Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Nov 1999

Vol. 509 No. 6

Partnership for Peace: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, on Wednesday, 27 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 5 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).

Rinne Teachtaí tagairt cúpla nóiméad ó shin do shiniciúlacht sa pholaitíocht i measc mhuintir na hÉireann. Dar liomsa agus leis an Chomhaontas Glas agus le go leor daoine eile cuireann dearchadh an Taoisigh i leith Partnership for Peace go mór leis an siniciúlacht sin. Tá athrú iomlán ar intinn an Taoisigh agus níl aon chúis tugtha don Dáil ar cén fáth go bhfuil an t-athrú chomh hiomlán sin.

Anuas ar sin tá ceist airgeadais os ár gcomhair leis an Social Partnership. Tá orainn féachaint go géar ar chothrom na féinne a thabhairt do dhaoine atá ag fulaingt faoin eacnamaíocht agus faoin chóras atá i réim faoi láthair. Baineann sin le cúrsaí sláinte, scolaíocht, tithíocht, iompar poiblí, bochtanas agus go leor eile. Ach is beag duine atá ag caint faoi chostas cogaíochta. Má tá an Rialtas i ndáiríre faoi Partnership for Peace tá sé de dhualgas orthu a rá linn cé chomh costasach is atá cogaíocht mar is cogaíocht atá i gceist le Partnership for Peace. Mar shampla, chosnaigh sé £6m ar NATO droichead amháin thar an Danube a scrios i Kosovo agus cosnóidh sé £10m chun é a aththógáil. Chosnaigh an buamáil ar far a rinne NATO i Kosovo £2.6 billiún agus ceaptar gurb é praghas an aththógála ná £30 billiún .

I gcomparáid leis seo chun íoc as fiacha fiche de na tíortha is boichte ar dhomhan, ní chosnóidh sé ach £3 billiún. Tá fhios againn gur $35 billiún an praghas ar an Phólainn, Poblacht na Czech agus an Ungáir chun íoc as interoperability, mar a thugtar air, sé sin an treallamh míleata ar fad atá le ceannach chun dul in oiriúnt do NATO.

Ní hamháin go mbeidh Partnership for Peace an-chostasach do mhuintir na hÉireann nuair atá partnership sóisialta i mbaol a bháis cheana féin ach ní bheidh aon smacht dáiríre ag pobal na nÉireann ar ghníomhaíochtaí PfP.

Níl rud ar bith sa Framework Document ag PfP a deir go mbeidh sainordú na Náisiún Aontaithe riachanach chun tabhairt faoi "crisis management". Mar an gcéanna leis na Petersburg Tasks faoi Chonradh Amsterdam. Níl ráite in aon áit go mbeadh sainordú riachtanach.

Abraimis slán mar sin le daonlathas na tíre i gcúrsaí slándála amach anseo. Comhaontú míleata san Aontas Eorpach a bheidh romhainn. Abraimis slán chomh maith le neamhspleachas intinne agus le meas idirnáisiúnta i measc na dtíortha is boichte. Ar nós "Animal Farm" le George Orwell is iad Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael agus ceannaireacht Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre na muca sa scéal seo, a bheidh sásta béilí a ghlacadh leis na daoine céanna atá ag imirt cos ar bholg ar chosmhuintir an domhain.

Dá mbeadh Raymond Crotty beo fós táim cinnte go mbeadh Reifreann againn ar an cheist seo. Ach tá spiorad bródúil síochánta Crotty fós beo i gcroíthe go leor daoine ar nós mo chomhleacaithe sa Chomhaontas Glas agus i gcroíthe go leor grúpaí creidimh, carthanachta, polaitúla agus síochánta a thuigeann go maith gur feall ar phobal na hÉireann agus ar shíocháin domhanda agus ar na Náisiúin Aontaithe é ballraíocht na tíre seo i PfP.

Is tír bheag sinn. Tá an Cold War thart. Cad tá romhainn mar mhuintir an domhain? Fiacha na dtíortha mbochta? Míchothromaíocht idir daoine saibhre agus bochta? Cad is cóir dúinn a dhéanamh? Tá rogha againn. Is cóir gníomhú faoi na Náisiúin Aontaithe mar idirghabhálaí idir tíortha na hEorpa agus Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá agus ar an taobh eile, na tíortha bochta. Tíortha cosúil linne na tíortha bochta sin, ó thaobh na staire de.

Cén fáth mar sin go bhfuil PfP ag titim amach? Dar liom, tá an brú ag teacht ón tionsclaíocht airm. Tá an Cold War thart agus tá margaí nua uathu. Níl na Náisiúin Aontaithe ag iarraidh orainn dul isteach sa PfP. Níl pobal na tíre ag iarraidh orainn na billiúin a chaitheamh ag ceannach trealamh míleata. In ionad sin, tá pobal na hÉireann ag iarraidh orainn airgead a thabhairt don chóras sláinte, d'ospidéil, do scoileanna, don chóras taistil phoiblí, to thógáil tithe, do chóras athchúrsáil dráimhaoile, do chórais séarachais, d'áiseanna súgradh do leanaí agus do dhaoine óga, agus mar sin de. Ach tabhair faoi ndeara nach bhfuil an Rialtas ag iarraidh ar an Dáil labhairt faoi na gnéithe sin go meánoíche mar a tharla coicíos ó shin.

Deir ceannairí NATO go bhfuil an deighilt idir NATO agus PfP razor thin agus léiríonn an díospóireacht seo go bhfuil an deighilt idir na páirtithe móra sa Tigh seo razor thin chomh maith. D'fhéadfaí an rud céanna a rá faoi na príomh nuachtáin, Irish Times agus Irish Independent ach go háirithe. Ach is mór an deighilt idir ballraíocht na tíre seo i PfP agus an Bhunreacht, go mór mhór Airteagal 27 a luann móráltacht idirnáisiúnta. Cad is móráltacht idirnáisiúnta ann ag cur san áireamh buamáil agus marú leanaí in Iraq agus Kosovo agus gan faic a dhéanamh i Timor Thoir cuir i gcás.

Deir an Bhunreacht go gcaithfimid a bheith ag gníomhú go síochánta. Ach cad a chiallaíonn "go síochánta" nuair a chuireann tú PfP agus NATO agus first strike nuclear warfare san áireamh?

Tá sé ráite sa Bhunreacht chomh maith go gcaithfimid a bheith ag gníomhú faoi bhun-rialacha idirndáisiúnta. Ní thuigim é sin nuair nach mbeimid faoi smacht na Náisiún Aontaithe a thuilleadh. Tá ballraíocht na tíre seo i PfP míbhunreachtúil dar liomsa. Gan Reifreann beidh an Dáil seo ag teacht salach ar théarmaí na Bunreachta.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le pobal na Gaeilge a labhair amach go tréan le blianta anuas i gcoinne Partnership for Peace. Le cúnamh Dé beidh ar a laghad cúlbhinseoirí i Fianna Fáil ach go háirithe sásta seasamh suas agus a bheith misniúil faoi seo agus gan a bheith ag teacht leis an chlár oibre atá leagtha síos ag na daoine is cumhachtaí ar domhan agus is measa ó thaobh a bheith ag imirt cost-ar-bholg ar chosmhuintir an domhain.

Ba mhaith liom a rá i dtosach báire go n-aontaím go hiomlán le gach atá cloiste agam ón Teachta Sargent.

Some speakers suggested that Fianna Fáil is a party which cannot be trusted and that the failure to honour the commitment to have a referendum on participation in Partnership for Peace shows yet again that the ethos of Fianna Fáil is one of untrustworthiness. I do not agree entirely with that view. There are good and bad in all parties and ignoring commitments or breaking promises is not unique to Fianna Fáil. Unfortunately, it has been a feature at times of all the main parties to make commitments while in Opposition and to do the exact opposite when in power. However, I agree there is something glaringly dishonest about Fianna Fáil's stated position on Ireland's proposed membership of Partnership for Peace prior to the last general election when viewed in the context of the U-turn when the party is in Government.

To stand for election on the basis of its manifesto, which clearly stated Fianna Fáil's opposition to participation "in NATO-led organisations such as Partnership for Peace or the Western European Union", and then shortly after winning the election and taking office to state and do the exact opposite shows contempt not only for the electoral process but for the electorate. It is blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy. It reminds me of a senior figure in Fianna Fáil in my Dublin Central constituency who, in the weeks before the last general election, gave a personal pre-election commitment at a public meeting to a small and vulnerable community that its homes would be protected against the Luas development. This was to be guaranteed by Fianna Fáil if elected to Government. The people at the public meeting were delighted because they respected the senior figure in question and loudly applauded what he said. Unfortunately, that commitment proved to be as empty and false as the commitment to hold a referendum on Partnership for Peace. Neither has been honoured.

It is such examples of political and moral dishonesty that has politics and politicians at such a low ebb in the eyes of the people. One Deputy described in this debate some weeks ago the anger and distrust he had encountered on the doorsteps in the Dublin South Central by-election. He said it was worse than he had ever witnessed in the past. He was right; when he was speaking he probably did not realise how right he was. Is it any wonder only 28 per cent of the electorate voted? There was a suggestion in the House when the Dáil met for the first time after the last general election, which has been repeated in recent days after the by-election, that a committee might be established to examine why the number voting in recent elections has declined.

My constituency has one of the lowest turn- outs in elections. In the local elections, it was not as low as 28 per cent, as in the recent by-election, but it was close to it. While I accept there are many factors involved in the source of this distrust or lack of participation, I am certain the dishonesty of the type to which I referred is a significant element. If people cannot rely on the word of prominent politicians, what is the point of voting? It is one of the most shameful and distasteful aspects of politics today. The media is concentrating on shirts and other items but it should also look at blatant examples of hypocrisy and dishonesty such as the case I outlined because it is much more important.

The critical question is, why would politicians elected on the basis of clear cut commitments be so dishonest and dishonourable when all that is required to fulfil their pledge is to hold a referendum and allow the people to decide on the important issue for themselves? Why not hold a referendum? In recent times, there have been some obscure referenda. Why not have one on an issue that is of interest to many people? There is only one answer to that question, which is that the Government is convinced it would lose if a referendum was held on the issue of participation in this, as Fianna Fáil called it before the election, NATO-led organisation. This is the reason it will not hold a referendum, or at the very least it believes there would be an extremely high risk of losing the vote. If I am correct, there is an even more important issue involved. The refusal to keep the pledge to hold a referendum is a deliberate and calculated act to subvert the will of the people.

The wording of the amendment which I and Deputies Joe Higgins, Ó Caoláin, Gormley and Sargent have tabled is straightforward and contains no ambiguity. It adds the provision that the people must first approve such a course of action in a referendum. Since the U-turn on this issue by Fianna Fáil, it has been stated repeatedly that there is no requirement to have a referendum on PfP because it does not involve any constitutional change. Yet the Constitution provides for precisely such an eventuality and specifically provides that referenda may be held on important issues which do not involve change to the Constitution. Article 47.2 states that every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such referendum shall have been cast against its enactment. Surely the question of Ireland's participation in a NATO-led organisation is such an issue.

A NATO report, a study on NATO enlargement published in September 1995, states that active participation in Partnership for Peace will play an important role in the evolutionary process of the enlargement of NATO. In July 1998, NATO's assistant general secretary stated that the new Partnership for Peace is now welded to the new NATO. They are clear on the role and place of the Partnership for Peace. Given our traditional and unambiguous neutrality, surely even this initial step towards NATO must be of immense significance.

Ireland has already played an important role in world peace and disarmament. Under the UN flag Ireland has a proud and valued history in peacekeeping throughout the world. Our independence of all military alliances has been one of the key factors in understanding our global acceptance. When the Irish Permanent Representative in Geneva argued the case for Ireland's admission to the Conference on Disarmament earlier this year she stated:

Because Ireland is not a member of NATO, Ireland enjoys a wide range of friendships with other countries and is, therefore, well placed to act as a bridge builder between different interests.

A document issued by the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament also points out:

The fact that Ireland, alone in the EU, has never colonised another country and has itself suffered colonisation may further explain the high standing we enjoy among developing countries.

In that document Irish CND describes Partnership for Peace as an arrangement among states, not necessarily members of NATO, on a programme of co-operation with NATO. Indeed, President Clinton called Partnership for Peace a force for peace. In this context Irish CND views the NATO formed Partnership for Peace as ". a dangerous attempt to upstage and eventually replace the United Nations peacekeeping role."

One of the arguments most commonly used for Ireland's entry to PfP is the need for what is referred to as the inter-operability of our Defence Forces, yet surely this argument demonstrates that PfP is in reality a partnership for war. The objective of inter-operability, of high-tech weapons, is to provide a boost for the arms industry, which will inevitably fuel war. Surely this context of Partnership for Peace is an appropriate matter to put before the people by way of referendum, as provided for under Article 47.2 of the Constitution.

While the Fine Gael Party is at least consistent in so far as it is in favour of joining PfP without a referendum, it is fearful that the Irish people might not to wish to join this military partnership. As the main Opposition party it is failing in its responsibility by not insisting that the Government honours the commitment to the electorate given in the Dáil to hold a referendum. I applaud Deputies Fox and Blaney for their support for a referendum.

Ireland should continue to play an important international peacekeeping role under the flag of the UN. We should concentrate our efforts on strengthening the role of the UN at a time when it is at a fairly low ebb. It appears the US is intent on doing the opposite by undermining the UN through the creation of a rival force under the control of NATO. Partnership for Peace is a significant step in that direction. No matter what the Government says it will drag Ireland towards a nuclear alliance. The utterances of the Government on this issue are as believable now as its statements when in Opposition.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá an díospóireacht seo ar siúl le cúpla seachtain anois agus taispeánann sé sin go bhfuil an-shuim ag na Teachtí Dála san ábhar. Taispeánann sé freisin go bhfuil déistin ar an ghnáth Theachta Dála ar an dtaobh seo den Teach mar gheall ar an athrú mheoin a léirigh Fianna Fáil i leith Partnership for Peace. Rinne cainteoirí eile romham tagairt don rud sin.

Caithfidh mé féin tagairt a dhéanamh don mhéid a dúirt an bheirt chainteoir a labhair romham. Dúirt an Teachta Sargent nach raibh éinne ag caint faoi chostas cogaíochta. B'fhéidir nach raibh, ach i ndáiríre, cad mar gheall ar luach saoil na ndaoine a maraíodh agus luach saoil na bpáistí óga? Éinne a chonaic na pictiúirí uafásacha a bhí ar an teilifís, déarfainn go raibh sé an-thábhachtach dóibh go mbeadh cosaint éigin ag na daoine bochta seo a maraíodh i dtíortha ar fud an domhain. Dúirt an Teachta Gregory gur aontaigh sé go hiomlán leis an méid a bhí ráite ag an Teachta Sargent. Ní raghaidh mé chomh fada leis sin. Aontaím leis an mbeirt acu mar gheall ar an athrú mheoin i Fianna Fáil.

I do not understand why both speakers have referred so much to NATO, nor do I understand why Partnership for Peace will always be associated with NATO by its opponents. I fail to see how involvement in peacekeeping can elicit the accusation of being an aggressor. The price of war is high in monetary terms, but the price of peace cannot be costed because we must protect those who need protection. In this regard one only needs to see the pictures of the savagery that has occurred in different parts of the world. We stood idly by and made no effort at protecting those caught up in such conflicts.

Cad mar gheall ar na Náisiúin Aontaithe?

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Níl na Náisiúin Aontaithe ar an leibhéal céanna leis an Partnership for Peace.

Fuair an-chuid Éireannach bás—

Deputy Browne, without interruption.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Fuair an-chuid Éireannach bás ar son na síochána ar fud an domhain agus tá súil agam go leanfaidh Éireannaigh ag déanamh an rud céanna. Thug siad sampla don domhan i dtaobh na síochána agus cosaint á thabhairt acu do dhaoine.

I join in the criticism of the Government. When in Opposition it unashamedly played with words and sought an opportunity to take a different line to the then Government. In a speech made in 1996 the Taoiseach asked rhetorically if joining Partnership for Peace would mean the return of British troops to the Curragh and French troops to Bantry Bay. Even if such use of language was meant seriously, it damages the credibility of politicians. In the same speech he said the failure to hold a referendum would amount to a serious breach of faith and was fundamentally undemocratic. It is now clear he did not believe a word of what he said because if he did he could not change his mind to the extent that he has.

Fine Gael never took the view that there was any doubt about the reasons we should join Partnership for Peace. My party's spokesman, Deputy Gay Mitchell, has given a consistent lead on this by advocating that Ireland take its place in peacekeeping. At times peace enforcement may be necessary, but this will not amount to aggressive invasion by way of conquering other countries, even if we had the capacity to take on huge nations in such a process. We can only do what has been done so successfully by many peacekeeping troops, keep the peace and help people to have a better life. Even the genial Minister for Foreign Affairs said that Partnership for Peace was a back door to NATO. These statements should not have been made because they are wrong. Having made these statements, it is a cause for concern that the Government should do such a somersault and not hold a referendum. This indicates, perhaps, that when in Opposition it pays to be extreme and to make reckless and untrue statements. Sometimes people listen to these statements and get wound up about them. People get into power having made statements that they then completely ignore.

I cannot understand why a particular group of people is prepared to take everything that is going. We have been members of the EU for 26 years. We have gone to Europe with empty barrows and come back with barrows full of money. Surely a sense of pride should suggest that we defend our colleagues. I am talking about helping to keep the peace, not being aggressive. Being a member of a football team, for example, suggests a certain comradeship whereby people help each other in order, perhaps, to save a team mate from being kicked black and blue by a bully from the opposition team. There is a sense of comradeship throughout life and I cannot understand how people can talk about being in Europe but not defending Europe.

If Ireland was invaded in the morning the first thing we would do is appeal to Europe to come to our assistance and defend us. This is understandable because we are not a very strong country. The likelihood of our country being invaded is not great. However, if it happened we would contact Europe or the United States right away to seek defence. Neutrality at that level is a form of moral and physical cowardice. We must be pre pared to defend ourselves and our friends. If citizens of a country are being ill-treated, we should be willing to help to maintain peace in that country.

NATO has been linked to Partnership for Peace, yet Switzerland, Finland and Austria, which are as neutral as Ireland, are in PfP. It is amazing that some of our learned colleagues – Independents and members of the Green Party – have more of a negative attitude towards Europe and defence than Switzerland, Austria, Finland and a majority of Members in this House. We have been sending troops abroad for many years and they have covered 37 peacekeeping missions for the United Nations. They have not attacked anyone and some of our soldiers have died in defence of other nations. It is gratifying that this country has played a role in helping other countries at that level. It is significant that the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Jerry McMahon, speaking in Trinity College, favoured joining Partnership for Peace and pursuing opportunities for Defence Forces. They have gone abroad and seen what is needed in many countries. They have done what any honourable person with backbone would do; they have helped others who are worse off than themselves. They have not set out to shoot right, left and centre and some have given their lives. A neighbour of mine lost his life while serving in the Congo. This was done in an effort to promote peace for which one can never be criticised. Referring to NATO and other aggressive groups – although it is debatable whether NATO could be described as aggressive – and the notion that one is causing war by supporting peace is something I cannot accept.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. It is noteable that many Deputies have spoken on this issue. That is as it should be but it is noteworthy also that so many Deputies have taken time to come to this House to speak on our entry into PfP. Despite this interest, the real debate which should have been initiated by this Government, is not taking place – a full public debate ending in a free popular vote, which was promised but has now been jettisoned by Fianna Fáil, would have reflected public concern and the public's right to make a decision on this issue.

The decision on whether to join PfP belongs to the Irish people, not just to politicians, because in 1997 they went to the polls on the understanding that a referendum was guaranteed by Fianna Fáil. The party was elected but promptly abandoned this commitment. There has been no adequate explanation from the Government as to why it opted for betrayal rather than being true to its promise. It may be that it has succumbed under duress to US interests which are intent on drawing Ireland into the sphere of NATO influence and future NATO membership. It may be, as others have said, that the Government is afraid to face the people.

Joining Partnership for Peace is not just about a closer relationship with NATO, it is also about loosening our connection with the United Nations. Ireland's role in the UN has been distinguished, notwithstanding the fact that we are a small country. Unlike the richest country in the world, we pay our dues on time. At the UN we have a good track record in relation to the developing world. Our neutrality and our history have defined our contribution towards world peace. Irish soldiers have served and some have died under the UN flag. The current UN Commissioner for Human Rights progressed her role as a human rights campaigner to Irish Head of State and on to international leader at the UN on a seamless and logical route.

Now we are being asked to join a misnamed Partnership for Peace. This decision would constitute a significant break in the logical progression of our historical relationship with the UN. The UN is clearly a flawed organisation but it has one great strength possessed by no other organisation of its type – its global nature encompasses everyone regardless of their economic status. Its global ethic offers potential for world peace and conflict resolution based on respect and equality. For that reason alone, we should not move away from building the UN security framework.

On the other hand, NATO, as its name denotes, concentrates decision-making in the hands of what AFrI describes as an exclusive club of governments – those traditionally described as first or second world countries. PfP is the child of NATO, regionally specific yet claiming to be global. Its proponents argue that it does not compromise Ireland's neutrality and it is true that joining PfP does not require a constitutional amendment. However, we know from experience in politics that change can occur by way of building blocks erected one at a time, slowly but inexorably, and that small changes can build into one big change over time.

The importance of this step was acknowledged by Deputy Bertie Ahern in opposition when he said that a decision to join PfP without a referendum would be "a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic". He subsequently changed his story by stating that he had since been advised that a constitutional referendum was not required. To rewrite history, as he did, makes a mockery of the debate. The advice he had available to him before the election was precisely the same advice he had after the election. If he had genuinely thought that a constitutional referendum were needed, it would have been irrefutable. It would not have been simply a breach of faith to make a decision without a referendum, it would have been a breach of law. It would have been, in effect, an illegal act. Deputy Ahern knew that in opposition and he has conveniently forgotten that now that he is in Government.

This is not an argument about abstract concepts. There are strong proponents in favour of our entry not just into Partnership for Peace but into NATO, people who have strong vested interests in influencing public policy for private gain. The McEvaddy brothers, for example, who have shown themselves generous to a fault in relation to entertaining the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance this summer, could easily fit into this category. They are keen proponents of NATO membership for Ireland. A recent article in The Sunday Business Post made it clear when it stated:

Ulick McEvaddy has confirmed that the McEvaddy brothers US operation has done business with the US military and that the military have been their largest customer in the US. The brothers have supplied the US military with Boeing 707s to be used as part of very sophisticated radar, surveillance and target attack systems.

Only the most trustworthy of people would be likely to get such contracts. The systems included AWACS and Joint Surveillance Target Radar Systems. These systems were used in the Gulf and Kosovan wars and are at the cutting edge of NATO's technology. Indeed it was the inability of these systems to target efficiently in bad weather that prolonged the war against Serbia. This, it should be emphasised, was not the fault of the planes but of the systems they were carrying.

In 1996 a report produced by AFRI found that more than a dozen Irish companies had links with the arms trade and the military industry. The number of military export licences issued since then by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has increased from 81 in 1996 to 346 in the first 11 months of 1998. At the root of this debate is a simple question: who will profit from our entry into Partnership for Peace? Who will make the money?

It is not easy for many people to gauge the importance or otherwise of this question. This is not what anybody would call a bread and butter issue. It is not a parish pump issue. Most of the time, foreign policy is foreign to most of us unless it arises from disaster or war. International commitments or global politics rarely arise as burning issues at any of my constituency clinics, yet with regard to joining Partnership for Peace I have been struck by the approaches that have been made to me as a constituency TD – the pregnant mother of two children who wants to make her voice heard, not on her behalf but on behalf of her children who she wants to see growing up, and who wants to exercise her right to vote against Partnership for Peace, and the older man who called to my constituency office who is affronted by the fact that the Government is usurping his right to choose. There is also my neighbour, who is sitting in the Public Gallery as we speak, and the UCD students, who have come here today with a petition signed by 2,000 of their fellow students, who are seeking a referendum on Partnership for Peace as was promised. This is the voice of the young electorate, the people who did not come out to vote in Dublin South-Central. They are certainly a factor in terms of the dwindling numbers who see a reason to come out to vote at election time. This is a political decision in which they are actively seeking to be engaged. These are not the comfortable, the complacent or the selfish to whom Deputy Harney referred earlier. They are committed people who want a choice.

I want to read a letter I received from a constituent of mine whom I have never met and who has never contacted me. He states:

I've never written to a TD before. If I'm doing so now, it means that for the first time in my own life, I feel compelled to do so.

I write to you in the hope that you can make a difference. Bear with this letter. I'm sure you're familiar with most of it but perhaps it can galvanise you into taking further action.

The circumstances now enfolding at national and international level indicate that people who would not normally intervene through their local politicians must now stand up and be counted. I do this here.

The present government has turned its back on democracy and I feel that our remaining TDs must now bring pressure to bear to remind it that the electorate is still there to be answerable to after one gains power.

International peace depends on mutual recognition between different countries and mutual credibility of parties at the 11th Hour negotiating table. At present – and for a number of decades past – this 11th Hour negotiating table has been hosted by the universality of the United Nations. It exists to give a platform to ALL nations.

I speak of course about the present government's plans to have this country join Partnership for Peace (PfP). The situation is stark. The present government promulgated what transpired to be a barefaced lie to the electorate during the last election.

In Fianna Fáil's Election Manifesto it clearly stated, "We oppose Irish participation in NATO itself, in NATO-led organisations such as Partnership for Peace, or in the Western European status". They were elected on the strength of that manifesto.

In 1996 Taoiseach Bertie Ahern stated in the Dail that any attempt to join the PfP without a referendum would be a "serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic".

What changed his mind since then?

He continued, "While the government may reassure the public that there are no implications for our neutrality, and that may be technically true at this time, it will be seen by other countries as a gratuitous signal that Ireland is moving away from its neutrality and towards incorporation into NATO and WFU in due course". True.

What changed his mind since then?

Later, the Taoiseach assured John Gormley that a referendum on PfP would be held. He has since backtracked on this.

Again what changed his mind since then?

Present government claims that PfP is not the same thing as NATO ring hollow. At the 1994 launch of PfP NATO hailed it as playing an important role in the enlargement of NATO itself.

It was acknowledged that the PfP would play a key role in NATO's expansion.

Indeed NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe termed the present 'neutrals' in the PfP as 'former neutrals'. A serious development, you will agree. Surely you will agree too that there can be no question of Ireland joining a military alliance based on nuclear weapons?

What has happened to our humanitarian outlook that distinguishes us from the Superpowers?

And how does joining PfP square with David Andrews' own Irish New Agenda disarmament initiative in 1998?

Just words apparently.

Two points of current relevance: The PfP operates under the authority of the North Atlantic Council. Let's be clear we effectively join NATO's Allied Command when we join PfP and all the silken statements from the government cannot camouflage that simple fact to everybody.

The PfP brief can go beyond Europe and won't necessarily need a UN mandate – or at least (as has been demonstrated in the past) the US or NATO's ‘interpretation' of any mandate might differ from what was intended.

This means that in time it can just as easily help the US and the UK bomb Iraqi civilians on a whim ... and remain outside the sanction of a politically weakened UN.

While PfP may not need a UN mandate—

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

I would like to have read the whole letter. My constituent ends the letter as follows:

This issue is too important for people like ourselves to remain silent. I prefer to stick with being European. I'm also proud to share a healthy revulsion to what is being carried out in countries such as Iraq by the US/UK in the name of "Western democracy".

Refusing to join the PfP means that we're taking a stand on behalf of those asserting the primary role of the UN (and not that of the US) in peacekeeping (and not seeking partnership in global carpetbagging).

I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to listen to people such as my constituent and others who are concerned. They have a right to express that concern by voting in a referendum guaranteed by a party facing the electorate. We have seen many broken promises but this is one the Government should and can face up to. It has carried out many U-turns in the short time it has been in power, but this is one where it could, in a small way in the overall context, redress the balance by ensuring that the people make this decision rather than politicians alone.

I am anxious to contribute to this debate although I do not normally speak on matters of foreign policy or security issues. The world is a rapidly changing place in that the old antagonisms between East and West, the Cold War, the world being seen as two superpowers, one US-led and the other Russian-led and a series of attritions no longer apply. We live in a world where the media can bring real evil into our homes. When I see the evil perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic against the Kosovan people, open graves full of skeletons which are the result of mass destruction, women raped and beheaded and appalling breaches of human rights, I say to people opposed to Partnership for Peace that all they offer the people in East Timor, Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda and Algeria is sympathy and nothing else.

That is something we must all confront because war is an evil. To have a military base and security forces, to arrange premeditated mass destruction, bombing and killing is evil, but it is necessary when faced with the greater evil of genocide, dictatorships and the absence of any form of transparent democracy in regional conflicts. There must be a world policeman, someone to implement UN security resolutions and who can offer something more than sympathy. For too long in this country, many of these issues have been taboo and people in favour of Partnership for Peace have been misrepresented as being in favour of a European army and Irish people coming home in body bags. The fear and dread generated fail to confront the arguments about the type of world we live in, the type of human rights we are to have and how we are to enforce principles of human dignity. Therefore, we cannot resist the temptation to contribute to the debate in a meaningful way.

Ireland has a proud tradition of being in favour of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and of being a member of the UN. Have we enhanced or diminished our sovereignty by being part of the EU, the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe? I remember in my short period as Minister that I found myself as President of the European Council of Agriculture Ministers. It often struck me as unusual that I represented Ireland, which has 1 per cent of the European member states' population, and yet I was in a most influential position, regardless of powerful countries with massive populations, such as the UK, France and Germany. By participating in PfP, the EU, the UN and the Security Council within the UN, we can have an influence on the principles and architecture of European and world security and the principles of human rights well beyond the scale of our size and population. There is no cogent argument for Ireland remaining outside PfP. To do so would be damaging to our interests. I regret that there has not been an informed debate on this. A person is either labelled pro-NATO or anti-NATO.

Fianna Fáil was very ill-advised in Opposition in committing itself to a referendum on the matter. Article 29.1 of the Constitution specifically states:

Ireland [is devoted] to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

Since our membership of the UN in 1955, we have, through referenda, voted for the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty and the Good Friday Agreement, all of which provide a legal basis for us to join PfP. It was never necessary for us to have a referendum in this regard. People speak of the electoral difficulties in by-elections and low turnouts. Referenda, even on the most uncontentious mundane matter, have become a nightmare because of the McKenna judgment. It is time the Government grasped the horns of that dilemma which requires the State, regardless of unanimity in favour of a proposal in the House, which was elected and can subsequently be rejected by the people, to fund equally the arguments against the proposal and give equal weight to them. That disregards the democratic principle underlying membership of the House.

There has been a sequence of events since we joined the UN in 1955, since our association with peacekeeping, our joining the OSCE, our observer status in Western European Union, and the passing of the Maastricht and other treaties. We have set out a pattern. The Petersberg Tasks are worthy of support. They involve humanitarian, search and rescue and peacekeeping missions and crisis management tasks, including peace enforcement and environmental protection. We should pay due credit to our Defence Forces. Last year our international peace commitment was such that we had almost 800 military personnel employed on peacekeeping missions in 13 countries. They were offering more than sympathy. They were offering effective implementation of humanitarian principles.

The world has changed in the period 1990-5. UN Security Council resolutions have increased fourfold and there has been a threefold increase in the number of conflicts in which the UN has become actively involved. The number of UN peacekeeping operations in the same period has increased from five to 19. The East-West axis is at an end. Things which were impossible during the Cold War when there were two competing superpowers are now possible. We now have regional and internal security disputes rather than East-West conflicts. We have all seen the slaughter of innocent women, children and elderly people in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The SFOR mandate under the UN has worked well there and credit must be given in that regard. We must optimise our capacity to play an increasing role.

Another argument made is that by joining PfP we will join NATO. While we have never had a proper debate on joining NATO, I accept that there is no public desire to join it. However, 43 nations participate in and are members of PfP. If this is a malign UN-NATO body, how is it that only 16 NATO member states are members? What about the other 27? The ethic of unprecedented flexibility encompasses a membership which is reflected in the profile of PfP. Russia is a member, as are many of the Baltic and neutral European states, including three Balkan states. Are we going to join Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and the Holy See which are not members or will we join the rest of the civilised world, including Russia, which are members? PfP's role is to acknowledge the failure of Europe and NATO to take effective peacekeeping action, the need to allow former Warsaw Pact states to participate in western security co-operation and the need to promote stability and strengthen international relations through co-operation.

PfP's aims of safeguarding freedom, justice and peace and the preservation of democracy and international law are aims to which all sound thinking people should subscribe. Transparency, national defence budgeting and the democratic control of defence forces are all bases for joining PfP. The procedure by which a state joins is that a member state establishes a bilateral agreement with the 16 NATO countries. We, in our Presentation Document, can fully enshrine our peacekeeping commitments and our commitment to humanitarian philosophy. When I see countries such as Switzerland, Austria, Finland and Sweden – all neutral states – joining PfP, I ask myself how it could be perceived as a backdoor to NATO. The myths surrounding PfP have not been properly contested and now is the time to contest them.

There has been a great deal of hypocrisy in this debate. Government back benchers such as Deputies Roche, O'Kennedy, Browne and Deputy Fox all want to have an each way bet on this issue. If they were fully committed to what they are saying, they should vote against this. I do not believe a referendum is required.

In 1996, the former Government, of which I was a member, produced a White Paper on Foreign Policy which addressed this issue, among others. No commitment was given in that White Paper to hold a referendum. Fine Gael's position on this matter has been utterly consistent. PfP is not a matter of signing a blank cheque; it is a matter of offering more than sympathy to the down-trodden people who face being looted, ransacked and run out of their houses where ethnic strife occurs.

I commend the Department of Foreign Affairs on its consistently balanced and calm handling of this issue in which it has attempted to preserve the elements of our foreign policy and tradition of peacekeeping. When we visit America on St. Patrick's Day, we portray an image of ourselves as being more American than the Americans themselves in the same way as the Americans portray an image of being more Irish than us. Yet, we can talk to Libya, as I did about the beef crisis, and it can point to its difficult history with imperialist Britain. We have an each way bet on many aspects of our foreign policy. However, I do not believe there is any conflict on this issue.

PfP seeks to provide the underlying strengths of peacekeeping and peace enforcement in a world where regional and internal strife, as opposed to East-West strife, is the order of the day. We should seek to clearly establish in our Presentation Document that PfP's role will be to operate under a UN mandate and that its principles will be developed in a humanitarian based manner.

Last weekend, we witnessed the near loss of life off the west coast. The further evolution and development of our coastal search and rescue services is very important. Some constituents of mine were tragically killed in a helicopter rescue accident and tribute must be paid to them. Too often, we lose sight of practical considerations. If the northern talks progress satisfactorily, I see PfP providing for the development of further common sense, practical arrangements where tragedies, such as naval incidents, arise.

The establishment in May 1997 of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council provides the best forum for regular consultations between all PfP states, be they NATO or otherwise, to discuss how we will be of practical humanitarian assistance in the Balkans and elsewhere. That is the proper way to proceed. The arguments against PfP do not stand up. Joining PfP is a sign of a mature state which is taking its responsibility seriously, a state which is committed to more than sympathy through the implementation of the real values of human dignity. I am, therefore, happy to support the Fine Gael position as outlined in this motion.

Since Ireland declared its neutrality in the 1930s, world security has taken on a completely different form and aspect. Through the debate surrounding PfP, we now realise it is in our interest to play a vital role in world security and in securing the freedom of other nations.

The most spectacular aspect of this debate is the somersault effected by Fianna Fáil whereby it rejected PfP prior to the last election and guaranteed that a referendum would be held on the issue but has now decided to adopt the Fine Gael position which supports involvement in PfP without a referendum. Fianna Fáil will come in for a great deal of criticism in the long run for this change of position. On 28 March 1996, the current Taoiseach and then Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bertie Ahern, outlined Fianna Fáil's position on PfP. He said: "The case for concluding a bilateral pact with NATO under the Partnership for Peace has not been made.". He went on to outline the reasons Ireland should not have joined PfP at that time, citing the threat of NATO naval and army troops coming into the bays and harbours of Ireland. I am delighted he has abandoned that position and adopted the Fine Gael one. Last January, prior to this debate, the Taoiseach claimed that PfP would allow us retain the credible, viable and constructive neutrality which has always defined the character of our foreign policy and stated that it did not mean our foreign policy would be uncritically aligned with NATO. The Taoiseach's position has changed since 1996. That is to be welcomed, although it represents one of the greatest changes in policy direction I have witnessed since entering this House.

Partnership for Peace is an important initiative for Ireland and is one which must be taken in order that we can move forward on our commitment to the European and world community. The initiative has obvious benefits without any reasonable or rational drawbacks. Fine Gael has consistently backed this initiative since the publication of the White Paper on Foreign Policy in 1996. We do not see PfP as infringing on our strong historical stance of neutrality. We should consider security and neutrality as separate issues. As a committed member of the EU, our security, and that of other EU member states, is something we must take very seriously. At the same time, we can preserve our historical neutrality. They are two different issues and must be looked at separately.

PfP, although designed in part as an initiative to allow former eastern bloc countries to move into NATO, has also evolved into a partnership among most European nations to provide for enhanced security and peacekeeping. PfP does not require or ask us to give up our historical and strong desire to maintain our neutrality. It is not a military alliance, which has been stated by speaker after speaker in this House. It does not require Ireland to support the military or defence initiatives of NATO, for example. Instead, PfP is a proactive agreement among all but a few OSCE nations to enhance our ability to participate in peacekeeping, collective European security and humanitarian missions.

Ireland is the only nation in the EU which is not a member of the EAPC/PfP leaving us out of the negotiating table on the common security and peace of the European Union. PfP is also a self-determined alliance and the Government and people maintain control over the depth and length of our involvement in each mission and by our initial agreement to join. PfP is not a front for NATO aggression, as was pointed out by a number of speakers, but allows us to continue to enhance our ability to participate as peacekeepers and humanitarians and to act in common security with our EU neighbours and our supporters in the broader world community.

PfP will help in future co-ordination of humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts, common training and exercises. The future of European collective security depends on our ability to act in a co- operative fashion among NATO and UN members and to give the fastest and most efficient aid while remaining secure and neutral. PfP enhances and is essential to our ability to complete that task. It is not only a benefit to our future security and co-ordination with other nations but it also allows us to remain on our own individual autonomous terms as a nation.

Partnership for Peace in no way inhibits our ability to determine our own foreign policy, especially in regard to the constitutionally deemed power over the declaration of war to the Dáil. It is an essential and important step forward for Ireland as a member of the European Union and the broader world community. Without taking this step, Ireland will not be able to keep up its outstanding record as neutral peacekeepers and humanitarians, especially now that we have been called to step up to the Petersberg Tasks of special responsibility to our European neighbours and, possibly, future EU members.

The 1996 Fine Gael position clearly states that the focus of PfP is on co-operation, training and joint exercises. Nothing in the PfP framework document entails international commitments of a treaty nature and participation in PfP programmes is entirely voluntary. Ireland needs to be ready to participate as a member of the European Union and the world community in future peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts throughout Europe. PfP is the way to prepare for this future while maintaining our neutrality and sovereignty over the declaration of war.

Fine Gael has been consistent in its support for PfP as a better structure in our humanitarian relief and defence efforts and which will not call into question our neutrality or sovereignty. Our membership is important for the future of Ireland as a member not only of the European Union but of the world community. As I said, PfP is not a military alliance nor a necessary stepping stone into NATO. It is not a reversal of Ireland's strong history of neutrality and it will not give NATO a free reign to interfere in Irish domestic politics or to do anything which would in any damage our neutral position.

PfP is a proactive initiative to maintain peace and security for ourselves and our fellow EU members and European neighbours. It is a self-determined alliance and the Dáil and the people will have control over the depth and length of our involvement. It is a humanitarian effort by us and other countries, many of which have a strong history of neutrality, such as Finland and Switzerland, and draws half its membership from outside NATO. In PfP we are in the company of countries with probably the longest tradition of neutrality in modern times. PfP will aid in the future co-ordination of humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts and will allow Ireland to be an active member of the European Union in important issues, such as defence and rescue missions, peacekeeping and so on.

Ireland has no option but to be part of PfP. I would like a broader and more extensive debate on security and the security of the European Union in which we are enthusiastic participants, unlike perhaps our neighbours. This debate cleared the air. For a long time Fianna Fáil used neutrality at times, particularly at elections, to gain popular support but it has now shown clearly where it stands on security. Fianna Fáil policy is now the same as Fine Gael, and this debate was helpful if for no other reason than to display that.

In three quarters of a century of independence, Ireland has played an important role in peacekeeping through the UN and in advancing the cause of the non-nuclear states. Some 25 years ago after half a century of independence we joined what is now the European Union. In the past quarter of a century our sovereignty has become a greater reality not because we chose to stand aside from certain organisations but because we joined specific organisations, most notably the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and, most significantly, the European Union. Our decision not to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 1949 continues to enjoy wide public support, although the reasons for not joining have never been enumerated or publicly consented to. As this document points out, the public is able to discern between membership of NATO and an association with NATO tailored to our needs and with our full agreement and consent.

Fine Gael believes there is no argument for Ireland remaining outside PfP and that to do so would be damaging to our interests and to the evolving European security arrangement in which we must play a role and of which we must be one of the main sponsors. This, in turn, is important for the morale of our Defence Forces. We all know of the support and enthusiasm of the Defence Forces for this initiative. They are extremely conscious of this having served in areas throughout the world with the UN. WE should listen to those in the Defence Forces because they are aware of the international situation, of our military involvement and the importance for each country to have arrangements with other countries.

Drug smuggling has become a curse throughout the world. We see co-operation between police forces in different countries and it is only right and natural that military forces in these countries would have the same arrangements to combat this terrible threat to humanity. We should be more conscious of this than are other countries, as Ireland has become a busy trafficking area for international drug smugglers. I compliment the Garda and Customs and Excise officers, who have been very successful in seizing drugs, but if our security forces had not been as successful in seizing drugs as they have been in the past five years, for example, the situation would be very frightening.

The international drugs problem gives an example of the movement of people between countries. The idea of isolation and of a country standing on its own was all right in the past, as Deputy Deenihan said, when drums were beaten at election meetings in the village green. That kind of politics went down well in the past. People were complimented for keeping Ireland out of the world war, but the hard fact is that the two opposing sides decided not to invade Ireland. That was one of the reasons Ireland was kept out of the war, but we had to have a belief that it was due to great performances from Irish statesmen.

That brings me to the stance of Fianna Fáil on this issue. I am not naive enough to think that Fianna Fáil has not adopted this stance on many other occasions. For example, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was being put in place, Fianna Fáil, which was then in Opposition, opposed it. It would not be true to form had Fianna Fáil had not opposed this matter in Opposition. It was once pointed out to a well-known Fianna Fáil Minister that he had said one thing about a topic when in Opposition and something different when in office. His reply was that he had been in Opposition at the time. Fianna Fáil does not have a policy on anything and this is the way it has performed on many issues. It is not worth dwelling on this too long, but the main party in Government has had to do a U-turn on this matter and by doing so has not done itself any favours. More importantly, it has not done the country any favours. However, that is politics and politics cannot be avoided. It is a sad reflection on the so-called new Fianna Fáil that it stuck with the old policy of opposing matters when in Opposition before making the usual U-turn in Government.

Partnership for Peace is a very flexible arrangement. The flexibility of its structure is unprecedented in that it allows full participation to member states who wish to fulfill a variety of different aims. Partnership for Peace is a bilateral agreement between any given member state and the 16 NATO members. It is NATO's military co-operation programme for non-NATO countries and it is a normal way for a nation to evolve. I am happy to support this move, though I am disappointed the Government was not more upfront on the matter when in Opposition.

I have a reservation and feel there should have been a referendum. In that, I differ to an extent from my party. However, that is water under the bridge and I totally support this policy. Ireland will honour its role on the international stage as it has done in the past and this will enhance our stature as a nation. I have every confidence in our military forces. Their service abroad has given Ireland a great record.

I support the motion that Ireland participates in Partnership for Peace. It makes me proud to see Ireland playing its part in international peacekeeping efforts and Irish people are proud of our contribution over the years. We want to contribute and we want to play our part.

When the United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, visited Ireland earlier this year, he reminded us of Ireland's reputation, given our 46,000 individual tours of duty on 37 UN peacekeeping missions. Irish peacekeepers serve on UN mandated, NATO commanded stabilisation forces in the former Yugoslavia. We have troops deployed in Lebanon, among the UN forces in Cyprus, western Somalia, Afghanistan, Kuwait and elsewhere.

Article 29.1º of the Constitution provides the basis for this tradition. It states that Ireland is devoted "to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." This is why we became a member of the UN in 1955 and since then our armed forces have become internationally recognised as peacekeepers in numerous operations around the world. We have also joined the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, again indicating our willingness and commitment to fostering peace in Europe. In May 1998 the Irish people voted in referenda on the Amsterdam Treaty and the Good Friday Agreement and both were endorsed by the citizens of the State. Under the Amsterdam Treaty Ireland agreed to play a greater role in European security through a common foreign and security policy and indicated a willingness to participate in the Petersberg Tasks, which include humanitarian work, search and rescue missions, peacekeeping missions, crisis management tasks, including enforcing peace, and environmental protection.

We are already committed to activities similar to those we could participate in under Partnership for Peace. I remember the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty and many people I spoke to approved of Ireland's involvement in these types of missions. From examining developments across Europe and our military capabilities, it is clear that continued membership of the UN alone will not allow us contribute in a meaningful way to operations and decision making in missions such as those under the Petersberg Tasks. Partnership for Peace affords us this involvement. It is a bilateral arrangement between NATO on the one hand and the individual non-NATO countries on the other, covering co-operation and co-ordination in the areas chosen by individual countries. Of the 43 participating nations, practically all are members of OSCE. Sixteen EU members states are members of Partnership for Peace, 11 of which are members of NATO. These 11 members see NATO membership as necessary in the context of providing for their security needs. We do not see such a necessity and neither do our fellow neutral EU states, namely, Sweden, Finland and Austria. However, these countries see a need to join Partnership for Peace. They are conscious, as are other EU member states, of the need for co-operation and discussion which is respectful of different opinions and the need to exchange different views. The other three neutral countries have access to political discussions with NATO and the opportunity to air their views. Ireland does not have this opportunity.

It is worth noting what the former Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, Lieutenant General Gerry McMahon, has to say on the matter. He believes our inaction in joining Partnership for Peace has sidelined our Defence Forces in training for peace operations and in the techniques involved. He points out that new techniques are evolving through Partnership for Peace workshops from which we are excluded. We have been denied an opportunity of playing our part and having an influence when we could be prime movers. He believes we are at a potentially dangerous disadvantage in Bosnia under NATO command because of our non-membership of Partnership for Peace. Detailed intelligence in the mission is restricted to NATO members, but members of Partnership for Peace have a less classified level of intelligence available to them. This arrangement does not apply to Ireland, and this could prove life threatening to our soldiers.

Membership of Partnership for Peace will mean that Irish soldiers will be training and attending co-ordination conferences, upgrading their skills and improving their ability to take part in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. During the NATO bombing of Serbia Ireland found itself without a voice or a channel to direct its concerns. Membership of Partnership for Peace will change this. We were the only country in Europe without a voice. Every other country was either in NATO or a member of Partnership for Peace.

Partnership for Peace is not a set and rigid arrangement, rather it is an extremely flexible arrangement, a fact not focused upon and perhaps ignored by opponents in the argument. If we decide to join PfP we will sign the partnership framework document and we will then present NATO with a document setting out the areas of participation in which we are interested, not in those dictated to us by NATO. We will not be faced with any commitment other than voluntary commitments. Partnership for Peace is not a treaty and membership does not imply any mutual defence commitments, membership of NATO or any commitment to NATO. It is not NATO membership by the back door, as opponents of PfP would like us to believe or as Fianna Fáil suggested in Opposition.

Partnership for Peace will present us with a menu of options from which we can pick and choose, a fact which is well documented. I have no doubt we will participate in areas already agreed to by the people of this country – I refer to the areas covered by the Petersberg Tasks to which we agreed under the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Government already has a mandate from the people to do this. Under the Good Friday Agreement the people gave the Government their consent that it should develop east-west and North-South security arrangements with the British Government. Therefore, I do not believe a refer endum is necessary. Membership of Partnership for Peace would in no way involve a change in our Constitution. We had an opportunity to express our opinion on common foreign and security policy in Europe in previous referenda and membership of Partnership for Peace allows us implement these decisions. This is clear and has always been so.

The Fine Gael Party has always been clear on where it stands in relation to this issue; it always believed it is necessary for Ireland, as a member of the EU, to participate fully in such a programme. We believe firmly that our commitments to European politics, security and development mean we must play an active role and not hide behind a neutral banner which would allow us to opt out of our responsibilities. Shirking our responsibilities in an expanding Europe is not what the Irish people want. We want to play our part and are proud to do so.

I am disappointed and angry at the way politics is being played with this issue. The shameless U-turn by Fianna Fáil on a referendum on Partnership for Peace has been widely documented in debate in this House, in the media and among the general public. The explanatory guideline issued to us by the Department of Foreign Affairs contradicts the wild and inaccurate statements of the Fianna Fáil party when in Opposition, eager to get into Government at all costs. The document states that there is no conflict between Ireland's military neutrality and full and active support in Ireland for collective security. On the issue of a referendum, the Attorney General cannot see any legal reason why one would be required prior to Irish participation in Partnership for Peace.

In 1996 the coalition Government of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left produced a White Paper on foreign policy, summarising Partnership for Peace. The Fianna Fáil led Government can now confirm the validity of the conclusions in that White Paper. It is pure cynicism that Fianna Fáil in Opposition promised a referendum on Ireland's membership of Partnership for Peace and used grossly misleading statements in an effort to gain electoral support while it switched tactics in Government. This type of irresponsible behaviour contributes to the cynicism with which people view politics today. If I, as a Member of the Opposition, can inform myself of the true reality of Partnership for Peace and what it means for Ireland in terms of our history in Europe, our commitment in Europe and the general desire of the people to see our nation participating in humanitarian, peacekeeping and search and rescue missions, surely Fianna Fáil in Opposition could have done so. I suggest the party probably did, but irresponsibly chose to ignore it in a cynical exercise which has placed the body politic in further disrepute.

I believe firmly Ireland will and has to play its role. We are committed and I believe the Irish people want to play their role in Europe and in expanding our commitments in Europe. Partnership for Peace in no way restricts or interferes with our neutrality and I do not believe a referendum on this issue is necessary as has been cynically promised by other politicians.

Were Fine Gael to behave as Fianna Fáil feels it should behave when in Opposition we would be voting against this motion, and using every political opportunity to embarrass members of Fianna Fáil and trying to encourage Independents to follow us in to the Níl lobby. I am proud that we are not doing this, because this issue is too important to play politics with. If others want to behave in such a fashion then they should examine their own consciences. It is no wonder that people are staying away from the polling booths, as we saw in the recent by-election, while this type of politics continues. Politics is about leadership and we owe it to the people to give leadership on this issue and to tell the truth.

As has been outlined by many speakers, this has nothing to do with neutrality. When we talk about Partnership for Peace we talk about bringing peace to the world, not aggression. We are not talking about a group of countries getting together to be aggressive towards others, but rather about a partnership of countries coming together to restore peace in the world. As a former Minister for Defence I had the great benefit of seeing at first hand the role our Defence Forces have played through the years in peacekeeping throughout the world. I visited the Lebanon on numerous occasions. I visited Somalia as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and I have been to many parts of the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia Herzegovina. We played our part there even though it involved a small number of Defence Forces personnel. I also witnessed at first hand the outrageous atrocities that occurred in these parts of the world. When people see what is happening to these human beings on television there is, naturally, an outcry. People want to know what we are doing about it. This is an opportunity to do something.

Some people are using scare tactics in an effort to persuade the Irish people that as a result of joining Partnership for Peace, members of the Defence Forces will be led into a situation where they will be fighting wars throughout the world. That is scandalous. This is an extremely serious issue and the public demands to know our policies in relation to our Defence Forces and the role they will play in future in bringing peace and stability throughout the world. I will be pleased to walk through the Tá lobby in support of this motion, even if it is cynical on the part of the Government, particularly the Fianna Fáil element, which changed ship on the issue. Nevertheless, we now have an opportunity to show some leadership for the future.

What would happen if Ireland did not join? Irish troops have spent nearly 20 years in Lebanon. Hopefully, that conflict will be resolved in the near future. What will we do with the skills of the personnel who have been trained in these tasks over the years? These skills are in true peacekeeping and they would be lost to the world. The soldiers could walk up and down in the barracks square every morning and prepare guards of honour for the various dignitaries who arrive to this country but what will they do afterwards? The reality is that they have an important part to play in passing on the skills they have gained in peacekeeping to other countries.

Compare those skills with the aggressive approach of, for example, the United States, whose military gets involved in conflicts throughout the world but who have never been trained in peacekeeping. They know nothing about it. All they know is that they have more machinery, guns and bombs than others and they are trained to use them. However, the skills of our Defence Forces include being able to become part of a community in an area where there is conflict and to bring about a peaceful and stable situation. That is what peacekeeping is about. It is about restoring democracy in parts of the world which are experiencing atrocities every year. The comments of the former Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General McMahon, were correct. I had the great privilege of serving with him when I was Minister for Defence. This man has tremendous knowledge about peacekeeping and has served in that capacity in many parts of the world. He was right to say that it is shameful that Ireland is not to the forefront in leading policy in Europe with regard to peacekeeping.

As has been said previously, this is a voluntary participation. If a country joins Partnership for Peace, it is not dictated to by others. It decides the mission in which it wishes to participate, what skills it has for that mission and what role it will play. The country can be selective. I believe Europe should go further than this, given the current situation. When there was conflict in the past, a UN resolution was passed and the Secretary General sought troops from various parts of the world to participate in a UN mission. In those days, when a country participated, the UN paid the costs. What is happening now? Due to the lack of proper funding for the United Nations, each participant in a mission must now pay its own costs.

This country is fortunate to be going through a period of great wealth. However, 15 or 17 years ago, when it was on its knees, how could it have afforded to pay for a military contingent to participate in a mission in some other part of the world? We would have been obliged to opt out. It is important, therefore, for Ireland to be at the forefront in European politics in encouraging the proper funding of the United Nations in order to return it to the days when it had the resources to fund such missions.

Take a look at some of the poorer countries, such as Ghana and Fiji, which also have a great tradition in peacekeeping and whose troops have served alongside Irish troops in Lebanon and other areas. These countries do not have the wealth we have and they can no longer partici pate under the new rules in peacekeeping missions. They cannot afford it. The United Nations is losing its peacekeeping skills. I have always argued that instead of being afraid of participating fully in discussions and debates in Europe, Ireland should be leading the way as a small country with a proud tradition. It has no axe to grind with anybody and does not have a history of aggression.

We should be leading the way and ensuring that Europe, as a body, contributes to the United Nations along with the US, Russia and the world's other major groupings. We should ensure that Europe contributes a percentage of GDP or uses some other vehicle as a funding mechanism. If that is done, it will be possible to reintroduce a number of the smaller countries which do not have the wealth to participate at present.

I was in Somalia during the troubles there. It was obvious lunacy – I do not profess to be an expert in these matters – to have US troops in Somalia on a long-term basis. They did not know the culture; neither do we for that matter. Other African states who understand the culture, the history and the people were needed. They should be able to participate in peacekeeping missions in these parts of the world. Bringing people from the United States or Europe into that situation can often be the wrong course of action.

This is the first step, to get involved and show that we are not afraid to play our part in peacekeeping and peace enforcement throughout the world. The next step should be that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence participate fully in the Western European Union and bring about a debate in which we should insist that Europe takes a stance on peacekeeping. Then we will know where we are going and we will not be hopping and trotting, waiting for the US or some other powerful group of countries to make a decision. Why does the European Union, for argument's sake, not have a seat on the Security Council? That body needs to be radically reformed. We should be involved as a European voice, expressing our concerns and taking positions.

This motion is a most important step. I was delighted Ireland decided to participate in the UN mission to deal with the aftermath of the East Timor slaughter. Although we are sending a small number of troops, it is a sign that we are concerned and have a role to play. I am sure our troops will play a most important role. Unless one sees what can be done on the ground through peacekeeping and sees the skills of the people who are trained in this area, it is difficult to explain them. The fact that various countries send military experts to learn from our military personnel in the peacekeeping college in the Curragh Camp is a sign that Ireland has a high reputation in peacekeeping throughout the world. It is, therefore, only right and proper that we should be to the forefront in joining Partnership for Peace. We should move away from scare mongering and misleading people and tell them the truth – we cannot stand back and say someone else can deal with the slaughter of people in a civilised society and because little Ireland wants to remain neutral we cannot become involved. Such a view is hypocritical. When we were in trouble we needed help from other people and we still need help. George Mitchell is trying to negotiate a final peace settlement in the north-eastern part of this island. We should, therefore, be able to understand how important it is to play a role in peacekeeping throughout the world.

In supporting this motion and the Fine Gael amendment to it, which I understand will be accepted by the Government, I look forward to this motion being passed and to our marching forward to take our rightful place as a member of Partnership for Peace and I hope we will not be afraid to play a leading role in developing a European policy on peacekeeping and peacemaking.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important issue. Ireland has a proud record in maintaining European and world peace. As the previous speaker said, we have a proud record in peacekeeping, which we have justified, and we should not be afraid to move forward and join Partnership for Peace.

Given the commitment by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs before the last general election to hold a referendum on joining Partnership for Peace, their subsequent U-turn has a serious consequence for politics. Fianna Fáil's cynical U-turn on this issue has caused anger and frustration. Fine Gael made its case clear two and a half years ago before the last general election so that people knew exactly what they were voting for. I am proud our party leader and our party in general is committed to maintaining that stance and has not just changed its stance because it has moved to this side of the House. In January 1998 the Fine Gael motion put by Deputy Gay Mitchell forced the Taoiseach to restate his position when he and the Minister for Foreign Affairs issued a positive statement in favour of joining Partnership for Peace.

I have great admiration for the strong stance adopted by Deputies Fox and Blaney against the Government on this major issue, but their stance on behalf of the nurses in recent weeks was not as moral or as strong. If there is a vote on this motion tonight, I wonder which lobby they will walk through. I understand they will vote "no". The only reason they will do so is because they have a clear indication from the Fine Gael Party that it will vote with the Government, so they have nothing to lose. There will be a discussion later tonight and tomorrow night on agriculture on which there will be a vote and I wonder if their stance on behalf of the sheep farmers of Kerry, Donegal and Wicklow, who are not enjoying the benefits of the Celtic tiger but experiencing great difficulties, will be as strong.

The Army and the Garda, are eager to become involved in peacekeeping missions across Europe and further afield. The Army has a high reputation and it was made clear by some of its personnel that they believe our joining Partnership for Peace will not endanger our neutrality in any way.

Why did so few people turn out to vote last week in the by-election? We need only consider the subject of this motion to realise why people can be so cynical. Before the last general election an absolute guarantee was given by the leader of Fianna Fáil that a referendum would be held on joining Partnership for Peace, and that was not the only guarantee he gave. He also gave a guarantee, and leaflets on it were circulated around my home area, that if Army barracks were to be closed, full and open consultation would take place. A meeting was called, but it was called to announce the closures and as yet the £1 million promised that day has not come to Castleblayney.

Promises were also made to farmers. The Taoiseach, then Leader of the Opposition, and Ministers, Deputies Walsh and Cowen, and others promised farmers that if they got into Government they would fly out immediately to Libya, Iran and anywhere else that was required to open up markets for our beef. They guaranteed the nurses that if they got into office they would give them whatever they wanted. They said that all that was required was a change of Government. Apart from the other issues, such as shirts and meals, their failure to keep those promises is the reason people are so cynical about politicians. Fianna Fáil has been cynical about the way it has dealt with the issue of Partnership for Peace, promising one thing in Opposition but doing something else in Government.

I recall the Taoiseach, when Leader of the Opposition, in a debate on a White Paper in 1996, stating that Partnership for Peace involves joint exercises with NATO on sea or land. He questioned whether they would take place in Ireland. He also questioned whether we would be able to choose the NATO countries with which we would wish to have exercises? He asked if we would have British troops back in the Curragh, the French back in Bantry Bay, the Germans on Banna Strand, the Spanish in Kinsale and the Americans in Lough Foyle. He asked whether we would take part in exercises under NATO command. He did not mention French tailors on Inisvickillane. The Taoiseach also said in 1996 that he would regard any attempt to push Partnership for Peace or participation in the Western European Union tasks through the House by resolution without reference to the people who, under the Constitution, have the right to final decision on all such questions of national policy, as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also said that Partnership for Peace is a backdoor to NATO. He said that the association between Partnership for Peace and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is too close for comfort in the context of our military non-alliance and we need to preserve our neutrality. Those comments in 1996 do not sit consistently with what the Minister said in this debate.

I am aware Fianna Fáil's arguments that things have changed are nonsense, unless it means that was what it said in Opposition but it has changed now it is in Government. Fianna Fáil's cynicism and U-turns must not blind us to the fact that Partnership for Peace is a flexible programme of military and security co-operation between NATO and non-NATO states. Partnership for Peace does not present any participation with any commitments other than voluntary participation in Partnership for Peace programmes. It is not a treaty in any sense and Partnership for Peace does not imply mutual defence commitments, membership of NATO or any commitment to it. It is because Partnership for Peace is a voluntary agreement that even Switzerland, a country which will not join the UN and which holds referenda several times a year, joined Partnership for Peace without a referendum. A referendum would be nothing more than a costly political exercise. It is interesting to note that in 1996 the then Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, stated it would cost £3 million.

The presentation document sets out clearly the proposed areas in which Ireland will seek to work in Partnership for Peace, such as co-operation and peacekeeping, humanitarian operations, search and rescue, protection of the environment and co-operation in marine matters. It states that Ireland's decision to participate in Partnership for Peace is in full accordance with Ireland's policy of military neutrality which was always being pursued in tandem with full and active support for collective security based in international law. The Minister for Foreign Affairs expanded at length on what the presentation document states about what Irish membership of Partnership for Peace will mean. I welcome that clarity, although the Minister was against joining Partnership for Peace not too long ago.

Ireland's position on NATO membership is clear. In a joint statement prior to the Maastricht referendum in June 1992 the leaders of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour, Democratic Left and the Progressive Democrats gave a commitment that there would be no change in Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality without first holding a referendum. That was in section 4 of the 1996 White Paper on Foreign Policy and it makes it clear there is no danger of Ireland joining NATO.

Europe is moving ahead on security co-operation and Ireland will face crucial decisions about its role. As someone who was involved in farming organisations at European level, I saw how countries which fought each other in two world wars found ways of working together. We should be able to do this through Partnership for Peace. The time has come for Ireland to join Partnership for Peace. We have debated this issue inside and outside this House for more than four years and we have had public consultations since March 1996 on the White Paper on Foreign Policy. The time has come to send a signal to our partners in Europe that we are willing to work together in Partnership for Peace. If we wish to influence the future shape of Europe's security and not leave it to others to decide, we must join other European neutrals in having our voice heard. I welcome the decision to join Partnership for Peace which is the next vital step in Ireland's continuing search for a coherent foreign and security policy.

I urge the Government to be more careful in the promises it makes when it is in Opposition. This might mean people will be less cynical when the next general election is held.

Deputy Gay Mitchell set out this party's position on Partnership for Peace. I recall the words of the former German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, whose grandparents and parents suffered family losses in the Great War and in the Second World War. His involvement in politics and his roles as Chancellor and as one of the principal architects of the union of West and East Germany helped to ensure that war and decimation of human life in Europe could not happen again. As a politician and leader, he was not afraid to proclaim that objective.

As a small country which has drawn down substantial funding from Europe and which has played an international peacekeeping role, we should, as we approach the end of this century and the start of a new millennium, examine our position and make a decision to continue to play a leadership role through active participation in Partnership for Peace. It has been said over the centuries that this country has decided many tribal battles and fought the wars of other countries except our own. The young men and women who want to participate in the Army know we will not invade another country because we do not have the resources or the capacity to do so. They want to meet the challenge of participating in Partnership for Peace because it will give them the opportunity to travel abroad, to become acquainted with other cultures, nations and peoples and to help prevent the loss of life. It is a fallacy to suggest that if we join Partnership for Peace our young men and women will be forced to participate in wars of which they do not want to be part.

The Government and the Oireachtas have an important decision-making role to play. It is difficult to predict what will happen in the next five or ten years. People face uncertainty in every walk of life. People are uncertain about their jobs or those of their children and about financial security. We do not know when a scandal, a coup d'état or an eruption of hostilities anywhere on the planet could cause mayhem.

The appalling armaments industry.

Any of these issues can have devastating consequences internationally. As a small nation, we have always had an interest and par ticipated in many activities. This uncertainty translates into many aspects of life. When I was in secondary school, not one of the 200 pupils in the college in Castlebar could name anyone who had committed suicide.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share