Frances Fitzgerald
Question:18 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence his views on the future role of the Defence Forces' involvement in peacekeeping duties under the Partnership for Peace initiative. [26988/98]
Priority Questions. - Partnership for Peace.
Frances Fitzgerald
Question:153 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence his views on Ireland's participation in the Partnership for Peace initiative. [26940/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 153 together.
The issue of Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace was set out by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his reply to a question in the House on 5 November last and also in an article in The Irish Times on Saturday 28 November 1998. I understand that he also gave a written reply to questions in the House yesterday. I concur fully with his views in relation to PfP.
The Governments intention at this stage is to try to enhance understanding and informed discussion of PfP and also to move that discussion away from the polarised views which have developed and grown around the issue in recent times. I see this as an entirely sensible and appropriate approach to the matter at this juncture.
As regards the possible future role for the Defence Forces in peacekeeping activities under PfP, participants in PfP subscribe to a framework document which sets out the basic purposes and objectives of PfP. These include, inter alia, the protection and promotion of human rights, the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace the preservation of democracy, the upholding of international law, and the fulfilment of the objectives of the UN charter and OSCE commitments. In addition individual States decide on the scope and extent of participation in PfP activities and in this regard agree an individual partnership programme covering the activities to which it wishes to subscribe. In Ireland's case, should we decide at any time in the future to join PfP, it is envisaged that these activities would include peace-keeping under a UN mandate, humanitarian and rescue work, etc., tasks in line with our traditional involvement and experience in these areas.
What is preventing a decision from being taken on this matter by the Government? Does the Government believe that there are any implications for neutrality and joining NATO if we join Partnership for Peace? What are the Minister's views on remarks at the recent RACO conference, where members of that organisation expressed very clearly their belief that we could be left behind in international peacekeeping if we do not join Partnership for Peace?
Participation in Partnership for Peace would not involve membership of NATO, and participation on appropriate terms would not affect Ireland's policy of military neutrality. This is a voluntary, non-binding, co-operative framework for security development in work which has developed in the post Cold War situation as new democracies have been established in eastern Europe.
As to why we have not joined, there have traditionally been divergent views on our participation. It is necessary to have open, public discussion of the matter and come to a final decision as soon as possible thereafter. Deputy Fitzgerald is right on the United Nations probably allocating more peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks to regional organisations. It is necessary for the Defence Forces to be involved in the training opportunities that participation in PfP would afford them. That decision will have to be progressed through public debate in order to relieve any worries the public might have before coming to a decision as soon as possible.
When asked, over 70 per cent of the public supported our participation in PfP because they understand that it is a matter of enhancing our role as international peacekeepers and working with other peacekeeping forces in places like Kosovo and Bosnia, where a strong international response is needed. Can the Minister give the House an idea of the timescale for this decision? Does he agree that our credibility as international peacekeepers is on the line the more we avoid participation in Partnership for Peace? Other neutral countries are involved in it.
Four neutral countries in Europe have already signed the Partnership for Peace document, and that clearly enhances our position if we decide to move in that direction. However, it is not true to say that our position in the UN has been diminished by non-participation up to now. We have the second largest contingent in the world involved with UN activities and we are in approximately 13 different countries. Our participation, involvement and dedication to that role matches the best in the world, considering the resources and equipment we have.
That said, it is important to move forward and progress the debate. I cannot give a timescale, but at some stage in 1999, perhaps in the latter half of the year, we should have this matter resolved.
The Minister's views appear to be at odds with those of the leaders of the Defence Forces and the Secretaries General of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence. The latter told a Dáil committee recently there are great fears that our role in international peacekeeping is being diminished in no uncertain terms by our lack of involvement in Partnership for Peace. If we are to continue to be to the forefront in international peacekeeping, as we have been, we must be involved with Partnership for Peace——
The time has expired and we must now proceed to Question No.19.
I put down questions for oral answer but they came back as written answers. This is a topic I have tried to raise——
Under the rules governing Priority Questions the Deputy cannot intervene.
It is clear that people do not want a debate. Why has the Minister done a U-turn?
The Deputy should not make wild allegations.
They are not wild allegations.
The Deputy is completely out of order and should not interrupt Priority Questions.
I am sick of this.
It is quite disorderly to interrupt Priority Questions.
The same people having the same debate.
If the Deputy continues to be disorderly he will have to leave the House.
It is extraordinary that open public debate on this issue——
Where is the open debate?
——is being interrupted by those who are supposed to be interested in it.
This is not the end of the matter.