Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1999

Vol. 512 No. 7

European Summit: Statements.

I attended the European Council in Helsinki, on 10 and 11 December together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. This was the second time EU leaders had met during the Finnish Presidency. We had previously met during October for the Special European Council in Tampere on justice and home affairs. The very significant work conducted across a range of issues during the Finnish Presidency allowed for a very successful European Council meeting in Helsinki – that allowed leaders to focus, in the main, on matters of future concern to the Union in the new millennium.

I begin by outlining the format of the Council. It began on 10 December, with a meeting with the President of the European Parliament, Mme Nicole Fontaine, with whom there was a useful exchange of views on the Intergovernmental Conference, Enlargement and Employment. The Millennium Declaration adopted by the Council was discussed as the first item of the morning working session which followed. A detailed discussion of enlargement formed the bulk of that session. European security and defence was the topic for discussion at the working lunch and issues such as the Intergovernmental Conference, the effective functioning of the Council and economic and employment matters were examined on Friday afternoon. A variety of external relations matters, most notably Chechnya were discussed over dinner. On Saturday morning, as is usual, leaders focused on the draft Council Conclusions. In addition, we were joined for lunch on Saturday by the leaders and Foreign Ministers of the applicant countries.

The first item discussed was the Millennium Declaration. This is essentially a "mission statement” for the Union as it enters the next millennium. The declaration captures in a succinct fashion, the reasons for the Union's existence, the achievements to date, the challenges that lie ahead and the values that underpin our response to these challenges. It confirms that the role of the Union should be to ensure its inhabitants' security and welfare, as well as contributing to building a more stable, just and peaceful world.

I am pleased that this European Council took a significant further step towards the enlargement of the Union. It was crucial to reinforce the momentum towards enlargement. In recent months I have had the opportunity to visit some of the accession countries and I met a number of their leaders at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul. They were looking forward to the Helsinki European Council as heralding a new stage in their accession to the Union. It did this not only by conveying a clear and positive message to these countries as to the steps necessary for accession but by agreeing on the format of the Intergovernmental Conference that will address the institutional changes necessary for enlargement to take place. I will return to the Intergovernmental Conference later. The Council decided that the accession negotiation process should now include all 12 accession countries on an equal footing and that each should be judged on its own merits. Importantly, the Council also confirmed that the Union should be in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002.

Our discussion on enlargement recognised that the question of inclusion of Turkey as a candidate country was one of the more complex political issues on the agenda at this Council. I have long called for Turkey to be included as a candidate while recognising the necessity for all candidates to comply with the Copenhagen criteria before entering into negotiations. It was also important to reflect the concerns of Greece and Cyprus in the outcome. I am pleased to say we successfully found a formula to include Turkey as a candidate country reflecting the above considerations which were acceptable to everybody. It was a mark of the Council's determination to grant candidate status to Turkey that saw Secretary General-High Representative Solana, Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen and a Presidency representative flying last Friday to Ankara to explain the Union's position. It was particularly pleasing that we were joined on the following day by Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit. Turkey will now benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. Significantly, this will entail a political dialogue with a particular emphasis on human rights.

It was also important that the European Council gave its support for the UN sponsored talks in New York aimed at a political settlement of the Cyprus problem. It was appropriate that Cyprus be encouraged in its accession efforts and that a signal be given that while a political settlement to the island's division would aid accession such a settlement was not a precondition. The Finnish Presidency is to be congratulated for its work on the enlargement portfolio and I look forward to the European Conference planned for the latter part of next year, during the French Presidency; and to the consideration of the next regular progress reports on all candidates at the EU Council in December 2000.

It had been agreed at Cologne that an Intergovernmental Conference would be convened early in 2000 to resolve the institutional issues left over from the Amsterdam Treaty that needed to be settled before enlargement began. The Finnish Presidency has been invited to submit a report on the Intergovernmental Conference, on its own responsibility, to the Helsinki Summit. The approach in the Presidency's report coincided largely with our own position. It suggested a limited agenda for the conference focusing on the Amsterdam leftovers and a small number of other institutional questions.

At Helsinki, EU leaders agreed that the Intergovernmental Conference should be convened in early February and conclude by December 2000. The conference will examine the three Amsterdam issues – size and composition of the Commission; the weighting of votes in the Council; and the possible extension of quality majority voting – as well as a small number of related institutional changes. In addition, the Portuguese Presidency will report to the European Council on progress by the conference and may propose additional items that could be considered for the agenda. Arrangements were agreed for the close association and involvement of the European Parliament in the work of the conference. The candidate countries will also be regularly informed of progress and have the opportunity to put their points of view. The scope of the Intergovernmental Conference agenda, which we decided, provides a realistic basis for the conference and should enable it to complete its work by the end of next year.

During the process itself, in common with many other member states, we will continue to insist on the continued right of all member states to nominate a full and equal member of the Commission. Any new weighting of votes in the Council must be accompanied by the larger member states giving up their second Commissioner. Ireland will also be seeking assurance that the equality within the Commission thus achieved would be maintained in the future. The special summit in Lisbon in March will provide Heads of State or Government with a first opportunity to review the process.

In addition to the Treaty changes to be considered by the Intergovernmental Conference to prepare for enlargement, changes in the working methods of Council are also necessary. As a result, the General Affairs Council submitted to Helsinki specific proposals for improving the operation of Council with a view to enlargement. These proposals, which were adopted, generally reflect a realistic assessment of where improvements in the working methods of the Council are possible. It was also agreed to reduce the number of Council formations to a maximum of 15 through discontinuing or merging certain formations – at present there are 22. All of these efficiency related changes can be made within the existing Treaty provisions.

Following from the Cologne European Coun cil, an issue of key interest to Ireland at the summit was the Common European Policy on Security and Defence. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, will return to this issue in more detail in his concluding statement. This is an issue on which we have continued to remain vigilant so as to ensure that any progress continues to be acceptable to Ireland and to our fellow neutral partners. That the final outcome on this issue at the summit was acceptable to us is due in no small part to the Minister, Deputy Andrews, and his very active involvement in this issue at the General Affairs Council.

The discussion on this matter at Helsinki acknowledged the good work that has been done on non-military aspects of crisis management in tandem with work on the military aspects. In addition, the report by the Presidency on this issue rightly made clear that the EU's engagement relates to the Petersberg Tasks and not to the so-called Article 5 issues of mutual defence. It was important for us that the EU at the highest level be seen to support the UN, and recognise the primary role of the UN Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. I am pleased to say that at my request the Conclusions reflect that fundamental point.

Two main areas were addressed, from Ireland's point of view – capabilities and decision making structures. As to capabilities, it was agreed that member states would be able by 2003 to deploy a force of 50,000 – 60,000 capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks. Participation by any member state will be on an entirely case by case basis as individual missions arise. I also emphasise that what is involved is not a standing European Army and the Conclusions from the Council explicitly recognise this fact at Ireland's request.

Will the Taoiseach yield? I want to ask him a question. With regard to decision-making structures, will Ireland be participating as a full member in the military committee of the Council of Ministers and is it the intention that Irish military personnel will be taking part in the military secretariat of the EU Council?

There are three separate committee groups. There is the political group, which would normally consist of the Foreign Affairs Ministers but which will be joined by the Defence Ministers also. There have already been some of those committees so Ireland will be participating in those. There will be the military committee, which will probably involve the Minister for Finance and the Chief of Staff.

Is that the Minister for Defence and the Chief of Staff?

Sorry, the Minister for Defence and the Chief of Staff, and we would be involved in those. It has not yet been decided how the technical working groups will work. There has not been an indication of how that will happen, but in missions in which Ireland would be involved, I see no difficulty.

Will Ireland be a full participant in an EU defence in that sense?

Deputy Bruton, I would prefer if we did not have a question time on this.

This is enormously important.

The Taoiseach allowed an intervention.

Would the Taoiseach—

It is not appropriate to continue with a question time.

The answer is "yes" except in some mission in which Ireland would not be involved.

The Portuguese Presidency will take forward work on the question of improved decision-making structures for Petersberg Tasks, in the light of the conclusions reached at Helsinki.

In an EMU context, in a Single Market and in an increasingly globalised economy, effective economic policy co-ordination must be a key priority for all of us. In this context, I was pleased to give my support for the emphasis which the Presidency and the Commission have been placing on streamlining procedures and avoiding duplication which thus allows more time for all of us to concentrate on the really important and difficult economic policy issues. I welcome the support which the European Council has given to the further development of the synergy between the broad economic policy guidelines, the employment guidelines and the monitoring of structural reform.

The conclusions also recognise the need to manage the economic impact of the Union's ageing population. Given the demographic profile of certain member states, there are potentially serious budgetary implications. In the case of Ireland, I am pleased to recall that the Government recently began the process of making financial provision so that the whole cost of future pension payments would not fall on the next generation.

Looking ahead to the Lisbon special European Council in March, the opportunity was taken to emphasise the need for Europe to adapt to the information society to support competitiveness, employment and social cohesion. Ireland obviously welcomes the holding of a special European Council on this theme. Encouragingly, the Finnish and the incoming Portuguese Presidencies have made an early focused start to the preparatory process. I welcome the intention to build on the various programmes already under way and to identify specific areas requiring atten tion such as the growing demands placed on labour markets by the information society.

I have suggested that the March summit give priority to considering how in the area of new technologies and e-commerce the Union's competitiveness in the global market might be improved in the interest of enterprise and consumers. I also took the opportunity recently of writing to Prime Minister Guterres to highlight the employment potential of e-commerce and Ireland's success in using specialised training as a means to integrate into the labour force those who have been long-term unemployed. In this context also, I welcome the recent e-Europe initiative from President Prodi as important to this debate. I look forward to a progress report from the Commission on the e-Europe action plan at the Lisbon summit and its presentation to the Council next June.

The summit also considered a package on which, as was widely reported in advance, it proved difficult to reach a conclusion. Unlike many of our partners, we were prepared to consider seeking agreement on the individual items in the package, namely, the code of conduct group the draft directive on the taxation of income from savings and the draft directive on the abolition of withholding taxes on interest and royalties. However, most partners pressed for the package to be agreed in its totality or not at all. In the end, Britain continued to have reservations on the draft directive on the taxation of income from savings. These concerns stem from a view that the directive could directly impact on the eurobond market in London.

As a result, the European Council has established a high level working group to consider how best citizens resident in a member state of the Union should pay the tax due on all their savings income. The group will report to ECOFIN with possible solutions on the tax on savings and on the other items in the tax package and ECOFIN will report to the European Council in June at the latest. Ireland will continue to play its full part in seeking a successful outcome in this area.

I was pleased that the European Council also took the opportunity to review the Union's policies aimed at the integration of environmental considerations into wider programmes and activities of the Union. Strategies in the agriculture, transport and energy sectors have already been agreed. In this context, the European Council examined a number of reports submitted by the Commission. We agreed that the ongoing involvement of the European Council was essential for solid progress to be made in advancing the integration of environmental considerations into other EU activities and asked that this work be finalised and brought to the European Council in June 2001 under the Swedish Presidency of the Union.

Before turning to a number of foreign policy items, I want to highlight the forthcoming Commission White Paper on Food Safety and the Portuguese Presidency report on its implementation which will be considered by EU leaders in June next.

The current situation in Chechnya, which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, will address, was a major issue at Helsinki. The Council adopted a declaration on Chechnya against the background of the serious concern of leaders at the deterioration of the situation in Chechnya and the shocking ultimatum issued by Russia to the remaining civilians in Grozny to leave the city by 11 December or be considered to be terrorists and killed. The declaration makes clear to Russia that its actions in Chechnya are totally unacceptable and requests immediate positive action. In support of its request, the European Council decided on a number of measures, which the Minister, Deputy Andrews, will outline. He will also address the issue of the common strategy for Ukraine.

Leaders also discussed progress in relation to the Western Balkans Stability Pact. Discussion focused on how the stability pact can be given additional impetus at a time when increasing doubts are being expressed by the countries of the region that the high expectations which they had when the pact was launched last July are not being met. I know from my recent visit to the south-eastern European region that disillusionment and impatience is growing rapidly and the people there are waiting for concrete signs of real commitment by the international community. In the event, it was agreed that under the aegis of the pact, the Union would seek to take a leading role in promoting stability, security and economic development in south-eastern Europe.

The European Union continues to be a strong supporter of the Middle East Peace Process. On this occasion, the Council welcomed the resumption of negotiations on the Syrian track between President Assad and Prime Minister Barak. It also called for steady implementation by all parties of the obligations under the Sharm El-Sheikh Understanding.

As has become traditional, I met Prime Minister Blair immediately prior to the start of the summit on the evening of Thursday, 9 December, in Helsinki. We discussed a range of issues relating to Northern Ireland, including security issues and decommissioning. We also took the opportunity to discuss arrangements for the inaugural meetings of the institutions under the Good Friday Agreement. In addition to matters related to Northern Ireland, we discussed the key issues on the agenda for the Council.

I was gratified that the European Council took the opportunity to recognise the significant recent developments in Northern Ireland. In particular, the European Council congratulated the political parties in the North, the British and Irish Governments and Senator Mitchell on the progress. Once again the Council affirmed its continuing political and practical support for Northern Ireland and for co-operation between North and South.

I again commend President Ahtisaari and Prime Minister Lipponen and all involved in the Finnish Presidency for hosting a successful summit and, more generally, on the success of their first Presidency. Finland has proved, once again, that it is possible for a smaller member state to successfully hold the Presidency of the Union and to make progress on the key portfolios. The Union faces into the new millennium more certain of its roles, both within the Union and globally, and more capable of exercising these roles for the benefit of its citizens.

This was a very successful summit. A huge number of decisions were taken, as is evident from the Taoiseach's speech. However, I am unhappy that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will be replying to points made by Deputy Quinn and me, will clearly come in here with a prepared speech, which will ignore virtually everything we say. If he is to deal in his speech with all the matters with which the Taoiseach said he will deal, he will not have time to reply to anything we say. In a sense it does not enhance one's feeling of worth in this House for having put effort into preparing a speech, as I have done for this occasion. That is the only sour note I want to strike because this was a successful summit. I hope the next time we debate a summit there will be a slightly better format with a little more interchange and a greater sense that the concerns being stressed here are getting a hearing.

It is said that the two attributes of sovereignty in a state are the issuing of its own money and the managing of its own defence. It could be said that the Maastricht Treaty gave the European Union the right to issue its own money and that the Helsinki summit gave it the means to manage its own defence. At Helsinki, the EU also agreed to double its geographic area and to improve its internal decision-making. The power to issue money and to demand the sacrifices necessary for defence requires political legitimacy. In modern terms, political legitimacy requires electoral support. The electorate must feel part of the European Union if the project is not to fail the first time the electorate is asked to make any sacrifice for it, whether it be an economic sacrifice to support the common currency or a military sacrifice to support the common defence policy that was agreed in Helsinki.

As the House will know from speeches I have made here, I am a committed European federalist. I believe a federal Europe of multiple allegiances, national, local and continental, is a formula for peace in Europe, but I am worried about the fact that the electorate in Europe is so little involved in what is being done in its name. No great European issue is decided by the electorate at the polls in a European election which is just a personality contest or a domestic political issue. In the European elections, no European political party offers one vision of Europe as an alternative to that offered by another. Little or nothing changes as a result of European elections, other than a few faces in the European Parliament.

National elections, except perhaps in Britain, are not fought on European issues. If referenda take place, as in Ireland, the people can only say yes or no to a fait accompli. Outside the elite there is no ongoing consultation and little possibility of influencing what happens in the European Union. Therefore, the Government was wrong in Helsinki to press successfully for a limited intergovernmental conference. That conference should have been extended at least to include how a greater degree of ongoing democratic legitimacy could be given to the European project. The intergovernmental conference should have been extended to strengthening the European Commission's role in regard to international trade in services.

In 1962, Seán Lemass said: "We are prepared to go into this integrated Europe without any reservations as to how far it will take us in the field of foreign policy and defence". The present leadership of Fianna Fáil does not speak as openly or frankly about European defence as Seán Lemass did. Our Constitution states that: "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann". That provision should not and need not change, but it does not prevent us from giving political commitments to defend the values we share alongside our European neighbours, subject to the ultimate sanction of the Dáil.

Among the proposals agreed by the Government at the Helsinki summit was the setting up for the first time of permanent military bodies within the European Union structure. There is now to be a military committee of the European Union composed of chiefs of staff of the armed forces of the member states, including Ireland. There will also be military staff, including Irish military staff, within the civil service of the EU Council of Ministers. This is a huge step that has been taken, fulfilling something that Seán Lemass spoke of almost 40 years ago.

The purpose of these new arrangements at this juncture in European history is to help the EU to perform its role in conflict prevention and crisis management by using force if necessary. The EU will use military means – force – in accordance with the principles of the UN charter, as the Taoiseach has said. There is absolutely no requirement, however, in the Helsinki communiqué for prior UN approval. All that is required is that it should be in accordance with the principles of the UN charter. These arrangements will not place an obligation on EU members to participate in any peacekeeping or peacemaking operations agreed at EU level. In that sense, Irish neutrality is preserved. On the other hand, Ireland, as an EU member, will be part of the decision-making structure and will have political co-responsibility for the consequences of any EU military decision in which it takes part. Even if it does not take part in the military operation but takes part in the decision, it will have political co-responsibility. Following Helsinki we will share policy responsibility for the mistakes as well as for the successes in EU defence policy. In that sense, we will cease to be, and are ceasing to be, neutral. If we are part of the decision-making structure which decides to launch a military operation then we are hardly neutral in regard to that military operation.

There is a tendency in debates in the House to play down how much Ireland has already committed itself to European defence. On 14 October, the Taoiseach told the Dáil, "A mutual defence pact is not even on the agenda of this European Union's common foreign and security policy". True, but the Taoiseach also made the following statements along with other EU heads of Government: "We the members of the European Council intend to give the European Union the necessary means and capabilities to assume its responsibilities regarding a common European policy on security and defence. We are determined to foster the restructuring of the European defence industries among the states involved". That statement was made by the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach also approved a report issued at the Cologne summit which said: "The focus of our efforts, therefore, would be to ensure that the European Union has at its disposal the necessary capabilities, including military capabilities and appropriate structures for effective decision-making in crisis management within the scope of the Petersberg Tasks". The Petersberg Tasks are defined in that report as including "tasks of combat forces in crisis management including peacemaking". I stress that peacemaking, as well as peacekeeping, is included in the Petersberg Tasks. Peacemaking means imposing by force peaceful conditions under terms laid down by the peacemaker. I would ask Members of the House to distinguish peacemaking by force from war-making. The only distinction is that of the subjective motivation of the person undertaking the operation, which is highly elastic. The Petersberg Tasks are not just about military policemen manning checkpoints or setting up field hospitals for refugees; they can also involve imposing order by force. The Government should tell people that because it is the truth.

In telling them that, it is important to explain why the European Union is now getting into military matters at all. It is doing so because members of the European Union want to be able to look after their own business, including defence. They are not happy to depend so completely on the United States as they have done up to now. Ireland has gone along with this approach of the European Union and I commend the Taoiseach for that. The present defence situation of the European Union, which is unsatisfactory, was described as follows by Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brezinski: "The actual fact is that western Europe is now an American protectorate with its allied states reminiscent of ancient vassals and tributaries". In other words, the current arrangement for European defence is that the US keeps the peace in Europe and it does so on American terms. The NATO war against Yugoslavia which got United Nations approval only after it was all over, was run by the Americans. They selected the targets, including the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. It was deliberately selected and was not an accident.

And the central heating system.

And the central heating system of the city. The Europeans had no say in the selection of targets undertaken by the Americans in the name of Europeans. They did not know about the targets until after the event.

Up to now, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a charming man whom I had the pleasure of meeting, has had more influence on the practicalities of European defence than the head of Government of a medium sized EU state, including EU members of NATO. This is not a satisfactory situation from the European or democratic point of view because Senator Jesse Helms, Al Gore and George W. Bush do not have to seek votes in Europe.

Ireland is in Europe and should have a say in how the peace of Europe is preserved, including its preservation, if necessary, by military means. That is the significance of the commitment given by the Taoiseach in Helsinki. It means Ireland will now have a say in the way Europe is to be defended. That is a huge change for Ireland and any Irish Government. I do not know if the House realises the importance and significance of this change in policy in Helsinki, on which I commend the Taoiseach and which I support.

The EU is now taking back control of the defence of its continent. We cannot take for granted a permanent US commitment to European defence. After 100 years of isolationism, the United States was actively involved in regulating the peace of Europe for just two years, between 1917 and 1919. When the United States Congress rejected the Treaty of Versailles, the US relapsed into isolationism until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan in 1942. It was during that period of US isolationism between 1919 and 1942 that the Nazis took over most of continental Europe, including many neutral countries, without any military response from the United States.

There is no reason to be certain that the indifference the United States showed to developments in Europe until it was attacked itself will not recur during the next century. Furthermore, as US economic interests move towards the Pacific basin, it is increasingly likely that the United States will concentrate its strategic interests there. The growth of armaments in east Asia is a matter of grave worry to the United States. We should remember that the United States was attacked from across the Pacific, and not the Atlantic, in 1942.

It is for these geostrategic reasons that Europe must equip itself to defend itself in the 21st cen tury and to maintain security in and around its borders. That is why what was decided at Helsinki was necessary and prudent, from both an Irish and European point of view. The development of EU defence policy is sensible contingency planning. The issue for Ireland is a simple one – do we want to have a voice in it? This brings up arguments about Ireland's military neutrality, what it means, where it leads us and its costs and benefits.

Ireland's neutrality has been up to now, in essence, a modestly armed one. Unlike other neutrals, such as Sweden and Switzerland, which guaranteed their neutrality by developing large armies and armaments industries, Ireland has chosen to have a small, and soon to be even smaller, Army. We did not have a navy or merchant fleet large enough to guarantee our own supplies at the outbreak of war in 1939, and we do not have such a fleet in 1999 either.

Éamon de Valera was always realistic about the limitations of neutrality, especially if one is relying on belligerent nations for supplies, as we would inevitably be. Nowadays, we are one of the most open economies in the world. We depend on other countries for supplies and other countries depend on us. Some Deputies speak in this House about neutrality as if we were completely isolated from events on the mainland of Europe and the neighbouring island. They have romanticised de Valera's achievement in maintaining neutrality between 1939 and 1945, in a way that de Valera himself never did.

Five factors preserved Ireland's neutrality between 1939 and 1945 – the fact that in 1939 we were more economically self-sufficient than we had ever been, then or now; the good fortune of our island status; the fortuitous defeat of the Luftwaffe over Britain in 1940, because if they had won the Battle of Britain they would not have stopped at Newry; the timely diversion of Germany's energies towards Russia in 1931; and the American entry to the war in 1942, without which Britain would probably have been eventually overrun. If these five factors had been absent, and if Ireland had been attacked at any stage between 1939 and 1945, we would not have been neutral.

The Government was right to give its commitment, in principle, in Helsinki to European defence. However, I would like to express three concerns. First, is the European Union defence policy overextended? Second, what are the principles for its operation and are they clear? Third, how and by whom will European defence be paid for?

In regard to the first point, I see a tension between the very significant EU military arrangements that were put in place in Helsinki and the simultaneous decision to have a huge enlargement of the scope and size of the EU to the east. If we give EU membership to east European countries, including Turkey, where there are unresolved boundary or minority problems, European defence could become chronically over-stretched and drawn into situations where the overwhelming majority of member states have no vital interest.

In regard to the second point, there is a difficulty in creating a military mechanism at EU level without being more precise about the purposes for which it is to be used. The Petersberg Tasks are just a set of tasks. They are not a set of principles or rules to govern or limit military commitment. These principles and rules should be set out if the EU is not to be led into military entanglements without first taking any proper strategic view of the essential interests and principles it is trying to defend. That sense of principles to underlie European Union defence policy is absent from the Helsinki summit conclusions.

In regard to the third point, the Helsinki communiqué gives little or no information on the financial aspects of common defence. Will Ireland be paying towards the new EU arrangements for defence? How much will we pay? Can we expect a say in decisions if we do not contribute, financially or otherwise?

In terms of political union, I have concerns about the political cohesiveness of the proposed European Union, whose borders are to extend from Syria to Norway and from Belarus to the Azores. As I said at the beginning, a political union can only function effectively if the people within it think similarly and are brought along with what it is doing. Within broad limits, Irish people and Spaniards think alike, as do Germans and British people. However, will the political reflexes of the electorate of the newly enlarged Europe be sufficiently similar to enable the European Union's political leadership to work to a common agenda that has real political legitimacy? Is there a sufficient amount in common between the inhabitants of Anatolia in eastern Turkey, northern Finland, the west of Ireland and northern Spain for there to be a genuine sense of political identity, for which people will be willing to make sacrifices?

Ultimately, EU membership is not just about benefits but must also be, from time to time, about sacrifices. Sacrifices can only be demanded in a modern democracy of an electorate that has had a say. I do not believe the Irish, Swedish, French, German or British electorates feel at the moment they have an adequate say in the decisions being made in Europe. I do not think, successful as the Helsinki summit was and as effective as the Taoiseach may have been in his interventions there, some of which I might not agree with, that the Irish people feel they really had a say in what happened. I certainly do not feel that when they voted in the European elections last June they had any sense they were giving a mandate for anything in particular. They were making a choice between Alan Gillis or Avril Doyle if voting for Fine Gael, or between Labour, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael and they were making a judgment about domestic politics. They were not making an important choice about the shape of Europe. Neither were they consulted in the recent European elections about whether we wanted Turkey as part of the EU or about the commitments on European defence in the sense that they are coming forward. The people do not feel a part of this process and we have to be mindful of the fact that the majorities in EU referenda have been decreasing, not because people do not necessarily agree, but because they feel they are being taken for granted.

The EU has a real problem in that it is an elite project. It could be argued that it would never have been set up if it was not for elitism, and Jean Monet was, perhaps, the greatest elitist of all time. He believed that one changed things by talking to very important people whom one got to know and the electorate was informed later. That is fine in the formative stage of setting up an economic unit – a coal and steel community and a common market. It may even be fine in the setting up of a single currency. However, when one is dealing with issues such as defence, where people may have to give their lives, or emotive political issues like food safety, people must feel they have been part of the decision-making structure. This is why it is essential the European Commission is elected by the European Parliament and not selected by the Governments. This would mean European elections would be about a choice between a socialist Commission, a Christian democrat Commission, a coalition of both, a Commission comprising nationalists or whatever other groups may contest the election. Such a system would ensure that when people vote every five years in European elections they feel that they are giving, or denying, a mandate for this development.

The Taoiseach may have better ideas about such a system, though I did not see any circulating when I was in Government, perhaps they have evolved since. There will be a crisis in the EU unless some means is devised to associate the people with the project. As someone who believes deeply in this project, I am concerned. The Helsinki summit was one of the most successful summits for many years in terms of all the issues brought together and dealt with in two days. However, the people do not feel a part of the process. In his contribution today, the Taoiseach seemed to glide over some of the issues concerning European defence where it would have been better had he been more explicit. People are waiting for a lead on this issue and they are willing to follow that lead. Politicians must give that lead but this is not happening in Europe.

It is not often a summit of European leaders can be described as being genuinely historic but the summit in Helsinki was such an occasion. The acceptance of Turkey as a candidate for membership dramatically broadens the boundaries of the Union and, more importantly, its potential for making an impact on the world stage. This development must also hasten the improvement of human rights in Turkey, particularly the treatment of minority communities such as the Kurds. If it does not achieve this, Turkey's accession should be firmly resisted.

There should be no doubt that the invitation to join the European Union extended to 12 accession states, including Turkey, will radically transform the European Union. It will make the Union truly European as opposed to its current western European bias, ending the historic divisions caused by the Second World War and the subsequent Cold War. That fact alone will impose new obligations on the Union to act in its own name and to become the Continent's guarantor. Certain moves were made at the summit in this regard to which I will return.

This move will have profound implications for Ireland to which, sadly, the Taoiseach did not refer. Since the conclusion of the negotiations on the current round of Structural and Cohesion Funds, for which I gave the Government credit, I have argued that we had come to the end of an era in terms of our membership of the European Union, and that we should begin planning for a new era. In that respect I concur with some of Deputy Bruton's sentiments but not necessarily his views. If my remarks were pertinent at the time, then the decision on enlargement taken at the weekend makes them all the more so today. I specifically referred to the good job done by the Government on the issue of Structural Funds because its performance since then has been very poor.

I am not alone in identifying the nature of Ireland's new realities in Europe. Writing in The Irish Times last Saturday, Paul Gillespie, stated:

As a result of these changes, Ireland's position and interests will alter significantly, requiring real political leadership to carry public feeling along. The existing Irish style has been well defined as informal efficiency. It has been based on an enviable capacity to survive by the seat of the pants, skilled general diplomacy and limited bureaucratic resources.

In a larger and more diverse EU there will be a need for a more strategic and analytical approach, based on more formal interdepartmental co-ordination within Government and a more careful ranking of priorities across issues. This would bring Ireland into line with other smaller EU member states. Paul Gillespie also pointed out that, at present, Ireland is by far the most under-represented State diplomatically.

I could not put the challenge facing us any better. Whether we rise to it or not depends on our ambition but, sadly, I do not hear any ambition coming from the Government. Are we merely going along for the ride or do we really want to influence Europe's direction? We can choose to amble along, accepting the general direction in which Europe is being driven by others. Alternatively, we can choose to mobilise all our energies to exercise our influence and values in Europe and in so doing punch a political weight beyond our size. The Labour Party believes we have transferred so much sovereignty to Europe that it is incumbent on us to do our utmost to influence the direction of the European Union, not just in our short-term national interest but in the broader interest of Europe, its citizens and humanity in general.

We should make no mistake that to do so will require a fundamental change in our attitude. Our financial dependence on Europe may be coming to an end but the Irish attitude to Europe, which I have labelled the "béal bocht" mentality, shows signs of lasting well beyond its sell by date. Over a year ago I put the case that it was imperative that we expand our diplomatic representation in the states seeking to join the Union. If we are to be influential within the Union, developing strong diplomatic ties with the aspiring members is an imperative, regardless of cost. Without blowing our own trumpet, we have an expertise, acquired over 26 years, in working the institutions of the Union that is of interest to the accession states. As a smaller state, we will share an interest with them in ensuring a fair balance within the Union between the smaller and larger member states as the Union's constitution evolves.

I am concerned that we have failed to do so. This failure is symptomatic of a more general malaise that now exists at the heart of the Government's policy towards Europe which began with its failure to appoint a Minister with specific responsibility for European affairs. I have raised this issue on more than one occasion with the Taoiseach on Question Time but to little avail. Most recently I raised the question of Slovenia, given the Taoiseach's recent visit to that country, but my question hardly elicited a response, other than the Taoiseach's comment that Slovenia was probably top of the league in terms of qualifying to join the Union. The Union will have up to 30 members when it has finally reached its natural boundaries, and 27 on the basis of the current proposals. The importance of securing representation and building relationships for the future has yet to dawn on this Government.

We have resident embassies in four of the 12 states invited to join the European Union – Turkey, where an embassy was established in the last six months, Poland which was our first embassy behind the former Iron Curtain and Hungary and the Czech Republic where ABT and the Department of Foreign Affairs established an embassy in both capitals. However, we have no resident representation in the remaining eight countries, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This does not take into account Norway or other countries. Based on my calculations and recent analyses, the cost of establishing an embassy on the scale of that in the Czech Republic or Hungary would be about £400,000. The annual operational cost is, coincidentally, £400,000. This would provide for two and a half Irish diplomatic posts and back-up support – very modest resources for people who work remarkably hard. The total cost, that is the capital start-up and operating cost, of establishing resident embassies in the eight states to which I referred, over a three year period, is £6.4 million. Twelve embassies would operate at a cost of £5 million or £6 million per year.

This is against a background of a current budget surplus for 2000 of £4,850 million while the net surplus at the end of this financial year will be £16,000 million. While in the past financial resources were a serious impediment, no one could argue they are now. That is not to say the Department of Finance will not see it in those terms. However, it is the reality. The Minister for Finance seems to have no difficulty in finding money for every other lobby group. Perhaps if the Minister for Foreign Affairs gets the staff in his Department to ring Marian Finucane and Joe Duffy regularly he might receive the necessary allocation.

He has done very well in that regard.

We need to construct new relationships in an evolving and enlarging union. We cannot begin to do that if are not represented there. We could do that on a modest basis, in a planned and structured way. I urge the Minister to indicate the Government's thinking on this. I am not aware of any expansion programme in eastern Europe. I am aware, from my previous experience in Government, of other areas of competing demand such as Latin America and parts of south-east Asia where, happily, we have increased representation. However, we must focus on Europe and its enlargement. We have time to address that issue and I suggest we do so urgently.

The decision made in Helsinki last weekend merely provides that the Union prepare itself for eventual accession from 2002 onwards. In the meantime the debate will resume on the reform of EU institutions to ensure enlargement is possible. We now face the prospect of two possible Intergovernmental Conferences to discuss treaty reform over the next few years as the Amsterdam Treaty commits us to another Intergovernmental Conference when membership of the Union exceeds 20 or five additional members. The Taoiseach was correct when he was quoted over the weekend as saying that the question of treaty changes would ultimately arise. Of more concern is the passivity of his view that Ireland should not "go around looking for treaty changes". This is a worryingly indifferent stance for a Taoiseach to adopt given his acceptance of the inevitability of changes. "Little or nothing to do with us" seems to be the attitude. I would like the Minister for Foreign Affairs to address this. It is in stark contrast to the work undertaken by the previous Government in lobbying for the inclusion of a chapter on employment in the Amsterdam Treaty. Considerable scope exists for more improvements in this area. Deputy Bruton referred to other areas. Institutional change will happen in the EU. Ireland has a choice – we can either sit back, as successive Governments have done, decide whether it affects us and passively go along with it or we can indicate what we would like and look for political support for that formulation. It is time to move to a more proactive stance on the future shape of Europe.

The Taoiseach's laissez faire approach has been to the fore in the position, or non-position, being adopted towards the most profound policy development within the EU for years, namely, the rapid evolution of the common and foreign security policy under the co-ordination of Mr. Solana. The need to co-ordinate foreign policy within the Union has been clear for many years, so it should not be a surprise to the Government. The Union's ineptitude in the early years of this decade, and most latterly this year, in the face of genocide at its back door, is probably its most profound failing in its 40 years existence. In that context, I was pleased at the reasonably strong stance taken by the summit with regard to the current Russian bombardment and flagrant abuse of human rights in Chechnya. Europe cannot be silent in the face of human rights abuses of this order and I support strong economic measures to bring our opinion to bear on the Russian authorities. We have strong economic muscle to bring to bear. It is important that the Russians are hit where it hurts and are not left with the impression that it is business as usual.

The appalling situation in Chechnya represents the first real test of the new common foreign and security policy under High Representative Solana. I have been critical of the evolution of security policy since Mr. Solana took office and I am surprised the Taoiseach has not been more so. A couple of weeks ago at Question Time on budget day, the Taoiseach told this House that the Anglo-French moves to put in place a rapid reaction force had little or nothing to do with the EU and represented an Anglo-French initiative. The reality is different as was indicated at the summit. Agreement was reached, with Ireland's acquiescence, to the creation of a rapid reaction force of up to 60,000 personnel, capable of being put in the field for a year. The logistics of that, as the Taoiseach knows but which has not been put on record, is a standing reserve of 150,000 soldiers which is the personnel needed to have a permanent presence for a year. The Taoiseach was at pains to explain that the decision had nothing to do with Irish neutrality and for good measure mentioned the reference to EU support for the UN in the communiqué. I am still far from clear about Ireland's attitude to this force. The Taoiseach clarified some points in response to Deputy Bruton. However, we need more information than what is on the record of the House so far.

I can only conclude that the Taoiseach's position is more than a little confused on this issue. While his definition of neutrality seems contingent on the existence of UN mandates, his Government supported NATO actions over Kosovo despite the absence of a UN mandate. He knows, as we all do, the difficulty of securing UN mandates. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is waging a campaign to have Ireland deigned a member of the Security Council. Do we have any views on reform of the Security Council?

It would be lovely to hear them. Perhaps the Minister will share them with us.

I only have ten minutes to reply. I will do my best. I will give the Deputy a note on the issues he has raised, particularly on my record on consulates and diplomatic missions which is second to none.

That is wonderful and I am happy the Minister will now share that with us. I will wait with bated breath to see the Irish plan for reform of the Security Council.

Put the plan against any other.

I believe this is the first time we have been informed of a Government position in relation to reform of the Security Council.

It existed.

Where was it published?

It was published all over the world.

I am talking about this House. Is foreign policy being formulated in the same way the budget was formulated? This is done anywhere except in this House.

I will correspond with the Deputy. I will be happy to have an open debate on the issue.

I will be happy to have an open debate at any time.

The Taoiseach has only succeeded in giving the impression of a man running to stand still. The waves may be crashing all around him but he gives the impression of standing manfully with his finger in the dyke. For a man who seems uneasy about the evolution of CFSP, he has had little to say about it up to now, particularly in Europe. Closer to home he has been less reticent. In a recent exchange with Deputy John Bruton and me, the Taoiseach was so animated by this issue that he practically referred to the now largest group in the European Parliament, the European People's Party, as war mongers. He expressed particular concern about the establishment of a NATO within the European Union.

He adopted our policy in toto in Helsinki.

Such opposition has not been carried on to the European stage. Quite the opposite. Given his and his party's position, one might expect that he would have signalled his opposition to the message being sent out by the appointment of Mr. Solana to the directorship of the Western European Union. Not at all. Not a word.

The Deputy was against it.

I was against Mr. Solana becoming "Mr. CFSP". I conveyed my views at the meeting I attended. The Taoiseach was silent on the matter. It was done by unanimity. There was no word either about the message conveyed by the appointment of a former Secretary General of NATO to the position of the European Union's High Representative on Common Foreign and Security Policy. He is nice but that has nothing to do with the issue. It is irrelevant that he is one of my political family. That is to confuse the two issues.

I want to refer to the points made by Deputy Bruton in relation to defence and the question of peace enforcement and peacemaking. We must move beyond the 19th century concept of defence unions and the idea that people will go to war, particularly that nations will go to war against each other. The European Union must establish a security policy and a recognition that we are more likely to have the problem of wars and instability within nation states, rather than nation states going to war against each other.

Such as Turkey, for example.

Exactly. That is a good example. Deputy Bruton will not get the kind of public support to which he referred for this if we talk about it in terms of security rather than defence. Ireland's personnel – from a neutral nation – have made sacrifices in peace enforcement and peacekeeping over the years. We should not be talking about the armaments of a defence policy but the instruments of conflict resolution in countries such as Turkey and elsewhere, based on our European experience in general and the unique experience on the island of Ireland.

I have indicated my party's preparedness to take part in a debate about the evolution of European security arrangements. While there probably is general agreement about the desirability of such, there is an array of differences of view on the precise nature and type of the arrangements. We have indicated a preference, not shared by the Taoiseach obviously, to see Europeans, in co-operation with the United States, being responsible for the peace and stability of their own continent. The Taoiseach is more than aware of the recommendation in the report from President Prodi's three wise men that the West ern European Union should merge with the European Union, specifically incorporating its mutual defence obligations. The Taoiseach is also aware that the report of the wise men, while not live, is not dead yet. The weekend newspapers referred to the European Union's new military presence.

It is clear where this debate is leading but the Taoiseach, as Fianna Fáil did over Partnership for Peace, will not engage in it. Let me make a prediction. If the Government remains in power, Fianna Fáil will eventually crawl to the Irish people in a referendum to allow us to keep up with the rest of Europe on this issue.

My party's view is that the appointment of Mr. Solana should have been resisted. It sends out the wrong signal about the EU's relationship with NATO and undermines the purpose of having an independent common foreign and security policy. It has placed the issue of mutual defence far higher up the priority list than it should be. The reality is that the issues that may have to be addressed by Europe in the next century will all be security related. New age threats, like environmental terrorism, make conflict resolution skills, not military action, the premium of the new age. It is imperative that Europe should concern itself in security related issues in its own back yard. I have no difficulty putting together a force capable of doing so.

I accept that the fine linguistic line between peacekeeping and peace enforcement is not as simple in practice, as Kosovo proved and continues to prove, particularly in a context when international law has yet to satisfactorily resolve the balance between respecting State sovereignty and vindicating human rights. These are the issues we need to discuss. It is particularly poor that the Government of a country seeking membership of the Security Council effectively refuses to engage in these discussions in this House, whatever about its discussions on the campaign trail.

The current position is that Irish Ministers should not travel across Europe acting like political ostriches. On the other hand, European security is our business; human rights abuses are our business. Our people have views on these issues and we should be making them known publicly and now. The debate that takes place should be more public than the fiasco the Government recently presided over on our membership of Partnership for Peace.

I have said before that the Government is making a series of decisions that will have long-term implications for the Irish people. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, talked a lot about Europe in his budget speech and then proceeded to deliver the most profoundly anti-European philosophical statement since we joined the EU in 1973. His preference for the American or Californian social model is clear from his projected public spending figures set out over the next three years. The reality is that the Taoiseach's newly stated politi cal philosophy of constitutional republicanism and his recently renewed sense of nationalism are rapidly becoming isolationist in Europe. If narrow and limited notions of national self-interest are at the heart of that philosophy, I want no part in it.

I am passionately concerned about Europe's future and Ireland's place in it. We live in a global society and membership of the European Union is a key bulwark against the loss of total accountability to citizens. As much as Tony Blair, Lionel Jospin, Jacques Chiraq or Gerhard Schröder, we have the right to determine its future and we should not be afraid of letting our voice be heard.

Having listened to the previous speaker, I am strongly of the view that we should have a day long debate in this House on the future of Irish foreign policy, particularly in the context of what the Deputy said. Much of what he said could be described as misinformation. I urge the Whips to get together to have such a debate.

As a matter of record, in the last two years, this Government established new embassies in Mexico and Turkey. We will shortly open an embassy in Singapore. We have opened new consulates in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It has been decided to open new consulates in Shanghai and Sidney as part of the new strategy for Asia as well as strengthening the staff of existing embassies in Tokyo and Beijing. In addition, the consulates in New York, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco are being upgraded by raising the rank of the head of mission. We have created a resident mission in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. What is the Deputy talking about? This is the record of the Government to date.

My comments were in relation to the accession of member states.

I assure the Deputy that as far as I am concerned the Department and I have ongoing plans for the expansion of our diplomatic missions throughout the world having regard to the financial exigencies of the time. I am pleased to put my record before the House in this regard. I will be glad to put my view on that on the record during the debate the Leader of the Labour Party has called for, and I will be glad also to outline my plans for the future of a diplomatic mission in the areas he has mentioned, and other areas.

Will the Minister yield? I just want to ask him a question. The Taoiseach said the Minister would deal with defence issues in his concluding remarks. Will Ireland put troops into the rapid reaction force? Will we have people on standby to be part of that force?

As I have explained, our record has not been found wanting. We have already troops in SFOR, KFOR and we have responded rapidly, to say the very least, in East Timor.

Is that a "yes"?

I have just answered the Deputy's question.

There should not be interventions at this stage of the Minister's contribution. The Minister has only ten minutes available to him.

I realise that and that is my difficulty. Any point I cannot reach in the context of the time available to me I will deal with seriatim with the Deputies who raised them.

In relation to the Security Council campaign, I want to again record that during the United Nations General Assembly towards the end of September, I met more than 60 ministers for foreign affairs in that period. During my meeting with those individual ministers, I set out Ireland's strategy for the reform of the Security Council. The record will show that. I have outlined that stragegy in successive parliamentary questions and will outline it again in the debate called for by the Leader of the Labour Party. I am pleased to be able to announce to the House that our strategy and our ongoing campaign for the Security Council membership is going well.

That is good news.

The Minister should deal with the summit.

I cannot say how well it is going, because I do not want to give away our hand, but I am happy with the number of commitments we have received to date on that campaign. I will be delighted to outline the strategy of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the debate called for by the Leader of the Labour Party.

I do not agree with some of what Deputy Bruton said, although I agree with the sentiments he expressed. Deputy Bruton is committed to the European project, and I bow to his involvement in that regard over the years and into the future. He referred to the question of bringing Europe nearer to the people. That has been talked about for years and it has been described as subsidiarity – bringing Europe closer to the people. We are talking about a Europe of 375 million people in the context of the 15 member states, and 500 million people in a Europe of 27 or 28 member states. That is the reality.

Deputy Bruton made a very good point. Governments in the enlarged European Union have an enormous obligation to bring Europe closer to the people and to make it more understandable to the people. I do not disagree with the Deputy that in the last major electoral test in that regard we could have done more to make the issues more understandable, but the project is so complex and diverse that it is sometimes difficult in those circumstances to bring an understanding, in the time available, to the people in an election campaign. I will undertake to deal, as specifically as I can, with the additional points raised by Deputies Bruton and Quinn, but I want to record my own humble offering arising out of my involvement in the—

Where did the Minister get humility?

I am very strong on humility, as the Deputy knows.

The Minister is good at disarming his critics.

I have no problems about my critics. I have always had many critics and I have no difficulty in responding to them.

I am pleased to report to the House that the Helsinki European Council was a success. Finland, in its first Presidency, has discharged its Presidency role admirably. It has the satisfaction of having shaped and ultimately secured a number of decisions of real import for the future development of the Union. Like the Taoiseach, I offer warm congratulations to the entire Finnish team.

As the Taoiseach has already told the House, the Helsinki European Council was particularly successful in adding momentum to the enlargement process. The decision taken at Helsinki to open negotiation with a further six applicant countries will have positive reverberations right through the next century in terms of stability and improved living standards for all the people of Europe.

In expanding the negotiation process from six to 12 countries, the Helsinki European Council also signalled the beginning of a more focused process, which should allow all applicant countries proceed towards accession at the pace most suited to their needs and abilities.

In addition, Helsinki, in granting status to Turkey, resolved the heretofore controversial question of how best to advance that country's application for membership of the European Union. This new status for Turkey puts in place a strategy which should mean that, further down the road, Turkey can fill the Copenhagen criteria for opening negotiations.

Will the Minister give way?

The Minister has only a few minutes remaining. The Deputy must be very brief.

I know Chechnya was mentioned at the Helsinki Summit but has it been left at that or has the Minister in recent days, as chair man of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, again taken an initiative in that area?

I will deal with that matter quickly. I understand the Deputy may have tried to raise it in the House today but for some reason better known to others, the matter was not taken.

The crisis in Chechnya is a matter of the gravest concern and was the focus of the meeting in Helsinki. The Chechen capital, Grozny, is now surrounded by Russian forces, and sporadic fighting is taking place in the suburbs. Some 20,000 to 40,000 civilians are understood to be still in the city, and a further 350,000 Chechens have been displaced in the conflict to date. As the Taoiseach indicated in his contribution, the European Council at Helsinki took a strong stand on the situation in Chechnya and conclusions have been conveyed by Finnish Prime Minister Lipponen to Prime Minister Putin.

The Government remains deeply concerned about the situation in Chechnya, particularly the plight of the refugees. It has allocated £220,000 in humanitarian assistance to Chechen refugees. This is additional to Ireland's share of the European Union's aid package of 1.2 million euros.

Since the beginning of the conflict our concerns about the civilian population have been made known to the Russian authorities on numerous occasions and at the highest level. The Taoiseach expressed our views directly to President Yeltsin on the occasion of the OSCE summit in Istanbul in November.

On 8 December I called in the Russian Ambassador. I made clear that the Government remains very disturbed by the tragic effect on the civilian population of the military campaign in Chechnya and stressed the need for an early restoration of peace and stability in the region. I indicated, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, that I would do everything possible to assist this, including the possibility of a visit to the region. I am pursuing this matter with the Russian authorities.

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Gil Robles, visited the Northern Caucasus on 1 December and his report is under consideration by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg today. The Secretary-General of the Council of Europe has written to Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov asking Moscow to give explanations about the human rights situation in Chechnya under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I will discuss the Chechen conflict with the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Paris tomorrow, including my offer to visit the region. I intend, as chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to make every effort to assist a peaceful political solution to the crisis in Chechnya.

The OSCE is also actively engaged in efforts to promote a political solution. The Chairman-in-Office, Norwegian Foreign Minister Vollebaek, is in Chechnya today and he will report to the OSCE Permanent Council tomorrow. The Government calls on Russia to use the facilities of the OSCE and the Council of Europe to help bring about a lasting peaceful solution in Chechnya.

The Heads of Government welcomed the joint report from the Presidency and the Commission on the Stability Pact for South East Europe which emphasised the key areas for future work. They agreed that the success of the stability pact will depend on the clear and visible commitment of the states of south-eastern Europe to co-operate in order to achieve their common political priorities. On Kosovo, the Heads of Government, while reaffirming the Union's commitment to rehabilitation and reconstruction in Kosovo, made clear that UN Security Council Resolution 1244 must be fully implemented by all parties. Heads of Government also expressed support for Montenegro's political and economic reform programme.

Foreign Ministers had an intensive discussion about the situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and how, in particular, the EU can assist the opposition leaders there to act more effectively. We endorsed a proposal that an EU troika with the United States should meet with the opposition leaders in Berlin on 17 December in the margins of the G8 meeting to reaffirm our strong support for democratic forces in the FRY and for their demand for free and fair elections under international supervision. The European Union adopted a common strategy on the Ukraine to assist that country in the process of overcoming the difficult political and economic problems it faces.

The European Council reaffirmed the Union's full support for the Middle East peace process. It welcomed the renewed momentum in the peace process arising in particular from the decision taken by Israel and Syria to resume their negotiations.

Top
Share