Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992

Vol. 418 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Maastricht Treaty.

Proinsias De Rossa

Question:

12 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in regard to the negotiations leading up to the Maastricht Agreement, he will confirm that the Irish representatives expressed a preference for the earlier texts submitted by the Luxembourg and Netherlands Presidencies dealing with the links between the EC and NATO/WEU; if Ireland expressed reservations about the text that finally appeared; if so, the reason it was agreed by the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Andrews

The questions of security and defence were among the most difficult in the negotiations leading to the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty. The issues involved were outlined to the Dáil by the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs in several statements and debates in the House last year. During the negotiations Ireland was called on to respond to various texts and proposals put forward by other member states. Of course, the Government put forward their own ideas and drafts to meet Ireland's particular concerns. One of these concerned the need to protect the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policies.

In the weeks before the Maastricht European Council several member states came forward with new proposals which would have strengthened the draft treaty's provisions on security and defence in ways that were unacceptable to the Government. The Government therefore thought it right to make clear their position in furtherance of the objective I have just mentioned. This included an expressed preference for formulations contained in earlier drafts of the Treaty.

The Maastricht European Council took up these issues and devoted some considerable time to them. The outcome was a new text which is contained in Title V of the Maastricht Treaty. In the event the Government's main objectives were achieved. First, the Treaty upholds the distinction between security and defence drawn by Ireland in the negotiations. Security issues will be matters for the European Union. Where these have defence implications a role for the Western European Union may arise. Second, although the Treaty provides for a relationship between the European Union and the Western European Union they remain two separate organisations, established under separate treaties, and with separate responsibilities. Third, the Treaty contains a clear statement that the policy of the union will not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policies of certain member states. This will ensure that the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policies outside the military alliances will not be prejudiced by actions or decisions of the union.

This outcome is entirely satisfactory to the Government and we have expressed no reservations on it. The Government are satisfied that the outcome on the common foreign and security policy will protect Ireland's interest and will enable Ireland to play a full and valuable role in the development of the union's policies on all international issues. For this reason and for the many broader considerations which will be set out in the White Paper, the Government will recommend acceptance of the Treaty in the forthcoming referendum.

Proinsias De Rossa

In thanking the Minister for his reply may I point out that the EC Presidency immediately prior to th Maastricht Summit circulated a document outlining the various objections of the various member states to aspects of the draft treaty at that stage and that the wording that the Irish Government appeared to be opposing, or certainly to have reservations about, on my reading of the current Treaty, was carried through into the new Treaty, specifically "The Union shall respect the obligations upon certain member states under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with that policy". The reference to the Western European Union being an integral part of the development of the European Union was also objected to by the Irish Government and is carried forward in the new Treaty. Would the Minister not accept that at the very least there is a blurring of roles and responsibilities between the Western European Union, NATO and the European Union which it is sought to create and it is this blurring that is causing some concern in certain sections of Irish opinion as to the consequences of what is currently in the Treaty?

Mr. Andrews

I can understand the Deputy's point. Certainly the questions raised by him have caused some concern in the minds of people but there is no foundation whatever for those concerns. The key point in any negotiation is whether one achieves one's objectives, and we achieved ours. The Treaty contains an explicit provision which will ensure that the common foreign and security policy will not prejudice the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policies. Our traditional position outside military alliances is thus recognised and protected.

In relation to the reference to NATO, I must address that. Eleven of our partners are members of NATO. The reference to NATO in the Treaty is designed to cover their concerns. What is important from Ireland's point of view is that balancing reference in the Treaty to the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policy. Under this provision Ireland's position outside military alliances is clearly recognised.

The Deputy raised the question of European Union. When I was questioned before on this matter I addressed that issue. For the record, the Western European Union is not an integral part of the European Union established by the Maastricht Treaty. The European Union and the Western European Union remain two separate organisations established under separate treaties with separate though overlapping membership and with separate responsibilities. Therefore I do not think the concerns are well founded, while appreciating that they were expressed.

Proinsias De Rossa

The extreme difficulties we have in regard to these matters arise primarily because of the lack of debate to date in relation to them and to some extent from the delay in publishing the Government White Paper on these issues.

Let me draw the Minister's attention to the platform of the Western European Union which was adopted on 27 October 1987 which related to security interests where the members of the Western European Union made it clear that they sought to incorporate themselves into any European union which would emerge after that date and, indeed, confirmed their own commitment to maintaining a nuclear capacity in relation to defence of what they described at that time as Western Europe and the need also to defend the NATO alliance and the relationship with the United States. We appear — and I will put it no stronger than that at this point — to be taking on board a theory of defence of a European Community based on a nuclear capacity which we have not yet had an opportunity to debate or to decide on——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I have had an indication from a number of other Deputies who wish to intervene. I would be anxious to facilitate them also. Brevity is, therefore, essential.

Proinsias De Rossa

Would the Minister not agree that there is an urgent need to clarify, once and for all, the relationship that is being established between a European Union under Maastricht, the Western European Union and NATO so that we can have a rational debate on this issue and not statements which are over the top in relation to conscription and so on?

Mr. Andrews

I thoroughly agree with the Deputy. It is important that the Maastricht Treaty debate now be addressed having regard to the Government statement earlier in the day. It is important for the Deputy to read the words of the Treaty and this comes back to the point that really the debate has not yet been opened out. The words themselves speak of the Western European Union as an integral part of the development of the European Union. The Deputy will be aware that the Maastricht Treaty provides for a review of the common foreign and security policy in 1996, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy. These future negotiations will need to take into account the situation at the time, including the possible enlargement of the Community and the progress that has been made, for example, within the CSCE in developing a co-operative approach to European security. The outcome of any future negotiation would, as in the case of the recent intergovernmental conference, require unanimous agreement among the member states.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to facilitate Deputies Owen, Taylor-Quinn, Garland and Durkan, providing all concerned will be very brief.

Mrs. Owen

In view of the danger that this issue also will become a main player in the debate on Maastricht, will the Minister agree, as well as issuing a White Paper, to set up a freefone line so that people can get expert information and advice on this and other issues relating to the agreement? Will the Minister also consider arranging for people to go around the country speaking at meetings to explain the intricacies of the Maastricht Treaty?

Mr. Andrews

I have indicated already to the political parties in this House that I will make available to them a full briefing and that process has begun. I am not certain how many Deputies took up the offer, or whether the discussions have already taken place, but they are still on the table. I would like to assure the House that if they feel these briefing sessions are not detailed enough, as distinct from giving an overall view of the Treaty, we can return to that and give whatever additional briefings are necessary. I agree with the Deputy that a freefone line should be considered. It is a matter that will be considered and will get my close attention. As to providing a force of people to go around the country, my belief is that the political parties themselves, taking account of their own positions on Maastricht, will no doubt propagandise the Treaty in the most suitable light to achieve the end sought by the majority in this House, namely, the passage of the Maastricht Treaty. Therefore, I am not certain that that idea is a runner.

Mrs. Owen

It is done in other countries on major issues.

Mr. Andrews

It is something that might be considered. It is not a bad idea.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Would the Minister agree that the Maastricht Treaty very specifically outlines in Article J.4.2 the separation between the Western European Union and the union itself and specifically outlines that the members of the EC who are also members of the Western European Union shall not do anything which would damage union policy on security and defence; further, that Article J.4.1 specifically deals with defence policy and is not included in this Treaty but is something that might in time lead to common defence policy? It is something for the future and not something that comes up in this Trreaty.

Mr. Andrews

That is what I addressed myself to in my response to Deputy De Rossa. Of course, I agree that those people who would seek to confuse the issue and misinterpret the Treaty would suggest that Ireland would have a commitment to a common defence policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Deputy is correct. The Treaty states as she says it does and we cannot put it any further. One either accepts what it says or one does not accept it and tries to misinterpret it.

Mr. Garland

Will the Minister agree that Ireland is trying to perform a delicate balancing act by getting further into the EC through the Maastricht Treaty and that our very legalistic attitude, which is not shared by most other member states, to the Western European Union and NATO will become increasingly difficult to sustain, and that the road we are travelling on will lead us to support a European army with nuclear capabilities?

Mr. Andrews

I find it difficult to accept that Ireland will enter into some liaison with a European army with nuclear capability. Surely the philosophy in relation to nuclear proliferation is a thing of the past and people are working to achieve the end of that horror story. The Deputy's suggestion is quite unreal and would certainly be unacceptable to this Government or any Government in which there was a Fianna Fáil input.

Mr. Durkan

Are Ireland's interests likely to be best served from within the inner circle of Ministers or Heads of State discussing European defence or security, or from outside of that circle? From which position are we likely to be best able to influence the outcome?

Mr. Andrews

We know that European Union and the Western European Union are separate. As the Deputy is no doubt aware Ireland has been invited to take one of three positions in relation to Western European Union — to join, to stay outside or to become an observer. Taking into account the fact that Ireland has already been an observer in the Western European Union in the context of Yugoslavia, to achieve what the Deputy has mentioned, it might be wise to seriously consider observer status within the Western European Union.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is important to establish that there are legitimate concerns about these issues of defence. I do not suggest that the Minister has done so but it is not good enough to deny those concerns or the grounds for concern. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 2, part II of the platform of 1987 of the Western European Union which states that to be credible and effective——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have to dissuade the Deputy from quoting, lest there be a precedent.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am not setting a precedent.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have to dissuade Members from quoting at Question Time.

Proinsias De Rossa

It states that to be credible and effective, deterrence and defence must continue to be based on an adequate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, only the nuclear element of which can confront an aggressor with an unacceptable risk. It is important to be conscious of the fact that there are concerns about that kind of commitment within the Western European Union of which we are now, at least on an ad hoc basis, observers. Does the Minister intend, through the process of negotiation in relation to Western European Union and any future developments, to ensure that that kind of commitment to nuclear deterrents will be eliminated from the Western European Union platform of defence tactics and strategy?

Mr. Andrews

I do not criticise those who might have concerns in relation to this. I will certainly seek to achieve the elimination of the matter the Deputy mentioned and to allay the legitimate concerns expressed. Those concerns however do not have much foundation. To suggest that I would try to repress such concern is wrong. All I and others who believe in the Maastricht Treaty can do is to allay those concerns.