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. M. Ahern

I pay tribute to my fellow county man, the late Jack Lynch, who will go down as one of the great leaders of this country and of Fianna Fáil. Jack Lynch was respected by his peers in the sporting, political and legal fields and was revered by the public. He steered the country through difficult times in the early 1970s, never taking his eye off the ball. He also steered Ireland into membership of the EEC which brought us socially and economically into new markets and transformed Ireland into a dynamic, forward-looking country. I extend my condolences to his wife, Máirín, his brother Finbarr and the other members of his family. Ar dheis Dé a anam dílis.

This is an appropriate time to discuss Partnership for Peace, as Jack Lynch, who led us into the EEC, had a vision for Ireland. He saw Ireland developing in a Europe which would come together and grow, and felt it was our destiny to join in that development of the European Union. When discussing PfP it is important to examine our motives for entering the organisation. In accepting the invitation to participate in PfP, Ireland is restating its commitment to the development of a just and peaceful international society based on the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the peaceful settlement of disputes. PfP, and the co-operative values which underlie the partnership, are compatible with these commitments and objectives. We must not forget this fact and we must emphasise those principles.

It is also important to state that Ireland pursues, and will continue to pursue, a policy of military neutrality and does not intend to become a member of NATO. Ireland's decision to participate in PfP is in full accordance with our policy of military neutrality which has always been pursued in tandem with full and active support for collective security based on international law. The partnership is established as an expression of a joint conviction that stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area can be achieved only through co-operation and common action. The protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, and the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace through democracy are shared values fundamental to the partnership.

In joining the partnership, the member states of NATO and the other states subscribing to this document recall that they are committed to the preservation of democratic societies, their freedom from coercion and intimidation, and the maintenance of the principles of international law. They reaffirm their 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, specifically to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, to respect existing borders and to settle disputes by peaceful means. They also reaffirm their commitment to the Helsinki final act and all subsequent CSCE documents, and to the fulfilment of the commitments and obligations undertaken in the field of disarmament and arms control.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and other speakers have stated that we are committed to the PfP only in so far as we wish. There are those who claim Ireland is the only neutral country entering PfP. It is important to stress this is not true. Of the 43 countries who have signed up for PfP, 24 are non-members of NATO. The member states include all our EU partners and the neutral states of Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. Most of those who oppose joining PfP also led the opposition to joining the EEC, the Maastricht Treaty and the euro. They have been wrong every time and there is no reason to believe they are right on this occasion.

Ireland has a long and honourable tradition in peacekeeping. Some would like to keep our soldiers in the 1958 mode when the Army was first deployed under the UN in Africa. At that time our soldiers wore bull's wool uniforms which were most uncomfortable in the tropical heat, and used 1958 weapons. Some of those who oppose this motion would like the Army to remain in a 1958 mode. It is time the Army was allowed to operate in the realities of 1990s and the new millennium. Times have changed and we must be open to change. Successive Governments, including those involving the Labour Party, have favoured joining PfP as they knew it was the right course of action. Some of the present Opposition have changed their minds for the sake of opposition, which does not say much for that party.

Relations between the Western European Union, NATO and the EU were enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty of 2 October 1997. That treaty was ratified by the Irish people on 22 May 1998. That is why it is false to suggest that the people did not have an opportunity to state their views on the relationship between Ireland, the EU, NATO and the Western European Union. I support the motion and look forward to Ireland taking its place among the nations of Europe and going forward in that Union.

Mr. McDowell

I am glad to contribute to this important debate. I support Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace, but I also deplore the decision of the Government to abandon the undertaking it gave to the people to first put the matter to a referendum. That undertaking was given by the Taoiseach in clear and unambiguous terms and it has been cited by many colleagues during the course of this debate. I will not repeat it now. The decision to abandon the commitment is dangerously cynical in that nothing has changed since 1997 to alter the argument in any way. The merits and demerits of the argument are exactly the same as they were two years ago.

What has changed of course is that Fianna Fáil is now in Government and those at the top of that party have changed their minds or seem to have changed their minds. In saying that, perhaps I am giving them too much credit. Perhaps it is more reasonable to presume they were always in favour of participation and chose deliberately to mislead that section of the electorate who cared deeply about this sort of issue. The decision of the Government is dangerous in that it will feed pub lic cynicism about the political process. Some people did believe the Taoiseach when he made his promise. I met some of them myself during the European elections campaign and I am sure other colleagues did also. Those people are understandably and justifiably disillusioned and angry at what they rightly see as a breach of trust. Huge damage has been done to the institutions of our democracy already by the events which are unfolding at Dublin Castle. The Taoiseach is adding to the damage done by his predecessors by this act of deliberate cynicism.

To return to the merits of the argument itself, I said at the outset that I support participation in PfP and I do, but I want to go further than that. I also believe that it is time for us Europeans to find a way to deal with our own security needs without recourse to our friends across the Atlantic. This will not be easy and it will not come cheap, but it must be done and the time to do it is now.

I have not always held this view. Until a few years ago I could never have imagined myself in a position where I would argue publicly for an increase in Defence spending, but I changed my mind. Many people like me changed their minds because of what happened in places like Zepa, Srebenica and Gorazde, the names of which should be burnt irrevocably into the minds of anyone who wants to contribute to this debate. Before Yugoslavia, Europeans of my age, and those a little older, had no experience, however indirect, of war in Europe. In truth, most of us assumed we would live out our lives without the experience of the wars which were visited on previous generations this century. In so far as we thought about it at all, we were complacent. Yugoslavia changed all that and the massacres of Gorazde and Srebenica changed it irrevocably. What was shocking about the atrocities of Yugoslavia was that it happened just a few hundred kilometres from the borders of the EU, just a few hundred miles from Venice and Trieste.

What was shocking about Yugoslavia was that it demonstrated with brutal clarity that even sophisticated communities such as those of Sarajevo could be rent apart by the power of nationalism or, as some would have us call it, ultra nationalism. What was perhaps even more shocking about Srebenica was that it happened under the eyes of Dutch troops who were unable to stop it. It is easy to get emotional and angry about the massacres in Yugoslavia and in a sense it is important that we should do just that, but the facts bear some study and we can learn from what happened.

The United Nations was in Bosnia more or less from the start. Its initial role was to provide escorts for food convoys and humanitarian relief. Later the UN troops were asked to open Sarajevo Airport to ensure the city would have a lifeline to the outside world. This they did with a greater or lesser degree of success, but things started to get complicated in the face of ethnic cleansing, which was practised largely by the Serbs. Finally the UN mandated the creation of six safe areas, including Srebenica, Gorazde and Sarajevo. UN mandated forces were dispatched to these six areas with instructions to protect the local populations. The problem was of course that it was all a big bluff. The UN troops never had the wherewithal to carry out their mandate and everyone knew it. The Serbs knew it and so did the US, the UN and the EU. We sent in a token force of under-armed troops in the hope that the Serbs would back off. We asked the UN to do a job and then denied it any possibility of doing that job. The safe areas were a joke and the Serbs knew it. The result was that Dutch teenagers stood by when the men of Srebenica were taken away in their thousands to be shot in the woods.

The lessons are stark and clear. All the UN resolutions in the world are not worth a damn in the face of forces who are prepared to use force to get their way. A token international presence is of little help and may even make things worse. It is clear, for example, that the NATO bombing of Serb gun positions in Bosnia outside Sarajevo was postponed several times because the UN feared justifiably that its forces might be taken hostage.

For me, the moral and political imperative is crystal clear. What happened in Yugoslavia must never be allowed to happen in Europe again. There are a host of ways in which we can go about ensuring it does not happen again. We can and we must demonstrate political and economic solidarity, and use all our powers of persuasion to persuade those who are intent on violence that this is not the way to go. However, when push comes to shove and all else has failed, fascism must be stopped. People like Slobodan Milosevic must know they cannot win because we will not allow them to win.

This demands, irrespective of whether we like it, that we have the military capacity to stop people like him. At present, the only game in town is NATO. I do not like that and I resent it. We should not have to call on the Americans to be the policemen of Europe. I suspect they do not like doing the job and I do not imagine they will continue to do it for much longer, but it is then incumbent on those of us who make this argument to say what we can put in its place. Never before has there been such an imperative, such a need. Never before has there been such a possibility to develop an alternative structure. Earlier Deputy Bruton spoke about the events at Cologne earlier this year, and he is right. Many of our European colleagues at the highest level are speaking about the possibility of developing alternative structures for security in Europe. We cannot stand idly by and say and do nothing. We cannot pretend the debate is not happening because it is. It is incumbent on Ireland, as a sovereign State with a unique input into these matters, to make our voice heard and to make our contribution.

The likelihood is that future UN mandates will be carried out by regional forces. In Europe the likelihood is that must be some form of structure centred on the Western European Union. At present, IFOR and SFOR are operated effectively by NATO under UN mandates and, therefore, we must engage at EU and Western European Union levels to develop an alternative structure with which we will be comfortable.

I want to refer briefly to the UN. It is of course ideal and preferable that we should in all cases operate under UN mandates, but we must be critical about this and we must consider how the veto works. For the life of me, I do not understand why, 55 years after World War II and some 30 years after the decolonisation of most of the world, the United Kingdom and France continue to wield veto powers at the UN. I am not prepared to concede to Russia and, with all due respect to him and to our Russian friends, to Boris Yeltsin the power to decide whether people in Yugoslavia get slaughtered, nor am I prepared to concede to China, a country whose human rights record does not stand much scrutiny, the power to decide whether people in East Timor get slaughtered. The veto must change and it must change soon.

I do not pretend all of what I have said is directly related to PfP. The PfP cannot do what I have just described. It cannot provide the entire security infrastructure for Europe because PfP is something far more modest than that. In many ways talking about PfP is a bit of a misnomer because it is not an organisation as such.

The vast majority of opponents of PfP oppose it in the same way as they oppose EU integration and the single currency and, by and large, they are the same people. PfP is portrayed as some sort of uniform definable organisation with set goals and rules of membership. Nothing could be further from the truth. PfP must be one of the few organisations that allows its members to set their own rules. The presentation document illustrates what the priorities are in terms of our historical foreign policy and constitutional provision and, by and large, I am happy with that document.

One of PfP's central objectives is promoting the civilian control of the military and, contrary to the hysterics of some, PfP has a real and substantial agenda to limit and regulate armaments sales and, most significantly, to enforce current international agreements on non-proliferation. I looked at the PfP work programme for the years 2000-2002 and it contains quite a few specific commitments which were interesting. It also contains a very interesting work programme. Even if we set aside the political work programme and look purely at the military it bears study. We are talking about, for example, the improvement of inter-operability in the field of peacekeeping; the exchange of experience, developments and lessons learned from peacekeeping operations; the development of common procedures and rules of engagement and consideration of equipment related issues; mine awareness and demining training; developing knowledge and understand ing of the legal parameters covering peacekeeping, peace enforcement and other peace support operations and so on. What do we have to fear from these activities and values? Nothing.

Many people watched the tragedy in Bosnia and wondered what could be done. Even at the time, international commentators were predicting further trouble in Kosovo and sadly it was not long before it came to pass with little advance in the interim in terms of the ability of the international community to respond quickly and early. Yet today, unfortunately, we are in no different a position. Throughout Europe there are potential flash points that could easily develop into similarly grim conflicts. All around Central Europe ethnic minorities are caught on the wrong side of borders, Slovakia and Hungary, Romania and Hungary, the Baltic States. Further east into the Caucasus it is patently obvious that the assistance of nations experienced in peacekeeping may help deal with conflict – all this before we look at Russia proper.

Anchoring Russia into a co-operative security relationship with Europe is the most important task in European security and clearly PfP has a role to play in this. Building trust in Europe between the peoples is a political and economic challenge but we would be kidding ourselves if we did not also acknowledge that there is a security aspect as well. I am not suggesting that security flows exclusively from military capacity, far from it. But I believe that building a mutual interdependency in matters of defence as well as everything else can help to make this continent a safer place in which to live. We can play only a small part in all of this but we should not hesitate to play that part.

Mr. U. Burke

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. In participating in PfP Ireland restates its commitment to the development of a just and peaceful international society based on democracy. Mention of democracy prompts me to ask why has this Government not given a democratic choice to the electorate to express its opinion on our participation in PfP. The Government promised a referendum but has reneged on its promise. For the Taoiseach and the Minister to say the public has little interest in this debate indicates that they are not listening and are only searching for an excuse not to grant the electorate such an opportunity.

The absence of a debate has led to uncertainty and much misinformation. The Government's lack of initiative in this area is responsible for this. I question the Government's stated commitments and how particular its objectives are given its lack of enthusiasm towards PfP. Ireland has established itself as a recognised peace-keeper on the world stage within the United Nations. It is important that we retain this status in a European and world context. The Government has shown itself to be uncertain and reluctant participants in the whole concept. Its U-turn is evidence of this. As a result, its voice is weak and lacks the leader ship we could give because of our record within the UN peacekeeping programme.

Fianna Fáil has been cynical on this issue. It promised one thing in Opposition and in Government did the opposite. In a speech as Opposition Leader in 1996 the Taoiseach said in a debate on the White Paper:

The PfP involves joint exercises with NATO on sea or land. Will they take place in Ireland? Will we be able to choose the NATO countries with whom we wish to have exercises? Will we have British troops back in the Curragh, the French in Bantry Bay, the Germans on Banna Strand, the Spanish in Kinsale and the Americans in Lough Foyle? Is that what we are talking about, or will we take part in exercises abroad under NATO command?

He continued:

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' as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic.

Was the Taoiseach uninformed when he made that contribution or was he trying to arouse public debate through such provocative statements? Some of those on the Government side have a tradition of making such statements at an appropriate time and withdrawing from them later. That is a damning statement and I do not know how the Taoiseach can stand by his present position having made that statement a few years ago.

There were statements in the Fianna Fáil manifesto opposing PfP membership. The Minister, Deputy Andrews, stated in the House in December 1997 that the PfP is a back door to NATO. It is strange that he said that when in her contribution to this debate the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, stated that, as has been made clear in the House on previous occasions, a referendum on the matter is not required for PfP, would not be in conflict with our neutrality. Participation in PfP will be in full accordance with our policy of military neutrality and participation in PfP does not entail membership of NATO or any alliance commitments. If ever there was a case of confusion within the Government ranks there is the evidence of it. As a result of these comments, I believe the position being put forward by the Government is seriously weakened. On the contrary, our party's policy on this issue is clear and consistent, as presented by Deputy Gay Mitchell. We initiated the debate on this topic and, as part of the rainbow Government, published a White Paper on this issue.

The current Administration has not fostered that debate and it has denied the people an opportunity to express their opinion – an opportunity it promised to give them when in Opposition. Such a debate could help to refute many of the unfounded statements and the raft of misinformation now in circulation in the absence of public participation in the debate.

Forty three countries participated in the establishment of PfP, 16 of which are NATO member states. We must participate and not stand idly by. We must lead and direct the PfP's policy relative to our proud tradition. We must demand that the Government, despite its lacklustre contribution, clearly decides on our behalf the level and nature of its commitment and participation in the future. PfP must show itself to be an organisation which will allow dialogue and co-operation between former adversaries and prevent the re-emergence of conflict in a Europe as we leave behind centuries of strife and war and begin a new millennium where peaceful co-existence and co-operation will be consolidated for future generations. Human rights must be protected in Europe and throughout the world. We should become leaders in this important area. It is fundamental for Ireland to participate in this area and direct policy.

Can we stand idly by at a time when 1.5 billion people earn less than a dollar a day and the same number have no access to clear water? Mrs. Robinson, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, has stated that "we are in danger of reaching a point where the world is divided – not between developing and developed states, but between overdeveloped and never-to-be-developed states". She blamed "a failure of will on the part of governments", who spend $800 billion a year on weapons and concluded that "we can, and must, do better". She also stated that "the credibility of our institutions of governance is at issue." This comes at a time when half the nations of the world participate in torture.

It is important that we should participate in human rights protection. Torture remains a global problem of great magnitude. It is carried out systematically in more than 40 countries which are members of the United Nations and is practised sporadically in many more. Many of the countries which have ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture still practice or tolerate the use of torture within their boundaries. Consequently, every day new names are added to an already huge list of torture victims throughout the world. It is difficult to estimate the exact number of victims. However, in January 1997 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that there were 13.2 million external refugees and 4.9 million internal refugees in the world. Many of these, who belong to opposition or national minority groups, are torture victims. Prior to leaving their homes they have been persecuted and often tortured in police stations, prisons or detention camps. Surely we must have a part to play in changing this.

When we sign the partnership framework document relating to PfP, we must insist on a flexible and beneficial input for Ireland. This should set out our agenda for our participation and it should clearly indicate our priorities for our involvement, namely, in the areas of human rights, freedom, justice, peace and crisis management. I am glad that support for our membership is not, and never will be, a backdoor to NATO membership. Proof of this is the fact that the neutral countries within the EU, Austria, Finland and Sweden, and Switzerland from outside it are all participants in PfP. I hope our participation could facilitate greater North-South co-operation and extend and further develop British-Irish co-operation.

Since 1958, Irish peacekeepers and military observers have participated in 46,000 individual tours of duty involving 36 United Nations peacekeeping missions. Based on this experience, Ireland is prepared to participate and contribute to a co-operation and partnership framework. It is important that our experience in peacekeeping operations should underline the importance of our participation in the future. As peacekeepers and crisis management personnel, Irish forces serving abroad have contributed advice to Third World countries and to refugees throughout the world. I hope our participation in PfP will lead to our increased participation in areas where we have built up a wealth of experience and goodwill.

Mr. Flanagan

Much of the debate on Partnership for Peace has centred around the concept of Ireland's neutrality and how our neutral status would be affected under the new regime. In Opposition in 1996, as I am sure Members on this side of the House have already recalled, Fianna Fáil, as the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Wallace, will remember, was of the view that signing up for PfP was a step towards compromising Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. So misguided was Fianna Fáil at that time that its then Foreign Affairs spokesman, Mr. Raphael Burke, said membership of Partnership for Peace amounts to second class membership of NATO. He pointed out that PfP has a nuclear capability which is "anathema to the Irish people". Fianna Fáil promised a referendum and we know the rest. It refused, however, to point out that many members of the United Nations have the nuclear capability so much feared by Mr. Burke. Fianna Fáil, however, did not see the inconsistency of its argument and, in the interest of base political motives, it promised, from the Opposition benches, to hold a referendum – a commitment on which it is now welching. Such breathtaking hypocrisy only increases public cynicism and the Taoiseach and his Ministers must stand indicted.

I favour Ireland joining PfP and my party, Fine Gael, has been consistent in this regard. I would go further than some within my party and state that Ireland should join the Western European Union, to which it has much to contribute and offer in terms of shaping a new Europe for a new millennium. For some reason, the mere mention of NATO excites people to a state of apoplexy. We have seen some of this hysteria in recent days. This fear has been unfairly exploited by those opposing PfP in the current debate. PfP is not NATO and much of what has been said to date against Ireland's participation is simply scaremongering. PfP was a response to the ending of the Cold War, largely aimed at Baltic, central and eastern European states. While many of the recently formed independent states that were formerly members of the Soviet Union wish to consider joining NATO, PfP was established to allow them to enjoy a positive relationship with NATO without being obliged to join it.

It is important to consider the position of Russia, Sweden, the Ukraine, Austria, Finland and Malta, none of which has joined NATO. Russia remains positively against the concept of NATO. It is worth examining the status of European states in relation to PfP and NATO. In addition to the countries to which I already referred, PfP includes such diverse states as Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and Moldova. Forty three OSCE members are now in PfP, with only Cyprus and Ireland, along with three states of the former Yugoslavia, outside the group. The fact that Switzerland, the most neutral of states, has joined PfP puts much of Ireland's opposition into stark perspective and puts paid to many of the anti-NATO neutral sentiments of the Green Party and others opposing from within this jurisdiction. Switzerland has joined PfP and refuses to join the United Nations because, it says, the United Nations carries legal obligations with which it might not be entirely happy. Partnership for Peace, we are told, threatens Ireland's neutrality but in no way interferes with the neutrality of Switzerland. Yet our membership of the United Nations raises no hackles in any quarter other than the argument that we are owed money by the UN.

Partnership for Peace is not a back door to NATO. Rather, it is a response to the totally new landscape of European security opened up by the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of communist eastern bloc and Soviet states. It offers a means of co-operating on military and peacekeeping matters to countries anxious to remove themselves from the adversarial structures imposed by years of confrontation between the two mighty blocs of the United States and the Soviet Union from the Second World War until the early 1990s.

Our proud membership of the European Union should manifest itself in greater participation in political matters at the heart of Europe. Ireland should develop closer links with the Western European Union by sharing, as the foreign policy White Paper says, "its extensive experience of international peacekeeping with other European states". We have been far too preoccupied with the financial benefits of our EU membership. For many Irish people Europe means no more than Structural Funds and headage payments. As we approach the new millennium, Europe impacts positively in so many ways on the life of the average Irish citizen, areas of consumer protection, equality issues, health protection, food safety, recognition of educational degrees mutually between states of the Union as well as freedom of movement and of trade and commerce. The European Union has been a great success, not only for Europe but also for this country. To prove this we only have to look at Europe in the 40 years from 1917 to 1957 and contrast it with Europe in the 40 years from 1957 to 1997. The European Union is now the world's premier economic bloc. Economic success and closer political co-operation go hand in hand so it is logical and desirable that closer political ties are established among the states of the European Union. If Europe does not engage in common security and defence arrangements we will continue to exhibit the paralysis that was dependent on the United States taking an initiative on our part in Bosnia and, earlier this year, Kosovo.

Ireland cannot stand back from further evolution of common foreign and security policy. We have a proud record in the area of peacekeeping and crisis management. This will continue in PfP with emphasis also on international human rights. As the Fine Gael leader, John Bruton, has said on numerous occasions, "If one is willing to be part of a political union one must also be willing to defend this union". I share this view.

Central to defence and security in Europe is the relationship between the European Union and the Western European Union. The Western European Union is recognised by the Maastricht Treaty as an integral part of the development of the Union and a majority of our partners in the European Union are of the view that the Western European Union should be developed as the defence component of the European Union. I fully agree with this. I attended sub-committee meetings of the Western European Assembly in my capacity as chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice and Defence in the last Dáil. This was under our current observer status. Such a role is informative only and we are disadvantaged by the fact that Western European Union members are not obliged to act on any view that Ireland might have on any subject at any time. It is like being picked on an All-Ireland football final team and, while being fully fit, confined to the sideline on the day of the match. We should become full members of the Western European Union alongside our European partners. This would give Ireland full access to the decision making process and enable us to impress our views on European security and defence issues within the Western European Union. This would involve mutual defence arrangements of a type not envisaged before and would, by definition, change our concept of neutrality. If that demands a referendum, which I believe it would, so be it.

A European defence and security arrangement in the post-Cold War and post-Maastricht era must be developed and cannot be left up in the air. There is a web of relationships between the EU, Western European Union, NATO, CSCE and the UN. Working by means of a pan-European organisation is both difficult and complex but we cannot opt out and decide that we shall have no involvement. The late Seán Lemass anticipated Ireland contributing to the new European Community defence structures as economic and political union progressed and developed. His successors as Taoiseach shared his view. In March 1981 the Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, told the Dáil, "Neutrality and non-alignment is incompatible with membership of the European Community and with our interests and ideas".

We do not have a tradition of neutrality like that of Sweden, Switzerland or Austria. Moreover, we are not in a position to defend ourselves from external aggression from whatever source it comes. There is no mention of neutrality in our Constitution and the use of our neutral status as a bargaining chip during the past 60 years removes credibility from a claim of moral conviction in the matter of neutrality which we like to point out from time to time. This claim is fundamentally flawed. After the Second World War our neutral position and the question of joining NATO were handled by successive Governments, not as a matter of national principle but as a bargaining chip linked to the partition of this island. In 1949 when NATO was being structured, Ireland's rejection was not due to any principled stance on neutrality but because the partition of Ireland was judged to make it impossible for us to join any military alliance beside Britain. Seán MacBride, the Minister for External Affairs, was adamant that as long as partition remained, any military alliance was totally out of the question. When he visited the United States in 1949, Seán MacBride committed Ireland to full NATO membership if Britain withdrew from Northern Ireland. Two years later, Mr. de Valera took exactly the same line. Partition was the stated stumbling block, not any principled neutral stance. The late Jack Lynch – I join fellow Members in offering sympathy to his wife Máirín on his passing – and Paddy Hillery, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, made it clear in the course of preparation for EEC membership that as the Community developed towards political unity and common defence, Ireland would play its part. Ireland's traditional principled military neutrality does not stand up to examination and is shown to be little more than a sham when subjected to scrutiny.

Some Deputies, in the context of the PfP debate, seem anxious to cling to policies and ideals more appropriate to the war-torn 1930s than to the Europe of the new millennium. Of course, we have a positive role to play and, while remaining outside NATO, we should actively participate in the Western European Union so that our influence can be exercised on EU defence policy. We can add our voice within the Western European Union towards proposing a defence and security philosophy more in line with that of Sweden, Austria and Finland that with that of the NATO countries. European defence policy can be non-aggressive and acceptable to countries like Ireland, Sweden and Austria. We can benefit from the availability of jobs and investment which the major European powers are committing to defence and security within the Western European Union.

We have other options but one option which is not available is to stand back, stick our heads in the sand and do nothing. Economic and political isolation is not a possibility. We cannot turn back the clock on the unprecedented opportunity presented by the end of the Cold War to create a prosperous and peaceful Europe. We must play our part positively and actively. Ireland should play its role, perform its duty and meet its obligations for European defence. Never before have so many people in Europe lived together in a period of peace and harmony. We can continue to build on this peace and prosperity among our culturally diverse European neighbours from the Atlantic to the Black Sea. Joining PfP is part of the structure that, with economic and political union, will put an end to strife and war in Europe and beyond. Anything less is a negative cop-out of Pontius Pilate proportions.

Mr. Spring

I join colleagues in offering my sympathy to Máirín Lynch, widow of the late Jack Lynch. I had great respect for a loved son of Cork who was a great politician and leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. Indeed, he showed his prowess at an early stage on the hurling and football fields. I received nothing but kindness and courtesy from the man whenever we met. He will be missed deeply.

I speak tonight with mixed feelings. On the one hand, Ireland should join PfP – it should have done so many years ago – while, on the other, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the Government's approach to this issue and, in particular, that of Fianna Fáil. It is unfortunate that we are dealing with this issue in this manner because in recent years, especially since the publication of the White Paper on foreign policy into which all parties had an input, we tried for the first time since the foundation of the State to give the public a sense of ownership in terms of the formulation of foreign policy. I mean no disrespect to the civil servants working in the Department of Foreign Affairs, for whom I have the utmost respect following my time working with them.

In terms of submissions received and seminars around the country, in developing foreign policy we set out to give the people a sense of belonging which they did not have heretofore. That was achieved to a certain extent. Many people involved in non-governmental organisations and members of the Defence Forces who have served abroad with the UN and other organisations have an abiding and continued interest in foreign policy. However, it is unfortunate that I detect a great degree of discomfort in the Fianna Fáil Party regarding the manner in which this matter has been dealt with.

That is understandable, particularly when one looks at the record of the Taoiseach, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burke, and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs. When in Opposition they displayed an absolute lack of understanding of PfP. I do not know whether that was deliberate but for many years, they raised this issue, as others have put on record during this debate. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have found justification for Ireland joining PfP which they did not have prior to the 1997 general election.

I am in favour of Ireland joining in terms of its responsibilities and obligations on the international stage but it would have been more in the interest of political parties if the issue had been put before the electorate. Some people say it would have been an expensive exercise. However, it would have been a worthwhile exercise in democracy. The House will ratify our membership of PfP but it would be stronger and more meaningful if it were ratified by the people. This is the first meaningful debate on what PfP is about even though the conclusions are predictable. It is not a back door into NATO, as has been said by Fianna Fáil spokespersons in the past, and it would have indicated a stronger commitment by the Government if it had been ratified by the people.

However, that will not happen and it is a sad reflection on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, especially given their position on this issue. I am not surprised because it is another indication of the Taoiseach's capacity to have one position in Opposition and another in Government. It will be a further indictment of his reputation which reached its zenith approximately two years ago but is now on a slippery slope as a result of the evidence unfolding at the tribunals regarding the leadership allowance during the Haughey era and Fianna Fáil's absolute U-turn on PfP. This will be evidenced in next week's by-election in Dublin and in future debates as another all too clever gesture by the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil despite rumblings within the party. Last week, seven or eight people were going to the barriers but they seemed to have slipped off as quickly as they were climbing upon them.

The Taoiseach cannot "disremember" what he said prior to the election in 1997. I am not sure how one does that. He did not go as far as using the great words of Charles J. Haughey that Fianna Fáil had a "solemn commitment" to opposition to PfP. The people will see it for what it is worth but it is regrettable because the Government could have won this issue on both counts. On the one hand, it has undermined the sense of ownership that the people had acquired in regard to foreign policy, particularly during this decade, and, on the other, it could have garnered the people's support. Whatever is said between individuals in various political parties, the people in their wisdom would support the political will of this House and efforts to join PfP.

The Progressive Democrats Party has always been consistent on this issue and has made its position clear. It is an error on the part of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Fianna Fáil Party that they have not found a mechanism whereby the issue could be put before the people. They said they would put it before the people and they have reneged on that. All of us knew what the legal advice would be and to use that as a reason is akin to hiding behind a fig leaf given that a commitment was made before the general election. People interested in foreign policy who read the various party manifestos prior to the election would have voted for Fianna Fáil on the basis that if Ireland were to join PfP the people would decide. I am astounded that the Fianna Fáil leadership has become comfortable with PfP. The reality is that it was comfortable all the time but for political reasons it would not state that before the election. It had a similar difficulty during recent events.

When I was in Government I tried to convince my colleagues of the necessity and desirability of Ireland playing its role in terms of foreign policy and we should have joined PfP before now. It was launched at the NATO Summit in Brussels in 1994. It set out to be a co-operative security initiative designed to intensify political and military co-operation in Europe, promote stability, reduce threats to peace and build strengthened relationships by promoting practical co-operation among the participants. I have difficulty understanding how anybody in his or her right mind could be opposed to Ireland joining PfP given its aims and design. It is related to NATO but for too long we tried to pretend that NATO did not exist. It was difficult to have a rational debate on the functions of NATO or whether Ireland was in favour it. It was almost taboo to discuss NATO's role. The reality is that NATO exists and we must live with it whether we are for or against it.

The second most important aspect of this debate is how we want to situate Ireland's execution of foreign policy in relation to European security architecture. The only certainties in security arrangements in Europe are the changes which have taken place and which will continue to do so. If one looks at the evolution of Irish foreign policy and the background to Ireland becoming a neutral State, the particular circumstances in which that happened in 1939, one will see that many changes have taken place since then, particularly our participation in the European Union. Deputy Flanagan traced the evolution of foreign policy succinctly. I will go back only as far as our entry into the European Economic Community. It is well known that in the discussions which took place in the ten years prior to our membership, the question of European security architecture and Ireland participating with other European countries at some stage in common foreign and security policy, ultimately leading to a common defence, would have been discussed. No Irish leader, going back to the late Jack Lynch and the then Minister for External Affairs, Paddy Hillery, would have had any doubt that this issue would have to be grappled with at some stage.

The situation has changed dramatically in the ten years since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the ending of the Cold War and the certainties which it once provided. They were certainties which may have been founded on undemocratic states and values but they were the certainties of that time. When certainties go out the window, other certainties must be found to replace them to ensure security and stability on the European continent.

The common foreign and security policy is a child of the 1990s. It is currently in a state of evolution and I wish to see it developing sooner rather than later. I welcome the appointment of Javier Solana, the former Secretary General of NATO, as the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and I hope he will be in a position to speak, act and develop policy on behalf of a European Union that can find common positions in foreign and security policy.

Common foreign and security policy has been developed by the Maastrict and Amsterdam Treaties and, looking at the initiatives coming from President Prodi's office, it would appear that there will be another intergovernmental conference which will conclude in 2002 or 2003. Of course common foreign and security policy will form a major part of that debate, as important as the machinery for the efficient running of the European Union, particularly following enlargement.

We in Ireland are comfortable when acting within the ambit of the United Nations. If we look at the recent development of the United Nations, we will see that it is beginning to rely on regionalisation. The UN itself, as Deputy McDowell stated earlier, is in dire need of reform. It is important that we ensure that missions such as those in Bosnia under the auspices of IFOR are undertaken with the agreement of the United Nations. Reform of the UN would give it a more reflective composition, particularly at Security Council level, of the world in which we live, not the world as it was following World War Two, which is reflected in the balance on the Security Council. We must also look for co-operation within the OSCE and Western European Union, where we have observer status.

The reality is NATO will be needed in crisis areas such as Bosnia, Kosovo and the Middle East. In this House we are facing up to our responsibilities on the international stage. We have a proud record, which is recognised in many fora throughout the world, of action on behalf of the United Nations. That will not be jeopardised by our joining Partnership for Peace because Partnership for Peace is an important initiative taken in 1994 to reflect the new situation which has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

We should join Partnership for Peace but I would be more comfortable if the Government had decided to seek a mandate from the people to do so. I say that in the full confidence the majority of Irish people would support our joining Partnership for Peace because it is a realistic reflection of the role we want to play on the international stage in foreign policy affairs.

Mr. Durkan

It is interesting that we should be having this debate on the sad occasion of the passing of a former Taoiseach who established a great role for Ireland by becoming involved in the European scene and taking his responsibilities there seriously. Like other speakers I would like to be associated with the tributes paid to him and extend my personal sympathy to Mairín and the Lynch family.

The debate tonight is taking place at an interesting time from the point of view of the evolution of Irish foreign policy and European policy. We have seen the map of Europe redrawn since the end of the Cold War, the changes which have taken place and the responsibilities which fall upon those within the new Union which is envisaged. The European Union progressed satisfactorily for 50 years in the midst of the Cold War. It did so successfully and survived that difficult era economically and politically. There were hiccups but it achieved something which had not been achieved in the previous 50 years – it established a degree of understanding and peaceful co-operation.

Likewise, Ireland has changed considerably. We must accept that certain responsibilities have been thrust upon us by those changes. We come from a background of a century and a half of emigration. In that period we did not have the same responsibilities because we were not in the economic or political position to exert any influence in Europe or the rest of the world. Our people travelled to all corners of the world and faced the challenges presented to them in a manner which did us proud. Now that we have come into our own as one of the most vibrant economies in the world, there is a duty placed on us whereby we are expected by our current and future European partners to take our responsibilities seriously and to make a commitment of our own to the future of Europe as it unfolds. If we do not do that, given the benefits we have achieved as a result of membership of the European Union, it will be a sad reflection on us on our commitment to the modern Europe. I mention the modern Europe because every decade sets its own framework within which it must operate. Without any shadow of doubt, this millennium and the forthcoming century thrust upon us greater responsibilities than ever before. As a small country we can be a great example to our neighbours. I emphasise, as Chairman of the European Affairs Committee, that the applicant countries in the EU look upon Ireland as an example to follow and expect us to give them support. They expect us to give leadership, to show by our involvement that we are committed to the new Europe, that we have no fears of a new Europe. If we have benefited from the new Europe we would be expected to have little fear and I do not see why we should be worried and fearsome of joining PfP.

We should recognise that in the past, neutrality was a major issue here, and there are still many people who have serious concerns about it. Let us talk about those concerns, debate them rationally and come to a conclusion. There is only one side we can come down on, that is the side of continued involvement, co-operation and integration. One of the things we could be pardoned for in the past, when we did not have economic independence, was that we could opt out and say we were a poor country, that we could not be expected to contribute in the same way as our rich and powerful neighbours. On that basis there was a reason for our neutrality. We were lucky in many situations in the past. Lest anybody thinks otherwise, if circumstances had been somewhat different, in 1939 to 1945 we could have been in a very difficult position. There is no point in saying today we would have survived: we might have and we might not have. Other people outside were paying a very high price at that time. I am not suggesting we should have become immersed in that struggle; we had paid our own price years before. Notwithstanding all that, there is now a responsibility on us to set an example. Our economy is developing rapidly. We are the success story of Europe. Those countries that are now looking forward to membership of the Europe Union expect the country that is most successful within that Union to set an example and a headline for them. The benefits we have achieved as a result of our EU membership can, in some way, be accounted for if we can commit ourselves to the responsibility of membership of PfP. To those who say this is militarism, that it is involvement in nuclear armament and all the other associated scare stories that go with it, all I can say is that the incoming states – those states that have applied for EU membership – have a deep concern for their own security. Almost as we speak there is a move towards some form of a defence association or involvement within the European Union to such an extent that many have already joined NATO. They have taken that step, simply because they are concerned about their security and the vulnerable geographic position they hold in the centre of Europe. It is quite easy for us to opt out. It is quite easy for us to remain aloof. In today's modern world one cannot remain aloof and accept the benefits without taking some responsibility and getting involved. This gives us an opportunity here to show we are committed to the new Europe and that we are capable of participating at all levels economically and, in some fashion, towards getting discussion going in relation to a common defence policy or something similar. There have been various arguments as to the extent to which we should go along those lines. There will be those who suggest, as in the past, that this is the first stage of the introduction of body bags and the pictures of the Vietnam war will be turned up again. That is fine if one wants to scare people away from that.

We have a commitment to Europe: to the Belgians, the Dutch and the other applicant countries, such as the Czech Republic, Poland, etc. They are small countries, many of which are like us but much more vulnerable than us because they are at the front line. In the event of a situation arising, where they have to rely on the rest of Europe, they expect us to give a headline.

The other option is to opt out. On what basis do we opt out? How do we opt out of membership of PfP which is a minimal involvement at this stage? How do we explain to our European partners that we are delighted to have been members of the European Union, that we are part of Europe, true Europeans, the embodiment of Europe while at the same time saying we are a little worried about defence and all that goes with it and wish to reserve our case there? That is not acceptable and it will not be acceptable in the modern Europe. I emphasise from the little experience I have had as a member of the committee and previously in the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities that many of the smaller countries throughout Europe have seen what has happened in European history in the past 100 years. They have seen Europe's faults and failings and where it went wrong. It is easy to examine our history afterwards and identify what went wrong. It is a different story to chart the course for the future and that is what we have to do. If we do not chart that course properly, identify where we are going and make a commitment as a small country others, more influential than us, will say, obviously, they do not want it, they are a small country, they have benefited greatly from European membership, why should anybody else get involved and why should anybody else make sacrifices.

EU membership is more beneficial to the smaller countries than to anybody else. That goes without saying because, if we look again at our history, we have at least three, and potentially four, main powers who at varying times were dominant forces in Europe. It would be to their advantage to keep that position indefinitely. It is not to the advantage of the greater newer Europe to allow that to continue so sacrifices are being made by them. They have had to devolve a certain amount of powers and sovereignty to their lesser neighbours. In general, the European Union has benefited greatly from that. I have often said, as have many others here – this is something that should never be forgotten – that what we have benefited most from in Europe is not necessarily the direct payments but the markets it has opened up to us. Without opening the markets and removing the barriers the three or four main powers in Europe would reign supreme and the rest of us would have to take what was left.

The present situation is of great importance to us. We have an opportunity to make a commitment that goes a little further than we have gone in the past for the very good reason that we are a good example in the modern Europe. We are a shining example to all others throughout Europe and we should be seen to play a leading role in the development of the Europe of the future. Other issues will arise in the future. Deputy Spring mentioned Bosnia. We have seen Kosovo on our televisions and have agonised as to what should be done. Everybody said something should be done, everybody said somebody should do something. Generally speaking we allow that to be done by somebody else. That is no longer sufficient or acceptable. It is imperative that we nail our colours to the mast, and the Irish people want to do that because we have developed a pride from our economic sovereignty that we did not have previously. Arising from that it is expected that we make a commitment above and beyond that which we previously made, and PfP is the minimal commitment that should be expected of us.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Joining Partnership for Peace reflects the State's central role in contributing to peace in the world. Ireland has a proud tradition of peacekeeping since the first Irish troops went to the then Belgian Congo in the 1950s. We must continue to develop this proud tradition by joining the principal form in Europe through which peacekeeping missions are being increasingly organised. We must not remain on the sidelines. We must be central to ensuring that there is full co-operation within the European Union for peace in our time. We are in a position to make a distinctive contribution to the maintenance of peace and security in the world by bringing our unique values and principles to the forum and to argue for them in that forum.

This debate was initiated four years ago with the public consultation process when the White Paper on Foreign Policy was published by the previous coalition Government. The paper clearly outlined that Partnership for Peace objectives are similar to Ireland's historical approach to international peace and European security. Fine Gael has always been clear in its support for Irish membership of Partnership for Peace. We believe that Partnership for Peace is a flexible programme of military and security co-operation between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the non-NATO states. There are no commitments from participants other than voluntary co-operation in Partnership for Peace programmes. There are no defence commitments nor commitments to membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Partnership for Peace is purely a voluntary agreement. Switzerland, a country which will not even join the United Nations, is prepared to join Partnership for Peace without holding a referendum. In Switzerland, there are between three and six referenda in any year on various issues but on this issue Switzerland does not believe that it should have a referendum to consult its people.

The Presentation Document outlines clearly the areas in which Ireland proposes to work in Partnership for Peace – co-operation in peacekeeping, humanitarian operations, search and rescue operations, co-operation in the protection of the environment and co-operation in marine matters. It states clearly that Ireland's decision to participate in Partnership for Peace is in full accordance with its policy of military neutrality which has always been pursued in tandem with full and active support for collective security based on international law.

The arguments that membership of this body is a back door to joining NATO does not stand. The Irish position on this was clearly stated in June 1922 in that Irish membership of Partnership for Peace would not affect Irish neutrality as Partnership for Peace involves no mutual defence obligations. It is clearly stated, with all-party support, that Irish neutrality will be ended only if the Irish people so decide in a referendum.

I often question our pride in our neutrality. I do not believe Ireland was neutral between the allies and the Nazi regime during the Second World War. No country can say it does not have an opinion on whether a butcher like Hitler should not be opposed or that all efforts should be made to ensure this evil is removed from the face of the earth. A week after the publication of the biography of James Dillon by Senator Maurice Manning, we should remember the very difficult decision he had to make in the 1940s, for which he had to give up membership of my party. He stood alone and said that this nation should not be neutral while Hitler was butchering people throughout Germany.

The view has been expressed that membership of Partnership for Peace would be detrimental to our peacekeeping reputation and would affect our ability to contribute to future peacekeeping activities. This ignores the fact that the number of peacekeeping troops under the command of the United Nations has fallen dramatically from 800,000 to approximately 14,000. The future of peacekeeping lies in regional organisations taking the lead and as long as Ireland remains outside Partnership for Peace, we will not have a critical role and will be less able to continue our proud tradition of peacekeeping.

I am convinced that rather than Partnership for Peace damaging our peacekeeping role, it will strengthen it and enhance its contribution for the future. It will enable us to work with OSCE partners in programmes of co-operation which are aimed at reducing tension and promoting the security of the European Union. It will develop the skills and morale of the Defence Forces and enable them to fully participate in UN or OSCE peacekeeping operations. It will facilitate them in training and exercising with the states with which we will share peacekeeping duties in the future and those with which we shared peacekeeping duties over the past 40 years. That will enable us carry on the proud tradition we have built up in peacekeeping throughout the world over that period.

We will make a positive contribution through our vast experience in international peacekeeping organisations. Membership will improve Ireland's capacity to carry out search and rescue operations off our coast and will also involve the Defence Forces in humanitarian responses to national and other disasters. It will enhance co-operation to deal with drug trafficking, an issue which has caused extreme concern throughout Europe – it is accepted that 10 per cent of drug trafficking activity in Europe never comes to the notice of European police forces.

Over the past quarter of a century, Ireland has built up a reputation as being a positive member of the European Union. The Irish people have always responded enthusiastically to the development of the European Union. In response to that, the European Union has contributed positively to the development of our State, from coping with crises of poverty to examining the difficulties experienced as a result of our growing wealth.

The European Union played a key role over the past quarter of a century in assisting the development of this position. Partnership for Peace has nothing to do with choosing between one side or another and compromising neutrality. It is about siding with other European partners in a contribution to peace on our continent supervised by ourselves. I am pleased we are now sending a signal to our partners in Europe that we are willing to work together in Partnership for Peace.

This debate launches Ireland into a position where it will play a better role in pursuing the protection of human rights internationally. Earlier this month we saw Irish troops going to East Timor with the full support and encouragement of the Irish people. Several months ago, Irish troops were sent to Kosovo and their roles in both East Timor and Kosovo will be more effective than their previous roles in peacekeeping operations. We have a proud tradition of this and we currently have more than 800 personnel involved in the area. It has given us a very positive image in the international community. We have played a proud role in promoting global peace and security over almost 50 years.

As we enter a new political time, we must rethink our strategies and modernise our approach. Ireland is a very different place from what it was in the 1950s, when this State decided to assist the UN in its peacekeeping role in the Congo. The UN is no longer able to react to crises on its own. It is widely recognised that regional organisations have a key role to play in preventing and containing conflict. We must not shrink from our continued responsibility towards the international community. The experience gained from our involvement in the UN must be put into organisations such as the Partnership for Peace.

We require initiatives in peacekeeping, and must now focus on humanitarian issues and post-conflict rehabilitation. There is increased emphasis on conflict prevention and the development of early warning systems. This will involve more work with non-governmental organisations and will require specific training in such areas for our Defence Forces. We must work in a more creative and meaningful way with the non-Government organisations. This will require new approaches from the Army, which will need improvements in communication and other skills to develop the relationships which will now be required with the non-governmental organisations.

In his speech, the Minister outlined the basis for Ireland's individual partnership programme. It covers the area of peacekeeping, which will be the central focus of our participation. The Minister said that we were prepared to participate and contribute, through co-operation in the Partnership for Peace framework, in such areas as interoperability; planning for peacekeeping and peace support; communications, command and control; operational procedures; logistics and training. With regard to humanitarian operations, the Minister said that we are interested in the development of co-operation and the exchange of experience and expertise in that area, and that we have many insights and skills to share. With regard to available assets, the Minister stated that an infantry battalion group could be available for Partnership for Peace activities, subject to a national decision.

The commitment will radically alter our approach to peacekeeping, training and preparation. It will be no longer acceptable to form a peacekeeping force from various and differing Army units for use at relatively short notice, as has been the case over the past 40 years. To ensure that we can participate in a meaningful way with other member states, it may be necessary for the Minister for Defence to examine the feasibility of establishing something along the lines of a peace corps. It will have to be an established unit, consisting of members with a total commitment. For this to arise, the Minister must have adequate and suitable recruitment policies.

Since 1994, Partnership for Peace has evolved into a key European security institution. It now comprises 43 participants, including the 19 NATO member states. Its primary purposes are the protection and promotion of human rights, the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace; the preservation of democracy; the upholding of international law and the fulfilment of the UN obligations and the obligations of the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe. I welcome the opportunity to support it tonight.

Miss Fox

Before I commence my contribution on the motion, I wish to join in the expressions of sympathy on the death of the late Jack Lynch.

I have listened to the debate regarding Partnership for Peace over recent days and weeks, and I have listened to both sides of the argument. I will not support the Government's decision to join Partnership for Peace at this stage. I will give my reasons for not doing so.

I am concerned by the way in which we are entering Partnership for Peace. I am concerned that we are rushing into an alliance without consulting the people through a referendum. While I realise it is not legally necessary to hold a referendum, the Government should deliver on this election promise, given that it so strongly opposed joining Partnership for Peace at one stage.

There have been many well documented reasons to join Partnership for Peace. We are told that Partnership for Peace has no implications for our sovereignty and is not in conflict with our neutrality. I am very glad and reassured that this is the case.

Peacekeeping and humanitarian missions have been mentioned quite often in the discussions in recent weeks, in the promotion of Partnership for Peace. Ireland has played a key role in peacekeeping efforts over the past 40 years under the auspices of the UN, and in accordance with UN mandates. Ireland should continue that policy and only participate in peacekeeping missions as part of UN mandates. I hope that at no time in the future will Ireland be required to act outside a UN mandate due to the commitments of Partnership for Peace.

More than 140 countries are members of the UN but not of Partnership for Peace. Their role as peacekeepers will not be diminished because they are only in the UN and not in Partnership for Peace. I am sure that, were Ireland to decide to hold off joining Partnership for Peace for the moment, its role as a peacekeeper would not be diminished either.

In 1997, the Fianna Fáil election manifesto stated:

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 and use of nuclear weapons

Partnership for Peace, whatever way one dresses it up, is associated with, and co-operates with, NATO. It was launched at a NATO summit in 1994. NATO's defence policy is based on nuclear weapons and a first use of nuclear weapons policy. It seems to me to be an organisation we should be edging away from, rather than towards.

As has been suggested by previous speakers in this House, if it is the intention of NATO to take on more and more of the UN's role in international security and to become involved in military operations outside of NATO's area, with the assistance of Partnership for Peace, where does that leave Ireland? As a member of Partnership for Peace, we will be associated with its decisions, regardless of whether we agree with them or whether we avail of the opt-out clause.

There are negative perceptions about Partnership for Peace, for many of which Fianna Fáil is responsible.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Hear, hear.

Miss Fox

With the Minister for Foreign Affairs describing Partnership for Peace as "a back door to NATO" and as a "door opening process to NATO", and the Taoiseach saying that to join Partnership for Peace "would send the wrong signals about our future intentions", it is no wonder that people are fearful about what we are signing up to.

It seems the position has changed. It has suddenly become safe in the past year, according to the Government, to go ahead and join up with Partnership for Peace. Obviously, its fears have been dramatically allayed. However, unfortunately, not everybody's fears have been allayed in that manner.

On 5 June 1997, the day before the last general election, The Irish Times published a summary of where the parties stood on various issues. Fianna Fáil clearly stated that it was “against involvement in Partnership for Peace”. Fianna Fáil does not have a mandate from the people to join Partnership for Peace. Its mandate is to do the opposite – to oppose joining Partnership for Peace. I am not willing to endorse this U-turn.

There appears to be widespread support in this house for joining Partnership for Peace and it is inevitable, at this stage, that the motion will be passed. I hope that the fears of the people who have been denied a say in this whole debate are groundless.

I would be willing to discuss joining Partnership for Peace at a later date, but only after receiving a mandate from the people, either through a referendum or plebiscite, or by waiting until after the next general election. I do not think that is too much to ask, and it is the least Fianna Fáil owes the people after the very strong commitments it gave and the misleading perceptions that were created before the last general election.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

When I came to Leinster House this morning and saw the Tricolour flying at half mast, I instinctively knew that the reason was that my fellow Corkonian, Jack Lynch, had, unfortunately, died after a long illness. This is the first opportunity I have had to pay a consummate tribute to a great Corkman. It is appropriate for me as a west Corkman to pay that tribute because, although Jack Lynch was especially associated with the north side of Cork city, his home for many years was in west Cork near my home town of Skibbereen. It is for that reason we had a great deal of contact with him. I had a great deal of contact with him even before I went into politics. He continued to be patron of Skibbereen golf club until his death. Some months ago I played in the Jack Lynch classic there. We had a strong personal connection with him. He was one of the most decent men I ever knew. He was courteous and civil but tough behind it all. Above all, he was as straight as a die. If he were to be compared to any metal, it would be stainless steel. He was someone I was proud to know and I offer on my behalf and on behalf of Cork generally, this House and the national Parliament my condolences to Máirín Lynch on the passing of her husband who was for us a great Corkman and Irishman.

I am glad so many Deputies have contributed to the debate. There is not enough debate on foreign affairs issues in the House. I say that without casting aspersions on the way Governments generally operate foreign affairs and on civil servants in Iveagh House. I spent five years there as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and had the opportunity to learn of the professionalism of the mandarins there. However, the elected representatives of the people should be involved in foreign affairs decisions. For that reason, I am glad so many have contributed to the debate. I would be tempted to look at Article 29 of the Constitution to see whether there should be a greater requirement for votes of the Oireachtas on foreign affairs issues.

What is this debate about? If one were to listen to it without examining the documentation, one would think it was about joining NATO as far as its opponents are concerned. The first thing to be said about this debate is that it is not about joining NATO – that will have to be hit firmly on the head – it is about joining Partnership for Peace. I agree with Deputy Fox that there are negative perceptions about that and I lay the blame at the door of Fianna Fáil. The role of that party in Opposition on Partnership for Peace was less than honourable. It has been in existence since 1994 and there has been ample opportunity for reasoned debate. The stance taken by Fianna Fáil in Opposition on Partnership for Peace was dishonest. I agree with Deputy Fox that the election manifesto pledge about a referendum was also dishonest. It is not the way Members should contribute to policy.

Partnership for Peace is a voluntary, non-binding, co-operative security framework between NATO and those who are not members of NATO. It is significant that, apart from the 19 members of NATO, there will be, when we join, which I hope we will do shortly, 25 countries in the partnership which are not members of NATO. Tajikistan, Cyprus, some of the former republics of Yugoslavia, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and the Vatican State are members of the European club out of which opponents of joining Partnership for Peace wish us to stay. It is ridiculous that a self-respecting country such as ours should give consideration to remaining outside that club.

Looking at the areas of involvement included in our presentation document, how can anyone seriously object to peacekeeping, humanitarian operations, search and rescue operations and co-operation in the protection of the environment and marine matters? These issues have been set forward in the Presentation Document and who can honestly, genuinely and sincerely say that we should not be involved in them? I am glad the Government has accepted the Fine Gael amendment to the motion that if there are to be additions to the list of areas in which we will be involved, the Government must have them debated by the Oireachtas. I approve of that.

Ireland has an honourable role in peacekeeping but we will become marginalised if we do not join Partnership for Peace because the peacekeeping operations in which we are involved, although mandated by and under the control of the United Nations, are increasingly implemented through regional organisations. For example, in East Timor, Australia heads the group implementing the UN mandate there. The same is the case with NATO in Bosnia and Sierra Leone in west Africa. That is the way the world has changed and we ought to be prepared to go along with those changes.

Neutrality is one of those sacred cows which we ought to debate. More is read into our sacred neutrality than exists. If one were to examine it, we are not a neutral country. We do not and have not conformed to the classic definition of neutrality. Neutrality is a voluntary policy assumed temporarily in regard to a state of war and terminable at any time. A state which has declared its neutrality must abstain from any part in the conflict, must provide no assistance and must prevent the enlistment of troops within its territory. Those are the principles given effect in the Hague Convention of 1907 to which we are not a party.

During the Second World War de Valera declared the country neutral. I am glad he did so and I support that move, but we did not conform to the classic principle of neutrality during the Second World War. When the US joined the war, de Valera welcomed the fact but stated that the policy of the State would remain unchanged and that we could only be a friendly neutral. One can see the contradiction in terms there. I am glad we were a friendly neutral, but we got by in the war not because we had declared neutrality – it was not much good to others which had done so, such as Norway, Belgium, Holland and Denmark – but because we had a strategic remoteness and because the UK won the Battle of Britain. That was what saved us during the Second World War.

The world has changed since. We did not join NATO after the war and I am glad we did not. While we were happy to hide under its umbrella during the Cold War, I am glad we were not involved. However, matters have changed so we must ask what we should do now. We adopt a pragmatic approach to what we do. There is not a case for joining NATO at this stage, but there is every case for joining Partnership for Peace. Switzerland is the most neutral country in the world and it did not have a problem with joining Partnership for Peace. Why should we then have a problem?

The other red herring has been the referendum. I have spoken of Fianna Fáil muddying the waters with its famous promise that it would hold a referendum. It was a base, dishonest and dishonourable promise which it is now throwing out. It should never have been given. There should not be a referendum. Why should we hold a referendum to join Partnership for Peace? Democrats can be divided into two schools, the direct democracy school which follows the principles of Rousseau and the representational school which follows those of John Stuart Mill. We are in the latter group. Which of the democracies in the world might implement the direct democracy ideal? The answer is Switzerland. Approximately 800 referenda have been held in the world's democracies and half of those were held in Switzerland. Yet, where was the democracy in regard to PfP? Switzerland will hold a referendum in regard to altering a by-road or by-passing a town but it did not consider it necessary to hold a referendum on joining PfP. Why should we feel it is necessary to do so? It is completely unnecessary and those who say we are rushing into PfP are not correct – it has been around since 1994. Those who say they were misled and that an incorrect impression was given are correct. Fianna Fáil gave a misleading impression but, thankfully, it has overcome its populist urges and reality has dawned. It is now prepared to go along with the future, namely, that we must join PfP.

The future is a serious matter. What do we do now in regard to the future of Europe and the question of a common defence policy? I appeal for an open and honest debate on those issues as opposed to the kind of debate we had on PfP. Let us not jump to conclusions – the Dehaene report has not even been published, yet the Taoiseach, following the summit in Finland, stated earlier this week that he would not agree to EU mutual defence guarantees under any circumstances. He has already committed us to that position without having read the report. We should neither commit ourselves to that position nor to its converse, rather we should hold a reasoned debate on the matter. In regard to the intergovernmental conference, we should consider whether there is an opt-out clause for Ireland and other neutrals. Let us have a sensible and reasoned debate on the Dehaene proposals rather than jumping to conclusions before people have read the report.

Ireland should join the Partnership for Peace now and pursue the role set out in the Presentation Document. More importantly, we must contribute to the future of Europe's security and defence. The manner in which we do that must be fully and properly debated and I urge the Government to ensure that a reasoned and rational debate occurs before we make a final decision about our future.

Ms O'Sullivan

I welcome the fact that Deputy Fox will be using her vote in joining with at least some members of the Opposition and I hope she will join with us again in future cases in which the vote might not be so easily won.

This debate has shown that a great number of issues in regard to PfP need to be teased out and the people of Ireland should have a say in that, particularly in light of the promise made by the Taoiseach when he said that any attempt to join PfP in the absence of a referendum would be a serious breach of faith and would be fundamentally undemocratic. Deputy O'Keeffe stated that it is important that we debate these issues seriously and widely. Surely, the most effective and widespread debate on this issue could take place via a referendum which would allow all the people of Ireland, not just those privileged to be elected to this House or those asked to write articles for The Irish Times, to express their views. The arguments advanced in favour of widespread debate strongly support holding a referendum on this issue.

The 1997 Fianna Fáil election manifesto states:

Fianna Fáil are committed to nuclear disarmament. We oppose any move to edge Ireland closer to membership of an alliance still committed to the deployment and use of nuclear weapons. We oppose Irish participation in NATO itself, in NATO-led organisations, such as the Partnership for Peace, or in the Western European Union observer status. 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. Fianna Fáil will strive to achieve a fresh vision of the European Union as a political and economic community rather than a military superpower or federal super-state.

A number of very serious issues have not been properly addressed or debated in regard to this issue, one of which relates to cost which I will refer to later. I accept that joining PfP is not the same as joining NATO, but will NATO be strengthened as a result? I believe NATO's role will be strengthened. Do we want to strengthen the role of NATO or that of the UN? That question has not been accorded the serious consideration it deserves.

Ireland has played a fine part in UN peacekeeping roles. Some speakers tonight have stated that we will be opting out if we do not join PfP. However, I suggest that Ireland has opted into rather than out of peacekeeping and has done so very honourably under the banner of the United Nations. I commend the members of the Army for the work they have done in that regard. I visited Lebanon recently with other Members of this Parliament. I did not know much about the Army's operations there but was very impressed by the work it is doing, of which the local people are very appreciative. Members of the Army are putting their lives at risk in Lebanon – we had to go into the bunkers while I was there and I am aware of the serious risks they face. Our soldiers have done a tremendous job in international peacekeeping.

It was suggested at the recent PDFORRA conference that a sum of £200 million would be required over the course of the next four years in order to strengthen and modernise the Army. I do not know whether that is the case but the issue should be debated. Edward Horgan, an ex-Army officer, estimates that the figure would increase to £5 billion if we join PfP. I do not know how true that is but, again, the issue of cost must be debated, particularly in the context of the earlier debate in the House tonight in which we heard that we cannot afford to pay nurses or build up our health service. Cost issues must be seriously considered. I am not saying the Army should not be properly equipped. I was in an APC supplied by the UN because the Irish Army has had to use UN equipment to carry out its peacekeeping role. I accept there is a need for the Army to be properly equipped but do we need to be equipped in terms of interoperability with NATO? I do not know what that implies but it raises certain issues.

I received correspondence from CND today which raises serious issues to which I do not have the answers. However, I consider CND to be a reputable organisation which has carried out good work and is highly esteemed in this country. We should at least address the questions it raises seriously. CND states:

Depleted uranium missiles and armory were used extensively in bombing civilian and military targets in Yugoslavia. Four years ago, the Pentagon admitted that henceforth all tanks and fighting vehicles will possibly contain DU contamination. The interoperability of NATO military forces could enable armed forces throughout Europe to obtain and use depleted uranium weapons.

It goes on to explain the term "depleted uranium":

It is a cheap waste product of the nuclear industry now used in the manufacture of military vehicles, shells and missiles. It makes weapons very hard and penetrative and more efficient in terms of killing power. When DU shells explode, particles released into the air, soil and water can cause lung cancer if ingested or inhaled.

Uranium can pass through the placenta, frequently causing congenital malformations and is transmitted to infants via mother's milk. It can damage ova and sperm causing genetic defects in off-spring and cause irreparable damage to the kidney and liver.

I have not had an opportunity to research this data to find out whether there is any truth in it but if we had a referendum, at least we would have the opportunity for such questions, which are raised by reputable organisations, to be answered.

Who are we defending ourselves against if we work with NATO? I do not know of any large groupings against whom we need to defend ourselves. I have not heard a good argument that we should co-operate with NATO as an alternative to working within the UN. I know the UN needs reform; everyone would admit that. Surely, our emphasis should instead be on how that reform might take place, how the UN might be more effective, how the UN might be more inclusive in terms of its ability to take action and how the UN might be paid the money owed to it, and the US is one of the countries which needs to answer that question. There is also the question of armaments and the considerable dependence of countries involved in NATO on the armaments industry. Those questions have not been answered.

In the context of the UN, I will take up the point raised by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. He spoke about East Timor and the fact that the team that has gone there is under the direction of people from that part of the world, but it has a UN mandate. NATO, however, has shown itself capable of taking action without waiting for a UN mandate. It is a completely different situation.

There is also the question of countries left outside NATO and Partnership for Peace. What is their strength on the world stage? What is the strength of Third World and African countries? We have a long-standing tradition of standing by the weaker countries. Will that be diminished, in some way, by our joining Partnership for Peace? That is a valid question and is one which has not been addressed.

There are many questions which have not been addressed in this rush to join Partnership for Peace without consulting the people and they need to be addressed before we make such a move. I know the aspects we are going in on are fairly innocuous but, at the same time, it is an indication that we would like to and will work with NATO, albeit on our own terms. It is changing the balance in terms of how we secure the world. Instead of doing it through an organisation such as the United Nations, which is representative of the world at large, we are moving towards doing it through an organisation which is led by countries which have specific foreign policies and specific interests in armaments. We should not go down this road. If I was to vote tomorrow, I would not vote in favour of joining Partnership for Peace.

Many people have not had an opportunity, as we have had, to express their views and to raise the type of question we have had the opportunity to raise. We owe it to those people to consult them and allow them to express their views. We owe it to the people because a promise was made in the election manifesto of the largest party in Government. How can people believe promises which any party makes in their election manifesto if U-turns such as this are made when large parties like Fianna Fáil get into Government? This contributes to the distrust of politics and of political promises which is widespread at present. As working politicians, we should strive to change that view rather than add to it by going against promises made in election manifestos. This is a serious issue because it is fundamental to what we do as politicians. We indicate to the people before an election what we intend to do if we get into Government and we then follow it through, otherwise there is no point making promises before an election. We may as well tell the people to take their chances and that whoever gets into Government will do what they wish. The democratic process is undermined by that. Even if the majority of those in the Government parties believe we should join PfP, there is an obligation on the largest party in Government to fulfil the promise it made before the last election. That is the substance of the amendment our party has tabled to this motion. I would go further – as I said, I am not in favour of joining Partnership for Peace. This House should stand by the promises made before an election and insist on a referendum or, at least, a consultation of the people because we have been told a referendum is not what is necessary. There should be a consultation process or a plebiscite with the people who elected us not only to represent them, but to keep the promises we make before we come to this House.

Mr. Cosgrave

I wish to share my time with Deputy Coveney. Ireland with its long tradition of peacekeeping deserves to be to the forefront of all world initiatives designed to enhance peace and harmony. This country has played a significant role in UN operations since 1955. Our forces have been there when it mattered, making the difference and giving the helping hand to peace.

With the ending of the Cold War, the level and type of conflict has altered. Until that time, the two super powers effectively controlled regional conflict, but no so today. With the collapse of the eastern bloc power circle, many of the former Warsaw Pact members looked for alternatives to help to ensure their own security. In response to this development, coupled with the increasing local regional conflicts with which the UN was unable to adequately deal, the 16 member NATO group launched Partnership for Peace in 1994. Some 43 countries now participate in the partnership, some of which are neutral.

The great attraction of Partnership for Peace is that each state decides the level of its own involvement – it has an ethic of flexibility. The primary purpose of Partnership for Peace is the protection and promotion of human rights, the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace, the preservation of democracy and the upholding of international law. All are matters to which every Irish man and woman worth their salt would readily subscribe. We, as a nation, see ourselves as peacemakers and peacekeepers. Article 29.1 of our Constitutions states that the nation is devoted to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation.

Partnership for Peace brings together people from every corner of Europe in co-operation and in a spirit of goodwill, each giving to the extent of their own capacity, learning from each other, developing and perfecting their skills, be it humanitarian, search and rescue, peacemaking, peacekeeping or enforcement, learning to work together so that they might unite in times of crisis. Such crisis may not be of a military nature but may, be environmental or humanitarian. This partnership affords our country a real opportunity to develop our skills through participation in the best of modern training with access to up to date equipment supported by professional personnel who have field experience.

Our nation wants to play an international role; our people want to be part of the larger community. They do not want to be left to the side – a group which does not have the capacity or the courage to be there as equals with other nations. Ours is a proud history enhanced by the contribution which we have made since independence be it within the League of Nations and the United Nations. We have been there with the best of them and we must be prepared to state our position with other nations, ready to listen and take our place because if we do not, we will be seen as being not prepared to accept our common share of responsibility. If we do not participate in Partnership for Peace, our standing will diminish and our place on the world stage will be reduced. Ireland has everything to gain and nothing to lose by entering PfP and choosing from its attractive new range of options.

I am a keen student of history and enjoy television documentaries, particularly those about the First and Second World Wars. The devastation those wars caused was horrific, particularly the Pacific and European campaigns and a horrific number of people lost their lives in these wars. There are now wars in Kosovo and East Timor and again we see devastation. If nations come together under this umbrella organisation, they can do much to stop this from ever happening again. I support Ireland's entry into Partnership for Peace and believe we should go forward from there.

Mr. Coveney

The debate on whether Ireland should join Partnership for Peace is a very important one. Ireland's future role in international peacekeeping will be directly affected by our decision on Partnership for Peace.

Looking back over the last half century or so, Ireland has more than played her role in international peacekeeping. We are very proud of Irish work through the United Nations. Our troops abroad have served this country with distinction in various conflicts under the blue UN flag. Tragically, some members of our Defence Forces have made the ultimate sacrifice in their work abroad. It is fair to say that our personnel serving abroad have often not had the recognition and thanks at home that they deserve for their bravery and work in hostile parts of the world as peacekeepers.

Our commitment to international peace keeping is highlighted by the fact that at present we have approximately 775 military personnel deployed on peace keeping missions in 35 different countries. Ireland has also played her part in the success and growth of the European Union by joining 25 years ago and the EU has been a major stabilising factor in the development of modern Europe. Other speakers have stated that the development of a successful and internationally respected modern Ireland as an independent sovereign state has been helped by the fact that we have been willing to join and work with specific organisations, most notably, the United Nations, the European Union but also organisations such as the Organisation for Security Co-operation in Europe. We have chosen to join organisations in which we can play a constructive part for the good of Ireland and for the wider good. We have resisted joining certain bodies, however, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, if we felt that Ireland did not have a role to play in them. The decision not to become part of the NATO bloc is one that most Irish support, as do I. We have taken the view that neutrality was our best way forward.

This is not a debate on neutrality, although some insist on trying to turn it into just that. It is a debate on how best Ireland can take on her responsibilities in the future in a peacekeeping capacity. A separate debate on neutrality is needed for another day, but because there are people who may feel our neutrality is threatened by membership of PfP the issue of neutrality cannot be ignored completely in this debate.

There is a big difference between a neutrality policy and isolationism. Whether people like it or not we cannot isolate ourselves from the conflict and terrible injustices around the world that are before us on TV screens. We have not been isolated in the past, given our work for the UN and the EU, and the best way to ensure we are not isolated in future is to join Partnership for Peace. A true neutral state is a country that has the ability to choose, in consultation with other states, when we should play our part in international affairs, on a diplomatic and sometimes military level for the sake of peacekeeping. The vehicle through which we can best play this positive neutral role is what we are debating here this evening.

Since the end of the Cold War there has been a huge shift in how peace is kept in the world. In the not too distant past, peace was kept by way of the threat of nuclear war between East and West, but this is not what keeps peace today. Partnership for Peace, whether we are part of it or not, will play an increasingly significant role in world peace keeping in the future. PfP is a programme of military and security co-operation between NATO and non-NATO countries. If we take part we will definitely be entering as a non-NATO member. Some people say that this is a back door or stepping stone to joining NATO, but it is nothing of the sort. There are 43 nations involved in PfP, but only 16 are NATO member states. The other members include EU neutral states such as Austria, Finland and Sweden, as well as Switzerland, which is totally neutral. Even Russia and all but one of the former Soviet Union states have joined PfP.

It is true that the richest and most powerful military nations within PfP are NATO members, but that in itself is not a reason for Ireland not to work within the group to contribute towards the specific goal of international peacekeeping. To accommodate all nations involved, PfP is an exceptionally broad-based structure, with an ethic of flexibility which allows it to encompass a broad range of different participants. The key to this principle of flexibility is voluntary commitment. Each state decides for itself the level and type of participation when signing the framework document. Ireland can therefore be realistic about the level of our participation and will not have to overstretch our resources.

Unless one is paranoid about NATO's motives for involvement in PfP, nothing but good can come out of participation. The idea is to try and build relationships and promote co-operation between countries with different political structures but with a common goal of wanting to play a part in international stability and peace. The primary purposes of Partnership for Peace, as set out in the PfP framework document, are: the protection and promotion of human rights; the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace; the preservation of democracy; the upholding of international law; and most important, the fulfillment of the UN Charter obligations and OSCE commitments.

These principles and aims are what we are signing up to if we join PfP and they need to be enforced in the modern world. We do not need to look too far into the past to find examples of gross breaches of human rights law and international law even within Europe. Perhaps the most beneficial aspect to PfP membership for Ireland is that there will be a constant interchange and updating of peacekeeping skills between member states. This means that when Irish troops are required to participate in peacekeeping roles they will have trained with the other countries involved and will have ensured that all of our equipment is compatible so as to maximise the impact of any military peacekeeping operation. Staying out of PfP may lead to a less than perfect working relationship with other PfP States.

Partnership for Peace will assist in equipping our Defence Forces to continue, in an effective way, our strong tradition as a nation that wants to be involved in peacekeeping. This, more than anything else, is the reason our military are so in favour of PfP membership.

It is important for those sceptics who are not in favour of PfP membership to remember that we can pull out of PfP at any stage should we feel that neutrality is threatened or that our original objectives are not being met. We must take a positive view toward Partnership for Peace. The overall objectives of PfP are consistent with our approach to international peace and European security. This is a vehicle through which we can enhance the capacity and readiness of our Defence Forces to participate in UN or OSCE peacekeeping operations, through training and exercises with countries which share a common goal of peacekeeping. This in itself must promote stability, particularly in Europe, where it is needed.

PfP will work and is working for other nations. It can assist Ireland is preparing for a future role as a neutral, sovereign state anxious to continue to play a part in world peacekeeping. Unlike other parties, Fine Gael has been consistent and unified on PfP from the start. We have not taken a populist view and we support membership of PfP.

Mr. Stanton

I wish to join with colleagues in paying tribute to the late Jack Lynch, former Taoiseach and Member of this House. As a young man in Cork, I looked up to and admired Jack Lynch, even though he was from a different tradition. He strode like a colossus across the stage in Cork and I wish to express my sympathy to his wife and family. May he rest in peace.

Ireland has a long and proud tradition and history of peacekeeping around the world, from the Congo in the 1960s to Cyprus, Lebanon, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Western Sahara and, most recently, Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. Irish troops have never been found wanting in our role as peacekeepers under the UN mandate or under the OSCE.

We joined the EEC in 1972 and we pride ourselves on being good Europeans. However, before that date, from independence, and before and during the Second World War, we adopted a neutral or non-aligned position. More than that again, it could be said that we were isolationist – we looked inward. Everything out there was bad and some of our best writers were censored. We all know that social, medical, educational, agricultural and industrial progress was stifled at that time. It could be said that we lived through our own dark ages. We were a closed society with simple needs. We exported our young people. Dollars from America and pounds from Britain kept the home fires burning and many Members know of the package from America, the clothes and food which kept people going at home.

Times have changed and today we have taken our place among the nations of the world. We are the fastest growing economy in Europe. We have net immigration and a young, educated, articulate and confident workforce. Ireland no longer looks inward but outward. We are dependent on other nations and there is a growing interdependence.

As we move into the next millennium we have much to be proud of as a nation. This progress is not without problems and we know of the skills shortages, the housing problem with which the Government is grappling unsuccessfully, the terrible health issues, epitomised by the nurses strike, the traffic problems and so on. However, these are challenges on which we must work together to try to overcome so that our people can prosper in peace and security.

Much has changed in Europe in the past few decades, particularly due to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War created a certain balance known as the balance of power. However, it was also a stranglehold – two power blocs, both with a capacity for mass destruction. We know what happened to the Soviet power bloc which could not be sustained. It was dependent on fear and tyranny, and history has shown that such evil empires eventually crumble and fall apart. The vacuum left in the East was and still is very dangerous. As new nations emerge the world has been very fortunate that no major conflict has occurred. The EU has invited many of these new democracies to join the Union. Like Ireland, they will have a democratic voice in the new Europe. Before joining the EU, these nations have opted to join the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and Partnership for Peace. Many of these countries were not ready to join NATO but many have applied to join.

With our tradition of peacekeeping, Ireland should no longer be isolationist. By joining PfP we will be in the mainstream of security policy making and decision taking. We will have a respected voice, respected even more because of our past traditions in peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks all over the world. Almost all other European states are involved in PfP, including the neutral states of Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. Only a small number of countries – Ireland, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein and the Vatican are not members of PfP. Perhaps the Vatican will join at some stage.

Conflicts which may emerge in Europe will, more than likely, have their roots in ethnic, religious, social or economic differences, as shown by events in the Balkans and Chechnya. By co-operating in security, the danger of conflict between individual states in PfP is minimised and eliminated. Many central and eastern European nations which were members of the Warsaw Pact are anxious to become full members of NATO. The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary joined NATO this year and nine others are interested in joining. Russia, Finland and Switzerland are involved in PfP but have no plans to join NATO.

If we are to remain involved in peacekeeping worldwide, it behoves us to ensure that our soldiers and gardaí who work abroad on peacekeeping missions have the best protection and training. They will not get this exposure to modern methods and technology if we remain isolated. Our Defence Forces can only benefit from training with other forces. They will have to work with others in peacekeeping missions and they would be a danger to themselves and others if they do not have training in and use of the best modern equipment and methods. Even our interaction with other defence forces in Lebanon and elsewhere has had a major effect on our soldiers. Deputy O'Sullivan stated that she was impressed by our soldiers in Lebanon and they are impressive. The involvement and interaction with other nations has improved morale in our armed forces. They have learnt from that interaction and improved their capability. The potential for further improvement by involvement with PfP is immense and can only be beneficial to our soldiers and to the people they serve in foreign countries.

We have all seen the changes in uniforms and weaponry, but we must keep up with developments. Involvement with PfP will serve our soldiers well, as it will the people they work for abroad. Europe needs to be able to act within or on its borders if another crisis such as that in Bosnia or Kosovo should develop. What would have happened in Europe if Milosevic was not stopped? He had one of the largest standing armies in the world, which was well equipped and trained. There was a danger that other countries could have been pulled into that conflict. If the US had decided to stay out, the whole of Europe could have been engulfed in a land war for many years. Only for NATO, Milosevic could have overrun the Balkans and drawn others into the turmoil. Europe would have been unable to stop him and a major land war could have resulted, with devastating consequences. Such a Europe at war must never be allowed to happen again.

Fine Gael has always contended that a referendum was not needed on this issue. Joining PfP is not the same as joining NATO. We are not involved, nor have we any intention of joining a military alliance with a mutual defence requirement. Malta was a member of PfP but left the organisation after a change of government. Ireland could do likewise if this House so decided. It may not be that easy to withdraw if a referendum was held and the people agreed to join PfP. It would be wrong to hold a referendum if there is no need to do so.

There is an ongoing campaign of misinformation regarding PfP. PfP is a bilateral arrangement between NATO and non-NATO states, covering co-operation and co-ordination in areas designated by the individual states as priority. The agreement is open and transparent and is written down for all to see. We can choose our own priority areas, such as human rights and peacekeeping operations, and we can always opt out at any time if we so wish. I also said that Switzerland, Russia, Austria and Sweden are all involved in PfP. It has been argued that Ireland would be in association with nuclear powers. Does that mean that we should leave the UN, the OSCE and the EU? People say that PfP is a back door to NATO, but surely we are beyond that. We should look at evolving European structures and should not have to rely on the US for our security and defence. If we stay out of PfP, we will be on our own. It will be like a mother looking at the soldiers walking down the road and saying "They are all out of step except my Johnny". We would be one of the few countries doing so and the other countries are very small.

I acknowledge that the public has expressed concern but concern has been fuelled and fed by the political opportunism of the Taoiseach, who stated in 1996 that Fianna Fáil would regard any attempt to push PfP or participation in Western European Union tasks by a resolution through this House without reference to the people as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic. He fanned the embers of doubt in the people. He threw the fuel of misinformation on the fire. He promised that, if elected, he would hold a referendum. He was elected and he has betrayed the promises that he made. He says he changed his mind. The information which was available then has not changed. It is the same PfP, but the doubt which the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil sowed in the minds of the people is still evident. The fire which the Taoiseach fanned is still burning. Is it any wonder that there is apathy and cynicism towards politics among the people when politicians behave in this way?

Fine Gael policy has been consistent. Nobody can say that we changed our minds. Our policy from day one was that Ireland should join PfP. We laid out our stand before the people and Fianna Fáil put forward a different one. It was elected and then went against its promise. That is dishonest. If that happened outside politics, a person would be sued for dishonesty. We said that a referendum was not needed and if the people had not been given false information and if false promises were not made, then a referendum would not even be an issue and joining PfP would not be an issue for the people because they would have been in possession of the true information. However, doubt has been sown. We have much work to do to convince the people that we are right and I am happy that Fianna Fáil has come around to our way of thinking. If the Government had decided to hold a referendum as promised, we would have canvassed for a "yes" vote to join PfP. I am convinced that if the people were given full and true information, there would be an overwhelming "yes" vote in such a referendum.

The objectives of PfP include facilitating transparency in national defence planning and budgeting processes; ensuring democratic control of defence forces, which is vitally important; the maintenance of the capability and readiness to contribute, subject to constitutional considerations, to operations under the authority of the UN and/or the responsibility of the OSCE; humanitarian operations; search and rescue; peacekeeping; the development of co-operative military relations with NATO for the purposes of joint planning and training exercises in order to strengthen the ability of PfP participants to undertake work in those areas, as I mentioned; and the preservation of democratic societies and the maintenance of the principles of international law. Who could be against that? The members reaffirm their commitment to fulfil in good faith the obligations of the Charter of the UN and the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and specifically to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, to respect existing borders and to settle disputes by peaceful means. Each country negotiates its individual partnership programme, choosing from a NATO menu of potential co-operative activities. As I stated already, Malta opted in and opted out and it is now thinking of renewing its membership.

Previous speakers suggested that Third World countries may lose out if we join PfP, but by staying out of PfP we are in a weak position. By being involved our voice will be heard and we will be more respected. Questions have also been raised about the cost to our country of involvement with PfP. One way or the other, we must upgrade the Army and make sure it has proper equipment. We certainly must provide the Naval Service with the equipment and training it requires. Ireland has a huge area of sea to patrol and there are problems other than military threats, such as the continuous threat of international terrorism, the drugs issue and the transportation of human beings which is a virtual slave trade. This is happening at present and the Naval Service is almost powerless to intervene. It is like having one Garda car to cover the country. Certainly membership of PfP would benefit Ireland and we should join.

Mr. Wall

I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Ferris.

There are two key issues in the proposal that Ireland join the Partnership for Peace: first, why the people have been denied a referendum, and second, Ireland's future role within the evolving international context and what role we envisage for the Defence Forces.

The hypocrisy of Fianna Fáil's position on PfP has been highlighted by a number of contributors to this debate. In opposition Fianna Fáil played a populist game with PfP. Colourful soundbites from the pen of a spindoctor replaced considered contribution to debate. Fianna Fáil abused cherished concepts such as neutrality and democracy for its own selfish electoral benefit.

The Irish people have a deep commitment to the principle and policy of neutrality. These important sentiments were pounced upon by Fianna Fáil in Opposition in the run up to the 1997 election. It debased politics, it demeaned the political system and Fianna Fáil deserve all the opprobrium which has been directed their way in this debate. Believe me, that party earned it.

I have no objection to political parties evolving their policy positions over a number of years. In fact, it is a healthy sign that debate and thought informs political policy positions over a period of time. Political positions should not be written in stone. However, there is a line which cannot be crossed. When a political party promises to hold a referendum then it must adhere to that commitment. For in promising a referendum, in going before the people at an election with this commitment, a political party enters into a contract with the electorate. Fianna Fáil has betrayed this contract. It has gone back on its word. It has fundamentally breached faith with the people. The blatant refusal of the Government to allow a plebiscite on Partnership for Peace is shameful.

The implications of Fianna Fáil's betrayal go far beyond the issue of Partnership for Peace. As Members will be aware, politics is at a low ebb. Due to the actions of a certain number of politicians the whole profession of politics and the concept of public service has been debased. Falling turnouts in elections and the general cynicism of young people in particular towards politics are just some of the tangible effects of the damage which a few have inflicted on the operation of politics. There is an obligation on all political parties, and on the current leadership of Fianna Fáil in particular, to restore public trust in the political process. The Taoiseach has made numerous speeches since becoming president of Fianna Fáil which recognised the damage that has been inflicted on politics. His words would lead one to believe that he understands the need to restore faith in the political process but his actions, particularly over PfP, achieve the exact opposite. The behaviour of Fianna Fáil over a referendum on PfP has fed into the growing cynicism about politics. Fianna Fáil's betrayal has fed into the bleak sentiments that every Member of this House hears increasingly these days. Its decision to promise a referendum in 1996 and to do the exact opposite when in Government was a disgrace. It has debased politics, the profession to which all Members of this House have dedicated themselves.

To add insult to injury the Taoiseach further undermined the democratic process by declaring that the recent European elections would be a referendum by proxy on PfP. The Taoiseach repeated this bizarre claim in the House last week. This is nonsense. In a desperate effort to extricate Fianna Fáil from its U-turn on PfP the Taoiseach proceeded to abuse the legal and political framework of the European Parliament.

The Taoiseach's contention that the people had an opportunity to debate and vote on the proposal to join PfP in the European elections is utter nonsense and deserves to be exposed as such. PfP has nothing to do with the European Union, it is not a European issue and the Taoiseach should desist from attempting to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by repeating this ridiculous claim. The failure to hold a referendum has also clouded the important debate that should be taking place on PfP and Ireland's evolving international role. If there was a referendum on joining PfP in the morning I would vote in favour. This is not because Ireland's defence and security obligations in the future will, or indeed should, be focused on participation in PfP. It is because the future development of the Irish Defence Forces needs to take place in an international context. The Defence Forces should not be required to be hurlers on the ditch. The men and woman who make up our Defence Forces have a proud role in peacekeeping, a role that is recognised by every Member of this House.

However, the ability of the Defence Forces to contribute to this important international role has been curtailed due to the lack of co-operation and training which the Irish Defence Forces undertake with other countries.

Participation in PfP, of the type outlined in the presentation document which forms the background to this debate, will address this issue. It is an important development for the Defence Forces and one which has my support. Our participation in PfP will lead to the much needed upgrading of the Defence Forces. It has been starved of adequate resources for a number of years and this official neglect has undermined the morale of the forces. Participation in PfP will focus attention on the proper development of the Defence Forces over the coming decade.

Investment in personnel and equipment must accompany this new development and that is an issue which I am sure this House will return to before Christmas when we eventually see the long awaited White Paper on defence. However, we cannot allow the limited debate about PfP to cloud the issue of the future development of Ireland's foreign and security policy. While, for reasons closely associated with my commitment to the Defence Forces, I support participation in PfP I believe our future foreign and security policy must be developed within a European context.

The institutions of the European Union are accountable and democratic to the citizens of Union. After the Amsterdam Treaty, momentum towards developing a common foreign and security policy has gathered. This is a process from which Ireland should not recoil. It is a vital policy area where Ireland should play a constructive and positive role. It is also a process that is intrinsically linked with the future enlargement of the Union over the coming decade. Ireland has much to offer to this process. Our experience within the Union is of huge benefit to prospective members, such as Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

An expanding European Union raises important questions about defence and security. Ireland cannot abdicate its responsibility in this regard. We must recognise that the physical and political expansion of the Union will present us with many challenges and new obligations. It is the outcome of this debate which will prove most important to Irish foreign and defence policy. I urge the Government to engage fully in this process as the European Union continues to expand and evolve.

Mr. Ferris

I wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the wife of the former Taoiseach, the late Jack Lynch. I was as a Member of the Seanad between 1975 and 1977 when he was leader of the Opposition and I grew to respect him.

This debate is a hollow one. My colleague, Deputy Wall, has allowed me a few minutes to express an opinion. He said that if a referendum were held he would vote in favour of this proposal. When preparing for Government and publishing its manifesto the present Government stated categorically that it would consult the people, irrespective of the point we made at the time that a referendum was not required to enable us join the PfP. We have published a Bill which would facilitate the Government and the electorate to hold a plebiscite on this issue.

As one of the four member team representing this Parliament as observers in the Western European Union I have taken the opportunity in recent years to inform myself about matters of common defence and security within the European structures. I have taken it upon myself on numerous occasions to re-emphasise Ireland's position as a neutral nation when it comes to matters of defence and military alignments. I have listened to our ambassador and others at such fora, quoting Ireland's commitment to neutrality and our involvement in peacekeeping, peace making, peace enforcement and now, with the advent of membership of the Partnership for Peace, our involvement with the Petersberg Tasks. From what I know of PfP I would not worry about it involving us as a nation in compromising our neutral position. The agenda set down by Partnership for Peace is an a la carte menu from which Ireland can pick and choose what it wants to be, and should be, involved in. We would not be obliged to participate in any tasks about which we had reservations. I am certain that participation in Partnership for Peace in the long-term will be a minimum requirement for any legitimate member of the EU particularly as other neutral members of the EU and Switzerland are already members. Representatives of those countries are satisfied that their neutrality has not been compromised as a result of their membership. The only problem we have as a party, and we have different views on this subject, is the broken promise of Fianna Fáil. That bonds us together. It turns the public off. They do not believe anyone any more. They do not trust Fianna Fáil's promise that it will not join NATO without holding a referendum.

As my party leader said earlier today, the decision of the EU and some members such as the Britain, Germany and France in particular, on abolishing the Western European Union and absorbing it into the EU ignores the fact that there would not be parliamentary scrutiny of any decisions on matters of common defence and security in the future. How can 15 member states represent 28 sovereign states within both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union which involves members of NATO, the EU, applicant members of the EU, associate members, neutral members like us and others? There is widespread concern that the leaders of some of the most powerful nations within the EU will not be satisfied until the EU, which has no competency in some of these areas, absorbs many of the responsibilities currently handled by NATO and-or the capabilities of the Western European Union. The Western European Union will be stripped of its assets if this procedure is followed through in the aftermath of the Cologne Declaration.

We are alerting the people to the fact that if this happens without changes to one of the treaties or to one of the second pillars, they will have to be consulted again, regardless of whether the Government favours such a move, in respect of the new role the EU is assuming. Unless the Government is honest – on this occasion it has been totally dishonest – that type of referendum, which would be obligatory under the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties and the Cologne Declaration, would be likely to fail because people no longer trust as a result of the commitment given by Fianna Fáil.

Many papers have been published on the possible abolition of the Western European Union. Views have been expressed that this organisation may have fulfilled its usefulness. However, without the parliamentary assembly, which has democratic control over and can scrutinise all decisions in connection with the area of defence and at which Ireland can be represented, albeit as a neutral state, the EU is heading towards a situation where neutral nations such as Ireland, Sweden, Austria, and Finland, and any other states that join the Union, wish to maintain their neutrality.

The Government has been dishonest with regard to whether there should be a referendum or a plebiscite. It is that to which we are objecting and we published our Private Members' Bill to facilitate members of the public expressing their views.

Mr. Sargent

Is léir do mhuintir na hÉireann nach bhfuil fíordhíospóireacht ar siúl maidir le Partnership for Peace sa tír seo. Cé go bhfuil Fianna Fáil, an Páirtí Daonlathach agus Fine Gael ag iarraidh cuma fíordhíospóireachta a chur ar an ndíospóireacht bíodh a fhios ag an bpobal go bhfuil an Dáil ar siúl go déanach anocht d'aonghnó chun deacrachtaí a chruthú do dhaoine ar mian leo labhairt ar an ábhar.

Dá mbeadh reifreann ann faoi Partnership for Peace, chaillfeadh an Rialtas é mar ab amhlaidh beagnach i gcás conradh Amsterdam. De bharr feachtas fothoghchánaíochta ar siúl, beidh na Teachtaí Dála ag iarraidh a bheith amuigh ag canbhasáil, dar ndóigh. Tá iarrthóir an Chomhaontais Ghlais, John Goodwillie, gan comhluadar Teachta Dála ar bith anocht de bharr straitéis an Rialtais anocht. Bhí cuireadh agamsa labhairt ar GMOanna i Mullach Íde anocht ach bhí orm é a chur ar ceal. Agus déarfainnn go bhfuil an scéal amhlaidh do dhaoine eile chomh maith.

Ba bhreá leo siúd atá ar son Partnership for Peace – go mór mór Fianna Fáil – vótáil ar ár mballraíocht i bPartnership for Peace roimh meánoíche anocht. Ach ní tharlóidh sé sin anois. Bheadh na hiriseoirí imithe, bheadh an nuacht teilifíse thart agus ní bheadh mórán poiblíochta ag baint leis. Má tá an Rialtas ag iarraidh a bheith glic i dtaobh Partnership for Peace, tá pobal na hÉireann san airdeall chomh maith. Ní dhéanfar dearúd ar an ngliceas, ar an gcur i gcéill, ar iarrachtaí an Rialtais seo chun dallamullóg a chur ar an bpobal.

D'éist mé go géar leis an Teachta John Bruton anocht agus molaim é as an fhírinne lom a insint faoi Partnership for Peace. Dhein sé iarracht sainmhíniú a thabhairt ar an téarma "peacemaking" ann seachas "peacekeeping", a bhí mar ról ag an airm go dtí seo faoi smacht na Náisiún Aontaithe. Dúirt sé gur dóigh leis gur téarma leaisteach é "peacemaking" agus gurb ionann é agus "warmaking", ó am go chéile, dar leis. Feictear dó go soiléir go bhfuil comhaontú míleata ar chlár an Aontais Eorpaigh agus nach bhfuil aon dul as ag muintir na hÉireann ach a bheith leis, go míleata agus go hiomlán.

Ach bíonn scéal eile ar fad ag an Taoiseach agus ag lucht Fhianna Fáil. A la carte a thugann Fianna Fáil ar an socrú. Níl ballraíocht NATO nó Western European Union i gceist, a deir siad. Níl anseo ach cur i gcéill an tslíbhín. Ag iarraidh an dá thrá a fhreastal. Ar an dtaobh amháin, an tseanmheon náisiúnach agus ar an dtaobh eile ag iarraidh leas a bhaint as club na dtíortha is saibhre ar domhain, gan smaoineamh ar an tionchar a bheas ag an socrú seo ar na tíortha bochta.

Ar a laghad, tá Fine Gael sásta an fhírinne a insint, cé nach bhfuil ina meon siúd ach sodar i ndiaidh na n-uaisle chomh maith. Ach tá siad oscailte faoi. Is é dearcadh an Chomhaontais Ghlais go bhfuil an tír ina bhall den bhfíor Partnership for Peace, sé sin na Náisiúin Aontaithe, agus mo náire ar an Teachta John Bruton nuair a deir sé go bhfuil daoine atá i gcoinne Partnership for Peace sásta faic a dhéanamh. An é go raibh na trúpaí Éireannacha sa Chongó, sa Lebanon, sa Chipir, agus na trúpaí sin atá Timor Thoir anois ag déanamh faic? Fuair trúpaí Éireannacha bás ar son na síochána agus is masla uafásach a rá go bhfuil na daoine atá i gcoinne Partnership for Peace sásta faic a dhéanamh.

Muna bhfuil na Náisiúin Aontaithe sásúil, ná cuir an milleán ar na grúpaí sin atá i gcoinne Partnership for Peace; cuir an milleán ar Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá, i dtús báire, a bhfuil na milliún dollar acu ar chiste na Náisiún Aontaithe. Níos dochreidte fós, maíonn an Teachta John Bruton go raibh na Náisiúin Aontaithe ag brath ar Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá mar chosantóir, le caoga bliain anuas. Bheul, chomh fada agus is eol domsa, níor ionsaigh aon arm iasachta an tír seo le caoga bliain anuas. Níl a fhios agam cad atá i gceist aige le buíochas a ghabháil le Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá.

An é go raibh Éire faoi chosaint na ndiúracán núicléach i Sasana le caoga bliain anuas? Seo croí na ceiste dar liom. An dóigh le hÉireannaigh a bheith ceangailte leis an socrú Partnership for Peace, faoin NATO a bhíonn ag brath ar na diúracáin núicléacha? Nó an fearr a bheith páirteach in eagraíocht domhanda a bhíonn ag díriú ar "peacekeeping" agus ní ar "warmaking". Nó "peacemaking" nuair is an lámh láidir claonta atá ann.

Cad é costas Partnership for Peace do shaoránaigh na tíre seo? Níl éinne ag tabhairt freagra lom ar seo ach tá a lán daoine ag tabhairt buille faoi thuairim. Cad as a dtiocfaidh na milliún punt chun íoc as an trealamh míleata do slua coise nua san arm? Ní bheidh aon dul as ag Rialtas agus ag arm na hÉireann ach eitleáin troda, "intercepts" mar a thugtar orthu agus eitleáin strike agus tancanna nua a cheannach, de réir PDFORRA, ar aon chuma.

Bíonn an chogaíocht an-chostasach. Chosnaigh sé £6 milliún ar NATO droichead amháin ar an Danube a scrios i Kosovo. Agus cosnóidh sé £10 milliún chun é a athógáil. Chosnaigh bhuamáil NATO £2.6 billiún ar fad i Kosovo agus is é praghas an athógála ná £30 billiún. Lena hais seo, chun na fiacha atá ag fiche cinn de na tíortha is boichte ar domhain a ghlanadh, ní chosnódh sé ach £3 billiún. £30 billiún chun tír a athógáil tar éis cogaidh agus £3 billiún chun fiacha a ghlanadh do thíortha bochta.

Debate adjourned.