Vol. 403 No. 6
10 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the statement of the Charter of Paris that fully recognises the freedom of individual states to choose their own security arrangements, he will outline the arrangements, if any, he believes Ireland should make in conjunction with other states for its own military security as part of the proposed EC Economic, Monetary and Political Union to be established by the members of the EC.
34 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the distinction between security and military defence, as discussed at the Summit of the Conference of Security and Co-Operation in Europe.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 34 together.
The distinction between security and military defence is already well recognised in the European Community. The Single European Act adopted in 1985 states in Title III, Article 6 (a), that the parties consider that closer co-operation on questions of European security would contribute in an essential way to the development of a European identity in external policy matters, and are ready to co-ordinate their positions more closely on the political and economic aspects of security. Article 6 (a) states that nothing in Title III shall impede closer co-operation in the field of security between certain of the parties within the framework of the Western European Union or the Atlantic Alliance. This formulation acknowledges the distinction between the political and economic aspects of security and other aspects of security, including the defence or military aspects, which for many members of the Community are dealt with in WEU and NATO. All the members of the Community subscribed to the Single Act.
The distinction drawn in the Single European Act was not new. The report on political co-operation adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the EC member states in London in 1981 recognised the flexible and pragmatic approach which had made it possible to discuss in political co-operation certain important foreign policy questions bearing on the political aspects of security.
The question of future security arrangements is one which will be considered within the EC by the Inter-Governmental Conference on Political Union which will open in Rome on 15 December. As the Taoiseach told the Dáil on 1 November, the position of the Government is that if the Community were at some stage to embark on arrangements for its own security and with its own security concept. Ireland as a fully committed member would be willing to consider participation. Various views and proposals have been put forward as to what the member states should commit themselves to in this area. While discussions are still at a preliminary stage, it is clear that some member states wish to maintain the distinction between security policy in the broad sense and defence policy, which so far as they are concerned should continue for the time being to be dealt with in WEU or NATO. Negotiations on the precise content of any security commitment will be for the IGC. I have already suggested some areas which it might include, over and above those already in the Single European Act — disarmament, and protection of the Community and its citizens against international terrorism.
As to the CSCE, this process is, as its name implies, concerned with both security and co-operation. Security in this context has a much wider connotation than purely military defence; it covers a whole range of areas and activities, including disarmament, confidencebuilding and measures at the political level. Hitherto, negotiations on disarmament questions have been carried on directly between the two alliances. However, it was decided at the Paris Summit that, following a period for national preparations, there should be a more structured co-operation among all participating States on security matters. Discussions and consultations will take place among the 34 participating States aimed at establishing by 1992, from the conclusion of the Helsinki follow-up meeting, new negotiations on disarmament and confidence and security building open to all participating States. The Government have welcomed these developments. We see the agreements which have already been reached in the CSCE framework on conventional armed forces reductions and confidence and security building measures as an important element of the CSCE process as a whole.
I should perhaps point out to Deputy Spring that when the Taoiseach, in reporting to the Dáil on the CSCE Summit, referred to the distinction between security and military defence it was in the separate context, of a reference which he made to the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference of the Twelve on Political Union.
I am grateful for the Minister's detailed and well informed reply. My question was put down as a consequence of the Taoiseach's statement last week and directed to the Taoiseach in the first place, but I am very glad we have the opportunity to discuss it now.
A number of things spring to mind. It is obviously of paramount importance that a very detailed discussion takes place in this House in relation to the many difficult and wide concepts which the Minister has been elaborating on. It is not a matter that can be dealt with by adopting simplistic stances.
Or even by statements across the House.
That was perhaps one of the most comprehensive replies we have had on these difficult areas. Perhaps the Minister has answered my query in his previous reply and we may have a facility in this House to explore the many difficult concepts and distinctions between security and military defence. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at this stage, give us his view as to how Ireland's neutrality, and the traditional concept of our neutrality, will stand in relation to the discussions that will take place in Rome this month? As the developments are taking place will the Minister say whether the Government are preparing to bring to this House a document or a discussion paper in relation to Ireland's tradition of neutrality as events are developing at the present time?
I thank Deputies Spring and Barry for what they have said. It is a very complex area and we would all benefit from much discussion on it. I will play my part here too because it would be helpful to all of us. It will be particularly helpful as the IGC gets under way and when it comes to decision-making time it would be only natural that we would all want to be fully informed as to where we are going and what we are considering. Let us have discussions on the options then. I can see the value of that and that it is important.
The Taoiseach and I have both made it clear in the Dáil that we do not see a common security policy for the Twelve as being a new military alliance of the kind which has been in existence in Europe for the last 40 years. The developments of the last year in central and Eastern Europe and the success of the negotiations within the CSCE framework has created a new security situation characterised by the removal of the threat which marked the last 40 years in Europe. Any common security policy or security commitments which the Twelve adopt must take account of this new situation. This is one of the matters that has to be discussed at the Inter-Governmental Conference on political union. Obviously, none of us could truthfully even make a stab at what might come out of the Inter-Governmental Conference. We had a very long discussion on this matter in the General Affairs Council in Brussels the day before yesterday. We had before us the Italian Presidency analysis of the discussions that have taken place to date on the IPU.
At this stage, if I am not taking up too much time, I would like to say a very special word of thanks and appreciation to the Italian Presidency for progressing this issue as far as it has come in the shortest possible time. Please remember it is only a matter of months, some time around 19 May, since we were trying to get people to tell us what their concepts were, their beliefs and what they were talking about. Now we have that Italian Presidency photograph, as it were. It is blurred. It must be. It is difficult to pick out some of the people in it, as it were. We also have a report in great detail from the personal representatives of the Foreign Ministers who were involved in all of the discussions on this issue up to now. Basically what they have been trying to do is clarify as much as they can, not pre-empt any decisions, not offering any options and not making proposals in any way. That is a good document. Those two documents will go to the Heads of Government and States in Rome next week before the IGC. It was agreed in Dublin too that the IGC will set its own agenda too, and that is very important.
With regard to views, member states have different views on many things but everybody's views are in there. Some members have changed their positions considerably from the very beginning. It was very easy last March to have grandiose statements coming from leaders within the Twelve. That is their privilege. It is, however, the poor Foreign Ministers who have to try to get the nuts and bolts of these things down on paper and on the table to see what we are talking about. We have done that, and with difficulty, and it is thanks to the Italian Presidency that we have come this far.
It is only when we really start teasing out where we are going that we will know what is on the table and, as far as we are concerned, we will want very precise definitions and not vague references with regard to any positions being considered, and we will work to that end.
Obviously, it will be very slow. This great leap into the dark that we were told to take by one or two people in this House last May is not what is happening any more. We were told this was the only way to do it but we are being cautious and safe and we are moving things along step by step because of what is involved. That is very important.
We have to have respect for the different points of view held by others. Some of our colleagues in the Twelve are insisting that the military defence will be looked after within WEU and within NATO. We say in regard to the security element of the new Community that if it is being worked out for the Twelve, within the Twelve, and only by the Twelve, we are prepared to sit down and discuss that with them. That is our basic position as of now.
It is early days. Soon we will see things clarified with the IGC. The IGC will move fast. That they must do because there is a commitment that they finish by 1992. There is also another timetable, the European parliamentary elections are coming up in 1994. To come back from 1994, as we must, we see the amount of time we have left to do our business. If we are to be ready for 1994 we have to prepare for a referendum and allow time for it. We will have debates in the House and legislative proposals for it so time will go fairly fast. Within the time available to me I have given as clear a picture as I can. This is a matter I am prepared to come back to whenever the opportunity arises.
I will call Deputy Barry, Deputy De Rossa and finally Deputy Spring. This is a very important question and we have devoted a long time to it, to the detriment of other questions I had hoped to deal with.
Are the Government going to submit a paper to the Inter-governmental Conference? I understand that seven or eight countries have already done so. Does the Minister appreciate the difficulty of this house in the matter? Normally legislation comes before this House and it does not become law until it is finally thrashed out. I know that in theory any amendments to the treaties will not become law until they have been ratified by this House, but that is after the Government and the Taoiseach have made decisions that are far-reaching — in some cases they have been made by majority vote while in other cases by unanimous vote — without us as parliamentarians having an opportunity to discuss what they are doing. Not even Government backbenchers will have an input into the matter. Only members of the Government will have a say. The rest of us parliamentarians who are elected by the people—that includes the European Parliament also — will have no say apart from the advice we gave last week, which is totally different. We have no specific document on which we can argue each line.
I will be very brief because of time restraints. I am not telling the Deputy anything that Deputy De Rossa would not tell him. The European Parliament are involved in the two Inter-governmental Conferences. Yesterday morning we had a long session between representatives of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers on procedures, whereby we have an input from the Parliament through its President and the Leaders of its parties.
I recognise fully, as a parliamentarian, the case made by Deputy Peter Barry, and again I repeat the offer I made to Deputy Dick Spring. I recognise that this is important because when we so decide in this House we must go to the people of the country for approval. I would not want to put any obstacles in our way in looking for that approval at a particular time because then it would be too late. There is a duty and a responsibility on the Government to try to get as much help as possible from all parties in this House on this issue. I mean what I said earlier to Deputy Dick Spring — I will come into the House to discuss the matter but it is a little early yet because we have not even started the negotiations. The same applies to Deputy Barry's comment on a white paper. It is likely that we will publish a white paper and obviously we would want the view of the House on it. We have to go to the people for approval of our actions here, and let us do it properly.
Deputy De Rossa.
A proposal was——
Please, Deputy. There is a tendency to debate this matter now and that is clearly not in order. Deputy De Rossa.
Would the Minister come before the EC committee?
I will talk to the Deputy about that.
I mean in a closed session where we could ask questions.
I will think about that, but I would rather that we use this House as a forum where everybody who wishes can raise the matter.
We cannot ask questions across the floor of the House.
Let us proceed in an orderly fashion.
Sorry about that, a Cheann Comhairle.
I would like to raise a number of points. I suggested to the Taoiseach more than six months ago that it would be worthwhile to publish a white paper on the whole development of Irish-international relationships and how we viewed our international relations in the new position that was developing vis-à-vis Eastern Europe, European Community political union and so on. The Taoiseach pointed out that he thought it was too soon to publish a White Paper because things were happening so fast at that time that it might be dated before it was published. The pace has slowed to some extent and it would be important if we had a document from the Government outlining their views on the matter. It is in that sense that we can make a contribution as to whether we agree or disagree or we can make alternative proposals. I would see a necessity for a white paper or discussion document, call it what you will, which would deal with the broad issue of international affairs and not just the question of political union, which obviously has very wide-ranging implications also.
That is the most urgent matter at present.
Yes, indeed. In relation to the CSCE, the United Nations and the European Community — three important bodies of which we are a member and all of which we have commitments to — how does the Minister see the relationship between these three bodies developing, particularly from the point of view of security, because there are security implications in all——
Could the Deputy repeat the bodies concerned?
The CSCE, the United Nations and the European Council of Ministers, the EPC in other words. There are clearly overlapping responsibilities here. I expressed concern in recent weeks about the way international relationships have changed. We are now in a sitution where the United Nations Security Council take decisions, and the whole veto system is based on the old Cold War relationships. We need to look at what our relationship is to the United Nations and to decisions taken at that level on security matters.
Finally I would suggest to the Minister that if he is going ahead with setting aside a Friday for discussions, we need to change the debate procedures in the house if we are to have an adequate discussion. They should be changed for that day at least.
The main question Deputy De Rossa has asked me is one that would require a considerable reply and I do not think it is one I should give by way of a supplementary answer. I will come back to it and I will be glad to answer it. Of course, Deputy De Rossa is correct when he says that the old order has changed and we are all thankful for that. Even within the Security Council of the United Nations, it is obviously something that must be considered. It will not be easy to bring about change. One could ask why India with almost 900 million people, Japan with 100 million people, and one of the major economic forces in the Group of Seven, or Brazil which is the fifth largest country in the world are not members of the Security Council. What about the new Germany? Why should Britain and France be members? It is easy to ask the questions but it is not as easy for me to give the answers.
The Minister will accept that the decision taken recently by the Security Council, apart from the immediate impact of the Gulf——
The issue of the Gulf was raised by Deputy Barry——
——has far-reaching implications for the future.
I have no doubt that if the worst scenario were painted following the passing of Resolution 678 by the Security Council we could very well find ourselves in a position that none of us want. There could be an all-out war, and nobody has any idea where it would stop — I do not mean timewise. If Israel was brought into that War, if Saddam Hussein turned his nuclear might on Israel, would that not change the whole geography of the scene that is operating at present in the Gulf under this international coalition? Would we not have a holy war as it were? That is a possibility but I hope I am wrong.
Deputy Barry very rightly pointed out the enormous importance of that resolution. All I am saying is that we hope there will not be a war — I am speaking on behalf of everybody in the House. Steps have been taken in the last 24 hours and decisions have been made. There is US support for something that we have been hoping for for a long time. I say a very sincere thanks to President Bush and Secretary of State Baker for what they have done. They have been dealing with that problem for only about one year, since November 1989, but it was there during the eight years of the previous administration and no progress was made on it. I sincerely hope we will make movements there. We play our part too because we are still part of the European Community Troika. On Tuesday morning next, we will have a ministerial meeting with the Arab League, presided over by Mr. Kaddoumi of the PLO. The purpose of our meeting is to see how we can maintain international focus of attention on that issue. It is so important that we could not afford to let it slip to the back burner.
We have devoted an inordinate amount of time to this question. Let us have finality.
Having asked the question in the first place I feel entitled to a second supplementary, without straining the quality of mercy and justice in this House.
The Minister now sees the reason for a foreign affairs committee. This would be more appropriate to such a committee.
As I have said, this is where it will be done.
We are not allowed to ask questions here.
I am prepared to give every bit of information I have because I have no right to do otherwise.
We are straining the indulgence of the Ceann Comhairle.
It would appear that, like the British Cabinet in regard to EMU, everybody — except the Prime Minister — had been in favour of it for years. It seems that the same situation is developing here, everybody except the Minister for Defence is in favour of a foreign affairs committee.
That is not so.
Obviously, then, our people will sleep well in their beds as our Minister for Defence is ready if the inevitable happens in the Middle East.
I wish there were more Members in the House to participate in this discussion.
Unfortunately, this is Question Time and a discussion of that kind would not be in order.
Will I be paid overtime?
Will the Minister take into account the type of discussions he has with Members of the European Parliament, for example? There are smaller meetings during presidencies and private discussions and question and answer sessions are held with various parliamentarians which, I am sure, are fruitful and helpful. The Minister and other contributors have said that the whole political map has changed beyond our wildest dreams in the last number of years. Apart from the present frightening situation in the Gulf, most of the changes have been positive from 1986 onwards in relation to the Cold War, etc. In his detailed response to my first supplementary question, the Minister covered many positions but I have one fear which I should like the Minister to allay. I do not want to appear glib in relation to saying that we have certain cornerstones regarding our foreign policy but I should like the Minister to avoid using the expression "traditional Irish neutrality" which means different things to different people and which is long overdue for discussion in this House. Will the Minister say how he sees our neutrality in the context of the discussions taking place because, as he said, decisions are being made? He said: "The poor Minister for Foreign Affairs has instructions to get things done." How does the Minister see Ireland's neutrality——
I wish to dissuade Members from seeking to debate this matter today. The Chair has been very liberal but, in the main, it has been out of order.
You have joined the liberals, a Cheann Comhairle.
Is that an invitation or a request?
An aspiration.
I do not see any difficulties in relation to our neutrality. If I gave the impression in the earlier supplementary that I was not specific in that regard I apologise. We do not see a common security policy for the Twelve as being a new military alliance. If it was a military alliance it would have an effect on our neutrality but as it is not — and will not be — a military alliance it cannot have any effect on our neutrality.
May we dispose of Question No.11 in the name of Deputy Barry?
I thought Question Time finished at 3.30 p.m.
The Minister has been out of the country a lot.
I withdraw my request for paid overtime.
