Vol. 502 No. 6
4 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will expand on his views, as reported in a newspaper (details supplied) on 5 March 1999, on German proposals to create military structures and a military capacity with the EU. [8752/99]
The Vienna European Council of 11 and 12 December last addressed the question of arrangements, under the Amsterdam Treaty, for ensuring the availability of an effective operational capability at the Union's disposal. The essential backdrop to this matter is Article 17 of the Amsterdam Treaty under which provision is made for the Union to avail itself of the Western European Union, "to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union" in the areas covered by the Petersberg Tasks – humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping and crisis management.
The Vienna European Council invited the German Presidency to further the debate on how the European Union can best ensure effective responses to the kinds of crises that we have seen in the Balkans in recent years. The European Council will review matters at its meeting in Cologne in June on the basis of a progress report by the German presidency and is expected to encourage continuing consideration of these matters. Also of relevance will be developments in other fora of which Ireland is not a member, including the NATO summit in April which is expected to finalise arrangements whereby NATO supportive resources may be made available for Petersberg Tasks conducted at the instigation of the EU, and the Western European Union ministerial meeting at Bremen in May which Ireland will attend in an observer capacity.
I have consistently made clear my view that the Amsterdam Treaty offers much potential for enhancing the operation of the Union's common foreign and security policy and I did so again at the recent informal ministerial meeting in Germany to which the Deputy has made reference in his question. The value of the Amsterdam Treaty is that it affords a role in peacekeeping and crisis management to all 15 EU members if they so wish. I underlined the importance of making effective use of the Amsterdam Treaty's mechanisms on the Petersberg Tasks and I was glad to see that there is a general view among EU partners that the EU's priority should be effective conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management. The German Presidency has made clear that the focus of EU efforts in the defence area should be the Petersberg Tasks, as distinct from issues of mutual defence commitments which are for NATO. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treat ies relating to the specific character of the security and defence policies of certain member states.
This debate will continue, I believe, well after Cologne. To date, no formal proposals have been put forward. The priority, in my view, should be to ensure that the Treaty of Amsterdam's crisis management provisions are fully implemented and tested. In the light of the requirements of the Petersberg Tasks, consideration can be given to any practical improvements within the European Union deemed necessary to support the more efficient and effective implementation of the Treaty's provisions.
There is of course full acceptance within the EU that the views of all EU member states, including those of Ireland and the other neutral states, must be taken fully into account as the debate unfolds. However, the debate is at a very early stage.
What military structures do the Germans have in mind? Can the Minister tell the House if, for example, the incorporation of Petersberg Tasks-type commitments into the EU post-Maastricht would require military structures? Is the German proposal simply that Ministers for Defence should attend general affairs council meetings or do they have in mind the European Union becoming a sort of European NATO?
Would the Minister agree that, following the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, for Ireland to join a European defence structure would require a referendum? This would be in keeping with Article N of the Maastricht Treaty and with the Amsterdam Treaty, which requires that any change in this area must come about after an intergovernmental conference and be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each state, which in Ireland calls for the holding of a referendum. However, if we were to join NATO, the Constitution would not require the holding of a referendum. Furthermore, under the Good Friday Agreement, we could do almost anything within these islands without holding a referendum. Is it not a fact that only joining a European Union defence community would require a referendum post the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty here?
The central purpose of the Amsterdam Treaty negotiated while the Deputy's party was in Government is to enhance the EU's capacity for peacekeeping and crisis management. The EU is not a military organisation and the Western European Union possesses negligible resources of its own. NATO possesses such resources and a key element as I made clear in this House before, is effective and mutual co-operation between institutions, such as the EU, the Western European Union and NATO, so the EU can act for peace and security in Europe through the Petersberg Tasks. This is crisis man agement and conflict resolution right across the board.
At the informal EU summit in Poertschach last October, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, raised the question of enhancing the effectiveness of the common foreign and security policy in the face of crises such as the Balkans, particularly, if and when, other countries do not wish to be fully engaged. These ideas were further aired at an Anglo-French summit at St. Malo in early December. At the Vienna European Council in December, it was agreed to continue to reflect on these issues. Central to these reflections is the imminent entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam under which the EU can use the Western European Union to undertake the Petersberg Tasks of humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management.
I, like other neutral countries, want to see the effective implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty provisions on the Petersberg Tasks, which were the result of an initiative by Sweden and Finland and fully supported by Ireland. The ongoing debate as far as our position is concerned and that of the other neutral countries should proceed with respect for the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty and the specific positions – this is the important point – of the non-allied EU member states, including Ireland, should be taken into account. That is accepted by other EU member states and our position on neutrality is a principled one.
As long as we remain neutral, we have an obligation to ensure our position is clear within the EU and as long as I am Minister for Foreign Affairs, I will continue to do that. That is why last Thursday I, and the other neutral countries, felt this statement – one statement was made before the bombing started and the shorter one after it – showed an unnecessary bias in a NATO context. That is why we wanted to make it more EU and neutral friendly. I am fully committed to Irish neutrality until there is a referendum and the people decide otherwise. I respectfully suggest that if there was a referendum on Irish neutrality tomorrow, it would hold the principle of continuing Irish neutrality.
In the context of this reply and an earlier one on Kosovo, how does the Minister define Irish neutrality? Will he state as simply as possible how he defines it? Did he say we are not and will never be a member of NATO?
That is what I said.
In that context, when the German Presidency says the military structures to be considered in its report relate to the Petersberg Tasks, that is, peacekeeping and rescue missions, and that mutual defence is a matter for NATO and if that is a correct reading of the German position, is the Minister satisfied that the mutual defence of members of the Europe Union should be left to NATO as distinct from the EU itself developing its own mutual defence arrangements?
The discussion on the development of the EU mutual defence arrangements is at a very early stage arising from the summits of Poertschach and St. Malo. It is interesting that when Mr. Cook, the British Foreign Secretary, came to report on the bilateral meeting between the French and the British at St. Malo it was reported as good news for the EU. My intervention was to the effect that it was not good news for me or for the other EU neutral countries. Being of a friendly disposition, Mr. Cook took my intervention as reasonable and accepted it.
I can give the Deputy a first class definition of Irish neutrality from the opening address by the Taoiseach at a European Movement national conference on Partnership for Peace at the Burlington Hotel on 29 March 1998. Speaking about Partnership for Peace, he said neutrality in Ireland's case has been an important expression of sovereignty and membership of a military alliance means an automatic obligation to go to war if an ally is attacked. As Mr. de Valera put the case in 1955, a small nation has to be extremely cautious when it enters into alliances, that we would not be consulted on how war would be started and that the great powers would do that. He said that when it was ended, no matter who won, we would not be consulted as to the terms on which it would end. That experience properly applied even more to world wars than the limited conflicts with which we have to deal today over which some consultation does or may take place.
Our position as a militarily neutral country is that the Dáil retains the ultimate decision on behalf of the people on a case by case basis without any obligation to have any military involvement. The Government may only commit Irish troops abroad with the approval of the Dáil following due deliberation. We do not propose to change that position. The Government has not a hidden policy agenda that would involve joining a military alliance and remains, along with all other parties, committed to consulting the people in a referendum should there be an agreed proposal involving any change in that.
The heart of Ireland's foreign policy has always been support for international collective security and engagement in peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks. Now that existing defence organisations have moved in the direction of adopting these tasks as one of their main priorities, the Amsterdam tasks, the Amsterdam Treaty and Petersberg Tasks, it would be perverse of us to refuse to co-operate with them to the same end.
An interesting reply was given to a parliamentary question on 30 April 1997 restating the Government's commitment to a policy of military neutral. It says that in the Government's White Paper on foreign policy. There is a clear and unequivocal statement that the Government will not propose that Ireland should seek membership of the Western European Union of which we are observers, or NATO or assume their mutual defence guarantees. It says the White Paper also makes clear that the outcome of any future negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy would be put to the people in a referendum and that this will ensure Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains unchanged unless the people decide otherwise. That was contained in a reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Mr. Ray Burke, the then Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, to the then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring.
The Minister quoted a few promises about referenda if there is to be a change in our neutrality. Why should we trust him given that while in Opposition Fianna Fáil promised us a referendum on Partnership for Peace? Clearly, it has reneged on that promise.
That matter is contained in the following question. The Deputy should not anticipate Question No. 5.
The Minister may be aware that the Petersberg Tasks relate to averting humanitarian crises but also to crisis management. Is it not the case that we have signed up to the Petersberg tasks under the Amsterdam Treaty? Given the definition of averting a humanitarian crisis which NATO has applied to the Kosovo crisis, Irish troops could find themselves in Kosovo.
I do not read it that way. I do not think that Irish troops will find themselves, technically or factually, in Kosovo after the war either under, in or part of NATO. The Deputy should not try to suggest membership of PfP is in some way consistent with membership of NATO and the obligations of such membership.
I am not suggesting that, NATO is.
As to whether I should be trusted, that is entirely a matter for the Deputy.
The Minister should give a reason we should trust NATO.
As to a promise by someone for a referendum on PfP—
By the Taoiseach.
—that is a total misquotation of the individual whom the Deputy suggests made the promise.
He said it would be fundamentally undemocratic.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.
As I pointed out to the Deputy it is interesting to turn to the global answer on PfP given by Deputy Spring on 30 April 1997:
I wish to confirm to the House that the decision to participate in PfP will be subject to a motion and to the terms and scope of any participation by Ireland being approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is neither the basis nor the need for a referendum on participation in PfP..
This is not me speaking, the Deputy does not trust me.
I asked why I should trust the Minister.
I must give some substance to my point of view by quoting someone else. Perhaps Deputy Gormley could imagine me articulating this on behalf of Deputy Spring – forgive me, Deputy Spring. He went on: "There is neither the basis nor the need for a referendum on participation in PfP, which imposes no treaty obligations of any sort, no mutual defence commitments and which has no implications for a policy of military neutrality." The logic of that position—
Why did the Taoiseach say it would be fundamentally undemocratic not to have a referendum?
The Deputy should cease interrupting or he will be asked to leave the House.
The Minister is not answering the question.
Membership of PfP and other matters were set out in a fine paper produced by the former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, and they were discussed in considerable depth. PfP was high on the former Minister's list and he was committed to joining it as a matter of some urgency. One can only ask why that was not done during the term of office of the then coalition. I am not making a political point about this, but it was left to us to do. The Deputy alleges we did a U-turn, which I deny.
It was first raised following a Fine Gael motion. We consistently did in Government what we said we would do when in Opposition.
I ask the Deputy to tell the House why his party did not introduce PfP. He and I know the reason and I am not making a case against him.
We will come to PfP on the next question, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle. Patrick Smyth of The Irish Times, a reliable journalist, wrote on 5 March that other neutral countries were more enthusiastic than our Minister about the proposals. Why does he suggest that all neutral countries took the same view when some took a different view from his? A European defence community is on the horizon – I note with interest Deputy De Rossa's suggestions, which are worthy of consideration and debate – but after the Amsterdam Treaty we cannot enter into it without a referendum. That is written into the Constitution, and I challenge anyone to disagree.
That is nonsense. That proposition is without foundation.
The Deputy is putting an untruth on the record of the House. If the European defence community is on the horizon and if we are to meet the late Éamon de Valera's concerns about larger states leading us into alliances, does this not hinge on the commitment in Article 5 of the Western European Union? For example, if it could be negotiated into a protocol, which was the position taken by a number of EU member states during the reflection group process, small states like Ireland would be able to opt in or out of a European defence community on a case by case basis. Instead of always reacting to proposals put forward by others, could we not come up with proposals? If we did, in the medium term or long-term we would arrive at a position, not after being led by member states but as a result of a plan of our own, including the possibility of a protocol to future treaties, which would allow us to exercise options. By burying our head in the sand we are neutering ourselves and we cannot do that.
The Deputy is making a statement.
The Deputy has already accused me of taking the ostrich approach on another matter, and I disagreed with him about that. I do not disagree with him about this, I think the time has come. The Taoiseach adverted to this in his statement yesterday in the Burlington Hotel at the European Movement national conference on PfP when he said a document or booklet might be produced to allow the people to consider the issues in the context, for example, of the upcoming European election.
That is not a referendum.
No, but it is a democratic test. If the Deputy makes an issue of neutrality, PfP, NATO, etc., as I have no doubt he will, this will be a test of the view of the people on the efficacy or otherwise of the Government's proposals.
How can that test be judged?
What can one do? One accepts the will of the people. I think Deputy Mitchell will agree with me—
I am sure he will, there is not much difference between him and the Minister.
Minister, I would prefer if you did not answer questions that come by way of interruption by Deputy Gormley or any other Deputy.
We are starting to get answers.
We would never get answers without them.
Before we move on, 20 minutes have been allocated for priority questions, of which there are five, but we have spent an hour on four of them. That is far beyond the time allocated. In order to conclude this question I will take three brief supplementaries in succession and a final reply.
Will the Minister indicate whether it is acceptable to leave the question of mutual defence of EU member states to NATO, as seems to be implied in his replies today? He gave a long reply, which I found obscure, to my question about a definition of neutrality. Does he accept my suggestion that Irish neutrality is non-membership of a military alliance but does not preclude us as a country from expressing views on international events, whether they be the bombing of Belgrade or atrocities by President Milosevic against the Kosovan people?
(Dublin West): The Government's propaganda, which portrays PfP as something akin to the public relations agency of the Little Sisters of the Poor, is entirely false. Will the Minister agree that far from being an organisation exuding sweetness and light it is an association—
We may be moving away from the substance of Question No. 4. Partnership for Peace is the subject matter of Question No. 5.
(Dublin West): Yes, but it deals with military alliances. Will the Minister agree Partnership for Peace is a military alliance? Is he aware a 1996 United States Defence Department document in essence states that, when it states the Partnership for Peace has evolved quickly from a bare concept to an active association of military and defence institutions which trade, exercise and work together with NATO countries? Is it not clear from that document that the movers of Partnership for Peace see it as a military alliance? Therefore, any entry into it by this State should be considered as entering military alliance. On 28 January the Taoiseach referred to the four party leaders when he said at the time of the Maastricht referendum on 1 June 1992—
Quotations are not permitted at Question Time.
(Dublin West): The four leaders said in 1992 if this country was to be brought into military alliance there would have to be a referendum. Will the Minister agree that to bring this country into Partnership for Peace there should be a referendum?
Will the Minister accept the Western European Union is simply the European leg of NATO? Will he accept NATO has shown its inefficiency in the past few days by the bombing of Yugoslavia? Will be explain the apparent contradiction in his statement today where he said that following the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the attacks on the Kosovars had increased? He went on to say he hoped it would not be counter-productive. Does he now accept the bombing by NATO was counterproductive?
Before the Minister replies, I remind the House that Question No. 5 deals specifically with Partnership for Peace.
I have already dealt in considerable detail with the point about propaganda and the necessity for a referendum. I will not make any point about the absence or presence of Deputy Higgins, except to tell him once more that, on the basis that people such as Deputy Gormley do not trust me, I took the trouble to consult the Attorney General on this question. I will place a copy of his advices in the Dáil Library and Deputies can peruse it at their ease. Clearly, it supports the Government's view that a referendum is not necessary in relation to partnership for peace.
It may not be necessary. Is that the advice?
That is the advice of the Attorney General and his legal advisers.
We told the Minister that years ago. He did not need the Attorney General to tell him that.
There is no difference.
I have come to this issue only in the recent past. Of course the Deputy is well up to speed on the matter. It is indifferent whether Deputy Gormley trusts me. I would like him to trust me, but on the basis that he does not, I have to give him the information that there is an opinion from the Attorney General's office which states a referendum is not necessary for Partnership for Peace. I am prepared to put that docu ment at the disposal of his party or any other person or parties interested in perusing it.
(Dublin West): Partnership for Peace is a military alliance.
Quite the contrary, it is anything but a military alliance. Currently 43 countries are involved in Partnership for Peace, 24 of which are non-members of NATO. Apart altogether from the neutrals, I include all our EU partners and the neutral States of Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. The argument has been made that Switzerland has a strange form of neutrality and there are some doubts about its depth. Russia is a member of Partnership for Peace. That is extraordinary. The question of associate membership of NATO has arisen. Membership of NATO is completely different from involvement in Partnership for Peace. Some 24 members of NATO are participants in Partnership for Peace, including Russia and other European neutral states. I do not think anyone would claim Russia or Switzerland are associate members of NATO because of participation in Partnership of Peace. A treaty is not involved when joining partnership for peace.
I do not know why I tabled a question on this matter. I am speaking for 50 or more Deputies.
