Vol. 404 No. 1
1 Mr. Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will consider setting up an all-party forum on the lines of the New Ireland Forum established in 1983, to take evidence from interested parties and draw up a report on neutrality, security and defence; and to submit that report before final decisions are taken on the political future of Europe.
The Deputy can be assured that, as was the case with the Single European Act when he was in Government, the long-established procedures for the negotiation and ratification of international agreements will be followed and, on this occasion, the Dáil will be kept fully informed on all aspects of the moves towards political union.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it would be useful in view of the very complex matters that will arise in regard to European security and defence in the course of the current negotiations, if he were to have an all-party committee or forum on foreign affairs, as Deputy Peter Barry suggested, to ensure that any move the Government makes reflects, in so far as possible, the various concerns of other parties in the House?
I endeavour to take into account the views not just of the parties in the House but of the Irish people generally. On the question of foreign affairs, Deputy Peter Barry wrote to me about that and perhaps during the Christmas recess we will have a little discussion about a committee on foreign affairs.
I apologise for not being here on time. I gather the Taoiseach said no to my request. Could I suggest——
No, I have not.
——that the Taoiseach will give it further consideration because this will be a very emotional matter which may be misrepresented in the next 12 months. If there was a consensus among all the Irish people it would be valuable both to the Government and to general public opinion.
As I said, I am prepared to have a discussion with the Deputy during the Christmas recess.
I accept that invitation.
I take it the Taoiseach's remarks relate to the question on a foreign affairs committee.
May I clarify that position? Deputy Barry put forward a suggestion about a foreign affairs committee and also suggestions about beefing up the existing Community Affairs Committee. I would like to talk to him about both those matters.
I can understand Deputy Barry's concern and interest and the widespread interest of the House in all of these matters. I would proffer the view to the Taoiseach that a committee on foreign affairs would be of enormous benefit to all parties in this House and indeed to the formulation of foreign policy. I seek an assurance from the Taoiseach in relation to the question of neutrality, which Deputy Barry is seeking a report on. Can I take it from the Taoiseach's remarks at the weekend in the wake of the summit in Rome, that our position in relation to Irish neutrality stands as it has been for many years?
Yes, the Deputy can take that. What we were discussing is our refusal to take part in any military alliance. I am very glad to be able to assure the House that our position in that regard was, probably for the first time, fully respected and accommodated in the conclusions of this summit, something which I find very satisfactory. I was very grateful to my colleagues in the summit for the very constructive attitude they took towards our position. It was only guidelines that the summit decided upon but nevertheless they were significant. The decisions of the summit have implications of considerable importance for a number of possible applicant countries around Europe who I am sure will find great solace in the position which has now been established in these guidelines for Ireland. I find some of the things Deputy Bruton has been saying recently with regard to these matters as not being very much in touch with the reality of the situation.
There are quite a lot of different aspects of this issue on foreign affairs and neutrality which need to be teased out, and Question Time is not the best time for it. The question relates specifically to the possibility of a forum which would deal specifically with the question of security, defence and neutrality which would be much wider than the issue of European Community issues and the questions of security and defence in that regard. The issue of the UN and its evolution in the current situation needs to be addressed. The new position we have adopted in relation to the CSCE arising from the fact that all countries involved in the CSCE are now holding disarmament talks, needs to be addressed. Does the Taoiseach not feel that, as things are developing at European level at the moment, we may simply be put in a corner and ignored in relation to our attitude towards disarmament and security, defence and so forth if we continue to allow these matters to be discussed without our voice being heard, a voice for peace and disarmament, and without a coherent approach to this issue.
This is tending to become a debate.
I really do not know what the Deputy is talking about.
The question before me relates to drawing up a report on these matters.
We played a very active part in the CSCE process and fully supported the conclusions of the last summit in Paris which gives us all great hope for the future and is a source of encouragement for us. All 34 countries present are now determined to create a whole new architecture of security and stability for all of Europe. That is one aspect. The other is that the Community are now prepared to talk in the IGC about having a positive attitude towards the question of disarmament, peacekeeping and so on. We will participate fully in the new common foreign and security policy. There can be no question about that. We support this concept. It will be very valuable from the point of view of world peace to have the Community playing an enlightened role in international affairs. Most Deputies will agree that we have a problem about the question of security policy for the Community, having a defence — which is a code word for military — dimension, but we have gone a long way towards resolving the problem in that regard at the recent Rome summit.
Let us come to finality on this question. We have been on this question almost ten minutes.
I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that the reply he has just given indicates very clearly that we need some kind of forum, because the words we are using have different meanings for each of us. The Taoiseach said that "defence" was a code word for "military". I do not take that any more than I would a statement that the Irish Army is an aggressive military force, but it is there for the sense of this political union. I would like to see all that clarified in relation to Europe. That is why we want to find out precisely what we are talking about and if we all mean the same thing by the same words, such as neutrality, defence and security. Evidently, all of these words have different meanings for all of us.
Perhaps I should have said that for some, "defence" does mean "military". Of course it does not in our case.
The Taoiseach is dancing on the head of a pin now.
At the Rome Summit we succeeded in formulating these guidelines to draw a major distinction betweeen security and military.
That is fine. That is different from what you said at the conference.
A final question from Deputy Bruton, please.
Do I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that Ireland will not in any circumstances take part in any defence of Europe?
That is the point.
I do not take that view. On a number of occasions I said——
We badly need this forum.
We do not need any forum, the thing is crystal clear. It has become particularly clear after the Rome Summit.
What does the Taoiseach mean then?
The Deputy is the only one in Europe who does not understand what happened at the Rome Summit.
Be careful that the pin does not stick——
I can give the Deputies quotation after quotation from the European press and from the British press. They are all very clear on exactly what the outcome and the conclusion of that Rome Summit mean. I have said frequently that if, in due course, the Community does bring forward arrangements for its own security, by the Twelve for the Twelve — that is the important distinction we must all make — then we are not averse to consider participating in some such arrangement. I must also say that my judgment — and again this has been confirmed in Rome — is that anything of that kind is fairly far down the road at present.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that that is contrary to——
Sorry, Deputy, next question, please. We have already spent 12 minutes on this question. I must dissuade Deputy Spring and every other Deputy here——
It is only ten minutes of official time. May I ask one brief supplementary, please? I need this clarification.
It has to be very brief, Deputy.
I am always very brief. Is the Taoiseach saying to us that we can enter into a treaty to defend Europe and at the same time remain militarily neutral.
What I am saying is that at this stage we are concerned with a common foreign and security policy and that in my view the Rome Summit made a clear distinction, in terms of security policy, between common collective security for the European Community and a military dimension. Also, it went further to say that any security policy arrangements which may be formulated will have to have specific regard for our traditional position.
It is a trick o' the loop.
What does that mean?
Question No. 2, Deputy McCartan's question.
I think you have fallen off the pin at this stage, Taoiseach.
We are all using the same words to mean——
If Deputies want to debate this issue they will have to find another time, they will not do it now.
I resent that. It is perfectly clear——
What does it mean.
It is perfectly clear what it means. There are a number of elements in the security policy which we in the Twelve could adopt for the Twelve which do not include a military aspect. There are such things as promoting the whole CSCE process; that is one way we can protect our security in the Community. Secondly, we can be active in a common foreign policy in promoting disarmament; that is another way we can promote our security.
That is not what we are talking about.
We can also promote our security by taking active measures against international terrorism, all these dimensions on the security policy are there. A military aspect is only one dimension of a security policy.
There is no clarity about the military aspect.
He is still saying we are neutral.
There is this clarity about it, that if the Community — twelve members of the Community — at some stage bring forward military defence arrangements for the Community as such, then our traditional position in regard to military alliances will be respected.
Question No. 2, please.
Would it be reviewed by the House at that stage?
The Chair must be obeyed at some stage. I want now to come to Question No. 2 and I insist upon it.
The Taoiseach should be on this side of the House. That is Fine Gael policy as enunciated.
