Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Oct 1999

Vol. 509 No. 3

Partnership For Peace: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann approves participation by Ireland in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), and that it further approves the terms of Ireland's PfP Presentation Document, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 5th October, 1999.

–(Minister for Foreign Affairs)

Mr. Dukes

Last evening I was going to deal with some of the fallacies advanced as reasons for not joining the Partnership for Peace and give the example of a very respected organisation known as AFrI which recently published a position paper on the matter. It alleges "PfP diminishes the role of the UN and diminishes democratic accountability" and, therefore, we should not join. That is false. The operations undertaken by members of PfP typically include activities that will increase the ability of those states to prepare for UN peacekeeping operations.

I refer to items I, Co-operation and Peacekeeping and II, Actions in the Humanitarian Area in the Irish Presentation Document. The Swedish Presentation Document sets out the areas where PfP would be used and that includes contributions to UN operations. The Austrian Presentation Document speaks of enhancing the capabilities of the Austrian armed forces for multi-national co-operation and communication. This includes the ability of the Austrian armed forces to better co-operate with other armed forces in peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, disaster relief and so on. The Swiss Presentation Document refers to training of military observers and training in logistics for peacekeeping operations. They are some examples. Far from the PfP having any effect in diminishing the role of the United Nations, the road chosen by most members of PfP has been to use the co-operation in PfP to enhance their ability to co-operate with the UN. There is no interference in democratic accountability because membership of PfP does not interfere with the normal parliamentary procedures under which Governments are made accountable in their respective member states.

It is frequently alleged, and Deputy O'Kennedy alleged the last evening, that PfP is a conspiracy on the part of states that have arms manufacturing industries to encourage others to buy more arms. That is utter nonsense. It is ludicrous. The people who claim to have uncovered that conspiracy speak darkly about provisions on inter-operability and armaments co-operation. These are seen as part of the conspiracy. Inter-operability is needed to make UN operations more effective. That is dealt with in the Irish Presentation Document and in a great deal of the comments made on the advantages of PfP. Inter-operability helps to make UN operations more efficient.

Armaments co-operation is presented by some of these critics as being another part of the conspiracy. I invite them to rejoin the real world and look at what is intended by armaments co-operation. If one looks at the literature, armaments co-operation even among the major states is most often seen as a way of restricting the growth of military and defence budgets. Countries co-operate between themselves, very unsuccessfully, in arms production and the development of modern weapon systems in order to reduce the burden on their national exchequers by sharing research and development costs. Far from arms co-operation being seen as a means of inducing other people to buy more arms, it is a method of holding down the level of expenditure.

It is dishonest to talk about the international sale of arms in this connection as if it were only sellers and manufacturers of arms who persuade the hapless regimes of otherwise innocent countries to buy arms. Any sale takes a willing seller and a willing buyer. There are willing buyers of arms of all kinds all over the world. Our joining PfP does not reduce our ability to co-operate, as we have been doing, in efforts at UN level to draw up more stringent and constraining codes of practice for the sale of arms throughout the world. If we are serious about the kind of things Deputy O'Kennedy trotted out last night in regard to dealing with the international arms trade, we will not achieve that by simply refusing to join PfP and pontificating sanctimoniously, as he does, from the sidelines. We will do it by continuing to be involved in the UN and in other international fora in an attempt – it is a difficult enterprise – to get a better degree of international support for codes of practice in relation to the arms trade.

It is sometimes alleged that we should not join PfP because it is the wrong organisation for us to be in if we are interested in peace, and that we should work within the OSCE instead. That is dishonest because the PfP has a totally different role and vocation from the OSCE, and it is dishonest to pretend the OSCE can in any way help to prepare countries for involvement in peacekeeping or humanitarian operations in the way that PfP can. OSCE is an entirely separate organisation with a different mandate which operates independently of and unaffected by the PfP. The regrettable fact is that the OSCE, valuable as it is, and other structures we have for the promotion of peace sometimes fail, as they did in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timor, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola and so many other places around the world. We need to be ready and equipped for the kinds of intervention that seem necessary in those places and PfP is an important part of that enterprise.

The Taoiseach

The Government is recommending that Ireland should participate in Partnership for Peace because we believe it is in the national interest to do so and because it will enable us to make an enhanced contribution to international peace and security.

We also owe it to our Defence Forces to allow them co-operate freely with the forces of other countries with whom we have close ties in peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks. We have much to be proud of in the contribution of our Defence Forces at home and abroad and the way they have conducted themselves during many difficult missions over the past 40 years. They have enhanced Ireland's reputation over several decades. It is the unanimous view, not just of those who command defence forces but right through their officers and ranks, that Ireland should join Partnership for Peace to enhance their ability to co-operate with others. The view of serving per sonnel has great weight with me as I have a sincere regard for their loyalty and professionalism and the service they have given to the State since its foundation as one of its most important institutions.

Ireland is not, nor is it about to become, a heavily armed nation. Diplomacy, rather than arms, has always been our primary focus in protecting our national security. In terms of equipment, the Defence Forces have what they need to operate with and very little more. Their ability to cope has sometimes been taken too much for granted by successive Governments. A planned approach over the next ten years, as will be set out in the forthcoming Defence White Paper by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, will, I hope, succeed in remedying most of the serious deficiencies in terms of what is required for today's tasks. This need not involve any significant real rise in defence spending but simply a more productive use of existing resources when we are able to put the backlog of army deafness cases behind us.

Those who argue against our participation in PfP, or who wish to prevaricate on the question, are denying our Defence Forces the freedom to prepare for peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks with the forces of other countries.

Mr. Gormley

That is absolute rubbish.

The Taoiseach

Ireland, as a country with a long experience of peacekeeping, has much to give as well as to receive in this area. Today, these tasks are the main focus of activity for every developed country now that the traditional task of military alliances has gone into abeyance with the absence of the identifiable threat from a rival bloc. It would be tragic if Ireland were to be left behind because of political inhibitions that in part relate to another era and that take no account of the huge changes in the world that have happened in the past decade.

Mr. Gormley

On a point of order, will the Taoiseach give way?

An Ceann Comhairle

What is the point of order?

Mr. Gormley

Will the Taoiseach give way?

An Ceann Comhairle

Not at this point. It is too early in his contribution.

Mr. Gormley

That is a matter for the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. The Deputy should not—

Mr. Gormley

It is a point of order. Under Standing Orders I am allowed to do that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy resume his seat?

The Taoiseach

Our sole motivation as a Government is to enhance Ireland's contribution to peacekeeping and the capacity of our Defence Forces for that purpose. I wish to make it clear that we are not acting under political pressure of any kind. Frankly, it is not a matter of great importance to other countries whether we participate in PfP; nobody outside this country has ever mentioned it to me. There are no economic reasons for participation. While on a few occasions in the past foreign ministers of other European countries have successfully attempted to establish linkages between a common European defence policy and, say, participation in monetary union or levels of Structural Funds, the fact is we are already participating in the single currency and we concluded our Agenda 2000 negotiations in March without reference to security issues. People should dismiss any notion of plots, conspiracies or hidden agendas about which a small group of people, who are trying to whip up public paranoia, keep talking.

Mr. Gormley

Who are those people?

The Taoiseach

We have no intention of accepting membership of any nuclear-based alliance such as NATO. We want to see the world rid of nuclear weapons. A mutual defence pact is not even on the agenda of the European Union's common foreign and security policy. All the evidence currently available suggests that, for the foreseeable future, NATO will provide as necessary for the collective defence of its European member countries, without duplication in practice by any other organisation.

Every other European neutral country, including Switzerland, participates in Partnership for Peace. While NATO membership has been the subject of heated political debate in Austria, PfP has been utterly non-controversial in all other European neutral countries, including Switzerland. There is no cause for Ireland to become, at this stage, even more neutral than the neutrals. Partnership for Peace is not undermining the UN or the OSCE. It is complementary to both of them. Regionally-led peacekeeping forces are becoming more and more the norm, as we can see in East Timor.

This is not the first Government to have come to the conclusion that participation in Partnership for Peace is in Ireland's interest. The rainbow coalition's White Paper on Foreign Policy set out the case and came to the conclusion that the overall objectives of PfP are consistent with Ireland's approach to international peace and security, and that "it does not involve membership of NATO, the assumption of any mutual defence commitment or any commitment or obligation in relation to future membership of NATO". The rainbow White Paper went on to state: "Objectively speaking, participation on appropriate terms would not therefore affect in any way Ireland's policy of neutrality nor would it prejudice or pre-empt Ireland's approach to discussions in the D509–A13

European Union on a common defence policy". The White Paper stated that the Government had decided to explore further the benefits Ireland might derive from participation in PfP and to determine the contribution that Ireland might make.

Deputy Dick Spring, who was a much respected Minister for Foreign Affairs, issued the White Paper and told the Dáil on several occasions during Question Time, when I was in the House, that "there was neither a basis nor a need for a referendum on participation in PfP".

Mr. Gormley

And the Taoiseach said it would be fundamentally undemocratic.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach should not be interrupted.

The Taoiseach

It would be fair to acknowledge that the Fine Gael Party has adhered to its position in Government but I have to ask if the Labour Party is now repudiating the clear and unequivocal policy position that Deputy Spring held as Minister for Foreign Affairs? It seems the Labour Party leadership has decided to play politics with the issue, partly as a means of papering over differences in its own ranks. More rein has now been given to the Marxist-inspired anti-Americanism that was the constant hallmark of the Workers' Party and Democratic Left, with the former leader of both now the foreign affairs spokesperson, as well as the president, of the amalgamated Labour Party. To be fair to Deputy De Rossa, he has found a close ally in Deputy Michael D. Higgins and together they have succeeded in modifying, if not reversing, the previous position of the Labour Party in Government.

If the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, was right in saying there was no need or basis for a referendum, then the only issue is one of politics. Our legal advice is clear as set out in the Government explanatory guide. The commitments involved are political and voluntary. They do not place us under any binding obligations in international law. The explanatory guide has been made freely available to anyone requesting it, and if there is public confusion it is primarily because some groups have wanted to create such confusion.

It is perfectly true that Fianna Fáil in Opposition was sceptical about the matter. To put that in context, the rainbow coalition was led by a party, some of whose leaders and former leaders and leading spokespersons have been indifferent or hostile to Irish neutrality and who, from time to time, have expressed the view that Ireland should have joined the allies in World War II and become full members of NATO and-or the Western European Union. There was, therefore, an understandable distrust of long-term intention which, in some instances, may go further than is proposed by this Government. I approve the Fine Gael amendment that any alteration to the Pres entation Document should be brought before this House for approval.

It is in the election manifesto, not any earlier speech in Opposition, which constitutes what a party finally puts to the electorate. In our election manifesto it is correct to say that we opposed Irish participation in PfP, and we promised: "Fianna Fáil in Government will not participate in any co-operative security structure which has implications for Irish neutrality without first consulting the people through a referendum". The full quotation is rarely given because it is a qualified, not an unconditional, commitment. I have on more than one occasion stated in this House that, in a speech during the general election campaign and before the people voted, I expressed an interest in Ireland participating in the newly formed Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. This development in May and June of 1997 in particular and the emergence of PfP as an important framework in its own right have made PfP participation more attractive from our point of view, and it has also rendered somewhat out of date many of the previous comments about PfP by some NATO spokespersons, who are consistently quoted by its opponents.

Mr. M. Higgins

They worked hard on that gloss.

The Taoiseach

Because we have a concern for electoral proprieties, we took the opportunity of the European Parliament elections, which I promised we would do in this House, to set out our changed position on PfP participation so that the people would be democratically consulted before a decision was taken. This superseded what we had said at the last general election. Any party is entitled to change its position, if it puts it to the electorate. The people were consulted in the same way as they are consulted about most issues at elections. Having explained the background to PfP, we stated that we intended to negotiate participation in Partnership for Peace by the autumn. Our manifesto – it was almost the sole issue discussed the day I launched it at a party press conference in a hotel near Leinster House – went on to state: "Such a decision would have no implications for our neutrality and no constitutional implications, and will be taken on the basis of the mandate received by the parties favouring participation standing in the European Elections." We made our intentions absolutely clear to the people. If they had a fundamental objection to Irish participation in PfP, they had the option of voting accordingly, and they did not do so.

Mr. Gormley

That is a ridiculous argument.

The Taoiseach

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael candidates won 11 out of 15 seats, despite strenuous attempts to make an issue out of PfP during the campaign. Some parties had no other policy stance on anything.

Mr. Gormley

To which parties is the Taoiseach referring?

The Taoiseach

It has also been a long-standing feature of our democracy that foreign policy is made by the Government and the Dáil. When Éamon de Valera introduced the Constitution on 11 May 1937, he stated that Article 29 dealing with international relations "puts the question of our international relations in their proper place – and that is outside the Constitution". He distinguished matters of foreign policy from "fundamental rights". To the extent that the European treaties have implications for sovereignty and European legislation may in certain instances impinge on fundamental rights, it has been necessary to put successive treaty revisions before the people. If we were ever to join a military alliance, which would commit us to automatic participation in war if another member country were attacked, that would necessitate a change to Article 29 and a referendum, as the power of making peace or war would effectively be removed from Dáil Éireann. That, however, is not the situation. PfP does not involve us in any binding defence obligations. Its character is of an entirely positive and beneficent character, and I challenge anyone to point out a single PfP activity to date involving other countries that has had a negative or harmful effect.

Mr. Gormley

I will point one out to the Taoiseach now if he wants. In Kosovo—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not interrupt the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

We should accept that NATO increasingly has a dual character.

Mr. Gormley

The Taoiseach asked me a question.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must resume his seat. If the Deputy persists in interrupting, he will leave the Chair with no option but to take appropriate action.

Mr. Gormley

The Taoiseach asked me a question which I want to answer.

The Taoiseach

It is not just a military alliance, but it is also now an organisation making an important contribution to the pursuit of peace and stability across Europe. In its latter capacity, we need to have a working relationship with NATO countries and all others, including Russia, which are prepared to join in PfP.

Strong views have been expressed in this country about the situation in Kosovo, Rwanda and East Timor. As I said to my colleague, the Minister for Defence, this morning, just a few weeks ago there were hundreds of calls to my constitu ency office and my office in Government Buildings about the situation in East Timor, urging us to use our position in this regard and to declare that we would participate in a force there. It is quite clear where the people's concerns lie in these matters.

Mr. Gormley

We support that.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

The Deputy did not support it in the House.

Mr. Gormley

We did not get speaking time. That is the ridiculous—

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. M. Smith

The Deputy stayed out of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Gormley should cease interrupting. The Taoiseach is in possession.

The Taoiseach

The Irish people are not happy to remain silent while human rights are trampled on, or genocide and ethnic cleansing are perpetrated.

Mr. M. Higgins

Some of us have never been silent on these issues.

The Taoiseach

The international community has a right, perhaps even a duty, to intervene. No developed country this decade has rushed in militarily. It is wrong for certain organisations to accuse the United States in the 1990s of aggressive militarism. It intervened in Kuwait and Kosovo only after the failure of months of high level diplomacy. Fortunately, in the case of East Timor, diplomatic and economic pressure proved effective. Reflecting on the League of Nations, de Valera said in 1946 that if there was to be an alternative to futile discussion "there must be a method by which effective forcible action will be taken". He went on, "if there is ever to be a rule of law, nations must make up their minds that they will take part in such enforcement".

Mr. Gormley

Will the Taoiseach give way on a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Taoiseach agrees.

Mr. Gormley

How can the Taoiseach square this speech with what he said here in 1996? This is the direct opposite of everything he said in Opposition. How does he justify that? Does he not think he has lost all credibility?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should now resume his seat.

Mr. M. Smith

That is not a point of order.

The Taoiseach

When the immediate crisis has been confronted, an international peacekeeping force is needed. Ireland must be part of developing best practice internationally, and that means we must be fully involved in an appropriately structured regional organisation such as PfP. Once we and our partners are clear about our intention – we are crystal clear on our determination to maintain our military neutrality – there is no downside to participating in PfP. It is a national extension of our independent foreign policy tradition, which has always been based on a combination of military neutrality and support for collective security.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Taoiseach's speech was interesting for the territory he did not cover, as much as for the territory he covered. I regret he has left the House, but I am sure he has other business to attend to. For that reason, I forgive his discourtesy.

Mr. Roche

Perhaps the Deputy will tell us why he, too, changed his mind.

Proinsias De Rossa

I intend to deal with the issues as I see them. I will deal with that issue in the course of my speech, if the Deputy will permit me. I only have 15 minutes so I would appreciate the opportunity to do that. I have not, and will not, interrupt any speaker in this House.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy should just tell us what he did in the Cabinet in 1986.

Proinsias De Rossa

Two fundamental issues arise in this debate. The first is the question of whether it is desirable that Ireland should become a member of Partnership for Peace. The second is whether it is appropriate and politically acceptable that this should be done without reference to the people, especially having regard to the commitments given by the main Government party, Fianna Fáil, when it was in Opposition.

I want to deal with the second issue first. Political parties change their policies all the time. It would be ludicrous to suggest that parties cannot change their position. If that were the case, politics would stand still, frozen in a bizarre time warp. It is a totally different situation, however, when a party says to the electorate during an election campaign, "If you vote for us, X will not happen". It is a totally different situation where an Opposition party says to the electorate, "If you vote for us, X will not happen without your view being established through a referendum".

This is exactly what has happened in regard to Fianna Fáil and Partnership for Peace. It has already been quoted in this debate, but I will quote again what the Fianna Fáil manifesto for the June 1997 general election said. In that manifesto, Fianna Fáil said it would "oppose Irish participation in . NATO-led organisations like Partnership for Peace".

I will also quote again one of a number of significant things the current Taoiseach said during the debate on the White Paper on Foreign Policy in March 1996. That White Paper indicated the Government would consider the matter of membership of PfP. Speaking of PfP, he said:

We would regard any attempt to push Partnership for Peace or participation in Western European Union tasks by resolution through this House without reference to the people who, under our Constitution have the right "in final appeal to decide on all questions of national policy" [not just questions of constitutional issues, but questions of national policy] as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic . any sleight of hand trying to put it through the House would be fundamentally undemocratic.

Based on what the Taoiseach said on that occasion, what the Government is asking us to do in this motion is "fundamentally undemocratic" and a "sleight of hand". Regardless of how the Government may have changed its mind about the policy issue of Partnership for Peace, it is another matter entirely to claim, on the one hand while in opposition, that something is fundamentally undemocratic and should be referred to the people and then, within a few months of getting into Government, say that is not so. For any party to renege on such a solemn pre-election commitment is to further undermine public confidence in political parties and create further cynicism about the political process.

I acknowledge that the legal advice available to the Government is that no constitutional amendment is required. Similar advice was available to the last Government and was known when the Taoiseach was cynically trying to sweep up extra votes by pledging to hold a referendum. What has changed since March 1996? The only thing which has changed is that Fianna Fáil was then in Opposition seeking votes and is now back in Government and feels it no longer need the votes of those it misled on this issue. Given what has happened in relation to the pledges made and broken by Fianna Fáil on Partnership for Peace, what credence can the public attach to other commitments given by Fianna Fáil, especially those given by the Taoiseach? When he says that there is no question of Ireland joining NATO, how can we be sure this commitment will not be set aside in time, as others have been, if Fianna Fáil considers it politically expedient to do so, as it may well do?

There is no reason a plebiscite could not be held to determine the views of the people on what both supporters and opponents of PfP agree is a significant development in international relations for this country. It would appear that formal amendment of the constitution does not arise in the context of Partnership for Peace, but it is the view of the Labour Party that this issue is of such significance that it should be referred for decision to the people. While a consultative plebiscite of the type provided for in the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill is not referred to or provided for in the Constitution, there is no constitutional bar or impediment to holding a plebiscite.

Plebiscites have been held in other countries from time to time. The most recent and the one with which the people would be most familiar was the plebiscite held in Northern Ireland seeking public endorsement of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. While the outcome of a plebiscite would not be legally binding in the way that a constitutional referendum would be, no Government could ignore the views of the people expressed in this way. As a democrat and someone who has expressed strong reservations about the proposal to join PfP, I have no hesitation in saying that I would accept without qualification the view of the people expressed through a plebiscite.

There is compelling evidence that the people wish to be consulted on this matter. The failure of the Government to honour its pledges is emerging as an issue, even at this early stage, in the Dublin South-Central by-election. The queue of Fianna Fáil backbenchers lining up to put clear water between themselves and their leader on this U-turn is also as a result of the reaction they have received from their own members and supporters. In addition, the only poll, to my knowledge, which asked people their views on a referendum – the MRBI poll in The Irish Times of 14 May – showed an overwhelming majority in favour of holding a plebiscite.

I do not know if the Taoiseach has taken time to re-read his speech to the Dáil on 28 March 1996, but if he has done, I hope he cringed with embarrassment. Apart from making a pledge he clearly had no intention of keeping, he also pandered to the most conservative and chauvinistic forces in Irish society and engaged in a sort of scaremongering which makes rational debate on PfP and related issues more difficult. In 1992 during the Maastricht debate, and again during the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty, there were those who obscured the important issues by talking in emotive terms about young Irish people being sent home in body bags if the people voted "yes". In much the same emotive vein, the Taoiseach spoke in his March 1996 contribution of "British troops back in the Curragh, the French in Bantry Bay, the Germans in Banna Strand, the Spanish in Kinsale and the Americans in Lough Foyle". All that was missing from his speech was the old Fianna Fáil spectre of the RUC on the streets of Tralee.

The proposal to join Partnership for Peace and other issues that this country will face in regard to European security and defence require serious, rational debate. The sort of contribution made by the Taoiseach had nothing to offer in this regard, and was the kind of cynical manipulation for which Fianna Fáil is renowned. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, might be better engaged root ing out this Fianna Fáil culture rather than seeking to end our multi-seat electoral system.

We are living in a period of rapid political change. Within the past ten years we have seen the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the map of eastern Europe change beyond recognition. New alliances are emerging. We have seen old conflicts that many people thought were long dead re-ignite with terrible results in the former Yugoslavia. The Thatcherite tide that threatened to swamp Europe during the 1980s has now been reversed, and much of Europe now has left or centre-left governments. We have seen the European Union develop at a rapid rate, moving closer to political and economic union, with the enactment of the Maastricht Treaty, agreement on the Amsterdam Treaty and the coming into effect from 1 January this year of the single currency. Attitudes are changing, positions are being re-examined and views are evolving. For example, we now have a Green Minister for Foreign Affairs in Germany who attends and participates at meetings of NATO Foreign Ministers. In this rapidly changing world it is simply not sustainable to repeat a meaningless mantra about the so-called sacredness of Irish neutrality as if we were still in the midst of the Second World War or still trapped deep in the dark days of the Cold War.

Despite our neutrality, Ireland has never been an isolationist country. As far back as the 1930s Ireland was an active member of the League of Nations. We have been a member of the United Nations for 40 years. Ireland has served on the Security Council of the United Nations and, on one occasion, provided the President of the General Assembly. Irish troops have served with distinction in virtually every continent on the globe. Irish Foreign Ministers, such as Dick Spring, have served with distinction as President of the EU Council of Foreign Ministers and in that role have helped to broker solutions to many international disputes. The current Minister for Foreign Affairs won widespread praise for his role as EU observer for the referendum in East Timor in August.

I make these points to emphasise that to have reservations about membership of Partnership for Peace, as I have, is not to be isolationist or backward looking. As a member of the European Parliament elected to represent the interests of the people of Dublin and as a firm supporter of deeper European integration, I accept that the process on which the EU has now embarked will lead to a common defence and security architecture for the community. As a member state of the EU which has benefited financially and socially from membership and where support for each of the developments in the Union has been approved by significant majorities at successive referenda, we must be willing to play an active part in this evolving process, both in forming it and participating in it.

However, it must be emphasised that membership of PfP and the development of an appropri ate defence and security architecture for the EU are separate and distinct issues. PfP is a creation of NATO, not of the European Union. I have great reservations about any closer connections between this country and NATO because I believe it is an anachronistic military alliance which retains as the central plank of its military strategy the threatened use of nuclear weapons. I do not have to quote any half-baked general about this. All one has to do is visit the NATO website and one will find hundreds of documents outlining the strategy of NATO and its dependence upon not only nuclear but also chemical and biological weapons. It is a disgrace that the Government produces a motion in the House and a guide for Partnership for Peace without examining the role which NATO sees for itself in the world and Europe, the type of defence posture it adopts and the type weapons it proposes to use against any, not just nuclear, attack on its allies. We need to debate that and not pretend it does not exist. It would be far preferable to have a European security structure subject to the European Union rather than the domination of European security affairs by NATO, which is not accountable to the people. The major advantage of such a structure is that it would ultimately be subject to the democratic checks and balances of the EU Council – the member states – and the European Parliament.

There have been a number of myths about the supposed consequences of staying out of PfP. The most common suggestion has been that Irish troops would be in some way excluded from participation in international peacekeeping operations. This is an unfounded fear. All the peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations in which Irish troops have participated have been under UN mandate. Irish troops left today for East Timor without Ireland being a member of PfP. Irish troops have served in Bosnia and are serving in Kosovo under a UN mandate, but under NATO command on the ground, without Ireland being a member of PfP. There is no reason this should change.

There are a number of points arising from both the Government explanatory guide to PfP and the Presentation Document to which I would like to refer. One of the most significant shortcomings of the guide was its failure to offer any explanation of what NATO is or provide any analysis of its role in the modern world. It says that PfP is a voluntary and co-operative framework for regional security and co-operation between NATO and individual non-members of NATO. Should we not, at least, try to offer some analysis of the role of NATO? Does NATO have any current relevance with the ending of the Cold War and the demise of the Warsaw Pact? If NATO is a defensive organisation, who exactly is it defending its member states against? Are we happy that NATO could, as was the case in Kosovo, launch what was the biggest military offensive in Europe since the end of the Second World War without any mandate from the UN? Do we believe that NATO is entitled to engage in "out of territory" operations? None of these issues were dealt with in the guide book issued by the Government.

In regard to the Presentation Document, I note that it seems to go considerably further than other European neutrals in regard to commitment to peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations. I am particularly concerned that there is no specific commitment in the Presentation Document that Ireland will participate only in peacekeeping or enforcement operations mandated by the United Nations. There is no requirement that such operations be mandated by the EU or even the OSCE. It seems from this document that Ireland could participate in operations "mandated" only by NATO. This is a significant and unwelcome departure in terms of Irish foreign policy.

It is also significant that the Government has accepted the amendment tabled by Fine Gael which specifies that "any future amendment to the areas of participation by Ireland in PfP as outlined in the Presentation Document will be put before the Dáil for approval". Are we to assume from this that had not this amendment been accepted, then the Government would have been free to unilaterally change the terms of our involvement with PfP without any reference to the Dáil? Why does the motion not refer to the fact that the agreement with NATO is for three years, and is then subject to review?

In the light of this it would have been far preferable for our proposed membership of PfP to have been governed by legislation passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, rather than a simple motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's 15 minutes is up.

Proinsias De Rossa

I need just about a minute more, if I could have your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. If we are going to join an organisation like PfP, then it is essential that the terms and conditions on which we join must be covered by primary legislation.

I accept that the issues raised by the proposal to enter PfP and issues relating to European security and defence are complex and difficult matters. I fully respect those, especially on the left, who take a different view to me. It is important that we continue a rational debate on these issues.

However, there is no difficulty about saying that when a party cynically promises to do one thing in opposition and then cynically does the direct opposite in Government, politics and democracy are damaged. Whatever the outcome of this motion – and it does not seem in doubt given the position adopted by Fine Gael – Fianna Fáil, through its handling of this issue, has done serious damage to politics and further undermined people's confidence in politicians.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today in support of the Government's motion concerning participation by Ireland in Partnership for Peace. For some considerable time now I have been convinced of the benefits for Ireland of such participation and have been forthright in advocating that we join PfP. The Irish have always had an international outlook. One has only to recall the conviction, the spirit and the sphere of influence of the monks and scholars of Ireland who were drawn in centuries past to mainland Europe and further afield to share their faith, their learning and their scholarly excellence and in return to bring honour and prestige to their country. One can draw parallels with Ireland's proud tradition of peacekeeping under United Nations mandate. The United Nations has been the cornerstone of Irish foreign policy since we joined that organisation in 1955. Ireland has unfailingly supported the efforts of the UN in the many areas of its worthy activities but most significantly, through the generous response of the Irish people to the call to contribute to peacekeeping and peace support missions. Ireland's contribution to UN peacekeeping matches the best in the world. We continue to be called on to provide such support. PfP is not in conflict with our traditional support for UN peacekeeping operations. It will enhance our capacity to contribute to such operations. Neither will it affect our commitment to peacekeeping outside of Europe.

New and transformed co-operative structures are being developed for more effective conflict prevention and crisis management. It is important that effective strategies for conflict prevention, crisis management and peacekeeping are developed and sustained in order to build stability and security in Europe. Increasingly, regional organisations such as NATO, are being mandated by the UN to undertake peacekeeping, peace support and humanitarian tasks. The obvious examples are SFOR in Bosnia Herzegovina and KFOR in Kosovo where personnel of the Defence Forces contribute to the missions there. It is in these types of situations that Ireland can benefit from participation in PfP, because much of the preparation and training for these new style missions is undertaken by countries under the auspices of PfP.

PfP is but one element in the development of these 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 coun tries such as Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland. Currently, 43 states participate in PfP. PfP was to a certain extent devised as an instrument which would assist in coming to terms with the post – Cold War situation in Europe after the dismantling of the Warsaw pact.

Mr. M. Higgins

And as an alternative to enlarging NATO.

Mr. M. Smith

The development of structures such as PfP, therefore, can be said to reflect 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 posed 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. 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, OSCE, and the European Union is now seeking to develop them under the Amsterdam Treaty. Ireland has been a strong supporter of this important development and looks forward to its provisions becoming effective. It must be borne in mind here that much of the planning and development for the Petersberg Tasks is now also being carried out by countries under PfP programmes. History teaches us that nothing ever remains the same and, as the nature of security threats change, so too do the responses that are called for to deal with such threats and changes. They need to change and adapt in the light of experience. The benefits for Ireland of the opportunity to participate in programmes such as PfP is, therefore, self-evident.

The new European security architecture is essentially a continent-wide undertaking 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 individual states which are not members of NATO. It is this very flexible nature of the arrangement, which 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 in the post – Cold War world. It is said that no man is an island. The old Gaelic expression "ar scath a chéile a mhaireann na daoine" holds as true today of the need for countries to support the efforts of collective security to meet modern day threats as it did in times past in relation to the dependency of the Irish communities on each other for support in saving their harvests or, in sharing the basic necessities of life.

The recent turmoil in the former Yugoslavia is probably the best example of the new approach of mutually reinforcing co-operation between a range of institutions, for example, the UN, the EU, NATO, the OSCE, the Western European Union, Western European Union, and the Council of Europe. As Minister for Defence, I am pleased our Defence Forces have been able to play a part in that troubled region. I have seen at first hand the fruits of their endeavours in Sarajevo and I have been proud of their contribution. I have also seen clearly there, and in Lebanon, that military tasks go hand in hand with humanitarian ones.

Partnership for Peace has been complemented by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, which includes all members of PfP. The EAPC grew out of consultations involving 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 EAPC is open to all OSCE states which have subscribed to PfP's Framework Document. Ireland will participate in the EAPC on joining PfP. The EAPC and PfP can be described as instruments of collective co-operation.

Participation in PfP will not involve membership of NATO and will not bring Ireland into any form of alliance involving mutual defence commitments. Neither will it constitute or imply any undertaking or intention to become a member of NATO at any time in the future. There is nothing in the Framework Document which suggests otherwise. Participation in PfP will not affect Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality. A policy of military neutrality must be matched by a willingness to engage with other countries in the necessary collective efforts that are required to meet the security challenges of today and of the years ahead.

All along, Ireland's willingness to participate in UN peacekeeping missions has been motivated by a firm belief that we have a moral imperative to assist our fellow human beings, to put it simply, to play our part. The same now applies to Partnership for Peace. The overall objectives of PfP are consonant with Ireland's approach to international peace and European security. It involves voluntary and non-binding co-operation. Its objectives are in tune with how we see Ireland continuing to be a significant player in the field of international relations.

Ireland's proposed Presentation Document, which is before the House today, sets out the areas of co-operation envisaged for the Defence Forces. These include peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks which are in line with traditional and long standing involvement and experience in those worthy areas of service to others. Considerable benefits will accrue to the Defence Forces in terms of training opportunities and the experience that participation in PfP activities will afford them. These areas are expanding progressively.

Partnership for Peace will allow the Defence Forces to upgrade their skills and 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 in an era in which the nature and scope of such peacekeeping missions is changing.

The United Nations has undergone a critical change in how it organises and implements peacekeeping and peace support missions. Increasingly, it is 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 continue to play a leading role as a contributing nation to international peacekeeping operations.

The Defence Forces, in turn, have much to offer to other participating states in terms of the cumulative experience and insight which they have gained over many years in a wide variety of peacekeeping missions. Defence Forces facilities which could be made available for training purposes include the United Nations Training School and a language laboratory at the Curragh with associated infrastructure and courses. All of this is reflected in the Presentation Document.

The experience and expertise of the Defence Forces in the field of peacekeeping is well recognised by many countries who undoubtedly will seek to benefit from it under Partnership for Peace. This experience will be readily imparted to those countries and, as a result, this will give Ireland an influence in how peacekeeping operations will be conducted in the future. When I visited ESFOR and held discussions with representatives of the defence forces from other countries, especially NATO countries, I became aware of the extent to which they are unfamiliar with the peacekeeping activities and experience of the Irish. We join Partnership for Peace as a country with a significant contribution to make in terms of perhaps influencing and changing others who may not have had peacekeeping and the humanitarian tasks associated with it as high on their agenda as they could and should have. In joining Partnership for Peace we decide what we want to be involved in and what contribution we want to make. This is the principle of self-differentiation and it will allow Ireland the flexibility to control its level of participation in PfP activities.

As I said earlier, and I repeat, Partnership for Peace 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. Oppression of a people, genocide, such as in East Timor, ethnic cleansing and other such abuses all present a challenge to countries such as Ireland, which are thankfully spared such barbarities, and which are in a position to offer help no matter how modest it might appear. Ireland's willingness to participate in missions such as KFOR and INTERFET is motivated as much by a firm belief in the moral obligation which rests on the shoulders of the international community to support the UN in its tireless efforts in conflict prevention and peacekeeping in these troubled spots as by our sense of outrage at the infliction of such suffering on our fellow human beings. Above all, it is motivated by our firm conviction that we must stand beside other nations who respond, and play our part.

I have long been an advocate of joining Partnership for Peace and I restate that position here in the House today. As the Taoiseach has pointed out, we can make PfP a logical extension of Ireland's foreign policy, not a departure or aberration from the independent foreign policy tradition we have espoused and developed and of which we are rightly proud.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ba mhaith liom labhairt in aghaidh an rúin atá molta ag an Rialtas agus ar son an leasú i m'ainm féin agus in ainm na dTeachtaí Gormley, Gregory, Higgins agus Sargent. Tá an Rialtas ag ionsaí an daonlathais leis an rún seo. Cá bhfuil an ionadaíocht i bhFianna Fáil anois do na mílte daoine a vótáil don pháirtí sin sa toghchán deireannach? Chuir an Taoiseach dallamhullóg ar an phobal agus ar a lán daoine in a pháirtí féin.

No Government in recent Irish history has made such a brazen U-turn as that perpetrated by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on the Partnership for Peace, or the partnership for NATO, as it should properly be called. Last week in this Chamber the Taoiseach, in an astonishing remark which went largely unreported in the media, described what was set down clearly in the 1997 Fianna Fáil general election manifesto as a "so-called commitment." This remark showed outright contempt for the electorate, which returned Fianna Fáil to the Dáil as the largest party and the main party in Government. I make no apology for quoting in full the commitment made in the 1997 Fianna Fáil manifesto:

Fianna Fáil are committed to nuclear disarmament. We will oppose any moves to edge Ireland closer to membership of an alliance still committed to the deployment of nuclear weapons. We oppose Irish participation in NATO itself, in NATO-led organisations such as Partnership for Peace, or in the Western European Union beyond observer status.

Those words could not have been made any clearer. They should be written in giant letters throughout the country to remind the people of the broken promises, the betrayal and the sell-out of Irish neutrality being engineered by Fianna Fáil this week.

In March 1996 the then leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bertie Ahern, stated that any attempt to join the so-called Partnership for Peace without a referendum would be "a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic". That faith has now been broken and what is taking place here this week is indeed fundamentally undemocratic. A Government elected on the basis of opposition to PfP and a promise to hold a referendum if membership was proposed is denying the people their right to vote. Who now will represent the tens of thousands of Fianna Fáil voters and the many members of that party who supported, and still support, the position articulated in the 1997 general election? Where are the Fianna Fáil backbenchers now? Is there a single one of them with the conscience to keep the promise they made to the people? Is there a single one of them with the courage to stop acting like sheep and to stand up like the elected representatives and legislators they are supposed to be? I want to challenge the false and insidious notion which has been peddled around the corners and back stairs of Leinster House in recent days. It has been whispered to journalists by some Fianna Fáil members that we must go into partnership for NATO in order to remain in favour with the United States Administration for the sake of the peace process. I can only describe this as a cynical spin, used as a last resort by Fianna Fáil members. It is a sordid attempt to manipulate the universal goodwill for the Irish peace process in order to excuse the duplicity of the Fianna Fáil leadership.

There was some protest from the Fine Gael benches yesterday when Deputy O'Kennedy criticised the calls by former senior Army officers for membership of PfP, but no one mentioned the much more serious statement from the current serving Chief of Staff of this State's military forces, David Stapleton, in Clonmel on 7 October. He quite openly urged membership of PfP and, thus, intervened directly in the political field only days before the issue was to be debated in this House. We heard the argument last night from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the PfP is not institutionally linked to NATO. It would be laughable, if it were not so tragic, that the Government, even at this stage, is still trying to fool the people and to distance NATO from the PfP. There can be no doubt that in joining PfP the Government is placing this State firmly within the NATO camp. For the first time, an Irish ambassador is being appointed to NATO and Irish troops will train with NATO troops. Despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, PfP entry is the preliminary step to full membership of NATO and the Western European Union.

A NATO report published in 1995 stated: "Active participation in Partnership for Peace will play an important role in the evolutionary process of the enlargement of NATO." In July 1998, NATO's Assistant General Secretary, Gerhardt Von Moltke, said: "The new Partnership for Peace is now welded to the new NATO." PfP headquarters are part of NATO headquarters in Brussels. The very flag of the PfP incorporates the NATO symbol. The international arms trade wants the expansion of NATO and the PfP because it knows that it stands to profit enormously from it. The armed forces of the PfP states are to upgrade their military equipment to NATO standards and, of course, the states with whom we are allying ourselves are armed with nuclear weapons. How is it possible for the Government to credibly oppose the arms trade and nuclear weapons, as it claims it wishes to do, when by joining PfP we are contributing to the military industrial complex which sustains these evils?

We have all been appalled by the genocide carried out by Indonesia against the people of East Timor. The Irish people have been to the fore among those who expressed solidarity and who gave practical help to the East Timorese people long before the latest crisis in their history. Yet the Government now wants us to enter a formal alliance with the very powers who armed and supported the Indonesian regime during the two and a half decades of their occupation of East Timor.

The Government claims that its priority in joining PfP is peacekeeping. This State has won respect for its involvement in peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the United Nations. The expansion of NATO through PfP can only serve to weaken the United Nations. A fundamental principle of the UN is to work against the division of the world's nations into armed power blocs. The end of the Cold War should also have spelt the end of such power blocs, but instead we have seen NATO expanding and seeking world domination. We cannot be real peacekeepers if we participate in the continuing expansion of NATO or in the creation of a European super state with a military arm. Sinn Féin believes there is no role for the European Union in military and defence matters. International peacekeeping should be under the auspices of the United Nations and Irish foreign policy should be based on the strengthening of the United Nations and on disarmament.

As an Irish republican, I must underscore a reality of which I am very conscious. There are NATO alligned troops currently on Irish soil. They still occupy barracks and other military installations in the six north eastern counties of our country. As a TD for a party which represents communities which have endured that occupation for decades, I also reject membership of PfP on those grounds. It is totally unacceptable for an Irish Government to align itself militarily with NATO when a branch of the NATO army still occupies a part of our country. Deputy Gay Mitchell thinks this is a good reason for us to join PfP and, in due course, NATO itself. He wants an Ireland united under NATO. No one should be surprised at that. At least it can be said of Deputies Mitchell, O'Malley and others that they openly advocate the end of our neutrality, unlike those who claim to uphold it and then undermine it, as Fianna Fáil is now doing.

Instead of joining a NATO front group, the Irish Government should be posing questions such as: why does NATO still exist so long after the end of the Cold War? Clearly, there is a community of interests in maintaining and expanding NATO, not between the peoples, the communities of the NATO member states, but between the armament industries, the military establishments, the intelligence agencies and sections of the political establishment which never wanted to abandon an alliance that gave them power, profit and prestige for so long. Those who support PfP accuse us of having no alternative. Their interpretation of neutrality is opting out. The arguments of those who promoted PfP here in recent years has been helped by the failure of successive Governments to adopt proactive neutrality. There is a need for a debate on neutrality, a debate about how we can build upon it, strengthen it and make it a much more meaningful principle and policy. Instead we have, on the one hand, the recruiting sergeants of Fine Gael who want us to join NATO and, on the other, Fianna Fáil who are inflicting death by a thousand cuts on the neutrality of this State.

The Irish people have a very special role to play in international affairs. As a people who have had to fight against colonialism, we are unique in the European Union, most States of which are former colonial powers. We have the capacity to be a bridge between Europe and the peoples of what is called the South, the poorer nations of the world representing the majority of humanity. The State has played that role intermittently in the past. To develop and expand such a strategy would be positive neutrality in action, using the goodwill and respect enjoyed by the Irish nation throughout the world to promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts, disarmament, protection of the environment and the fair distribution of the world's resources.

We see yet again across those benches the grand coalition of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, who on this, as on so many issues, are found to be hand in hand once the smoke of mock battle has lifted. I am proud to stand with the real Opposition in this House today, the genuine opponents of this sell-out of our neutrality, small in number though we may be. We will be returning to the defence of our neutrality again in this House and eventually in future referenda and elections. On those occasions the duplicity we have witnessed this week will come back to haunt those who have tried once too often to hoodwink the Irish people.

Molaim an leasú agus cuirim i gcoinne rún an Rialtas.

Mr. M. Moynihan

I wish to share time with Deputy Browne. Having given this matter and all the arguments which have been put forward careful consideration, I am in favour of Ireland joining Partnership for Peace. By doing so Ireland will re-state its commitment to the development of a just and peaceful international society based on the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Partnership for Peace and the co-operative values which underline it are comparable with these commitments and objectives. Joining Partnership for Peace will be good for Ireland.

Ireland has been very successful in carving out a niche for itself in the increasingly interconnected global world. This has been achieved in large part by becoming involved in so many international organisations. Joining PfP will reiterate our commitment to world peace and show the world that we too want to play our part.

Currently there are many international organisations maintaining peace in the Balkans, including the UN and PfP. This alone shows how complex the issues are. Ireland has played its part in many of these organisation and membership of PfP will allow us make a substantial and positive contribution. Ireland agrees with the basic concept of Partnership for Peace. Stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area can only be achieved through co-operation and common action. Ireland shares the values fundamental to PfP as set out in the PfP framework document. This includes protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights and safeguarding freedom, justice and peace through democracy. In joining PfP Ireland in common with other PfP nations will reaffirm its commitment to fulfil in good faith the obligations of the UN charter and the principles of the universal declaration on human rights.

Critics have argued that joining PfP will lead to greater spending. I suppose this is certainly justified, but a number of other neutral countries in Europe, such as Austria, is spending less than Ireland in this context. We have to upgrade our Defence Forces, something we might take a closer look at on joining PfP.

One of the biggest difficulties and concerns raised by the vast majority of people is that by joining Partnership for Peace we might jeopardise our neutrality. Neutrality has been a benchmark of our foreign policy and a respected part of that policy for many years. We should continue to be a neutral nation. Having read various accounts and studied various documents on Partnership for Peace, and having spoken to many people who have contacted me and other Deputies on all sides of the House, I firmly believe that joining Partnership for Peace will not jeopardise our neutrality. There are many nations which uphold neutrality and which, like Ireland, will remain neutral while being members of Partnership for Peace. We must join other organisations – we cannot remain on our own as a small nation, something proved by our membership of the EU.

We can be proud of the many peacekeeping operations in which Ireland has been involved since 1958. There have been 46,000 individual tours of duty involving 37 UN peacekeeping mis sions. Based on this experience Ireland is prepared to participate in and contribute to co-operation in the partnership framework in such areas as operations, planning for peacekeeping and peace support, communications, command, control, operations procedures, training and logistics. Ireland's experience in peacekeeping has underlined the importance of international co-operation and by moving forward and joining PfP at this stage we can continue our excellent track record in this field. I would be concerned if joining Partnership for Peace jeopardised our neutrality. I am very much in favour of us remaining neutral. We should do whatever we can in bringing peace and resolution to international conflicts, but we should definitely not jeopardise our neutrality.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): For the past 40 years Ireland has been actively engaged in UN peacekeeping missions, with more than 46,000 individual tours of duty. As a nation we are very proud of Ireland's peacekeeping record and although Irish soldiers and their families have paid a high price in serving Ireland and the UN in peacekeeping missions over the years, their work continues to receive the wholehearted support of the Irish people. All of the 46,000 tours of duty were completed without Ireland being a member of PfP. The tour of duty in East Timor would have commenced without Ireland being a member of PfP. There is absolutely no reason we cannot continue to play a positive role in peacekeeping operations across the world while at the same time remaining outside PfP. The Treaty of Amsterdam allows that freedom to our Government and other governments.

Joining PfP is the thin end of the wedge in terms of getting us into a military alliance. The PfP was originally put in place by NATO to encourage the Warsaw Pact and other countries to work under the umbrella of NATO. I feel NATO had a second objective, namely, to get the neutral states of the EU, such as Ireland, into alignment with it. Joining PfP will open the door, however small the opening, to interfering with our neutrality. I am a member of the Council of Europe and listen to delegations from EU countries and countries about to become members of the EU in debates and in the corridors of power, and they talk about a European military alliance and one European army. Where does Irish neutrality fit into such debates and decisions? The document, Intergovernmental Conference 1996: Commission Opinion – Reinforcing Political Union and Preparing for Enlargement, contains statements that concern me, including "This requires better integration of the armaments industry into the general Treaty rules, greater solidarity and co-operation, including the establishment of an armaments agency, and a consistent approach to foreign trade" and "To establish a proper European identity with regard to security and defence as an integral part of Common Foreign and Security Policy". The thoughts and ideas of the European Commission concern me.

The Minister informed us that our Army will greatly benefit from training with NATO forces and will also be equipped with the most up-to-date and modern arms. Will NATO commanders be in charge of our Army personnel serving abroad? The Minister informed us also that the Government will be able to decide the role and place at any time of the Army. What assurances can he give in that respect given that NATO is made up of more powerful countries which are likely to prevail? Up to now Ireland has responded to calls from the United Nations to become involved in peacekeeping roles. Will that continue to be the situation or will we be tied to decision-making by NATO?

Irish neutrality has had a number of positive features to date, including non-participation in the international arms trade, non-involvement in a military alliance and the freedom to speak with an independent voice on world issues in a way that could not be easily dismissed as based on self-interest. The Government could proactively use neutrality to assist and be a facilitator in the areas of conflict prevention and resolution. Our position as a member of PfP will make it impossible to play such a role. We will be seen to be aligned with some of the major superpowers and aggressors such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom and others. The Minister should insert the following protocol in the presentation document: "Nothing in our membership of PfP would affect our military neutrality without a referendum being put to the Irish people."

I have expressed the view at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party that having promised to hold a referendum on the issue we should go down that road. Cynicism among voters about politicians is at an all-time high while voter turnout at elections is at an all-time low. We have made a major mistake in not giving the people a say. That is the reason I ask the Minister to include my protocol in his final deliberations in the House next week. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is aware, being chairman of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, I have made my case but without success. I have been a voice in the wilderness. The road we are going down in joining PfP is not the correct one and will have serious consequences for our stance on neutrality. What are the human and financial implications? I fear they will be enormous. We will now be involved in interstate conflicts not of our making but at what cost?

These are my views which are sincerely held. I cannot see the advantages in joining PfP. We could remain on the outside, as the Amsterdam Treaty allows, and still play a magnificent role in peacekeeping throughout the world as we have done for 40 years. As Deputy Howlin is aware, we pay tribute annually in Barntown and Camolin to two men who lost their lives in the Congo, Fitzgerald and Wickham. I salute and pay tribute to the peacekeepers for the wonderful work they have done in the name of Ireland. They have been wonderful ambassadors.

We have made the wrong decision in this matter but I am a democrat and I was not successful in making my case. I will continue, however, to argue that the people should be given their say on the question of Irish neutrality.

Mr. Ring

I am contributing to this debate not because I am an expert on foreign policy or on this issue but because I have been contacted by many of my constituents. The Taoiseach spoke this morning about the former President and Taoiseach and former great Fianna Fáil leader, about whom many still speak, Éamon de Valera, who said in this House in 1938 that there was no such thing as neutrality.

Deputy Browne may be a democrat but he and his colleagues informed the people that Fianna Fáil in government would hold a referendum on this issue. If Deputy Browne really believes what he said, both he and his colleagues who have expressed the same view should vote against the Government next week. Deputy Browne is correct. It gives politics and politicians a bad name and leads to a lack of trust. When Leader of the Opposition, the Taoiseach informed the people that Fianna Fáil in government would hold a referendum on this issue. What he is doing is wrong.

The Taoiseach knows what the position of the Fine Gael Party is. Many people in my constituency who would not agree with the Fine Gael view have said that the one thing that can be said about the Fine Gael Party is that it has been consistent in and out of government and they respect us for it. I am glad there is still some honour left in politics.

There have been rumblings in the Fianna Fáil Party on this issue. Why do Deputy Browne and his colleagues not table a motion at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, of which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is chairman? If such a motion was tabled I am certain the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who is a democrat, would allow it to be discussed and permit a straight vote. We should not be hypocritical, saying one thing and doing something else. That is the reason people are annoyed and confused, and who confused them? The Fianna Fáil Party did not spell out in opposition what joining PfP would mean. It had to be different to please the people to get into government. Now that it is in government it has a different view.

It annoys and upsets me when people cannot be truthful in politics. That is the reason I am calling on the Taoiseach to let the people decide. I and the Fine Gael Party will still be consistent, we should take part in PfP. The people will make the decision and perhaps we will all be pleasantly surprised that a majority might say it is the right thing to do.

Like many Members of the Oireachtas, I was contacted by phone and fax about the situation in East Timor. Everyone asked me to contact the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the European Union to make sure something was done. It was terrible to see, night after night, thousands of people fleeing their homes and being butchered, murdered and raped. People were outraged and they wanted us to do something about it. However, while they did not like it, I told many of those who rang me that it was the same old story; we want everybody else to resolve our problems. We do not mind sending in American or British soldiers, but we do not want to send in Irish ones.

Like many others, I have been given a guarantee that PfP will not interfere with our neutrality, which is fair and honest. If Fianna Fáil had said that in Opposition as well as now in Government, we would have no problem with that guarantee. I tell Fianna Fáil's backbenchers that the situation is quite clear – there is no difficulty with PfP. It will be good for Army personnel to go abroad and gain experience in peacekeeping, new weaponry and in other areas. They will represent this country which is part of the EU. We cannot take all the good things out of the EU, yet not play our part in a peacekeeping force.

People are outraged, however, because they were promised a referendum on PfP membership and now the Government is doing something else. That cannot and should not continue. At this late stage the Government should reconsider the matter and hold a referendum. The Government should tell the people it has changed its mind and that it will honour its previous commitment to a referendum in the interests of natural justice.

Over the years, the Army has done us proud in many peacekeeping missions abroad. Up to now, 46,000 such individual missions have been served with the United Nations and I compliment the Defence Forces personnel for that. The Army would acknowledge that in recent years it has not had the best PR image and, like politicians, was not very well thought of by the general public. The one thing that maintained positive publicity and kept Army morale high, however, was the participation by our troops in overseas missions. They did their country proud, but a price had to be paid for that. My own constituency paid a major price because many Defence Forces personnel from County Mayo died while serving in peacekeeping missions abroad. I thank their families for the service they rendered to the State. While bad PR is another issue, we must compliment the Army for the good things it does.

Since independence, and regardless of the political situation, the Army and Garda have served the State well. We had a turbulent time in the 1920s and 1930s when the first Governments were being formed and there could have been a coup d'état. Such an event never occurred, however, because the Army and Garda always supported the democratically elected Government. They always will do so and I compliment them for it.

Fianna Fáil has done politics and politicians a disservice in the way it has treated the PfP issue. The main problem is the confusion Fianna Fáil has caused and because of that, people cannot trust that party now in relation to PfP. That is the one big issue that has not emerged in this debate. People know that PfP membership is not so serious and that it will not interfere with our neutrality nor put us into big alliances, such as NATO. The problem is, however, that they are afraid of what the Government will do and what it will lead to. If the Government says it will not lead on to something, how can the public believe it? One cannot believe it because before the election it said we would not join PfP without a referendum, yet once in Government the referendum idea was thrown out of the window. They come in here quoting de Valera, but that is why people do not trust them. That is why people are afraid and have no confidence in the Government.

Government backbenchers should do the honourable thing if they feel so strongly about the PfP issue. We are all democrats. There is an excuse for Fianna Fáil TDs on this occasion because they can say that when they became Government backbenchers they did so on foot of the party's manifesto which quite clearly stated there would be a referendum on joining PfP. Fianna Fáil backbenchers are great at saying one thing in the House, while another thing is occurring outside. This has happened for years and more recently in relation to scandals. On this occasion they are telling the media they are dissatisfied and do not agree with the Government's decision on PfP membership. If they do not agree with it, they should walk through the lobbies next week and vote against it. That is all they have to do, and people will then say: "Look at Deputy John Browne. He is a man of principle. His party leader and party did not honour their commitment but he has honoured his." There are four or five more who have signed a declaration saying they are not in favour of abandoning a referendum on PfP membership.

One of the few jobs we get to do in this House – and for which we receive any respect – is to vote ‘níl' or ‘tá' when we walk through the lobbies. Fianna Fáil backbenchers have the opportunity on this occasion to say ‘yes' or ‘no'. They should not say one thing to the media and another thing at the parliamentary party meeting, while voting differently in the lobbies.

Fine Gael has been consistent on this matter. People may not agree with our views but at least they recognise our honesty and they know where our party stands. Fianna Fáil cannot be all things to all men; a bit like de Valera in 1938 when he said that there was no such thing as neutrality. I do not pretend to be an expert on foreign policy, but the reason I contributed to the debate is that I do not like to see the sort of hypocrisy that has gone on in recent years concerning this issue. Fianna Fáil has caused confusion over it.

I listened to the Taoiseach earlier but I do not know how he can make such a speech. The spin doctors and civil servants were probably up all night wondering how they would draft it. I am sure the Taoiseach did not want to come into the House to read that speech after he had given an earlier commitment that Fianna Fáil, when in Government, would hold a referendum on PfP membership. It must be an awful situation for the Taoiseach to be in. I have not had the pleasure of serving in Government, but three Deputies present in the Chamber have done so: Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Howlin and the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob.

It must be awfully lonely to be out of Government when one wants to be in office. The Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, could not wait to get his hands on the throne of power. He would have said anything to anybody to get into Government. It is a sad day for democracy and for public life when people cannot honour what they say when in Opposition. The Taoiseach should not be ashamed to say he did something wrong. He did not tell people the truth. If it was the truth he would have been here today saying: "I am going to do now what we promised before the election." How can they now say that they changed their minds? Spin doctors are well paid and they did a good job on the Taoiseach's script, but people feel strongly about this issue and they are outraged and annoyed. They will certainly wait for Fianna Fáil in the long grass. People do not forget and they do not like to be given misinformation. If they are told one thing before an election, they expect that to be delivered in Government.

We can discuss neutrality, but there are many dangerous people and much turmoil in this world. There are problems in many parts of the world and the international situation is probably more dangerous now than it has ever been. Whatever our policies, in or out of Government, they should be consistent.

Mr. O'Malley

I would like to respond to Deputy Ring's assurance that the people do not forget, but I can tell him that they do.

Mr. Ring

I do not think they do.

Mr. O'Malley

They do.

Mr. Ring

I do not think so.

Mr. O'Malley

They do. The make up of this House would be very different if they did not forget, but they do.

I fully support the motion that Ireland should participate in the Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Hopefully the decision will be made by next week at the latest and the current indications are that the motion can expect a positive response from the Dáil. If this proves to be the case, it is a welcome development. It is not a decision of great moment, although its opponents will try to portray it as such. It is a modest step in international co-operation. In participating, we are taking our place with virtually every other European nation, together with the nations of North America and Central Asia. Many of the members of the partnership are former members of the Warsaw Pact. More are former constituent republics of the Soviet Union. The diversity of the membership is so broad that it is almost universal from the eastern Pacific Ocean to the north-western Chinese border.

Those of us who have long advocated participation in the partnership have begun to tire of hearing the mantra that Ireland's traditional neutrality – whatever that may be – will be prejudiced. If that is so, why have genuine intellectually and ideologically convinced neutrals, such as Sweden, Austria, Finland and Switzerland, been able to join? None of these countries has expressed a desire to join NATO and they appear to have no such intention. Why are we still told that the PfP is but a stepping stone to NATO? The facts are different from some of the fantasy that is sought to be developed in that regard.

Some people never mention the partnership without describing it as "NATO-led". The truth is that it is not NATO-led. It may have been, in 1994, the creation of the post-Cold War NATO but it is not the creature of NATO and its current members will be the first to say so. Would the Swiss be members if it was a creature of NATO? The central fact is that the partnership entails no treaty or alliance obligations. It is, therefore, fundamentally and generically different from NATO or any other military alliance. It entails no obligations of mutual defence or assistance. It essentially consists of one enormous à la carte menu from which partners or prospective partners can choose such items as appeal to them and reject the balance.

Looking at Ireland's presentation document, published last week, one is forced to the conclusion that Ireland is on a restricted diet as far as the partnership dishes are concerned. The Government has listed five items only, which are as follows: (1) co-operation on peacekeeping; (2) humanitarian operations; (3) search and rescue; (4) co-operation in the protection of the environment; and (5) co-operation in marine matters. These are harmless headings. They could scarcely be described as a contribution to global belligerency. The short presentation document of five pages could hardly ruffle a feather or raise an eyebrow in the most pacifist of Irish households.

In the run up to several of the European Union treaties, there was an unbalanced debate in Ireland where all sorts of wild claims and allegations were made and an atmosphere approaching hysteria was sought to be generated in some quarters. We then signed the treaty and ratified it and no more was heard until the next one came along. The dark forebodings were proven to be groundless and so it will be with this move. In a year's time we will ask one another what all the fuss was about. If a fuss was justified, because we were imposing on ourselves some form of international military obligations, why was that fuss not kicked up in Switzerland? The Swiss bring democracy to its extremes. Each year there are several referenda held on a variety of matters there. Even such relatively trivial local issues as the closing time in bars can be the subject of a referendum. There is provision in the Swiss system that a comparatively small number of citizens can petition for a referendum and it must be granted. However, in Switzerland there was no petition for a referendum on PfP. This may be because the Swiss are somewhat more factual and less emotional than us and are not prepared to be misled by propaganda which is clearly duplicitous.

The significance of the Swiss position may be more fully understood when we realise that they joined the Partnership for Peace without a murmur and, indeed, with some enthusiasm, but they are not prepared to join the United Nations because they see in its charter the possibility of having international obligations thrust upon them. In this respect, they are legally and factually correct. The Europe we inhabit has made giant strides in economic co-operation. Political co-operation in matters internal to the European Union has improved greatly. Where we all fall down is in the development of a common foreign and security policy. The great weakness is our collective inability to cope on an agreed basis with serious external insecurity such as the Balkans.

As Europeans we have been rescued from our common paralysis in Bosnia and Kosovo by the Americans, although the Balkans is much more our problem than theirs. I find it difficult to tolerate, either as a European or an Irishman, that we render ourselves impotent where foreign and security policy arises. Irish people are essentially internationalists, not isolationists. Why do some of us try to deny our international heritage by balking at meaningful co-operation with others unless it results in money for ourselves?

Ireland since Independence has had a proud record of engagement in world affairs. We played an active role in Commonwealth conferences in the 1920s and 1930s. Éamon de Valera made impassioned efforts to make a success of the League of Nations – Seán Lestor was its last Secretary General. After the Second World War Ireland seriously considered joining NATO but the Government of the day finally decided against it due mainly to the continuance of partition which we then chose not to recognise. Our initial attempts to become members of the UN fell foul of Cold War politics and we were not able to join that organisation until 1955. Since then Irish Ministers, diplomats and particularly soldiers have made a valuable contribution to the United Nations. From the Congo to Cyprus to Lebanon, Irish soldiers have a proud record of peacekeeping with the United Nations. They recently participated in the NATO-led peacekeeping operations of SFOR and KFOR.

Our membership of the then European Economic Community in 1973 moved our involvement in Europe in particular onto a new plane. The Amsterdam Treaty represents the latest development in the European Union. The main foreign policy innovation in that treaty was the incorporation of the Petersberg Tasks, of humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management activities in the Union's common foreign and security policy. For Ireland to continue its proud record of involvement in international affairs, we must now turn our attention in a more focused way to the maintenance of European security and stability. Partnership for Peace will enable us to do this. PfP is a voluntary framework for regional security co-operation. It has a particular focus on co-operation for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.

Of the 43 countries currently involved in PfP, 24 are not members of NATO. These include our fellow EU neutral states, Austria, Finland and Sweden. The representatives of those countries, together with those of Switzerland, gave evidence to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in July last year. These representatives – the ambassadors – reported that their countries' participation in PfP posed no problems for them in respect of their neutrality.

Neutrality does not preclude full and active support by Ireland for collective security based on international law. We cannot afford to sit on the fence in the hope that neutrality alone will achieve international peace and security. The circumstances prevailing now indicate that membership of PfP is the best means of allowing Ireland to enhance its contribution to international peace and security.

Partnership for Peace will be of tremendous benefit to our Defence Forces. It will enable them to strengthen further their capacity for UN peacekeeping, humanitarian operations, search and rescue and environmental protection. It will give the Defence Forces access to enhanced training and the latest equipment. The former UN Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said in 1996 with regard to UNPROFOR that a mandate for peacekeeping by lightly equipped forces can hardly any longer meet its purpose. Ireland must participate in PfP to be able to participate fully in the Petersberg tasks. In view of the Labour Party's considerable confusion about this motion, I will quote its official spokesman on foreign affairs, Deputy Spring, who said on 28 October 1998 to the foreign affairs committee: "Most colleagues know where I stand on PfP: we should be in PfP".

When the democratic world is forced from time to time to deal with a tyrant, it is better that it has the ability to do so rather than the self-inflicted need to appease him. Even the most skilful diplomacy will occasionally come up against brick walls. Rather appropriately, the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs reminded the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs of Bismark's dictum: "Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments".

Mr. Howlin

I greatly welcome the opportunity to contribute to a debate which should be taking place not only in this House but across the country. I have paid close attention to the debate and a great deal needs to be said about the future security arrangements for Europe and the security involvement of this country. I also wish to dispel any real or imagined confusion that exists in the minds of Deputy O'Malley and others about the position of my party on this matter.

We live in a changed world. The dominant forces that characterised the Cold War after the end of the Second World War have changed. There is now one global superpower. However, it is not a safer world. It is a post-imperialist world that is divided in terms of access to the resources for advancement. The ever present challenges to the rule of law, the sustaining of basic human rights and the maintenance of democracy are real. Democracy is a fragile instrument, a creature largely of this century and, as we witnessed this week in the democracy of Pakistan, it is a vulnerable system of government.

Everybody who is committed to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights must have an international perspective. I am greatly concerned, as most Members would be, about the current state of world affairs. The certainties of the past have evaporated and threats to the stability of existing democratic nations are real, not imagined. In the past decade we witnessed, in a country that is within two hours flying time of this city, unspeakable brutality, carnage and rape and the reintroduction of the words "concentration camps" into our vocabulary. These events are real and they must influence the debate we are having now.

What is required – this is entirely supported by the Labour Party – is a new framework of European security that is forged from the times we live in and not anchored to the past and its antagonisms. The new security architecture should be based on fundamental and acceptable principles such as democratic accountability, the rule of law and the vindication and maintenance of human rights. This discussion must take place in that context and in the context of the major debate that is taking place both on the future of the European Union, with enlargement imminent, and the creation of mechanisms to sustain the economic and social progress the people of Europe have made in recent decades and which they yearn to make in coming decades.

It also must be anchored in the reality that there is a need for fundamental reform of the United Nations. The Government should allow that debate take place. It should publish its views on the future of the United Nations, how it can be structured and how the honourable service – to which many speakers have alluded – of Irish soldiers over many years in UN peacekeeping missions can be crafted for the future. That has not happened. That debate is being stifled and, if the Government had its way, it would end today. At least the opportunity will be afforded to many Members of this House to participate in the debate but, by right, the opportunity should be afforded to every citizen.

We live in a communications age and a world where the phenomenon of instant communication will increase rapidly. We have and will continue to witness barbarous crimes against humanity and the abuse of human rights. That will be brought daily into our living rooms and put into our consciousness through the communications media. We simply cannot wring our hands in horror and make nebulous demands that something must be done. As a modern sovereign European nation, Ireland must be a participant in the resolution of conflict and involve itself in vindicating human rights and the rule of law.

The Labour Party does not wish to opt out of any of this. On the contrary, we have engaged ourselves directly, as the most internationalist party in the House, with our sister parties across the European Union in a new debate about creating not just an adjunct to the old order or a vindication of some great success of the past but a modern security infrastructure and architecture that will sustain the prosperity of Europe and the world for the future. The debate on Ireland's future involvement in security matters is of fundamental importance and is one of the most important matters that will come before this House for discussion. I am not one who believes the debate should be confined to this House. If we have learned anything from the numerous debates we have had on amendments to the European Treaty and the evolution of the European Union, the close numbers in votes in this State and the defeat of proposals for treaty amendments in other member states, such as France and Denmark, the fundamental rule and lesson learned must be to bring the people with us and allow their voice to be heard and not decide treaty matters of fundamental importance to every citizen in some closed environment. We must allow the people to have their voices heard and, ultimately, afford them the right to make the final decision.

This wider debate is clearly needed. Many people have heard of the concept of PfP in recent weeks and very few people outside this Chamber could tell us definitively what are the implications for Ireland of joining it. For that reason, it is imperative this debate takes place. It must also take place because of the clear and unequivocal promise on this matter given by Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach when in opposition.

Speaking on PfP the Taoiseach, when in opposition, said: "We would regard any attempt to push Partnership for Peace or participation in Western European Union tasks by resolution through this House without reference to the people, who, under our Constitution, have the right in final appeal to decide all questions of national policy, as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic." He said any sleight of hand in trying to put it through this House would be fundamentally undemocratic, yet that is exactly and precisely what Fianna Fáil and the Government intend to do. It is not good enough. How can the people have confidence in political commitments so clearly and unequivocally given if they evaporate as soon as the elections are over? Speaker after speaker from the Government benches has renewed a different pledge, that in the event of a proposition to join NATO the people would be consulted. How can the people have any confidence in such a pledge when their last solemn pledge evaporated so speedily, thoroughly and completely?

I listened with great respect to the contribution of my constituency colleague, Deputy Browne, this morning. His views are honorable, but it is his actions that will determine whether the public cynicism that he talked about will be diminished or increased. If he does not walk the walk or stand by the principles he enunciated here by voting to fulfil the commitment he gave as a candidate in the last general election, his contribution is meaningless. We are tired of people saying one thing in this forum and another somewhere else, saying one thing on the floor of this House and voting a different way.

What is PfP? The fundamental objectives are stated in the framework document published by the alliance in January 1994. They are to facilitate transparency in national defence planning and budgeting processes; to ensure democratic control of defence forces, maintaining the capability and readiness to contribute to operations under the authority of the United Nations and or the responsibility of the OSCE; to develop co-operative military relations with NATO for the purpose of joining joint planning-training exercises in order to strengthen the ability of PfP participants to undertake missions in the field of peacekeeping, search and rescue, humanitarian operations and others as may be subsequently agreed; and to develop, over the longer term, forces that are better able to operate with those of the members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

For many people, particularly many people in my party, the difficulty with joining PfP is not the tasks assigned to it by our obligations under this new arrangement but the anchor between PfP and NATO. The party leader, Deputy Quinn, stated clearly his view on NATO and I think it is a view shared by all within the parliamentary Labour Party. It has outlived its usefulness. It is based on a hostility to Russia that cannot be appropriate to provide a security apparatus for the Europe of the 21st century, yet, by stealth, it is a nuclear based NATO, for want of an alternative, that is providing that umbrella of security. That is not acceptable.

The debate we should be having, that is required and will pose difficulties for all of us, is on how to shape a new infrastructure and shed some of our clichés of the past. We, as a party, are willing to participate fully in that. Our difficulty is that debate is not taking place. In the absence of that debate, on balance and with some reluctance because I am concerned about the NATO com ponent, I would be prepared to vote yes to joining PfP, but I demand the right to have a proper debate on that issue in this House and across this nation. The right that I demand for myself to vote yes or no is equally the entitlement of every citizen of Ireland. The Government has done itself a great disservice and has done a great disservice to the debate that is required about one of the most fundamental issues we, as a European people, face in the future. I ask those on the Government benches who still have a conscience to consider the Labour Part motion and allow this debate to take place. It would be regarded not as an ultimate U-turn but as an acceptance of the will of the people and it would be the right and moral thing to do.

Mr. P. Carey

I support the proposition before the House. Partnership for Peace was first conceived under the stewardship of Les Aspin, former US Defence Secretary, and was formally launched at the NATO summit in January 1994 as a co-operative security initiative designed to intensify political and military co-operation in Europe, promote stability, reduce threats to peace and strengthen relationships by promoting practical co-operation among its participants.

As other speakers said, at present 43 countries are involved in PfP, 27 of whom are non-members of NATO. Since its launch, PfP has attracted the support of all our EU partners, almost all members of the OSCE, including the 16 NATO members, Russia, all but one of the states of the former Soviet Union and traditionally neutral states like Sweden, Finland, Austria and even Switzerland.

Essentially, Partnership for Peace was born out of attempts to address the problems of security and stability in Europe following the end of the Cold War. At this time there was an ardent desire on the part of a number of former Warsaw Pact countries, fearing Russian instability and possible aggression, to join NATO. PfP was set up because member states of NATO were worried that rapid enlargement of the alliance would prove to be destabilising.

PfP received mixed reviews initially and was the subject of some cynicism. Many commentators viewed Partnership for Peace as merely a means for NATO to buy time as that organisation dealt with the enlargement issue. This view had, however, given way within a couple of years to an altogether more upbeat evaluation. PfP is now seen as having an intrinsic value in its own right and it has become a permanent fixture in the new European security architecture.

Partnership for Peace has played a major role in the divisions of the Cold War, being replaced by a new approach based on co-operative approaches to security. This development reflects principles accepted by all European states, including Ireland. Traditional conceptions of security and defence have given way to general acceptance that peacekeeping and crisis management are the key to ensuring stability and security in Europe. This evolution is in the direction of Ireland's approach which has always emphasised conflict prevention and peacekeeping. From being seen primarily as a means of outreach and reassurance to the new eastern European democracies, PfP has developed far beyond that aspect and now plays a leading role in co-operation, training and preparation for UN peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management.

May 1997 marked a major milestone in the evolution of PfP. At this time NATO, in consultation with the states participating in PfP, decided to broaden and develop co-operation within the PfP framework in view of the increasing role and importance of PfP as an element in the European security architecture and, specifically, in view of the lessons learned from the efforts of the international community in Bosnia.

PfP is also being complemented by a political consultation mechanism, the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council, which came into being in May 1997. This council has been an important forum for discussions on Bosnia, Kosovo and future peacekeeping as well as non-military areas of co-operation, such as disaster relief in Europe. The Euro Atlantic Partnership Council provides the over-arching framework for political and security related consultations and for enhanced co-operation under PfP. It maintains the approach whereby partners are able to decide for themselves the level and areas of co-operation with NATO. One of the stated aims of this council is to provide an expanded political dimension for multilateral consultation and co-operation on a wide range of security and defence related issues, for example, regional matters, arms control, civil defence and disaster relief.

The Government recognises that Partnership for Peace has evolved into a unique and important mechanism to contribute to peacekeeping within Europe. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, wrote in an article in The Irish Times on 28 November that PfP has developed into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management.

The first step taken by participants in PfP is to subscribe to a framework document which sets out the basic purposes and objectives of PfP. The purposes set out in the framework document include the protection and promotion of human rights, rededication to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace, the preservation of democracy, the upholding of international law and the fulfilment of the obligations of the UN charter and OSCE commitments. The objectives of PfP also include matters such as democratic control of defence forces, which reflects the initial focus of PfP on the emerging eastern European states. The objectives focus on maintaining readiness to contribute to peacekeeping operations mandated by the UN or OSCE, on joint planning, training and exercises to strengthen states' abilities to undertake peacekeeping, search and rescue and humanitarian operations.

In putting forward a presentation document, a participating state sets out its overall approach to PfP and identifies those areas of PfP in which it is interested. Other neutral states have, for example, made clear that they do not wish to join NATO and have identified peacekeeping co-operation as a priority area. The participating state then develops, in consultation with the NATO secretariat, a practical programme of co-operation specifically tailored to the areas of interest to it. This is what we are doing in our presentation document.

A popular misconception is that Partnership for Peace is NATO or is a back door to NATO. This is definitely not the case. PfP offers a selective and flexible means of co-operation on military and peacekeeping matters. Prospective NATO members have joined PfP but so too have Russia, the Ukraine and Austria, none of whom could be considered prospective NATO members. Partner nations join PfP for different reasons and when drafting their unique agreement they select from a menu of offers from NATO. This à la carte approach is what makes PfP so attractive to many nations, including Ireland. Participation in PfP is based on the principle of self-differentiation. This means a participating state can select the nature and scope of its participation in PfP.

Moves towards Ireland's entry into PfP began more than three years ago with the public consultation process and the publication of the White Paper on Foreign Policy by the previous Administration. That White Paper states that the overall objectives of Partnership for Peace are consistent with Ireland's approach to international peace and European security. It also states that the Government had decided to explore further the benefits Ireland might derive from participation in PfP and to determine the contribution Ireland might make to partnership. Senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence had consultations with NATO to explore further the benefits Ireland could derive from PfP. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs discussed the issue on many occasions and it was also the subject of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The present Government has supported a process of informed debate on PfP. In January of this year the Dáil passed a motion calling on the Government to build on Ireland's international vocation in support of peace and security, and to examine further Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace, taking into account the ongoing public debate and subject to the approval of the Dáil. The motion also reaffirmed Ireland's policy of military neutrality and our commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes and the international rule of law. On 28 January the Taoiseach said:

The current debate will allow the different parties in Dáil Éireann to formulate their positions and put it before the people as part of the European election platforms. That will provide all of us, including Fianna Fáil, with a new electoral mandate in this regard. I would envisage, all going well, that Ireland will join the Partnership for Peace on a mutually agreed basis in the second half of this year, and the Government will be working towards that timetable.

In March of this year the Minister for Foreign Affairs briefed his EU ministerial colleagues on the Government's intentions regarding PfP.

As other speakers said, Ireland, as a military neutral country, has made a proud and constructive contribution to international peacekeeping and this has been widely and generously acknowledged. The important contribution Ireland has made to international peacekeeping was referred to earlier in the year in a glowing tribute by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

PfP has evolved into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management. By joining PfP we will be able to continue to develop our proud tradition of maintaining peace in the world by becoming a member of the pinnacle forum in Europe through which co-operation and peacekeeping missions are increasingly being organised. As a modern State, we should be self-confident to enter such a forum knowing our values and principles, ready to argue for them and, in doing so, making our own distinctive contribution to the maintenance of peace and security across the globe.

As regards peacekeeping, Irish membership of PfP would bring a number of advantages, especially in the context of the changing security architecture in Europe and the changing manner in which the UN operates. For Ireland this is an important consideration as peacekeeping has always been a defining element in our foreign policy. Having served in 40 missions and contributed 45,000 tours of duty, we are justifiably proud as a nation of our contribution to UN peacekeeping over the past 40 years. Joining PfP will help us to build on our achievements in this field.

Although opponents of Irish membership of PfP have argued that membership will damage our peacekeeping reputation and our ability to contribute to future missions, this is not the case. It ignores the reality that a major evolution in UN peacekeeping has been taking place. The UN is increasingly reliant on regional security organisations and UN mandated peacekeeping operations are being carried out by organisations, such as the NATO led SFOR in Bosnia, the Russian led CIS troops in Georgia and Tajikstan, the West African forces in Nigeria and Sierra Leone and the Australian led INTERFET force which is being set up in East Timor.

The number of peacekeeping troops under direct UN command has fallen dramatically from a peak of 80,000 to approximately 14,000 today. The future of international peacekeeping lies in regional organisations taking the lead. As long as we stay outside, we will become marginalised and less able to continue our proud peacekeeping tradition in an effective way. Rather than PfP membership weakening our ability to engage in peacekeeping, it would strengthen it and enable it to continue into the future. Membership of PfP will strengthen our ability to engage in peacekeeping rather than weaken it.

It is Government policy that Ireland should stay in the mainstream of European peacekeeping. Our Defence Forces must have a full say in preparations for peacekeeping missions. Participation in PfP would result in many benefits for our Defence Forces in terms of access to training and equipment hitherto unattainable, participation in joint military exercises and access to valuable educational opportunities. We recognise that as a Government we have a responsibility not to prevent our Defence Forces from playing a full role in peacekeeping under changing conditions for purely ideological reasons. While we do not need to join military alliances, we must co-operate with the principal regional organisations involved to maintain peace and security in Europe, in keeping with our peacekeeping contributions.

Because PfP is a flexible arrangement, it allows each member to choose the areas in which it wishes to co-operate. Participation in PfP does not involve membership of NATO and appropriate participation will not affect Ireland's policy on military neutrality. Participation will not bring Ireland into any form of alliance involving mutual defence commitments. Neither will it constitute or imply any undertaking or intention to become a member of NATO in the future. In effect, PfP presents us with a menu of options from which we can pick and choose. Our presentation document, prepared by Ministers and officials, sets the agenda for the terms of our involvement. The Minister for Defence recently stated that it is envisaged that these activities will include peacekeeping under a UN mandate and humanitarian relief and rescue – tasks in line with our traditional involvement in those worthy areas of service to others. Our neutrality is protected by the Amsterdam Treaty and the Constitution. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the opportunity to support this motion. As well as agreeing that we should become members of the Partnership for Peace I have always advocated we should be full members of NATO. We have an obligation to repay those who helped create our prosperity, primarily the members of the European Union. It is fitting that we should give something back. The allocation of 600 soldiers, or whatever number is proposed, to this movement is highly commendable and desirable. I hope it will have a beneficial effect, not only on us but on Europe.

It is not a coincidence that there has been more than 54 years of uninterrupted peace and harmony in western Europe. No other part of the globe, other than the United States, has enjoyed such tranquillity. This deserves serious consider ation because Europe was a hotbed of war in the previous 100 years, including two terrible world wars and many other conflicts including conflicts on the Iberian peninsula and between Finland and Russia. We mainly owe that peace to the creation of NATO and long may it last. If we have another 154 years of peace, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will thank us for doing the right thing. I have no problems with NATO membership. Why should we be afraid of it? It is not a military provocateur but a defence organisation which has done wonderful work.

Russia has problems at the moment – political instability due to sterile leadership, economic chaos, increased crime and continuing outbreaks of violence and virtually war in some of its former republics such as Chechnya and Dagestan, with the threat of further violence in Georgia where a group of UN relief workers were captured yesterday and are being held hostage. Many of the Islamic republics in the south of the former Soviet Union are highly unstable. It is important that western Europe unites to ensure there is no threat to us and our stability. We want to be protected and live in the certainty that we are safe. We have that certainty in NATO and the Partnership for Peace. If Islamic fundamentalism threatened to spill over into Europe, we would have that umbrella organisation to protect us. It is gratifying that we have that safeguard and we should be delighted to have an opportunity to play our part in giving some of that protection.

We know from history that tyrants will always exist. Human nature being what it is, these dreadful people will seek to secure power by any means, and if it involves killing millions of other people, they will be only too glad to do it. This is evidenced by Hitler in the last world war, Idi Amin in Uganda, Pol Pot in Cambodia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. They were prepared to kill millions of people to fulfil their ambitions. It is wonderful to have a military organisation which stops this happening in Western Europe. It is good to see countries like Poland and Hungary joining NATO. I recently visited Slovenia as part of a delegation from the Foreign Affairs committee. It is a former Yugoslavian republic which is anxious to join NATO and is also on the shortlist for membership of the European Union. It is open about the fact that it wants to join a military alliance for protection. It is gratifying that so many countries wish to join a military alliance which will protect them and provide security in the greater region.

It is not long ago since there was a Colonel's regime in Greece and dictatorships in the Iberian peninsula in both Portugal and Spain. All of that has gone. We are moving the boundaries of stability further east. I hope, when the Balkan conflict is resolved, Milosevic is desposed and Karadzic stands trial for war crimes. The greater part of Yugoslavia will join a western military alliance, based on the principles of defending Europe. Romania and Bulgaria which are further east will also be anxious to join. Ten years ago Finland would not have joined the Partnership for Peace, as it is doing now. It was afraid the Russians would not agree, as it was always under their power. We are very insular and we do not realise the trepidation many of these countries experience. We are safe. We are so far away from the scene of the difficulties that we are inclined to ignore what other countries and other races dread; domination by their neighbours. That has been the story of Europe for many centuries.

I agree with what the Government is doing and I am glad my party is supporting the initiative. It is important that every country in Europe gets together and supplies the men and women to constitute a force which will be there for our protection. The Americans have made a conscious decision, while they are still members of NATO, not to partake in any further wars in Europe, the Middle East, the Far East or any other part of the world. They will confine themselves to protecting their own region, principally North and Central America, and it will be difficult to get any American Government to move further afield. The days of going to Vietnam or of having their troops murdered in their hundreds in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia or Somalia, where they were on peacekeeping missions, are over. During the Gulf War they did so much to stop a tyrant not just from taking over the Middle East but probably North Africa in its entirety. Instead of being grateful many people criticise the Americans for the work they have done to stabilise the world yet every time there is an outbreak of violence or a war in Africa we hear the call, "Why do the west not stop it?". Of course, by "the west" they mean the Americans, but the Americans are not prepared to see their sons and daughters killed by the thousands any longer in wars far away from home.

Currently there are 12 wars, some of them vicious, ongoing in Africa – in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola, the two Congos, Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea. Not long ago there were awful wars in Uganda and Mozambique; we even had cannibalism being performed by the leader of Uganda, Amin. Then there is Nigeria, which is constantly volatile. We cannot expect any United Nations force, or the United States in particular, to get involved in these areas. The price in terms of manpower and in terms of lives lost would be massive. The Americans have retreated into their own cocoon, North and Central America, and Europe will be left to its own devices. That is why it is important that Ireland plays its part, the same as any other country.

When the conflict in Kosovo was at its most dangerous it was gratifying to see that the British took the initiative, not the Americans. The Americans carried out the bombing, they provided the logistics, but when it came to putting in troops on the ground, which involved great danger, it was the British who led the way. We should thank them for doing that because who else would have done it? No other force in Europe would have led the way. Others joined in when they took the initiative but that will be the story from now on. It will be up to ourselves, whether it is the British, the Germans or the French, to club together and protect Europe from any overflow of violence from the former Russian republics or from Russia itself, because of instability in that country, or from the fundamentalists in the Middle East, which is always a danger. I hope that membership will lead to our Defence Forces getting the type of equipment they are entitled to, that it is updated and on a par with all modern armies because I suspect we are not as up to date as we should be.

An event occurred two weeks ago in Austria which would have been frightening some years ago, namely, the emergence of Nazism on a significant scale. Austria returned an extreme right wing party, which has been termed the Nazi party, the second largest party in its recent elections. That would have sent a shudder down the backs of people throughout Europe were it not for the presence of NATO and Partnership for Peace. That event, allied with racial riots, again caused by a Nazi element in Germany, is an indication of something which is just under the surface but it will never cause us any serious problems while we have organisations like NATO and Partnership for Peace. We must never become complacent, however. Chamberlain became complacent in 1938-39 and allowed himself to be persuaded by Hitler that there was nothing to worry about, that all his intentions were peaceful. We now know the holocaust that followed. We must be on our guard and we have to participate in Europe because if we do not do so, nobody else will do so in the future. The Americans have pulled out, it is now up to us, and anybody who believes we are doing ourselves a service by not joining Partnership for Peace is a fool or a pervert. They are certainly seriously misguided. I welcome the motion and look forward to our participation in this praiseworthy body.

Mr. O'Flynn

I wish to speak in favour of the Government proposal in relation to participation in the Partnership for Peace programme. I also welcome Fine Gael's decision to support the proposal. I am aware of the unease among some members of the public. There is concern about the impact of this move on our traditional status as a neutral nation. I am sure many Members have received correspondence and telephone calls from members of the public who are unhappy about this move. I do not doubt the sincerity of the reservations expressed but time will show that many of the doubts expressed in relation to Partnership for Peace will be allayed.

Membership of the partnership, which was was established in 1994, is entirely voluntary. The aims of the body are to ensure that we have in place an effective framework for co-operation in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. It is grounded on the principles of the UN charter and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, known as OSCE. As I stated, it is involved in training for peacekeeping and humanitarian initiatives. It is also committed to search and rescue programmes and to environmental protection. It is important that that is understood. It is also important to realise that each participating country can decide the level and extent of its involvement. That is not generally realised by the public.

There are political aspects to Partnership for Peace. It promotes democracy, justice and peace, the safeguarding of freedom, the maintenance of the principles of international law, and the fulfilment of the obligations of the UN charter and the OSCE commitments. These are principles which this country has always endorsed and they have stood the test of time. In our membership of Partnership for Peace, our traditional standpoint on these important issues will remain the same. We are only one of a large number of nations that will participate in the Partnership for Peace. I understand that 24 of the 43 countries involved are not members of NATO. Among them are the neutral states of Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. These sovereign nations have had no problem with their existing membership.

There is not a mutual defence commitment in Partnership for Peace. It is not a military alliance. There are not any treaty obligations in membership of Partnership for Peace. Every state may determine the nature and the scope of its participation. Each state will have to furnish a Presentation Document. Ours is before the House for consideration and approval. I am certain that a Member of this House would not be party to any submissions that would infringe on the valued traditions of neutrality that we hold dear.

Partnership for Peace will not pose any problems for Irish neutrality. It has not done so for other neutral countries that have become members of this body. Our membership will be in line with the reality of the membership of Switzerland, Finland and the other neutral states. Their Presentation Documents enshrined the concept of their continued neutrality.

Switzerland was invited to join the Partnership for Peace, which it did. Its Presentation Document, which it finalised on 20 November 1996, stated:

Switzerland has no intention to abandon its neutrality. It has no desire to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Those are unambiguous words. In effect, Switzerland, which has a long, proud and honoured tradition of neutrality, saw nothing in membership of Partnership for Peace that would be incompatible with its neutrality. Who can doubt that there was much soul searching and in-depth analysis of the implications of Partnership for Peace for Swiss neutrality? Many of that little country's people must have expressed doubts and must have had serious reservations when the concept of membership was first presented to them. However, those fears were proved to be groundless, otherwise, Switzerland would not have become a participant in the Partnership for Peace programme. The Swiss have the right to decide on their involvement – or non-involvement – in all the activities of Partnership for Peace. We have the same rights and will put the same safeguards in place.

We will ensure that our traditional neutrality will continue to be observed. Irish participation in Partnership for Peace would be in line with our commitment to the development of co-operative security structures in Europe. That commitment places total emphasis on conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management. It will preclude membership of NATO or any Alliance commitments.

In today's world there is a need for a body that enshrines the aims of Partnership for Peace. Ongoing conflicts in many areas are causing untold human misery. War has become commonplace and the word "genocide" is used more regularly. Hunger, want, death and destruction feature regularly in our radio news, our newspapers and on our television screens. The Third World faces ongoing calamities.

This country has a proud record of responding to the needs of the deprived throughout the world. We, as a people, can be proud of our traditional generosity to deprived nations. We have a national record of participation in peacekeeping, which has won us international acclaim. We have been in demand in many spheres of conflict. Our record of playing a fair and unbiased role in any area to which our Defence Forces are sent by the UN is second to none.

We can play a role, through Partnership for Peace, in the prevention of conflict, the work of peacekeeping and participation in humanitarian operations. These are all laudable aspirations, which we must make a reality. We cannot stand back. We will be able to act more effectively when our membership of Partnership for Peace is ratified.

Being involved with this programme does not mean that, by some means or other, we are joining NATO through the back door. Neither I, nor any Member of this House, have any hidden agenda. We do not wish to be members of NATO. I want this clearly understood. It is important to note that our membership of Partnership for Peace is not binding and is completely voluntary. I understand that if we ever find there are any problems with our membership of Partnership for Peace, we can opt out. If we do agree with aspects of Partnership for Peace, we are quite entitled to withdraw from that body.

There has been much debate on the fact that there will not be a referendum, although a commitment was given that one would be held if membership of Partnership for Peace clashed in any way with our proud tradition of neutrality. However, it was found that this was not the case. As I have already said, the traditionally neutral states had already thoroughly researched this aspect of membership, and they have all joined Partnership for Peace without any qualms. They do not see membership as being at variance with their continued policies of neutrality.

Our defence Acts permit Irish participation in peace enforcement operations, provided the operations have a UN mandate. Our past record in this area is second to none. Our previous involvement in those missions did not change our stance on neutrality. Our participation in any mission will be subject to a Dáil motion of approval in every instance. If this is so, why should our participation in the same type of operation today have detrimental effects on our time honoured policy of neutrality?

Partnership for Peace is not a military alliance. Any involvement we will have will be on purely peacekeeping and related grounds. This is clearly stated in the charter of Partnership for Peace. We are used to being in a position where we co-operate with the regional organisations. We have been involved in peacekeeping in Europe and much farther away. Membership of Partnership for Peace will be in keeping with our past practice. Our previous peacekeeping contributions – under many different Governments – did nothing to water down our national resolve to remain neutral. This situation will continue when we become members of the partnership.

I treasure our neutrality, which has won us worldwide respect and acclaim. Neither I nor the Government would not do anything to put it at risk. I hope every Member will support this. I am delighted, as I said at the outset, that Fine Gael supports the Government on this motion.

I support the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, to the House yesterday when he said:

Our decision to participate in Partnership for Peace is in full accordance with the policy of military neutrality, which has always been pursued in tandem with full and active support for collective security, based on international law. Ireland shares the values set out in the PfP framework document, including protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, and safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace through democracy. In joining PfP, Ireland, in common with the other PfP nations, reaffirms its commitment to fulfil in good faith the obligations of the charter of the United Nations and the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Equally, Ireland reaffirms its commitment to the Helsinki Final Act and all subsequent documents of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The Presentation Document makes clear that participation in PfP will in no sense inhibit our full commitment to disarmament and arms' control. In joining PfP, Ireland reaffirms its commitments and obligations in this area.

I support this statement. The Minister went on to say:

Our Presentation Document takes full account of the fact that, in May 1997, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, EAPC, came into being as the political framework for PfP. The Taoiseach publicly welcomed this development as long ago as 24 May 1997 – a fact which critics of the Government's approach seem to have forgotten. The EAPC is a flexible and voluntary forum, involving all PfP nations, for consultations and co-operation on political and security related matters of common concern, including regional issues, arms control, peacekeeping, civil emergency planning, scientific and environmental issues.

Irish Defence Forces personnel have been actively involved in humanitarian assistance. They have performed tremendous service on behalf of the country. Many of those serving overseas have served on a number of missions and have been overseas on a number of occasions. Many of the Defence Forces personnel come from my city and county of Cork. Many of the members of the Southern Command have served with distinction from when we first sent troops to the Congo to today in areas of conflict where peacekeeping is needed, such as the Balkans, the Middle East and East Timor. I record my sincere gratitude to those men and women who have served with distinction in the armed forces on peacekeeping missions throughout the world. They have done us proud. They have brought great honour and respect for our small island nation among the larger nations. I hope they will continue to serve this country and the United Nations in areas of conflict to end crisis conflicts using the skills they have and the good crisis management techniques the armed forces have developed and augmented over the past 40 years.

I commend the motion to the House and hope there will be a unanimous decision, with everyone, even those concerned at present about certain aspects of the proposal, seeing the wisdom of voting with the Government and Fine Gael on this matter.

Mr. Finucane

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this motion on Partnership for Peace. I compliment our party colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, as spokesman for foreign affairs, because he has crusaded on this issue for many years and has been instrumental in explaining to many within our party what Partnership for Peace means.

I listened to various speakers and heard the word "neutrality" dispersed throughout the debate. People speak about our neutrality as sacrosanct. Over 50 years ago, at the end of the Second World War, Éamon De Valera sent his sympathies to the German Ambassador on the death of Adolf Hitler. We all know the terrible atrocities which were committed in that war. In recent times when we debated issues such as NATO becoming involved in Kosovo, we are familiar with the type of histrionics which occurred in the House regarding US involvement. Sometimes we are hypocritical in that we welcome American investment in this country but if it becomes involved in trying to resolve a conflict, we tend to be critical. We are a little ambivalent in that regard. Perhaps after 50 years it is time to speak of a new protocol in the area of neutrality so that we know what it means in the context of Ireland's role in the world.

I heard several speakers say that Partnership for Peace is a backdoor to NATO. In December 1997 the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, stated that Partnership for Peace was such. Having listened to his contribution to this debate, I accept that he has changed his mind, with the passage of time has accepted the wisdom and been influenced by what has happened. He mentioned the Committee on Foreign Affairs which invited delegations from many of the neutral countries, such as Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, which participate in Partnership for Peace. On seeing such countries participating in Partnership for Peace, it is about time we saw sense and realised there is nothing to fear from our involvement in it.

In May 1996 in Oxford the Taoiseach stated that Partnership for Peace would send the wrong signals about our future intentions and would have long-term implications for our neutrality. He also stated that he would like a cast iron pledge from the Government of the day that it would not make any move without first consulting the people in the interests of openness and accountability. I do not know if people have been canvassing in the by-election but I did so yesterday and there was criticism about the fact that we were joining Partnership for Peace without a referendum. I explained that our party has been consistent in advocating Partnership for Peace from the start. People were critical that Fianna Fáil could make such a swift U-turn from when it was in opposition in that it is not now advocating a referendum. I assure Fianna Fáil Deputies that they will encounter this when they go canvassing. If they do not, I will be more than surprised.

It is interesting that the former commander of the Army, Lieutenant General McMahon, stated that Partnership for Peace would be good for the Army. He maintained that it would be good for education opportunities and advancing the cause of the military establishment in Ireland. Realism must prevail about the concern expressed that we will be involved with countries with nuclear weapons. How do we reconcile that with the fact that our Army forms part of peacekeeping forces abroad which also involve France, the US and Russia, countries which have nuclear weapons? One wonders about the ambivalence on some people's part in this regard.

If we participate in Partnership for Peace, we will also get the opportunity to participate in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. This appears to be a laudable organisation for us to become involved with. It is involved with humanitarian assistance, for example, disaster relief in the Balkans, and peacekeeping duties. Why are we scared of becoming involved in Partnership for Peace and with this body?

Much appreciation has been expressed of the Army and our role abroad and I concur with that. We have been involved in many peacekeeping missions over the years in various countries and we have been applauded for that. However, I would also like to applaud the role of the Naval Service over the years. I grew up beside the sea and I remember vividly as a young person being proud to board naval vessels which came into port. Over the years, however, the naval manpower has become incompatible with the roles in which the service is involved. The Naval Service was established to defend our shores against belligerent countries. Nowadays its role has changed dramatically and it is now involved in many areas, such as sea rescue activities, and has played a dominant role recently in combating drug trafficking. The Criminal Justice Act, 1994, gave the Naval Service the power, without Garda presence, to board a vessel at sea where there is a suspicion that it is involved in the importation of drugs.

If our naval force is contrasted with those of other western European countries, it will be seen that we have a very small naval force for such a huge coastline. This creates a temptation to use our coastline as a means to import drugs into Ireland or to use it as an access point to other countries on the basis that there is less likelihood of being caught. Cannabis has been trawled by fishing boats and bales of cocaine have been washed up on the shore. The Naval Service is combating this trade, in addition to all the other areas in which it is involved. We need to increase the money spent on the naval force. We acquired an additional vessel recently, the Róisín, which I welcome, and this brings the number of patrol vessels to eight.

In the context of Ireland's responsibilities in the area of fisheries, there is a temptation for foreign trawlers to take their chances in the European economic zone in Irish coastal waters because the likelihood of their being caught is much more remote than it would be off other European countries. We have 16 per cent of European Union waters. The area for which we have responsibility stretches at least 200 square miles, and probably 260 square miles off our coastline. In landlubber's terms, that statistic would equate to two Garda patrol cars for the entire country. That is the level of manpower and resources on which we are depending to defend our marine waters. Given the situation, I praise the Navy for its work in the past. I urge the Government not to sit on its laurels but to think about increasing resources further in this area. The Government should contemplate the purchase of extra coastguard vessels and the development of a coastguard fleet in parallel with our naval resources, given the new responsibilities which have been thrust upon us in this area.

I am aware of problems within the naval service caused by a high labour turnover, especially in the case of highly experienced technical people who, because of the success of the economy generally, are tempted to take up jobs outside, once they have completed their term with the naval service. Last year the naval service lost more than 70 employees and this year the loss is already running close to 70. I would like to think we will expand our naval resources not because of the likelihood of invasion by a belligerent state, but because of the important role it plays and our enhanced responsibilities.

We are coming of age when we join bodies like Partnership for Peace, this Euro-Atlantic partnership. It will enhance Ireland's role, which is already a very professional role well recognised throughout the world in the whole area of peacekeeping. Joining Partnership for Peace will bring us into the new millennium with a more positive attitude.

Fianna Fáil speakers have applauded Fine Gael for supporting this motion. We are supporting this motion because we have always advocated this since it was first floated by President Clinton in January 1994. We supported it when we were in Government. Regrettably we did not introduce it while we were in Government. We are, therefore, duty bound to be consistent and to support it now. Fianna Fáil changed their mind on this, but if we were in Government and they were over here, would they have changed their mind, or would they play politics with it and look for a referendum? This is symptomatic of the positive approach we have within our party. We are all consistent in our approach on this. The motion will be approved by this House. There will be some dissenting voices. I tell them to wake up to the new millennium and recognise the changes that have taken place on the world scene and recognise that Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace is long overdue.

Ms Hanafin

When one listens to the speeches and reads the documents relating to Partnership for Peace, one sees and hears the words "partnership", "peace", "co-operation", "freedom", "justice", "democracy", "support" and "rescue". Looking at those words in isolation, one might ask how it is that Ireland didn't join Partnership for Peace years ago if this is what we are talking about. Surely these elements, these words, and these principles are at the core of our indepen dence. As is typical of the Irish psyche, we tend never to look at the positive but to concentrate on the negative. The two negative words which came to the fore, and which seemed to threaten, had to do with our neutrality and that overriding body, NATO. Those two words were linked together in a very negative way. We did not look, and did not see what was really involved in Partnership for Peace.

I can understand that, because neutrality is important to the Irish people. However, at the end of the 20th century, we need to ask what our neutrality is. We talk about referenda and the Constitution. The word "neutrality" is not in the Constitution. We adopted our policy of neutrality after the Constitution was drafted and accepted by the people. It was adopted as a policy, not as a principle, and not as a philosophy. It could be said, and it has been said, that it was adopted as the policy which divided us least at the time of World War II. It would be very easy to establish that despite being ruled by a major power, we in Ireland always adopted an independent stance in our foreign affairs. Even going back to the time of the Boer War, MacBride decided to lead an Irish group, irrespective of the fact that he was going against the power that ruled us and them, and in World War II Irish troops demanded and received independent recognition. No sooner was the first Dáil established than we had people knocking on the gates at Versailles looking for recognition of our independence followed closely by the sending of ambassadors abroad, despite the fact that we did not have our full independence. We have always shown that we adopt an independent stance. As a nation we are confident in our ability to play our role among the major powers. This became particularly evident during World War II when the policy of neutrality had to be developed and established permanently. The real challenge came post-World War II through our role with Frank Aiken and Freddy Boland in the United Nations, our peacekeeping, our anti-nuclear stance and our anti-military stance. That is what neutrality has become, and that is what it means at the end of the 20th century.

Neutrality is extremely important to the Irish people not because, as some people indicate, we do not understand, but because it has become a part of the Irish people, who prefer to preserve peace than to engage in war. It is not that we fear being involved or sending our young people out to war but that we want to be out there actively promoting peace as a confident young Irish nation. Instead of focusing on the negative words that this debate has focused on to date, we should look at the positive. That is difficult when one keeps hearing the word "NATO", a word which conjures up a huge alliance, revives for us all memories of the Cold War, of anti-communism, of domination and of fear. It is unfortunate that the debate on our joining Partnership for Peace has focused on these things and has focused on whether there should be a referendum rather than on what Partnership for Peace actually is.

When this matter was debated in the House on 29 January I raised a number of questions because, like many others, I felt the need to know the relationships between Partnership for Peace and NATO and the proposed extent of our involvement. However, since the debate has broadened, especially since the holding of this debate, those questions have been answered in the various documents presented. In view of this I am happy to support the motion that we join Partnership for Peace.

I support the motion on the basis that at the end of this century we are a confident, independent nation and that this gives us the freedom to choose between our involvement in all the different organisations throughout the world. We can decide the extent of our role in the United Nations, and the fact that we seek a seat on the Security Council shows the measure of our confidence in ourselves and that we know we have a role to play. It is because of our commitment to develop justice and a peaceful society, both at home and abroad, that we can investigate, and are not only welcome but invited to join various world and European organisations. It is because we want to uphold human rights, not only in this country but abroad, and to introduce freedom throughout the world that we are willing to join. To date none of the organisations we have joined has in any way affected our neutrality or questioned whether we are a military power. Of course we are not one. However, our independent stance can let us show the world that we are not beholden to one power or another.

The new and developing debate on neutrality brings us back to the policy of neutrality. More importantly, it makes us focus on the philosophy of neutrality and what it means in practice. I welcome that debate and hope it extends throughout the country.

The motion before us to support joining Partnership for Peace can be looked at in the context of our role in Kosovo, the Balkans and Bosnia where when international co-operation was needed we were there and willing to help. I welcome the link, especially in these countries, between the United Nations, the EU and our role in the Petersberg Tasks because these groups together are upholding the UN Charter, which guarantees human rights throughout the world.

Only two days ago the House voted to send troops, our rangers, to East Timor. We can look forward to the type of co-operation they will see there. Speaking on that motion I criticised and questioned the United Nations for being tardy in its response and for not being prepared. I hope our involvement in Partnership for Peace will ensure we are always ready to move in to help to maintain democracy, to preserve human rights and to ensure that people's freedom is allowed.

What I find especially encouraging about Partnership for Peace is that of the 43 members, 24 are not members of NATO and that all our EU partners and the neutral states are members. We all look to countries like Sweden and Switzerland as being the supreme neutral states. The fact that they are members, working together on major issues, and are willing to welcome us means they recognise us as being among their equals also. In view of this and in view of what we have given the world over recent years, it is a logical progression for us to join Partnership for Peace.

Some days ago I looked at film footage on RTE of our first peacekeeping troops heading out to the Congo. Thousands of people lined O'Connell Street and the troops were met and reviewed by the Taoiseach and Ministers of the day because it was a major event in Ireland. Many others will remember the disasters and loss of life in Namibia, Lebanon and other places since then. The fact that 46,000 individual tours of duty have taken place by our armed forces is surely proof that we have learnt much and have much to learn and, more importantly, that we have much to share in establishing peace throughout the world.

The change in security arrangements, the fact it is now more regionally based and, more especially, that no matter what involvement we have it will always be as a result of a Dáil vote based on a UN mandate will ensure that we are working within those rights we uphold. The Presentation Document on Partnership for Peace outlines the scope of our co-operation. It states that we will co-operate in the partnership framework in such areas as operational and generic planning for peacekeeping and peace support, communications, command and control, operational procedures, logistics and training. This is an extension of what we do, and rather than seeing what we can get from the rest of the world, it is one way in which we can positively contribute to it.

We will now be involved not just at the last stages, but in the preparations because Partnership for Peace will ensure that best practice is adopted. We will also be involved in training, equipment and education. While it will probably mean that the British will be back in the Curragh, the French in Bantry Bay, the Germans on Banna Strand and the Spanish in Kinsale, it will be for all the right reasons because we will share our expertise, working in co-operation with all of these countries and ensuring that democracy and freedom is upheld throughout the world.

When considering Partnership for Peace, peacekeeping comes to mind. However, we should not overlook the humanitarian aspects which are also central to its mission. Prior to sending our rangers to East Timor we sent gardaí to become involved with civilian authorities – indeed, we have been involved in that for a number of years. We also sent Naval Service and Army personnel on various missions. In addition, the work of the Irish aid organisations should always be lauded.

What is especially interesting about the humanitarian aspect is the "teach a man to fish" philosophy on which it is based. If one teaches a man to fish one feeds him for life, it is the self-help philosophy. Given that, as a young country we managed to build ourselves up after the War of Independence and the Civil War and to bring in democracy without having to resort to violence, we can share with all the newly emerging democracies.

Disaster relief is another feature of Partnership for Peace. Disasters have occurred in many areas. Africa constantly comes to the fore in this regard. More recently much assistance under Partnership for Peace has been sent to the Honduras. We can also help in civil and emergency planning.

Given all these aspects, will the door be open to us to help the children of Iraq and will we be able to help countries where peace might reign, but unfortunately under dictators? I hope we will be able to use our new opportunities and contacts to help these countries where children are starving and are being denied medical aid.

While we have always been familiar with the issue of mines and landmines, it was only because of Princess Diana's involvement that they came to the fore. One of the aims of Partnership for Peace is to try to search for the landmines which are unknown and unseen but which have such devastating effects on people throughout the world. With search and rescue and environmental and marine matters, we can uphold the rule of law, respect human rights and restore democracy. We can do so in a voluntary, non-binding and co-operative manner. We can opt in and opt out. I hope there will be times when we will opt out because that will show we are a confident nation and a power among equals and that we are moving forward, not afraid of our past but confident we can contribute to the future.

Mr. Perry

I pay tribute to Deputy Gay Mitchell who has for many years promoted Ireland's joining the Partnership for Peace.

Partnership for Peace was established in 1994 as a voluntary and co-operative framework for regional security co-operation between NATO and individual non-members of NATO. PfP has a particular focus on co-operation for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Currently 43 countries are involved in PfP; 24 of these countries are non-members of NATO. The countries in PfP include all our EU partners, the neutral states of Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, Russia and many states in Eastern Europe. There is no conflict between participation in PfP and our policy of military neutrality. Other Euro pean neutrals have participated in PfP without difficulty. There is no mutual defence commitment in PfP; it is not a military alliance. A lot of alarming information has developed given the change in the Government's stance not to hold a referendum. The Minister indicated the necessity for a referendum when in opposition. This has added to the confusion and misinformation which is now developing. The Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that he would issue explanatory information to the general public to alleviate their fears.

The procedure for participating in PfP is voluntary; it involves voluntarily subscribing to a framework document. The framework document imposes no treaty obligations. Participation is based on the principle of self-differentiation, that is, a state selects for itself the nature and scope of its participation in PfP. A participating state presents its own agenda for co-operation through a presentation document. Prior to Ireland's participation in PfP, the proposed Irish Presentation Document will be submitted to Dáil Éireann for its consideration and approval. This is an important aspect. Presentation documents were submitted by the four neutral states, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland when they joined PfP. The experience of the neutral states in PfP also demonstrates that it poses no problems for neutrality. It is important that this point is brought to the fore. I received phone calls from constituents who were concerned about a new agenda. These people included former members of the Defence Forces and the FCA who had a different spin on Ireland joining PfP. The amount of misinformation has alarmed many people and it is a pity local radio and the local press did not explain the matter more fully.

The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council is a political framework for PfP. The EAPC has become an important forum for regular consultations involving PfP nations on a wide range of issues from peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance in the Balkans to disaster relief. The EAPC brings together in one forum all our EU partners, the United States, Canada and Russia. Ireland would participate in the EAPC on joining PfP. We are an island but we are not insular in our approach. We have an interest in having our voice heard in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. PfP is playing an increasingly important role as the need for effective conflict prevention, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations becomes more apparent. This was evident in the past year given the difficulties in Europe and throughout the world.

PfP would be of particular benefit to our Defence Forces in maintaining the Irish tradition in UN peacekeeping. The major changes that are taking place in UN peacekeeping and the role PfP plays in co-operation for new peacekeeping arrangements is very important. It also has a role in facilitating co-operation for search and rescue. It is important to promote the positive aspects of PfP. There is a growing feeling in Europe that the EU should play a greater role in addressing and resolving European problems through peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, known as the Petersberg Tasks, in support of the United Nations. The EU's efforts will intensify now that the Amsterdam Treaty has come into force. PfP will be an important framework for preparation and co-operation for those talks. It does not change the situation under which Irish participation in a peacekeeping mission requires a UN mandate.

There is no legal or constitutional requirement for a referendum. However, the Government when in opposition promised a referendum, and a number of people, particularly Fianna Fáil supporters, are disappointed that this promise is not being fulfilled. Deputy Gay Mitchell promoted Ireland's joining PfP as far back as 1994. Since I entered Dáil Éireann, I have heard him speak on the issue on numerous occasions at parliamentary party meetings. He had a huge brief on the matter and was very much to the fore in promoting the positive aspects of joining PfP. There is a certain amount of disillusionment at the fact that the Government party changed its opinion and that it has not made a commitment to the electorate that they will hold a referendum. People expected a referendum on this issue.

The Presentation Document of Ireland for the PfP programme makes some very good points. It states:

In accepting the invitation to participate in PfP, Ireland restates its commitment to the development of a just and peaceful international society based on the rule of law; democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the peaceful settlement of disputes. PfP, and the cooperative values which underlie the Partnership, are compatible with these commitments and objectives.

This is a very important objective. It also states:

Ireland plays an active role in UN peacekeeping [we must salute the work our peacekeepers have achieved] and supports the continuing elaboration of effective international strategies and action for conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management. In this connection, Ireland attaches importance to effective and mutually reinforcing cooperation between those institutions with a role to play in the search for peace and stability in Europe.

Ireland welcomes the role that cooperation for peacekeeping has assumed in Partnership for Peace and looks forward to contributing to Partnership activities in this area. The calls on the international community to be able to respond to the humanitarian needs of popu lations in crisis have become increasingly apparent in recent years.

This is very apparent. It goes on to read:

Since 1958, Irish peacekeepers and military observers have participated in 46,000 individual tours of duty involving 37 UN peacekeeping missions. Based on this experience, Ireland is prepared [which it has very effectively demonstrated] to participate in and contribute to cooperation in the Partnership framework in such areas as operational and generic planning for peacekeeping and peace support, communications, command and control, operational procedures. Ireland's experience in peacekeeping has underlined the importance . which in Ireland's view is essential . for multinational peacekeeping or crisis management operations.

Ireland has played a huge role in peacekeeping.

. Defence Forces personnel have been actively involved in humanitarian assistance. They provide assistance to the civil authorities in response to natural or other disasters. In the context of their international peacekeeping role, Ireland peacekeeping contingents have engaged in humanitarian efforts aimed at assisting local communities to develop a self-help philosophy; and Irish Defence forces personnel have served on a voluntary basis with UNHCR and Irish aid agencies on several continents. In the light of this experience, Ireland is interested in the development of cooperation, and the exchange of experience and expertise in the area.

Ireland also has a role in the development of co-operation, and exchange of expertise [this, no doubt, will be very evident by joining this group] . in the field of civil search and rescue.

Ireland has a role to play in the protection of the environment in the further development of co-operation in PfP with regard to threats to the environment, which are very much on the increase, and in the development of co-operation on marine matters. The document goes on to read:

As a maritime nation, Ireland is interested in the development of cooperation and training in marine techniques, including marine research, technology and development.

It is important to explain the positive benefits of joining PfP. There is a lot of alarming misinformation which is blinding people to the benefits of PfP. The Government has created this uncertainty because of its promise of a referendum. The Minister, Deputy Andrews, stated that he would provide more information to the electorate, and they are entitled to this. Membership of PfP will assist the Defence Forces in improving their capability in multinational peacekeeping and peace support operations in future. This is a very important element in the context of the wonderful name we have in terms of multinational peacekeeping. In recent years the UN has mandated a new style of peacekeeping and crisis management and Ireland, which has a significant role in this context, must wish to share with the other participating states the experience it has acquired.

Debate adjourned.