I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 10, 11, 21, 24, 40, 42 and 62 together.
The broad approach which is being pursued by the Government in relation to issues expected to arise at the Intergovernmental Conference, including the question of relations between the EU and the Western European Union, has been the subject of a number of statements by me in this House and elsewhere. This approach will continue to be in harmony with our outlook and traditions and at the same time responsive to the new and still evolving challenges that face us in promoting peace, security and progress at the European and global level.
The questions put by Deputies Ray Burke and Kirk arise from views expressed in the declaration adopted by the Western European Union assembly at its extraordinary session in London on 22 and 23 February 1996.
The Western European Union assembly is a consultative body made up of parliamentarians from the 10 Western European Union member states. Parliamentarians from Western European Union observer states, Western European Union associate members and associate partner states also attend in accordance with their respective status but do not participate in the adoption of declarations by the assembly. In accordance with Ireland's observer status in the Western European Union, Ireland was represented in an observer capacity by Members of this House at this meeting of the Western European Union assembly.
The views of the Western European Union assembly are not binding on the member states of the Western European Union. Western European Union decisions are the preserve of the Western European Union council, made up of representatives of the Governments of Western European Union member states. The Western European Union's position on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference was adopted at the meeting of its Council of Ministers last November in Madrid. The Western European Union agreed on the importance of a comprehensive definition of security, rather than an exclusively military one. The Western European Union member states also explicitly acknowledged that the Intergovernmental Conference will need to harness to the best effect the diverse contributions to security and defence that European nations are able to make, and the national security and defence positions of each country must be respected and the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference must be acceptable to people in each member state.
The views reflected in the Western European Union Assembly Declaration would appear to be at odds with the Western European Union's own formal contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference adopted at Madrid. Also, I am not aware of any intention by the Western European Union council to take up the assembly's proposal for a White Paper as referred to in the Question from Deputy Kirk.
For reasons that I have outlined, I do not regard the Western European Union Assembly's Declaration as impinging on Ireland's position outside military alliances. Accordingly, I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the specific points raised by the Deputies with my colleagues in the European Union.
Several Deputies have raised the issue of relations between the EU and the Western European Union. Article J.4.2 of the Maastricht Treaty provides that the Western European Union is an integral part of the development of the European Union. In this connection proposals and suggestions have been put forward in the context of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. The Intergovernmental Conference will review the common foreign and security policy provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence, in accordance with the objective set out in the Maastricht Treaty to assert the union's identity on the international scene.
A central issue in the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations will be to determine how the CFSP provisions, including through the EU-WEU relationship, can best be developed to enhance the EU's contribution to European and global peace and security. The proposals contained in the European Commission's formal opinion for the Intergovernmental Conference, and in the agreed communiqué from the meeting in Freiburg on 27 February, between German and French Foreign Ministers, are situated in the perspective of enabling the EU to respond more effectively to the international challenges which face it.
With a view to facilitating CFSP decision making, Foreign Ministers Kinkel and de Charette have suggested that the possibility of differentiating between decisions of principle and implementing decisions should be examined. They envisage that implementing decisions could be taken by qualified majority vote. There is already a provision to this effect in the Maastricht Treaty which has yet to be used in practice. They also suggest for consideration the idea of voluntary abstention by partners who are unwilling or unable to join a consensus. This would not prevent the EU's majority from taking or implementing the decision in question. The two Ministers have also suggested that partners in the minority should show political and financial solidarity in such cases. It is of relevance to note in this connection that the proposal has also been made that CFSP, as a general rule, should be financed from the Community budget.
The Government believes it is important that the EU should enhance its capacity to exercise a constructive influence for the development of a stable, just and peaceful international system. To this end, we will be working at the Intergovernmental Conference for practicable and sustainable ways of improving the functioning of the CFSP. We agree that the possibility of making more use of the Maastricht Treaty's provisions for qualified majority voting on implementing decisions should be explored. However, with some partners, we do not favour proposals to move to qualified majority voting for sensitive foreign policy questions, particularly decision-making and financing arrangements in the context of proposals to develop a common defence policy for the Union. Any Treaty changes proposed, including in relation to decision making or financial arrangements in the CFSP area, could be adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference only if all partners, including Ireland, were to agree.
With regard to EU-WEU relations, the French and German Foreign Ministers stated that their objective is the eventual merger of the Western European Union with the EU and their wish to make progress towards that goal at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. The Commission also favours incorporation of the Western European Union into the Union according to an agreed timetable.
Deputies will recall that various possible institutional options for future EU-WEU relations were identified in the Reflection Group report and in the Western European Union contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference. These ranged from maintaining the EU and Western European Union as separate organisations, but with enhanced co-operation between them, through to proposals for eventual full merger. Both the Reflection Group report and the Western European Union contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference accepted that the different positions of member states would have to be respected and that negotiations on the various options were a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference.
There is an emerging consensus that the EU should be better equipped to make a contribution internationally in such areas as peacekeeping and humanitarian operations — the so called Petersberg tasks identified by the Western European Union. For their part, the Foreign Ministers of Germany and France envisage that the objectives inherent in the Petersberg tasks should be reflected in some way in a revised Maastricht Treaty. The Commission has made a proposal along broadly similar lines.
The Government is studying these and other proposals carefully. Like the other neutral states which are observers at the Western European Union — Finland, Sweden and Austria — Ireland sees scope for exploring further the potential for Irish involvement in the Petersberg tasks, and the suggestions that these tasks could be given an EU treaty basis in any revision of the Maastricht Treaty. I should make clear that Ireland's approach to involvement in the Petersberg tasks of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations in no sense entails any mutual defence commitments that would be incompatible with its policy of military neutrality.
With regard to the remarks by Mr. Javier Solana, Secretary General of NATO, in Munich on 3-4 February 1996, I understand he said he believed "that an enhanced institutional relationship between NATO and the European Union could add significantly to achieving a comprehensive crisis management strategy". In making this suggestion, Mr. Solana made it clear that he was speaking strictly on a personal basis. Accordingly, I do not propose to comment on his remarks.
