Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Oct 1996

Vol. 470 No. 8

Written Answers. - Partnership for Peace.

Bertie Ahern

Question:

46 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will hold a referendum prior to finally approving any decision to join NATO's Partnership for Peace, in view of promises given by all four party leaders before the Maastricht Referendum. [19195/96]

Partnership for Peace is a co-operative security initiative which has now attracted the participation of almost all members of the OSCE. Forty-three states are participants in PfP, including the sixteen members of NATO; all of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe including the Baltic States; Russia and all but one of the newly independent states (war-torn Tajikistan); and three countries whose policy it is to remain outside military alliances — Finland, Sweden and Austria. Following a recent change in Government, Malta, a participant in PfP, has reportedly indicated its intention to withdraw from PfP and to reconsider its application to join the European Union. Apart from micro-states such as the Holy See, Andorra, San Marino and Liechtenstein, on the one hand; and Cyprus and three ex-belligerent states of the Former Yugoslavia on the other, Switzerland and Ireland are the only two remaining European states which have not yet joined. Yesterday, the Swiss Government formally announced its decision to participate in PfP.

The White Paper on Foreign Polocy contains a full account of Partnership for Peace and sets out some of the important advantages that participation could have for Ireland. The White Paper also states that the Government would explore further the benefits that Ireland might derive from participation in PfP and that a decision on participation will only be taken by the Government in the light of consultations, including with the relevant committees of the Oireachtas, and subject to a motion on the terms and scope of any participation by Ireland being approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I had useful consultations with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in April last. Subsequently, in line with my reply on 30 May to questions from Deputy Ray Burke and Deputy Clohessy, officials of my Department and the Department of Defence had consultations with NATO on 20 June to explore further the benefits which Ireland could derive from PfP. 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 PfP has already proven itself as a key forum for peacekeeping co-operation involving almost all of the major peacekeeping countries. The NATO side also expressed appreciation of Ireland's peacekeeping role and achievements. It is clear that Ireland would have much to gain and indeed to offer in this crucial area through participation in PfP.

A decision to participate in PfP would be subject to a motion on the terms and scope of any participation by Ireland being approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is neither a basis nor a need for a referendum on participation in PfP, which imposes no Treaty obligations of any sort, no mutual defence commitments and which has no implications for our policy of military neutrality. With regard to the declaration of the four party leaders before the Maastricht Referendum, this declaration, as the House will recall, focussed on the issue of the Maastricht Treaty. It contained a commitment of the four party leaders confirming that any decision arising from the EU's 1996 Intergovernmental Conference on defence for the EU would require a further referendum. This commitment is contained in the current Programme for Government, and is repeated in the White Paper on Foreign Policy.

Top
Share