Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 1999

Vol. 505 No. 2

Partnership for Peace-Kosovo: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the situation in Kosovo and also the question of Ireland's membership of Partnership for Peace. I fully support the Government's application to become a member of this movement and it is long overdue. I am a strong supporter of the concept that Ireland should be a full member of NATO. It is part of western civilisation and is morally obliged to play its part in defending that civilisation. I have seen an abdication of responsibilities in this regard by politicians and pressure groups. I come from a military background and, while I do not know the views of other members of my family, my father and two brothers were senior members of both the Army and the Naval Service. I do not have any apologies to make.

I regard it as cowardly to take everything that is going from western civilisation, benefit from its protection and prosperity and give back nothing. Of course, it eventually beggars a question: why is an army needed in Ireland if the country is not prepared to contribute to the protection of civilisation? Should the Army be converted into a civilian aid to the Garda? It would be more upfront, honest, practical and desirable and would rid our streets of hooliganism, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

It is difficult to understand people who condemn NATO's actions because the alternative is just so horrible – ethnic cleansing, genocide, extermination, rape, murder and pillaging. This has not just taken place since the bombing started eight weeks ago. It has been going on systematically since 1989 when the Yugoslav Federation broke up and it has accelerated since, particularly in the months prior to the NATO actions. Even Members of this House condone that type of activity rather than support NATO. NATO is carrying out an honourable function to stop people in their tracks.

It is pity that an organisation comparable to NATO was not around in Ireland 300 years ago when people such as Cromwell came here and exterminated large sections of the population. We never had the benefit of such protection, but now that Ireland is independent, prosperous and has facilities, including an army it should be willing to take part and play a role in protecting that civilisation.

I tabled a parliamentary question last week asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Ireland had applied for membership of NATO or if we had any intention of joining it. The Minister said Ireland had not applied and then referred to 1949. He stated:

The Deputy will be aware that in January 1949 the US Government formally sought the views of the then Government of Ireland concerning the issue of an official invitation to Ireland to participate in the proposed North Atlantic Treaty, which came into effect later that year. The Government at the time indi cated that it did not wish to join NATO on the grounds of the partition of Ireland.

That was a reasonable and common sense attitude to adopt then but this is 50 years later. It has been accepted that partition is a fact of life and no military action will be taken to get rid of it as was the insinuation in 1949, when circumstances were totally different.

Decent people have been let down and anybody who feels that the NATO action in Kosovo is incorrect, improper or immoral should visit towns such as Baltinglass, County Wicklow. A gentleman who witnessed the arrival of refugees from Kosovo in Baltinglass last weekend told me it was the most harrowing experience of his life and that included the funerals of members of his family. The refugees were poor, innocent people displaced from their normal places of habitation. They were lost and separated from their extended families; were heartbroken and he did not know how we could stand idly by and allow that to happen.

Ireland should make a contribution. I objected on the Order of Business earlier to the removal of Parliamentary Question No. 8 in my name tabled yesterday to the Minister for Defence which dealt with sending a detachment of Irish troops to Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia to help in the humanitarian effort by providing logistical support, such as tents, latrines, water purification plants and personnel to organise such activities. Non-governmental organisations do incredible work and the State should be involved.

I must criticise some wealthy countries with many facilities which could do a great deal of good, but stand idly by. A league table should be drawn up to see who is performing a humanitarian service for the displaced people of Kosovo. The Germans, Turks, British, Irish and Norwegians are doing a great job but what about Muslim countries in the Middle East which are blood brothers of Kosovo? What is Libya doing? It was willing to give arms to the IRA to kill innocent people throughout Ireland, particularly in the North. How many refugees has Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, taken in? I would say none.

There is a major question over the uniformity of the effort to help these defenceless people. Well meaning and fair-minded Irish people would be well advised to ask who is pulling his or her weight and, then, pinpoint those who could but are not. We would be better employed doing that rather than condemning NATO for risking its soldiers' lives. I agree with the Government that no referendum is needed on the question of Ireland's membership of PfP. The 166 Members of this House are elected to decide such issues. Let us not be led by the nose by opinion polls. The majority of people feel that joining the PfP is reasonable and if we are going to be led by pollsters and newspapers, then we might as well not have a House of Parliament and hold a referendum on every damn issue. I support the Government. I certainly do not think much of China and Russia objecting to what NATO is doing. There is a major conflict there between the haves and the have nots. The remnants of a disgraced communist system are trying to bring down people who are trying to do their best to help the tail of that system. Milosevic and his kind are the sting in the tail of a discredited communist system. There is no credit due to the Russians or the Chinese. Instead of being supportive, they are trying to trip up the Americans, the British and everybody else who means well. Just because we have a prosperous civilisation which has proved to be successful, they are trying to grasp this opportunity to denigrate people who are doing a fine job.

I wish the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, the best of luck next week when she visits Macedonia. I hope she comes back unharmed. What would we do without her?

Mr. M. Smith

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issues of Partnership for Peace and Kosovo. I would like, in particular, to deal with the question of the possible future role for the Defence Forces in peacekeeping activities under PfP, should it be decided that Ireland will participate in PfP. As I indicated in the House previously, I consider it important that, regardless of whatever decision is ultimately reached by Dáil Éireann on the question of participation in PfP, such a decision is preceded by and progressed through a constructive and informed debate, both inside and outside the House, where the views of all interested parties, whether political parties, individuals or organisations, can be heard.

An essential element in this process is a clear understanding of what PfP is all about. The explanatory guide on PfP published by the Government today should not alone enlighten that debate but should help to dispel any misconceptions that exist regarding PfP. Certain of these misconceptions have led to many unfounded concerns.

The philosopher, Bertrand Russell, once observed that "the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts". For a generation, every time Ireland has taken a further step out into the world, ending our years of isolation, we have evoked the same Pavlovian response from the ranks of the permanently indignant. From the original application to join the EEC, to the signing of the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, we have been assured with great certainty by these unrepresentative, self-appointed guardians of the national conscience that disaster lies around the next corner.

The exact opposite has happened. We have grown and developed in leaps and bounds. However, one must admire the sheer cheek. Lesser men and women would be mortified at being proved wrong so publicly and so often. However, the keepers of the national conscience are made of sterner stuff. Their ludicrous opinions remain completely undisturbed by the facts.

Regarding Ireland's proposed membership of Partnership for Peace, there is more than a whiff of paranoia in the air. Over the past decade, the world has been transformed; the Berlin Wall has fallen and the Cold War is over. At least, for those of us who base our opinions on the observation of facts, the post-war division of the world into hostile armed camps is at an end. Sadly, for those who sleepwalk through life, the world never changes. Paradoxically, the last of the Cold War dinosaurs are now to be found among the supposed defenders of our neutrality.

PfP is one element in the development of new inclusive co-operative security arrangements in Europe. It is a truly co-operative approach to security with the stated aim of intensifying political and military co-operation in Europe, promoting stability, reducing threats to peace and building strengthened relationships by promoting practical co-operation amongst its participants.

While initially it was felt that PfP appeared to be geared to countries aspiring to eventual membership of NATO, it has since been joined by most OSCE countries, including Russia and the former Soviet Republics, as well as neutral countries such as Sweden, Finland. Austria and Switzerland. Currently, 43 states participate in PfP.

The development of structures such as PfP reflects the need felt by some countries arising from the current transitional nature of European security. The emphasis has now shifted away from territorial defence towards issues of conflict prevention, peacekeeping, crisis management and the security threats imposed by international crime. Similarly, the approach in the Amsterdam treaty reflects the trend away from territorial defence, with its focus on the Petersberg Tasks of peacekeeping and crisis management.

Deputies will be aware that the Petersberg Tasks were conceived in the context of support for the efforts of the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe – the OSCE – and which the European Union is now seeking to develop under the Amsterdam treaty. Much of the planning and preparation for the Petersberg Tasks is now carried out by countries under PfP programmes.

The new European security architecture is essentially a continent-wide interweaving in collective security in the new and emerging European relations. Within this architecture, PfP is a voluntary, flexible and non-binding co-operative security framework between NATO and non-members of NATO. It is the very flexible nature of the arrangement which, no doubt, has attracted so many countries to participate. In addition, PfP can be said to have built on the United Nations' Charter. It is recognised that no one state or institution can by itself deal with the complex and diverse challenges to security of the post-Cold War world.

The former Yugoslavia is probably the best example of the new approach of mutually reinforcing co-operation between a range of institutions, i.e. the UN, EU, NATO, OSCE, Western European Union and Council of Europe. PfP has been complemented by a body known as the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, or EAPC, which includes all members of PfP. The EAPC grew out of consultations involving the members of PfP who felt the need for a new multinational consultation framework at political level, which was not limited to members of NATO or the former Warsaw Pact alliance. Membership of the EAPC is open to all OSCE states who have subscribed to the PfP's basic document. It is envisaged that Ireland would participate in the EAPC on joining PfP. Partnership for Peace and EAPC can be described as instruments of collective co-operation.

As participation in PfP would not involve membership of NATO, participation on appropriate terms would not affect Ireland's policy of military neutrality. Participation would not bring Ireland into any form of alliance involving mutual defence commitments. Neither would it constitute or imply any undertaking or intention to become a member of NATO in the future. The overall objectives of PfP, which I will refer to, are consonant with Ireland's approach to international peace and European security. PfP simply involves voluntary and non-binding co-operation with NATO.

As regards the possible role of 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 of their participation in PfP activities and in this regard agree an individual partnership programme covering the activities to which they wish to subscribe.

In Ireland's case, should it be decided to participate in Partnership for Peace, it is envisaged that these activities would include peacekeeping under a UN mandate, humanitarian and rescue works – all tasks in line with the traditional involvement and experience of our Defence Forces in those most worthy areas of service to our fellow human beings. Considerable benefits would also accrue to the Defence Forces in terms of the training opportunities and experience that participation in PfP activities would afford them.

The areas of peacekeeping and search and rescue are expanding progressively. Partnership for Peace would allow the Defence Forces to improve their capability for multinational peacekeeping operations in the future, through the medium of interoperability development, training and exercises. In particular, membership would enhance the Defence Forces' capacity to conduct modern peacekeeping operations with other military forces.

The nature of peacekeeping missions is changing. The United Nations is undergoing a critical change in how it organises and implements such missions and is increasingly mandating regional organisations to conduct those missions on its behalf. This new strategy places greater responsibility on participating nations to examine their forces' self-sufficiency in training, equipment and operating proficiency. The Defence Forces must be given the opportunity to respond to these critical changes if Ireland is determined to stay at the forefront as a contributing nation to international peacekeeping operations.

An example of Defence Forces' facilities which could be made available for the purpose is the United Nations' Training School and a language laboratory at the Curragh, with their associated infrastructure and courses. The experience of Ireland in the field of peacekeeping is well recognised by other countries. This experience can be imparted to other PfP nations and will give Ireland an influence in how peacekeeping operations will be conducted in the future.

PfP has developed into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management. The call on the international community, including Ireland, to support peacekeeping missions is stronger than ever today. If we need any reminder of the absolute requirement to deal with conflicts before they escalate into major crises we have only to look at the situation in the Balkan region in recent times, including the appalling humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo today.

I am horrified by the appalling human tragedy that has unfolded in Kosovo. The barbarities inflicted on the people of Kosovo, particularly those inflicted on the Kosovo Albanians by the Serb authorities, have shocked the world. This terrible tragedy has again brought home the horror and cruelty of war in the most direct way and the hardship it causes ordinary men, women and children.

The plight of hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who are suffering in an unwarranted and unspeakable way in the Balkans calls for a determined and significant response from the international community. The policy of deportation and destruction of an entire people being pursued by President Milosevic and his evil regime cannot be allowed to succeed. Maximum pressure on him from the international community must be maintained in order to avoid further suffering and destruction. It is to be hoped that a political solution, which the overwhelming majority of the international community desires, will soon be achieved.

My concern for the Kosovan refugees has been focused on assisting in the humanitarian crisis by contributing the services of experienced Defence Forces personnel and in providing facilities for the accommodation of refugees on their arrival in Ireland. In the latter regard, arising out of requests from the Department of Foreign Affairs for accommodation for the Kosovan refugees, Magee Barracks in County Kildare was selected as a suitable location. Arrangements were made to find mobile homes to accommodate refugees there and 109 of the refugees who arrived in Ireland on 13 May have been accommodated there. A further intake is expected today and they will also be accommodated there. Should any of the other former military barracks be found to be suitable for refugees, I am prepared to agree that arrangements be made to accommodate refugees there. We continue to stand ready to provide whatever help we can in this appalling tragedy.

Regarding Partnership for Peace, to those of us who have opened our eyes to the changing world PfP is a perfectly natural development in our foreign policy. Yet those who are unwilling to accommodate change are warming up for another chorus of doom and gloom. It is a free country and such people are entitled to express their views. However, I invite them to reflect on the following words of Hubert Humphrey: "The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously."