Vol. 470 No. 8
5 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the implications, if any, for Irish neutrality of the recent decision by the United States of America to set a precise timetable for the enlargement of NATO. [20075/96]
There are no implications for Irish neutrality in President Clinton's recent indication of a timetable for the enlargement of NATO to the east. Ireland has not been invited to join NATO, nor do we seek membership of NATO.
What is the current position regarding negotiations with NATO on Partnership for Peace?
The White Paper on Foreign Policy made clear that the Government would explore further the benefits which Ireland might derive from participation in Partnership for Peace. In line with my reply on 30 May to questions from Deputies Burke and Clohessy, officials from my Department and the Department of Defence had consultations with NATO on 20 June to explore further the benefits which Ireland could derive from Partnership for Peace. Those consultations were entirely satisfactory and confirmed our understanding that each participating state can determine the terms and scope of its contribution, that participation would have no implications for our policy of military neutrality and that Partnership for Peace has already proven itself as a key forum for peacekeeping co-operation involving almost all of the major peacekeeping countries. The NATO side expressed appreciation of Ireland's peacekeeping role and its achievements. It is clear that Ireland would have much to gain and to offer in this crucial area through participation in Partnership for Peace.
Were the statements made by the United States Ambassador to NATO brought to the Tánaiste's attention? The Ambassador stated that participation in Partnership for Peace represented second class membership of NATO and is a step on the road to full membership.
The Deputy is aware that I cannot speak for the United States Ambassador to NATO. I can only speak for myself or the Government.
On some issues the Tánaiste speaks only for himself because the Taoiseach does not agree with him.
Partnership for Peace is a co-operative security framework and does not entail first, second or third class membership of NATO. I discussed this issue with colleagues from neutral European Union member states who feel likewise.
Is the Tánaiste aware that yesterday Switzerland decided to join Partnership for Peace?
I am.
Given that the most "neutral" country in the world has joined Partnership for Peace, can the Tánaiste inform me why Ireland is not a member? Is it correct that Uzbekistan——
Tajikistan.
I stand corrected. Is it true that Tajikistan and Ireland are the only two countries in Europe which remain outside Partnership for Peace? Will the Tánaiste set Deputy Burke's mind at rest and state that Ireland will join Partnership for Peace next week? There is no sane reason that Ireland should not join and we are only making freaks of ourselves by remaining outside.
This strikes me as an area which might cause problems during negotiations between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats on a programme for Government in ten years.
That from a member of a Government which comprises his own party, Democratic Left and Fine Gael.
I am situated in the middle and have no problems. I am aware that Switzerland has decided to join Partnership for Peace which could be a case of turning the clock forward on this occasion. There are 43 countries, all members of the OSCE, participating in Partnership for Peace. The European states not participating include the three states of former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, an island with a complicated political situation which divides it, and the war torn former Soviet Republic of Tajikistan. Switzerland has now decided to join but Ireland has not yet done so. Negotiations are ongoing and I believe we should participate in Partnership for Peace. We will continue our dialogue with NATO in that respect.
This is a very important matter. I am not of the opinion that Ireland must join Partnership for Peace because everyone else has done so, but that sort of attitude seems to be prevalent in this House. We must consider our national interests and the Irish people have a strong attachment to the principle and concept of neutrality. Does the Tánaiste agree that, before any decision is made by a temporary majority in Leinster House, the question of joining Partnership for Peace will be put to the people in a referendum to allow them make a judgment on this issue which is fundamental to Ireland's position on neutrality? That is the least they deserve.
This is an important matter with serious implications. There is neither a basis nor a need for a referendum on the question of participation in Partnership for Peace, particularly because it imposes no treaty obligations of any sort, involves no mutual defence commitments and has no implications for Ireland's policy of military neutrality.
I agree with what Deputy Burke said on neutrality. Given that the NATO meeting held in Malahide recently gave a very different impression from the one the Minister gave here today, and given that each party in this House, apart from the Green Party, was represented at that meeting, do the people not have grounds for believing that Irish neutrality is shifting, in spite of the Minister's declaration that there is no change and no need for a referendum? When will the Minister arrive at the point where he will say a referendum is needed?
I have just outlined to Deputy Burke, in regard to Fianna Fáil's political view that there should be a referendum if there is a change, that a decision by the Government to join Partnership for Peace has no treaty obligations, no mutual defence commitments and no implications for our policy of military neutrality. That is the legal position to which the Government will adhere. The Deputy has expressed concern about the conference that took place under the auspices of the American Embassy in Malahide. That had no bearing on Ireland's position on military neutrality.
Let me say in passing that I was reported to have been at that conference, but I was not. I put it to the Minister that he cannot tell the people that a decision to join Partnership for Peace would have no implications for our neutrality when the senior party in NATO, the United States, the bedrock of NATO, has the view that Partnership for Peace is a process to be followed towards full membership, and the former president of the Soviet Union, President Gorbachev, the man who brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, is so concerned about the move to the East by NATO and moves in NATO, whether by way of Partnership for Peace or other organisations. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider his position on it and to agree that if this fundamental question is being decided upon by a temporary majority in this House, a Government of whatever political hue, the people are entitled to the opportunity to consider the question in a referendum.
Deputy Burke has raised a number of points. The requirements for referenda are clearly set out in the Constitution and any Government will abide by those requirements. I have said, on two occasions in the past five minutes, that there is no requirement for a referendum on this occasion. It is not for me to interpret the remarks of the US Ambassador to NATO. They have their views and we have ours on quite a range of issues, and the views are quite different. As to what Partnership for Peace offers, it is for us to decide, in our discussions with NATO, how we want to tailor that agreement. It does not involve a commitment to join NATO now or in the future, and that would not be our intention. If it were, it would warrant discussion in this House and much evaluation. However, there is no plan by the Government to join NATO. I believe, and I said in the White Paper outlining the reasons for it, that it is in our interests to have our discussions with Partnership for Peace and to sign up for Partnership for Peace.
