Ambassador of Ireland on Foreign Policy; Ireland & South Africa Bilateral Agreement; briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
3 September, 2003
AMBASSADOR OF IRELAND ON FOREIGN POLICY; IRELAND & SOUTH AFRICA BILATERAL AGREEMENT; BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr Z P Jordan (ANC)

Documents Handed In:
Taoiseach - Bertie Ahern on "Globalisation, Partnership and Investment in People: Ireland's Experience", World Bank
Taoiseach - Bertie Ahern Speech on RDS Dublin, 19 June 2003
Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cower - 10 June 2003

SUMMARY
The Ambassador of Ireland briefed the Committee on Irish foreign policy and 21st century world order, the Ireland/South Africa bilateral agreement as well as Ireland in relation to SADC, AU, NEPAD and UN. The debate that followed included such topics as Ireland's view on partnership with Africa, the non-proliferation treaty, the conflict in the Middle East, the enlargement of European Union, unrest in the Northern Ireland and the Irish economic miracle.

MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed the Ambassador of Ireland, Mr Gerald Corr, who briefed the Committee on Irish foreign policy and explained how Ireland became an important player in the European Union (EU) after experiencing an economic miracle that was expressed in a high growth rate. His Excellency said that Ireland and South Africa had a good relationship. Both Mandela's and Mbeki's governments were enormously helpful to Ireland. He was in favour of closer multilateral partnership especially between EU and NEPAD. He talked about the dangers facing the international arena such as terrorism, drugs and weapons of mass distraction. Closer multilateral cooperation would effectively improve initiatives aimed at delivering humanitarian aid and protection of rule of law. The two countries should also work together on strengthening investment and trade links. Ireland was a strong advocate of economic development and protection of human rights as well as of NEPAD, SADC, AU and the multilateral framework as a whole.

Discussion
Mr M Pheko (PACA) welcomed the concept of Europe-Africa partnership, but he stressed that it must be a partnership of equals. Therefore South Africa needed to grow strong through cancellation of debt, transfer of funds and technology. Would all European countries eventually become members of the EU? Was there were certain criteria for joining the union? What would be the effects of such enlargement. He inquired why, in the light of the turmoil in Iraq, only certain countries must disarm and other did not.

Mr Gerald Corr, the Ambassador of Ireland, said that the agreement on transfer of technology was of central importance and that it had not happened as much as should. One of the problems facing Africa was lack of regional trade. The trade with Europe was five times greater than within Africa due to poor infrastructure and other barriers. The technological gap must, however, be addressed in order to reduce that discrepancy. Ireland was fully committed to strengthening partnership with Africa. There would be more frequent delegations from Ireland to discuss that matter.

On the issue of European enlargement His Excellency commented that limits must be drawn using common sense. The functioning and structure of the EU were not destiny and hence could be flexed. Increasing the total to 25 members next year would bring definite changes in the way EU operated (the voting system for example). The EU enlargement would also affect the AU. How could one meaningfully operate structures and institutions with large number of member states? Additional countries from the Bulkan regions had also applied for the EU membership, others were already awaiting on the list of future candidates. The geographical location however was not a sufficient factor in the EU enlargement. There were strongly defined criteria that needed to be met like the Copenhagen criteria currently affecting Turkey.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) asked the Ambassador to comment on the current South Africa's role in Zimbabwe. He inquired on the controversial issue of non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and its selective morality. What would be the response from Ireland in case of the African demand to adhere to NPT.

The Ambassador commented on the conceptual and practical aspect of the current South Africa's role in Zimbabwe that they were difficult issues. Ireland supported the sanctions on the supply of arms, the ban of travel by individuals, and other sanctions that were extended for twelve months in February. The sanctions were a clear display of the EU's concern of the serious situation in Zimbabwe. They had been effective in increasing pressure and outlining the Irish opposition to the policy of the Zimbabwe government. Ireland had expressed deep concern in decline of human rights hence the opposition was clear. His Excellency said that the role that South Africa played in Zimbabwe was appreciated. It was in the interest of South Africa and the EU to resolve the tensions and achieve a common framework.
The two central points on the non-proliferation treaty were that it was not just non-proliferation but also disarmament concern. Ireland worked closely with South Africa on that issue. In practice it was unthinkable that there could be a level of proliferation that would pose a danger to world peace. His Excellency expressed hope that there would be ratification of the fourteen points agreed on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Dr P Mulder (FF) asked for advice on reviving African economy and lessons that could be learnt from the Irish economic miracle.

The Ambassador said that thanks to the economic miracle of 1960s, Ireland picked above average of the EU countries. The Irish government had decided at an early stage which sector the foreign investment would concentrate on, the focus of the education policy was directed at IT training and technology since the mid 1980s, special taxation was also implemented, friendly business environment was established and the macroeconomic discipline was restored.

Mr C Eglin (DA) asked if there had been study groups on either the Irish or the South Africa side to examine whether there were in fact any lessons from the Ireland's economic miracle that South Africa could implement. He also inquired on the issues of NEPAD. No European nation had signed NEPAD thereby making it a partnership of Africans and that it was hoped by the outside observers that if they behaved in a certain way the partnership could extend to other parts of the world. As the AU stated, there were three conditions to maintain sustainable development: peace and stability, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and sound economic governance. There was a commitment made to create institutions that would comply with those principles. How important was that commitment in the eyes of Ireland and other European countries doing business with South Africa in terms of NEPAD partnership?

The Ambassador said that EU had been involved in discussions on the topic of NEPAD for some time. President Chirac said that it would become a wider framework. Peace and stability were critical issues, just as the issues of exploitation of resources. International investors tended to regard Africa and conflicts as an absolute impediment to development and business. The Centro-strategic vision that the South African president took in terms on NEPAD was the right one. Africa played an important role in the world economy. NEPAD and the AU for the first time called on the African countries to address the need for peace, stability, conflict prevention and sound economic governance. It would not be easy to achieve that goal but the political will was there. The UNDP and UN agencies with the EU, US and others have to work together as partners on a strategic focus that is now Africa.

Dr B Geldenhuys (NNP) asked to what extent was the Irish government involved in the peace process in Northern Ireland.

The Ambassador said that the central problem of the Northern Ireland was the polarisation of the identity, some people feeling British and others Irish. A new paradigm was needed to change the definition of the issue in order to resolve the conflict. The essential part was played by the leadership role of the two governments in developing a framework over the years. Enormous progress had been made already and both governments currently worked very closely together. People needed to feel that their sense of identity was given the appropriate legitimacy.

Ms F Mahomed (ANC) asked about details of the operational activities in terms of conflict resolution in Africa. She also inquired on Ireland's position on subsidies for the EU farmers directed at opening new markets for agricultural exports.

Ms F Hajaij (ANC) asked, in reference to the Cancun conference, what position would Ireland make regarding making the next round of the WTO a "developmental round" as decided in Doha. South Africa as a developing nation was naturally very concerned that richer developed nations would continue to set the agenda and neglect concerns of the developing world.

She also asked if Ireland could facilitate an exchange of its experiences to assist South Africa in building a stronger E-sector.

Her last question was on Ireland's view on a notion of problems in the Middle East and elsewhere, as many of those conflicts were rooted in a clash of civilisations and religions, namely Christianity and Islam.

On the question of WTO, the Ambassador agreed that this should indeed be a development round. The essential question for the developed countries was how committed were they to the concept of a development round. Ireland was deeply committed. His Excellency said that the key was to ensure that the round was a successful one and that the central issue was that of a political will.

The Ambassador said that in his own view the technological linkage and support in the IT sector could be strengthened. He said that Ireland was open to closer cooperation. He would do his best to facilitate that.

The Ambassador disagreed with the idea that the conflict in the Middle East was caused by a civilisational clash. It was not a religious division but a division between two parts of the world. There were complicated issues that caused misunderstanding. There was a feeling shared by much of the Islamic world that there was a failure to understand concerns of the Middle East. Ireland had always taken a strong position on the Middle East (for example on the Security Council). In the Ambassador's view it was difficult to overexagerate the real danger that the Middle East posed to world peace and to the architecture of multilateralism. Palestine must understand that terrorism had to end and Israel must accept a world map with the two states living side by side. The situation required wisdom on both parts.

The Chairperson assured His Excellency of the continuing strengthening of friendly relations between the two countries and expressed hope that he would consider more frequent exchange of visits.

The meeting was adjourned.