Gay Mitchell
Ceist:5 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress, if any, made on Ireland's intention to join Partnership for Peace. [8753/99]
Ceisteanna – Questions. Priority Questions. - Partnership for Peace.
I have made the Government's position clear in this House. It is our intention that, in the light of the current debate and following the European elections, in which parties will no doubt take the opportunity to set out their approaches, Ireland will participate in Partnership for Peace in the second half of this year. A decision in favour of participation in Partnership for Peace would be submitted to this House for its approval and would make clear the nature and scope of our participation in Partnership for Peace.
I have made clear previously, and I am happy to do so again, that participation in Partnership for Peace would not be in conflict with our neutrality. I do not believe a referendum on this matter is either required or appropriate as Partnership for Peace would not be in conflict with our neutrality and would not impose treaty obligations. This was the view of the previous Government. It is also the view of the Attorney General, whose advice on the matter I have recently sought and received.
As regards consultations with NATO concerning Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace, we will take the appropriate practical steps at the appropriate time.
I recently briefed my EU ministerial colleagues on the Government's intentions. I welcome the continuing discussion and greater awareness of the realities of what is involved in Partnership for Peace.
Further, there will be an information document on Partnership for Peace and what it will entail. This document-booklet will be publicised shortly.
When placing the Attorney General's opinion in the Dáil Library will the Minister append a copy of the manifesto on the statements wherein it is stated this would result in the French being back in Kilalla, the British in the Curragh, the German on Banna Strand—
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister agree that unlike Tajikistan, the Vatican, Liechtenstein and San Marino we have something to contribute to Partnership for Peace as well as obtaining something from it? Therefore, we should join Partnership for Peace without further delay. Will the Minister bring forward the date for joining so that we can put the question in a more lively fashion to the electorate in the European elections? Those of us who want to take on the mis-statements that have been made about this will be given the opportunity to put our case to the electorate, which is what I want to do. I am spokesman for the only party which has published a policy document on Partnership for Peace.
That is not true.
I want the opportunity to put that case for Partnership for Peace. Will the Minister bring forward the date so that we can let the people know in the European elections what is being proposed? When we join Partnership for Peace we will, as other neutral States have done, appoint an ambassador to NATO and presumably follow the tradition of other neutral states and appoint our ambassador to the Western European Union as ambassador to NATO. Will the Minister consider, without further delay, appointing an ambassador to NATO, presumably our ambassador to the Western European Union, so that the concerns and views of this House can be communicated to the Secretary General of NATO in relation to, for example, the situation in Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
A short question please, Deputy.
At present, we have no vehicle to express our concerns. As it will come about in any event, will the Minister consider doing it now so that we have an opportunity to put our views directly to the Secretary General of NATO?
I will not appoint an ambassador to NATO.
The Minister should read the print.
In relation to Partnership for Peace, as I said in reply to a supplementary question from Deputy Gormley, there is no reason to bring forward the date for the introduction of Partnership for Peace. We have a timescale in which we intend to pursue the matter. We intend to take that route and the Deputy will have an opportunity to support Partnership for Peace in the meantime. He can disabuse the electorate of the ludicrous suggestions that a referendum is necessary or that it impinges on our neutrality. I am aware that the Deputy published a document. The Government will also publish a document as part of the ongoing debate and to inform the people about what is happening.
Regarding informing NATO, it will have at its disposal a copy of the EU's common position arising from the Berlin summit.
What about the views of the Dáil?
There can be no doubt about the receipt of our views in that regard.
Is the Minister giving the House an assurance that he will not appoint an ambassador to NATO arising from our membership of Partnership for Peace?
At this stage I am not giving any undertakings whatsoever regarding such an appointment.
The Minister said he would not make an appointment.
I will not make an appointment at this time.
The Minister said no appointment would be made.
At this time.
The Minister's qualification is interesting. Is Question No. 10 being taken with this question because it is related?
No. We are still dealing with Priority Questions.
The time for Priority Questions has expired.
It is still a Priority Question and, therefore, Question No. 5 is taken on its own.
Will the Minister indicate how he imagines that European Parliament elections are a basis for deciding national policy in relation to Partnership for Peace? The Partnership for Peace is an agency of NATO and not of the European Union. The Government has a specific mandate, which it sought and received during the last general election, not to join Partnership for Peace and if such a choice was made, a referendum would be held. How does the Minister see a European Parliament election overturning that mandate? Does he agree it is an extraordinary way to address a democratic issue of this nature?
When was the Government decision to join Partnership for Peace made? How many of the booklets, which the Minister announced, will be published? Who will draft the document? Will the person be independent of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government? Will the views for and against be presented in the booklet? Will the booklet be free and how will it be distributed?
I hope there will be an independent input to ensure transparency, openness and accountability. I subscribe to the Deputy's suggestion in that regard. I also hope that the booklet will, as the Taoiseach announced yesterday, present a balanced argument. It should outline the cases for and against in a balanced way. This is a reasonable proposal and I will pursue it. However, whether the outcome of my efforts will subscribe to what the Deputy seeks is another question.
Regarding the cost, etc., I hope the pamphlet will be free. As the Deputy is aware, people do not pursue matters where there is no charge. However, in terms of the need to inform, I expect that the booklet will be free. I will take on board the Deputy's reasonable points and suggestions for which I thank him.
In relation to the mandate, our position on Partnership for Peace was well known at the last election.
It certainly was known.
I am not trying to avoid the issue. It was clearly stated in our election literature that we would not be party to Partnership for Peace. However, in the meantime, we have considered the position and we now see, having regard to what is required of Ireland in the EU and elsewhere, that it is important Ireland takes up membership of Partnership for Peace.
The Deputy asked when the decision to join Partnership for Peace was made. If the Deputy reads a number of statements made by the Taoiseach before and after Christmas, he will note that the issue was finally resolved around that time and it was agreed to open a debate on it.
In relation to when a decision was made by the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, I opened the debate on the subject some weeks ago. Those present voted unanimously for Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace. I must now appear before the national executive of my party and propose that Ireland joins Partnership for Peace.
Has the Government made a final decision?
It has made a formal decision.
Given the co-operation between neighbours Norway, which is aligned, and Sweden, which is non-aligned, does the Minister see opportunities North and South and east and west to build on the existing co-operation between the Air Corps and the RAF regarding search and rescue missions under Partnership for Peace?
It is interesting that the Deputy raised this issue. As a former Minister for Defence and the Marine, I am aware of the involvement of the RAF in air and sea rescue operations. We have at all times expressed our gratitude to the RAF. In relation to the Air Corps and the small number of helicopters at its disposal, the biggest of its helicopters has been used on a number of occasions at the request of the British authorities in the most adverse conditions by a brave group of young pilots. It cuts both ways.
I am not sure of the possible position in terms of participation in Partnership for Peace. I am not an expert in this matter or many others. However, if it was possible to formalise the arrangement in that context, there is no reason not to do so. In the meantime co-operation continues between the British and Irish authorities in a meaningful and genuine way regarding sea and air rescue.
Although he denied it earlier, will the Minister admit that his party has done a complete U-turn on this issue? In his party's election manifesto, it was stated unequivocally that Fianna Fáil would have nothing to do with NATO or NATO led organisations. Does the Minister agree that his party has taken the electorate for a ride? Will he explain how the European elections will be a referendum or a barometer of public opinion in relation to Partnership for Peace? Given that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour support participation in Partnership for Peace, how will the Minister judge that? If Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour each win a seat and the Green Party wins one seat, does that mean that the Irish people favour participation in Partnership for Peace? Does the Minister accept that argument is absurd?
Can the Minister explain why we cannot have an indicative referendum? Irish neutrality is not enshrined in the Constitution. The best way, therefore, to carry this out would be through a referendum commission such as the one which gave us an independent booklet on issues such as the Amsterdam Treaty.
I did not say that we made a U-turn, I said we had changed our minds. On the question of the absurdity of the European elections in the context of PfP and neutrality, the Deputy's excellent Green Party candidate in Dublin is already making a lot of noise about that topic.
Can I quote the Minister saying that she is an excellent candidate?
I would prefer if the Minister did not answer questions by way of interruption from Deputies.
She is an excellent candidate. I have no problem with that at all, I will repeat it if the Deputy wants me to.
Deputy Briscoe would like a word in the Minister's ear.
Is the Minister endorsing all candidates?
I endorse all democratic candidates from whatever party.
In relation to an indicative referendum, the European parliamentary elections are indicative by their nature. I agree, however, that you could not give PfP as a reason for Patricia McKenna losing her seat in the European election.
She is an excellent candidate.
Excellent candidates can lose their seats, as the Deputy is well aware. Many people who thought they were excellent candidates have lost their seats.
Even people the Minister thought were excellent candidates.
On the question of the Referendum Commission, that is not a failure to recognise a generous offer by the Taoiseach, who is an honourable and good man.
Stop smiling.
There will not be any requirement for a referendum commission in relation to the document we will produce because it will be produced within the parameters suggested by Deputy De Rossa.
Does joining Partnership for Peace imply a bilateral agreement with NATO? Is there a draft of such agreement available? If not, has there been contact between the Minister, or his Department, and NATO in relation to this issue? How many of the countries currently members of Partnership for Peace have appointed diplomats to represent them within NATO?
(Dublin West): Is the Minister aware of a 1997 NATO fact sheet which said that active participation in the Partnership for Peace will play an important role in the evolutionary process of including new members in NATO? Does the Minister agree that the term Partnership for Peace is misleading? It is part of the modern syndrome of giving unpleasant entities media friendly names which are quite false in the impression they convey.
I heard what the Minister said about a referendum. In view of the fact that Partnership for Peace is an association led by the major arms exporters of the world, one of the filthiest trades humanity has ever been involved in—
Just like the European Union.
(Dublin West):—and we should not be distracted by the alibi provided by Sweden, itself a major arms exporter, and in view of the US defence document on which he did not comment, will the Minister agree that this is a military alliance?
Will the Minister say now that, despite the legalistic interpretation of the Attorney General, the Irish people should be consulted by way of referendum? He is anxious to have their view in an electoral process and he thinks the European elections will do that. They cannot. Would he agree that we should have a referendum this autumn before this State joins Partnership for Peace and that the people should have their say? Let us debate the issue in an open and accountable way.
We never suggested that should not be a debate. We wanted an ongoing debate on the issue of Partnership for Peace. We continue to call for such debate. That is why the Taoiseach gave a kick start to a debate which has been ongoing in the letters pages of the national newspapers and in articles discussing this. I have not seen the 1997 NATO fact sheet and would be pleased to see a copy of it.
(Dublin West): It is on the Internet.
On the question of the need for a refernedum on PfP, I have discussed the issue extensively over the hour and three quarters of Question Time. There is no need to go down the road any further on that question. I said that a referendum is not necessary and, in case people do not believe me, I sought the advice of the Attorney General and will place that advice in the Library. It clearly states that a referendum is not necessary in relation to Partnership for Peace.
In reply to Deputy De Rossa's reasonable query about NATO ambassadors, I will have to clarify that because I do not want to mislead the House. I will communicate that information to the Deputy.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.