Gay Mitchell
Ceist:79 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on progress on Ireland's negotiations to join Partnership for Peace. [18185/99]
Other Questions. - Partnership for Peace.
I welcome this opportunity to report to the House on developments in relation to Ireland's proposed participation in Partnership for Peace and to outline the timetable which the Minister for Foreign Affairs envisages for joining PfP.
Participation in PfP is based on the principle of self-differentiation, that is, a state selects for itself the areas of interest that will provide the basis for its co-operation under PfP. The nature and scope of Ireland's participation will be set out in a national presentation document which will be presented to Dáil Éireann for consideration and approval once it has been approved by the Government. Recently, there have been useful informal official level discussions with the NATO secretariat on practical and administrative arrangements for participation in PfP which confirm our existing understandings of what is involved. The content of Ireland's presentation document, of course, remains a matter for this State alone. The focus of the presentation document, which will be brought before the Dáil, will be on peace-keeping and forms of co-operation consistent with Ireland's approach to international peace and European security.
Following further Government consideration of the issue in the near future, a motion approving Ireland's participation in PfP will be submitted to this House, together with the presentation document. The intention is to seek early Dáil approval so that Ireland can join PfP in the course of October. Ireland would join PfP by signing the PfP Framework Document. It is the intention simultaneously to hand over to the NATO Secretary General our national presentation document. Ireland would also be entitled to participate in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council which provides the overarching framework for political and security related consultations among PfP members. Our intention is to appoint representatives to the NATO headquarters. As the other neutral states participating in PfP have done, it is our intention to accredit the Ambassador to Belgium, who also acts as Permanent Representative to the Western European Union, to NATO.
As has been made clear in the House on previous occasions, a referendum on this matter is not required as PfP would not be in conflict with our neutrality. Participation in PfP will be in full accordance with our policy of military neutrality; participation in PfP does not entail membership of NATO or any alliance commitments. PfP does not change the situation under which Irish participation in crisis management missions, whether peacekeeping, as in Lebanon, or peace enforcement, as in the Balkans or East Timor, requires a UN mandate. PfP will in fact enhance the capabilities of the Defence Forces to meet the challenges of UN mandated peacekeeping in the next century.
Is the Minister of State confirming that the Taoiseach's commitment to a referendum has been abandoned? Is that the situation? Will she tell the House how she squares her comments that the appointment of an ambassador to NATO will go ahead when on several occasions in the past when I raised this issue the House was not told that this would happen? On one occasion the Taoiseach told the House that Ireland would not appoint an ambassador to NATO. Does the Minister of State agree that this back door approach to joining the Partnership for Peace, in terms of promising a referendum and then abandoning it and stating that an ambassador would not be appointed and then appointing one, and that by not being upfront with the people, this process has been brought into disrepute?
The Minister of State said we are preparing to participate in peacekeeping. Will she confirm that the Government is also considering preparation to participate in peace enforcement? Who is conducting the negotiations on behalf of Ireland to enter Partnership for Peace?
I confirm the Government's position that there is no need for a referendum on this issue. This is the advice of the Attorney General. It is clear there is no basis or need for a referendum. That is the considered view of the Attorney General whose advice has been sought. PfP has no implications for sovereignty. Participation would not be in conflict with neutrality. There is no conflict between participation in PfP and our policy of military neutrality. All other neutral EU states and Switzerland are participants in PfP. Forty three countries are involved in PfP, 24 of which are not members of NATO. The explanatory guide published by the Minister for Foreign Affairs gives a detailed and very open account of PfP and what is entailed by its membership.
Regarding the appointment of a representative, I know that on last or previous occasion the Minister for Foreign Affairs answered questions in the Dáil he was asked whether we would appoint an ambassador to NATO. The Minister was unsure at that stage, but now—
The Taoiseach was not unsure when I asked him.
—I am informed the proposal is to appoint the ambassador to Belgium, who also acts as permanent representative to the Western European Union, as our representative to NATO.
Regarding the distinction between peacekeep ing and peace enforcement, participation in PfP will not mean a move away from our traditional involvement in UN peacekeeping. Peacekeeping in support of the UN is a key element of our foreign policy. The contribution has received widespread recognition over many years. However, the UN is increasingly reliant on regional security organisations to support and carry out missions on its behalf, as we have seen in Bosnia, where the UN, NATO, OSCE and the European Union co-operate as a matter of routine. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has actively encouraged this trend and NATO's role in it. Ireland has already moved into the new UN approach to European regional peacekeeping through our participation in SFOR, the stabilisation force in Bosnia, and most recently in KFOR, the international security presence in Kosovo. Both these missions are mandated by the UN but conducted by NATO. PfP is an important forum for co-operation in the area of peacekeeping, including peace enforcement.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister of State agree, leaving aside the Government's efforts to dress up Partnership for Peace as some kind of humanitarian process, that PfP, as the framework document objectives make clear, is really a military alliance? Does she agree the Government is bringing the country into a militarisation situation with some of the biggest military powers in the world? Does she also agree that PfP will be tied in to the armaments industry, which will give a further twist to the production of arms carried out by the biggest NATO countries for massive profits for conglomerates? Does she not find this extremely repugnant? How can she be involved with it, especially given that leading NATO countries – the United States and Britain – armed the Indonesian dictatorship and were responsible for and culpable in the horror perpetrated against the East Timorese people for 20 years? Why is the Government afraid to go in front of the people, have a full debate in the open, a campaign, a referendum and a vote? Does the Minister of State accept, if we are to take her party on face value as one which supposedly represents the interests of people and democracy, that this flies in the face of democracy by denying the people a voice in what is a serious step of bringing this country into what is really a military alliance?
Our proposed membership of PfP is not in any way membership of a military alliance. Ireland's participation in PfP has no connection with membership of NATO. We have no plans to join NATO. Our policy regarding participation in PfP should be seen in the light of changing international circumstances and, in particular, the increased importance of peacekeeping and crisis management. PfP is an important framework for co-operation in this area.
(Dublin West): It is a front for NATO.
It is not a front for NATO. Forty three countries are involved in PfP, 24 of which are not members of NATO, including all the neutral states in Europe. It is now Government policy and it has been clearly expressed. Dialogue and debate have been encouraged by the publication of the booklet, Ireland and the Partnership for Peace.
Two years after the Fine Gael document.
There will also be an opportunity for debate when we make our presentation document. That will be brought before the House quickly. It is envisaged that we will formally move to join Partnership for Peace in October. The document is almost ready and will go to Government soon. There will be an opportunity for a full debate in the House. We are of the view, and it is our legal and political judgment, that there is no need for a referendum on this issue.
(Dublin West): The people want one.
I recognise the Minister of State represents the Government and not necessarily the Fianna Fáil view on this matter. Nevertheless, it is her responsibility to answer questions in the House. The Fianna Fáil Party went before the electorate in the general election and sought a mandate to oppose membership of Partnership for Peace and, if there were any proposal to join it, to seek the approval of the people for such a proposal. That position changed in the last six months or so. The Taoiseach, in the House and in response to questions from me, indicated that he was seeking a new mandate in the European elections for this new shift in policy. The reality is that the Fianna Fáil Party was returned to the European Parliament with less seats, and one of its elected MEPs campaigned and won a seat on the basis of opposing joining Partnership for Peace. I put it to the Minister of State that the political basis for a referendum is very clear. The major party in Government made a solemn promise that there would be consultation with the people on this issue. Does the Minister of State agree that what is being done now is politically unsustainable given the revolt emerging in the backbenches of Fianna Fáil on this issue?
Will the Minister of State indicate, in terms of whatever agreement the Government proposes to arrange with this NATO-sponsored organisation, if it is the intention that any actions Ireland take under the agreement in Partnership for Peace would require a UN mandate?
The first part of the Deputy's question, which was very much a political question, could be best put to Fianna Fáil because he referred to its manifesto position. I am here to respond on behalf of the Government. It is the Government's political and legal judgment that there is no need for a referendum on this issue. We have encouraged democratic debate on this. The Taoiseach put forward Fianna Fáil's changed position in the context of the European elections. It has sought a mandate for that change in direction.
It has not got a mandate.
It has not been secretive in its view, which has now changed. It is the Government's view that there is no need for a referendum. In relation to the question of the UN mandate, our participation in peacekeeping missions is usually under a UN mandate.
Always.
Always, yes. Increasingly, though, this calls for regional co-operation, as is happening in Kosovo and in East Timor at present where we are participating in a regional activity led by the Australian armed forces. I did not quite understand the Deputy's last question.
In terms of signing an agreement to join Partnership for Peace, will there be a condition in that agreement that any actions in regard to peacekeeping or peace enforcement in which Irish troops will be involved will be first mandated by the United Nations, as has been the position traditionally in relation to this State?
I would imagine so, but since this is a specific question and it is not here in by brief, I will have to correspond with the Deputy later on that point. I would imagine our traditional position of having a preference for our operations in peacekeeping or peace enforcement to be under a UN mandate, notwithstanding our joining PfP, will continue.
Deputy Gay Mitchell.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will I be next?
I have called Deputy Mitchell.
Will the Minister of State confirm whether the role of the Petersberg Tasks of the Western European Union include peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian aid and search and rescue? Does she agree the best way to prepare for these Petersberg Tasks is through Partnership for Peace and that if the European Union, through the Petersberg Tasks and the role it has in directing the Western European Union, were prepared to take on these tasks, we would be much better prepared to intervene and to assist in situations like Kosovo and East Timor and even in the earthquakes in Greece and Turkey? Will the Minister of State, therefore, join me in denouncing those people who constantly go on television and radio and whinge and whine about our lack of preparation when there is a need for peace enforcement, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid and then, when we seek to join an organisation like Partnership for Peace, try to obstruct it and imply it is a defence commitment, when it is not?
I agree with Deputy Mitchell's analysis. There is no institutional link between the EU and PfP, but the European Union has agreed in the Amsterdam Treaty to play a role in the Petersberg Tasks. They are the humanitarian and rescue activities, peacekeeping and crisis management. PfP has proved its importance as a framework for co-operation in these areas of activity, as can be seen from the participation in PfP of all of our EU partners, including the other EU neutral states. For neutral members of the EU, PfP is an important planning framework for the Petersberg Tasks. I agree with the Deputy.
Many people want to know why we have this unseemly haste, this U-turn. Are we being put under pressure by the USA on this matter? The Minister of State's statement today makes the Taoiseach's claim that PfP has nothing to do with NATO seem like a load of bunkum. Does the Minister agree that is the case? Is she familiar with the newly published book Preventive Defence which was written by the brains behind PfP, William J. Perry and Ashton Carter, and particularly with the part of the book where they say PfP is a stepping stone towards NATO. It is put very bluntly and quoted by Fintan O'Toole in The Irish Times recently.
And that part of Fianna Fáil's manifesto which says the same thing.
If a referendum is not required for PfP, is a referendum required for membership of NATO?
There is absolutely no intention on the part of this Government to join NATO. I will not even speculate on whether a referendum would be appropriate.
Is it required?
The first question the Deputy asked was in relation to whether it is a military alliance. I have already said it is not a military alliance. It is a facility whereby we and our fellow members of the European Union will be able to participate in peacekeeping and crisis management and other relevant aspects which are an extension of our current peacekeeping activities in the world. The procedure for participating is voluntary and straightforward. Participation in PfP is based on the principle of self-differen tiation. In other words, we can tailor what we need to do, what we want to do, how deeply we want to get involved in peacekeeping and peacemaking. We can tailor that by way of our presentation document. That will be debated fully in the House. There is no secrecy about it. It will be debated fully and the people will have every opportunity to express their views on it.
Is the US putting the Government under pressure?
There is no pressure from the US.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.