Vol. 498 No. 4
18 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's view of the agreement reached between the British and French Prime Ministers at a meeting on 4 December 1998, regarding the establishment of a European defence system capable of functioning independently of NATO; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27542/98]
57 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on proposed Anglo-French defence and security co-operation following the recent Anglo-French Summit. [27734/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 57 together.
The St. Malo meeting has been presented, notably by the participants, as evidence of further convergence between France and Britain on the issue of European defence, but we should not overlook that those two countries which have permanent seats on the UN Security Council, which are the only two possessors of nuclear weapons within the European Union and which are prominent members of both NATO and Western European Union, have much in common and have long been close collaborators on defence issues. My views on the issues raised in the questions are in the perspective of our membership of the EU, the effective functioning of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which it is intended will come into effect in May or June next year, and our non membership of any military alliances. The agreements at St. Malo do not bind Ireland or anybody else in any sense.
Deputies will be aware that in recent months there has been renewed interest in the future of EU security and defence policy. At the informal EU summit in Portschach in October there was discussion on enhancing the effectiveness of the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the face of crises such as at Kosovo, particularly if and when the United States does not wish to be fully engaged. At the Vienna European Council last weekend, it was agreed to continue to reflect on these issues and challenges. The essential backdrop to these reflections is the imminent entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, under which the EU can use the Western European Union to undertake the Petersberg Tasks. The Western European Union would, for its part, be dependent upon NATO for the infrastructural and resource support to undertake large scale Petersberg Tasks in accordance with arrangements between those two organisations which are expected to be developed and finalised in Spring 1999.
In recent discussions at EU Foreign Minister level, and at the recent meeting in Vienna, I underlined the importance and priority of effective implementation of the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam concerning the Petersberg Tasks, which were the result of an initiative by Sweden and Finland and fully supported by Ireland. I emphasised that the emerging debate should proceed with respect for the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam and that the specific positions of the neutral member states, including Ireland, should be taken into account. These points are reflected in the presidency's conclusions from the Vienna European Council. In particular, specific references to the position of neutral EU member states were set out at my request in the conclusions.
Clearly we must be ready, willing and able to act constructively when faced with crises such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo which are European in origin and nature. I accept the Franco-British view that the Treaty of Amsterdam will provide the essential basis for action by the Union. I dispute any view to the contrary.
Continuing reflections within the EU should include a rigorous analysis of what the EU collectively wishes to achieve under the Common Foreign and Security Policy and an analysis of how we can best use the Western European Union's crisis management mechanisms that are available to the EU in the Treaty of Amsterdam.
In giving my views on the St. Malo meeting it is relevant to recall that Ireland remains committed to progress in the field of disarmament and to the utmost restraint on arms exports. I will continue to attach priority to disarmament as a foreign policy objective.
I thank the Minister for his reply. May I say by way of a preliminary introduction to my question that I welcome the debate on European Union security and defence? It is inevitable that the European Union continues to deepen its integration and the question of defence and security will be critical for this country to address, as well as its role in it.
Is the Minister concerned that the initiative by Britain and France, which are both nuclear powers, tends to indicate that they foresee a European defence architecture, to use the current buzz word, as being nuclear based and that their joint statement that the EU must have the capacity for autonomous action backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so is ominous to say the least? Both countries voted against the Irish motion in the United Nations calling for denuclearisation.
To support what the Deputy said, I made a very strong intervention at a lunch at the General Affairs Council last Monday week. The thrust of my intervention was basically what the Deputy said. I pointed out that we would have a difficulty with the elements. This debate, if I may respectfully suggest, is at a very abstract stage and is not fully focused. There are all sorts of subtexts not only in relation to defence and security, but also in relation to the armaments industry on which we have to be vigilant.
I made an intervention using the same language as the Deputy in his question. I made clear our view that future debate would be in the context of implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty provisions. The Franco-British declaration is couched in very broad conceptual terms and does not contain specifics. Whether or not the ideas of the authors may be followed up in the framework of Amsterdam remains to be seen. We deserve and should request further information on all these ideas. We can go along with discussion within the Amsterdam framework. We sought the language of the Amsterdam Treaty and the Petersburg Tasks in the conclusion from Vienna and that is what we got.
In my intervention last Monday week at the Foreign Affairs Ministers' luncheon, I pointed out that we are a neutral state, that NATO was nuclear capable and that we had launched the coalition initiative to which Deputy De Rossa referred for those states who want to see the total abolition of nuclear armaments once and for all to make this world of ours a safer place. I am glad to say in relation to the latter that much progress has been made and will be made. I am grateful to the Deputy for his question.
Does the Minister agree that the genesis of Irish neutrality is partition and that our position in relation to security issues has become untenable? Does he agree that a stranger looking at an aerial photograph of Strabane and Lifford could be forgive for mistaking them for the same town? Yet Strabane has been in NATO since 1949 but, of course, Lifford is not a member.
Strabane would be surprised.
A river flows down the middle.
Does the Minister agree our bluff will be called in terms of our security position if, for example, proposals come forward on North-South bodies or North-South and East-West bodies on security and that it is time we stated more clearly the principles on which our participation in the security architecture of these islands and Europe is based?
There is ongoing security co-operation between our excellent Garda Síochána and the RUC. I do not envisage the type of scenario the Deputy set out in the context of North-South implementation bodies at this remove. We are entitled to take a position in relation to our neutrality and not to become part of any military alliances. This Government and I are committed to Irish neutrality. There is no question of Ireland being forced into any action or arrangement against its will. The position taken by the British and the French is abstract and conceptual and we need far more information on it. My concern is to ensure all that is consistent with our neutral position.
I find it difficult to agree with the Deputy on one point. We play a significant role in many organisations, either UN mandated organisations like SFOR in Bosnia or organisations like the OSCE and right across the spectrum of regional peacekeeping.
Neighbourhood Watch.
We have an appreciation of our neutrality and if the Deputy wants to ridicule it——
We are losing our influence by not participating.
——and reducing it by way of comparison with Tadzhikistan and Neighbourhood Watch, then it is entirely a matter for him. As long as a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition Government is in office, our neutrality is in safe hands.
That is what the Minster said about Partnership for Peace.
It has nothing to do with neutrality.
Does the Minister agree the tradition and roots of our neutrality are much more complex than the issue of partition? In any event, the question of the value, role and actual expression of Irish neutrality today needs to reflect the realities of this country, its membership of the European Union and its engagement on the European stage. Bearing all that in mind and the constitutional provision which precludes us from joining military alliances, will the Minister indicate if he believes joining Partnership for Peace, a NATO-related organisation which requires a treaty of mutual interest, would also be contrary to our Constitution?
I give an undertaking to the House once more that there will be a full debate in the House in advance of any decision to request membership of Partnership for Peace should that be decided upon. I assure the House of that. I agree with the Deputy that our neutrality is a very complex matter and is not related to the ingredients set out in Deputy Mitchell's question. As far as we are concerned, our neutrality is in good hands and it will be protected. Partnership for Peace has absolutely nothing to do with our neutrality.
On my Question No. 57 which was taken with Question No. 18, does the Minister accept the point I made that partition is the genesis of our neutrality? I accept there is more than partition involved and matters have moved on. Sean McBride, his predecessor in that office, said we would become full charter members of NATO the day after partition ends and would seek to negotiate a bilateral defence agreement with the US. Does the Minsiter agree, whatever about what has happened since, that I am accurate in saying the genesis of our neutrality is partition? I accept that much has happened since to add to it and make it a more complicated issue, but it is the genesis of it nonetheless.
The Minister said that PfP has nothing to do with neutrality. Is he aware that, on 28 March 1996, the then Leader of the Opposition and now Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, said that participation will be seen by other countries as a gratuitous signal that Ireland is moving away from neutrality and towards gradual incorporation into NATO and the Western European Union in due course? Is the Minister also aware that the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, said at the time that any attempt to join PfP without a referendum would be a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic? How can the Minister square that with his statement to the House today?
Given the Minister's statement that joining Partnership for Peace would not impact on our status as a neutral State, could he indicate how that could be the case given the requirements of joining are an application to the general secretary of NATO and the signing of a mutual interest treaty? What does he believe would be the mutual interest between Ireland and NATO?
The Government is outside Partnership for Peace and I have initiated a debate based on my view that it has progressed from its initial position when set up under President Clinton in 1994.
It has been enhanced.
I have already clarified the reference to the Taoiseach saying the matter should be referred to the people should the Government decide, having listened to the debate, that participation would be desirable. There is no question of any treaty obligations arising from possible membership of Partnership for Peace. People will have an opportunity to discuss the issue during the upcoming European elections.
Will there be a referendum?
No, there will not be one.
The Minister gave a promise there would be.
Deputy Gormley should allow the Minister to conclude.
Partnership for Peace is essentially voluntary in nature and does not involve any commitments of a treaty nature.
Does the Minister not feel any shame?
I assure the House that, if the Government decides in favour of Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace, such a decision, which would make clear the nature and scope of Ireland's participation, would be submitted to the House for approval. No one will be taken by surprise, there is no need to hold a referendum and there will be a debate on it.
Why did the Minister promise a referendum? It is scandalous and he should be ashamed of himself because he led people up the garden path on the issue.
It is not appropriate to interrupt on Question Time.
I do not feel ashamed. I have given leadership where it was required. It is a subject which needed airing and which I am not trying to suppress or repress.
It is a complete U-turn and the Minister knows it.
