Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Jun 1998

Vol. 492 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Partnership for Peace.

Mr. Timmins

I thank you, a Leas CheannComhairle, for permitting me to raise this important matter. Ireland has a proud and distinguished reputation in the field of international peacekeeping. Our armed forces can lay claim to a long tradition of active participation in the cause of international peace. Article 29.1 of the Constitution provides the foundation for this tradition. It states that "Ireland is devoted to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation among nations founded on international justice and morality". This ethos led to our membership of the United Nations in 1955.

Since the late 1980s and the end of the Cold War, the texture of international peacekeeping arrangements has changed dramatically and this change led to the establishment of Partnership for Peace in 1994. PfP was designed to placate those countries in central and eastern Europe which, fearing Russian instability and possible aggression, were clamouring for NATO membership. However, NATO member states were concerned that a hurried enlargement of the alliance would destabilise Russian politics. Thus, Partnership for Peace was a compromise.

Since 1994 the partnership has evolved into a key European security institution. It comprises 43 participants, including the 16 NATO member states. Its primary purposes are the protection and promotion of human rights; the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace; the preservation of democracy; the upholding of international law and the fulfilment of the UN Charter obligation and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The key question for PfP is its role as part of the emerging security structure in Europe. Ireland is the only significant country in western Europe which stands aloof from it. PfP is not a back door to NATO and those who claim it is are simply not honest. It is for non-NATO members, some of whom may wish to join NATO, and others of whom have no intentions of joining the organisation.

Membership of PfP will not impinge on our neutrality. Several neutral countries are members — Austria, Sweden and even Switzerland. Fine Gael advocates membership and we believe support exists for such a step. An Irish Times/MRBI poll was carried out in September 1996 using a sample of 1,000 people. When asked if Ireland should join a NATO-led Partnership for Peace, 77 per cent said “yes”, 13 per cent said “no” and the remainder had no opinion. The Minister should not fudge this issue by referring to neutrality or a European army. They have nothing do with this matter. During the recent Amsterdam Treaty debate there was much scaremongering about such developments. Military alliances are protective and not aggressive devices. They seek to prevent rather than engage in hostilities. How many Europeans died as a result of conflict in the first half of this century? How may died in the second half? It is easy to do nothing. What mechanism can be recommended to address the problems in Kosovo?

Based on pre-election policy, the Government parties are divided on this issue. Security is indivisible and conflict, if it arises elsewhere in Europe, will have an impact on Ireland. The essential advantage of Partnership for Peace is that it can only strengthen our contribution to European security. It offers us an opportunity to share our strengths with other European states in such areas as training in peacekeeping and an openness in defence policy. I hope the Government has the political will to make the correct decision and not leave this subject on the back burner for a more creative administration to deal with.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I thank the Deputy. There has been a substantial amount of discussion on this topic in recent years. The previous Government published a White Paper which devoted space to the issue. Despite this, there are still misunderstandings and a lack of information about the Partnership for Peace. It would be useful if I set out briefly what PfP is.

Partnership for Peace has been one element in the development of new inclusive co-operative security arrangements for Europe. Launched at the NATO Summit in Brussels in January 1994, in light of an initiative by President Clinton, PfP is a co-operative security initiative with the stated aim of intensifying political and military co-operation in Europe, promoting stability, reducing threats to peace and building strengthened relationships by promoting practical co-operation amongst its participants. Initially, PfP appeared to be geared to countries aspiring to eventual membership of NATO.

PfP has since been joined by most OSCE countries, including Russia and former Soviet republics, as well as the neutral countries Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland. Currently, 44 states participate in PfP. Each participating country determines the scope and extent of its participation in PfP activities. While PfP involves voluntary and non-binding co-operation with NATO, it does not entail membership of NATO or NATO's mutual defence commitments. Participants in PfP subscribe to a framework document which sets out the basic purposes and objectives of the partnership. The purposes set out in the framework document include the protection and promotion of human rights; rededication to the principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace; the preservation of democracy, the upholding of international law and the fulfilment of the obligations of the UN Charter and OSCE commitments.

The objectives of PfP include matters such as democratic control of defence forces, which reflects the initial focus of PfP on the emerging eastern European states. They also focus on maintaining readiness to contribute to peacekeeping operations mandated by the UN or OSCE and there is a focus on joint planning, training and exercises to strengthen states' abilities to undertake peacekeeping, search and rescue and humanitarian operations. PfP has recently been complemented by a body known as the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. This council was launched at a NATO meeting in Sintra, Portugal on 30 May 1997 and includes all members of PfP. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council grew out of consultations involving the members of PfP, who felt the need for a new multinational consultation framework at political level which was not limited to members of NATO or the former Warsaw Pact alliance.

The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council provides an over arching framework for political and security related consultations and for enhanced co-operation under PfP. It maintains the approach whereby partners are able to decide for themselves the level and areas of co-operation with NATO. One of the stated aims of this Council is to provide an expanded political dimension for multilateral consultation and co-operation on a wide range of security and defence related issues, for example, regional matters, arms control and civil defence. Consultations include the political dimension of crisis management, for example, on future UN authorised operations of the SFOR type. Membership of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council is open to all OSCE states who have subscribed to the PfP basic document.

The development of structures such as Partnership for Peace reflects the need felt by some countries arising from the current transitional nature of European security. The emphasis has shifted away from territorial defence towards the problems of conflict prevention, peacekeeping, crisis management and the security threat posed by international crime. Similarly, the approach in the Amsterdam Treaty reflects the trend away from territorial defence, with its focus on the Petersberg tasks of peacekeeping and crisis management.

It is recognised that no State or institution can by itself deal with the complex and diverse challenges to security of the post-Cold War world. Bosnia is probably the best reflection of the new approach of mutually reinforcing co-operation between a range of institutions: the UN, EU, NATO, Western European Union and Council of Europe. From the discussions that have taken place, including in the House in recent months, there are widely differing perceptions of the advantages for Ireland of PfP. In particular, there is concern about engaging in any structured co-operation with NATO. Some see participation in PfP as a back door to membership of NATO. There is no doubt that some of the states participating in PfP aspire to join NATO. Equally, it is clear that other states, including our fellow European neutral states, participate in PfP out of a wish to enhance outreach to countries such as Russia and to co-operate in the peacekeeping and crisis management areas.

For Ireland, with a strong tradition of military neutrality and a commitment to active engagement in peacekeeping and international efforts to support peace and security, our priority will be to play a continued active part in peacekeeping and crisis management under UN or EU auspices. We remain unconvinced by the arguments that have been made that Ireland should participate in PfP. The issue is a complex one, which requires well informed debate. The Minister for Foreign Affairs on several occasions indicated his willingness to have a Dáil debate on the issue of European Security Architecture, including the Partnership for Peace, so that the range of views on the issue can be heard. He has welcomed the interest which the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has shown in this area. I understand the committee will return to the issue in early July. The Minister remains of the view that, in the light of the committee's deliberations and conclusions, an informed and inclusive debate should be held in the Dáil at a time to be agreed by the Whips.