Vol. 478 No. 5
6 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a clear, unequivocal statement of Government policy in relation to Ireland's military neutrality; and if he will guarantee that this Government will not commit Ireland to membership of the NATO-led Partnership for Peace, without first consulting the Irish people through a referendum. [11547/97]
The Government is committed to the policy of military neutrality. In the Government's White Paper on Foreign Policy there is a clear and unequivocal statement that the Government will not be proposing that Ireland should seek membership of the Western European Union or NATO or the assumption of their mutual defence guarantees. The White Paper also makes clear that the outcome of any future negotiations that would involve Irelands participation in a common defence policy would be put to the people in a referendum. This will ensure that Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains unchanged, unless the people decide otherwise.
Irish neutrality should not be a pretext for minimalism or isolationism, or for standing aside from the major international security challenges that have arisen since the end of the Cold War. Our neutrality is not incompatible with international efforts to enhance peacekeeping and co-operative security in support of the United Nations or the OSCE. I do not believe that there is any Member who on reflection would advocate that we marginalise ourselves from developments in peacekeeping and crisis management which, far from threatening our foreign policy traditions, flow from a recognition that traditional military approaches to security, based on Cold War concepts of hostile and mutually exclusive camps, are inadequate.
Partnership for Peace is a regional co-operative security initiative anchored in the principles of the UN Charter and the OSCE. It has now attracted the participation of almost all members of the OSCE and is a practical expression of the co-operative approach to European security advocated by the OSCE.
The White Paper states that the Government will 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 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, and as I reported previously to the Dáil, officials of my Department and the Department of Defence had consultations with NATO on 20 June last year 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 proven itself to be 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. Ireland would have much to gain and indeed to offer in this crucial area through participation in PfP.
I wish to confirm to the House that 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.
Members on this side of the House share the view that Ireland has a role to play, and has done so since the early 1960s, in respect of its participation in UN peacekeeping operations. Can the Tánaiste inform the House whether his own determination, which he has just reiterated, to force Ireland into the NATO-led Partnership for Peace represents Government policy or is merely his personal objective? Can he inform the House how the Government intends to reconcile the fundamentally conflicting policies within its members in regard to Irish membership of Partnership for Peace, as expressed by him as Leader of the Labour Party, and by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, as Leader of Democratic Left, when he addressed his party conference on Saturday last and stated in no uncertain terms that Democratic Left believes Ireland ought not to join NATO, the Western European Union or Partnership for Peace, that his party position is that only under United Nations auspices should Ireland commit her military forces in the cause of peacekeeping? I believe we should also make our forces available to the European Union and not exclusively to the United Nations.
How can the Tánaiste reconcile his view on membership of Partnership for Peace with the clear statement of the Minister for Social Welfare that it is his party's view Ireland should not join NATO, the Western European Union or Partnership for Peace?
Let me make it very clear to Deputy Burke that I am not forcing Ireland to do anything. If Ireland makes a decision, it will be a democratic one by the elected Members of this House, which is as it should be. There is no question of any Minister of the day forcing anybody to do anything.
In relation to the policy position, the Government has made its position quite clear in the White Paper on Foreign Policy that we will keep this matter under active consideration. I am confident that the considerations in favour of Irish participation in Partnership for Peace will become increasingly apparent.
I have explained to Deputy Burke on at least five former occasions what is entailed in Partnership for Peace. While I do not want to misrepresent him, Deputy Burke seems to think we are talking about a military alliance whereas we are talking about a regional co-operative security initiative anchored in the principles of the United Nations and the OSCE. If the Deputy has any fundamental problems with that, he certainly has not conveyed them to me or to many others in recent years.
We can take pride in our efforts in peacekeeping since we undertook United Nations missions, a pride shared by our partners in Europe and on an even wider basis. I want that to continue. It is very important that we have access to co-operative security initiatives, like Partnership for Peace, to ensure that our military — whom we will be mandating to go on missions — have the operational capacity to undertake those missions with the maximum security and experience available. That can be done within the context of the Partnership for Peace.
Deputy R. Burke rose.
I am sorry, Deputy Burke, I must go immediately to Question No. 7 or the question falls. Otherwise my only option is to have Deputy O'Malley's question fall and I am not about to avail of that option.
Surely, in the context of the question before us, we can agree to move this question into ordinary time.
Each day this presents a problem and I have to explain it. The first three questions must be taken within 20 minutes or the third one falls. I am calling Question No. 7. I will be happy to explain it to Deputy Burke subsequently.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we normally agree among ourselves——
The Deputy is aware of Standing Orders.
——on Foreign Affairs questions to extend questions nominated for priority into ordinary time.
No, you do not, Deputy, in regard to the first three questions.
This is absolutely ridiculous, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
So be it. I am calling Question No. 7 in the name of Deputy O'Malley.
I am in the position of having tabled a most important question without being allowed an opportunity to highlight it.
Question No. 7 is in the name of Deputy Desmond O'Malley.
I protest in the strongest possible terms that the Government is being protected in relation to this matter.
That is a statement the Deputy should withdraw. It is totally disgraceful and does him no credit. I am calling on the Tánaiste to reply to Question No. 7 in the name of Deputy O'Malley.
We will return to this issue.
