Vol. 407 No. 1
42 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the statement of the President of the EC Council, Jacques Poos, following the meeting of EC Foreign Ministers at Senningen Castle on 22 March, 1991, that one of the main conclusions of the discussions was that there could be no common foreign policy without a defence policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
98 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the Government's position in relation to the recent speech by the President of the EC Commission, Jacques Delors, on the establishment of a Common European foreign, defence and military policy.
I will take Questions Nos. 42 and 98 together.
The meeting of EC Foreign Ministers which took place in Luxembourg on 26 March and to whom I take it the Deputy's question refers, was one of a series of informal, so-called Gymnich type meetings. Because of their informal nature these meetings do not produce formal conclusions. There is therefore no formal conclusion on behalf of all the Twelve that there can be no common foreign policy without a defence policy. The view attributed to Foreign Minister Poos that a common foreign and security policy must include defence is just one of the views being expressed on this subject in the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union.
The speech which the President of the EC Commission, Jacques Delors, delivered to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London on 7 March addressed the question of a common foreign policy and a common defence policy. President Delors expressed the view that the treaty which will be prepared by the IGC "should allow for common defence issues to be dealt with by the European Council". He went on to say that, in proposing this outline, the Commission was remaining faithful to the guidelines set by the European Council in Rome last December, which set out a list of issues — arms control, the CSCE, the UN, non-proliferation — in the field of security and defence.
President Delors is of course entitled to express his view about how policy should be developed. In fact the Conclusions of the December European Council to which he refers distinguished between security and defence and the items he cited are among those set out in the paragraph specifically devoted to common security. In so far as defence as such is concerned, what is to be considered is the prospect of a role for the union, with a view to the future, and without prejudice either to the commitments of member states who are members of the Atlantic Alliance or to the traditional positions of other member states, which, of course, includes Ireland.
Does the Minister accept that the Luxembourg President of the Council did make this statement at a press conference after the informal meeting and that if he did make such a statement it was one of the main conclusions of the meeting and had validity?
I accept that the Luxembourg Foreign Minister, in his role as President of the General Affairs Council, did make the statement attributed to him but, as I said, this meeting did not arrive at any formal decisions or conclusions for the reasons I have given in my earlier reply to the House. I can also say that it is no secret that the President of the Council of Ministers did not reflect as accurately as he could or should have the views of the other members present at that meeting. At least four member states out of the Twelve hold the view that I am offering to the Deputy this afternoon.
May I call Question No. 43 in the name of Deputy Higgins?
May I——
I would ask the Deputy to be brief as I want to dispose of all five questions if I can, primarily in the interests of the Deputy.
Does the Minister accept the view expounded by the President of the European Council that there can be no common foreign policy without a defence policy?
I would like to repeat some of what the Taoiseach said during the course of questions this afternoon. All aspects of security are being discussed at the intergovernmental conference but this does not necessarily mean that they have the support of all members. The conference is negotiating what may or may not emerge at the end of it. Therefore nothing has been concluded. It is not a question of anything having been concluded definitively at the meeting which the Deputy refers to in his question. As I said, it was an informal meeting of the 12 ministers where everything was discussed but nothing concluded.
What is the Minister's view?
