Gay Mitchell
Question:31 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he continues to be opposed to Ireland participating in Partnership for Peace. [14623/97]
Priority Questions. - Partnership for Peace.
Partnership for Peace was launched in January 1994 at a time when the Atlantic Alliance was coming under pressure to admit new members from Eastern Europe who wished to join the alliance in the new situation which had emerged following the end of the Cold War. While Partnership for Peace was originally established with the aim of assisting such countries to democratise and develop their links with NATO, participation in Partnership for Peace was also made available to all OSCE countries.
In March of last year, the previous Government announced in its White Paper on Foreign Policy its intention to explore the possible benefits for Ireland of participation in Partnership for Peace. I subsequently raised the issue in this House on a number of occasions in order to seek clarification on the timing and substance of any Government decision on this matter. The previous Government, however, never brought the issue of participation in Partnership for Peace to this House for decision.
That is the background to the Deputy's question. For my part, I have consistently stated my position on Partnership for Peace on a number of occasions and I do so again today. I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country to participate in Partnership for Peace. My view on Partnership for Peace is in no sense isolationist or in conflict with our traditional support for peacekeeping under the UN.
In my address to the UN General Assembly last week, I emphasised the importance of full international support for UN peacekeeping. Such support must be forthcoming not only from states but also from regional organisations in a position to contribute. The OSCE has a role to play in such support. The European Union should have an increased role to play by virtue of the agreement at the Amsterdam Summit to include the Petersberg Tasks of peacekeeping and crisis management in the new Treaty on European Union.
Ireland already contributes to SFOR, the NATO-led stabilisation force, which operates under the mandate of the UN Security Council in Bosnia. Irish participation in SFOR is in keeping with our firm commitment to play a positive peacekeeping role under United Nations auspices and is in no way in conflict with our neutral position as a non-member of a military alliance.
The priority of this Government will be to ensure that, as a militarily neutral State, Ireland continues to make a full contribution, in the framework of the UN, the OSCE and the European Union, to the prevention of conflict and the maintenance of peace. We are prepared to co-operate on a practical basis, as and when we think it appropriate and warranted, with states and organisations involved in these joint efforts in the cause of peace, as our participation in SFOR amply demonstrates.
I know the Minister's view on this matter, but I do not know why he holds it. His approach is not in the national interest nor in the interests of international or European security. What have we in common with Tajikistan, a troubled country which has not joined Partnership for Peace even though the Russians, the other European neutral countries and approximately 50 OSCE members have? What is so fragile about our neutrality that requires us, unlike any other European neutral country, to stand aside from membership of Partnership for Peace?
The Deputy has made the usual comment about Tajistikan. He could also include Bosnia, Andorra and Liechtenstein. Each state must make its own decision on these matters in the light of its circumstances and priorities. The Deputy should refrain from making patronising and condescending remarks about those states which are not participating in Partnership for Peace. The Irish people have a deep attachment to our military neutrality and that would be compromised by joining second class membership of NATO, the Partnership for Peace. I do not believe we should do that. We have a role to play in the United Nations, but not an isolationist one. By virtue of the Amsterdam Treaty and the Petersberg Tasks we are committed to a role in humanitarian, rescue and peacekeeping matters and crises management. Ireland would not benefit by formally joining Partnership for Peace. The Deputy is anxious to know why I do not want us to join. I would be interested to know why he wants us to do so.
If the Minister makes time available, I will be happy to tell him why. I thought he would have read the White Paper which sets out the reason for that.
I have read the three views in the White Paper.
I refer him to paragraph 4.49 on page 130 which sets out the overall objectives of Partnership for Peace as being consistent with Ireland's approach in international peace and European security. Is the Minister aware that Russia is a member of Partnership for Peace and neither it nor NATO considers that to be second class membership of NATO? Why can we not align with all the other neutral countries and participate in Partnership for Peace rather than aligning with trouble torn Tajikistan? Why is it in our interest not to join? What great threat would it pose to our neutrality?
The Minister referred to SFOR whose mission in Bosnia is worth noting in this regard. Increasingly UN sanctioned missions will be subcontracted to regional structures and the debate in Europe on new practices in peacekeeping will be carried out in Partnership for Peace. Will our military forces be at a disadvantage if they are not involved and informed about such discussions? Is there not something bogus about a state which aspires to an active foreign policy and speaks grandly at the UN about what should be done, but will not even participate in discussions at this level? Would our Defence Forces not learn something from Partnership for Peace and from their experience in peacekeeping? Could they not teach others in the partnership? How will they keep up with trends in this area if, like Tajikistan, they are isolated? Is the Minister aware there is widespread concern in the Defence Forces about his approach to this matter?
I do not accept the Deputy's last comment. Many of the Deputy's points would have some validity had we not been actively participating in United Nations operations since the early sixties. Our Defence Forces have a very honourable record, in excess of 75 of their members having given their lives in the course of United Nations peacekeeping missions since we began participation.
I have already answered questions in relation to SFOR in my initial response. I can confirm that there will be greater regionalisation of United Nations efforts, in addition to various regional organisations, on foot of the United Nations Security Council mandate within which we should work as far as possible and about which I spoke to the Secretary General when we met in New York last week. I envisage nothing being gained from membership, rather considerable loss through joining. If we found ourselves in circumstances in which we were isolationist there would be much validity in what the Deputy says but to join the club merely on the basis that everybody else is a member does not appear to me to be a very good reason. We must examine the matter in the light of our national interests which I do not believe would be served through joining the NATO body Partnership for Peace. We would be better served contributing from without.
That concludes questions nominated for priority today. Question No. 32 will be taken with other questions.