Michael Ring
Question:8 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his most recent attendance at a Western European Union ministerial meeting. [22415/97]
Other Questions. - WEU Ministerial Meeting.
The most recent Western European Union ministerial meeting took place in Erfurt, Germany on 18 November. Because of urgent business at the Northern Ireland talks at Stormont I was unable to attend the Erfurt meeting. In the circumstances, Ireland was represented, in accordance with our observer status, by our permanent representative to the Western European Union, Ambassador Eamonn Ryan.
The main item of interest to Ireland at Erfurt was the decision taken by the Western European Union to facilitate participation by Ireland and the other non-aligned observers, Austria, Finland and Sweden, in planning and decision-taking for Petersberg tasks undertaken at the behest of the EU, in which they intend to make a contribution. This corresponds with the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which in turn reflected the interests of Ireland and the other observers to have the opportunity, based on our long UN experience in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, to be in a position on a case by case basis to contribute to conflict prevention, crisis management and peacekeeping tasks conducted by the Western European Union at the behest of the EU.
Ireland and the other observers who are not members of military alliances welcomed this decision as a demonstration of the willingness of the Western European Union to prepare itself to give effect to an EU common foreign and security policy and to facilitate the contribution Ireland and the other Western European Union observers can make to conflict prevention and peacekeeping based on our long UN experience.
The Western European Union Petersberg tasks, including peacekeeping, peacemaking in some circumstances, environmental protection, co-operation on human rights issues etc., are similar to the tailored arrangements members of Partnership For Peace can have with NATO. Given that the Western European Union is seen by the NATO members of the Union as the European wing of NATO, why is the Minister so enthusiastic about the Western European Union Petersberg tasks and so opposed to the Partnership For Peace?
On Partnership For Peace, Ireland is a non-aligned country which is not connected to any military alliance. The PFP is a backdoor to NATO. Our peacekeeping record speaks for itself. The Defence Forces have served the country well over the years in the name of international peace and our membership of organisations like the United Nations and the EU enable us to play the role we believe we should play in an international peacekeeping context. The PFP is not a prerequisite of our foreign policy.
Does the Minister seriously expect Members to accept that the Partnership For Peace is a backdoor to NATO membership? For example, does he believe Russia, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden or Finland, all of which have signed up for membership, will use the PFP as a backdoor to gain NATO membership? Why has the Minister aligned our foreign policy with that of the strife torn country of Tajikistan and deliberately said we can somehow be involved in Western European Union type arrangements but the Partnership For Peace is absolutely out even though Russia, Switzerland and other neutral countries have signed up to it? What element of our neutrality would be compromised by joining the Partnership for Peace which was not compromised by taking on our current status in the Western European Union?
I have indicated my willingness to debate the issue in the House. As Minister I have a view on the direction foreign policy should take in the context of peacekeeping. The association between the Partnership For Peace and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is too close for comfort in the context of our military nonalliance and the need to preserve our neutrality. On the previous occasion the Deputy raised the issue of Tajikistan I said that country's policy is a matter for it and our policy is a matter for us. That is the policy I intend pursuing. The offer of a debate is still open.
I have sought on the Order of Business to have time allocated for this debate. In the context of the Northern Ireland peace talks, membership of Partnership For Peace would help enhance North-South and East-West relations. We are taking a principled stand on this matter but I do not understand the principle and how our membership of the PFP would compromise our neutrality. If we ask other people to take off the blinkers in the Northern Ireland discussions, maybe we should take off the blinkers and look at issues in which we could co-operate. Will Ireland's role in the Western European Union be reported on and incorporated in the Green Paper on defence?
A White Paper on defence is different from a Green Paper.
I do not agree we have a blinkered view of membership of the Partnership For Peace. We are dealing with the issue with our eyes wide open and know what the PFP entails and the logical consequences of membership. On the enhancement of East-West relations, I fail to see the great significance membership of the PFP will have on advancing the excellent relationships which already exist between Ireland the United Kingdom.
Does the Minister agree the Partnership For Peace was established by NATO because Russia did not want to have its close neighbours involved in the organisation when it was refused membership? Will he also agree this was a vehicle to bring Russia and other countries into closer proximity with NATO and that it was made clear on the formation of the Partnership For Peace that it was expected members would eventually apply for membership of NATO?
I subscribe to the Deputy's points. The Partnership For Peace is a stepping stone to NATO.
Does the Minister see Russia in NATO?
I do not want to predict what might happen but I support the views expressed by Deputy De Rossa. They confirm my opinion that we have a wide-ranging role to play in world peacekeeping. We have played this role heroically and it has been proven to be the correct direction for our foreign policy.