Gay Mitchell
Question:29 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, he has taken in relation to Ireland's application to join Partnership for Peace. [11987/99]
Priority Questions. - Partnership for Peace.
I have made the position of the Government quite clear in this House on a number of occasions. It is our intention that, in the light of the current public debate and following the European elections, in which parties will no doubt take the opportunity to set out their approaches, Ireland will join Partnership for Peace in the second half of this year. Prior to joining, a decision in favour of participation in PfP would be submitted to this House for its approval and would make clear the nature and scope of our proposed participation in PfP. The nature and scope of our participation would be reflected in our national presentation document, which would be presented to NATO upon signature by Ireland of the PfP Framework Document of January 1994.
Important preparatory steps have been under way. First, both the Taoiseach and I have opened up public debate on this issue. Second, the Government will soon publish an explanatory guide on PfP. Third, we have decisively clarified the legal and constitutional issues. A referendum on this matter is not required as PfP would not be in conflict with our neutrality, would have no implications for sovereignty and would not impose Treaty obligations. This is the view of the Attorney-General, whose conclusions in the matter I shared with Deputies in a letter of 8 April to the Oireachtas Library.
The previous Government, of which Deputy Mitchell was a member, took the view in their 1996 White Paper that membership of PfP does not involve membership of NATO, assumption of any mutual defence commitments or any commit ment or obligation in relation to future membership of NATO. It is also clear from the 1996 White Paper that the then Government did not contemplate a referendum on PfP and foresaw participation in PfP being subject to parliamentary approval. The then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs of that Government, Deputy Spring, stated in Dáil Éireann on several occasions that there was "neither a basis nor a need for a referendum on participation in PfP, which imposes no Treaty obligations of any sort, no mutual defence commitments and which has no implications for our policy of military neutrality".
While each country's requirements are unique to that country, it is the case that none of the neutral states in PfP have felt either a constitutional or a political need for a referendum. This is so even in the case of Switzerland, a country with a constitutional basis to its neutrality and a strong tradition of holding referenda on many issues. Consultations with the NATO Secretariat concerning Ireland's participation in PfP will take place at the appropriate time.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Is the Minister in a position to indicate to the House what the presentation document is likely to contain in terms of the areas where we are likely to seek co-operation through Partnership for Peace? When will this presentation document be presented to the House for consideration? Will legislation be required in relation to joining Partnership for Peace? What is the timescale in the latter part of the year, which the Minister has already indicated will be the general timescale? Will he confirm that, on joining Partnership for Peace, Ireland will appoint an ambassador to NATO, just as all the other neutral countries and Switzerland, to which he has referred, have done? If that is the case, would the Minister see merit in appointing an ambassador to NATO now so that the concerns of this House about what is happening in Kosovo and in the Balkan region generally can be communicated directly and effectively to the Secretary General?
Regarding the presentation of Partnership for Peace, let me reassure the House that in advance of any decisions the House will be consulted and there will be a full, open, transparent debate on the subject. On the question of time limits, my timetable is still in place and I envisage, all things being equal, that the programme will include the possibility of our making the applications that are necessary in or about September-October. In advance of that, we will have a debate in the Dáil to discuss all the issues. There is a legitimacy in the Deputy's point of view, and there is a concern out there about the lack of clarity as to Partnership for Peace and NATO.
Do we need legislation?
No legislation will be required. On the last occasion Deputy De Rossa asked about an explanatory guide on Partnership for Peace. I brought a document to the attention of the Government today on that very subject. It has the merit of being fulsome in setting out in totality answers to any question that any reasonable person would wish to ask about Partnership for Peace, the manner of our application, the timetable, right across the broad spectrum—
Does it answer questions about the appointment of an ambassador to NATO?
I will not be considering that at this time.
Deputy Mitchell should allow the Minister to conclude his reply.
This document has one weakness, that it is a rather long document. Its strength is that it leaves nothing unsaid as far as Partnership for Peace is concerned. It will be going to each Member of the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas Library and libraries throughout the land and it will be going on the Internet. It will be widely available and people will have the opportunity of delving deeply into the recesses of what Partnership for Peace envisages for this country into the future.
Deputy Mitchell rose.
I regret to inform the Deputy that under the new Standing Order six minutes are allowed for questions and we have already exceeded the six minutes.
There is nothing I can do about it.