Skip to main content
Normal View

European Defence Capabilities

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 11 April 2019

Thursday, 11 April 2019

Questions (5)

Maureen O'Sullivan

Question:

5. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the remit of the European peace facility, EPF; the way in which it will be financed; and the way in which it will contribute to conflict prevention and peace building. [16964/19]

View answer

Oral answers (6 contributions)

How will the EPF be financed and how will it contribute to conflict prevention and peace building?

The EPF is a proposal from the High Representative and Vice President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini, who has proposed that a financial mechanism be established for funding actions under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP. The mechanism would, if approved, incorporate the Athena mechanism and the African Peace Facility. It would also include a mechanism for funding actions in support of capacity building for peace and security. Under the High Representative's proposals, the EPF would be used to fund infrastructure and equipment for the training and capacity building of security and military forces in fragile and conflict states so that they can better provide their own security. The most controversial aspect of the proposal is the suggestion that this could include funding for some lethal equipment, most likely small arms and weapons.

The aim of the EPF is to give the EU the capability to contribute to the financing of global military peace support operations led by international partners such as the African Union. This financing would assist in building the capacities of partner countries' armed forces to preserve peace, prevent conflict and address security challenges. By providing comprehensive support through integrated packages of training, equipment and other means of support as necessary, partners would be enabled to address their own crises and security challenges.

Since the initial circulation of the proposal last June, the topic has been discussed at a number of ministerial and working group level meetings only. At these meetings, there has been limited support for aspects of the proposal and a clear view expressed by member states that they wish to ensure continued member state control of such funding mechanisms, similar to the current existing governance arrangements.

I have stuck to the Acting Chairman's time.

People could be forgiven for thinking that this is part of the increasing militarisation agenda in Europe and the growing pressure to have a European army, but there is no doubt that there has been a great deal of mystery surrounding this facility. Its remit is "to broaden actions with a military or defence nature, such as capacity building activities for military actors, that can be undertaken under the CFSP". In particular, this would cover a new range of military related training, equipment and support to the armed forces of third countries, inter alia, the provision of infrastructure, military equipment and supplies, or military technical assistance. This is going under the name of "peace facility", but there are many questions to be asked about how funding weapons, ammunition and salaries for soldiers will contribute to peace. Questions arise regarding accountability, how to ensure that this mechanism will not be used in the mistreatment of people, including prisoners and human rights activists, and guarantees on the funding's use. The facility raises more questions than answers. It is good to hear that some member states are against or not in favour of it. Where does Ireland stand on the fund and its accountability mechanisms?

I agree with some of what the Deputy has said, but this is at the stage of initial discussions only and has not reached ministerial level. It has been dealt with by the civil side more than the political side. From speaking to my EU colleagues, there genuinely is limited, and I mean limited, support for this proposal. It has only been discussed at working group meetings so far. Contrary to the commentary from some in Europe, there is in no way widespread support for it. I assure the Deputy that I will highlight our neutrality policy in any decision that is made.

There is some positivity in the Minister of State's reply. From what he said, it sounds like some countries were testing the water to see whether the proposal would be supported. Those who have criticisms and reservations about it must raise them strongly. I hope that Ireland takes the lead in that regard, given the significance of the questions raised. There is no guarantee that the EPF will contribute to conflict prevention or peace building, which is what the EU, UN and so on are about.

In the context of the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, questions arise around the EPF's financing. The same applies in respect of decision making. From the little I have read, the decisions would be made by certain member states and not the European Parliament. Many questions arise.

I hope that those who are strongly against it will be very vocal in their opposition, particularly if the European Parliament will not be involved.

I reiterate that it should be remembered that the European Peace Facility is currently only a proposal and that there is a long way to go on it. A significant amount of work remains to be agreed by member states in regard to the proposal, including the budget, and it is considered unlikely that it will be concluded in its current format of which the Deputy may have read. Any agreement on the level of proposed funding will only be agreed by member states in the context of the multi-annual framework. I state that sincerely to the Deputy. Ireland's position on this proposal will continue to be developed on consideration of proposals from the working group. Any decision we make will be within our policy framework of military neutrality. We will engage with the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Finance, and Public Expenditure and Reform in formulating Ireland's position on this matter.

Top
Share