I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves participation by Ireland in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), and that it further approves the terms of Ireland's PfP Presentation Document, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 5th October, 1999.
When I became Minister, I reviewed the question of Ireland's participation in PfP. It was clear to me that there were sincerely held and divided opinions on the matter in this House and among sections of the wider community. I concluded that my initial priority should be twofold: first, to develop understanding and informed discussion of the realities of PfP and, second, to move discussion away from the polarised views and slogans which seemed to characterise a good deal of such discussion about PfP.
In the course of the past year, I encouraged the interest shown in PfP by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. There were several particularly informative and constructive sessions of the committee during 1998. These sessions improved understanding of the issues within the Dáil. Testimony was heard from a range of speakers, including the ambassadors of the four PfP neutral states. I regard all such debate and information gathering as both healthy and necessary. In January of this year, and again in May, Dáil Éireann debated PfP.
To those who would claim that there has been insufficient debate, I say, look at the record of debates and statements in this House and elsewhere, including in the media. Look at the exceptional Explanatory Guide on PfP which was published under my direction in May of this year by the Department of Foreign Affairs and which was seen by other PfP nations as a model of its kind. The Explanatory Guide fully sets out the issues. The basic texts of PfP and the substance of the Attorney General's views on the question of a referendum, are annexed to the Explanatory Guide. The guide also reproduces in full the chapter on PfP from the previous Government's White Paper on Foreign Policy. The presentation documents of the four neutral nations in PfP are also included in the guide.
To those who claim that this Government changed its mind on PfP, I say, yes, we have, and we are not afraid to admit that we can change our minds in the light of new facts and changed circumstances. My party openly and fully recast its views on PfP in crystal clear terms in its European election manifesto in which we restated our commitment to military neutrality. We emphasised our readiness to consider participation in the Petersberg Tasks under the Amsterdam Treaty and we stated our intention to join PfP subject to Dáil approval as a logical extension of our existing policy and not as a departure from it.
The origins of PfP lie in the situation in Europe following the end of the Cold War ten years ago. The divisions of the Cold War have been replaced by a new approach based on co-operative approaches to security. This development reflects principles of co-operation accepted by all European states, including Ireland. Traditional conceptions of security and defence within Europe have given way to strategies of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management. This evolution goes in the direction of Ireland's approach which has always emphasised conflict prevention and peacekeeping in its approach to international affairs. A clear example of this new approach to security issues can be seen in the approach of the European Union since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The EU's Treaty of Amsterdam has accorded priority to the Petersberg Tasks of humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management tasks. Further impetus to this approach has been given by the Cologne European Council conclusions of last June, which seek to develop the EU's practical role in preserving peace and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the UN charter and the OSCE.
At Cologne, the EU agreed to develop its role in the Petersberg Tasks on the basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Ireland wishes to contribute its UN peacekeeping experience by playing an active part in humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management tasks in support of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Ireland sees PfP as having an important role to play in co-operation and planning for participation in such tasks.
The ending of the Cold War has, of course, had many positive effects, but new and complex challenges have emerged. I need only mention the conflicts and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans throughout this decade. The world has changed considerably since the end of the Cold War, and even since PfP first came into being nearly six years ago. The European defence debate has moved away from confrontation between alliances. The defence challenges which EU countries face as we enter the new millennium are tasks of peacekeeping and crisis management. Ireland has a record second to none in UN peacekeeping and crisis management, and I am determined to see that record maintained and developed. It is against that background that I support Irish participation in PfP. I have consistently stated that Ireland's participation in PfP would be on our own terms, as set out in our pres entation document. The motion before the House makes this clear.
I wish to recall several factors underlining the Government's decision in favour of joining PfP. For the past 40 years, Ireland has been actively engaged in UN peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is a defining element in Irish foreign policy and a matter of justified public pride. Irish peacekeepers have served over 46,000 individual tours of duty. We should not be afraid to learn about new developments in peacekeeping, nor should we be hesitant about imparting our own experience to others. Peacekeeping is an integral element of how we see ourselves in the world.
A major evolution in UN peacekeeping has been taking place. The reality is that the UN is increasingly reliant on regional security organisations to support and carry out missions on its behalf. In Bosnia and Kosovo, the UN, NATO, OSCE and the European Union co-operate as a matter of routine. Ireland has already moved into the new UN approach to regional peacekeeping through our participation in the SFOR operation in Bosnia and the KFOR operation in Kosovo. These operations are mandated by the UN Security Council, but are conducted on the UN's behalf by NATO. The regional approach is not confined to Europe: INTERFET in East Timor is a further example of a UN mandated crisis management operation led by a regional actor, namely, Australia.
The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has clearly identified the change in the character of UN peacekeeping which came at the end of the Cold War. He has reflected on the importance of the evolution of UN peacekeeping from the traditional patrolling of ceasefire lines to the modern, more complex operations of the post Cold War era, and has commented on the difficulties involved in this process. He has emphasised the importance of effective means to undertake peacekeeping in the post Cold War era. He has also observed that peacekeeping today requires not only rethinking the means but also the method of implementing the mandates set out by the UN Security Council. While noting that traditional observer missions may still be enough in certain situations, the UN Secretary General has specifically cited the joint UN-NATO peacekeeping and peace building mission in Bosnia as a model of credibility and legitimacy in peacekeeping. The importance of regional support for UN peacekeeping and conflict prevention should not be underestimated. There is now a practice of meetings at UN Headquarters in New York, chaired by the UN Secretary General, and involving a range of organisations from different regions such as the EU, NATO, OSCE, Western European Union, the Islamic Conference, the Organisation of African Unity and the Organisation of American States.
One of the new realities of the post Cold War age is that no one state or institution can by itself deal with the humanitarian, political, security and refugee crises that we have seen in the last few years. That is a reality acknowledged throughout the international community – in the UN, in the OSCE and in the EU. New models of co-operation at the regional level have been endorsed by the UN and by the OSCE. PfP should be seen in that perspective. Co-operation has rightly replaced outmoded notions of competition between the various security institutions in Europe. Ireland's approach is based firmly on the principle of mutually reinforcing co-operation between security institutions. This principle has been endorsed by the UN Secretary General and by the OSCE at summit level. Bosnia and Kosovo have demonstrated that co-operation involving the UN, NATO, EU, and OSCE is not only necessary but is an everyday element in efforts to prevent conflict and maintain peace in those troubled areas.
It is Government policy that Ireland should stay in the mainstream of peacekeeping. Our Defence Forces must have a full voice in preparations for peacekeeping missions and, understandably, Ireland should not be absent from PfP, a forum in which best practice in peacekeeping is being discussed.
What does PfP entail? PfP is a voluntary, non-binding and co-operative security framework of co-operation between NATO and non-members of NATO. When it was launched in 1994 by President Clinton, it was seen primarily as a means of outreach and reassurance to the new democracies in Eastern Europe. PfP has, however, developed far beyond that aspect and is now a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management. Currently 43 countries are involved in PfP, 24 of which are non-members of NATO. The participating countries include all of our EU partners, the neutral states of Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, and many countries from eastern Europe. There is no conflict whatsoever between participation in PfP and our policy of military neutrality. The considered advice of the Attorney General is that a referendum is not legally necessary. PfP has no implications for neutrality or sovereignty. This was also the view of the previous Government when in office. I would be interested to know why some members of that previous Government now take a different view.
Participation in PfP is based on the principle of self-differentiation, that is, a participating state itself selects the nature and scope of its participation in PfP. The other neutral states, for example, have focused on practical co-operation for peacekeeping and crisis management. New PfP states subscribe to the purposes set out in the PfP framework document which 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. The objectives also focus on maintaining readiness to contribute to peacekeeping operations mandated by the United Nations 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.