Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Nov 1999

Vol. 161 No. 1

Partnership for Peace: Statements

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

I am glad to have this opportunity to address the House on Partnership for Peace. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, I would like to set out the background to this issue and to indicate how Ireland's future participation in Partnership for Peace will be consistent with our values and peacekeeping traditions.

I will state briefly what Partnership for Peace entails. Partnership for Peace is a voluntary, non-binding and co-operative security framework of co-operation between NATO and non-members of NATO. When it was launched in 1994 by President Clinton, it was seen primarily as a means of outreach and reassurance to the new democracies in Eastern Europe. Partnership for Peace has, however, developed far beyond that initial focus and is now a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management.

Currently 43 countries are involved in PfP, 24 of which are non-members of NATO. The participating countries include all of our EU partners, the neutral states Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, and many countries from eastern Europe. There is no conflict whatsoever between participation in PfP and our policy of military neutrality. The considered advice of the Attorney General is that a referendum is not legally necessary. PfP has no implications for neutrality or sovereignty. This was also the view of the previous Government when in office.

Participation in PfP is based on the principle of self-determination, that is, a participating state itself selects the nature and scope of its participation in PfP. The other neutral states, for example, have focused on practical co-operation for peacekeeping and crisis management. Our approach is set out in our presentation document, which is clear in its focus, and self-explanatory in its content.

Our presentation document places the central focus of our participation in PfP on co-operation for peacekeeping. Based on our experience, Ireland is prepared to participate in and contribute to co-operation in the PfP framework in such areas as interoperability, planning for peacekeeping and peace support, communications, command and control, operational procedures, logistics and training. Irish Defence Forces personnel have also been actively involved in humanitarian assistance. They provide assistance to the civil authorities in response to natural or other disasters. In light of this accumulated experience the presentation document makes clear that we are interested in the development of co-operation and the exchange of experience and expertise in humanitarian operations.

The presentation document also specifies certain resources which could be made available for PfP activities subject to national decisions in each case. For example, facilities available for peacekeeping co-operation in the PfP context could include the United Nations Training School Ireland at the Curragh, language laboratory resources with their associated infrastructure and courses and a limited training area.

Our approach to PfP should be understood in the broad context of international developments. The origins of PfP are to be found in the aftermath of the Cold War ten years ago. In the post-Cold War era traditional conceptions of security and defence in Europe have given way to strategies of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management. This evolution which also characterises the European Union's approach as set out in the Amsterdam Treaty is consistent with Ireland's approach which has always emphasised conflict prevention and peacekeeping. The divisions of the Cold War have been replaced by a new approach based on co-operative approaches to security in keeping with the principles of mutual co-operation accepted by all European states, including Ireland.

Ireland wishes to contribute its United Nations peacekeeping experience by playing an active part in the Petersberg Tasks in support of the European Union's common foreign and security policy. Ireland sees PfP as having an important role to play in co-operation and planning for participation in such tasks.

I wish to dispose of a number of misconceptions about PfP. It is not true that participation in PfP entails acceptance of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence arises only for the members of NATO. Participation in PfP will not limit our ability to speak out in favour of nuclear disarmament. Nor is it true that participation in PfP is contrary to Ireland's involvement in UN peacekeeping. It is not an either-or issue. PfP plays an important role in enabling participating states to develop capacities, training and interoperability for UN peacekeeping.

It is not true that participation in PfP would oblige Ireland to engage in peace enforcement operations. Irish involvement in any peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation is voluntary, subject to Dáil decision and requires a United Nations Security Council mandate. Participation in PfP does not alter this. It is not true that Ireland would be obliged to participate in exercises. Any participation in PfP exercises would be entirely voluntary and at our discretion. We have served alongside NATO countries in UN peacekeeping missions for over 40 years and I see nothing inappropriate in training with such countries for peacekeeping purposes.

These are some of the misconceptions which we have sought to address in the course of the recent public debate in Ireland on PfP. Just over one year ago the Government reviewed the question of Ireland's participation in PfP and set itself two priorities at that stage – to develop understanding and informed discussion of the realities of PfP and to move discussion away from the polarised views and slogans which seemed to characterise a good deal of such discussion as there had been about PfP.

Our initial discussion, therefore, was on developing and informing the public debate. The Government encouraged the interest shown in PfP by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. There were several particularly informative and constructive sessions of the committee during 1998. Testimony was heard from a range of speakers, including the ambassadors of the four PfP neutral states. These sessions helped to increase understanding of the issues in the Seanad.

In May this year the Government published an explanatory guide on PfP which was widely and freely distributed, including to every Member of this House. The explanatory guide fully sets out the issues and is seen by other PfP nations as a model of its kind. The Government's efforts to promote discussion on PfP in the past 12 months included numerous statements, speeches, interviews and newspaper articles. In light of these efforts I cannot accept the suggestion that the public debate on PfP has been unsatisfactory or incomplete.

To those who say the Government changed its mind on PfP I say, yes, we have. We admit that we can change our minds in the light of new facts and changed circumstances.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

U-turn after U-turn.

Mr. M. Smith

We have fully recast our views—

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Recast?

Mr. M. Smith

—based on a thorough analysis of the issues.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Recast? The Minister has made a U-turn.

Mr. M. Smith

Does the Senator think nobody should change their mind?

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Minister has come full circle.

Mr. M. Smith

The Senator cannot be serious. My party went before the people at the elections to the European Parliament last June with a manifesto which set out the party's views on PfP in crystal clear terms. We stated our intention to join PfP as a logical extension of our existing policy, not as a departure from it.

Following the recent Government decision and Dáil motion on PfP, Ireland will join PfP in the near future. Arrangements to that end have already been put in train. As participants in PfP, we will consider participation in PfP activities for the two year period 2000-01, based on the approach set out in our Presentation Document. These developments will have administrative and cost implications which will be matters for the Foreign Affairs and Defence votes. These matters are currently under discussion but it is clear that these costs will be modest, balanced and proportionate to our involvement in PfP.

Ireland has a proud record in UN peacekeeping and crisis management, and I am determined to see that record maintained and further developed. As Minister for Defence, this is a key factor in my support for Irish participation in PfP.

I would like to conclude by highlighting some of the peacekeeping issues which underpin the Government's decision to join PfP. First, for the past 40 years, Ireland has been actively engaged in UN peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is a defining element in Irish foreign policy and a matter of justified public pride. Irish peacekeepers have served over 46,000 individual tours of duty. We should be ready to learn about new developments in peacekeeping and we should be willing to impart the benefit of our experience to others.

Second, a major evolution in UN peacekeeping has been taking place. The reality is that the UN is increasingly reliant on regional security organisations to support and carry out missions on its behalf. In Bosnia and Kosovo the UN, NATO, the OSCE and the European Union co-operate as a matter of routine. During discussions which I had with the commander in chief of NATO in Bosnia on one occasion, he told me that they had no experience of peacekeeping but that we had. They have experience in war but not in peacekeeping. We should be proud to offer our strength to others. Ireland has already moved into the new UN approach to regional peacekeeping through our participation in the SFOR operation in Bosnia and the KFOR operation in Kosovo. These operations are mandated by the UN Security Council, but are conducted on the UN's behalf by NATO. The regional approach is not confined to Europe: INTERFET in East Timor is a further example of a UN-mandated crisis management operation led by a regional actor, Australia.

Third, in the post-Cold War era, no one state or institution can, by itself, deal with the humanitarian, political, security and refugee crises that we have seen in the past few years. That is a reality acknowledged throughout the international community – in the UN, the OSCE and the EU. Co-operation has rightly replaced outmoded notions of competition between the various security institutions in Europe.

Fourth, it is Government policy that Ireland should stay in the mainstream of peacekeeping. Our Defence Forces must have a full voice in preparations for peacekeeping missions. Ireland should not be absent from PfP, a forum in which best practice in peacekeeping is being discussed. We neither need nor wish to join military alliances, but we need to co-operate actively with the principal regional organisations involved to maintain peace and security in Europe. We will do so in keeping with our distinctive peacekeeping traditions.

I assure this House that our participation in PfP is an expression of a nation which is proud of its peacekeeping record and confident of the contribution it can make in a new era of co-operative security in Europe. I look forward with interest to hearing the views of this House on our participation in Partnership for Peace.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Smith, to the House in his capacity as Minister for Defence. It is appropriate that a Minister with such responsibility should be here to take the debate because, as well as foreign affairs involvement, it has a distinct military aspect for which the Minister for Defence has specific responsibility. I am glad this motion has come before the House and that we have an opportunity to make statements on Partnership for Peace because there has been much confusion about it for too long. The debate has gone on for the past four years but because of various stands taken by a number of individuals in the course of that debate, a great deal of misinformation was put out and as a result the seeds of confusion were sown in the minds of the public. If members of the public are somewhat confused it is entirely due to the input of elected public representatives, in particular on the details of Partnership for Peace.

Partnership for Peace is a flexible programme of military and security co-operation among members and non-members of NATO, as well as neutral countries. A number of strongly neutral countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Austria, as well as Ireland, are involved in Partnership for Peace, and the fact that other neutral countries have staked their claim in regard to PfP is a clear indication that this is a partnership formed to bring about peace in areas where conflict reigns and to maintain peace in those areas. Some of the arguments put forward suggest that Partnership for Peace is a treaty. It is not. It is an alliance freely entered into by the participating states and each state can in turn decide its level of involvement in the partnership.

Some critics suggest that Ireland should be satisfied to remain a member of the OSCE and that we do not need to involve ourselves in Partnership for Peace, but the remit of both of the organisations is very different. The failure of the OSCE is evident in terms of the various crises that have occurred, particularly in eastern Europe where the OSCE response proved to be futile. It is important, therefore, that Ireland participates fully in the Partnership for Peace arrangement among the various countries, particularly because of our traditional involvement with the United Nations.

It has become evident in recent years that the role of the United Nations in overseeing peacekeeping operations has diminished considerably from a central to a regional organisation. Increasingly, regional organisations will have to take responsibility for crisis management and for peacekeeping in their own areas. That is happening in Africa, where there are areas with specific responsibilities, in the former CIS states led by Russia, and in Europe with the OSCE.

Ireland has a wonderful tradition of peacekeeping with the United Nations. That record was recognised by the Secretary General of the United Nations when he visited Ireland recently and complimented the role of the Irish troops in peacekeeping throughout the world. Over 46,000 soldiers have participated in peacekeeping missions and our record in this area has been so successful that the United Nations decided some years ago to base its training school in the Curragh. As the Minister rightly said in his contribution, part of the Partnership for Peace agreement is that the United Nations school would be made available for training troops from other countries.

It is important that we familiarise ourselves with the military activities of other states involved in Partnership for Peace. Over a year ago the Chief of Staff of the Army, Lieutenant General McMahon, spoke of the importance of Ireland involving itself in Partnership for Peace and said it was important that we should not be left behind in the development that was taking place across Europe and the world on that matter.

The argument that Partnership for Peace is basically an organisation to further armament sales is spurious. On the contrary, Partnership for Peace provides a mechanism by which the mem ber states can discuss among themselves ways and means to reduce arms. We clearly see that, across the world, defence budgets are being reduced every year to some degree, and that is true even among some of the major states. It is one thing to make statements at various meetings and conferences, and it is important that we have a moral voice on this issue, but unless we are at the heart of where it is happening our voice will not carry any weight. It is important that we lend our voice strongly in support of the continuing reduction of defence budgets and armaments.

Armaments are not just bought by Governments. There is a need for stricter controls on the sale of arms, a matter that is being widely discussed within the United States. We must be in the proper place to make our views clearly known to all the parties involved.

It is important, owing to the regionalisation of United Nations operations and the interoperability programme that exists, that we should be involved. The United Nations must become more efficient because we have seen that it has been unable to meet payments to participating states and the budget has been in great difficulty. There is a responsibility on all countries who have an interest in keeping peace, whether it is in eastern or wider Europe, in Africa or any part of the world.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the Army has up-to-date military equipment. This is a very important matter. Improvements have taken place in recent times on that front and that is to be welcomed. For many years, the morale of the Defence Forces was extremely low and its personnel felt that serious consideration was not being given to them by central Government. That has changed and it must be welcomed. It is important that they feel able to take their place with the forces of other countries, that they are as well-trained, well-equipped and familiar with various types of military equipment as their counterparts throughout Europe and in the other participating states in the Partnership for Peace.

I am delighted that the Minister is here today and has put his views on record. I was hoping that the Minister for Foreign Affairs might attend because he made some interesting statements as spokesperson on foreign affairs while in Opposition.

Mr. M. Smith

The Senator should keep going forward; it does not suit her to go backwards.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The record is rather interesting, containing phrases such as "back-door into NATO". This is from the Minister, Deputy Andrews.

Mr. M. Smith

The Senator is not good when going in reverse. She should keep going forward.

Mr. Connor

The Minister should read what Ray Burke said.

Mr. Lanigan

The Senator would be in NATO in the morning.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Taylor-Quinn does not need any encouragement. The Senator without interruption, please.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We will leave that off the record because however mild the contribution of the Minister, Deputy Andrews, on the issue, the record of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ray Burke, as foreign affairs spokesperson for Fianna Fáil and participating on the Foreign Affairs Committee is quite interesting. The contributions of all other members of Fianna Fáil were similar, bar perhaps a few who were showing more courage and guts than some of their colleagues—

Mr. Lanigan

If we agree with the Senator we have courage, if we do not agree with her we have none.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Senator Lanigan took a more definitive approach than some of his colleagues at that time. There has been much duplicity. Promises were made in its 1997 election manifesto that Fianna Fáil would not involve Ireland in PfP without first consulting the people in a referendum. However, when it took office it suddenly became unnecessary to hold such a referendum. Fine Gael is the only party which has been consistent and taken a logical, thought out position on this issue from the outset. We are the only party which always favoured involvement in PfP.

Mr. M. Smith

The Senator's party did nothing about it when in Government.

Mr. Connor

We proposed it in the White Paper.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We did not involve ourselves in duplicity. We proposed it in a White Paper on Foreign Policy in 1995.

Mr. M. Smith

The Senator's party refused to do it while in Government.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Deputy John Bruton was Taoiseach and Deputy Spring was the Minister for Foreign Affairs who published the White Paper in 1995. As the then leader of the Labour Party, it was interesting that Deputy Spring supported PfP.

Mr. Dardis

Financed by Woodchester.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

His successor, Deputy Quinn, is not as committed to PfP. In early 1997, the current Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, made specific statements about PfP which are embarrassing to put on the record now. However, by November 1998 Fianna Fáil had seen the light and realised that joining PfP was the logical, sensible thing to do.

Mr. M. Smith

The Holy Ghost descended.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Fianna Fáil decided to adopt Fine Gael policy on PfP and I congratulate it on that positive, progressive approach. We are delighted it finally saw the light.

Mr. M. Smith

Fine Gael had a chance to do so in Government but it would not do so.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Fine Gael published a policy document on membership of PfP in 1998. The joint committee discussed the issue on a number of occasions and those deliberations are on record. In 1998, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, wrote an article in The Irish Times making it clear that he had been enlightened and thought it a good idea to join PfP.

Mr. Connor

He was like Buddha.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We are delighted and welcome that the Government now proposes that Ireland become a member of PfP. Various reasons have been put forward for a referendum but Fine Gael has never accepted the need for such a course of action. PfP is not a treaty. It is an arrangement between countries who agree to participate in peacekeeping and, in some cases, peace enforcement. Some will say that it is a serious matter if our involvement includes peace enforcement. However, any such role would have to be sanctioned by the Dáil as the Army cannot involve itself in peace enforcement without such approval.

Why is there a need for a referendum? We have held a number of referenda and have seen the confusion which resulted. Ireland signed the Amsterdam Treaty, including the Petersberg Tasks, and the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. We have voted in favour of a common foreign and security policy. In 1992 the leaders of all parties gave a joint commitment that there would be no change to our position of neutrality without a referendum. Nothing has changed and there is no need for a referendum on PfP. As politicians we should take responsibility and make judgments on controversial issues. There is an increasing tendency in Government and Departments to hive off such issues to committees, boards or groups who are asked to investigate and report or to produce a White or Green Paper. It is time we took responsibility and made decisions. The decision on this issue is one for the Oireachtas. It is right that the Oireachtas should take the decision and that there is no confusion or arguments about the specifics of the issue.

It is important that we ask ourselves what direction we will go in future and what we see ourselves doing if major crises arise, as arose in recent years in eastern Europe. Are we prepared to stand by and make grandiose speeches but not participate? Are we prepared to take the cow ardly way out? Are we prepared to say America should react while we stand idly by? That is not a very courageous way to assist people in dire need. It is a shame that nations allow situations to arise similar to that which arose recently in East Timor where the people were guaranteed support and security but were badly let down. Although we are a small nation, we stand equally indicted as the larger nations which allowed this to happen.

There are those who take the high moral ground and preach about our responsibilities regarding social issues and human rights, but if people are to get human rights, fair play and justice must be ensured. In some instances ensuring fair play and justice involves armies entering areas and ensuring thugs and blackguards in the countries concerned are not allowed wage guerrilla warfare against ordinary people and deny human rights. That is what PfP is about, namely, keeping peace in areas and ensuring human rights are seen to be given to people right across the nations. It is important that we fulfil our role in this context.

In the past we have had a proud record in relation to peacekeeping, something which has been recognised worldwide. It is important that in future we are seen to be involved and participating. It is not good enough to say we are a member of the EU and are only prepared to take whatever the EU has to give us. If we are full participants of the EU and of wider security in the EU, we must play our part together with the other member states and the broader membership of PfP.

Partnership for Peace is basically a regional organisation with particular responsibility for peacekeeping within the wider European dimension, which is important. Any person with common sense will welcome that role. Thank goodness there are fewer people in positions of responsibility putting out false statements which confuse the public. Those who made broad statements in the past about PfP have a serious responsibility to ensure the debate continues, that people's minds are put at ease, that the entire issue is fully and properly explained and that no further misinformation or false information is issued.

This is a move in the right direction. We were always seen to stand and take our place among the nations and this is another step forward in that direction. I compliment the Government on bringing forward this proposal at this late stage.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome the Minister and agree with the other speakers that it was right that the Minister for Defence should be present in the context of co-operation between him and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on PfP and the implementation of policy.

The debate on membership of PfP has been going on for a number of years and it was right that early decisions were not made on whether we should join. It was important to have a good degree of consultation between all the parties, whether they were for or against the proposal. Much confusion arose in the early stages because too many people considered membership of PfP as an indicator of membership of NATO. In part the confusion and problems arose because those who were basically in favour of joining PfP were adamantly in favour of joining NATO.

I would not say that membership of PfP has been a matter of great concern to a great many people in Ireland, but it has been of concern to a small and vocal group of people on both sides of the argument. Both sides had right on their side in their own minds. They wanted to ask questions and receive answers. Recently the Government took the opportunity of suggesting membership and debating it in the Dáil. Participation in PfP should commence within the next few months.

It is necessary that we are a member of PfP because there have been significant changes in the world order over recent years, since the end of the so-called Cold War. On the one hand there was NATO and the US while on the other hand there was the USSR. It could be said that the USSR was holding the line on its side and that NATO was holding the line for the USA on the other side. The break-up of the USSR created major problems throughout Europe and quite a number of countries which were part of the USSR or which were connected with it have been joining or applying to join NATO in ever-increasing numbers. Certain countries in mid-Europe want to join NATO so that NATO will act with them against the possibility of Russia invading them and reforming a type of USSR. Such countries feel that membership of NATO provides a bulwark against such a development. In certain other areas in mid-Europe countries wish to join NATO out of fear of an expanded Germany. They feel that membership would deter a united Germany from an expansionist role in mid-Europe. Countries of northern Europe, including Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, want to join the EU for various reasons but are equally adamant that they want to join NATO because of their fear of the Russian bear.

Therefore, there are various reasons that European countries want to join NATO. We want to join PfP because we have been and continue to be a very active member of the EU, where we play an increasingly important role. While we are a very small country, we are quite strong in international trade terms and it is necessary that we are involved in peacekeeping efforts in the European and North Atlantic area without joining NATO. PfP is a group of countries which have voluntarily entered a partnership and it would be most peculiar if we were the only EU member state or prospective member state that did not join.

For the past number of years Ireland has been active in the United Nation's peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping has been a defining element of Ireland's foreign policy for many years and we feel a justifiable pride in what our peacekeepers have done. They have served over 46,000 missions since we started. By joining PfP we would learn about new developments in peacekeeping and we could help other countries by imparting to them the benefit of our experience.

We should not let today pass without thanking the NGOs for the work they have done throughout the years in areas where there have been confrontations. I also sympathise with the family of the GOAL worker who died in Kosovo in the past few days. The people who participate in NGOs have played no small role in ensuring that Ireland's name is high on the list of those who serve in a humanitarian way in the aftermath of conflict.

In 1997 the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council was formed. The EAPC's framework consists of political and security related consultations between its members under PfP. It is important that Ireland is involved in the consultation process in any way possible. Ireland welcomes the intention of the EAPC to examine the ways in which it might support global humanitarian action against mines. We also welcome the initiative to examine how EAPC might contribute to controlling the transfer of small arms, recognising the high number of innocent civilian casualties caused by the use of mines and small arms. Anti-personnel mines are one of the most horrific elements in modern warfare and they are being used in more areas of operation. The number of mines placed in Kosovo recently does not bear thinking about.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lanigan

In many cases these mines were placed by the allies who suggested that they would protect civilians. Jamie Shea ran the Kosovo war on a public relations basis and told lies on a daily basis about the atrocities that were being perpetrated.

Mr. Norris

We will have more of that with the PfP. That is exactly what we are walking into.

Mr. Lanigan

Now the numbers do not stand up to what Jamie Shea said during those times.

Earlier Senator Taylor-Quinn said defence budgets have been reduced around the world. I doubt if that is true because the sale of arms has been increasing at an alarming rate.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lanigan

It must also be said that if anyone wanted to make a profit by investing in the stock market they would not invest in Eircom, even though it is doing well, or Canada Life. They would invest in arms suppliers because that is where the money is and where profits are increasing. There has been an increase in profits for this type of company and this has benefited the economies of countries, particularly the new war monger, Great Britain, with the help of Robin Cook, who would go anywhere to sell anything connected to war. British arms are being sold all over the world and this fact was proven recently when Great Britain talked about its ethical supply of arms to Indonesia. This is a load of rubbish because there is no such thing as ethical arms or armaments.

Ireland can play a major role in PfP. Not alone will PfP be of benefit to us but we can be of benefit to it because of our commitment to non-combatant ways of dealing with problems. In other words, we try to head off a problem before it occurs by using politics and trying to convey the horrific reality of war to people who might decide that they want to get involved in warfare.

Ireland needs to keep peacekeeping as the main element of its foreign involvement. The Army also needs the expertise it can gain from its involvement in the PfP. As has been said, the Army has been downgraded. There is also a feeling within the Army that it was not being used properly. It could be said that because of the length of time the Army has spent in places like the Lebanon a certain amount of fatigue had set in because soldiers were returning every year or six months to areas where its mandate had not been fulfilled. They are in the buffer zone between Israel and the Lebanon. The Army cannot fulfil its mandate because its personnel are not located on the borders of the Lebanon and Israel. Soldiers have gone back to the Lebanon several times and can see that they have not been able to fulfil the task for which they were sent out. As a result fatigue has set in and it is difficult to get people to continue to go to these places. There is a need to find a new role for the Army.

The Garda Síochána has begun to do a tremendous amount of good work in the civil area in areas of confrontation. Under the PfP the Garda will be able to support the civil authorities.

It has been mentioned that we did not have a referendum. That matter has been sufficiently answered. There was no need for a referendum. When people were asked should we have a referendum a substantial number said yes, but a huge majority said they would vote for Ireland to join the PfP. We could have gone down a democratic route and got the same answer we have now.

Mr. Norris

Rather than go down the undemocratic way.

Mr. Lanigan

It would have cost us a fortune.

Mr. Norris

Democracy is expensive.

Mr. Lanigan

It is democratic for the Government to go the way that it has—

Mr. Norris

It is not.

Mr. Lanigan

—because it has gone along with the Irish Constitution. Article 1 states:

The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to . . . . . determine its relations with other nations—

Mr. Norris

The Taoiseach made two flattering contradictory speeches. In which one was he lying?

Mr. Lanigan

The executive power—

Mr. Dardis

Is Senator Norris saying that the Parliament of this country is undemocratic?

Mr. Lanigan

If Senator Norris continues I guarantee that he will not get through a sentence without being interrupted.

Mr. Norris

Good.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am slightly surprised at the two senior Senators. Senator Lanigan, without interruption.

Mr. Dardis

The Leas-Chathaoirleach should maintain his neutrality.

Mr. Lanigan

There are reasons to support the United Nation's peacekeeping and conflict prevention role. I agree that the UN has been downgraded in recent years and that it has had to pull back. One of the reasons for this was that it was totally over staffed. It was not staffed on the logical basis of putting the right people on the right job. People were employed because they came from the right region rather than having worked in the region and their ability to do the job. The reason various people were not supporting the UN as much as they should was that it was overburdened with highly paid staff.

Yesterday, Madeleine Albright said that the United States was willing to pay off the billion dollars debt it owed the UN. I presume the US would not do that unless it was satisfied that many of the necessary reforms within the UN were taking place. If there is reform, I hope countries such as the United States will pay their dues and that the organisation will again become an agent for orderly development, strong enough to control countries which might wish to go to war.

In the past decade there have been many wars in Europe, Africa, the Far East and South America. I reckon more wars are taking place now than ever before. People talk about what happened in the First and Second World Wars but the number of people killed in wars in the last ten years far outweighs the number of people killed in those wars, even though they are called the great wars. Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed in wars in Africa but nobody appears to bother with them. It was only when war took place in Europe in recent years that people began to think war might come to our doorstep. Wars in the Third World do not appear to matter in the thinking of the First World.

I join other speakers in welcoming the Government decision and the people's demand that we join PfP. I sincerely hope it will result in a strengthening of our role in peacekeeping and in looking after the humanitarian needs of populations throughout the world who do not have what we have, a sense of security and of going places. We are beholden to nobody.

Mr. Norris

I am sad but honoured to be the first dissenting voice in this House. It is important that people speak out independently against what is happening here. I have friends on the other side of the House who include, despite my interruptions, Senator Lanigan. He is a decent man. He put forward some of the reasons we should hesitate. There are many more and I will put forward as many as I can this evening.

It should be pointed out when Members invoke democracy that there is nothing democratic about what is happening in the House today. The other House passed a resolution. We are permitted tamely to emit statements. There will not even be a vote. That is the level of democracy being engaged in.

The Government claims to "know what the people want". There is a touch of de Valera about that –"we looked into our hearts and we saw it written there in green ink". Nobody knows. If the Government is so almighty confident, why does it not give it a whirl and take the risk of a referendum? The reason it does not is because it is afraid the people will find out what is going on. The Government and the principal Opposition parties will have to explain the lies they have consistently fed the people, the deceit and the underhanded nature of what is going on.

Look at the Minister's speech. I will refer to just a few parts because it is a shameful document. "There is no conflict whatsoever between participation in PfP and our policy of military neutrality", the Minister said. That is a laugh for a start. It is not what the Americans think. The big boys who dreamed this up have a different view. Why does the Government not go to Washington and tell them this? It will be a surprise to the Pentagon. God bless the Minister's innocence.

The Minister also stated:

The considered advice of the Attorney General is that a referendum is not legally necessary. PfP has no implications for neutrality or sovereignty. This was also the view of the previous Government when in office.

It was not the view of the Opposition; it was not the view of the Minister of State's party or of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, then Leader of the Opposition. He spoke about this issue in 1996, saying ". . . the case for concluding a bilateral pact with NATO under the Partnership for Peace has not been made." Yet, he claims to know what the Irish people feel about it. The Government has not made the case but it has decided it knows what the people want. He continued:

It is true that a number of countries have joined, including neutral ones, but they are all situated geographically on either side of the former East-West divide or in the former Soviet Union. . . . The countries in question who have joined are all close to potential zones of instability. Some are in a halfway house and cannot wait to join NATO as full members. Others want a halfway house between membership of NATO and neutrality, giving them an each way bet. Yet others, parts of the former Soviet Union, have no doubt joined for a mixture of economic and security reasons. Irish membership of PfP will be seen in a different light. . . .

What has changed?

Three years ago I was in Prague. I had not wanted to go but I was asked by the foreign affairs committee. We spent most of the time meeting Ministers who told us about the proportion of the budget which had to be spent to bring the country into sync with NATO requirements. They were pleased about it; they were almost boasting about the money they were wasting. Psychologically one can understand them. Look at their history.

The Taoiseach said three years ago that we should see this in a different light. He has not shed much different light on it. I would like the Minister of State to say what has changed. What is the difference? Of course, this is not a debate and the Minister has made his statement. He has played his hand and can sit there, uncomfortably. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Flood, to be a decent man. I do not envy him having to put forward this tripe which I am certain was not written by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister of State. It was put together by some cynic or clown in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I wish that person were here to take responsibility for what we have heard today.

There is also the question of the Army. Of course it wants its toys. They are human and they want the extra vehicles and budgets. Do we want to pay for them? Do we know what the cost will be? It did not bother me one whit to hear the Army Chief of Staff say he thought we should join NATO. Let him speak. I do not give a damn what he says. If he has an argument, let us hear it. However, I had to laugh at the constipated little bank manager from Cavan, Mr. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, who objected so vehemently at a press conference to the fact that a member of an army dared to emit a political statement.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The person to whom the Senator referred is a Member of the other House.

Mr. Norris

I am sorry to hear it; it is a great shock. However, those are the days in which we live. Does that mean I cannot refer to him? Persons of that ilk show a remarkable lack of irony when complaining about members of the properly constituted Army of this country issuing statements.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I prefer the Senator to refer to people in parliamentary terms, not unparliamentary terms.

Mr. Norris

I see. That is difficult in his case so I will move on to more substantial—

Mr. Dardis

We will make an exception for the Senator.

Mr. Norris

I thank the Senator. I will make an exception in his case.

Mr. Dardis

We will make one for the Senator as well when others talk about him.

Mr. Norris

Five or six years ago that lot would have made an exception for me, a large exception between the eyes with an expanding bullet.

The Army will want more money, which is fair enough. One expects that as part of its professional operation. However, we should not necessarily be swayed by their requirements for toys.

We hear a great deal about peacekeeping. There are, at present, 17 United Nations peacekeeping missions throughout the world. NATO is involved in one, the one to which Senator Lanigan honourably referred. It is where NATO, in its humanitarian mode, dropped cluster bombs and anti-personnel devices carefully designed, coloured and coated so they would attract children. They used uranium enhanced warheads, no doubt to cope with housewives at the kitchen sinks. This is the monstrosity we are being walked into by advocates of Partnership for Peace.

It is not a partnership for peace but a partnership for plunder, a partnership for war. The only reason for joining is to sell American weapons into a new market and to prepare for warfare that is in the interests of the enormous business conglomerate that is the United States.

The Government tries to reassure everybody there is no reason for a referendum and there are no implications for neutrality, but there is no question of doubt that the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, when in Opposition, was right when he said in the Dáil – although at that stage the previous Government was making the same claim – that it would be seen by other countries as a gratuitous signal that Ireland is moving away from its neutrality and towards gradual co-operation in NATO and the Western European Union in due course. He said it is the thin edge of the wedge, which will be justified for all sorts of practical reasons, including to increase our alleged influence whereas we will have no influence on lying and slime-thinking, as junior or second partners, and the Taoiseach was 100% right.

I will tell the House what would give us some influence. If we were unique and the only State apart from Uzbekistan and the Vatican that was not a member of the Partnership for Peace, would that not concentrate the views of the world on us when we spoke? Would that not give us a moral position to which we could hold when we spoke out, as we have courageously done under the Minister for Foreign Affairs and under his predecessor on the subject of East Timor?

It is contemptible in the extreme to see East Timor invoked. How dare they do this? Do they not know who was involved in that? Do they not know Henry Kissinger gave the green light for the invasion and that Americans encouraged, incited and supported Suharto? A British administration trained the personnel in the Indonesian army and supplied them with arms. The French Government did the same and the Australians collaborated as hard as they could and violated every principle of international law in the Timor gap treaty.

Mr. Dardis

The Irish should not be there now.

Mr. Norris

No, the Irish should be there, but they should be there as part of NATO, and the Senator knows that. I know in his heart he feels they should be there as part of NATO. What is wrong with Partnership for Peace is that in the marginal areas in terms of the little cloak of respectability that it wears, the talk of the Petersberg Tasks and the Partnership for Peace ideal, it is undermining the United Nations. By doing those few things honorably and decently, which perhaps they might with our assistance, we are only further weakening the United Nations. We should be doing everything we possibly can to support the United Nations. This is being lead by Australia, and thank God they are there, but that is a very recent change.

In 1996 the Taoiseach, when in Opposition, said his party would regard any attempt to push Partnership for Peace or participation in Western European Union tasks by resolution through the Dáil without reference to the people, who under the Constitution have the right in final appeal to decide all questions of national policy, as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic. That is what the Taoiseach said on this subject three years ago and we have not heard a single reason advanced for a change in mind. I am not surprised the Minister of State is hanging his head in shame.

Why are we not having a referendum? Why are we not permitting the people to speak out if, as the Taoiseach said correctly, it is a requirement under our democratic process? In the same year, President Clinton said Partnership for Peace is a path to full NATO membership for some and a strong lasting link into the alliance for all. That is what he said, but perhaps he is ignorant or was kept in the dark.

Let us consider what some people, to whom we would normally pay tribute, say. We have a Christian Constitution, mar dhea, but during the Famine and the various difficulties and tragedies this country underwent, the Quakers were the only significant group to retain their honour. A statement from a yearly meeting of the Religious Society of Friends states that Ireland's yearly meeting assembled in Dublin from 8 to 11 April 1999 and brings its deep concern to the attention of the Government through the Minister for Foreign Affairs consistent with the society's long-standing peace testimony first formulated in 1661. It also states that the Friends support the position of the Government that Ireland remain outside NATO and strongly recommend that no action be taken to include Ireland in the NATO Partnership for Peace and certainly not without a full national discussion and referendum. The Government, however, does not want it.

Let us cast aside this tissue of lies and half truths and consider the real situation. Let me invoke two people who incontestably know what Partnership for Peace is about because they, in large part, were the architects of it. I am talking of William J. Perry, the United States Deputy Secretary of Defence from March 1993 to February 1994 who then became President Clinton's Secretary of Defence until his retirement in January 1997. The second man is Ashton Carter who was US Assistant Secretary of Defence for international security policies from 1993 to 1996. These two people recently published a book called US Preventive Defence. In this they make perfectly clear the role of Partnership for Peace. It states that the objectives of a renewed Partnership for Peace should be to make the experience of partnership as close as possible in practical military terms to the experience of membership in NATO. It also states that PfP combined exercises and other military to military activity should advance from the Partnership's early focus on peacekeeping and humanitarian operations to true combat operations and that these are the activities that engage military personnel at their professional core.

That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about some cosy little do-good club, we are talking about people, democrats from Clinton's wing – these are not rabid republicans – who say we are going to advance from peacekeeping to real, manly activities, blowing up children, poisoning the atmosphere and, if we are really lucky, if it is a good day and it keeps fine for us, perhaps the occasional nuclear explosion.

There is no doubt that peacekeeping and humanitarian approaches are the soft end of the operations. They are the thin edge of the wedge. Our friends across the ocean are perfectly open about that. We cannot pretend that we do not know as they have made it perfectly clear. This is the stuff of a much more sinister and more extensive process. The long-term direction of the process is to abolish the distinction between PfP and NATO and we will then all be neatly sucked into NATO. This is perfectly obvious. Why is the Government afraid to let the people have a debate on this? The people have been fed slogans about peace and goodwill to men. They will vote for virtue – everybody would. Hitler told the German people that gassing the Jews was a good idea, that it was healthy and was to be done for the welfare of the nation. We want to do everything that is good, but that kind of thing should not be tried on the Irish people. It is a shame and it is a reproach that the Government is attempting it.

I am glad a few people have stood out against it. I know there has been disquiet about this in Fianna Fáil. It is not a bloc. The vast majority of people in Fianna Fáil are decent people. The same is true of Fine Gael. I cannot understand its appetite for this nonsense. Its members cannot be aware of what is going on or if they are, they are very dangerous people.

Mr. Connor

More rubbish. That is nonsense.

Mr. Norris

I think they are. How can you possibly sell this stuff? I have said what the architects of it have said about it.

Mr. Connor

We do not hold the Deputy's gloom-laden view.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Norris – I mean Senator Connor – please desist.

Mr. Norris

He is welcome to my name. He has taken my right to vote. Will we be allowed a referendum? We are indebted to a small group of people in political life, such as Patricia McKenna, Roger Cole of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and Anthony Coughlan – I am almost afraid to mention his origins in Trinity College – for pointing out what is going on. Roger Cole made a speech recently during which he quoted an article written by NATO's assistant general secretary, Gebhardt von Moltke – I invite the House to notice his nice peace-loving name – in which he said the new Partnership for Peace is now "welded to the new NATO". The Taoiseach is welded to this operation of which I have tried to give a satisfactory definition.

We know the Government is making its own case by default and suggesting that PfP can be detached from NATO, but it cannot. Robert Hunter, the US Ambassador to NATO, stated in print that the enhanced PfP has made the difference between being a partner and an ally razor thin. We are well on the way to being included willy-nilly in a nuclear alliance. We are being walked into a situation which is being manipulated by the only surviving superpower, the United States of America, for its own tactical and economic reasons.

It is a shame and I regret that the Government has defrauded the people. Nobody can say it is not dishonest, particularly of Fianna Fáil because of what the Taoiseach said three years ago in the Dáil and the commitment it gave in its election manifesto. Without a tissue of an excuse and for its own pragmatic reasons, it has turned the situation on its head and refused to give the people the semblance of democracy, which tells me that it knows what will happen if it allows this matter to be ventilated outside the secure safety of these walls. There are few people here today and, therefore, I do not expect this debate will be reported, which is sad. We have not been given the opportunity to debate it as an issue during a referendum. The reason is the Government is afraid that once the people realise the confidence trick which has been played upon them, they will reject it.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy Flood, to the House. I disagree with practically everything Senator Norris said. I assume that on Sunday he, in common with many of us, remembered those who fell in the First World War. If some of the institutions we are talking about had existed earlier in the century that conflict would not have arisen. It is also unfair to describe officials in a Department as cynics or clowns. That should not be said.

On two occasions the Senator accused the Government of lying.

Mr. Norris

Yes.

Mr. Dardis

He gave us more misinformation and half truths in 20 minutes than several Governments have given us in the past four or five years.

Mr. Norris

Can the Senator itemise them? I am sure he made a list.

Mr. Dardis

Nothing the Minister or anyone else said during this debate amounts to lying. I welcome the decision of the Irish Parliament to join Partnership for Peace.

Mr. Norris

The Dáil is only half of the Irish Parliament.

Mr. Dardis

The Dáil is a democratically elected institution and it is in order for it to make such a decision. A constitutional amendment is not required to join Partnership for Peace. It has always been the position of the Progressive Democrats that it did not require a constitutional amendment or a referendum.

Mr. Norris

At least the Senator is consistent; I must give him that.

Mr. Dardis

What was talked about at the time was not technically a referendum but a plebiscite or a "preferendum". It has always been my belief that we should be in Partnership for Peace. It has been the consistent position of the Progressive Democrats since before the formation of the Government that there was no need for a referendum.

The Minister was correct when he said that Partnership for Peace is a voluntary, non-binding and co-operative security framework of co-operation between NATO and non-members of NATO. It is not correct to describe it as NATO-led, as is frequently done in some newspapers. Some 24 of the 43 members of PfP are not members of NATO and neutral countries, such as Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, are members of Partnership for Peace. I take a more optimistic view than that taken by Senator Norris. I agree with the Minister for Defence who said there is no conflict between participation in Partnership for Peace and our policy of military neutrality. Nobody is asking us to sacrifice that policy.

Partnership for Peace can be used positively for peacekeeping and the so-called Petersberg Tasks which we signed up to when we voted in favour of the Amsterdam Treaty. Our history since the foundation of the State and the formation of the Army has shown that we are capable of contributing positively to peace throughout the world and that we have a proud history of peacekeeping. That has been enunciated many times in this House. It is patronising to keep repeating the contribution the Army has made but it should be acknowledged. Our neutrality has helped in terms of bringing a certain authority to the missions we have carried out over the years and that is the way it should continue.

As regards a referendum, it has always been the position of the Progressive Democrats that a referendum was not required because an amendment to the Constitution was not required. I would not have had an objection if the question had been put to the people in a referendum. I agree with Senator Lanigan's view that the people wanted Partnership for Peace and the opinion polls support that. Even if that was not the case, we have a democratically elected Dáil which makes decisions on behalf of the people. It is abdicating its responsibilities if it walks away from those decisions.

As regards the Petersberg Tasks and the common foreign and security policy, if the European Union had a more coherent foreign and security policy and defence policy prior to what took place in the former Yugoslavia, that tragedy would have been dealt with more decisively and effectively. It is to the shame of the European Union that it could not intervene more directly and that it was left to the Americans, who have much less understanding and sympathy for the conditions in that area and generally, to do so. It was unfortunate the European Union did not have more authority and competence to intervene. The response in Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrates the value of Partnership for Peace.

One of the issues which frequently came up during the Amsterdam Treaty debate and subsequently was that this is all part of a movement that will bring us into a European army and Irish boys will be forced to go overseas and serve in that army. That cannot take place other than with our consent and by unanimity. Common defence cannot develop other than by unanimity. It seems to be forgotten that it is entirely in our own hands as to whether that decision would ever be made.

We had the situation where we had to rely on the Americans becoming involved. One of the points made to me by a military person, about which I had not thought, was that there is a very practical reason why the Americans almost invariably lead these forces. They are the only people who can mobilise with that strength and speed to get to these areas.

I note yesterday, and it is reported in today's papers, that there was a meeting for the first time of the EU Foreign and Defence Ministers in Brussels. One of the points that will be raised at the Helsinki Summit concerns a rapid reaction capability within Europe. It is reported in The Irish Times that, “The joint proposal which is likely to emerge formally from an Anglo-French summit in 10 days involves the EU member-states committing themselves to being able to deploy a multinational force within six weeks and setting up a mechanism for co-ordinating the various national components”. If that had existed at the time of the difficulties in Yugoslavia, the outcome might have been different.

The other important aspect to this is the opinion submitted by the EU's Political Committee which states inter alia that it recalls that Cologne “emphasised that the different status of the member states with regard to collective defence guarantees [that is, the neutrals] would not be affected by the implementation of these decisions”. We come back to the point that there is an effective veto, even by one state, which could be ourselves, in these matters and we do not have to participate in anything unless we voluntarily decide to do so.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, referred to the necessity to be able to react quickly regarding Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor. That was well demonstrated in all of those areas. He said Ireland would maintain what he called "moral neutrality ", which is a good phrase. Everything in our history, in terms of our record in peacekeeping and our general political record, indicates that we can exercise that moral neutrality. When we express an opinion, as was very forcefully done here by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, regarding East Timor, that opinion carries authority and is valuable.

The matter of peace enforcement was raised. It is worth recalling that this House sanctioned the gathering of a transport group to go to Somalia, which was part of peace enforcement. There are precedents in these Houses for going beyond peacekeeping and becoming involved in peace enforcement. That was one such case.

The Leader mentioned our hopes that there would be a very positive outcome to events taking place in Northern Ireland and a secure and permanent peace on this island. In that context it is worth recalling that there is a member of NATO only 100 miles up the road. There will be implications when it comes to the hard choices to be made when we have to engage much more directly at parliamentary level with our colleagues in Northern Ireland. It is worth recording that and referring to that.

Deputy O'Malley said in the other House that the decision to join Partnership for Peace was not a huge decision. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. He said it was a modest step in international co-operation and I agree. There was no treaty, there were no alliance decisions made and there were no obligations of mutual defence or assistance. We are being asked to become partners in a process which will involve us in peacekeeping and possibly in peace enforcement.

Senator Norris raised the issue of the United Nations which he seems to regard as somehow preferable to Partnership for Peace. Switzerland, which is a member of Partnership for Peace, did not join the United Nations because they thought the charter would involve them in possibly having international obligations thrust upon them. There are different perspectives on this matter and it is worth noting the Swiss view, particularly in a context where Switzerland votes on almost every conceivable topic. From what I understand of it, Partnership for Peace was not one of them. There was no particular difficulty about that.

The Government listed five items in the presentation document made for Partnership for Peace which were: 1 – co-operation on peacekeeping, 2 – humanitarian options, 3 – search and rescue, 4 – co-operation on the protection of the environment and 5 – co-operation on marine matters. Nobody could regard those as being excessively militaristic or belligerent in their nature. As Deputy O'Malley said, they are pretty harmless headings and the short presentation document could hardly ruffle a feather or raise an eyebrow in the most pacifist of Irish households. That was a correct analysis of the situation.

We all agree that Europe has made tremendous strides. I recall the genesis of the European movement and it is quite remarkable from an Irish perspective that people such as Adenauer, Spaak and Schuman, within only a few years of the cessation of a global war, joined together and decided to build an edifice that would ensure it would never happen again. That is the enduring monument to the European dream, to which we should wholeheartedly subscribe. There seems to be some diffidence or some reluctance to subscribe to that. The European dream has brought a diminution of narrow, Nationalist thinking. If the European dream were more widely embraced on this island, some of the difficulties with which we are trying to grapple regarding Northern Ireland would be more easily dealt with.

It is a remarkable monument to the founding fathers of the European Union that the peace has been sustained within Europe. Senator Lanigan is right in saying that there were more wars globally since the Second World War than there were in the whole history up to then. It is remarkable that the peace has been kept within Europe. That is their monument and they set out to ensure that what took place could not happen again. Hopefully they were right and that is why I am a European and why I subscribe to that European ideal. We cannot just sit on the fence in the hope that neutrality alone will achieve international peace and security. It is manifest that it will not. It has to be worked at. Peace has to be protected and worked on.

My final point concerns the Army, which has a very proud record. It is essential that it be given the resources to contribute fully to international peacekeeping and enforcement under the Petersberg Tasks when called upon. As I understand it, and I am open to correction on this, it was a very narrow squeak regarding our participation in Kosovo. We did not have the equipment which measured up to the standard required and but for the fact that we could get some of that equipment off the shelf, we would not have been able to participate in Kosovo. That is a very salutatory message, that the equipment available to the Army must be of a standard that allows it to participate in these forces.

I do not criticise the Army training, which is second to none, and which allows military personnel to participate very effectively in difficult circumstances in some of these areas. They have done so with distinction. However, they must also be provided with the equipment. The membership of Partnership for Peace opens up a whole new vista for the Army. It gives it a much greater sense of purpose and will be much more valuable in terms of the development of Army personnel and our international contribution. It must be able to react rapidly in the way envisaged at European level. Training is of the highest order. The United Nations training school at the Curragh has carved out a niche for itself and is operating with distinction. We have a large number of officers all over the world bringing great credit to their country by doing their job well. I hope the Army will be given the resources it needs to fulfil its remit and I look to the White Paper to be published shortly to endorse and build on this view. If the enemy was at the gate and Ireland was threatened externally I am sure we would be the first to cry for help and ask the European Union to come to our aid. We have received enough from the European Union. It is time we put something back in.

Mr. Connor

Much of what I wanted to say has been well said. One of the points that I wanted to make has just been made by Senator Dardis. It relates to those who cry wolf about NATO and anything to do with defence arrangements outside our borders. If this country was attacked they would be the first to shout at those of us involved in politics that we should do something about getting the United States of America or other European states to come to our assistance.

I am one of those who have always questioned the honesty of our so-called policy of neutrality. There is an attempt to explain it in the explanatory leaflet produced by the Government in May on Partnership for Peace as follows:

Irish military neutrality is a policy to which this Government is deeply attached. The Government does not intend to join mutual defence alliances such as NATO. Ireland, however, has never been ideologically neutral nor morally indifferent to the major international and security challenges of the day.

I am something of a student of the politics of the Cold War which lasted for 45 years from 1945 to about 1990, of which I have a coherent memory of at least 25 to 30 years. Whenever there was conflict in a newly independent African or Asian country there was immediate meddling by the great powers as they played out their interests. Much of the chaos in Africa today was born of this meddling. All of these conflicts were debated at the United Nations General Assembly.

In their early years of statehood Algeria, Nigeria and Tanzania under Nyerere were neutral but we did not have anything to do with them; we would have nothing to do with conferences in Bandung or Belgrade where true neutral countries met. Ireland's neutrality was about something else – it had something to do with our conflict, perceived or otherwise, with Britain, nothing else. To this day I have great difficulty in understanding the so-called military neutrality which we pursue in a world in which there is no longer great military conflict.

During the Cold War the countries of the world lined up with the two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, and their interests internationally. Wedged in the middle were the neutral and non-aligned countries, many of which used their neutrality for opportunistic reasons and played one great power off against the other. Others, however, were neutral on principle. Our record was not based on principle.

In the Congo in the early 1960s individuals such as Petrice Lumumba described themselves as Marxists while others such as Josef Kasavubu described themselves as pro-Western. There was great interest in the outcome of that conflict. On what side did this country find itself? It found itself on the side of so-called Western interests. That is how neutral we were and it was not a stance based on principle. We needed to ensure we aligned ourselves with the interests of the United States of America and the United Kingdom which armed one side to the conflict. There was tragedy after tragedy in the 1970s and 1980s when the great powers vied with each other and fought wars by proxy in countries such as Angola and Mozambique. That, however, is a side issue.

I fully welcome Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace. There is a changed order; a totally new security architecture surrounds us in Europe which has to be completed. Senator Lanigan is correct that since the end of the Cold War more people have been slaughtered and there have been more human rights violations in western and eastern Europe than in the 45 years of the Cold War with all its tension and brinksmanship. Partnership for Peace comprises 43 states which have come together voluntarily in a regional security organisation to ensure peace is kept and conflict avoided. Had we something like it in the early 1990s, using NATO and its matériel, we would not have had the awful tragedy in the former Yugoslavia. When peace breaks down and peacekeeping is not enough there is a need for peace enforcement. It was clearly shown that peacekeeping was not enough in the former Yugoslavia. What was needed was somebody to enforce and police the peace.

In Angola the tragedy was that the United Nations moved in after 18 years of civil war and negotiated a peace agreement between the three main factions under which elections would be held but it did not have the wherewithal to ensure the peace was kept. It withdrew after the elections were held in 1992 because it did not have a mandate to stay or a regional security organisation or neighbouring state to ensure the peace was kept with the result that there was an appalling continuation of the civil war in which tens of thousands were killed.

I always find Senator Norris amusing and what he has to say interesting. I very much regret, however, what he had to say today. It descended into a rant. He said that this country should keep away from the realities of the world around us, that we should not play a role in ensuring peace in the region of the world in which we live, that we have no responsibility for it, that there is something immoral about us thinking or contemplating being part of the peacekeeping and peace enforcing architecture needed in this region of the world.

East Timor has been mentioned. What could the United Nations do except use a regional power, Australia, which did not have a great reputation in relation to East Timor five or ten years ago, or even more recently? Nevertheless, when the United Nations needed a force to go into East Timor to ensure that the result of the democratically arrived at decision of the people of East Timor was upheld, they had to rely on the one force in the region that had the wherewithal to do it, that is, Australia. That is the essence of this debate.

If we here had tried, 12 years ago, to see into the future, could we have envisaged or contemplated, as we looked at what then appeared to be the monolith of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact countries, the United States and NATO, and all the NATO member states on the continent of Europe, that in ten years we would have an organisation, the PfP, headed up if not necessarily led by NATO, with all the countries of the former Soviet Union bar one, Tajikistan, as members, including Russia itself, and almost all the states of Europe that are not members of NATO? Of the 24 members of PfP today who are not NATO members, nine are applicants to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. That is because the fundamental purpose and meaning of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has changed. There are many people in politics in Russia, in Ukraine, in Georgia, who contemplate their country join ing NATO. There are no more enthusiastic applicants for membership of NATO than Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Those countries were the very bulwark of the Warsaw Pact ten years ago. That shows how much the world has changed. However, people like Senator Norris, I am sorry to say, do not recognise that that kind of change has taken place.

I am particularly proud that, of all the political parties in the Oireachtas, my party always had a very clear policy and approach to this. We took the initiative in 1997 to state a party policy that this country should join PfP. No other political party had put it in such bold terms until then. I grant that it was all presaged in the Government White Paper on Foreign Policy which was published in 1996. We saw the principles of PfP as being in keeping with our own tradition of peacekeeping. It clearly set out the policy of the Government and, although it had not been decided, it would no doubt have been decided in the fullness of time that we should join PfP. The election resulted in a change of Government, but the policy document published by our Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Deputy Gay Mitchell, set the agenda. We were the first party to advocate joining. That put it up to Fianna Fáil. I am delighted and I do not criticise the Minister for making the full U-turn. I believe the Minister's policy on PfP proceeded from his party's former spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Ray Burke, who is hardly referred to any more. I listened to some of the more extraordinary things that man used to say at the Foreign Affairs committee, and it took courage for the Minister to make an absolute U-turn on this and face his critics and some angry and sometimes rather nasty editorials about it. That is politics. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the Minister has done what he has done rather than sticking to the traditional policy which had its roots in Fianna Fáil's foolishness about Irish neutrality, putting it forward as something it never really was and trying for a long time to give substance to something that was essentially a fiction and, I am sorry to have to say, a dishonest fiction.

I am very sorry that this House was not given the opportunity to discuss this issue in the way the other House was. It was a proper motion in the Dáil to be voted upon and decided by the Dáil. At the end of the day, the Dáil decided what we were going to do. I am delighted the Dáil voted as it did. I cannot see why we had statements here today with no vote. That shows disrespect for this House.

Mr. Lydon

I am not opposed to our joining Partnership for Peace. I do not believe it will affect our neutrality. I have always thought our neutrality was a rather nebulous concept. During World War II, I thought that, as promulgated by de Valera at that time, it was wisely thought out. Since then we have not really been neutral in the strict sense but have always taken the Western approach.

It is not quite true to say that joining Partnership for Peace will have no effect. I would like to bring a bit of honesty to the debate. Let me quote from the explanatory guide, Ireland and the Partnership for Peace, produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs. At paragraph 6 of the introduction it is stated: ". . . membership of PfP does not involve membership of NATO, assumption of any mutual defence commitments. . . " Of course it does not involve joining NATO. However, it does involve other things. Every state is expected to sign the PfP Framework Document of January 1994. That document says a number of things of which we should be aware. It says, for example, in paragraph 3 of Annex 3, that states subscribing to this document will co-operate with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in pursuing certain objectives, including:

(d)the development of co-operative military relations with NATO, for the purpose of joint planning, training, and exercises in order to strengthen their ability to undertake missions in the fields of peacekeeping, search and rescue, humanitarian operations, and others as may subsequently be agreed;

(e)the development, over the long term, of forces that are better able to operate with those of the members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

It is there in black and white. We are going to co-operate with NATO in a major way. We are going to co-operate with the military. In paragraph 7 it says:

In keeping with their commitment to the objectives of this Partnership for Peace, the members of the North Atlantic Alliance will:

–promote military and political co-ordination at NATO Headquarters in order to provide direction and guidance relevant to Partnership activities with the other subscribing states, including planning, training, exercises and the development of doctrine.

What is that development of doctrine? Is this the doctrine of expansion? Is it a type of Thatcherite or Reaganite doctrine of global expansion? That is really what is involved in this type of exercise. I will come back in a minute to what I would like to see happen. The response issued in Brussels on 10 and 11 January, 1994 by the Heads of State and Government to this Partnership for Peace invitation has some interesting statements as well – again, all these are in the booklet issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs:

Active participation in the Partnership for Peace will play an important role in the evolutionary process of the expansion of NATO.

The Partnership for Peace, which will operate under the authority of the North Atlantic Council, will forge new security relationships between the North Atlantic Alliance and its Partners for Peace. Partner states will be invited by the North Atlantic Council to participate in political and military bodies at NATO Headquarters with respect to Partnership activities.

We are going to appoint an ambassador, if we have not done so already. It goes on to say:

To co-ordinate joint military activities within the Partnership, we will invite states participating in the Partnership to send permanent liaison officers to NATO Headquarters and a separate Partnership Coordination Cell at Mons (Belgium) that would, under the authority of the North Atlantic Council, carry out the military planning necessary to implement the Partnership programmes.

We are joining a large military organisation. Will it involve us in joint exercises with NATO? Of course it will. Will NATO forces be permitted to train on Irish soil? They will if they want to because, as the Minister said in his contribution, we are providing a UN training school at the Curragh, language laboratory resources, infrastructures and limited training. What about our participation in NATO exercises? NATO uses nuclear weapons. Will our policy of non-nuclear proliferation be compromised? I believe it will. Will we have to upgrade our weaponry to NATO standards? We will, and PDFORRA estimates that will cost approximately £200 million over four years, while other estimates run into billions of pounds. Will our joining PfP strengthen NATO? It will, but what does that mean? It means supporting a huge military arm of an industrial military complex which is run by the United States but in which Britain, France and one or two other countries play a major role. That is what we are contributing to in some way or other.

Let us be under no illusion about this matter. If we join Partnership for Peace we will not be marrying NATO, but I have no doubt we will be living in sin. We should be honest about what we intend to do.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Doyle)

I never thought the Senator would encourage living in sin.

Mr. Lydon

I am not encouraging it. I am simply saying this is what will happen, and it should be clearly stated.

The industrial military complex is a huge industry, probably the largest in the world next to tourism, pornography and drugs. That is a sad state of affairs. I realise we have to have a military defence system in Europe, and I will deal with that if I have time, but the hypocrisy surrounding this type of reasoning is appalling. While it is involved in the negotiations on East Timor, the United Kingdom is in secret arms deals with Indonesia. In the Las Malvinas conflict, the French were selling Exocet missiles to the Argentinians to shoot at the French allies, the British. Two peaceful nations, Holland and Sweden, supply land mines and export weapons throughout the world. That is sad.

As we all know, the main player in NATO is the United States. I want to refer to a US Defence document, produced in 1996, which was quoted in the other House. It states:

Confronting concerns about its political relevance in the post Cold War era, NATO has reaffirmed its place at the core of trans-Atlantic security through its sponsorship of PfP. NATO's international staff work daily to help partners develop standard operating procedures, understand the protocols of consultation and achieve inter-operability with NATO forces. PfP has evolved quickly from a bare concept to an active association of military and defence institutions.

Why do I support Partnership for Peace? I hope we might move away from NATO into a defence system of the European Union as called for in the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. We have to develop a common foreign and security policy in Europe, which is called for under these treaties. We have to develop a European army which should be used for defensive purposes only, but let us be realistic. We cannot stop this army being formed and we will probably have to be part of it because of the treaties, but I would like Ireland to move away from NATO because NATO, being a strong nuclear force, does not always have a United Nations mandate and does not always have regard to humanitarian concerns. In Kosovo, NATO discriminately bombed civilian targets and I do not want to be part of an organisation that does that.

Minor wars are generated by US policy to use up arms. After the Gulf War, the United States had used up all its arms. The production of arms creates jobs and generates enormous amounts of money for a small number of individuals. These people, who participated in the Bildeberg Conference – that is not often stated – rule the world. We have little power but we have some moral standing and I would like us to keep that. That is the reason I am wary of what is happening.

Many of the people who support this move do not realise what we are getting into. As the Minister said in his contribution, when Partnership for Peace was launched in 1994 by President Clinton, it was seen primarily as a means of reaching out and reassuring the new democracies in eastern Europe. That is true. They did not want to become again part of Russia. The US also had an eye on the vast resources of the eastern European nations and wanted to bring them under American control. I would like to see those nations joining Europe and remaining under European control. In the future the European Union will be a powerful force. I would not like to see it used for destructive purposes or to attack other nations under the guise of peacekeeping, as frequently happens. The United Nations and the United States have acted unilaterally on occasions. One can think of the invasion of Grenada and other examples.

Why are we joining Partnership for Peace? With regard to the peace process in the Six Counties, it is important to realise that, as part of the United Kingdom, the Six Counties are part of NATO, and are likely to remain so. In the harmonisation that will occur in a united Ireland, we will be called upon to join PfP and then NATO. I have no objection to joining PfP, but I want Ireland to join a European defence army, not a NATO-US led army. I am not criticising the US per se because each of the countries which manufactures arms is as much to blame as any other country. The US looks after its own interests very well and, as I have said here before, when the chips are down we call Uncle Sam, but we can do that while remaining honest and highlighting what is happening in the world. We are tiny players. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is trying to get Ireland a seat on the Security Council where we may be able to influence, to a minor degree, some of the decisions. I see no reason, in this post Cold War era, for some of the countries on the Security Council retaining their permanent veto.

We are joining Partnership for Peace, but let us not pretend that it is not a pup of NATO. Let us not pretend that we are not contributing to the enhancement of NATO or to US foreign policy. I am not sure if we can remain aloof from all of this but if, having joined PfP, we encourage the other members of the European Union to develop an EU strategy for defence and foreign policy, we may be going down a better road.

Dr. Henry

I wish to share my time with Senator Costello.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry

After that thoughtful contribution by Senator Lydon, I have only a few words to say. Without doubt we are, probably by drift rather than decision-making, becoming involved in an organisation which, while it was set up to reassure those in eastern Europe and to draw Russia into the fold, is certainly closely associated with NATO. We should admit that.

We have a long and honourable history with the United Nations of policing areas of conflict. We have had general public support in this but the lack of general public debate on our joining Partnership for Peace has been unfortunate. I commend those such as Roger Cole, mentioned by Senator Norris, who have tried to bring forward public debate because, as I said, it is more by drift than decision-making that we have got into this area. The problem will be that we will have to live with whatever general decisions are made, in which our influence will be limited. We can say that we will have a voice in the debates whereas before we were speaking from outside. Reading this document which was produced by the Institute of European Affairs, The Security of Europe – Actors and Issues, edited by Jill Donoghue and Patrick Keatinge, we will be small among the actors. There are major players involved in this organisation, as Senator Lydon pointed out, not least important of which are the major industrial companies which are arms manufacturers. When one looks at the results of conflicts in which predecessors to Partnership for Peace have become involved in Europe, Bosnia and Kosovo, it is very difficult to say that there has been a satisfactory outcome.

We speak with great regret about the loss of 3,000 or more lives in Northern Ireland in the course of 30 years, but when one considers the loss of 7,000 to 8,000 lives south of Ljubljana in three or four days early in the Yugoslavian conflict, one realises what can happen when there are no forces to keep these warring factions apart. This is one issue that has been put forward as a recommendation for our joining Partnership for Peace, that we would be helping to deal with these hard cases. I realise it was NATO that dealt with the Kosovan crisis, mainly to ensure that NATO lives were not lost and with little regard for the domestic population of Kosovo, who suffered dearly from the bombing campaign which was sustained for over a month, while those on the ground had to put up with whatever treatment the Serbs gave them.

In The Security of Europe, an essay by Patrick Keatinge of Trinity College on Ireland and European security, he states:

International "crisis management", that is, collective intervention by outsiders in order to mitigate or resolve violent conflicts of this sort [that is, of the Yugoslavian sort] is never easy. Legitimacy and legal authority have to be sought in the context of two diverging principles – the traditional right of sovereign states to do as they please within their borders and the more recent notion that the "international community" has the right to intervene where human rights are at stake. The "international community"– at best a vague approximation of a minimal collective will, at worst a self-elected posse – must be mobilised, mandated, resourced and led. Tensions between valid goals must be resolved: is priority to be given to containing the conflict; to sustaining the intervening coalition's own cohesion; to providing immediate humanitarian relief; to mediating from a position of deliberate impartiality; to enforcing the claims of one party in the interests of a just outcome?

I look forward very much to seeing how we will deal with these questions when the next conflict arises.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the opportunity of discussing the issue of Ireland, as a nation, joining Partnership for Peace and I welcome the Minister to the House. Senator Lydon referred to the dangers of the present path we are treading. He did not, however, refer to the reason we are on that path, how we came to be here and the slippery slope we have trod in the recent past. It has been emphasised but I will mention again that the Fianna Fáil election manifesto in June 1997 was very specific that Fianna Fáil would oppose Irish participation in NATO-led organisations such as Partnership for Peace. That was a categorical statement. In the previous year the Taoiseach went further in what was almost a rant of a speech when he dealt with the White Paper on Foreign Policy, describing participation as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic. These were his references.

The Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil made a commitment at that time that the people would be consulted on the issue, that there would be a referendum. We are aware that a referendum is not constitutionally necessary, nevertheless a solemn promise was given that there would be national consultation before any decision was taken on Partnership for Peace and that promise has been broken. That promise was made in the context of the last election when Fianna Fáil was seeking to buy votes by putting forward a position which it felt would be attractive to the electorate. As we know from a poll conducted by MRBI in May of this year and other polls, an overwhelming majority of the people wanted a vote on the matter. They wanted to be consulted, to have a say and be able to articulate their position on the matter.

The Minister said in his speech that there has been, as he put it, a public debate. He said, "I cannot accept the suggestion that the public debate has been unsatisfactory or incomplete." The Minister knows well that there has been no public debate. The Government did not lead any debate on this issue. It did its best to ensure that it was not on any agenda. We have been waiting for months to get this debate on the agenda in this House and it is an absolute scandal that all we got are statements on Partnership for Peace. Even we as legislators in the second House of the Oireachtas are not allowed to vote on Partnership for Peace. There is no resolution before us, we are not being consulted. We are being allowed, like lap-dogs, to discuss the matter after the deed is done; post factum we are consulted. That is an insult to this House. I know it is not the Minister's fault, but we on this side of the House have been calling week after week, month after month for a debate on this issue. We wanted the debate before a decision was taken in the Dáil. We wanted the debate in the context of a resolution before the House so that we, as Senators, could vote for or against it, but we did not get that opportunity. We are debating the matter, but it is a toothless debate.

The Minister stated in his speech, "The Government has changed its mind on the promise of a referendum to consult the people of this country", but that is not good enough. We admit that we can change our minds in the light of new facts and changed circumstances.

Has the Minister outlined to the House one fact or new circumstance since that solemn commitment was given before the election of 1997? The answer is no. The one factor which runs through the Government's position is the assertion that the people would be consulted and that it would be fundamentally undemocratic not to do so. However, the Government has performed a U-turn. It wanted to buy votes by taking what was seen as an acceptable stance by the people. However, it has changed its mind because it does not need votes. It is putting the issue before the Dáil and leaving it at that. This is not good enough. It is cynical politics and is very dangerous in terms of how decisions are made by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Minister said that there is no question of Ireland joining NATO, a position reiterated time and again by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews. However, the Minister also referred to misconceptions about this issue in his statement. He stated, "It is not true that participation in PfP entails acceptance of nuclear deterrence." Of course it entails acceptance of nuclear deterrence. Most NATO members have a nuclear capacity. We do not use nuclear power but we are associating ourselves with those countries which do. We are not going to be asked to take the bomb but we will do so in terms of the action that is taken.

The Minister also stated that membership of PfP is in no way "contrary to Ireland's involvement in UN peacekeeping". This is true, but should we not be enhancing UN peacekeeping under a UN mandate? He also stated that Ireland would not be obliged to participate in military exercises. The Army is champing at the bit to participate in such exercises with NATO and the chief of staff made some questionable remarks in this respect. The Minister further stated that any involvement in peacekeeping or peace enforcement is voluntary and subject to Dáil decision. This is so, but the Minister has already stated that the reason the Dáil is making the decision to join PfP is that the Government changed its mind. There is nothing to stop Fianna Fáil asking us to go a step further as regards NATO. Fine Gael inserted an amendment into the resolution put to the Dáil that any further agreement with NATO would be subject to a further decision of the Dáil. This is already the case in that any arrangement between a country and NATO is subject to a review every three years. That could easily happen here.

I looked at events yesterday with some degree of sympathy where the Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs met their European counterparts for the first time to look at a way forward. They appointed Javier Solana, former EU foreign and security policy co-ordinator, as the new head of the Western European Union. However, most observers missed the decision to set up new security structures within the EU to create the Union's own peacekeeping and crisis management capability. It is interesting that this step has been taken. This will be a rapid reaction capability comprising 40,000 troops. This initiative came from the British and French Governments, but should it not have come from us?

The US has owed $1.7 billion to the UN since the early 1980s. I am glad it has decided to honour its commitment and pay $926 million over the next three years. It is time the US fulfilled its responsibilities in ensuring that the UN is properly financed. Ireland is owed some of this money and this is one way of boosting the UN, the desirable world policeman to which we should all subscribe.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

I welcome this debate which has been sought by a number of Senators over the past few weeks. The purpose of the debate is to elicit as much information as possible and to respond to the public debate on PfP. It is a sign of our maturity that we do not take on board a new concept, requirement or term without being fully aware of what it involves and what it means for this and future generations. People do not want to talk much about posterity, but it is important to remember that decisions of this kind have far-reaching consequences and will impact on future generations.

All Members value the concept of neutrality which has stood us well through the years. Neutrality was not a matter of shirking our responsibilities but was the wish of the people. We upheld our neutrality at times when it was particularly difficult to do so and former leaders of the State showed courage and tenacity in doing so. I pay tribute to the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, for his stance on the Falklands War. By taking an independent stand against a large degree of pressure and, to some extent, almost intimidation, he decided that Ireland would go it alone. I have previously referred to this as one of the greatest manifestations of sovereignty by this State since independence.

Fears expressed about PfP stem from the fact that people may see it as a military alliance. It is clear that this is not the case and it is not right to provoke fears for the sake of it. Ireland has a prominent status in international affairs. We have always shown ourselves to be adept and to exercise panache in assessing situations. On the one hand we are able to look after the requirements of our own people while also taking into account our international obligations. Much of the legislation which came before the House in recent years responded to our international obligations, and to some extent PfP falls into that category.

On our television screens we have all seen recent international flashpoints where tyrannical pressures are exerted on vulnerable and helpless people. These people are left without food, a home or hope and their lives have been turned upside down. The first question one asks is, "Who is going to help these people?" We always felt that someone would help them, but we did not envisage that it would be us who would do so. We always felt we could call on somebody to help in such a situation and that people would be given hope simply because there was an international focus on their plight. There were times I thought the international community was particularly slow in responding and when I felt there had to be a monetary or material reason or investment interest before the US or other countries got involved. I felt these countries sometimes only acted because there was an international outcry. On other occasions the international community acted very quickly. Ireland has a particularly proud history in conflict prevention, humanitarian action and peacekeeping which goes back to 1958. We are talking about half a century of involvement in international peacekeeping with Irish soldiers putting their lives on the line. We had nothing to gain from such peacekeeping – we had no monetary interest whatsoever. We did it because we felt we should do it.

There were even times I felt it was a great pity we could not call on international invention in the context of our own problem in Northern Ireland when we saw communities tearing themselves apart and some of the most terrible atrocities that could ever be experienced, so much so that one wanted to turn off the radio or switch off one's mind so as not to have to come to grips with what was happening. I often wondered to whom we could turn and if something could be done. It was because the situation was not internationalised that it was not possible for us to benefit in that way. We saw what happened when the Northern problem was internationalised in a diplomatic sense and President Clinton, Tony Blair, the European Parliament and others rowed in behind the Good Friday Agreement. It was not a matter of brute force or sanctions but of goodwill and respect for the fact that we are part of an international community. If that is true in a diplomatic sense then there must be a concept of international policing – I use the term policing very advisedly. Otherwise the weak will suffer and the strong could become more tyrannical.

I think we should go beyond making our contribution to peacekeeping throughout the world and playing a fairly major part in debates and contributing our own comments. It is particularly important that we have a voice in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, for example. Otherwise making points here would amount to megaphone diplomacy as we would be listening to ourselves or be only regarded as hurlers on the ditch. On the other hand if we are part of Partnership for Peace and if we have a particular viewpoint we will be able to express it.

If somebody forecast 30 years ago that Ireland would one day hold the Presidency of the EU and deliver our responsibility in a professional manner, people would say we were day dreaming. However, it happened and could not have done so had we not become an integrated part of the European Community. I heard many fears expressed during the debate on membership of the EEC, and it is possible that I expressed some of them, that we would lose our identity, that we would be coerced into making decisions we did not want to make, etc. Yet we have found that, if anything, our national identity has strengthened as a result of being part of that European partnership. We have had the opportunity to express our views on European policies. Perhaps there have been times when we did not like some of them. We benefited particularly from the developments which are taking place.

To an extent it is a natural progression to have a formalised approach to peacekeeping. Some refer to joint training as military exercises while others refer to it merely as combined training. Such training ensures that when peacekeepers are required they are familiar with each others routines and with the requirements of each unit which provides back-up to peacekeeping operations. We are not tied into an extensive commitment – nowhere does it say we must do a, b or c. Each member state can choose the nature and scope of its involvement in Partnership for Peace. Often in a heated or less informed debate the fact that we still have control of our destiny is not considered. Being able to choose the nature and scope of our involvement means we will do it in keeping with the principle of neutrality which we uphold while at the same time keeping our obligations in mind.

We cannot ignore the fact that every member of the EU is a member of PfP. Each member state analysed the situation and decided it was right for them to join the partnership. If we are in partnership with them in an economic sense, it makes sense in terms of ensuring peace prevails, conflict is avoided and humanitarian issues have a high priority, that we should be part of it and making our case. As I understand it there are 43 members of Partnership for Peace, 24 of which are not members of NATO. In this context one must ask those who say it is a backdoor to NATO, how it is that more than half the members of PfP are not NATO members? At the same time many states who are members of PfP adhere to the principle of neutrality, namely, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and others. I know the communities in those countries do not want to deviate in any way from their neutrality. However, they are quite happy to be members of Partnership for Peace. Therefore, if nothing else, there is safety in numbers in terms of upholding the principle of neutrality.

The world is changing, barriers are coming down and territorial limits as we understood them in the past are changing. We have seen this in terms of the European Community and in many other fora and we must prepare for these changes.

I emphasise that the principle of neutrality is being upheld. This is what the people want and we must adhere to it. There has been a pretty good debate on the issue. Many of the questions have been answered and I do not think many people could disagree with the answers we have received. It would be wrong for Ireland to opt out simply because of a suspicion or to show that we are in some way insular. In fairness we are not insular. Of all people, there has been more mobility in terms of the Irish race than with any other race. For that reason we cannot be seen as a people who tend to keep to ourselves. We have gone abroad and influenced other nations in many ways. There is no reason why we cannot influence Partnership for Peace by being part of the discussions and implementation. In a sense it would take from our international status, show an element of an inferiority complex and an unnecessary fear and, perhaps, be almost selfish not to respond to our opportunity of making a contribution.

There has been a good debate inside and outside the House. I do not hear any major rumblings in the community. People realise the intention of Partnership for Peace and at the same time feel Ireland can make a contribution based on our record in peacekeeping since 1958.

Mr. J. Doyle

I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a brief comment on this important issue. The title Partnership for Peace is apt, even if its contents are not immediately obvious to the layman's casual inspection. This is no excuse for the reckless tactics which some opponents of PfP have utilised, some of which have been evident today. I have not heard any Member of the Green Party suggest that Partnership for Peace endangers our much threatened snails, but this is the only scare tactic they have failed to invent on this issue.

The claim by opponents that membership of PfP is somehow akin to joining NATO and will therefore damage our international reputation is particularly disreputable. We have a proud record of action on behalf of the UN which is recognised in many fora throughout the world. That will not be jeopardised by our joining Partnership for Peace because PfP is an important initiative taken in 1994 to reflect the new situation which has prevailed since the end of the Cold War. PfP was launched at the NATO Summit held in Brussels in 1994. It set out to be a co-operative security initiative designed to intensify political and military co-operation in Europe, promote stability, reduce threats to peace and build strengthened relationships by promoting practical co-operation among its participants. I have difficulty understanding how anyone in his or her right mind could be opposed to Ireland joining PfP, given its aim and design. It is true that PfP is related to NATO but for too long we tried to pretend either that NATO did not exist or, more recently, that it would go away at the end of the Cold War. The reality is that ten years after the fall of the Iron curtain NATO exists and we must live with it whether we like it or not. In crisis areas such as Bosnia, Kosovo and the Middle East NATO's involvement has been decisive. In promoting international legitimacy we ensure that NATO missions, such as those in Bosnia, are carried out under the auspices of IFOR in consultation with the United Nations.

One of the most valuable issues raised in this debate is how we want to situate Ireland's foreign policy in relation to that of our European neighbours. I am glad my party, Fine Gael, has set the agenda on this issue under its foreign affairs spokesperson Deputy Gay Mitchell. We would do well to remember that Ireland has always been an integral part – and for almost two centuries in the early Middle Ages was a cardinal part – of Western Europe. Its values, though we and our neighbours often fail to practise what we preach, are our values too. By stating this I am not implying a hostility towards more distant peoples or indifference to the UN – far from it. I simply question the quality of our commitment as a member of the enlarged European family.

Ireland seems more at home when acting under the flag of the UN, but if we look carefully at recent developments within the UN's structure we will see that it is beginning to lean more heavily on regional institutions. This regionalisation process reflects the fact that the UN is in dire need of reform, particularly at Security Council level which still reflects the world of 1945, not that of 1999. Today, as part of the wider European family, we must acknowledge and recognise that we live in the shelter of our near partners and that we have a duty to contribute to family solidarity and share the burdens of solidarity and security. The principle that should guide our approach to European security and defence is that articulated by the late John Kelly, that we should be willing to help those from whose sacrifices we ourselves cannot help benefiting.

Common foreign and security policies have been developed by the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. It would appear from looking at the initiatives coming from President Prodi's office that there will be another intergovernmental conference that will conclude in 2002 or 2003. It would be unworthy of this Republic to shirk its moral duty to its European neighbours in further developing a common European foreign and security policy while at the same time persuading ourselves that we will always enjoy a moral influence with them or the world at large. If we do not wake up to our responsibilities we will end up like the snails the Green Party is so keen to protect, isolated in their shells.

Mr. Mooney

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I cannnot help but reflect on what previous speakers have said, especially my friend and colleague, Senator Joe Doyle, when he spoke about the misinformation and misperceptions that have been spread. Sometimes I wonder if I am living in the same country when I hear the criticisms that have been levelled in matters of foreign policy or at the positions that have been taken by people. However, I unreservedly accept that Members are sincere in what they say.

Like a number of my colleagues, I am fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to meet other European parliamentarians through serving on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. These meetings give a different perspective. As someone who emigrated as a teenager and spent most of his formative years outside of Ireland, I have always held the view that we have a certain insularity when it comes to matters of international import. This attitude goes against our history. If I were to suggest that Ireland has a military tradition I might be pilloried by those who would say I am encouraging warmongering, but I have often reflected on one of the great "what ifs" of history. If we had developed our own sovereign nation instead of being invaded and held captive for 800 years as colonial subjects, would we have developed a military and foreign policy capacity that would have been totally independent of Great Britain and other parts of Europe? Many of the great adventurers, people who fought, sailed and travelled under the British flag, came from Ireland. I am of the opinion that we would have developed a separate ethos.

In the context of Partnership for Peace I am amazed that a veil has been drawn over history. Neutrality in World War II is usually trotted out as the best argument for keeping our hands off any involvement in alliances which smack of militarism. Yet if we look at the history of World War II, the decision on neutrality was taken on pragmatic grounds, not ideological ones. It was taken for the simple reason that we would not have lasted five minutes had we been invaded. We did not have a strongly resourced Army, although we had a competent group of people. It is sometimes forgotten that Ireland had a home guard through the local defence force in which many ordinary Irish men and women took part day and night, ready to defend Ireland in the event of an invasion. Our neutrality was pragmatic and was confirmed by the decision taken by the then Minister for External Affairs, the late Seán McBride, to decline the invitation to join NATO in 1949. Students of political history will know that the then Government was made up of disparate forces. It consisted of representatives of the dominant party, the Fine Gael Party, and that party provided a Taoiseach. There was also a strong radical republicanism represented by the late Dr. McBride. On behalf of the Government Dr. McBride turned down the invitation to join NATO, not because he had an anti-militarist streak but because British forces occupied a portion of this island. If the Republic of Ireland joined NATO we would have had to sit alongside British troops. This was unacceptable in the political atmosphere then. It is ironic that Irish and British troops have since worked alongside each other in various global hot spots, for example Cyprus and the Yugoslav/Balkan crisis. At the time the decision was not taken for ideological reasons. We might have been members of NATO if we had been a 32 county republic. People who talk about Ireland not getting involved in military alliances should refer to their history books.

There is another aspect of the PfP debate on which I tend to agree, to an extent, with previous speakers. The political system failed to generate sufficient debate on this matter. This applies not just to the Government but to all parliamentarians. However, I wonder if it would have made a great difference if enormous sums of money had been spent on a national information campaign. Sadly, in my experience as a Member of the Oireachtas since 1987, foreign policy issues have not loomed large in the basic concerns of a Deputy – this is more applicable to Deputies than Senators because of their different constituencies. Ask any colleague in the Lower House how many questions on foreign policy matters they get at their weekly clinics and how many questions they are asked on housing, social welfare or the other issues that face people each day. The split would be at least 99% to 1%.

The debate on PfP has been ongoing for about 18 months. It was astonishing – although at this stage I should not be astonished – to listen yesterday to Myles Dungan's radio programme "Five Seven Live", one of the more important current affairs programmes. A vox pop was carried out by one of the reporters who stopped people at random on the street to ask them about Partnership for Peace. Goodness knows how many people were asked but the replies of six respondents were relayed on air and five of them knew nothing about it. They did not even know what PfP meant or what it was. People have been criticising the Government and the political system for not having a wider debate. While I agree in principle with wide debate, I have now reached the conclusion that because foreign policy matters are not discussed in great detail here, it is not something to which people attach importance.

That reality is sad. In fact, it is bordering on dangerous and silly. Ireland plays an active role in international relations and we will play an enhanced role as a result of our membership of PfP. The Cologne summit, the Maastricht Treaty and the declarations since 1992 are moving us inexorably towards a common defence and foreign policy and it is vital that Ireland be part of it.

I have long believed that Ireland has been too isolated from the mainstream European debate on military and common defence matters. That is not to suggest it should be a member of a military alliance. I do not believe that NATO is the future. Like my colleague, Senator Lanigan, I had the opportunity to debate this issue with NATO ambassadors in an unprecedented debate last year at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I asked them about the future of NATO and what its role would be in the European context. Increasingly, in the post-Cold War era, we are moving to a position where regional conflicts will have to be settled on a regional basis. PfP appears to be part of the architecture for that future, along with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO and the Western European Union. These institutions, at one level or another, criss-cross each other and as we evolve a common foreign position, it is inevitable that we will reach a point where Europe will have to try to solve its own problems.

We heard a great deal about the arms race, how we are small players and how this is a conspiracy to ensure more money is spent on defence. The western European countries combined only spent 40% of the NATO total defence budget. The German Government has not cut its defence budget in real terms. Austria, which is non-aligned like Ireland, currently spends less on defence than on the opera, and rightly so. While the Western European Union has called for the right to use NATO assets, the Americans complain about Europe's failure to carry a fairer burden of the cost of collective security. Western European Union members, combined, currently spend $170 billion per annum. It appears to be a huge amount of money but the US spends $270 billion on the defence of Europe. Underspending on defence is one factor in the Europe-US relationship. Military credibility is the other issue.

Much has been said in this and previous debates by those who oppose Ireland taking its proper role in European common defence and foreign policy positions. They should be either for or against it, they cannot just sit on the fence. The United States provided 80 per cent of the aircraft used in the recent Kosovo campaign. The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, described this as "embarrassing". The Washington Post, a credible US newspaper, was more blunt saying that it would take the Europeans two decades to catch up with the Americans “even if they had the money and the will to spend it”. So much for the talk about an arms race and Ireland being sucked into a grand conspiracy about which we know nothing and over which we have little control.

Generally, European countries oppose federal armies. They do not want a common European army because they wish to retain the right of national parliaments to decide on defence matters. None opposes it more than our near neighbour, the United Kingdom, which is resolutely opposed to what it sees as further diminution of its sovereignty in two key areas, budget and defence. France is much the same. For decades France remained outside the military command structure of NATO even though it was part of NATO. It wanted to retain a Gaullist independence in matters that were important to France's interests.

All the talk about another conspiracy, a more subtle one, among our European partners to suck little innocent Ireland in like a lamb to the slaughter is ludicrous. Unfortunately, however, it appears to have taken hold among certain elements of Irish society. If this debate does nothing more than clear away the smoke that has built up about this subject, we will have done a good day's work.

Undoubtedly, Members who support Ireland's involvement in PfP will be accused of being warmongers and militarists and of wanting to have the bodies of Irish soldiers being returned in body bags on a regular basis. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Irish nation took the historic decision in 1972 to return to the European mainstream after a 1,000 year absence – that we benefited from it is self-evident – we cannot continue to adopt an à la carte attitude to European issues. If a regional conflict breaks out in Europe, we have a moral and practical obligation to ensure we are part of the debate on solving it. We will bring to that debate our non-aligned status and an honoured peacekeeping tradition which is unique in the western world. A European told me recently that whenever there is a difficulty in the world or wherever the European Union has a difficulty in a military context, it will inevitably send Ireland there because Ireland has no baggage. That has not changed under PfP.

There is a group of people in Ireland who are sincere in their views but are misguided if not mischievous, as Senator Joe Doyle said. I wish they could be taken on. I would be willing to debate the issues with these people anytime and anywhere, as would any Member who spoke in support of PfP in this debate.

I visited Slovenia, a candidate for accession to the European Union, twice in the past six weeks. Slovenia has a population of 2 million and has a similar history and topography to Ireland. As a result of the Taoiseach's recent visits there, we consider it a potential ally in an enlarged European Union. A main plank of Slovenia's foreign policy is that it wants to join Partnership for Peace, but it also wants to go further and join NATO. It perceives that NATO will bring stability and ensure its future security. While Ireland has a different perspective, we are part of the same Continent and we must co-operate on matters of foreign policy and military matters that affect Europe.

I wish the Government well on the wise decision it has made on this matter. I compliment the Opposition on having the pragmatism and foresight to support the Government. I have no doubt it will benefit the country in the long term.

An Cathaoirleach

That concludes the statements. When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Mooney

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.