As Deputies Higgins and Gormley's questions are similar, each Deputy will have five minutes and the Minister will have ten minutes to reply to both Deputies.
EU Rapid Reaction Force.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to raise this matter this evening and I am pleased other Deputies are doing likewise.
I express the sense of outrage that exists at decisions being taken without adequate public debate. I thank organisations such as AFrI whose publication Towards Real Security sought to initiate a debate and make points for which I and others are grateful. There are a number of important outstanding issues which require not just a Dáil debate, but public debate. For example, the force to which the Minister, on behalf of the Irish people, will make a commitment has not been defined in terms of what it is purported to deal with. To put it simply, the conflicts with which the rapid reaction force is alleged to deal have not been defined, nor have the ranges of response been specified. A number of other questions arise when one begins to think about the issue, that is, which conflicts are envisaged, which responses would be appropriate, how would they be legitimised, what would be the source of legitimacy, with what possibilities for accountability and with what consequences for peacekeeping operations? That to which we lend ourselves has a relationship with NATO. The deficiencies which have been spoken about by those who will participate have been structured by NATO in terms of technical equipment. This raises the question of why we are taking such a momentous decision without public debate.
The people with whom the Minister will sit down are people who speak about raising the proportion of gross domestic product in different countries so as to create a force that will be effective and meet the gaps which have been identified by others. He may defend himself by saying we will have the right to choose that with which we will relate ourselves. However, this sacrifices a fundamental principle of foreign policy. The cornerstone of Irish foreign policy was the building of security through greater reliance on nonviolent skills and the use of diplomacy as a set of tools of prevention.
I raise this matter with a great sense of anger at images I have seen. As an Irish citizen I felt humiliated by the sight in an Irish newspaper of the Taoiseach in military uniform with his companion. When I read the justification of the rapid reaction force in terms of its capabilities I think of the bad faith of Rambouillet where we saw that the diplomatic game was not over, indeed had not really begun, before those with military intent were ready to act. We are witnessing the defeat of diplomacy by militarism.
We are also witnessing the appalling suggestion that we increase expenditure on equipment and release men for tasks that have no generic relationship with the traditional tasks of peacekeeping carried out under the mandate of the United Nations. Will the Minister tell the House how he proposes to meet his commitments without implication for the traditional tasks mandated by the United Nations? How can he go to a meeting which calls for increased expenditure on arms and forges an even deeper alliance between those who produce and sell armaments and those who determine policy while suggesting that we will be short of troops to participate in conflict resolution and peacekeeping in different parts of the world? We are told the Defence Forces are to integrate seamlessly, but with what and with what accountability?
I am not so naive as to say there should not be a discussion of our obligation towards the structures and institutions of security within the European Union. However, I resist the suggestion that issues of defence, defence purchasing and the sale and production of armaments can be used as a substitute for a genuine consideration of security.
How can one say it is of no importance to go to a meeting and say how a force will be deployed? How does the Minister reconcile the statements that this will be a global force with other statements that it will be parallel to NATO and yet others that it will not be in competition with NATO? These are matters of the greatest import. It fills me with great sadness to think we can drift without accountability towards commitments that have implications for the fundamental principles of our foreign policy and support actions that will be taken in our name.
My position is not merely irredentist and opposed to security. Other countries will make and sell equipment and we, with other Third World countries, will be asked to supply bodies. I hope the world examines what happened in Kosovo, looks at the statements of Lord Robertson and Javier Solana and concludes that to reduce war to a video game while inflicting dreadful damage on the civilian population and civilian infrastructure was an appalling degradation to humanity.
It is incredible that the Government, in a week's time, will pledge nearly 1,000 Irish troops as well as military equipment to an EU rapid reaction force without any discussion, debate or analysis in this House. What implications does this commitment have for our neutrality, our role as UN peacekeepers, the size of our military budgets and our involvement in the arms trade? What are the implications for the future of the EU as it develops a military wing? What is this rapid reaction force for and what can we do within this force that we can not already do within the United Nations? The answer to the last question is truly worrying.
Next week Ireland is to join an EU force of more than 200,000 troops with the ability to deploy up to 80,000 troops within 60 days to a range of 4,000 kilometres, far beyond the EU's borders. The EU will seek 350 combat aircraft and 80 warships. There have already been significant informal pledges of troops and equipments including, for instance, an aircraft squadron of F-16 planes from France and, possibly, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The command structure for this force is already evolving. There are four EU-NATO working groups in progress and the September joint meeting of the EU-NATO ambassadors has been viewed as a significant step towards strengthening EU-NATO links.
I have no doubt the Minister will tell us this is all about peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian missions – the, so-called, Petersberg Tasks approved in the Amsterdam Treaty. The Irish people were grievously misled during the Amsterdam Treaty referendum. The Government did not spell out what peacemaking actually meant. It means enforcing peace or making war to make peace. The Minister would be hard put to point to any war in history which was not defined in such a way by those fighting in it.
When the Irish voters approved of the Amsterdam Treaty they were not approving the establishment of a European army of more than 200,000, which is what this rapid reaction force will be. The Government vehemently denied at the time that the treaty would lead to a European army but this is what we are getting. The President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, said:
If you do not want to call it a European army do not call it a European army. You can call it Margaret. You can call it Mary Ann. You can find any name.
That is a contemptuous statement.
What is to become of our UN peacekeeping role? Two former Chiefs-of-Staff have publicly voiced their concerns about whether we can play both roles, one in the UN and one in the EU. Something has got to give and it is obviously to be our highly reputable UN peacekeeping. Plans are now under way to withdraw our UN peacekeeping forces from Lebanon. Protestations from the Minister that Irish troops in the new Euro army will only operate under a UN mandate are totally misleading. All other EU states have not agreed to this. The real reason for this EU force is to by-pass UN mandates and to allow the EU to go it alone in the military field and to ignore the UN Security Council. If this is not the case why create an EU rapid reaction force in the first place? Why not operate through the United Nations?
We are aware that UN mandates can be open to misinterpretation. We need only look at the former Yugoslavia, Kuwait and the disgraceful ongoing bombing of Iraq. As Ireland assumes a UN Security Council seat, an honour due in no small part to our neutrality and our highly respected UN peacekeeping reputation, the Government has decided to undermine, not only our neutrality but the United Nations itself by establishing a rival and extremely dangerous international security body.
In the campaigns for the referendums on the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, the Green Party has been steadfast in highlighting the dangers to our neutrality from the creeping militarism of the European Union. This militarism is no longer creeping. It is proceeding in leaps and bounds. I am appalled by the latest recruitment campaign for the Defence Forces which states, "The Celtic tiger needs more claws". Who do our armed forces intend to maul, in whose name and for what purpose? Does the economic growth of our Celtic tiger economy really require military claws?
The Green Party asks the Minister to make no commitments at the EU meeting next week. I ask him to make it clear that the Irish people have not yet been consulted on this important departure from our traditional policies and that a period of consultation or a referendum is now required.
That the Deputies raised this important matter gives me an opportunity to deal with a number of points in relation to the EU Headline Goal. I am concerned that the issues as presented in the two matters put forward by Deputy Higgins and Deputy Gormley are different from reality and I welcome the opportunity to address many of the misapprehensions in this regard.
Next Monday, the planned EU Capabilities Commitment Conference will take place. This conference represents the culmination of a range of planning work directed at giving effect to the Treaty of Amsterdam and the more recent EU Council decisions at Cologne, Helsinki and Feira in relation to security and defence matters.
I have at earlier stages, in reply to parliamentary questions, set out the position in relation to the EU Headline Goal as it has evolved, most recently on 24 October. Current developments are based on the aim of the Amsterdam Treaty's objectives of making the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective, coherent and visible. The treaty's provisions concerning security and defence, focus on a range of humanitarian, peacekeeping and crisis management tasks, known as the Petersberg Tasks.
The conclusions of the Cologne, Helsinki and Feira European Councils provided clear political directions for the further steps needed to enable the European Union to take effective actions and to have an operational capacity for peacekeeping and crisis management operations. With regard to the decisions of the EU Council, a number of points are noteworthy. The elaboration of the Headline Goal will facilitate the achievement by 2003 of an EU capacity to conduct the Petersberg Tasks. The development by the EU of this role is consistent with Ireland's tradition of involvement in UN peacekeeping missions.
Developments towards the achievement of the Headline Goal for the development of capabilities for the Petersberg Tasks do not envisage the creation of a European army. This reality was explicitly stated in the conclusions at Feira in June 2000. The focus is on Petersberg Tasks, not mutual defence, on the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty. The Cologne European Council in June 1999 clearly identified the issue for the EU as the Petersberg Tasks and not mutual defence commitments which are appropriate to alliances.
Ireland has consistently sought to ensure a fully inclusive approach to European security issues. In this regard, the centrality of the UN and the primary role of the UN Security Council in matters of peace and security is explicitly recognised by the EU. Ireland would only participate in missions authorised by the UN. Finally, participation in an individual Petersberg Tasks mission remains a sovereign decision by the Government in every instance and on a case by case basis. Any decision to participate would require Dáil approval in accordance with existing legislation.
The White Paper on Defence, published earlier this year, sets out key elements of Government policy on overseas peace support operations. It recognises the important role these operations have as an element of Ireland's foreign and security policy and as a demonstration of support for the United Nations and the conduct of international relations according to the UN Charter. Furthermore, the White Paper sets out a comprehensive development strategy for the Defence Forces to ensure that they are geared to face the challenges and opportunities of the evolving defence and security environment. Most importantly, the White Paper makes provision for a significant new equipment investment programme.
Following the decisions taken at the Cologne European Council in June 1999, the Helsinki European Council adopted the concept of the EU Headline Goal for the provision of military self-sustaining forces of up to 15 brigades or 50,000 to 60,000 persons to undertake the full range of Petersberg Tasks. These forces are to be capable of being deployed at 60 days notice for up to one year and available in 2003 and are required to have the necessary command, control and intelligence capabilities, logistics and so on.
The Capabilities Commitment Conference which takes place in Brussels next Monday and Tuesday is intended to enable EU member states and other countries to indicate formally the capabilities which they have available for the Headline Goal. Earlier today, the Government approved proposals submitted jointly with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in preparation for next week's conference. The Government's decision authorises the commitment of up to 850 members of the Defence Forces from within the current United Nations standby arrangements system commitment of 850.
As participation will only arise where UN authorisation is in place, the commitment to the EU Headline Goal will not impinge in a negative way on the overall thrust of the overseas peacekeeping effort. As participation in any individual mission will be considered by Government on a case by case basis, this will enable us to determine on each occasion how best to balance commitments to an EU led operation, under UN authorisation, with our support for UN led peace support operations within the overall number.
It is planned that the proposed commitment of up to 850 personnel will mainly comprise a light infantry battalion of up to 750 personnel, an Army Ranger Wing platoon of around 40, in addition to small numbers in headquarters, national support and observer elements. The precise configuration of any particular deployment as regards numbers or equipment will be based on the task required and the situation at that time. An important infrastructural support for future overseas operations will be the acquisition of new armoured personnel carriers being funded through the reduction in personnel numbers.
The planned contribution to the EU Headline Goal does not degrade our commitment to UN peacekeeping. This contribution reinforces in a conspicuous way our continued intention to support efforts to maximise international peace and stability. At a time when the UN increasingly looks to regional organisations to undertake peace support operations on its behalf, it is critical to support efforts at EU level to give effect to the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam. What is involved in developing the Headline Goal is no more than giving effect to the treaty.
As the White Paper on Defence recognised, and the Deputies will agree, Irish soldiers have played a significant role in seeking to bring peace to many parts of the world and have deservedly won the respect and admiration of people at home and abroad. The loss of personnel while undertaking overseas peacekeeping tasks is a sacrifice which we must not ever take for granted.
We must continue to give due emphasis to the necessary training and equipment to undertake peacekeeping missions. Ireland's membership of Partnership for Peace will be an important support in this regard. PfP provides a menu of training opportunities which will seek to ensure that the Defence Forces can continue to participate in modern peacekeeping missions and achieve the levels of inter-operability appropriate to these. The PfP Planning and Review Process – PARP – is also important with regard to planning for Petersberg Tasks. Like the other neutral EU states who participate in the PARP, Ireland proposes to use the PARP as a mechanism for planning in relation to the Headline Goal.
The recent Brahimi report on the overhaul of UN peace operations contains many points of similarity with the approach taken by the EU on capabilities, including rapid reaction. My Department has indicated to the Department of Foreign Affairs that it will provide whatever assistance it can in relation to Brahimi implementation issues. EU and UN processes should be mutually reinforcing. EU-UN relations in the military crisis management area are likely to be further developed during the forthcoming Swedish Presidency. In keeping with what I have said already in relation to the importance of the UN, the Deputies can be assured that this is an area in which Ireland will seek to provide a positive impetus.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 November 2000.