Vol. 506 No. 5
2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of the Irish delegation to the EU-Latin American summit at the end of June 1999 following his cancellation of his plans to attend; the agenda in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15340/99]
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will be represented in any form at the EU-Latin American summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15354/99]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance on 3 and 4 June 1999 at the EU summit in Cologne; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15740/99]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings, if any, he held with other EU Heads of Government during the recent EU summit in Germany; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15741/99]
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the issues, other than those relating to Northern Ireland, which he discussed with the British Prime Minister in Germany; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15742/99]
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the communications, if any, he has had, orally or in writing, with other EU Heads of Government regarding the situation in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15743/99]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the activities of his Department in recent months to make an effective Irish input to the work of the European Council on major issues on the EU agenda. [15744/99]
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to attend a special meeting in October 1999 of EU Heads of Government in Finland to discuss internal security issues; the preparatory meetings, if any, he will have in Ireland before this meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15745/99]
10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the Finnish Prime Minister to discuss his plans for his country's Presidency of the EU in the second half of 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15834/99]
11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with a delegation from the Chinese Foreign Affairs Committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16030/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 11, inclusive, together.
As outlined in my comprehensive statement to the Dáil last Tuesday, I attended the European Council in Cologne on 3 and 4 June. We had a useful discussion with the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Gil Robles, on the important role which the European Parliament will play, given its extended powers under the Amsterdam Treaty. During the first working session we had an indepth discussion of European security and defence policy. The common strategy for Russia, reform of the Commission, East Timor and relations with Turkey and Ukraine were also discussed. In the second working session, we discussed the European employment pact, institutional reform, the next Intergovernmental Conference and the proposed charter of fundamental rights.
The Finnish President, Mr. Ahtisaari, joined the Council following his peace talks in Belgrade with President Milosevic at which he was accompanied by Mr. Chernomyrdin. We had a long discussion about the situation in Kosovo and the progress taking place while the summit was in session towards agreement by the Yugoslav authorities of the peace plan. We issued a declaration on Kosovo after the Council which highlighted the urgent need for the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution on this matter. This is the approach which had been advocated by Ireland and which has now successfully been put in place with the adoption by the Security Council of Resolution 1244 on 10 June. It was also an approach suggested by the Greek Prime Minister in a letter to his EU counterparts in advance of the summit. We also discussed the broader Balkan region and the European Council endorsed the progress towards the stability pact for south-eastern Europe.
On the subject of enlargement, a positive message was sent to all 11 accession states. In relation to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus, a commitment was given to open negotiations in all remaining areas covered by the acquis as early as possible next year. The Helsinki European Council in December will examine the progress made by all the accession candidates. It is crucial for stability in Europe that the momentum towards enlargement is maintained.
An issue of key interest to Ireland at the Council was the declaration on strengthening the common European policy on security and defence. The declaration agreed at Cologne reflects a common analysis among EU member states of the objectives we seek on the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty, effectively peacekeeping and crisis management, and how best to achieve these objectives. The declaration issued takes account of the views and positions of all four non-NATO EU member states.
The summit also approved Mr. Javier Solana for the new post of Secretary General of the Council and High Representative for CFSP. Mr. Pierre de Boissieu was appointed as Deputy Secretary General.
The summit discussed the scope, preparations and timetable for the next intergovernmental conference and the proposed EU charter of fundamental rights. The summit was also attended by the Commission President designate, Mr. Prodi, who discussed with the HOSGs the future work and required reforms of the Commission.
The summit reached agreement on the European employment pact. Most of the goals which it sets already underpin the ongoing economic and social policy objectives pursued in this country, especially in the context of social partnership. I am very supportive of the more important role outlined for social partners at EU level.
As I outlined in my statement, I took the opportunity to strongly support the extension of the duty free regime and drew attention to the difficulties caused by the decision to bring it to an end. Unfortunately, the outcome on duty free was very disappointing. Unanimity would have been required to reverse abolition but our efforts to secure an extension of the current regime met with resistance from other member states, particularly Denmark.
The European Council welcomed the intention of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Barak, to resume negotiations with the Palestinians and Syrians and to seek a solution to the problem of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. Discussed also were issues related to the World Trade Organisation. In particular, the Council gave a strong endorsement of the efforts being made by China and Russia to achieve World Trade Organisation accession.
I met Prime Minister Blair on the evening of Wednesday, 2 June in Cologne. In addition to matters related to Northern Ireland, we discussed many of the issues on the agenda for the Council, including aspects of the Kosovo situation and duty free.
My Department is in constant contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs and our embassies in relation to developments on the EU agenda. As I outlined in my statement, in advance of the Cologne Council I established a Cabinet committee to co-ordinate EU business. Its core members are the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Finance and Foreign Affairs. In addition to matters related to Northern Ireland, we discussed many of the issues on the agenda for the Council, including aspects of the Kosovo situation and duty free sales.
My Department is in constant contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs and our embassies abroad about developments on the EU agenda. As I outlined in my statement, in advance of the Cologne Council I established a Cabinet committee to co-ordinate EU business. Its core members are the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In addition, the Attorney General and other Ministers will attend, as appropriate, on particular issues. This forum will allow for the required focus to be given to the important issues arising on the EU agenda. The committee's first meeting took place in preparation for the summit.
I will attend a special meeting of the European Council on 15 and 16 October in Tampere, Finland. The Tampere summit will be the second occasion on which an EU summit has been devoted to one topic. The Council will evaluate progress achieved and give further direction to the actions of the EU in the area of justice and home affairs. We look forward to the discussions which we will have in Tampere on the action plan for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice and on the report of the high level working group on asylum and migration. The Cabinet committee will meet in advance of the October summit.
Interdepartmental meetings at official level will also take place. A senior level meeting between Finnish, German, Council secretariat and Com mission officials and representatives from my Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already taken place as part of initial consultations by the Finnish Presidency on preparations for Tampere. With regard to wider plans for the Finnish Presidency of the EU, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will receive Foreign Minister Halonen of Finland in Dublin tomorrow.
Unfortunately, I have had to cancel my plans to attend the EU-Latin America and Caribbean summit to be held in Rio de Janeiro on 28 and 29 June, due to negotiations between the parties in Northern Ireland for which a deadline of 30 June has been set. I must make myself available to provide whatever assistance I can to the parties in these negotiations.
The Irish Government will be represented at the EU-Latin America and Caribbean summit by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, accompanied by relevant officials from those Departments. The summit will be the first ever between the two regions. It is intended to launch a new strategic partnership providing for enhanced co-operation in political, economic and cultural spheres. In view of the summit's importance, I requested that the Tánaiste represent me and that she conduct the bilateral meetings which I had planned to hold with a number of Latin American and Caribbean heads of state or government. Arrangements for these bilateral meetings have not yet been finalised.
On 16 June, I met a delegation of the foreign affairs committee of the National People's Congress of China. We exchanged views on a range of bilateral and multilateral issues. Most of our discussions centred on economic and trade matters. Naturally, we also spoke about my visit to China last year. We discussed human rights, Tibet and Kosovo. I extended my condolences to the delegation on the loss of life in the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.
The Taoiseach referred to the four neutral EU states. I am anxious to ascertain his understanding of Irish neutrality. How does he define it? Does he consider Ireland to have been neutral in the recent conflict between NATO and Serbia? Does he believe Ireland will be neutral, in the current sense, ten years from now?
The Cologne declaration was discussed at the general affairs Council and the neutral countries worked together on it. From our point of view and in common with the other neutral states, we are as militarily neutral after the Cologne declaration as we were before it. We did not change our position.
Ireland follows a policy of military neutrality although it has not ever been ideologically neutral or morally indifferent to the major international issues of the day. That has been its his tory for the past 50 years. The Cologne declaration represents the objective of making a reality of the Amsterdam Treaty which was passed by the Irish people. There is nothing in that treaty or in the Cologne declaration that conflicts with Irish neutrality.
The core defining characteristic of Irish neutrality has always been non-membership of military alliances and that remains the position. Our neutrality goes hand in hand with a strong commitment to international co-operation for stability and security. That has been the policy of successive Irish Governments of whatever hue and I believe it will continue.
With regard to how I envisage the Irish position in ten years, co-operation among European countries will continue to develop in terms of peacekeeping under the Petersberg Tasks. Ireland will also continue to take a line from the UN resolutions and I hope people will try harder to secure such resolutions than, perhaps, they sometimes do. I accept it is not easy. I have spoken previously in the House about Kofi Annan's views on reform. I am equally aware that it is easy to talk about these matters in the EU but it is difficult to achieve success in them. Over the next decade, the emphasis will be on co-operation in the EU on the Petersberg Tasks. Participation is voluntary and is a sovereign decision for each member state to make, and that will continue to be the case. It will also continue to be the case that decisions will be made by sovereign countries on a case by case basis. Now that the Amsterdam Treaty is in force, the EU is capable of making effective and timely decisions under the Petersberg Tasks. That will develop as time goes on.
I am still in the dark as to what the Taoiseach understands by neutrality in the context of EU membership. Is it not the case that the declaration agreed in Cologne, in common with previous declarations of the European Union, in which Ireland participated and with which it agreed, commits the Union to a common defence policy as an objective? Does the Taoiseach believe that, if Ireland were to participate in the framing of a common defence policy with our EU members, we would still be neutral?
Even in these discussions, the neutral countries such as Ireland have a major input such as we had in discussions on the Amsterdam Treaty. We should not adopt an isolationist view. Our position over the years – the records of both Houses prove this – is that we are militarily neutral because we have not been involved in ideological arguments about mutual defence. We have always taken the view with regard to peacekeeping missions—
As a member of the EU, we are committed to a common defence policy.
Yes, we are.
How can we be neutral and say we are participating in a common defence policy? Let us be honest with the people about this.
We are being honest. Deputy Bruton has a view on this—
I do, and I am straightforward about it.
—and he is entitled to that view. I am entitled to my view. Deputy Bruton sees the Petersberg Tasks in a way that other neutral countries do not. While he is entitled to his view which he believes to be right, I believe he is wrong. The Irish position on this matter has been, and will continue to be, that the European Union must work for peace, stability and security in Europe. The key to this is peacekeeping and crisis management within the context of the Petersberg Tasks. That was the motivating factor behind the work on the Amsterdam Treaty, the file on which I read last summer. It was also the motivating factor in 1990 and 1991 behind the work on the Maastricht Treaty. It was the same position of peace, stability and security.
All 15 member states can play an active role which is in keeping with their traditions and capabilities. That was the basis of the discussions and the declaration takes account of the views and positions of all non-NATO EU member states. We worked closely with those countries in the discussions. I have already said what I believe will evolve over ten years. The capabilities will change as matters progress, but I believe the basis of the Petersberg Tasks – peace and security – will be maintained.
Does the Taoiseach agree that, in practice, the Government is changing the meaning of the word "neutral" to suit whatever it is doing at a particular time and that neutrality as expressed by it does not mean the same thing as it meant 15 years ago? Does he also agree that it would be better to say that, if we create a political union of which we are a member, we should be willing, as Seán Lemass was, to defend what we created?
No matter what I say, Deputy Bruton will not agree with my point of view. There is no question of Ireland—
I agree with Seán Lemass.
Seán Lemass always emphasised that there was no question of Ireland joining a nuclear armed military alliance.
I agree with that too.
We are not going to join such an alliance.
Why should we?
The Cologne Declaration will not prejudice the eventual relationship between the EU and the Western European Union.
As the Deputy is aware, this matter revolves around fundamental difficulties in respect of Article V. On the last occasion we discussed Article V, I did not have a copy of it in my possession. For the record, Article V, which emanates from the modified Brussels Treaty, states that if any of the high contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other high contracting parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power. This article has been in existence since the 1950s and is binding only on members of the Western European Union. It is not binding on Ireland.
Article V is an automatic mutual defence commitment. When he was dealing with this matter in the mid-1950s, Seán Lemass stated that it would be incompatible with Ireland's policy of military neutrality to sign up to Article V, and we did not do so. Ireland and other neutral states cannot agree with the Western European Union becoming part of the EU because Article V would automatically put in place an automatic mutual defence commitment.
To be fair and honest, people must consider the history of the position adopted by Ireland, which has been consistent for 45 years. While changes have been introduced as a result of the Amsterdam and Maastricht Treaties, Article V of the basic treaty has not changed and neither has our position. I hope that remains the case.
Does the Taoiseach agree that in the aftermath of the war in Kosovo it is important that not only should the House debate the future security architecture of Europe but that it should also engage with the Irish people in that debate? Does he agree that each party in the House has a responsibility to lead that debate because, ultimately, any change in Ireland's neutral status will require the consent of the Irish people by way of referendum?
With regard to the Taoiseach's initial reply, did the Taoiseach raise Ireland's ongoing concerns about the operation of Sellafield with the British Prime Minister at the Cologne summit? Did he raise that issue with the German Chancellor in view of the possibility that the German Government is about to decide to cease to use Sellafield as a reprocessing centre for German nuclear waste? Does the Government intend to put in place a co-ordinated campaign to advance the Irish objective of closing Sellafield?
I agree with the Deputy in respect of the first matter. There will be an ongoing debate and I believe that attempts to make fundamental changes will be made at some future date. In my opinion, such attempts will be strongly opposed by the neutral states. Any pro posed major changes to Ireland's sovereignty or neutrality would have to be put to the people.
Does the Taoiseach agree we should bring the people along with us, step by step, in the debate?
Yes. I have participated in a number of debates on PfP issues in the past six months and I believe the people are well versed on this matter.
That is not true.
Those who have an interest in these issues know what is happening. It is amazing that at some of the debates to which I referred people arrived in possession of the 1945 and 1954 Western European Union treaties. However, I admit these individuals are in a minority among the general population.
With regard to the Deputy's second question, I did not raise the issue of Sellafield with Chancellor Schröeder, but I have raised it on numerous occasions with Prime Minister Blair. The Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise has provided me with submissions on the different movements which have taken place in the ongoing discussions and I have discussed the subject with Prime Minister Blair in several formats in recent months. I will take a suitable opportunity to raise it with the German Chancellor in the near future.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it would it be useful to re-establish the Cabinet subcommittee on Sellafield to ensure that there is a co-ordinated interdepartmental response involving the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Health and Children, the Environment, the Radiological Protection Agency and the Attorney General's office and that where there are opportunities, such as the debate that is ongoing currently within the German coalition, they are used to advance an Irish objective in this matter? Will the Taoiseach give fresh consideration to that proposal?
This is effectively operating very well in an informal manner. The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, has been very active in this because there is ongoing interest in this issue. I will discuss it with him to ascertain if he needs to establish this on a more formal basis. I know they regularly have contact, as I have heard him discuss this several times in the House in the recent past.
Will the Taoiseach agree that, among other things, the lesson of the recent war in Kosovo is that given that Europe has no common defence of its own, it has to rely on the United States, and, in practice, that means that when it comes to deciding what should and should not be bombed it is not Europeans who make the decisions but American generals and air force commanders? Will he also agree that important issues concerning life and death in European are not made by Europeans because the European Union has been unable, partly because of opposition from the Irish Government and others, to form its own defence policy and that, in effect, Europe has an American defence policy? Will the Taoiseach agree that for Europe, which is a self-respecting political unit that has its own common tax policy, social policy and immigration policy and its own policy on practically every other issue, not to have the means of being able to decide about its own defence is profoundly unsatisfactory and that Ireland should wish to resolve that dilemma rather than contribute to it?
The Deputy has raised a number of points. Under the Cologne declaration and all the many initiatives in this area in recent years, Ireland has played a role based on peacekeeping and we should continue to do that. Deputy Bruton would be aware that it is only recently the United Kingdom and other countries have made any attempt to move to talk about this in a European domain. They absolutely and fundamentally bitterly opposed any reference to this because they thought that NATO could be affected and they did not want it to be run on any kind of European basis.
That is true.
This has moved apace.
Our cover has now gone. The British provided us with cover previously but they are not doing that any more.
We do not need the British to provide us with cover in these matters. They now realise they should consider this in a different light and NATO has also indicated that it is ready to define arrangements to give the EU access to its own resources for the Peterberg Tasks in regard to the implementation of the EU's common foreign and security policy. It will be for the EU to make its own decisions as to how it will deal with the Petersberg Tasks. Deputies may also be aware that NATO has already indicated its readiness to support peacekeeping missions under the authority of the UN and the OSCE. There are developments and movements. Having listened to meetings down through the years, particularly the meetings before and during the crisis in Kosovo, I do not get the impression that there is any great attempt by the Council of European Ministers to move to a situation where Europe would have all its own powers, play its own role and have its own army. They are not issues I hear about. There is a stronger view that, no matter how difficult, we should reform the UN and how it makes its decisions and try to ensure there is an understanding on UN resolutions before taking action. As I said, that is extremely difficult.
Is the Taoiseach in complete denial on the question of Irish neutrality? How could he agree to the appointment of Javier Solana, the leader of NATO, to the post of head of common foreign and security policy? Is it not the case that in Cologne we took the first steps towards the formation of a European army? How would the Taoiseach define the NATO action in Yugoslavia? Was it a war or peace enforcement?
What is the difference?
NATO was pressed to protect those people by the actions of Mr. Milosevic. It is a pity it resulted in that but if he had not slaughtered people through ethnic cleansing there would have been no major bombing.
That is not the question. Was it a war or peace enforcement?
Please allow the Taoiseach to reply.
Javier Solana is a distinguished and experienced former foreign minister of Spain, an EU member state. He will have to leave his NATO post before assuming his CSFP functions. His appointment was made on the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty and has nothing to do with military neutrality. He was the only candidate supported by the council.
What is the Taoiseach's attitude to the Finnish declaration that its aim is to improve the Union's ability to take decisions on a range of external relations matters, including trade, common foreign security policy and defence, when it takes over the Presidency? Given that the Taoiseach referred to the need for reform of the United Nations, will he indicate what is the Government's programme for reform of the UN and is it intended to press that when Ireland takes its seat on the Security Council? Does the Taoiseach think it would be wise for the Government to publish a Green Paper on the evolving relationship between Ireland and the European Union? The institutions of the Union, the relationship of Ireland to it and our role in common foreign, security and defence policy are issues we will have to grasp. Does the Taoiseach think it would be wise for us to initiate that debate through the publication of a Green Paper?
We have not made a decision on a Green Paper but there is a number of evolving issues as we prepare for the next Intergovernmental Conference and the work of next year. It is hoped to make some progress on a number of these issues, which were first raised by Germany at the Council meeting in Vienna and then at Cologne, by December 2000 when France takes over the Presidency. In the next 18 months a great deal of work will have to be done on these issues and we will have to see what is the best way of putting them forward. I would not rule out a Green Paper on those issues.
Finland has outlined a number of initiatives of which we want to be supportive. Its agenda is a good one. It is anxious to have our support and I have conveyed our position to the Finnish Prime Minister. On UN reform and the Security Council, when I met with Kofi Annan here and subsequently in Brussels, he indicated the programme of reform which aims to simplify the structures, arrangements and decision-making process. We have used this in our campaign for membership. I have discussed this matter with a number of people, most recently with the Prime Minister of Canada who has been on the Council and has also been pushing this matter. He explained the insurmountable difficulties in reforming the UN structure.
When Kofi Annan addressed the European Council last April he emphasised there would be movement on these issues and he seems to have the support of the European countries. Last March when I visited the United States the Secretary of State outlined what they were doing in this regard. It is supportive of these substantial reforms – I do not want to overstate what Ireland can do – which are clearly necessary. The logjams and difficulties which are created make it almost impossible for the Secretary General to adequately run an efficient organisation. He is determined and has set deadlines for the achievement of reform. We will be supportive of that if we are elected to the Security Council.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the line being taken by the British Prime Minister that any aid to the former Yugoslavia will be conditional on it agreeing to remove its President from office?
I do not. One must distinguish between the humanitarian and construction elements. If we were to boldly follow the line that there cannot be any aid whatsoever, which is what was said, how would that help those living in tents next winter? On this I am closer to Mr. Schro1der's thinking.
I welcome that. The people should not be punished for the sins of their leader or his subordinates. In what respects does the Taoiseach believe that the final settlement obtained in the Kosovo conflict differs from what was potentially agreed at Rambouillet?
I was in France the day those discussions took place and was with the President. I remember he received a note during lunch and the view was that it was not possible to implement the proposed agreement because there was no goodwill towards it. The structure was similar but there was a belief that Mr. Milosevic and his administration were not serious and would continue to frustrate efforts to reach an agreement, which is why the talks broke down in relation to seven or eight different areas. The benefits of the current agreement were clear. It included a military structure and there was a short timescale. There is now a peacekeeping force in the region for the longer term. It is different from January's proposed agreement which would not have been workable.
Will Ireland be sending troops?
That concludes Taoiseach's questions, we must move on to questions nominated for priority.
That is possible.
