Vol. 491 No. 5
3 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measures, if any, he intends to take to ensure Ireland is in a position to participate effectively in Petersberg tasks, including peacekeeping, should the Government decide to participate in a particular mission. [12379/98]
Effective participation by Ireland in the Petersberg tasks, which is voluntary and entirely a sovereign decision for Ireland in each case, has been facilitated by a number of important developments, which I will summarise.
The Western European Union meeting at ministerial level in Birmingham in May 1996, explicitly recognised the traditionally active role Western European Union observers, including Ireland, have played in the field of UN peacekeeping and the contribution they could bring to Western European Union operations in the framework of the Western European Union's Petersberg tasks, which were conceived in the context of support for the activities of the UN and OSCE. In response to a proposal by Sweden and Finland, both of whom are Western European Union observers, and with the support of Ireland, the Petersberg tasks were included in the Amsterdam Treaty so that the European Union may avail of the Western European Union to implement such tasks. The Treaty of Amsterdam explicitly provides, in Article J.7.3, that all member states of the Union, including the five observers at the Western European Union, shall be entitled to participate fully in these tasks and in the relevant planning and decision-taking for such tasks.
In response to the Amsterdam Treaty, the Western European Union meeting at ministerial level on 22 July 1997, confirmed its recognition of the rights of Western European Union observers in relation to participation in Petersberg tasks. Subsequently, at the Western European Union ministerial meeting at Erfurt on 18 November 1997, the Western European Union took further steps to facilitate participation by Ireland and the other non-aligned observers, Austria, Finland and Sweden, in planning and decision-taking for the Petersberg tasks undertaken at the behest of the EU, in which they intend to participate.
As I made clear in the Dáil on 11 December last, Ireland welcomes the willingness of the Western European Union to prepare itself to give effect to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, and to facilitate the contribution that Ireland and the other Western European Union observers can make to Petersberg tasks based on our long UN experience. Ireland's readiness to participate in specific Petersberg tasks will depend, in the first instance, on the nature of the task in question. It will also depend on the availability of suitable personnel, whether from the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána. The Interdepartmental Committee on Peacekeeping is currently examining these issues. In this context, too, the Department of Foreign Affairs has had discussions with the Departments of Defence and Justice, Equality and Law Reform to establish whether changes will be required to the current defence and Garda Síochána Acts. The matter remains under consideration.
I will continue to ensure that Ireland will be in a position to participate effectively in any Petersberg tasks to which we may propose to contribute.
Does the Minister agree the changes to Article 29 of the Constitution could give rise to more significant security and defence policy issues than those contained in the Amsterdam Treaty proposals? Does he agree the "no" vote in the recent Amsterdam Treaty was to a large extent based on scare tactics and bogey men and women talking about compulsory homosexual marriage and compulsory enrolment in a mythical European army? Does he agree, therefore, it is time to inform the public? People cannot make a decision on security and defence policy issues unless they are informed. Does the Minister agree the Government should provide time for a debate in the House on its policy on security and defence matters? Does he agree we should not only be part of the changing security architecture, but one of the architects?
I accept that, as far as possible, we should be at the centre of Europe. There was a great deal of misinformation put out by the people who sought to misinform, particularly on the defence and security side. There was a strong attack on our neutrality. My party and I value our position in that regard. I tried to clarify matters as far as possible. I believe many of the "no" votes were "don't knows" because of the complexities of the treaty and the fact that it did not contain one main idea. It comprised a series of amendments to Maastricht and other treaties. It was a modest proposal. For many other reasons, it was difficult to get the message across, but I do not have to go into detail on that now.
I have undertaken on a number of occasions to seek a debate to clarify our position on these matters and to get the views of the Opposition. I will urge the Whips to make time available for a debate in the House on these matters.
I have been calling for such a debate for a long time. Will the Minister arrange for a debate before the summer recess?
That would be helpful to everyone, including myself. I have been seeking to do this for some considerable time. I will ask the Whip to make time available.
