Vol. 482 No. 3
10 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the possible role, if any, he sees for Partnership for Peace as a vehicle for co-operation between Britain and Ireland to assist, among other things, with training on combating illegal drug importations in the context of strand III of the Northern peace talks. [18201/97]
Is this the one that Fianna Fáil is against and the Progressive Democrats for?
Would the Deputy like to answer the question for me? If he is kind enough, I will wait and listen to him.
Is that the answer?
The Minister is doing fine, he should carry on.
I appreciate the Deputy's imprimatur.
Ireland and our EU partners, including Britain, are committed to increasing co-operation to fight the scourge of illegal drugs and the inter-related problem of international crime. This priority is reflected in the enhancement of the justice and home affairs provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty, and through close co-ordination of EU policy in the UN and other international fora that have a primary role in the fight against drug trafficking. Co-operation in this area has rightly assumed high priority in the EU's developing partnership and co-operation with the US, with the countries of central and eastern Europe, with Russia, Asia and Latin America.
These are the main frameworks in which Ireland and Britain co-operate in the fight against drug trafficking. It would be important, in looking at suggestions to further improve such co-operation, perhaps within the framework of any new East-West arrangements agreed under strand III of the multi-party negotiations, to ensure that our efforts are not dissipated, or spread too thinly through being pursued in too many fora. I am not convinced that Partnership for Peace would necessarily be required as an additional framework.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he recognise we often mistakenly say that Ireland did not join NATO in 1949? In fact, part of Ireland has been part of NATO since 1949. We must respect that and hope that our neighbours respect we are not part of NATO.
However, joining Partnership for Peace is a long way from joining NATO.
Does the Minister consider it peculiar that all the European neutral states, Switzerland and Russia have signed up to Partnership for Peace, yet Tajikistan and Ireland have not? What is so terrible about Partnership for Peace that we cannot join it and enhance our experience of peacekeeping by learning from that of others? This would, perhaps, improve relations between North and South and between our two islands, particularly in the area of drugs interdiction. Is there something wrong with that approach or have I missed something?
I am not sure the Deputy has missed anything. As he is aware, Partnership for Peace is dealt with extensively in the White Paper on foreign policy, "Challenges and Opportunities Abroad", which was published in March 1996. This is an excellent reference in the context of foreign policy. As I understand, a month after its publication the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs discussed Partnership for Peace but the debate fell flat. This happened when the Government put pressure on us to accept a NATO led Partnership for Peace.
Paragraph 4.53 of the White Paper states that the Government had decided to explore further the benefits that Ireland might derive from participation in PFP and to determine the contribution Ireland might make to the Partnership against the background of the principles set out later in that Chapter, in paragraph 4.114. A decision on participation in PFP would only be taken by the Government in the light of consultations, including with the relevant committees of the Oireachtas, and such a decision would be subject to a motion on the terms and scope of any participation by Ireland being approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Partnership for Peace does not reflect my views because I regard it as a door opening process to NATO. Our neutrality is important. An engagement in a peripheral organisation related to a military alliance is not the basis of our foreign policy. If the Deputy wants a debate on this matter, we can arrange one so that Members can take a pro-PFP or an anti-PFP stance. That is what democracy is all about.
I accept the Minister's offer of a debate. We should be able to discuss such matters without engaging in personal insults or describing people as militarists or being opposed to neutrality.
I did not do that.
I did not suggest that. We should be mature enough to debate these issues. Does the Minister agree there is no indication that Russia, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden or Finland will become members of NATO? Will he agree that participating in Partnership for Peace does not indicate a willingness to join NATO?
Will he further agree in terms of training and what we can bring to and take from the table, that we have more in common with Northern Ireland, Britain, France and our other EU partners than with strife torn Tajikistan? Why do Ireland and Tajikistan have a similar approach to this issue? I suspect it is because we have not properly debated it and I would welcome an early opportunity to avail of the Minister's offer.
Despite the fact that the then Government had a minority in the last Seanad, it was agreed that any discussions on Partnership for Peace would be ratified by both Houses of the Oireachtas, although that is not a constitutional requirement.
I am not suggesting the Deputy made sneering references to Tajikistan, but why is it wrong for Ireland to stand alone? Why can we not remain outside organisations such as PFP or NATO without having to bow the knee and apologise to others? Do we not have enough self confidence to present ourselves as an independent sovereign nation with its own view on organisations such as PFP?
We have immense outlets for the thrust of our foreign policy in other organisations including the United Nations, the OSCE and the EU to which we were quite happy to commit ourselves. We have made a huge commitment to the United Nations in the context of peace keeping. We have lost many lives in pursuit of the ideals and aims of that organisation, to which we continue to commit a dignified and decent defence force.
However this does not preclude a debate on the matter. Let us go down that road if that is what we want.
I would welcome a debate on that matter. It is necessary to have a root and branch analysis without rancour and emotion of the role Ireland should play. As the Minister said, we have a very proud tradition of service in terms of peace keeping and humanitarian issues.
I am sure, given the Minister's former role as Minister for Defence, he is aware of the views of our Defence Forces on the necessity for Ireland to join Partnership for Peace. The fact that we have personnel serving in the SFOR mission using NATO hardware does not compromise our neutrality. Perhaps the Minister's willingness to offer us a debate is an indication that we can have a critical examination of the issue. During that examination the House should hear the views of the Department of Defence on whether our non-participation in Partnership for Peace would undermine our ability to make our desired contribution to the United Nations.
In relation to SFOR, as the Deputy said, members of the Defence Forces and Garda Síochána are serving in Bosnia with great honour and fortitude in difficult conditions. I was there as Minister for Defence shortly before I was appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs. SFOR is working under a United Nations resolution.
A Minister for Defence would take account of the views of the military authorities. The present Chief of Staff is a man of great honour and, no doubt, he has a point of view on this matter. I have not officially addressed the issue with him. However, I am sure the Minister for Defence would listen to anything he might say officially on the participation of the Defence Forces in Partnership for Peace. Account would have to be taken of that and a policy decision would have to be made. That is the way the system operates.
The White Paper from which the Minister quoted was a product of the previous Government. I congratulate the former Minister for Foreign Affairs on producing it. I am also proud of the role that Democratic Left played in contributing to it while in Government. However, I am not satisfied that Partnership for Peace is a body which Ireland should join, primarily because Ireland is a member of the EU and our participation in any form of defence arrangements should be within the context of the EU. We should concentrate on developing our understanding of the debate within Europe on the issue of European defence and security.
Both NATO and Partnership for Peace are not European constructions. Deputy Gay Mitchell is entitled to argue his case on Partnership for Peace, but he should also acknowledge that membership of it is seen as a back door to membership of NATO. It would be worthwhile to debate this issue of defence and security and not see it in terms of a black and white argument for or against neutrality.
I agree with the Deputy's reasonable point of view. However, I do not wish to impose my views, which is why I would welcome a debate for the first time in an Oireachtas setting.
I congratulate Deputy De Rossa on his viewpoint. There are no odds for us in joining Partnership for Peace at this time. I welcome the Minister's comments regarding a debate on the matter. Does he see any change to our traditional policy on neutrality in the context of a settlement in the North of Ireland? Does he believe that a more fluid position would be taken by Governments if there was an interim or lasting settlement?
The Deputy's question is very important and I welcome it. I could not see any erosion of our principled position on neutrality following the hoped for positive outcome of these very important negotiations in the context of the peace process.
I have a high regard for Deputy De Rossa and his views on matters of this kind. However, I do not share his view that membership of Partnership for Peace for all applicants is seen as a back door entry to NATO. I do not believe that Switzerland or any of the four neutral countries have any intention of applying and Russia would not be allowed membership.
Would the Minister agree that it would be much easier for people like me to understand why we have taken this strong independent position on Partnership for Peace if our opposition was spelt out in a set of principles? To date, I am not aware that any have been articulated. For this reason, I would welcome the debate offered by the Minister.
Both myself and others, including Deputies Spring and De Rossa, have outlined the principles for and against. Perhaps they are not recognised by the Deputy. I would take a principled position on this as far as our foreign policy is concerned. The Deputy has rightly identified that we should not get into argument at this stage but rather conduct a civilised debate on the issue in due course.
