I support the proposition before the House. Partnership for Peace was first conceived under the stewardship of Les Aspin, former US Defence Secretary, and was formally launched at the NATO summit in January 1994 as a co-operative security initiative designed to intensify political and military co-operation in Europe, promote stability, reduce threats to peace and strengthen relationships by promoting practical co-operation among its participants.
As other speakers said, at present 43 countries are involved in PfP, 27 of whom are non-members of NATO. Since its launch, PfP has attracted the support of all our EU partners, almost all members of the OSCE, including the 16 NATO members, Russia, all but one of the states of the former Soviet Union and traditionally neutral states like Sweden, Finland, Austria and even Switzerland.
Essentially, Partnership for Peace was born out of attempts to address the problems of security and stability in Europe following the end of the Cold War. At this time there was an ardent desire on the part of a number of former Warsaw Pact countries, fearing Russian instability and possible aggression, to join NATO. PfP was set up because member states of NATO were worried that rapid enlargement of the alliance would prove to be destabilising.
PfP received mixed reviews initially and was the subject of some cynicism. Many commentators viewed Partnership for Peace as merely a means for NATO to buy time as that organisation dealt with the enlargement issue. This view had, however, given way within a couple of years to an altogether more upbeat evaluation. PfP is now seen as having an intrinsic value in its own right and it has become a permanent fixture in the new European security architecture.
Partnership for Peace has played a major role in the divisions of the Cold War, being replaced by a new approach based on co-operative approaches to security. This development reflects principles accepted by all European states, including Ireland. Traditional conceptions of security and defence have given way to general acceptance that peacekeeping and crisis management are the key to ensuring stability and security in Europe. This evolution is in the direction of Ireland's approach which has always emphasised conflict prevention and peacekeeping. From being seen primarily as a means of outreach and reassurance to the new eastern European democracies, PfP has developed far beyond that aspect and now plays a leading role in co-operation, training and preparation for UN peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management.
May 1997 marked a major milestone in the evolution of PfP. At this time NATO, in consultation with the states participating in PfP, decided to broaden and develop co-operation within the PfP framework in view of the increasing role and importance of PfP as an element in the European security architecture and, specifically, in view of the lessons learned from the efforts of the international community in Bosnia.
PfP is also being complemented by a political consultation mechanism, the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council, which came into being in May 1997. This council has been an important forum for discussions on Bosnia, Kosovo and future peacekeeping as well as non-military areas of co-operation, such as disaster relief in Europe. The Euro Atlantic Partnership Council provides the over-arching framework for political and security related consultations and for enhanced co-operation under PfP. It maintains the approach whereby partners are able to decide for themselves the level and areas of co-operation with NATO. One of the stated aims of this council is to provide an expanded political dimension for multilateral consultation and co-operation on a wide range of security and defence related issues, for example, regional matters, arms control, civil defence and disaster relief.
The Government recognises that Partnership for Peace has evolved into a unique and important mechanism to contribute to peacekeeping within Europe. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, wrote in an article in The Irish Times on 28 November that PfP has developed into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management.
The first step taken by participants in PfP is to subscribe to a framework document which sets out the basic purposes and objectives of PfP. The purposes set out in the framework document include the protection and promotion of human rights, rededication to the principles of the Universal Declaration of 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 also include matters such as democratic control of defence forces, which reflects the initial focus of PfP on the emerging eastern European states. The objectives focus on maintaining readiness to contribute to peacekeeping operations mandated by the UN or OSCE, on joint planning, training and exercises to strengthen states' abilities to undertake peacekeeping, search and rescue and humanitarian operations.
In putting forward a presentation document, a participating state sets out its overall approach to PfP and identifies those areas of PfP in which it is interested. Other neutral states have, for example, made clear that they do not wish to join NATO and have identified peacekeeping co-operation as a priority area. The participating state then develops, in consultation with the NATO secretariat, a practical programme of co-operation specifically tailored to the areas of interest to it. This is what we are doing in our presentation document.
A popular misconception is that Partnership for Peace is NATO or is a back door to NATO. This is definitely not the case. PfP offers a selective and flexible means of co-operation on military and peacekeeping matters. Prospective NATO members have joined PfP but so too have Russia, the Ukraine and Austria, none of whom could be considered prospective NATO members. Partner nations join PfP for different reasons and when drafting their unique agreement they select from a menu of offers from NATO. This à la carte approach is what makes PfP so attractive to many nations, including Ireland. Participation in PfP is based on the principle of self-differentiation. This means a participating state can select the nature and scope of its participation in PfP.
Moves towards Ireland's entry into PfP began more than three years ago with the public consultation process and the publication of the White Paper on Foreign Policy by the previous Administration. That White Paper states that the overall objectives of Partnership for Peace are consistent with Ireland's approach to international peace and European security. It also states that the Government had decided to explore further the benefits Ireland might derive from participation in PfP and to determine the contribution Ireland might make to partnership. Senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence had consultations with NATO to explore further the benefits Ireland could derive from PfP. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs discussed the issue on many occasions and it was also the subject of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The present Government has supported a process of informed debate on PfP. In January of this year the Dáil passed a motion calling on the Government to build on Ireland's international vocation in support of peace and security, and to examine further Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace, taking into account the ongoing public debate and subject to the approval of the Dáil. The motion also reaffirmed Ireland's policy of military neutrality and our commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes and the international rule of law. On 28 January the Taoiseach said:
The current debate will allow the different parties in Dáil Éireann to formulate their positions and put it before the people as part of the European election platforms. That will provide all of us, including Fianna Fáil, with a new electoral mandate in this regard. I would envisage, all going well, that Ireland will join the Partnership for Peace on a mutually agreed basis in the second half of this year, and the Government will be working towards that timetable.
In March of this year the Minister for Foreign Affairs briefed his EU ministerial colleagues on the Government's intentions regarding PfP.
As other speakers said, Ireland, as a military neutral country, has made a proud and constructive contribution to international peacekeeping and this has been widely and generously acknowledged. The important contribution Ireland has made to international peacekeeping was referred to earlier in the year in a glowing tribute by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.
PfP has evolved into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management. By joining PfP we will be able to continue to develop our proud tradition of maintaining peace in the world by becoming a member of the pinnacle forum in Europe through which co-operation and peacekeeping missions are increasingly being organised. As a modern State, we should be self-confident to enter such a forum knowing our values and principles, ready to argue for them and, in doing so, making our own distinctive contribution to the maintenance of peace and security across the globe.
As regards peacekeeping, Irish membership of PfP would bring a number of advantages, especially in the context of the changing security architecture in Europe and the changing manner in which the UN operates. For Ireland this is an important consideration as peacekeeping has always been a defining element in our foreign policy. Having served in 40 missions and contributed 45,000 tours of duty, we are justifiably proud as a nation of our contribution to UN peacekeeping over the past 40 years. Joining PfP will help us to build on our achievements in this field.
Although opponents of Irish membership of PfP have argued that membership will damage our peacekeeping reputation and our ability to contribute to future missions, this is not the case. It ignores the reality that a major evolution in UN peacekeeping has been taking place. The UN is increasingly reliant on regional security organisations and UN mandated peacekeeping operations are being carried out by organisations, such as the NATO led SFOR in Bosnia, the Russian led CIS troops in Georgia and Tajikstan, the West African forces in Nigeria and Sierra Leone and the Australian led INTERFET force which is being set up in East Timor.
The number of peacekeeping troops under direct UN command has fallen dramatically from a peak of 80,000 to approximately 14,000 today. The future of international peacekeeping lies in regional organisations taking the lead. As long as we stay outside, we will become marginalised and less able to continue our proud peacekeeping tradition in an effective way. Rather than PfP membership weakening our ability to engage in peacekeeping, it would strengthen it and enable it to continue into the future. Membership of PfP will strengthen our ability to engage in peacekeeping rather than weaken it.
It is Government policy that Ireland should stay in the mainstream of European peacekeeping. Our Defence Forces must have a full say in preparations for peacekeeping missions. Participation in PfP would result in many benefits for our Defence Forces in terms of access to training and equipment hitherto unattainable, participation in joint military exercises and access to valuable educational opportunities. We recognise that as a Government we have a responsibility not to prevent our Defence Forces from playing a full role in peacekeeping under changing conditions for purely ideological reasons. While we do not need to join military alliances, we must co-operate with the principal regional organisations involved to maintain peace and security in Europe, in keeping with our peacekeeping contributions.
Because PfP is a flexible arrangement, it allows each member to choose the areas in which it wishes to co-operate. Participation in PfP does not involve membership of NATO and appropriate participation will not affect Ireland's policy on military neutrality. Participation will not bring Ireland into any form of alliance involving mutual defence commitments. Neither will it constitute or imply any undertaking or intention to become a member of NATO in the future. In effect, PfP presents us with a menu of options from which we can pick and choose. Our presentation document, prepared by Ministers and officials, sets the agenda for the terms of our involvement. The Minister for Defence recently stated that it is envisaged that these activities will include peacekeeping under a UN mandate and humanitarian relief and rescue – tasks in line with our traditional involvement in those worthy areas of service to others. Our neutrality is protected by the Amsterdam Treaty and the Constitution. I commend the motion to the House.