I wish to take up another matter which has emerged only very recently. That is the whole subject of European political co-operation and the way in which we have been edged forward into a compromising position within EPC, into a situation where we will be participating in talks on security and ultimately, make no mistake about it, talks that will lead to talks on military and nuclear matters. I emphasise this aspect because we have had here a long and honoured tradition of neutrality. We have made it quite plain here when in Government that we have been always a neutral state from the military and security points of view. We have not been ideologically neutral. We believe in democracy and in human rights, but in military and security matters we have maintained a consistent stance of neutrality which has been honoured by successive Governments and which was first seen fully to the greatest effect when the late Mr. Éamon de Valera, as Taoiseach, handled and ran this country's affairs during the last war with tremendous success and established in practical terms that basic principle which has been the cornerstone of Irish diplomatic policy since then.
The Taoiseach is well aware that since we entered the Community in 1973 EPC has been essentially an ad hoc body of Community Foreign Ministers without any institutional or formal basis. They have met in an ad hoc manner. There has been no formalisation of decisions. They have discussed the problems in a general way and as far as Ireland is concerned we have not taken part in any military or security talks under the umbrella of these matters.
I emphasise these aspects because of something that is very fresh in my mind. As Minister for Foreign Affairs I attended the last meeting before the most recent one of the Foreign Affairs Ministers when they met in Venlo in the Netherlands on 9 and 10 May under the EPC framework. At that meeting I was briefed fully by my officials and took a certain stance. There was a very strong move on the part of the British Government particularly to strengthen the whole framework of European political co-operation so as to involve a greater degree of decision-making within it that would bring everybody within the Community closer under a security and eventually military umbrella. To this extent the UK was supported by Germany and Italy in the strongest sense in this direction. Both of them have gone public on it and their respective Foreign Ministers Genscher and Colombo have also gone public on their support of a greater strengthening of Europe in regard to foreign affairs and military and security matters.
Four main options were before us at that meeting in Holland in May, and I am quoting from my briefing for that meeting which I have retained. They were to maintain the present system as it is, to make minor administrative modifications to the present system, to draw up a new report — which has happened — which retains the nature and expands the scope of political co-operation, and to draw up a formal treaty of political co-operation. The last is the final and ultimate and that is what they are aiming at. We were in favour of the first two options, either to maintain the present system or make minor administrative or procedural changes. At that meeting in May we were not in favour — I reiterate solemnly here — of drawing up a new report, which has happened and has formalised the whole matter. Certainly we are not in favour of drawing up a formal treaty on European political co-operation.
The comment in my briefing material on that occasion is that we should say — as I did — that generally we are happy with the present system of political co-operation which meets the needs of the Community at its present stage of development. I emphasise that. Also in the briefing material which I received for the meeting of 9 and 10 May we have this explicit recognition of Ireland's vital interest in this area: "We would see the explicit extension of EPC to include security questions as a major change to the present system. Consequently, any proposal in this sense would be acceptable only in the context of a formal treaty or a new report on political co-operation and after careful and confidential consideration at official level. For Ireland"— they recognise it directly —"any explicit inclusion of security among the areas to be covered by EPC is a very sensitive issue". It goes on to advise me, very properly, of what my approach should be. My approach last May was just that, but I was aware at that meeting in May and at previous meetings of EPC that the British in particular and to some extent the other two countries I have mentioned — two very strong NATO countries — were pushing very hard to have a strengthening of the decision-making process within the EPC framework that would enlarge foreign affairs to cover the whole military and security areas. The British wanted a working and functioning directorate to be appointed. That is not included in that report but I am certain that it continues to be their objective.
The Taoiseach may say in replying to this debate that the report that emerged from the recent meeting does not bring the matter very much further from the ad hoc area in which it resided. This is the first time it has been formalised in any type of document. For the first time we see from page 2 of the document which has been adopted, and I quote: “The Foreign Ministers agree to maintain the flexible and pragmatic approach which has made it possible to discuss in political co-operation certain important foreign policy questions bearing on the political aspects of security”. I want to know from the Taoiseach what that means. What does “the political aspects of security” mean? That is a new phrase. I see from this document that he emphasised not merely a common attitude but joint action, and “joint action” is the phrase I quote. Further on one sees that, “In future the political committee may wish to take a longer term approach to certain problems and to institute studies to that end and, furthermore, to intensify and broaden the Ten within the sphere of European political co-operation with a view to achieving a greater consensus and a greater degree of agreement and action on the political aspects of security”. In case anybody is under any illusion about what that means, there are certain people who have no illusions about what it means — the establishment media in London who, basically, always speak for Britain. The British media speaks for the British Government, especially on an important matter like foreign affairs, military or security matters. I quote from the Financial Times of 14 October 1981 which reports on this meeting under the heading “EEC members endorse Security Charter”:
EEC member states yesterday took their foreign policy co-operation an important step forward by endorsing a "charter" which for the first time embodies a formal commitment to consult on security.
Yesterday's agreement by Community foreign ministers meeting in London is an achievement for the British Government which had been seeking a commitment of this kind on European political co-operation during its six-month term as President of the EEC Council of Ministers.
The next part is lovely — it is typical British condescension——
However, Lord Carrington, deliberately played down the significance of the joint commitment.
To avoid upsetting the other NATO partners and Irish sensibilities, he very kindly decided to play down the projection. It is not just the Financial Times but the whole league of papers that support the establishment line in these matters in Britain. The Times had an editorial entitled “Towards a Common Foreign Policy” which said a major aim had been achieved in getting this loose political co-operation into a more organised, formalised and institutionalised form. On the same day The Guardian said:
The EEC foreign Ministers have agreed to step up co-ordination of foreign policy, including "the political aspects of security". However, a statement issued by the Ten after a meeting in London yesterday, falls short of a commitment to include defence matters in EEC foreign policy co-operation which had been urged earlier by West Germany...
Security issues have long been discussed informally at EEC meetings, but until now this has not been officially recognised for fear of upsetting Ireland, which is not a member of NATO and pursues a "neutral" foreign policy.
Whatever the real decision was, the cosmetics were not to upset our sensibilities and it has been brought here by some of the Irish media, who seem to indicate that there is really nothing to fear. However, the cosmetic job is done to ensure that, as far as Ireland was concerned, she should be kept happy for the time being. As far as the Financial Times, The Guardian and The Times, three well known establishment newspapers, are concerned, what they say is, in effect, the direct Foreign Office and British line. As far as they are concerned, a very important and serious step has been taken in the direction of achieving agreement on political aspects of security and, whatever the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Minister-designate may say to the Irish media, the British media in expressing the views of the British Government, are quite clear in their minds what this is about — movement towards involvement as far as Ireland is concerned, in military matters within the western community.
That is against our basic interest for many reasons. We were in an excellent position when we took part in these ad hoc discussions on foreign policy and on political matters within a loose framework of European political co-operation. The exchange of information was very helpful. There was no question of it becoming a decision-making body, nor is that envisaged at present within the Community framework or within any of the Community laws. This is the first formalisation of the situation and the first step towards having a treaty on this basis which will involve us, not just in security matters but closer still in military matters. For several reasons, it is against our national interest.
Over the past 18 months I have spent a lot of time conveying my view to European Foreign Ministers and I have heard the former Taoiseach also saying it at Summit meetings, that our main preoccupation within the Community has been the whole idea of achieving convergence in regard to our social and economic progress. We regard that as being of paramount importance in relation to making progress within the Community. We have always regarded foreign affairs co-operation, security co-operation and defence co-operation, general political co-operation of that nature, in an institutionalised way as the very end of the line, when we had achieved a degree of economic convergence and social harmonisation right through the whole Community. At the end of the day, when we had a real regional and social policy working, when there was sufficient transfer of resources towards the less well-off region of the Community, one could say we had a real Community which we do not have today because of the inequalities which exist in social, economic, financial and regional areas. Britain is not even a member of the EMS.
Over the whole range of the socio-economic regional financial currency areas, there are a host of problems which have to be solved before there is a degree of equalisation achieved, where one would even contemplate the sort of integration involved in political or foreign affairs, security or defence integration. That has been Ireland's policy since we went into the Community. I have advanced that consistently time and time again, that we would not move on these matters concerning security and defence until the end of the day, because then one had a real community, not just a community of nations or states bound together in some loose arrangement for defence and security purposes.
The British conception is entirely different. I am not critical of it; it is in their self-interest. Their attitude is that one can co-operate on political matters, on foreign affairs and on defence and security matters in advance of all this. Britain does not really believe in social, economic, currency and financial integration within the Community. Britain has as a priority the involvement of the Community and the participation by the Community, and the countries in the Community rather than the Community itself, in foreign policy matters for defence and military reasons. These are the matters which predominate in the British establishment and Government thinking. That tends also to be the thinking of other major countries within the Community — except France — such as Italy and Germany who are highly conscious of NATO. It is entirely against Ireland's interest to bargain away an involvement in this whole foreign affairs, political, security, defence area or even to start on the slippery slope to bargaining it away. That is what this document does. To start bargaining away one's stance in that respect does not make sense as far as our national interest is concerned. I say advisedly and unreservedly that we have thrown away a policy which was consistently followed within the Community since 1973.
I remember being present with the former Taoiseach at a press conference in Bonn some months ago, when the Chancellor was asked this specific question in regard to Ireland's neutrality. He was very forthcoming and immediate in his response, which was that in no way did Germany, within the Community, require Ireland's participation in any form of defence commitment. He fully respected Ireland's neutrality and her stance with regard to it. There was complete respect and backing for this stance. The reason for that is quite evident. It is very useful, within the Community, to have one country such as ours neutral and sometimes Denmark, although Denmark is tied in with NATO. However, Ireland has been easily the most neutral member of the Community in regard to her consistent policy up to now. It is very useful for the Community to have a country like Ireland which has a voice and a status among the countries of the world that will not have anything to do with countries tied into a military alliance such as NATO. Again, I am not being critical of NATO. I fully understand why countries are tied into this organisation. It is, however, a fact of political and diplomatic life among the nations of the world that a number of nations are very suspicious and do not want anything to do with NATO countries as such. Ireland can easily be a bridge country from the Community to such countries.
I shall give the House a practical example of this. Last September twelve months, the CESC Conference in Madrid got off the ground and was not supposed to be getting off the ground at all. This was the meeting on security co-operation so as to achieve a degree of détente within Europe. The German Government asked me at the time — Herr Genscher in particular — to make the necessary contacts with other countries outside NATO, in eastern Europe in particular, and with neutral countries such as Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, in an attempt to get talks going. It was Ireland, with her special position, that was able to operate, as it were, on behalf of the EEC countries with these other countries to ensure that the European security co-operation talks got off the ground. These countries would not talk to any of the other countries because they were all tied up, in one way or another, with NATO or with military attachments.
We got the talks going, although they have not been very successful. However, the countries have been talking since. A very useful part was played by Ireland in détente, through these meetings, in achieving a reduction in armament and in tensions within the European continent. It is in this way that Ireland can play a very useful role in disarmament discussions and meetings, as we have done within the United Nations framework. This is a particular contribution which we can make because of our neutrality stance. We are regarded as a country which is genuinely neutral, not being attached to any military bloc. We are within the EEC, but not a member of any bloc. We are not a large enough nation to be required, within the EEC, to participate for any defence purposes.
This makes more silly the Government's inching in this direction at all. I do not understand why the Government have behaved as they have. There has never been any pressure on Ireland in this regard. At no stage, at meetings on European political co-operation or en marge, as they say, at side meetings and talking to people has it ever been mentioned to me that we should become entangled in any security or military aspect. I say that emphatically and in a straightforward fashion. Our role in regard to neutrality has always been a respected role. The particular advantages which we represent to the Community as a whole by preserving that role have always been respected. We have never come under any pressure up to now to change that role. That is why I do not understand why we are agreeing to it.
I agree that one can go through this document, parse it and make the technical case that there is not a military commitment in it but, written down for the first time, there is the question of the political aspects of security. I want to know what that phrase means. Does it mean that we are, straight away, into considerations of weaponry, types of weapons, nuclear placements, that whole area? It means nothing else but that. That is absolutely distinct from peaceful conferences in relation to détente and disarmament which are concerned with the positive side. Discussion of the political aspect of security covers the whole area of weaponry and military and defence aspects in relation to political security. In other words, it means defence matters. It can now be denied, technically, that that is what is there. The ugly word "defence" does not appear in this document. What does appear is the phrase "political aspects of security", which means drifting into defence by the back door. Whatever may be said here by the Taoiseach, or by the Irish media, to dress up this situation, the British media and the British establishment newspapers have no doubt whatsoever as to what that phrase means. Knowing the background to the matter as I do, I am quite certain that this will entail military or defence involvement by the back door, by stealth.
We should have a full and frank debate in this House on the whole matter and all the papers relating to the subject should be placed in the Library of the House. If this document leads to any formal treaty within the Community which did not exist at the time of our entry into it, that represents a very serious matter having regard to the connotations of Article 29 of our Constitution and the necessity for this House to sanction an international treaty of any kind.
I have said sufficient to show that these two very vital areas which are the two mainstays of Irish foreign policy, the two important aspects of Irish foreign policy — the question of Northern Ireland and the question of our neutrality and how we preserve our neutrality within the context of the European Community — have not been protected but have, in effect, been damaged in a few short months, caused by, without any reflection on the person involved, the whole nature and manner of Professor Dooge's appointment and the fact that there was not a political person to go in there immediately and take over Foreign Affairs, left as it was in excellent shape, nobody to continue the work and grasp the matter immediately. Instead, there was a policy of drift and Ireland has been grievously harmed in two very basic areas, on the stage of the United Nations and on the stage of European political co-operation within the Community.
