Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:36 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the impact NATO enlargement will have on the nature of the Partnership for Peace; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26101/02]
Other Questions. - NATO Enlargement.
John Perry
Question:52 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has considered recent NATO expansion to eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26504/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 36 and 52 together.
They refer to the decision on 21 November of the 19 NATO member states meeting in Prague at the level of Heads of State and Government to extend an invitation to seven states from Eastern Europe and the Baltic region to join NATO. All of the invited states had been actively pursuing the goal of NATO membership for some years and had tailored their involvement in Partnership for Peace to the extent of following specific mem bership action plans, particular only to states wishing to join NATO.
Once the lengthy accession process which requires parliamentary ratification of the decision by all existing NATO members is completed, the number of non-NATO countries participating in PfP will fall from 27 to 20.
From Ireland's perspective, a key aspect is that no change to the underlying principles for PfP is envisaged. The core principle of self-differentiation will continue to apply, whereby each country participates according to its own interests and priorities. Ireland will continue to benefit from experience being gained in peacekeeping, especially through the development of enhanced interoperability which is improving our ability to undertake peacekeeping operations in a safe and effective manner.
The role of the neutral and non-aligned participants in PfP and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, such as Ireland, Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland, will continue to be important in shaping its future. I reiterate that I do not foresee circumstances in which Ireland would wish to join NATO.
Will the Minister agree that the expansion of NATO and PfP makes it more likely that if we are to see a common defence in Europe, it will be under the auspices of NATO and not an autonomous European common defence?
Will the Minister agree that throughout Europe, European states are trying to reshape the European security architecture and far from being afraid to participate in that, we should be one of the architects, in other words, we should seek to design future European security and defence architecture to meet our concerns and needs? Will he agree that if we do not do that, it will be like economic and monetary union – we will join later on the basis of rules made by others? In that regard, does the Minister share my concern that, unlike other neutral states, Ireland has not provided to defend its own neutrality and therefore we have rendered ourselves very vulnerable? Far from being shy of participating in these discussions, we should bring forward our own suggestions and ideas for the future security of Ireland and Europe.
Two different points are being made by both Deputies. To take Deputy Gormley's point, it should not be regarded as inevitable that the future architecture of European security and defence policy in the European Union should be shaped by NATO. They are two distinct operations with different mandates and in order for a consensus to be maintained in the SDP area we have to take cognisance of the specific character of member states in relation to the area of military involvement and policy. That has been accommodated thus far in the Treaty of Nice and I hope that the outcome of the deliber ations he is having on the defence policy committee of the convention will ensure that the hard-won benefits we have obtained in Nice will be upheld.
The point made by Deputy Mitchell is that he wishes to see us engage. We are prepared to constructively engage in terms of defence policy arrangements for the future of the European Union in a way which is consistent with our foreign policy traditions. Perhaps that is not a view shared unanimously throughout the House but there is a recognition by all of us here that it is an area in which we need to be engaged and seek to influence. We can find a niche and a full role for our military in areas of activity which are consistent with the areas in which we have an ability to contribute. If we approach the issue in that light, we have every prospect of obtaining an outcome with which we can be happy and which will be satisfactory in all the circumstances.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.