I cannot imagine the EU sending half a battle group, if Ireland does not have the UN mandate to participate. Is it not difficult for Ireland to participate if such is the scenario?

The Taoiseach: The issue of signing UN orders by the country was not raised. I am not sure whether that is an issue-----

Mr. Sargent: Will the Taoiseach come back to me on that question?

The Taoiseach: Yes. I suggest the Deputy submits a parliamentary question but I will raise the matter in any case.

The Government's national plan to deal with racism and migration issues was published a fortnight ago. The plan takes account of the Equality Act 2004, which transposes the race directive and is designed to meet the commitments entered into by the UN world conference. This may answer the question raised by the Deputy. The overall plan is to provide a strategic direction to combat racism and develop a more inclusive inter-cultural society in Ireland. The strategic monitoring group has been established to oversee its implementation.

In answer to the Deputy's second question, the aim of the creation of battle groups is to ensure that in times of need the EU will be capable of putting in place a group to deal comprehensively with a disaster or trauma quickly and speedily. The traditional Irish position is that Ireland operates under a UN mandate and not under an EU mandate. Ireland's position is strictly defined and there are good reasons for this. I recently met all the aid organisations in the aftermath of the tsunami. Given that situation, many of them did not understand the position and wondered why Ireland was in such a straitjacket. On other occasions I remember people saying that we should remain in a straitjacket. Ireland's position is clear; the Government, the Dáil and the UN mandate defines it. This will be so until that position is changed and as a result it is difficult for Ireland to operate in that EU vehicle.

I understand completely the desire and the necessity to be able to move an action group very quickly when a disaster happens but we have a constitutional legal position.