I welcome the publication of this document, although the delay was regrettable. My party agrees with much of what is contained in it. It reflects the positive role successive Irish Governments and the Irish people have played and will continue to play on the international scene.
Much of the debate on the White Paper has rightly been focused on defence and security issues. The reason for that and why members of my party have raised the issue, is that we recognise a major fudge here. I listened carefully to what Deputy Lynch said and she confirmed my opinions.
The Tánaiste said he wanted to stimulate greater public debate and give the public a greater sense of ownership of foreign policy; that was part of the agenda of openness and transparency. This very well produced document runs to 348 pages but if we analyse it we will see that the language used in it is largely descriptive; we are none the wiser for having read it. We are confused about the specific issues of security and defence, having waited patiently to see the end result.
Much of the work on this document was relatively easy in that the material is factual and I have no doubt, having spent time at the Department of Foreign Affairs, that some of the fine officials there contributed to the various sections. The difficult part was the question of EU security and defence. It was always going to be impossible for the Government to deal with this issue. It struck me when the Government was formed that it would be very difficult for it, with the Presidency of the European Union coming up, to accommodate the different views of the various parties on EU security and the long standing policy of neutrality. Fine Gael stated in its manifesto for the European elections that we should become full members of the Western European Union. The Labour and Democratic Left parties held the opposite view. It is clear that there is no room for compromise on this issue.
This White Paper reveals a farcical situation. The chapters on security and defence policy discredit and overshadow the more positive elements of the document, especially in light of our forthcoming Presidency of the European Union and with the intergovernmental conference about to take place. On the security question, as far as I am concerned, the three parties in Government put their respective toes in the water and then ran for cover. The end product on this central issue was simply not worth waiting for. The parties in Government would have been better off if they had stated that they could not agree.
The whole exercise has been meaningless, a wasted opportunity. I will have some alternative suggestions to make. The most frightening aspect of this White Paper is the number of times the word "consider" appears in the text. The Government will consider doing many things. For example, on Partnership for Peace, the document states that the Government is giving consideration to whether the Partnership for Peace is one to which Ireland could contribute. We are also told that the Government has decided to explain further the benefit that Ireland might derive from participation in Partnership for Peace and to determine the contribution Ireland might make to the partnership. This could not be described as earth shattering material. It would not send diplomats throughout the European Union rushing out to find a copy of this document to see where Ireland stood on these issues.
I have seen many statements at departmental and European level on the Western European Union, but the statement in the White Paper on it is one of the best. It is to the effect that the Government has decided to discuss with the Western European Union the possibility of Ireland taking part in specific Western European Union operations. It will consider, we are told, such changes as may be necessary to defence forces and Garda legislation to enable Ireland's defence forces and the Garda to take part in such operations. After all of that, in case we get carried away, the document states that the Government will not propose membership of NATO or the Western European Union.
The document contains a bit of this and a bit of that. The authors of the document have tried, by using cleverly crafted language, to weave in and out between the positions of the various parties in Government on the issues of defence and neutrality. The end result is incoherent and confusing and shows that the Government is not in a position to make any decisions. In many respects the construction of the White Paper on foreign policy is similar to the process undertaken by the Government parties prior to the publication of the budget, when we got a bit of this and a bit of that cobbled together to allow all parties to claim credit for the final document. Deputy Lynch, whose views I listened to carefully, made this point when she said that Democratic Left has a position on the PFP and that it has obviously had an input, as is their right.
The finished product is ideologically confusing and, in my view, worthless. This document cannot be fairly described as innovative, because it steps in and out of Western European Union and the Partnership for Peace in an almost tantalising manner. We are told that the Government intends to increase the level of participation in the OSCE. This is presented as an important initiative but the reality is that the OSCE is not the most dynamic and effective international organisation in existence. It should be more effective in the area of collective security.
Why should we necessarily move towards closer involvement with the Western European Union and PFP? There is no doubt that this is the way the document is leaning. The reality is that the Western European Union is not interested in neutral countries becoming involved in a limited number of tasks. We could achieve what the Tánaiste appears to want to achieve in areas of peace-keeping, humanitarian work and crisis management within the common foreign and security policy of the EU. All of these issues can be sorted out around the table of 15 Ministers. We could put our defence forces and the Garda at the disposal of the EU under the common foreign and security policy on a case by case basis.
Each member of the EU knows its own strength and the strengths and resources of its fellow members. We do not have any great military might here, or logistical power, but we have enormous strengths in peace-keeping and humanitarian work. Our commitment in these areas could not be questioned, and no Member of this House has questioned that fact.
Ireland's stance, if an EU fellow state was attacked, has often been inquired of. If France was attacked — this is unlikely — what could or should Ireland do? As we do not have any huge military or logistical strength, we do not have any contribution to make at that level. We do not have the aircraft or the sophisticated equipment that is required for war. We could, under a common foreign and security policy, on a case by case basis, provide personnel to give medical assistance and humanitarian support in the field as the situation required.
Deputy Dukes seems to ridicule that type of policy but in my view he is not living in the real world. The reality is that we do certain things with great skill and expertise and we do not have the resources to excel in other areas, so a pooling of resources and skills under the EU common foreign and security policy could be put in place. The case for closer co-operation under the EU becomes even more obvious in relation to Africa. The EU is duty bound to play a much more co-ordinated role in conflicts and humanitarian crises in Africa. In accordance with its expertise, it is possible for each member state to contribute to any peace mission or co-ordinated effort to deal with a crisis.
Our contribution to Somalia and Rwanda through the NGOs would complement EU initiatives. During my time as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs the crisis in Rwanda was of particular concern and it was frequently suggested that the EU should get its act together and support such countries. Some neighbouring states sought logistical support to get involved. Many EU initiatives could be adopted in conjunction with UN intervention.
I welcome the proposal in the White Paper to increase ODA, but the language is phrased in a cautious manner. It states it is the Government's aim to make further significant increases in ODA in the years ahead, but there is no reference to a scheduled increase each year. I also welcome the proposal to establish a humanitarian co-ordination committee. In a crisis it is important that the Department, the Minister and NGOs co-ordinate their efforts. The problems of Sudan and Rwanda were dealt with in that fashion during my time as Minister of State and I am glad this is being formalised. However, from the point of view of saving lives in an emergency, it is even more important to have a speedy and co-ordinated response to humanitarian aid at EU level. From my experience of emergencies, European NGOs, such as Medecins sans Frontiere and British and Irish aid agencies move quickly into troubled areas, set up support systems and eventually co-ordinate their efforts on site. However, there is no overall master plan at EU level which would lead to a more efficient and effective response, save lives and lead to a process of reconstruction and development.
I welcome the proposal to establish a rapid response register of personnel in the public service and elsewhere who would be available for speedy deployment in emergency relief activities. In compiling such a list, individuals' entitlements for their period abroad and on their return should be clearly established so that there is not a repeat of what happened to some members of the Defence Forces who went out to help in the Rwandan tragedy and were stationed at Goma. We have, rightly, increased our overseas aid budget in recent years. This places additional responsibility on the Government to spend these moneys wisely and to ensure that the poorest of the poor in the developing world benefit.
I appeal to the Government not to underestimate the value of the missionary movement in providing assistance in the most deprived and disadvantaged regions of Africa and elsewhere. I saw members of religious orders in Soweto and other townships working with AIDS sufferers and the very poor in Zambia and Zimbabwe. I have no hesitation in recommending that our aid budget be targeted at some of the projects undertaken by those missionaries. We must not allow the recent revelations and scandals about the behaviour of certain priests and nuns to cloud the fact that thousands of good people in religious orders unselfishly serve the poor, live in their communities and care in a real sense. Our focus must remain on sustainable development for the poorest of the poor, but that is not the case in all EU countries, many of whom provide aid to former colonies.
This debate on the White Paper will serve one useful purpose. It will clarify once and for all where Ireland should and can make its international contribution. The most significant contribution we can make as a neutral State is to ensure we have a strong voice on the international stage for the oppressed, poor countries and the developing world. During my period as Minister of State I was impressed to discover that because we take our position seriously the Irish voice is listened to at UN and EU level, particularly on human rights and development issues. The staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs are committed to their work. Foreign policy is about conviction and I am convinced that, if leadership is provided by the Government, staff at home and abroad will be genuinely committed and supportive.
Being a strong voice for the oppressed means speaking out consistently for countries such as East Timor. In some cases we may be advised to ensure that our stance does not damage our international trade relations with large powers. The protection of human rights should be our main objective and we should not be deflected from that position. If we compromise we will lose the credibility we have rightly earned over many decades, back to the days of the late Frank Aiken, who spoke at UN level on many important human rights issues.
We should also be a strong voice at World Bank and IMF level for the developing world on the issue of debt. The Fianna Fáil Party proposed that a special international conference should be called with the specific objective of wiping out the debt that is crippling the economic and social development of many Third World counties. I welcome the proposal to expand the work of ECOSOC, the UN Economic and Social Council.
We must intensify our efforts on disarmament. The Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference in the year 2000 will provide an opportunity to mobilise support in the EU and world wide to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and bring about nuclear disarmament. We should also, as a matter of priority, ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention and campaign vigorously at EU level to ensure that happens. The treaty was negotiated and signed, but three years later it has not been enforced.
I welcome the support for an international Court of Justice and the strong emphasis on human rights in the document. It is appropriate that the Irish aid programme should contribute towards training the Judiciary, police and media in countries where that is necessary. It is also appropriate that education on human rights for police and military personnel should be provided by the Garda and Defence Forces. The people of many African countries appreciate the work we have already done in this area, and, because of our neutral independent status, we are seen as a most suitable country to provide this kind of support. It is regrettable that time does not allow me deal with the issues of EU enlargement and monetary union.
I do not propose to knock the White Paper for the sake of doing so. It is a fine document in many respects and I hope it will stimulate a worth-while debate. However, it failed to give direction on the difficult questions of security, defence and neutrality. It pretends to deal with them, but an objective analysis will show that at a minimum it is an unbelievable fudge. It is regrettable that the Government, in the run-up to our Presidency of the EU, did not spell out our position in that regard more coherently. In my brief contribution I made some constructive proposals as to how this could be done. It is, nevertheless, understandable that we were presented this week with a confused paper on the issues of security, defence and neutrality. The Fine Gael Party supports Ireland becoming a full member of the Western European Union but the Labour Party and Democratic Left hold an opposing view. It is regrettable that on this occasion the parties of the Left did not win the argument and the Government did not come up with new thinking to allow us continue to play our special and unique role in international affairs.