Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 21 June 2016
17. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will attend the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, summit which takes place on 8 and 9 July 2016 in Warsaw; and if he will review Ireland's membership of NATO's so-called Partnership for Peace. [17162/16]
View answerThe purpose of the question is to ask the Minister for Defence why he would consider an invitation to attend or partake in the July NATO summit? Will he now set in motion Ireland's withdrawal from NATO's Partnership for Peace?
Ireland's co-operation with NATO is conducted through the Partnership for Peace, which we joined in 1999 following approval by Dáil Éireann. Ireland’s purpose in participating in the Partnership for Peace is to improve Defence Forces capabilities and to ensure that our Defence Forces are interoperable with the forces of other states engaged in UN mandated crisis management operations. Ireland’s continued participation in Partnership for Peace was reaffirmed in the White Paper on Defence, which was published last year.
At the NATO summit in Wales in September 2014, the establishment of the Partnership Interoperability Initiative was endorsed with the purpose of reinforcing the alliance's commitment to co-operative security and interoperable capability development. As a participant in the Partnership for Peace, Ireland is also a member of the Partnership Interoperability Initiative which is now referred to as the Partnership Interoperability Platform. For Ireland, this platform provides a format for consulting and working on common interoperability challenges to enhance our ability to operate with partners in future crisis management operations.
Defence Ministers from partners and allies participating in the interoperability platform have been invited to attend a meeting of participating states at the Warsaw summit. Given the importance of interoperability for force protection and effectiveness on operations, I plan to attend that meeting on 8 and 9 July 2016. As Ireland is not a member of NATO, the question of attendance at the NATO summit itself does not arise.
Given that we are already committed to many UN mandated missions, for which we have a proud record that is acknowledged throughout the world, and also, regretfully, that we have committed to the EU battlegroup, why in God's name would we have anything to do with NATO or its Partnership for Peace at this stage? I see that another Deputy has tabled a question on that issue. Why would we commit money - it costs the Irish taxpayer money to remain committed to the Partnership for Peace - given our commitments elsewhere which are honourable and should be continued in the UN mandated group? Given that NATO is a Cold War relic and should have been disbanded many years ago, it should not be allowed to further threaten the stability of the EU or the stability of the world. Will the Minister of State start the process to withdraw from NATO's Partnership for Peace at this stage?
We have no plans to withdraw. The primary aim of our Partnership for Peace membership is to enhance the Defence Forces' interoperability with other professional military forces for the purpose of engaging in UN authorised peacekeeping and peace support operations led by the UN, EU or NATO. Participation in Partnership for Peace is fundamental to Ireland being able to meet its obligations in providing professional peacekeepers for international crisis management and peacekeeping operations mandated by the UN.
This partnership has assisted Ireland in participating in more demanding peacekeeping operations, such as the UN mission to Liberia, the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, and EUFOR Chad. Ireland is also successfully acting as a framework nation in KFOR. That is the reason I and some of my officials plan to attend the PfP meeting on 8 and 9 July. I really believe this will be beneficial to the Defence Forces in interoperability and in being able to look at the way other states operate.
The Minister of State and I will probably differ on this. We have differed over the years when there have been votes on it in this House. Can the Minister of State see the logic that interoperability suggests increased funding? As we are the poor cousin, in terms of military equipment, the demand by NATO's Partnership for Peace, the EU battle groups and the European Defence Agency is to increase the capability of the Defence Forces. Interoperability brings with it a significant cost to the taxpayer which is covered up whenever one talks about it. It is obscene. Rather than continuing with this, it is appropriate that the Government withdraw from the Partnership for Peace. If the Minister of State is going to the NATO summit, he should indicate our refusal to continue to co-operate in spending on increasing our capability when we are a neutral state.
NATO's interoperability policy is designed to support the capacity for member countries to act coherently, effectively and efficiently to achieve tactical operational and strategic objectives. Specifically, it enables forces, units and systems to operate together and allows them to share common doctrine and procedures, infrastructure and bases and the ability to be able to communicate better.
Interoperability reduces duplication, enables pooling of resources and produces synergies among partners and allies. Partners have played key roles in recent NATO operations in the Balkans, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Kosovo and in Afghanistan and it is recognised that there is a need for regular consultations with partners on all issues liked to interoperability. We will also move to a more structured and more coherent use of the existing set of partnership instruments.
