Vol. 457 No. 2
15 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions that took place and any decisions that were taken with respect to the key issue of the future relationship between the EU and the Western European Union as a result of his deliberations in Helsinki; and the possible implications for Ireland's neutrality in view of such relationship. [14830/95]
42 Mr. Sargent asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the position of the Government as to whether Ireland should remain neutral or join the Western European Union in view of the custom of Governments of adopting a public position in advance of referenda in the past. [15087/95]
47 Mr. Deasy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government has been asked that Ireland participate in a European Army in the context of our membership of the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15118/95]
52 Kathleen Lynch asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the way in which he envisages the relationship between Ireland and the Western European Union developing in view of the speech he delivered in Helsinki outlining the conditions under which Ireland might participate in a common European Defence Alliance; and whether he would envisage Ireland participating in Western European Union humanitarian and peacekeeping missions on an ad hoc basis. [15092/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 42, 47 and 52 together.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to these questions, all of which address important security and defence policy issues that arise for Ireland, and indeed for our EU partners, in the context of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC).
I visited Finland between 2 and 4 October, and had meetings with President Athtisaari, Prime Minister Lipponen and Foreign Minister Halonen. We had very useful discussions on a range of issues, including the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference review of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, which will include, as specified by Article J.4. of that Treaty, the "question of a common defence policy for the Union, which might in time lead to a common defence".
Among the elements that emerged from these discussions were the following: first, both Ireland and Finland support a comprehensive concept of security and believe this should provide the context for the further development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Second, both Ireland and Finland have made an important contribution, over the years, to international peace-keeping and humanitarian operations, and we have both identified this as an area in which we could make a contribution at the European level.
Third, both Ireland and Finland find observer status in the Western European Union to be useful, particularly as the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are advancing. Finland has made clear that it is willing to contribute to the Western European Union Petersburg talks in regard to peace-keeping and humanitarian operations, and search and rescue tasks. This is an area where I see potential for Ireland, in view of our accumulated expertise in peace-keeping and humanitarian work, to make a contribution. Finland, along with Austria and Sweden, are providing police for the Western European Union policy component of the EU Administration of Mostar.
Fourth, on the question of the future institutional relationship between the EU and the Western European Union, both Ireland and Finland see this as a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations themselves. While the various institutional options are currently being explored in both the Reflection Group and in the Western European Union — which is preparing its own input for the Intergovernmental Conference — we have made it clear that it is our preference to avoid any attempts to prejudge or narrow down the options at this stage. As would be expected, it was clear from our discussions that Ireland and Finland, two neutral countries who have remained outside military alliances, have much in common in our analysis and approach to these issues.
I also had the opportunity while in Helsinki to outline our approach to the range of issues that arise in the Intergovernmental Conference context, including the review of the CFSP. I addressed the Paasikivi Society — a forum for the discussion of foreign policy issues similar to the Institute of European Affairs here in Dublin. The topic was, "The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference: an Irish view". In summary, I outlined the Government's policy, based on the six principles which underlie our approach to any developments in the security area. The Taoiseach and I outlined these principles in a number of speeches and statements over the past year. A copy of my speech has been placed in the Dáil Library.
Deputies may recall that these principles do not envisage membership of any military alliance. They make clear that the Government is committed to putting to the people in a referendum any outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference that would involve Ireland in a common defence policy. This will ensure that Ireland's policy of military neutrality will remain unchanged unless the people themselves decide otherwise.
As to whether Ireland has been asked to join a European Army, in the European Union or an other context, the answer is no. The Government is not aware of any proposals for a European Army, and even if such proposals were to be forthcoming, which is highly unlikely, they would not form the basis for agreement in the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference.
The Minister continues to make great play of the fact that any proposals that emanate from the Intergovernmental Conference will be put to the people if there are indications of any change in our military neutrality stance but avoids telling us his attitude and what proposals he will be putting to the Intergovernmental Conference and to the Western European Union where we have observer status. What is his preference? Will he elaborate on the comprehensive concept of security he shares with the Finns? What point of view is he putting on behalf of the people which might eventually result in the need for a referendum?
The Deputy is aware from comments his party leader made on the speeches made by the Taoiseach and myself on comprehensive European security architecture. It is worth recalling the component principles of Ireland's foreign policy on which our negotiations will be based: we want to play a constructive role in the negotiations in the run up to the Intergovernmental Conference; the primary objective of the common security and defence policy must be the preservation of peace in accordance with the UN and OSCE principles; European Union security and defence arrangements must form part of a comprehensive co-operative security framework in Europe and must not lead to new divisions in Europe; European security must be examined in the broadest context possible taking environmental and economic considerations into account and European security and defence policy must be compatible with Ireland's objectives in the areas of disarmament and arms control.
The outcome of any negotiations which would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy will be put to the people in a referendum as was the case in the Programme for Government between the Deputy's party and the Labour Party.
Before calling Deputy Burke again I must state I am anxious to facilitate the Deputies who have tabled the other priority questions.
This is a very important fundamental question for the Irish people who believe in a non-military alliance. I accept the principles the Minister listed but what is his bottom line in relation to the negotiations? Is he recommending that Ireland join the Western European Union as a full member. Is he recommending a Western European Union alliance or is he recommending partnership for peace? Where exactly does the Minister stand on the question of military neutrality?
With all due respect to Deputy Burke, who has been a Member of this House for a long time, he is asking me to outline the bottom line in relation to negotiations which are eight or ten months away, if not longer. As the Intergovernmental Conference may not conclude until 1997 the Deputy would regard that as unwise. I see a particular role for Ireland. We have enjoyed the role of observer status in the Western European Union; a decision which was made when Deputy Burke was in Government.
Yes.
We have looked at the contribution we can make to the Petersburg talks in regard to humanitarian operations, peace-keeping and search and rescue tasks. We need to elaborate, in a positive way, on the contribution we can make. We do not have to apologise to anybody for the stance we took in the post. We have a proud record of service in the United Nations and we have a great deal of experience. In both the Reflection Group and the Western European Union — which is carrying out its own review — a range of options is emerging on the future institutional relationship between the EU and the Western European Union. They range from a full merger, which has been suggested, through to maintaining each as separate organisations which would enhance co-operation between them. At this stage the Reflection Group and the Western European Union are expected to come forward with possible options. This would be consistent with out preference that there should be no attempt to narrow the options or to prejudice the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations. That is the position and I think the Deputy understands the Government's stance in that respect.
I fully support the principle of participation and that we make ourselves available at EU level, as we have done with regard to the UN. We have a proud record of participating in peace-keeping and other exercises on behalf of the UN. I see no reason that cannot be done at EU level or on a case by case basis. I put down a marker to the Minister, my party will not support any idea of joining partnership for peace, full membership of the Western European Union or full membership of NATO.
All I would ask from the party in Opposition is some consistency between the positions of the spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and the Leader of the party.
There is total unanimity.
And the same in Government too.
The Deputy might remember the phrase — the futility of consistency.
In the same way as my questions to the Minister about the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, were ruled out because they contained some argument.
We are on limited time.
I have enough to do to defend myself.
