Jim O'Keeffe
Question:4 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on neutrality and the EC common foreign, security and defence policy.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Neutrality and EC Policy.
Under Title V of the Maastricht Treaty, which contains the provisions governing the future common foreign and security policy, Ireland's particular concerns in the field of security and defence are fully addressed.
Under the new Treaty the limitation in the Single European Act which confined the discussion of security issues to the political and economic aspects of security is removed so that security questions in the broadest sense will now form part of the future common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The distinction between security and defence drawn by Ireland in the negotiations is upheld in the Treaty. Security issues are matters for the European Union. Issues with defence implications may be referred to the Western European Union at the request of the European Union, acting by unanimity.
These provisions do not change Ireland's position as a country outside military alliances. They will not oblige Ireland to join a military alliance or involve us in a mutual defence commitment. Of particular importance to Ireland is the provision in the Treaty which states that the policy of the Union in the security area "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member States". This provision echoes the conclusion of the European Council in Rome in December 1990 that the prospect of a role for the Union in defence matters should be considered without prejudice to the traditional positions of certain member states.
The Treaty makes clear that discussions and decisions on the scope and content of a common defence policy are left to future negotiation at the Intergovernmental Conference to be held in 1996. Ireland has accepted this in keeping with our long standing commitment to enter into negotiations on a defence policy for the Community.
The security dimension of the European Union should, of course, be seen in the broader context of the commitment in the Maastricht Treaty to the progressive development of the Union's political identity, including common action in the international sphere.
Since before Ireland became a member of the Community there has been a process of consultation and co-ordination on matters of foreign policy known as European Political Co-operation. This process, which is codified in the Single European Act, has enabled the member states to co-ordinate their positions on foreign policy and to act together on a wide range of international situations — for example, in the Middle East, South Africa, Central America and Eastern Europe as well as on issues such as disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and human rights.
I am sure the Deputy will share the assessment that the Twelve acting together have been able to play a positive role in international affairs. The measures now being taken to strengthen existing procedures are designed to enable the European Union to play a fuller and more coherent role in international affairs commensurate with its standing in the world and its responsibilities.
The common foreign and security policy (CFSP), which under the Maastricht Treaty will replace European Political Co-operation however, is essentially a development and a taking forward of EPC and will share many features with the existing arrangements. The intergovernmental character of foreign policy co-operation will remain. All important decisions will be taken by unanimity.
A Government White Paper on the Maastricht Treaty will be published in a matter of weeks and will set out in detail the implications of the CFSP.
I would add that the Government intend to bring to discussions under the CFSP and to the formulation of the Union's policies the values that have long informed our approach to international issues — respect for the rule of international law, commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes, support for the United Nations and UN peacekeeping, concern for human rights and fundamental freedoms, a commitment to conventional and nuclear disarmament, our sense that security is broader than defence, and our conviction that causes of instability such as underdevelopment must also be tackled.
As a small country heavily dependent on a stable international environment, we will be in a position under the CFSP to contribute, in concert with like-minded democratic countries, to the building of an international society responsive to the values and concerns I have mentioned.
I apologise for the length of the answer.
The Minister may have changed but the civil servants have not.
I could not see any way of reducing the answer without losing its value.
In case my remark might be seen to be derogatory of the civil servants in the Department, may I say that I have the highest regard for them and for the diplomatic way in which they approached the need to cover all angles in the reply. I am anxious to explore the Minister's own attitude to the question of neutrality and how that may inform his thinking while he holds office. Does he accept that the policy of neutrality evolved out of conditions that no longer pertain? Does he further accept that we are in an evolutionary process that will inevitably lead to closer political union, with a common foreign and defence policy, that it would be disastrous for Ireland to stand on the sidelines while other member states shape the future of Europe and that we should be making our case at all levels?
I shall have to ask for brevity. The time available for Priority Questions is well nigh exhausted.
The essential distinction to be drawn in the Treaty is between security and defence. There are three options open to this country and a declaration in this regard has been sought. The options are: first, to join the Western European Union; second, to take up a position as observers within the Western European Union; and three, to opt out entirely.
My predecessor, Deputy Collins, attended the Western European Union as an observer on three occasions and that would certainly be the direction in which this Government would be thinking, that is, observer status. This would not in any way undermine our general concept of neutrality, taking account of the fact that throughout Europe east and west, but more particularly in Eastern Europe and Russia, barriers are breaking down and the possibility of war becomes less likely. We have a role to play as a neutral nation — for example, by participating in peacekeeping missions abroad as in the Congo and Lebanon. There is a question on the Order Paper about our commitment in Yugoslavia. That would be the general direction of our policy.
I encourage the Minister along the road towards observer status at the Western European Union. We can discuss membership at another stage. Does he not accept that as the European Union evolves and as members of that union, we must ultimately face the decision that if that union is worth being in, it is worth defending?
This is a matter that will have to be decided by successors to this Government whether it be a Fianna Fáil Government, a Fine Gael Government, a Labour Government or whatever sort of Government we may have in the future. It is not an issue we have to address immediately. The Intergovernmental Conference, which I have mentioned, will take place in 1996 and we can take a position in respect of that. I do not feel that full commitment is the answer. As the Deputy obviously supports me, if I am thinking on the same lines, observer status, in the first instance would be the proper position.
Yes.
I do not believe in selling our neutrality.
We must proceed to other questions to the same Minister. Question No. 5 please.