Vol. 553 No. 3
17 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Defence the cost to the Defence Forces of attaining interoperability with NATO forces which have common membership of PfP above and beyond the Irish peacekeeping role with the UN. [13743/02]
Ireland's approach to participation in Partnership for Peace was set out in our Presentation Document of 1 December 1999, which outlined the following five priority areas for involvement: co-operation on international peacekeeping; humanitarian operations; search and rescue; co-operation in the protection of the environment; and co-operation in marine matters. These areas relate to the Defence Forces and to appropriate civilian agencies such as the Departments of the Environment and Local Government, the former Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the Civil Defence.
Participation in PfP activities is entirely voluntary and is based on the principle of self-differentiation, that is, a State selects for itself the nature and scope of its participation. To date, the Defence Forces have continued to participate in PfP partnership programmes and the PfP Planning and Review Process, PARP, with a view to enhancing interoperability with our PfP partners. The aim is to create the conditions in which different contingents can work together efficiently and effectively in peace support operations.
The details of Ireland's participation are set out in our two individual partnership programmes, IPPs, the first of which covered the period up to 31 December 2001 and the second of which covers the period 2002-03. Both of the IPPs have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. Activities consist of training courses, seminars, workshops, conferences and table top exercises and are attended by representatives of the relevant agencies which I mentioned earlier.
The cost of participation in the 2001 IPP to the Defence Forces was approximately €300,000 and it is anticipated the cost will be the same for 2002. These costs are made up of expenditures on course fees, travel costs and subsistence allowances for Defence Forces personnel.
The training opportunities provided by Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace enhances the development of the Defence Forces, consistent with the objectives of the Government White Paper on Defence published in February 2000. In addition, participation in Partnership for Peace provides a forum whereby Ireland can contribute to the benefits gained from our many years of successful participation on United Nations humanitarian missions. The experience of our Defence Forces in this area is highly appreciated by the other 45 member countries of Partnership for Peace, particularly the newly emerging democracies of eastern Europe.
I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister outlined the costs of training exercises, conferences etc. and said that the programmes have been placed in the Oireachtas Library, but he did not outline the costs of upgrading weaponry to make it compatible with that of other forces taking part in PfP. Has the Department engaged in such an exercise and, if so, has it come up with the costings involved in that?
No, and it is not likely that will take place in Partnership for Peace. The benefits we have gained from our experience in the United Nations are being transmitted to other countries and some of the emerging democracies in eastern Europe are very interested in that. Peacekeeping and crisis management is evolving in the sense that we know many skills are needed for the type of intervention necessary to bring about and maintain peace. We have particular strengths which we can share with others and others have strengths from which we can gain. The White Paper spells out the programme in terms of the purchase of equipment and we have been involved in getting the armoured personnel carriers, ships etc.
There is also night vision, engineering and various other types of equipment which the Chief of Staff has sought and these are on the production line, so to speak, but our participation in PfP was not something we envisaged in terms of requiring a different type of equipment from what we had been purchasing in line with the White Paper and our work in the UN generally. It is more to do with the cohesiveness necessary to bridge some of the gaps exposed in the past when different contingents had different ways of doing things which, rather than solve the particular conflict, may have added to it because they did not have the right type of synergy to deal with it. It is in that area that we expect to benefit rather than from any expense account that will arise for us in terms of equipment.
In relation to command structures for Partnership for Peace, would such command structures be of a permanent or semi-permanent nature? Would they involve personnel from the Irish Army? I am thinking in terms of the situation that has developed in relation to the rapid reaction force where named personnel have been given such positions. If Irish Army personnel are involved in such command structures on either a permanent or semi-permanent basis, what would happen in the event of Ireland deciding to enter into or opt out of any given military situation?
We have been fortunate in the past to have senior personnel in the Defence Forces who were invited to take up senior positions, principally under a UN mandate, in different parts of the world. Wherever those opportunities arise, that expertise is available to help bring about peace and to share the experience we have gained wherever that is deemed necessary.
