I thank the Chairman.

I read the IPSC’s document in advance. The delegation has probably covered the ground that was in its document. In the IPSC’s recommendations made in section 4 of the document, it requests that this committee recommends that the Government, first, demand publicly that the Euro-Med agreement under which Israel has privileged access to the EU market be suspended until Israel complies with international law. Personally, I would have no difficulty in supporting that. It also recommends that the Government veto any proposed upgrade in EU relations with Israel and demand publicly that Israel reverse its settlement construction, illegal occupation and annexation of land in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions, and to use its influence in international fora to bring this about. Those are defensible.

However, the final recommendation, that the European Union re-engage with Hamas as the political party elected by the Palestinian people, is more problematic. I can only see that happening as part of a process which clearly sets out to achieve a comprehensive settlement or agreement. Therefore, while I would be slow to sign up to the fourth recommendation, I have no difficulty with the first three.

This committee must examine what instruments are available to the European Union to exert influence in this area. We are all aware that its external relations mechanisms and the instruments available to it in terms of external policy are limited. The debate on the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty will be about strengthening and consolidating the Union’s ability to act on the international stage, with a particular focus on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. What is available to it currently are its neighbourhood policy and trade policy. Anybody who has followed the development of its trade policy will be frustrated that even though many of the trade and association agreements entered into contain clear clauses setting out certain obligations, these clauses are sometimes not upheld.

In the case of the Euro-Med agreement, an essential condition is that Israel must demonstrate compliance with international human rights obligations. However, the delegates have set out clearly and systematically in their document the ways in which Israel is in breach of international human rights law. Mr. Morrison pointed out that it is in violation of 25 Security Council resolutions which require action by Israel. It has also failed to implement the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the construction of the wall in the West Bank, notwithstanding the fact that the United Nations General Assembly voted by 150 votes to six calling on Israel to remove the wall. Mr. Morrison referred also to the economic strangulation of Gaza and the continuing closing of crossings. No action has been taken in this regard since the military assault last December. Mr. Morrison pointed out that this is in breach of Articles 33 and 55 of the fourth Geneva Convention. Arising out of the military assault on Gaza at the end of last year, United Nations bodies have recognised evidence of human rights violations and war crimes.

As Mr. Morrison observed, the Euro-Med agreement has, since 2000, given Israel privileged access to the European Union, which is the destination of one third of Israel’s exports. Deputy Tuffy asked whether the European Union should place itself out of line with the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, on this matter. I hope the European Union is not simply a junior partner to the United States, having to trot along faithfully and mirror everything that country does. What Mr. Obama is attempting to do is certainly admirable. Nevertheless, the European Union is in a position to use the independent instruments at its disposal to bring pressure to bear.

If I understood correctly, Deputy Tuffy was making the point that there does not seem to be any more limited option other than a suspension of the trade agreement. That is not a good enough reason to take no action. It is always assumed in any agreement, particularly where conditions are set down, as in this case, in regard to compliance with international human rights law, that there would be a mechanism for suspension and, if necessary, a discontinuation of the agreement. It seems the European Union is in a strong position to exercise that prerogative.

I am pleased for the committee to support the motion. As I said, I do not necessarily support the fourth recommendation, but the first three are acceptable. In particular, we should demand that the Euro-Med agreement, under which Israel has privileged access to the European Union market, be suspended until Israel complies with international law. That is a perfectly reasonable request.

*********************************************************************

I welcome Mr. Morrison’s suggestion that one of the actions we can take is to call, as we did some months ago, for an inquiry as to whether Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the Euro-Med agreement. I recognise that the delegates from the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign were eager to put their case to us. The inclusion of other matters, including the recognition of Hamas, has clouded the issue somewhat for the committee. As a European affairs committee, do we have an issue with the fact that the European Union has continued to give privileged access to a country that has signed up to a trade agreement with it but which is clearly in breach of what the Union describes as an essential clause of the agreement? In addition, the Union is considering upgrading its relations with Israel. Do we have a difficulty with this?

I am not talking just about this case; I have also raised the issue of Colombia at this committee. As we speak, the European Union is in the process of agreeing a free trade agreement with that country, disregarding its human rights record. No doubt that free trade agreement will have conditions setting down the essential importance of living up to international human rights law, but what if Colombia fails to comply with this, as it is extremely likely to do? As a European affairs committee which is supposed to be scrutinising EU legislation, compliance with international law and so on, are we happy that this is the European Union’s practice? If so, we might as well dispense with these clauses in trade agreements. Let us have agreements that are purely about trade and stop the window dressing, as it has been described, in which we pretend the Union is concerned not only about its economic interests but also about the maintenance and promotion of international and human rights law.

The request that an inquiry into Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the Euro-Med agreement be examined is surely one we could consider supporting. This should be done as quickly as possible because, unfortunately, if it takes a long time, it could be used to put off further action. It would be helpful to set a timeframe in which this should occur.

Filed under:
Joint Committee on European Affairs by Deirdre