I am pleased that my first statement in Dail Éireann as Minister for Foreign Affairs should deal with the development of the European Union, for I expect this to be one of my main preoccupations in the period ahead. I appreciate that EU membership is at the heart of Ireland's foreign policy. I acknowledge also, as has the Taoiseach, the significance of the Amsterdam European Council for the future of the EU.
The Amsterdam European Council was an important meeting for four reasons. First, it brought to a close the Intergovernmental Conference and agreed the Amsterdam Treaty. Second, it marked a further step on the road to economic and monetary union. Third, it dealt with the vital issue of employment to which a special European Council will be devoted during the current Luxembourg Presidency. Fourth, the Amsterdam European Council opened the way for the EU to enter into the next stage of its development. This relates primarily to the further enlargement of the EU's membership and to the major issues that have to be dealt with in that context. Chief among these are the EU's future financial perspectives and modifications to some of its key common policies. The complex of issues connected with enlargement will have significant implications for the future development of the country. I want to ensure Ireland contributes positively and constructively to the further building of Europe, taking account of our specific traditions and interests. I will spare no effort in ensuring that our interests are looked after as the EU continues to evolve and strengthen in the years ahead.
The Taoiseach has provided an overall assessment of the outcome of the Amsterdam European Council, including of the Amsterdam Treaty which represents the culmination of the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. The outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference represents a limited but important step forward for Europe and Ireland. The outcome must be judged against the scale of the task of mapping a way forward for Europe with the unanimous agreement of all the member states and the full support of citizens throughout the EU. The process and depth of European integration, which is greatly in the interests of all member states, including Ireland, remains without parallel elsewhere in the world.
The successful outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference will first and foremost allow Europe to address more effectively the most direct concerns of citizens including those in relation to employment, the fight against crime, the environment, public health, consumer protection, social exclusion and non-discrimination. The outcome will also better equip Europe, internally and externally, to protect and promote the interests of its citizens. The successful conclusion to the Intergovernmental Conference will allow the EU to turn to addressing the other major challenges which lie ahead, including its future financial priorities and the process of further enlargement.
Ireland has every reason to be satisfied at the further step which the new treaty represents in the development of the process of European integration in a way which responds to the concerns of citizens. Moreover, many points of specific concern to Ireland have been addressed in a satisfactory way, including the continued right of all member states to nominate a full member of the European Commission. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor and his negotiating team both for their role in protecting Ireland's specific interests and for their contribution, most notably during the Irish Presidency, to carrying forward the work of the Intergovernmental Conference in the interests of the EU as a whole.
I will address one specific and important aspect of the Amsterdam Treaty in more detail, namely the new provisions on the common foreign and security policy. One of the main challenges facing the EU has been how to improve the functioning of the CFSP so that the EU could act more effectively and cohesively on the international scene.
The Intergovernmental Conference focused on this issue and, specifically, on how the Maastricht Treaty provisions relating to security and defence required revision to take account of international developments since Maastricht. In these related areas the outcome of the European Council was satisfactory from the Irish standpoint. The new Treaty provisions will enhance the capacity of the EU to act more coherently and effectively in its response to international developments. At the same time it fully safeguards the specific character of the policies of member states, such as Ireland, who attach importance to military neutrality.
The Government's approach has been clearly stated in the programme for Government agreed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. We will ensure that Ireland plays a full and constructive role as a member of the international community. We have made it clear that positive and constructive participation in the further building of Europe is a key priority. This participation must take account of our specific traditions and interests. The framework provided by the Amsterdam Treaty is one through which we can achieve these objectives.
The outcome on security and defence is satisfactory from Ireland's standpoint. Although many of our EU partners wished to see substantial movement towards common defence arrangements, this has not happened. There are five main reasons why I regard the outcome as satisfactory. First, the chief new element in the Amsterdam Treaty is the explicit inclusion of the Petersberg tasks, covering humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management activities. I welcome the inclusion of these tasks in the Treaty. This accords fully with Ireland's interest as a UN peacekeeper with over 40 years experience in contributing to European peace and security in a manner that is in keeping with our commitment to international peace and security and our policy of military neutrality. The revised Treaty provides that all member states of the EU, including the Western European Union observers, are entitled to participate fully, should they so wish, in Petersberg tasks undertaken by the Western European Union at the request of the EU, including participation in planning and decision-making processes in relation to such tasks.
Second, Ireland's position outside military alliances is further protected in the Amsterdam Treaty. The key clause from the Maastricht Treaty which provides that the EU's policy ". shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states ." is not only included but is given added prominence in the new Treaty.
Third, I am pleased to report that, despite considerable pressure from a number of partners for the integration of the Western European Union into the EU, the new Treaty does not provide for this. Nor is EU-WEU integration stated anywhere in the Treaty as an objective. The Treaty provides for closer institutional relations and practical co-operation between the EU and the Western European Union which will facilitate implementation of the Petersberg tasks. However, EU-WEU integration is mentioned only as a possibility, subject not only to the requirement of unanimity in the European Council but also to the assent of each member state, including Ireland. I do not see how integration could be compatible with our policy of military neutrality.
Fourth, the approach to the framing of a common defence policy, originally agreed at the time of Maastricht, will now be structured around the Petersberg tasks, and not the creation of mutual defence commitments more suitable to an alliance. A common defence for the EU remains, as it was in the Maastricht Treaty, no more than a possibility, which would require unanimity in the European Council and the assent of each member state, including Ireland.
Fifth, while the new Treaty provides for a review mechanism — the convening of a further Intergovernmental Conference — it does not stipulate any time frame for this review. The Treaty makes it clear that any decision in this area would have to be taken by unanimity.
Some partners sought to strengthen provisions which exist under the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty for co-operation in the field of armaments. This is a sensitive area for many member states and the text as agreed does not commit partners to any course of action within the EU. Any EU co-operation with regard to armaments must embrace also more effective control of arms exports. I am pleased, therefore, that the European Council explicitly underlined in its conclusions the vital role of concerted international efforts towards proper regulation of arms exports and called for renewed and sustained work in this area.
I turn to the institutional aspects of the CFSP. The Amsterdam Treaty reflects a balance between strengthened structures to facilitate the more efficient functioning of the CFSP and the preservation of the intergovernmental character of the Second Pillar. Among its provisions are changes in decision-making, external representation, CFSP financing and the establishment of a planning and analysis capacity. Ireland is satisfied with the agreement reached at the Summit on the reform of decision-making procedures for the CFSP. Decisions have up until now been taken by unanimity. Although the Maastricht Treaty made provision for implementing decisions to be taken by qualified majority, this provision has not been exercised.
Certain member states saw the unanimity requirement as a barrier inhibiting progress towards the development of an effective EU foreign policy, arguing that there was a strong risk of paralysis in decision-making on foreign policy issues in an enlarged EU. The outcome at Amsterdam envisages limited movement towards qualified majority voting while providing adequate safeguards to prevent a member state being outvoted on sensitive foreign policy issues. This is a pragmatic compromise. We can accept the need for greater use of majority voting in certain instances, subject to the proviso that a member state can exercise a veto if national interests are at stake.
The Treaty of Amsterdam has created a new instrument for formulating policy — a common strategy. Common strategies will be adopted by the European Council acting unanimously and will lay down general policy guidelines on CFSP issues. The General Affairs Council will decide by consensus on recommendations for common strategies to be submitted to the European Council. Once the European Council has defined a common strategy, subsequent decisions in respect of its implementation will be adopted by the General Affairs Council by qualified majority voting. Consequently, a common strategy cannot be developed without the prior support of all member states at the General Affairs Council and unanimous endorsement by the European Council.
The Amsterdam text retains a safeguard that any member state be allowed to oppose the adoption of a decision by qualified majority for "important and stated reasons of national policy". This safeguard has been described as an emergency brake; it is a procedure to be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Some member states had favoured the introduction of flexibility mechanisms into the Second Pillar, allowing any group of member states to proceed with a particular action if certain criteria were fulfilled. Others were concerned at the detrimental effect of such arrangements on the internal coherence and external perception of the EU's policies. The Amsterdam text adopts a procedure known as "constructive abstention", whereby a member state can opt to abstain while allowing other member states to proceed with a particular action. This outcome again appears to represent a pragmatic compromise.
As regards the external representation of the EU, the Treaty provides for an enhanced role for the Secretary-General of the Council who will assist the Presidency by exercising the function of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The Presidency's pivotal role in CFSP is maintained — an issue of particular importance to the smaller member states — while the structures for assisting the Presidency have been strengthened. A policy planning and early warning unit will be established in the EU secretariat to strengthen the EU's ability to anticipate and react to international developments. Agreement was reached at the Summit on proposals relating to the financing of CFSP actions. Operational expenditure will be charged to the Community budget. The European Parliament and the Council will agree an annual budget for CFSP on the basis of a Commission proposal.
In the absence of a legal personality allowing the EU to negotiate and conclude international legal agreements, the Amsterdam text will give the Presidency, assisted by the Commission, the authority to undertake the negotiation of agreements under Title V (CFSP) and Title VI (Justice and Home Affairs) on behalf of the Council. This is helpful in reinforcing the representational role of the Presidency.
It is significant that the only separate declaration issued by the Council was on the situation in the Middle East. This reflected the critical state of the Middle East peace process. The Council appealed to the peoples and governments of the Middle East to renew the spirit of the mutual confidence generated at the Madrid conference in 1991 and through the Oslo agreement of 1993. The central message, and major new departure for the EU, is a reference to Palestinian statehood in the following terms:
Europe calls on the people of Israel to recognise the right of the Palestinians to exercise self-determination, without excluding the option of a state.
The declaration reaffirms the central principle of land for peace which underpins the 1991 Madrid conference and the subsequent Oslo accords and which must form the basis for a resumed peace process. The document addresses fundamental concerns such as respect for the legitimate rights and aspirations of the people of the region, the rejection of all forms of terrorism and respect for human rights. The Government will attach priority to efforts, together with our EU partners, to revive the peace process.
The Council also adopted conclusions relating to Russia, Former Yugoslavia, Albania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. With regard to the last, it stated that it considers the principles of respect for human rights and international law, as well as a genuine commitment to democracy, to be essential cornerstones for the rebuilding of the country. It also specified its expectation that President Kabila give effect to his agreement with the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to allow an immediate investigation into alleged human rights violations and to implement the concrete steps he has announced regarding the democratisation process. The world has been outraged by the reports of massacres in former Zaire and the Government fully supports the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to have them investigated.
The successful conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference opens the way for the beginning of accession negotiations with applicant countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus in six months. As the conclusions of the Amsterdam European Council stated, the Commission will present its opinions on the membership applications by central and eastern European countries on 16 July. At the same time, the Commission will publish a comprehensive communication, entitled Agenda 2000. This will address a number of areas in the context of enlargement, including the development of the common policies and the future financial framework for the EU beyond the year 1999.
In December, the European Council at Luxembourg will receive a comprehensive report from the General Affairs Council on the Commission's opinions and Agenda 2000. It will then take a series of decisions as to the overall management of the enlargement process and it will also decide on a reinforcement of the pre-accession strategy for the associated states. In this regard it is expected that care will be taken to ensure that co-operation is strengthened with all of the applicant countries, including with those which are not likely to be in the first round of accessions.
I wish to emphasise the historic importance of the enlargement process which is about to commence. Enlargement of the EU to include the new democracies of central and eastern Europe will enhance stability and confidence to the benefit of all European countries. It will restore to countries which have long been cut off from the process of European integration their rightful place in the construction of a new Europe based on shared democratic principles, respect for minorities and for the human rights of all, and economic opportunity in accordance with the principles of the market economy and social justice. The prospect of enlargement has already opened up major new opportunities for Irish people and companies in central and eastern Europe.
Successive Irish Governments have acknowledged that enlargement is both a political necessity and a historic opportunity for Europe. We are committed to playing a full part in ensuring that the EU and the applicant states together meet the challenges presented by the enlargement process to the benefit of Europe as a whole. Enlargement presents considerable challenges to the EU as well as to the applicant states and it must take place in the context of the further deepening of European integration. The unique features of the EU which have made possible its many important achievements must be preserved and its commitment to economic and social cohesion must be strengthened.
We accept the need for control of the EU budget. However, we shall seek to ensure that in the next round of financial perspectives adequate provision is made for programmes and policies of central importance for Ireland, especially the CAP and the Structural and Cohesion Funds. We will particularly wish to see provision for a further substantial round of structural funding for Ireland. The Commission has stated there should be no sudden shock in the case of Ireland and we endorse this. Ireland's accelerated economic development is relatively recent and the Irish economy has not yet reached the level of wealth, and therefore the fiscal capacity, which would allow us to fund the major infrastructural developments still necessary to sustain and consolidate our economic growth. Ireland has a young population and will continue to have large training needs. Fixed capital investment is still well below the EU average and, despite the recent impressive figures for economic growth, it does not yet benefit from the accumulation of wealth which exists in other European countries.
I wish to assure the House that the Government's essential aim — and my abiding personal objective — will be to achieve the maximum benefit to Ireland, in economic and financial terms, and in terms of conditions generally, in this important process.