asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the way in which European Political Co-operation has operated since the ratification of the Single European Act; the steps which are being taken to ensure that this process does not compromise Irish neutrality; if his attention has been drawn to the draft resolution prepared for the European Parliament by MEP De Gucht and other MEPs calling for closer co-operation between the EC and the Western European Union; the Government's position on this motion; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - European Political Co-Operation.
14.
The process of European Political Co-operation (EPC) and the nature of our involvement in it are not essentially changed by the Single European Act which codifies and formalises in treaty form the process of political co-operation in which we have been involved for 15 years. The EPC process remains one through which the EC member states, operating on the basis of consensus, exchange information, consult together and seek to adopt common positions and to take joint action in the foreign policy field. The co-ordination of positions on security questions which is part of the EPC process relates to political and economic but not to military aspects of security or to procurement for military purposes. This distinction is spelled out in the Single European Act. In its declaration at the time of ratification the Government made explicit their position that the provisions of the Single European Act do not affect Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality. Irish neutrality is further safeguarded by the consensus rule on which EPC is based: no joint position can be adopted or action taken without the full agreement of all partners.
I am aware of the draft resolution to which the Deputy refers and which is still under consideration in the European Parliament. The proposal in the draft that there be political links between the European Community and the Western European Union is one with which, of course, the Government do not agree. We cannot accept that there be any organic linkage between, on the one hand, the Community and EPC and, on the other, a military alliance such as the WEU.
I have been saying the same thing for years but certain people who are in other places now were not listening to me.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the pressure is now far greater for the discussion of military and political affairs within the EC, that there is pressure for the amalgamation of the WEU with the European Parliament and that there are various pressures from different Commissioners, even in relation to industrial policy, for the discussion of military and political affairs combined? Does the Taoiseach find that this is becoming a difficulty?
In a Community of its size and diversity, it is only natural that different people at different levels of the Community will have views on all these matters. They are very important matters. I would have thought that the general pressure and tension in regard to this whole matter of military security in Europe would have been greatly lessened by the statesmanlike efforts of Secretary General Gorbachev and President Reagan, in what they have achieved in the field of disarmament and reduction of nuclear weapons.
Can I ask the Taoiseach if, on those occasions when defence and security aspects arise within the process of European Political Co-operation, there is ever a convergence of the interests and agendas of the Western European Union in relation to these same matters? Will he tell the House what the Irish representative does when such occasions arise?
The EPC confines itself, naturally, to its own business. Our representative on the EPC confines himself, or herself as the case may be, to the business of the EPC and to explaining, elaborating and defending Ireland's viewpoint on all the many complicated issues that arise there. I would remind the Deputy of what I said in my reply, that the EPC works by way of consensus and that no position can be adopted or action taken without the full agreement of all partners. Naturally, the behaviour of the Irish representative on EPC would be guided by the principles of our policy, namely, military neutrality.
I wish to clarify what I understand the Taoiseach to have said. He referred to consensus, consultation and co-ordination. Am I to take it that the other members who may have attended a Western European Union meeting never put those items on the agenda for the EPC process or can I take it that the Irish representative remains silent when such matters appear on an EPC process agenda?
That is a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Different members come to all these international gatherings with different priorities. For instance, there is a meeting of seven states taking place at the moment in Toronto. Some of those states are members of the European Community and some are not. The states at that gathering who are members of the European Community give expression to their own point of view, their own attitude and their own policy. The same applies in WEU. What should be of concern to the Deputy and the House is that the Irish representative in EPC is alert to maintaining Ireland's position of military neutrality.
The Taoiseach used the word "alert". Would he not agree that with the changing position in the EC it would now be a time for a change of policy where the Irish representatives would actually take part from a position of neutrality, to give some positiveness to our position rather than as has been the case before, where a former Taoiseach has said he either left meetings or sat through meetings and said nothing. Would he agree that that is not an acceptable position and that there should be a positive role adopted by actually taking part in the meetings?
I think the Deputy is talking about a former Taoiseach, who was talking about a different type of meeting — I am not aware exactly what he said but I could appreciate that from time to time it might have been necessary for him at the United Nations or any international gathering——
Are we changing our position?
Certainly not.
A number of Deputies are offering and we have dwelt on this question for some time. I will call on Deputy Peter Barry, Deputy Geraldine Kennedy and Deputy Mac Giolla. If they will be brief, please.
I want clarification on something the Taoiseach said in reply to a supplementary question. Did I understand him to say that, because of the agreement reached between President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev, tensions about defence and armaments should be lessened in Europe? The reverse is happening. Because of the proposed agreement there are fears among certain members of the EC that the Americans will withdraw from Europe, and this is causing some concern about the defence of Europe among our EC partners.
I presume there is that aspect to it, but the Deputy would have to agree that the situation in the world generally, and in Europe——
I am not arguing that.
——must be a great deal easier as a result of the Moscow Summit.
Absolutely, but will we be taking part in more talks about defence within Europe because of the dangers some members feel if America withdraws from Europe. This is something we should be alerted to. I would have no objection to us taking part in those talks.
The Twelve have warmly welcomed the outcome of the Moscow Summit.
They would, but they are at two different levels.
May I ask the Taoiseach to clarify one matter, please? Is there a difference in the practice operated by Irish representatives at Civil Service level within the EPC and politicians at European level when military security is raised?
I would hope that the State, in all its different manifestations, operates in a uniform and co-ordinated way.
I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that neutrality is a very positive policy and war and military alliances are the negative policy. Is the Taoiseach aware that the Reagan/ Gorbachev meetings are making the possibility of nuclear war recede, but that there is still the possibility of wars, even local wars, within Europe? Is he aware that there is a renewed debate on EC co-operation for arms procurement and research and development — sophisticated weaponry, a military-type esprit programme, the successful programme in the civilian area — in the military sphere within the EC? Does he oppose that?
These are complex matters. In broad terms I would like to reply by referring the Deputy to my speech to the Special Disarmament Conference in the United Nations when I gave my views very comprehensively on all these matters. I have indicated that in my view while we welcome the progress made, there was no question that anybody could regard the danger as having been completely averted so far as nuclear warfare is concerned. I also mentioned chemical warfare and war by means of conventional armaments. I think I gave a reasonably straightforward outline of the possibilities and the dangers in regard to all those matters in that speech.
In regard to EPC, with which we are concerned in this question, all I can do is reiterate the principles, which are, that we are prepared to discuss and co-operate in the economic and social aspects of security; we are not prepared to be involved in the military aspects.