Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1998

Vol. 496 No. 4

Other Questions. - Official Engagements.

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

31 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the recent meeting of EU Defence Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22973/98]

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

34 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the discussions, if any, he has had with neutral members of the Union regarding the role of neutral States in the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22976/98]

John Gormley

Ceist:

40 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence whether Ireland's policy of military neutrality was discussed at the recent meeting of EU Defence Ministers which he attended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22387/98]

John Gormley

Ceist:

48 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he had the opportunity, during the recent meeting of EU Defence Ministers, to meet the group of EU Member States who, like Ireland, hold to a policy of military neutrality. [22390/98]

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

78 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Defence the matters discussed at the recent informal meeting of Defence Ministers in Vienna; the conclusion, if any, reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22852/98]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

89 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on his recent participation at a meeting of EU Defence Ministers on 3 and 4 November 1998. [22389/98]

Brendan McGahon

Ceist:

124 Mr. McGahon asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on his recent visit to Vienna; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22965/98]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31, 34, 40, 48, 78, 89 and 124 together.

At the invitation of the Austrian Minister for Defence I attended a meeting of Defence Ministers of the members states of the EU in Vienna on 3 and 4 November 1998. I was accompanied by officials from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The invitation from the Austrian Minister was extended in September of this year. Austria currently holds the Presidency of the EU. The meeting, a once-off and informal event, was non-decision making in character and was held outside the institutional framework of the EU. No decisions or conclusions were reached and no final document was, therefore, produced.

Defence Ministers of all 15 EU member states, including of course the EU neutral states, attended as well as the Secretary General of the Western European Union. I was pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the meeting and to indicate Ireland's approach to the issues raised. Discussions focused primarily on the development perspectives of European peacekeeping and crisis management with emphasis on the practical effect of the inclusion of the Petersberg Tasks in the Treaty of Amsterdam. This reflected a recognition that the need to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts, such as those that have occurred in the former Yugoslavia, is the current key security challenge facing the UN and the international community as a whole.

I found this an area of great interest and importance for Ireland in view of our strong commitment to European integration and in consequence of our long history of support for peacekeeping operations. These two fundamental concepts are brought together in Ireland's readiness to contribute to the Petersberg Tasks on a voluntary and case by case basis, as is our right in accordance with our observer status at the Western European Union.

On the basis of our voluntary and long peacekeeping experience, Ireland is ready to make a continuing contribution to strengthening the international community's conflict prevention and crisis management capabilities and I made this known during the course of the meeting. Ireland has, along with our fellow neutral EU member states and many other non-NATO states, moved into a new dimension of regional peace keeping through our participation in the stabilisation force in Bosnia. The Vienna meeting provided a timely opportunity to share experiences in the peacekeeping area with those other countries with which we have much in common.

A success of the Treaty of Amsterdam is that it maintained a unified approach to the common foreign and security policy, in that all member states, including the EU neutrals, could participate in the Petersberg Tasks. Ireland considers it important that the EU should seek to implement the new provisions on peacekeeping and crisis management, which were the result of lengthy negotiations in the intergovernmental conference leading up to the treaty.

It can be said with some certainty that the Balkan conflict and the lessons drawn from the recent terrible events in the former Yugoslavia were the backdrop to the Treaty of Amsterdam and the treaty's provision in relation to the Petersberg Tasks were aimed at giving the EU capacity to deal more effectively with this type of crisis. As I said earlier, Ireland has indicated a willingness to contribute to the Petersberg Tasks on a voluntary and case by case basis.

As can be seen from what I have outlined, the focus of the meeting was firmly in the area of peacekeeping and crisis management. My contribution to the discussions was in that context. As can also be seen, the issue of Ireland's policy of military neutrality was, therefore, not an appropriate matter for discussion. That Ireland is not a member of any military alliance and has no plans to join one is a fact and is well known to all other countries which participated at the meeting. Apart from the aforementioned discussions which took place during the course of this meeting at Vienna, I have had no other discussions regarding the role of neutral states in the EU with neutral member states of the Union.

Will the Minister indicate what consultations, if any, took place with the Department of Foreign Affairs before or after the meeting?

Discussions between my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are ongoing on all these arrangements. In this instance they commenced immediately after the invitation was issued. I have had no discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, since I returned nor do I anticipate any discussions that would create problems between us arising from the meeting, which dealt with the circumstances of peacekeeping and crisis management. These are vital to the international community and are evolving in a way that not only incorporates military issues but also multifaceted aspects, such as humanitarian and educational aid and early intervention. It is a question of learning how to do these things in the best way to give security to people and to avoid the terrible problem of refugees, which usually arises when conflicts are not resolved and when, in consequence, people have to leave their homes and communities. There are no difficulties between my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I welcome the Minister's involvement in the meeting. It has presented a good opportunity in an informal setting to discuss European co-operation on the issues he has outlined. I understand from reports of the meeting that a number of the participants said they would like more informal meetings of that kind and that there was a range of initiatives discussed, including the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the EU's slowness in responding to some of the humanitarian crises we have seen.

Was the Minister one of those who supported the idea of further informal meetings like this? A number of areas were discussed, such as a joint mutual exercise and the very poor information shared between Defence Forces at European level. Does he envisage initiatives arising out of the meeting within which the Defence Forces can be involved and will he act on them?

These matters are dealt with primarily by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not envisage regular meetings of this kind. However, the meeting was very useful and I imagine that over a period of time there will be further meetings of this kind, which are not conclusive but are opportunities for people with expertise, especially in the defence area, to communicate better about the type of arrangements they are capable of putting in place to deal with peacekeeping and crisis management.

Given our long experience in peacekeeping and the fact that we have been in 30 countries and have participated in many individual missions, we have gathered much experience, not just on the military side but often in handling circumstances in an impartial and diplomatic way. This enables us to have a significant input into how these circumstances can be managed properly.

I raised the issue of the slowness with which intervention is made at times. Sometimes intervention is too late. While special circumstances preclude generalising on the issue, the world community expects early intervention of an expert kind which can avoid the trauma, tragedies, loss of life and the dispersal of peoples from their homes in the way that has been experienced in parts of the world in recent years.

I agree with the Minister that it is very important that Europe is seen to intervene effectively in these humanitarian crises. Does the lack of a decision by the Government on Partnership for Peace not inhibit our involvement in these missions and was this not obvious at the informal meeting of the Defence Ministers in Vienna? Is there not a need to move on the question of Partnership for Peace if we are to be appropriately involved in the kinds of initiatives which were discussed in detail at the meeting and which would mean more effective intervention where there are humanitarian crises, such as Kosovo?

This matter is under review and I understand there will be a debate in the House, which is being arranged by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is important, however, to realise that we are stretched to the limit in terms of our capacity to meet our existing demands in the UN. It is not as if there are many other opportunities we can take up, given our present commitments in SFOR, Cyprus, south Lebanon and a host of other places. We are not restricted.

Should we decide to join Partnership for Peace in the future, there will be opportunities for extending military capacity. There will be training opportunities and other experiences which are necessary for a developing defence force and which have a role in building up morale and so on.

Does the Minister effectively have to say "no" to our further involvement in a number of the initiatives which were suggested at that meeting because, as a country, we have not taken a decision in relation to Partnership for Peace?

The answer is "no".

Given that the Minister has answered some hypothetical questions, I will ask another. If we do go on to join the Partnership for Peace, has the Minister examined the feasibility of setting up a peace corps or brigade separate from the present organisation, because this would require much more commitment than the peace-keeping duties in which we are currently involved?

Players tend to be somewhat careful when they get a yellow card, but when they get a red card they are expected to leave the field. On this occasion let us wait to see how the debate develops and what answers are given. The Deputy can more appropriately put a question of that character at that stage. I expect to be around to give a reply.

Barr
Roinn