Vol. 420 No. 3
2 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will elaborate on his recent statement that Irish neutrality is no longer relevant; if he intends to arrange the publication of a White Paper on this matter, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I said in my recent address to the Institute for European Affairs, to which I assume the Deputy alludes, that the policy and tradition of neutrality in the military sense has served Ireland well, has been an undoubted source of pride and is something to which many Irish people remain idealistically attached. Neutrality has served as a symbol of sovereignty and independence, and it was, especially during the Second World War, of great practical consequence, in sparing this country from the ravages of war. In more recent decades it has been pursued pragmatically, and it has helped us to play a constructive role in UN peacekeeping and develop fruitful political and economic relations with countries of the Third World, to which we have never presented a threat. Neutrality did not prevent us from becoming a member of the European Community in 1972. The wisdom of that decision is clear from the fact that 20 years on so many other neutral countries in Europe now also wish to join the Community.
I went on to say:
...we have to recognise how much circumstances have changed. The world of mutually antagonistic alliances, which gave neutrality its relevance, has gone. In the new era, we have a chance to build, with the other countries of Europe, a new positive framework for security, which will reflect and incorporate much more, the ideals that we have held all along, than any type of obsolete Cold War thinking.... It is right that we should join with the other countries in Europe in exploring new policies and frameworks for peace and security, and we can do so in a spirit of evolution and continuity without doing violence to our traditions. There is no sense in adopting an isolationism, that will cut us off from the rest of Europe, and there is very little we could achieve for world peace and development from such a position. We would be of little interest to nonaligned and development countries, if we were not a sympathetic member of the European Union.
I also said, on the question of a common defence policy:
...What the Treaty provides for is further discussions and negotiations on such a policy and for another Intergovernmental Conference in 1996, but it does not itself set up a common defence policy. We have accepted these provisions in line with our longstanding commitment to our partners that in the event of full political union, we would accept the obligations, even if these included defence. We have never ruled out the possibility of the Community's developing eventually and in stages a stronger security and defence dimension, and we will enter into any future negotiations in good faith.
I emphasised that the outcome of these negotiations would have to be agreed unanimously and would be put to the Irish people for a decision.
I said that the suggestion that ratification of the Treaty on European Union would mean that another referendum on a common defence policy would not be required here seemed to be based on a very narrow interpretation of one part of the 1987 decision of the Supreme Court. The suggestion ignores the finding of the court that the State does not have an open-ended authority to agree, without further amendment of the Constitution, to amendments of the Treaties.
I want to repeat now, clearly and emphatically, that the Irish people will be consulted and will have an opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to any future Treaty, establishing a common defence policy or common defence for the Union. I should add that any referendum on this issue would, of course, involve the publication of a White Paper. However, that is for the future, when we will have to take account of many developments, including the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, relations between the United States and the Community, the situation about Europe's periphery, the proud record of participation by this country in UN peace-keeping forces in no less than 17 different countries throughout the world, and the new structures for peace and security being developed, for example, in the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
I cannot say what the outcome of these different developments will be in 1996, and I doubt if the Deputy can, but I can assure him and this House that it will be for the Irish people to judge then, in the light of circumstances then, where their future in this whole area lies. The present referendum will not commit them one way or another.
Given that the Taoiseach's address to the Institute for European Affairs was the first statement of major significance from the Government on the issue of neutrality, will he agree that the Government should consider publishing an interim White Paper at least on the ramifications of this change in policy by the Government which, as he said, served this country well and in which there has been pride?
At this juncture could the Taoiseach outline, given the inevitability of the direction we are pursuing in the lead up to 1996, the role he envisages the Irish State will play? For example, does he envisage Ireland taking part in NATO or in the Western European Union? Could the Taoiseach give some indication of the direction we are taking?
I can assure the Deputy, and the House, that we will not be participants in NATO and that we will not become a full member of the Western European Union. There are nine members of the Western European Union. Ireland, with the other members, was invited at the time of the Maastrict European Council to become a member. As I said, we do not intend to become a member of the Western European Union. We believe there are advantages in our attending Western European Union meetings as an observer if and when the necessity arises, as we will determine. That is the position and that will remain the position. However, if and when the need arises, in 1996, or thereabouts, for the publication of a White Paper, if there are changed circumstances then, we will be able to assess the situation for the Irish people. The Irish people will decide at the end of the day, "yes" or "no".
May I take it from what the Taoiseach said that the Government have formally refused the invitation offered by the Western European Union and that as of now that formal response has been in the negative, that we are not joining the Western European Union? Secondly, may I again suggest to the Taoiseach that it would be in everybody's interest, given the major shift in this policy area — a policy that has served Ireland well through the decades — to at least publish an interim White Paper in order to allow constructive debate to take place, notwithstanding the view that matters will not come to a head until 1996?
I do not see the necessity for an interim White Paper, as the Deputy suggests. I have laid out the position clearly and unequivocally in the House; we do not intend to become a member of the Western European Union and we will not involve ourselves in any type of defence structures that would involve NATO. I have made that position abundantly clear. If and when there is a change by the other member states, by 1996 or thereafter, the Irish people will at the end of the day have to make the decision —"yes" or "no". In the meantime, any changes must be unanimous and discussions must be unanimous. We do not intend to become a full member of Western European Union. We will continue to be observers, as we have been in the past.
Have we refused?
We have found the status of observer useful in the past in relation to the events in Yugoslavia and other similar events.
Have we formally refused?
Would the Taoiseach confirm that this country is not neutral in the strict sense in that we do not conform to the principles of neutrality as laid down in international law under the Paris and Hague Conventions and that what we now call neutrality is no more than a continuing decision on the part of our country not to become a member of a military alliance?
Will the Taoiseach clarify the position in relation to the Western European Union? There was an invitation to become either a member or an observer and I know we attended some meetings on an ad hoc basis. Has it been decided to attend all meetings as an observer or will ad hoc decisions be made from meeting to meeting?
I have made it abundantly clear that we do not intend to become a member of the Western European Union but that we do, however, recognise advantages in our attending Western European Union meetings as an observer, as we did on a couple of occasions. The status of observer does not require Ireland to become a member of the Western European Union or to take on any obligations or defence commitments under the Western European Union Treaty. That is our clear position. Any changes in national policy that may evolve in 1996 or thereafter will be a matter for decision by the Irish people by referendum. Until then, nothing happens without unanimity of the members concerned and that is our full protection. At the end of the day if there is any proposal to change our position in relation to defence and security the Irish people will have their say.
A number of Deputies are offering and I will be glad to call them, providing they will be very brief.
I seek a point of clarification. Has a decision been made to accept observer status on a continuing basis, as opposed to the original ad hoc decision? I believe we should, but has that decision been made?
I do not know whether the Deputy has been listening but I have already said that we do not intend to become a member of the Western European Union and that our taking up of observer status, as we have taken up in the past, does not require us to become a member of Western European Union. That is the position.
Does the Taoiseach understand my question?
I now call on Deputy De Rossa and I shall then call Deputy Michael Higgins, Deputy Deasy and Deputy Garland.
The Taoiseach raised a range of issues in his reply. It is important that the House be able to debate those issues at greater length than is available in a question and answer session across the floor of the House. Would the Taoiseach say whether he expects the position of the other 11 member states in 1996 will be bestowed on Ireland by the Holy Ghost in some way or that there will be an evolution of a position between now and 1996? Does he not accept that we therefore need to have a statement of the Government's position and the principles on which they will approach the development of a defence capacity for the European Community? It is not good enough to simply say that we are not a member and we are not going to join but we may have to make a decision in 1996. No doubt, in 1996, we shall be told, "Vote ‘yes' or we will be driven out of the Community.".
The Deputy's interpretation is designed to mislead the public. The position is quite clear; there is nothing in the treaty we are signing that commits us for the future. It is likely that there will be another intergovernmental conference on this issue in 1996. Nothing can change in the meantime without unanimity. That is our full protection in this regard. No change will take place at that stage without a referendum being held. The Deputy should understand that position and should not try to distract people away from the true position.
Matters can be taken to ridiculous lengths. Is there such a thing left as a non-neutral country? Are we not in danger of leaning over backwards to such a degree that we will end up as being the world's only warmongers? Are we not being very hypocritical on this point?
I have a brief question.
Why the pretence?
Please, Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach give the House a clear "yes" or "no" answer to this question: have we communicated a refusal to become a full member of the Western European Union to other members of the Community? Upon what basis does the Taoiseach make the statement contained in the reply he gave to the House this afternoon, and also in the speech to the Institute of European Affairs, in which he refers to "mutually antagonistic alliances that gave neutrality its relevance". Is the Taoiseach suggesting that neutrality has no relevance following the collapse of the Soviet Union or that it had no relevance before the Cold War?
What I am saying, clearly, is that the whole situation in Europe has changed compared to the position pertaining just two years ago. I am sure the Deputy fully appreciates that.
I think I do.
We have now entered a new evolution of Europe, Europe without a Warsaw Pact, a Berlin Wall and so on. A changed position is likely to evolve in Europe in the years to come but there is no change in our position in relation to it. That is the position and will remain so. We seem to have wandered far away from the original question, which related to the publication of a White Paper.
Has the Taoiseach communicated that to the other member states?
The same question has now been asked four times.
The Taoiseach made a very good case for our policy of neutrality in the past. He stated — and I agree with him — that it served us very well in the past. I put it to the Taoiseach that he has not made a case for change; rather what he is talking about is short term expediency and complacency. Furthermore, he seems to think, because all things in the garden are rosy at present, they will remain that way in the future. Would the Taoiseach not agree that we should retain our traditional neutrality even in the face of new developemnts in Europe?
As I have already said, change in national policy, if it were to take place by 1996 or thereafter, will be the subject of decision by the people. We trust the people to take that decision when the time comes.
In seeking to elicit some information in relation to public policy can the Taoiseach confirm or deny whether his Government — claiming to be an open Government — have communicated with the relevant authorities of the Western European Union or with our partners in the EC? Would he say we are participating, or how we are participating in that union? Would he clarify that and say whether it is a "yes" or "no" position?
The direct answer is that we have observer status.
