Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Oct 1999

Vol. 509 No. 5

Partnership for Peace: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Wednesday, 13 October 1999:

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.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:

To add the following to the motion:

"and further accepts that any proposed future amendment to the areas of participation by Ireland in the Partnership for Peace as outlined in the Presentation Document will be put before Dáil Éireann for approval."

–(Deputy Fitzgerald).

Mr. Daly

I wish to record my deepest sympathy on the death of Jack Lynch and to express to Máirín Lynch, his widow, his other family members and the people of Cork the deepest sympathy of the people in the Clare constituency and our sadness at his passing.

When I last spoke on the motion, I pointed out that around 1993-94 some attempts were made, in light of the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the international realignments taking place, to encourage emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to realign with NATO, now that the Warsaw Pact had been broken up, and to be part of new arrangements which would set a new international political dimension for the foreseeable future. Not alone were there attempts to have the new democracies aligned with NATO, there were also attempts to encourage neutral states to be involved in a new partnership arrangement, given that the new changes were likely to lead to increasing tension and conflict, some of which we witnessed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and elsewhere. It was against this background that realignment, adaptation and reform took place in the Atlantic alliance.

This was also reflected in discussions which took place in the Western European Union, and most of these took the form of amendments to European Union treaties which were voted on in the Amsterdam Treaty. These matters relating to the arrangements and new alignments between the Western European Union, NATO, the European Union, the United States and Canada were examined in the discussion on the Amsterdam Treaty. There was no question but that there was a keen desire on the part of the member states which were also looking at the fact that there would be enlargement of the Union and its responsibilities and, as had been voted on in the Maastricht Treaty, a reaffirmation of the necessity for a common security and defence policy.

The Western European Union was involved in an active way with NATO in discussing a common defence policy, NATO defence planning and ten or 12 other objectives with a view to strengthening the defence arrangements within a new enlarging Union and finding ways in which it would be possible to strengthen and put in place a European Union defence identity, the ESDI, which was promoted at that stage in an attempt to create a strong European defence alignment. The view was that the European Union was enlarging and strengthening and there was likely to be ethnic and other tensions and difficulties within and outside it, so it would be necessary to have in place not only a clear policy on defence arrangements but also a response which could deal with some of the problems emerging at the time.

A great deal of time was taken up in the Council of Europe in discussing the developing situation in Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Union failed miserably at the outset to take the initiatives essential to avoiding the massive destruction of property and the death and despair we witnessed in those countries. Had a more effective defence and common security arrangement been in place earlier, it would have been possible, rather than talk about these issues at the Council of Europe, the European Union and the United Nations with all the various disagreements which manifested themselves afterwards, to have avoided the resulting death, destruction, hunger, deprivation and hundreds of thousands of refugees with whom we must still deal. If there is a lesson to be learned from the Balkan situation, it is that the time for discussion, dialogue and talking must certainly be replaced by a period of speedy action to deal with the issues and problems which arise.

There was a great deal of discussion in 1994-95 and before the intergovernmental conference and the Amsterdam Treaty about relations between the Western European Union, NATO and the European Union. It is well known on both sides of the House that there is Irish participation in Western European Union and that we have had observers there for some time. Four Members of the House representing the three main parties, Deputies Michael Kitt, Roche and—

Mr. J. Bruton

Deputy Fitzgerald.

Mr. Daly

—Deputy Ferris from the Labour Party attend the Western European Union as observers and are part of the evolving Western European Union. There is greater liaison between the Western European Union and NATO than there is or ever will be between Partnership for Peace and NATO. Nonetheless, it is evolving and changing. In that context, we contested the election in June 1997 with no clear indication emanating from the discussion and dialogue taking place as to the future shape of this, and that is still the case. There will be a certain amount of dialogue, discussion and debate before we put in place a partnership alignment and arrangement able to deal effectively and quickly with some of the issues which will arise.

Some of this is borne out in a statement the Taoiseach made in Bruree on 24 May 1997, a few weeks before the general election. I shall put on record what he said on that occasion:

In a month or so's time, a new body called the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council will be established following a meeting in Madrid. Its purpose will be to conduct dialogue between countries of western and eastern Europe and Canada and the United States on the political aspects of security matters that we already discuss in the European Union.

It is open to European democracies who may never wish to become members of NATO or, as I understand it, members of PfP. It carries no military obligations of any kind and, if my understanding is correct, I believe Ireland should seriously consider the merits of joining that body. While strongly attached to our military neutrality, we have no desire to be politically isolationist or to turn our backs on the United States which has been particularly helpful to us throughout the peace process nor do we want to give the impression that the stability and security of Europe is of no concern to us. We want to make our own contribution along with our friends and partners in a way in which we feel comfortable and which is most appropriate to our political traditions.

The Taoiseach said that if his understanding is correct – I believe he understood the position clearly – he would recommend participation in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.

The presentation document on Partnership for Peace contains two important paragraphs. In the first paragraph, Ireland clearly states its policy of military neutrality and further states that it does not intend to become a member of NATO and, in the second paragraph, it restates its commitment to the development of a just and peaceful international security. We have made it very clear that while we are willing to be involved in the new alignment of the Partnership for Peace arrangement in a meaningful way with our partners, with the important results participation will have for members of the Defence Forces and its recognition of their tremendous work to date in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, Ireland will continue to play an ever-increasing role in an area in which such initiatives will be more in demand in the future than ever before. This is a very timely participation and one which I believe will have enormous benefits for the evolution and development of the European Union and its political institutions.

Mr. J. Bruton

There is not any mutual defence commitment in the PfP and, therefore, membership does not affect our policy of military neutrality. The decision to join this body is a routine foreign policy decision and such decisions do not require referenda. That has always been the position of Fine Gael and we do not see any reason to change it now.

I want to speak about Ireland's policy of military neutrality – what it means, where it may lead us and its costs and benefits. In essence, Ireland's neutrality is a modestly armed neutrality. Unlike other neutrals, such as Sweden and Switzerland, which guarantee their neutrality by developing large armies and armaments industries, Ireland has chosen to keep a very modest military establishment. As an island nation, we did not even have a Navy or merchant fleet large enough to guarantee our own supplies at the outbreak of war in 1939. We do not command that capacity in 1999 either.

Neutrality is a strategy, not a religion. Realism is a necessary component in any discussion on neutrality. I will quote from one of the more realistic contributions made on neutrality in this House. Fianna Fáil Deputies, particularly Deputies from County Clare, might pay particular attention to this quotation from a former Member of the House who asked:

Is it likely that we could escape if there was a major European conflict at the present time? If there is such a condition, will we continue to export cattle and food to Great Britain? Will the export of food be regarded as contraband of war or would it not? If we are going to send food from our ports to Britain, when Britain's enemies, let us say, will be trying to starve her, will our position be respected by other people?

The Deputy in question was Eamon de Valera. He was speaking in this House on 29 April 1938. He was much more realistic in his appraisal of the realities of a European war than are many Deputies in the House today. Many Deputies speak about neutrality as if we had never joined the European Union in 1972 and as if this island was completely isolated from events on the mainland of Europe or on our neighbouring island. They have internalized a romantic version of de Valera's achievement in maintaining neutrality between 1939 and 1945 in a way that de Valera himself never romanticised it. He was realistic enough to know that four factors preserved Ireland's neutrality in that period – the good fortune of our island status, the fortuitous defeat of the Luftwaffe over Britain in 1940, the timely diversion of Germany's energies towards Russia and away from the West in 1941 and American entry to the war in 1942. If Ireland had been attacked at any stage between 1939 and 1945, it would not have been neutral.

When de Valera spoke in 1938 in such a downbeat way about our capacity to maintain neutrality, we were probably more self sufficient as a nation than we ever were in our history before or since. Our economy in 1938 was a comparatively closed economy. Our needs were simple and we could survive on our own. Nowadays, we are one of the most open economies in the world. We depend on other countries and they depend on us. If de Valera had doubts in 1938 about our ability to stay unaffected by a European war at that time, how much more doubt must there be about that today?

Eamon de Valera's successor as leader of Fianna Fáil, former Deputy Seán Lemass, was equally realistic about neutrality. He understood that, when we joined the European Union, we were moving towards a political as well as an economic commitment to our neighbours in Europe. He realised that, ultimately, we might create a political union in Europe and, if we did so, that would involve us in an obligation to defend what we had jointly created.

In July 1962, Seán Lemass told the New York Times that: “We are prepared to go into this integrated Europe without any reservations as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy and defence.”. The leadership of Fianna Fáil today does not have that full-hearted commitment to Europe which Seán Lemass displayed. The current leadership of Fianna Fáil, like the current leadership of the British Conservative Party, wants to dine à la carte at the European table. It wants to take the benefits without taking full responsibility for the means by which those benefits are created. An undefended Europe would not be the peaceful or prosperous place it is today and would not be such a good market for Irish goods and services.

Our Constitution states that "war shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war, save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.". That provision should not change. Ireland should ensure that any decision committing us to war is one that this House, and this House alone, should take. However, that does not mean we should be uninvolved with other European countries in pursuing a policy of collective security in Europe. The Constitution states the legal position but Ireland can and should, where and when appropriate, give political commitments to defend the values we share alongside our European neighbours.

There is a tendency in debate here at home to underestimate the extent to which Ireland has already committed itself to European defence. The Taoiseach told the Dáil on 14 October that "a mutual defence pact is not even on the agenda of this European Union's Common Foreign Security Policy.". In contrast, I ask Members of this House to listen to some of the things to which the Taoiseach agreed in the conclusions of the European Summit in Cologne on 3 and 4 June of this year. The Taoiseach agreed to the following statements, made by him, on our behalf, jointly with the other EU Heads of Government:

We, the members of the European Council, intend to give the European Union the necessary means and capabilities to assume its responsibilities regarding a common European policy on security and defence. We are determined to foster the restructuring of the European defence industries amongst those states involved.

The Taoiseach also approved and adopted a report, prepared by the German Presidency for the Cologne Summit, which included the following statements:

The focus of our efforts, therefore, should be to ensure that the European Union has at its disposal the necessary capabilities, including military capabilities, and appropriate structures for effective EU decision making in crisis management within the scope of the Petersberg Tasks.

The Petersberg Tasks are defined in this report, as including tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. I stress that "peacemaking", as well as peacekeeping, is included in the Petersberg Tasks. Peacemaking means imposing, by the use of force, peaceful conditions under terms laid down by the peacemaker. It is very difficult to distinguish that from war making, unless one gets into subjective questions of motivation which are highly elastic.

To give effect to these decisions in Cologne, the Taoiseach also approved a decision making structure for the European Union which will include regular meetings of the General Affairs Council, as appropriate, including Defence Ministers, an EU military committee consisting of military representatives making recommendations to the political and security committee, and an EU military staff including a situation centre. If the Taoiseach agreed to these things in Cologne in June, how could he tell the House last week that a military pact is not even on the EU agenda?

These plans for the maintenance of security within the continent of Europe are reasonable and necessary – I support them. Subject to the maintenance of the constitutional guarantee I quoted earlier, Ireland should support them. These plans are necessary. The United States will not continue to pay the costs of European defence for the next 50 years in the same way as it has done for the past 50 years. At present most European states have large standing armies, but little capacity to deal with any problems any distance away from their own borders. They do not have transport capacity and have to rely entirely on the United States for that type of logistical support. While the United States may be willing and may want for the moment to have a virtual monopoly of this type of logistical capacity for some time to come, there is no guarantee that it will always want it. If the United States was to suffer an economic setback, the forces of isolationism would take hold there and Europe could find itself suddenly on its own as far as its defence was concerned.

After a century of isolationism, in the 19th century the United States became actively involved in regulating the peace of Europe in the period between 1917 and 1919. Thereafter, the US Congress rejected the Treaty of Versailles and lapsed into isolationism again until it was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour in 1942. It was during that period from 1919 to 1942 when the United States maintained a stance of military isolation from Europe, that the Nazis and the Fascists rose to power in Europe and took over the entire continent, with the exception of Sweden and Switzerland, without any military response from America. There is no reason to be certain that isolationism vis-à-vis Europe will not become a predominant political attitude in the United States again during the next century.

Furthermore, as US economic interests move towards the west coast and the Pacific Basin, it is increasingly likely that the United States will concentrate its strategic interests in that sphere. The growth of armaments in the east Asian area is a matter of grave worry to us all, but it is a special worry to the United States. Remember, it was from across the Pacific that the United States was attacked in 1942.

Thus, if the United States were to be forced by economics to make a choice between its commitment to European defence and a commitment to security issues in the Pacific, it is not impossible that it might decide that they had even more at stake in the Pacific, than it has on this side of the Atlantic. It is for these geo-strategic reasons that Europe must equip itself to defend itself, and to maintain security in and around the borders of the European Union.

Ireland cannot stand aside from this and say we will not take part, and that the outcome of any discussion on European security will not involve any moral commitment by Ireland. Seán Lemass would not have taken that position and did not take that position. The Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil on 14 October in this debate that a mutual defence pact was not on the EU agenda was invalidated within four days by the Dehaene report published on 18 October. This report put a defence pact definitively on the EU agenda. It called for a merger of the EU and the Western European Union within a single institutional framework. The Western European Union is, by any definition, a mutual defence pact. If Western European Union and EU are merged before enlargement, all new members will join the merged organisation taking on all the commitments, including those inherited from the Western European Union.

I note the Taoiseach told the press on 18 October that he would never agree, in the context of such a merger, to an EU mutual defence guarantee like that in the Western European Union Treaty. This is very different from the position taken by Seán Lemass, who as I have shown, did not place a limit on Ireland's commitment to European Union. In taking his position, the Taoiseach may be relying on one sentence in the Cologne declaration which states: "The different status of Member States with regard to collective guarantees will not be affected". That is quite different from saying that no such collective guarantees should ever be put in the EU treaties. Collective guarantees could be put into the EU treaties but with a right for some countries, existing members but not new ones, to opt out. The Taoiseach said last week he is opposed to any collective security guarantees for anybody going into the EU treaties, but he did not get a declaration to that effect at Cologne in June. All he got was a right to opt out, and no more.

If the Taoiseach really believes that collective guarantees should not be included in the EU treaties, why did he not seek an assurance on that at Cologne? The Taoiseach quoted a speech by Eamon de Valera in 1946 earlier in this debate. Reflecting on the League of Nations, Mr. de Valera said that if there was to be an alternative to futile discussions "there must be a method whereby effective forcible action may be taken". If this is so, I put the following question to the Taoiseach. If at some time in the future the United States no longer maintains a military presence in Europe, a threat to European security emerges and the United Nations is deadlocked by the veto of one of the permanent members of the Security Council, by whom would the peace and security of the European Union then be protected?

Is it the position of other parties in this House that Ireland will not offer an answer to that question? Is it their position that we will leave it to the British, the Germans and the French to find an answer? If we opt out, they will find an answer because they will have to find one. However, it may be an answer that Ireland will not like. It may be the wrong answer. It may be a belligerent and foolish answer, and those countries are capable of belligerence and foolishness. Ireland will then have no substantial grounds for complaint, because we will have freely opted out of any say in their decision.

Opting out of commitments relieves us of a burden, but it does not relieve us of responsibility. Opting out of commitment may mean that we will have no say in what is decided, but it does not mean we will be unaffected by what is decided. That is the dilemma that Ireland will have to face in the negotiations that are now under way to develop a Common European Defence Policy. Members of this House should realise that these are serious negotiations which will come to a conclusion probably within the next year and it is important that we are clear-sighted in the choices we make. We should be in having a say rather than outside not having a say.

Mr. Power

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. There has been a wide range of contributions in recent days, some of which were thought provoking and interesting and some of which were typical and predictable. It is important to understand what Partnership for Peace is about and how new it is, as that might help to explain attitudes towards it in this House and throughout the country.

Partnership for Peace is a voluntary co-operative framework for regional security co-operation between NATO and individual States which are not members of NATO. Of the 43 States which are members of Partnership for Peace, 24 – just over half – are not members of NATO. It is very important to make that point. Those looking at the birth of Partnership for Peace would have had concerns about NATO influence, but it is important to stress that more than half its present members are not in NATO. All our EU colleagues are members of PfP. Countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden are members, as is Switzerland, which could be considered one of the neutral countries in the world. Switzerland's membership has not caused any great difficulty in that country, where people saw it as a natural progression and welcomed it with open arms. Many central and eastern European States which were associated with the old Soviet Union are also involved.

I do not want to castigate others' contributions or their criticisms of Fianna Fáil's handling of this issue. It is obvious that there are differences within Fianna Fáil about our membership of Partnership for Peace, but those concerns are very understandable. However, if people look in detail at what is involved they will see the benefits of membership for us and the benefits we can bring to others, given the tremendous contribution PfP has made to world peace in less than six years. From that point of view I am very keen to see Ireland participate in PfP.

When President Clinton launched Partnership for Peace just over five years ago, many saw it as providing reassurance to the new democracies in eastern Europe, many of which made no secret of their desire to become members of NATO. Many people were unhappy about this and it made their minds up about PfP. I accept that many in Fianna Fáil still have doubts today about joining Partnership for Peace, particularly given its early links with NATO. However, PfP has proven itself in the recent years and what is appealling to many members is that each participating country can decide on its role. There is no compulsion on any country when signing up, as countries decide then on how they wish to participate. That is very important. We are not being compelled to do anything. We can become members but it is left up to ourselves to decide.

Opposition contributions have made great play out of what they perceive to be a major U-turn on the part of Fianna Fáil. Anyone who has been in politics for more than a week will realise that when a party changes its opinion it gives its opposition a stick with which to beat it. That has happened but I think the stick has been used so much that it is broken. It is important for the Government, no matter how embarrassing it may be, to make sure the right decision is made and the Opposition's reaction is understandable. The Minister for Foreign Affairs explained the Government's position regarding this change of heart very clearly and honestly last week. He said:

To those who claim the Government changed its mind on Partnership for Peace I say: yes we have and we are not afraid to admit it. We are not afraid to admit that we can change our minds in the light of new facts and changed circumstances.

I remember as a small boy passing an establishment where there was a great deal of drinking, dancing and singing. It was clear that there was a happy occasion so I looked in and asked what was going on. I was informed that a couple had got engaged. I was not too familiar with the term at the time and someone explained to me that a couple had decided to get married. I asked why they did not get married straight away and why they needed the engagement. I was told that the engagement was to give them time to change their minds. This is a similar situation for the Government, but while we might have been criticised for lukewarm support for Partnership for Peace in the past, our cards were on the table before the local and general elections. The electorate was in no doubt as to where Fianna Fáil stood on the matter and what our intentions were.

Since the end of the Cold War there has been a major change in the way countries work together, as old methods of security and defence no longer apply. The doubts and lack of trust between countries has been replaced. There is now a realisation that no country can be considered to be an island and co-operation is the order of the day. Speakers have mentioned Ireland's proud role as a peacekeeper and we should acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Irish peacekeepers have made throughout the world, in the Lebanon, Congo and elsewhere. Irish soldiers seem acceptable no matter where they go and that may have much to do with the perception of us as a neutral nation which is good at peacekeeping. We have a long record of more than 40 years' experience in peacekeeping and there have been more than 46,000 individual tours of duty. However, we have paid a big price in our peacekeeping role, as many soldiers have lost their lives on these missions. These are the sacrifices soldiers have made and will continue to make in the interests of world peace.

Last week the House passed a motion agreeing to send troops to East Timor. We are sending the Army ranger wing to East Timor. I hope this will be a successful tour but we cannot underestimate the risks involved. However, regardless of the dangers, this tour shows the gut instinct and the reaction of Irish soldiers – when there is trouble or a call from abroad, there are many within the Defence Forces prepared to take the risks to promote peace throughout the world. I am sure that tradition will continue. If we are to play a more meaningful peacekeeping role it is vital that we look forward and not backward. Joining Partnership for Peace will give us an opportunity to continue our peacekeeping role throughout the world but in a more meaningful way.

Deputy Bruton referred to our modest Army. It may be modest in comparison with some of our European colleagues, but it is important that we properly equip the Army. The Minister announced major changes in this regard and we have a plan in place. However, it is important that the plan is brought forward and that the equipment needed is provided as quickly as possible, as has been highlighted on many occasions. The lack of equipment is preventing the Army from carrying out some of the duties it could take part in overseas, and it is important that this issue is address as quickly as possible.

The Government has been criticised for its decision not to hold a referendum on this issue. The Fianna Fáil manifesto did not make such a promise. I accept that there is a public perception that Fianna Fáil did promise such a referendum but the current Attorney General and his two predecessors are of the opinion that a referendum is not required with regard to joining PfP. I appreciate that one does not have to be constitutionally bound in order to hold a referendum and there are times when it is in the country's interest to seek the public's opinion. However, not many people wish to discuss this issue and I have not received many representations on the matter. I am convinced that the Government is taking the right course of action and that the vast majority of people support the decision to join PfP.

We recently witnessed terrible atrocities in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. People ask why the rest of the world allows such events to take place. We need a more speedy method of dealing with atrocities such as these. We must put in place a system which can deal more rapidly with outbreaks of violence and ensure peace throughout the world. There will always be flash points but it is important for the international community to organise itself so that it is in a better position to deal with war and to ensure, as best as is possible, that peacekeeping will become a priority for all countries. We must also ensure that, regardless of colour or creed, the lives of people in Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor and Ireland are of the same value.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The Government proposes that the Dáil, the national Parliament, approves participation by Ireland in Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Partnership for Peace is an organisation sponsored by the dominant military bloc, NATO, which is dominated by the United States, the major military power. Over the past decade, humanity's prime means of communication, language, has been perverted out of all recognition by that bloc, acting in its own interest and to cover up its real intentions. In the Gulf War and during NATO's bombing of Kosovo, the NATO powers attempted to sanitise the carnage they inflicted. Thus, the killing of thousands of innocent civilians is not referred to as slaughter or carnage but as “collateral damage”. The razing of industrial complexes is not the criminal destruction of people's resources and livelihoods but is the “degrading of targets”. It is language which has been degraded to try to hide the brutal consequences of NATO's bombs and policies.

Now, shamefully, the Government has joined that cynical degradation of language in proposing to the Dáil that this country join the entity called Partnership for Peace. It is not as the name purports a partnership for peace but an association of states for military action, an alliance of states for military action by another name. The partnership does not benefit peace but answers to the agenda, primarily of the war mongers and manufacturers of the obscene weapons of awful destruction. Any honest assessment of PfP must conclude that it is first and last a tool of NATO.

Set up by NATO in 1994, the framework document objectives are quite clear as to PfP's intention. It states:

The development of co-operative military relations with NATO. The development over the longer term of forces that are better able to operate with those of the members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

A US defence document produced in 1996 clearly lays out the US's intentions in moving, through NATO, for the establishment of PfP. It states:

Confronting concerns about its political relevance in the post Cold War era, NATO has reaffirmed its place at the core of trans-Atlantic security through its sponsorship of PfP. NATO's international staff work daily to help partners develop standard operating procedures, understand the protocols of consultation and achieve inter-operability with NATO forces. PfP has evolved quickly from a bare concept to an active association of military and defence institutions.

Nothing could be clearer. Furthermore, PfP has its base in NATO's headquarters. It is a creature of NATO from beginning to end, attempting to masquerade as a humanitarian initiative. The Government's Presentation Document is a fraud and a deceit to the Irish people. That document states:

Ireland shares the values fundamental to PfP, 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.

To say that these are the values underlying PfP and, therefore, that each country which is a member of PfP subscribes to those values, is monumental hypocrisy and deceit. That is demonstrably the case. It is a lie to the Irish people.

Let us consider some of the paragons of democracy and human rights with which this country will rub shoulders as a member of PfP. Turkey, for example, is a leading NATO country and a leading PfP country. Amnesty International's 1999 report states:

Hundreds of people were detained because of their non-violent political activities; most were released after a short period of police detention but others were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Torture was commonplace.There were at least 10 reported deaths in custody apparently as a result of torture. Five people reportedly "disappeared" and at least 15 people were killed in circumstances suggesting that they had been extrajudicially executed.

Demonstrators, including human rights defenders, students and Islamists, were frequently taken into custody from peaceful public meetings or their organization's offices, and held for hours or days in police detention solely because of their non-violent political activities.

The US State Department made an evaluation of Turkey's human rights practices in 1997. That assessment supported the conclusion that Turkey was flagrantly violating human rights across the board. The million strong Kurdish population of Turkey has had its cultural and linguistic rights crushed. That regime has depopulated up to 3,000 villages, forcibly moving more than 500,000 people from their homes. It is a brutal regime which crushes opposition, including freedom of expression, democratic socialists and trades unionists.

Kazakhstan is another paragon of virtue according to the Government's Presentation Document. In February 1998, Madel Ishmailov was sent to prison for insulting the President of Kazakhstan at a peaceful opposition demonstration. He was the chairman of an opposition coalition to the Government. I met him a number of months ago. He was sentenced to the brutal conditions of the Kazakhstan prison service 1,000 kilometres from home and, as is commonly the case for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Kazakhstan, was put in cells with unfortunate criminal prisoners suffering from tuberculosis of an advanced stage so that his spirit would be broken and he would contract the deadly disease. Is the Government content to endorse the perversion of NATO language to the extent of pretending that arbitrary arrest, torture, murder and repression of an entire people of their cultural language can be described as, to quote the Presentation Document again, the "promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace through democracy"? What a fraud to foist on the Irish people.

What is the real agenda of PfP and who stands to benefit? Of course the major powers stand to benefit. That is why they set it up. Can anybody seriously believe Britain and the US, the foremost military powers, genuinely care for the peoples, particularly the poor peoples, of this world, that they care, for example, for the peoples of East Timor, when both countries supported and armed the brutal Suharto dictatorship and supported the Indonesian dictatorship in its crushing of the rights of the people of East Timor?

The makers and peddlers of arms are the ones who stand to gain. The armaments industry, the most vile, immoral and despicable industry known to humanity, creates weapons to sell to dictatorships the world over which inflict appalling suffering. Who are the sponsors of the armaments industry who sell to the dictators? They are not faceless criminals hiding out in the sewers of the world but the so-called paragons of democracy, the arch-hypocrite Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, and the sanctimonious President of the US, Bill Clinton. They are the ones who sell the arms to dictatorships to repress the rights and freedoms of poor peoples throughout the world. The four leading countries of PfP control 90 per cent of world arms production outside of China. Some $745 billion is spent on arms each year, more than the total income of the poorest 45 per cent of the world population.

This is the company, these are the so-called partners, which the craven political parties in the State wish us to join. The agenda is clear. The agenda of the main parties is to bring Ireland into a de facto military alliance. Some people in the EU support the EU becoming a military block in its own right. Others support it becoming a military block in association with the US. The President of the EU Commission is openly calling for the EU to become a military block. Astonishingly, on national radio on 3 June last Deputy Quinn, the Leader of the Labour Party, called on the EU to be one of three major blocks which should dominate the world. What would James Connolly, founder of the Labour Party and a vehement opponent of militarism, think of that?

The second part of the agenda of PfP is to bring the countries of Eastern and Central Europe into a block where their fabulous mineral wealth can be bartered over and exploited. Kazakhstan, for example, has fabulous oil wells which NATO powers wish to have under the control of their major companies. The amendment tabled to the Government motion in my name and that of other Deputies calls for a referendum of the Irish people. It is treacherous of Fianna Fáil to propose that we join this alliance without a referendum of the Irish people.

The alternative of the Socialist Party to NATO and PfP is not that each country should become an island or, as some advocate, become more involved in the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council, is made up of the NATO countries with a few other attachments, China, a brutal dictatorship and Russia, a regime mired in corruption. The alternative is a world free of militarism and dictatorship and free of the armaments industry. That means a world free from the rapacious greed of the multinationals where revolutionary change is affected by mass movements of working people and of the dispossessed to replace both blatant dictators and the hypocritical Governments pretending to have a facade of democracy while being the manufacturers of the weapons of mass destruction, and to take the resources of the world and develop them for the well-being of all peoples. The swords shall be beaten into ploughshares. That is the alternative. The tremendous human genius and astonishing technology, which is criminally wasted on armaments and on war, would be geared to the relief of poverty, hunger and destitution, and to protect the environment of the world. The world resources would be taken from the grasp of the powerful and ruthless minority and democratically organised and controlled by the majority, thereby not requiring military alliances of any kind, which are the organisation of power to protect power, privilege and the greed of a powerful minority.

Debate adjourned.