Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 Oct 1999

Vol. 509 No. 4

Partnership for Peace: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Wednesday, 13 October 1999:

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.

–(Minister for Foreign Affairs)

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:

To add the following to the motion:

"and further accepts that any proposed future amendment to the areas of participation by Ireland in the Partnership for Peace as outlined in the Presentation Document will be put before Dáil Éireann for approval."

–(Deputy Fitzgerald).

Mr. Roche

It is a pity the Partnership for Peace proposals are not well understood and that we did not have this debate some time ago. It is not surprising the public does not have a clear view of what these proposals mean because we have not had an appropriate debate. For once, the media has done a good job and there has been an effort to tease out the main issues, particularly in some of the print media. Politically, however, there has been a remarkable failure to deal with a very serious issue. There has been some shadow boxing but almost a complete failure to engage people in the debate, yet the issue is of significance to them.

It is more than a question of simple neglect. A number of people within the political establishment have been deliberately muddying the water. In doing so they are doing no service to the Irish people or to the case for our neutrality, which is at an important crossroads and which must be debated. In short, the PfP proposals, their implications and the public concerns deserve more serious attention than they are receiving. My first concern, therefore, is that we are committing Ireland to a course of action which has not been well explained, which at best is poorly understood and on which, hardly surprisingly, there is an abundance of evident confusion.

The PfP proposals originated with NATO. That is where at least part of the problem lies. NATO is not an organisation which commends itself to the Irish people. The point must be accepted, however, that any idea of a partnership focused positively on the task of creating peace between nations is worthy of consideration on its merits and disadvantages, rather than on the basis of the mythology which has grown up around the idea, as happened in this case.

It is worth debunking a number of the myths at this point, if only to dispel any notion that questioning the current action proposed by the Government is based on a misunderstanding of the PfP or on some other less worthy motive. For example, Ronan Fanning, professor of modern Irish history in UCD, waxed eloquently on my views on this issue and on what motivates those views. I have discussed many issues with Professor Fanning but I have never discussed PfP with him.

The PfP is not a military alliance; it is not confined to NATO states. It involves nations from all over Europe – east and west. Association with the PfP does not mean joining NATO. More than half the states who have signed up for the PfP are not – most never will be – NATO members and all of the European neutral states – Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland – with the exception of Ireland have joined Partnership for Peace.

Participation in this project would not compromise our neutrality, nor would it require commit ting Ireland to revoking or compromising its neutrality. Involvement in the PfP is by way of agreement which is unique in terms of international organisations in that each state, in its Presentation Document, determines its level of participation. Nations join the PfP on what is, in effect, an à la carte basis. Involvement in the PfP does not undermine our commitment to the United Nations or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE. The Presentation Documents of Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland make specific reference to these commitments, with the exception of Switzerland in the case of NATO.

Why, therefore, should one be excited about Ireland entering Partnership for Peace, with or without a referendum? The answer to this question is rather complex. First, there is a body of people who firmly believe an undertaking was given by my party that there should be a referendum prior to our entering the PfP. At this stage, it is pointless and a waste of time entering into semantic arguments as to the nature of the undertaking which was or was not written into the manifesto in 1997. The undertaking in the Fianna Fáil manifesto was not expressed in absolute terms and there was a significant proviso attached. The actual sentence reads, "Fianna Fáil in government will not participate in any co-operative security structure which has implications for Irish neutrality without first consulting the people through a referendum." No matter how we interpret that sentence, the point is that the people believe an undertaking was given. In modern politics perception is reality. The Irish people have more than enough reason to be cynical about politicians and politics without our giving them another one. Addressing public concern and cynicism is one reason for contemplating holding a referendum.

There is a much more important reason for having a referendum, perhaps not in the immediate future, but in the not too distant future. Neutrality has never been spelt out in Irish law. When the Constitution was being drafted conditions were very different than at present. Neutrality was far from the norm in national law at the time. Very few constitutions touched on the issue and few do to this day. Times have changed and neutrality has been discussed far more frequently in the past few years than in the 1930s. It is bizarre that while political Ireland is willing to talk endlessly about our neutrality we have never taken the time or the trouble to sit down and determine in clear terms what we mean by "neutrality". It is time we did so.

Politicians who are using this issue to score short-term political points are guilty of misdirecting what could be a very important debate in the life of this country. Our imminent entry into the PfP provides an ideal opportunity to consider the part we as a nation are willing to play in the future development of peace and security in Europe and the wider world. It also gives us the opportunity for the first time to clear our collec tive mind about neutrality, its nature and its responsibilities.

There is another factor which makes it imperative to consider our neutrality at this point. The common foreign and security policy of the European Union is touched on in the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. To date, the issue of how the CFSP is to be dealt with has been fudged. That situation is unlikely to pertain long into the future. At the EU Council meeting in Finland last weekend it was clear that we are now going to fast-track on common foreign and security policy. Mr. Solana has moved from his position in NATO to become the maestro for CFSP in Europe. Moreover, he will shortly take over the position of head of administration in the Western European Union. The French Government has indicated that it intends to make the issue of European defence a major focus during its forthcoming presidency of the Union. The three other neutral member states of the EU already have some clarity within their basic law on their neutral status but Ireland does not. To allow this situation to pertain for much longer is a fundamental error.

There is another, and more imperative, reason we should possess within our law a clear and unambiguous statement of how we determine our neutrality as a nation, that is, to bind the hands of Government, not just this Government but every future Government on the issue of neutrality. Sometimes a nation can by neglect lose the very things which it values most, and for us neutrality is one of the things. Neutrality is deeply ingrained in the Irish psyche and we should give the people the opportunity at the earliest possible date to express their views on neutrality.

The point can be made that in strict legal terms it is not necessary to amend Bunreacht na hÉireann by inserting an amendment on neutrality. The Constitution, it can be argued, already contains a series of provisions which can be construed as a de facto statement of neutrality. In strict legal terms this viewpoint can be and has been well defended. Article 15.6.1º provides an absolute prohibition on maintaining any foreign military base or military force on Irish soil. It will be interesting, in the context of PfP, if somebody decides to take a constitutional challenge on that issue because that aspect of Article 15.6.1º will undoubtedly be challenged at some stage in the future.

Article 28.3.1º of the Constitution, referred to on several occasions in this debate, clearly prohibits the State making a decision on participating in a war without the consent of the Dáil, although the practicalities of convening the Dáil to agree a motion have often exercised my mind as they would involve us asking somebody to wait offshore before they land. By extension of Article 28.3.1º any international agreement which would have the effect of binding Ireland to an alliance which attempted to commit this nation to war would be unconstitutional as it would be tantamount to usurping an absolute right vested in Dáil Éireann. There was an interesting debate in this House in April 1987 – Dáil Debates, Vol. 371 Col. 2316 – when the current Attorney General made these very same points about how Articles 15.6.1º and 28.3.1º protect our neutrality. Those are legal and not political arguments. Whatever their appeal to a fine and well-trained legal mind, I doubt these arguments, no matter how elegant, would carry much weight with the bulk of the Irish people, who know they wish to adhere to a concept of military neutrality and there is at the heart of Irish law at least a silence – in my view, a vacuum – on that very issue. Neutrality may not be well defined in law but there is no doubt that, ill-defined though it may be in our basic law, it is valued deeply by the people. Whatever its strict legal provenance, the concept of neutrality has won its way into the hearts and the affections of the people.

Every constitution is a treaty between a people and themselves. Every constitution enshrines the hopes and aspirations of the nation within its pages. The vast majority of the Irish people wish to live in peace and harmony with the other peoples of the world. The people are suspicious, and rightly so, of military entanglements and alliances. They should be given the opportunity on this occasion to write into their Constitution their commitment to neutrality in clear and in unambiguous terms.

Last Wednesday I raised this issue within my parliamentary party. I was given an undertaking that we will study, by internal arrangements within the next few weeks or months, the issue of neutrality and how it could be better protected in the Constitution. That is a task for all of the parties in this House. I realise that there is a variety of views on this issue. Some, like me, feel that neutrality should be at the very heart of a foreign policy which would be attractive to the people. Others believe – I respect their right although I disagree with their arguments – that we should perhaps abandon neutrality at this stage and not just engage in PfP but also join the Western European Union fully and become full members of NATO. The point I am making is that debate has not taken place and it is time it took place.

Bunreacht na hÉireann, we need to remind ourselves from time to time, does not belong to any group of judges, to academics or to the establishment, nor does it belong to the politicians who hold power at any point. Bunreacht na hÉireann belongs to the people who are the sovereign authority in this Republic. The best service the politicians can do in this matter is give the people the opportunity for a referendum which will allow them to enshrine their views and aspirations on our neutrality in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Mr. M. Higgins

In the limited time available to me, I will be as direct as I can about the issue which is before the Dáil. Obviously a debate of 15 minute contributions is not a substitute for a debate on foreign policy. Neither is it a substitute, unfortunately, for a public debate or a referendum or plebiscite which was promised by the main party of Government.

To use my time correctly, I want to be as blunt as I can. Partnership for Peace and the debate we are having on it represents a unique degradation of language because the debate is not about partnership or peace. Unequivocally, the main beneficiaries of an expanded Partnership for Peace, which was described by the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs as not the creature of NATO but rather the creation of NATO, should have been properly outlined in context which would have included the role of the armaments industry, the role of NATO, the role of NATO in Europe, the balance of PfP as an option in comparison to an expanded NATO, the role of Russia and the relationship of these new structures to issues of North/South which have replaced issues of the Cold War. None of this is taking place and we can now deal with such facts as we are allowed deal with, but there are some facts which are incontrovertible. At present the main beneficiaries of armed bodies and relationships structures is the international armaments industry. I do not have time to go into the detail of the full value of this industry, which is somewhere between $350 billion and $400 billion, 47 per cent of which is produced in the US, but Britain, to its shame, is now ranked second among producers and exporters of armaments. Turkey, a poor country which has an appalling record in relation to the Kurds, for example, became, less than three years ago the second biggest purchaser of arms in the world.

As I listen to the debate I prefer, rather than getting involved in the constitutional niceties of where precisely our neutrality might be questioned, to make a straight assertion that the beneficiary of this approach to alleged security is the international arms industry. One of the low points of the end of a century and millennium is that arms production and distribution remains something which can hardly be discussed.

It is a degradation of language to suggest that it is either a partnership or that it is peaceful. It is a degradation of politics that a promise was given to the Irish public that this matter would be debated publicly and that that promise is being broken. It is a degradation of diplomacy that it has now so formally been made secondary and residual to issues of armaments production or, as they might be described by a distinguished Secretary of State in the US, to a theory of interests. Listening here and reading the papers which have been debated, unfortunately I must refer to what has been described as the guide to Partnership for Peace produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is more an exercise in moral casuistry than a statement of any moral principle.

It is important that we consider, as Deputy Roche stated, how our action in relation to Partnership for Peace will be perceived. On reading the report of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on the United Nations on peacekeeping enforcement in the light of UN reform, I found it interesting that Ireland's distinguished Ambassador, Mr. Dylan Mahon, referred to the country's influence and stated that the country's individual position is still characterised by the following: peacekeeping; Third World orientation; energetic and objective activity on human rights – just recently established in the Department – and positive influence on the EU relative to some nuclear issues and conventional weapons. On the question of UN reform he noted that Ireland paid on time, is active on working groups engaged in reform, favours an enhancement of the General Assembly through the use of charter powers, encourages better communication between the General Assembly and SECO and is active on the question of enlargement and the veto.

Mr. Dylan Mahon is correct. Our relationship to the world in making a case for peace and security in a new context that is post-Cold War means that we must speak meaningfully if we are to speak about foreign policy and our attitude to Africa, Asia and the countries which are not on that long list but which have specific interest in PfP. We must, as it were, live responsibly in the world and define a foreign policy. Within that policy, we must outline a set of diplomatic practices. However, it seems that we now have a kind of drift which I describe as "a degradation". If I was to define it more theoretically, I would state that it is the supremacy of the technocratic over the moral. We are approaching the end of a century where ethics has departed from economics and where moral principles have departed from diplomacy and foreign policy.

I respect the views of those who may say that in the absence of PfP there is nothing else. What is that but an excuse for an active foreign policy that would have been built on genuine principles of peace and partnership and that would have spoken about the immorality of the deflection of so many human resources from tasks of building peace? The little document on Partnership for Peace contains not one jot about building the mind of peace, erecting peaceful structures or educating for peace. I am deeply saddened by the technocratic drift to which I referred. People have a right to offer their opinion but the debate has been led by those who argue that we need to join PfP in order to continue with essential tasks of peacekeeping. I do not have time to list the many corrections to their arguments. However, I wish people on the Government side had noted, for example, the new Russian position post-Kosovo, namely, that it changed its stance in relation to PfP. Others may wish to correct, but I do not have the time for such detail.

In the September issue of European Issues a contributor ended his long article by stating that Europe will lose its patience with us, that Ireland is a dependent economy and that PfP is part of our participation in Europe. What is this all about? Has anyone suggested that the Irish Defence Forces personnel who made 46,000 indi vidual trips abroad in the interests of peacekeeping needed PfP? I contend that they did not need it. Is anyone suggesting, for example, that we would not be able to continue to involve ourselves in peacekeeping missions? It has been half suggested that we need information in order to make our troops secure and that we need better equipment etc. These are separate issues. Our Defence Forces have an admirable record. I support their activities and they should be properly equipped. However, this is quite different from advocating membership of PfP.

Against whom is PfP designed to defend us? In the United States, the debate about PfP is divided between those who are isolationist, to some extent, and who feel that America has paid too great a price for securing Europe, those who argue that it should reach a different accommodation with Russia and a group of people who believe that the creation of an entity such as PfP manages to fudge the issue in the absence of policy. Let us be clear, PfP was created by NATO in 1994. The application in respect of PfP was processed by the Secretary General of NATO, who also chairs the related consultative body.

In joining PfP we will do something that is peculiarly regarded as convincing the world about that moment in our history when we were supposed to be neutral, namely, World War II. Again, time constraints will not permit me to elaborate on this. However, there is such a concept as positive neutrality that is not fudged by the sort of casuistry to which I referred earlier.

The timing of our entry to Partnership for Peace is important. There is a kind of arrogance involved in this regard. I recall campaigning in the 1980s for the establishment of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign policy so that we could discuss foreign policy in the Oireachtas. I was informed at the time that this was a form of "high activity" which could not be understood by the average Deputy or Senator. Such a committee now exists but the people of Ireland are being disqualified from debating the issues surrounding entry to PfP which has the net effect of breaking a promise to them.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. Not only am I voting against the galloping of this motion through the Dáil, but if there had been a referendum I would have voted "no". I would have done so because of my belief in the importance of our having an engaged and active foreign policy. As an elected representative, I find it offensive to be informed by some people that the Army knows best. The Army is in possession of some of but not all the information and it is quite outrageous to dislodge the political opinion of Members of the Oireachtas and the people by those writing from a position of experience who believe that the structures from which a country appropriates its enhanced military capacity are irrelevant. We are faced with an economics without ethics and a foreign policy without moral principles. That is a degrading position in which to find ourselves.

I return to Mr. Dylan Mahon's evidence to the sub-committee on the United Nations that we would be going with a great bag to gather up the votes for our membership of the Security Council. Why do we want to join the Security Council? Ireland was a member of that council on a previous occasion when it received the support of the Latin American nations. That was a proud moment in our history and we attracted great respect. I recall that Noel Dorr was Ireland's permanent representative at the UN during that period. Will we be respected if we continue to state, "We were dependent and we could not afford to do anything different"?

Let us be clear, we are substituting a kind of logic of technocratic drift for the formation of policy. We correctly use language developed elsewhere such as "the new architecture of foreign policy". Within this new architecture, what is to be the role of the UN? The misquotation of Kofi Annan's position, even in the document circulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs, is outrageous. I challenge the Department in that regard. Kofi Annan's speech on regional initiatives referred to the United Nations building peace and relying more and more on taking regional initiatives. The historic example of Namibia in Africa comes to mind in that regard and I could provide further examples. There is not one jot of proof that Kofi Annan ever suggested that NATO is the regional authority for Europe, its periphery and beyond. The misquotation to which I refer is simply outrageous.

Given our anxiety to be members of the Security Council, I thought we would have been discussing UN reform and the extension of the moral authority of the UN, global citizenry and interdependency. However, the Government's case in respect of this issue contains another little demeaning exercise. In the last paragraph of his contribution, the Minister stated that it is time to put an end to our isolationism. When were we isolationists? Some of us have worked all our lives on dealing with human rights cases, famine etc. abroad.

We do not need a lecture – I am surprised to hear one from a friend of mine, Deputy Andrews, with whom I shared many working experiences abroad in the past – to the effect that, somehow or other, joining PfP is macho, modern and international and that those who oppose this view are either traditionalists or internationalists. That is codswallop. Joining PfP without a debate is an outrageous, anti-democratic exercise in unthinking logical drift to a position where we are simply saying that we count for very little. The best argument I have heard today – I have listened to almost the entire debate – is that we cannot afford to be anywhere else. May the Lord help us if all we can bring to foreign policy is the notion that membership of PfP will be a great opportunity –"wonderful opportunity, smart lad wanted". Ireland in PfP will be able to play the military games with the best of them. This is Ireland's foreign policy in 1999. It is rather sad.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude now.

Mr. M. Higgins

I will conclude now. This is a NATO initiative, proposed by the United States in October 1993 as a substitute for seeking new members for NATO. In May 1995 Russia revised its membership. It is part of NATO's membership action plan. As a process and as a signifier it is the beginning of the end of a period of enormous potential influence for Ireland. We might have built security in terms of the deflection of arms production from tasks of war to tasks of peace. With the greatest sadness I say that Ireland's role in deflecting the production of armaments and their distribution is incredibly damaged by this action and, more than that, our allies and friends and those in the international community who admired us will no longer see us as giving moral leadership but as a little bit of something that is standing there temporarily. They will see that we did not have the courage to say that Europe would take on the international role of security co-ordinator. Rather than doing that, we have had an affair with the ghost of NATO and its wonderful recent record of collateral damage of civilians and smart bombs.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must conclude.

Mr. M. Higgins

I am finished now. The only people happy with this kind of foreign policy are the owners of the international arms production industry. It is a disgraceful and sad day when the Irish people are deprived of their opportunity of uttering an opinion on it.

Ms M. McGennis

One would not have thought such a benign title as Partnership for Peace could generate such fear and anger but Deputy Higgins has made it clear that it does. He describes Partnership for Peace as a degradation, and maybe he is right. I understand why people may experience such fear and anger and question the rightness of the journey we are about to undertake. I asked questions similar to those posed by Deputy Higgins at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting last March when this issue was first discussed.

No matter how the matter is interpreted, my understanding of my party's election manifesto is that Fianna Fáil gave a commitment to hold a referendum on this issue. We are now told by the current Attorney General and his predecessor that there is no necessity to hold a referendum. That may be the legal position but it does not detract from the fact that we gave a commitment and we are now doing an about face. This does not, and will not, serve us well. Deputy Roche's proposals are worthy.

I argued at the parliamentary party meeting last March that regardless of whether a refer endum is required it would be possible to hold a plebiscite to ascertain the view of the electorate on the issue. This is done in other states. This is done on a yearly, if not twice yearly, basis in Switzerland although the Swiss did not hold a plebiscite on this issue. The opposing argument is that Governments are elected to govern and we should not refer to the electorate every time we must make a decision. I do not believe we should, except when we make decisions of the magnitude of this one. I admit that I do not fully comprehend the magnitude of this decision. History will judge people like myself who have come full circle on this issue. I see much merit in ascertaining the views of the public in a plebiscite. Previous constitutional referendums did not allow the reasoned and informed debate which Deputy Higgins wishes to see but nevertheless a plebiscite would be worthwhile.

It is notable and right that Deputy Higgins is not in step with his own party on this issue. The White Paper which was published in 1996, when he was in Government, recommended that we join PfP. There can be diversity of views within parties. We must respect this diversity and I respect Deputy Higgins's view.

I do not have a definition of Irish neutrality. Recent opinion polls in The Irish Times showed 69 per cent of people absolutely favouring neutrality. However, 57 per cent of those people favoured Ireland making a commitment to defend another member state. I share this ambivalence. Is membership of PfP compatible with our policy of positive neutrality, whatever that is? We might define positive neutrality as allowing the Dáil to make the ultimate decision regarding military involvement on behalf of the Irish people on a case by case basis. We saw this happen last week in relation to our involvement in East Timor. If we follow this policy of allowing the Dáil to make such decisions we must accept that the Dáil represents the views of the people. At the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting, Deputy Roche proposed that the debate on Ireland's neutrality begin immediately and that the constitutional review group, of which I am a member, should examine the question of holding a referendum on Ireland's neutrality. We need to know what we mean by neutrality. The opinion poll published in The Irish Times reveals that we do not know what we mean by it.

The issue of armaments causes great concern. Deputy Michael O'Kennedy spoke at length to the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party about the armaments industry in the same tone as Deputy Higgins. The Minister has stated that there is reference to the armaments industry in the Partnership for Peace presentation document. I would not wish to see Ireland become a party to something which fuels this disgusting industry. I recently visited Lebanon with a cross-party group and during the course of that visit the need for equipment became obvious. Armoured personnel carriers are expensive, but our soldiers needed them every morning as they swept the Israeli occupied area for landmines. An argument can understandably be made against the arms industry, but equipment is needed by our army to provide humanitarian assistance and to participate in peacekeeping missions.

I share Deputy Higgins's confusion about the distinction between Ireland's participation in UN peacekeeping missions and involvement in PfP. We are told that increasingly such operations will be carried out by regional organisations. I want further clarification on why it is necessary to change the manner in which these operations were conducted previously, but those who know better have decided this is the way to proceed. Ireland's participation in PfP will be decided on a case by case basis and I welcome that because at least we are not signing up to something which could get out of control and commit us to all missions.

There is a widely held perception among those opposed to PfP that it will damage Ireland's neutrality. All the other neutral EU member states have signed up to it, but I am not sure if Ireland has defined what "neutrality" means. That is probably where the debate should have commenced before it was agreed to sign up to PfP. Perhaps we should have engaged more with the public about its perception of neutrality. If, however, it were necessary to hold a referendum on PfP, the public would probably have signed up to it based on the experiences of the Irish Army abroad.

When this issue was first debated by the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, I recounted my experience of the day in 1960 when the first Irish troops travelled to the Congo with the UN and the near euphoria of the people on O'Connell Street as they saw them off. My father was a member of the medical corps and there was a great sense of Ireland being a small nation fighting for the rights of people who were treated badly. The following Christmas, however, there was panic in the Army married quarters, where I lived, when it was reported that Irish soldiers were missing. I was aged six at the time and many young families lived in the barracks. While the adults attempted to conceal what was happening from the children, we picked up on the fear among the women that their husbands might have been killed in the Niemba ambush. As it transpired, my father, thankfully, was not killed but many of his friends were.

I epitomise the ambivalence of the people who want to see our neutrality retained and I never want to see Irish troops participating in an offensive mission. It is accepted that they will protect and defend on peacekeeping missions but, unfortunately, soldiers are killed on such missions. During Ireland's first peacekeeping mission, we had the most horrific experience where the largest number of soldiers ever was killed abroad. History will judge us on whether we did the right thing. I do not know if anybody will say the mission to the Congo in the 1960s was wrong, but it was heartbreaking for those who lost fathers and brothers. Having had the opportunity as a Member of this House to visit Cambodia and the Lebanon, and despite my own family experience, I will make a leap of faith. I hope Ireland will not be involved in an offensive military alliance but continue to engage in peacekeeping.

Mr. G. Reynolds

I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. It was a pleasure to listen to Deputy Higgins's contribution, although I come from the other side of the argument and would not be able to express myself as eloquently. The time and effort he put in to establishing the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will always stand to him and all of us should not have to debate Irish foreign policy in 15 minutes.

This issue is critical to the development of our foreign policy into the next millennium. However, I fully support the clear and honest way Fine Gael has led the debate on membership of PfP. The debate is in the public arena since 1996 and one reason put forward by the people and organisations that oppose Ireland's membership is that the public is not fully informed of the advantages or disadvantages of PfP. The debate has been to the forefront of public consciousness for only a number of months. The majority of people are not interested while the remainder have participated in the debate.

The aspect of PfP most widely debated is whether we should hold a referendum on membership of the organisation. I share Fine Gael's view that it is not necessary. We, as Members of this House, are elected to legislate and to make decisions for the common good on behalf of those who vote for us. I have no difficulty standing over the decision that Ireland should join PfP and I will answer the people I represent over the next number of years. If they have a difficulty with my decision on this issue, I will argue my case and I am confident they will believe I made this decision in good faith and in the best interest of the country.

The most cynical aspect of this debate is the manner in which Fianna Fáil dealt with it while in Opposition. I heard Deputies Roche and McGennis state that a promise was made and I realise that we all have difficulties with U-turns. When he was leader of the Opposition, while debating the White Paper on Foreign Policy, the Taoiseach made this statement in the Dáil:

PfP involves joint exercises with NATO on sea or land. Will they take place in Ireland? Will we be able to choose the NATO countries with whom we wish to have exercises? Will we have British troops back in the Curragh, the French in Bantry Bay, the Germans on Banna Strand, the Spanish in Kinsale and the Americans in Lough Foyle? Is that what we are talking about, or will we take part in exercises abroad under NATO command?.We would regard any attempt to push Partnership for Peace or participation in Western European Union tasks by resolution through this House without reference to the people who under our Constitution have the right "in final to appeal to decide on all questions of national policy", as a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic.

Those words speak for themselves and that is the issue. We are discussing a serious foreign policy issue and we have all seen the difficulties it has caused, with Members of this House being held in low esteem by the public because party leaders come into this House, make such statements and then enter Government to upend such statements by saying there is no need for a referendum. I was amazed to hear Deputy Bertie Ahern talk about British troops back in the Curragh. That is not politics, it is hype; it does not deal with the issues involved. That cynicism is what leaves the bad taste in the mouths of the public.

I am not saying that Fianna Fáil is the only party which has made a U-turn. We are all to blame but we must think about what we say here. We cannot be irresponsible. The major issue which concerns people is why there is not a referendum on the issue, they are not worried about joining Partnership for Peace. They are willing to be led by the legislators but not by those who came into this House three years ago to state that there would be a referendum and who are now in a position to put that referendum in place but are not willing to do so or to explain why. That is a major difficulty.

An argument used against membership of Partnership for Peace is that it involves us in activities with states possessing nuclear weapons. The reality is that Irish peace keepers over many years have served, and continue to serve, with peace keepers from France, Britain, the USA and Russia, all of which possess nuclear weapons. That is a spurious argument which cannot stand up.

I listened with interest to Deputies Roche and McGennis when they spoke about the meaning of neutrality. During the Second World War, Seán Lemass said that Ireland was neutral on the side of the Allies. In pragmatic terms that was true. We have not had an explanation of what neutrality means to this country now. I agree with Deputy Roche that the definition of neutrality is a major issue which will face this country and a decision which the people and the legislators will have to make to see how our foreign policy will work in the new millennium.

We have been members of the European Union since 1973 and we have seen the vast funding which was given to the country by the European Union. We have seen the massive improvements membership has made to our infrastructure, helping us to create economic success which is the envy of many countries. If we are willing to participate in economic and monetary union we must be willing to defend this union. We cannot have it both ways, we cannot enjoy the fruits of monetary union with access to the largest economic bloc in the world, or act as a base for other countries which want access to that bloc, without participating in the defence of that union if such a need should ever arise. There will be heated arguments but this is a debate which must take place and one in which all people in this country have a legitimate right to participate. We need to deal with it sooner rather than later. It is time to look at our neutrality; it is not the sacred cow it once was. If we wish to participate fully in economic and monetary union, we must participate in its defence.

Many people have a difficulty with our joining Partnership for Peace because of its close links with NATO. It has been stated that the next step after membership of Partnership for Peace is membership of NATO. NATO has its difficulties, particularly those caused by the arms industry for Third World countries, countries which spend more on purchasing weapons than feeding and educating their populations. The history of NATO must, however, be taken into consideration. Since the establishment of NATO, millions of people have not been murdered on this continent as happened in the First and Second World Wars. NATO has done some good things. The UN carries out excellent peace keeping missions in which this country has proudly participated, and we have an enviable record, but the difficulties in Kosovo and Bosnia were responded to by NATO while the UN was found to be unable to respond as quickly as was necessary. East Timor is another example. People were appalled at the murder and mayhem in those places and were appalled that the international community stood by, waiting for someone to make a move.

The UN is hamstrung because it is not receiving funding. The UN cannot be the peacekeepers of the world if finance is not available and it cannot put in peacekeeping missions throughout the world. A major issue for the United Nations is rehabilitation to enable it respond much quicker. NATO responded, but not fast enough for the majority of us, and are doing very good work in the countries I have named. Being closely associated with NATO is the major disadvantage being portrayed by those who are anti our membership of partnership for peace.

Our membership of partnership for peace was described by some of my colleagues as like an a la carte menu where you can decide what parts of partnership for peace you want to participate in. It is not a treaty, the country can leave it at any stage. If membership is causing difficulties, the country can decide. The question of membership of partnership for peace is not as serious as that stated by those opposed to it.

This is a good thing for our Army. In recent years we have seen how the armed forces have been demoralised. They have been excellent in peacekeeping duties throughout the world. Joining partnership for peace would boost morale in the Army. That alone would be of benefit.

Mr. Killeen

The debate so far has centred on three main issues, none of which appears to consider the PfP concept or to clarify the position in the public mind. The issues focused on are neutrality, whether or not there ought to be a referendum and the question of the pre-election promises in the manifesto. On the question of neutrality there has been an extremely important debate on this occasion which contrasts quite sharply with the debate which took place when the White Paper on foreign policy was discussed about two years ago. Certainly it is much more passionate and people are adopting stronger positions than one would have anticipated. There is a good deal of confusion about what this neutrality means. There is confusion about the concept and about the reality. Nonetheless there is in the Irish psyche a leaning towards the concept of neutrality and a belief that it is a respectable concept and one which places us in a strong position internationally and in a good moral position. It is no harm that the concept and the reality of neutrality is considered in those terms but, more particularly in practical terms, in the context of where we stand in relation to foreign policy. The concept of positive neutrality is tossed about. Nobody has illustrated what they mean by that, nor has anybody said what they might mean by negative or neutral neutrality. It seems the concept is, in some senses, at a surreal level. At the back of our minds none of us can help thinking that we are not planning on attacking anybody in the immediate future, we are not planning to jump in on one side or the other in any of the armed conflicts which are taking place. However that is not a reason for walking away from considering where we stand. In the lazy mind and in the mind which likes the easy-fix there is an inclination to do that. Virtually all speakers so far have added to the debate in this area. From what I have read about partnership for peace there would seem to be very little reason the neutrality debate ought to become central to the debate on PfP.

The referendum issue has grabbed the public imagination much more than any other element. That is extraordinary. We have had a series of referenda over decades where people had almost to be driven to the polls to cast their votes. They have treated referenda with a level of boredom, contempt and lack of interest that is hard to exaggerate and understand. I have no reason, nor has anybody given me one, to believe that if there had been a referendum on partnership for peace there would have been more interest, or more illuminated public debate on the issue. In relation to referenda, there is the question of whether a referendum must be held. It is clear that if the legal advice states that the Constitution is being altered a referendum is required.

There is an interesting sub-debate on whether referenda might be held on other issues that might not require a referendum in terms of the legal advice available. We should not necessarily say that, just because the legal advice says one should not have a referendum, we should not have one. There may well be issues where the public interest is so great that there would be a decent turn-out and it would encourage a level of public participation in policy which we have not so far seen. We do not see it in general elections or in referenda dealing with our membership of the European Union. The Amsterdam Treaty, and the Maastricht Treaty which made fundamental and far-reaching changes in Ireland's position were entered into and endorsed by the people in a state of confusion and disinterest with the disinterest outweighing the confusion by 70:1. I am astounded that the referendum element has become a central issue. One can understand the neutrality issue would come into the debate.

Anyone who has taken the trouble to go beyond the carefully extracted brief excerpts from speeches made here and outside by the Taoiseach and others and examine what was said would have a different view to that represented by many speakers on the Opposition benches. The concept of partnership for peace has changed very much since its inception. Some people may have had reason to be suspicious about what was originally proposed. However, there have been far reaching changes since that time in relation to what PfP means. Much of the concern relating to the election manifesto issue was that this was another election promise being broken. If the full story was told it would be quite as stark and would not be like that. If any group in society needs to be conscious of its image in the public mind it is surely politicians. Many of us need to look at behaviour in Opposition as well as in Government in terms of how it serves the national good, and I am not referring just to the people currently in Opposition. We need to be more careful with what we say and how we represent the issues of the day. As politicians, we frequently make the mistake of thinking the people are not as smart as they appear but ultimately they see through much of what goes on.

Since the debate has become embroiled in the area of neutrality, and since the concept of Partnership for Peace has assumed proportions which do not appear to be justified by what is involved, we have been forced to examine aspects of our foreign policy that perhaps we have not done often enough in the past. One of the questions that concerns us and the people outside the House is the standing of the United Nations and its failure, in many important fora, to address the issues involved. Part of that concern relates to the Security Council and the appalling record of certain countries, some of which are friends of Ireland, in their obligations to finance the United Nations. Nobody can be impressed with the standing of the United Nations and with its moral position as a custodian of international law. That important aspect of the debate is worthy of consideration. Many of the organisations we do not like, including NATO, could be more easily dispensed with if the UN had the standing we would all like.

Many speakers referred to the production and sale of armaments. It is a fact that otherwise civi lised countries, many of which are among our friends internationally, have an appalling record in this regard. Nobody can fault us as individual parliamentarians or as an Oireachtas for taking every opportunity to decry the appalling human suffering which ensues from the international armaments industry. There is a moral role for Ireland in international and foreign policy which must be stated clearly and frequently. We tend to underestimate the value of a strong moral position Ireland has tried to hold on all of these issues. What can be dismissed as righteous indignation, frequently expressed strongly by individuals and nations elsewhere, can make a difference.

The Partnership for Peace debate has been tied up on three other issues. It is fair to say the public relations battle with regard to Partnership for Peace has been lost by the movers of the motion, and some ground needs to be made up. The responsibility for making up that ground does not rest solely with the Department of Foreign Affairs or with the Government. It is important that people with strong views should present them in a truthful way and not add to them to improve their own political position.

I take comfort from the strong position of the Minister, Deputy Andrews, on many issues in the past year or so. He has established a level of personal credibility in this House, in the Fianna Fáil Party and in the international arena which has been good for Ireland, and that should not be overlooked in the debate. On the other hand, those presenting the arguments in favour of Partnership for Peace who introduced the spurious armed forces element, the need to re-equip, and so on, should have another look at the matter because it does not add to the strength of the case.

The central question in relation to Ireland's foreign policy is, who shapes it? Who should shape it? What is the role of this House? Much mention has been made of the foreign affairs committee which does tremendous work, but is that work reflected in our foreign policy position? Our position would be stronger if that were the case. I mentioned already the example of the debate on the White Paper on Foreign Policy which was a great deal less passionate and considerably less illuminating than the debate on this issue, and I listened to virtually every speaker since the debate started. There is a view that because there are only six or seven Deputies in the House at a time, nobody else has any involvement or knows what is going on. I frequently take the opportunity to say that is not the case. Virtually every Member follows the debates in the House closely. People will be surprised to know that almost everybody has a good idea of what everybody else said, yet there is a view that we escape to a place of comfort and entertainment while four or five people keep the House going. That does not serve well the role of the politician in the public mind. We are slow to drive home the point that people are serious about their business and following what is going on in the House.

I was interested in the concept of technocratic drift as outlined by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. Central to that concept is the question of foreign policy, who should shape it and the reason so much of it is in the drift he mentioned. In some sense it might be a vague concept but it is central to where civilisation might be going or where it might direct itself. In outlining the constitutional position on neutrality, Deputy Roche put to bed the view of many people that there is no constitutional position. While the word is not given a direct meaning in the Constitution, several provisions have a bearing on issues such as neutrality, some of which might have had a bearing on this issue, but I tend to accept the advice of two Attorneys General in relation to it, although other speakers have a valid case when they question it.

From the outset many of the contributions have been insightful and passionate and illustrated the genuine moral dilemmas for many people on issues such as this. It is important to state that Partnership for Peace is a voluntary framework. Participation in PfP is very different from participation in NATO. I know some people have concerns about the headquarters, the secretariat and matters of that nature but many people who had such concerns two or three years ago are much more comfortable with the concept of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council which this country intends to join. That concept relates more closely to the position in which many of us would wish to be placed.

I welcome the debate on the various aspects of the issue and clarity in relation to what is involved would be extremely helpful.

Mr. Gormley

This decision on PfP membership is one of the most important and far-reaching ever to be made in this House. Any attempt to try to present it as only a small extension of Ireland's peacekeeping role and as having nothing to do with either our neutrality or with the nuclear alliance, NATO, must be resisted. The Green Party is an internationalist party. We strongly support an active and positive neutrality, dedicated to the peaceful settlement of international disputes through the United Nations only and not through NATO, the NATO-led PfP or any NATO linked EU defence body now being devised in Brussels.

The people of Ireland and future generations will not thank this Government or certain Opposition Deputies for the half truths they have put forward on PfP. They will not thank them or Fine Gael for denying the people the right to be heard on this issue, the right to a referendum. I have no doubt that both the denial of this basic democratic right and joining of PfP will come back to haunt this Government.

Not only is this decision historic, so is Fianna Fáil's U-turn. Deputy Bertie Ahern's scathing comments on NATO's PfP while in Opposition—

An Ceann Comhairle

He must be referred to as "the Taoiseach".

Mr. Gormley

I beg your pardon. The Taoiseach's scathing comments on NATO's PfP while in Opposition, and the hollow Fianna Fáil election manifesto promises to never join PfP, are now infamous. However, the size of this U-turn has caught even many of the Fianna Fáil faithful by surprise, with disquiet, not only in the grass roots, but also on the Fianna Fáil backbenches. The Taoiseach's renowned brass neck is well suited for his new military role. His first action will be to march his soldiers of destiny, not just through the ‘yes' lobby, but into the ranks of NATO. We will be quite literally in the lobbies of NATO, as this Presentation Document commits Irish military personnel to being permanently based in NATO headquarters.

PfP is a support structure for NATO. To try to fob it off as the Salvation Army or the Red Cross, involved in solely humanitarian actions, is simply wrong, and the Government knows that. PfP was founded to assist NATO expansion, to give NATO a new lease of life after the Cold War. President Clinton has called it "A path to full NATO membership for some and a strong lasting link to the Alliance for all". The Green Party and the majority of Irish people find neither of those options acceptable.

Why is Ireland now proposing to assist the expansion of NATO, a military bloc based on nuclear weapons and a nuclear defence policy found illegal under humanitarian law by the International Court of Justice at the Hague? For the Government to now commit us in this Presentation Document to conducting humanitarian exercises with NATO is quite bizarre.

The PfP and this Presentation Document go far beyond humanitarian co-operation. The PfP framework document, which the Government and all PfP members sign – and which this House, apparently, will not discuss – is open-ended about the types of missions which PfP members might perform with NATO, and emphasises the need for armed forces to be properly equipped to operate alongside NATO. The Presentation Document we have before us is also open-ended. It states: "The following is an indication of areas of general interest for Ireland in the PfP framework". That is quite vague. Highlighting peacekeeping, humanitarian, search and rescue, and co-operation on the environment and marine matters has diverted attention from other aspects of this document.

For example, we are now committed to the development of military interoperability with NATO, and the enormous arms expenditure that goes with it. At last week's PDFORRA conference, quotes of £200 million were cited, for starters, and there have been estimates in the billions. This will be another boost for the arms trade. There are better ways to spend this money. We could spend it on child care, schools, hospitals, housing, disability, public transport and on helping the developing world and alleviating the reasons for conflict in those areas. Considering the armaments that will be required in the PfP, references in section 5 of the Presentation Document to Ireland's commitment to disarmament ring rather hollow. PfP is directed at armaments, not disarmament. The arms manufacturers are having a field day.

It is now clear that Irish officers will serve in NATO headquarters in Brussels and in the Partnership Co-ordination Cell, PCC, in Mons, Belgium. What will these officers do? The PCC is under the authority of NATO's North Atlantic Council and co-ordinates PfP military activities with NATO staff, commands and agencies. Officers from PfP countries are allowed work alongside their NATO counterparts in NATO's military structure – so-called partnership staff elements. Are Irish officers intending to do this?

There is provision for a limited training area. This means NATO troops could now exercise on Irish territory, a vista the Taoiseach so eloquently put before this House while in Opposition, when he asked: "Will we have British troops back in the Curragh, the French in Bantry Bay, the Germans on Banna Strand, the Spanish in Kinsale and the Americans in Lough Foyle?".

Mr. Creed

Or the RUC in Tralee.

Mr. Gormley

Perhaps. The Taoiseach might like to answer his own question, since he is now, in effect, inviting foreign troops into Ireland.

There will be co-operation, not just in peacekeeping, but in "peace support" and "crisis management" operations as well. This is a blank cheque proviso, allowing Irish troops to become involved in a full array of military exercises with NATO. Both peace support and crisis management involve enforcement. Anyone doubting this, can check NATO's own logistics handbook, which defines peace support operations as including "peacemaking". Section 19 of the Presentation Document states Ireland will participate in and host, among others, "exercises associated with peace support operations". Basically, the door is now open.

In what sort of exercises will Irish troops be involved? Earlier this year, the Government actively considered participating in a PfP operation – without being a member of PfP – called BALTOPS 99. NATO has defined BALTOPS as "a series of multilateral training exercises in air warfare, shallow water undersea warfare, electronic warfare, air defence, surface warfare, communications, fast patrol boat operations, seamanship and mine warfare". No doubt, if Ireland is a member of PfP next year, it will participate in this, under the guise of exercising in "fast patrol boat operations" or "seamanship". However, it is a war exercise – this is about war games.

Under this agreement, Ireland will join the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, EAPC, and the Planning and Review Process, PARP, in which we will consult NATO on military matters. The PARP process is integrated into NATO's defence planning and identifies "forces and capabilities which might be made available for multinational training, exercises and operations in conjunction with Alliance forces". The EAPC document states that among the "specific subject areas on which Allies and Partners would consult" would be nuclear issues – proliferation and defence – as well as defence strategy and policy. Therefore, the claims by the Minister, Deputy Andrews, that this has nothing to do with nuclear deterrents are bogus.

We have not been given much information in this House about these bodies we are about to join. It is very instructive to see what was said at NATO's Washington summit in April. The EAPC Heads of State and Government endorsed a number of documents, including, first, a "Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations", emphasising "its importance to the growing operational role of the Partnership"; second, a report "Towards a Partnership for the 21st Century – The Enhanced and more Operational Partnership", which sets out the main elements of the more operational PfP, including "enhanced defence-related and military co-operation"; and, third, an "Operational Capabilities Concept for NATO-led PfP Operations", which the EAPC states "will be further developed to reinforce PfP's operational capabilities, thereby improving the ability of Alliance and Partner forces to operate together in future". Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, addressing the EAPC summit, welcomed the fact that we are "increasingly planning and exercising together in preparation for possible future missions". This is the club that Ireland will join.

I listened carefully to Deputy Roche, who spoke about the so-called neutral members. These are referred to in the US Congress as "the former neutrals". Members should make no mistake – their neutrality has been eroded through membership of the PfP. Deputy Roche also put forward the idea of a constitutional amendment, which would enshrine Irish neutrality. He is simply flying a kite and is being entirely disingenuous. I proposed such an amendment at the time of the Amsterdam Treaty. It was rejected by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, unfortunately, the Labour Party.

It is interesting that the links between NATO's PfP and the EU's "Petersberg Tasks" have been admitted to in both this Presentation Document and the Government's explanatory guide. The Government failed to acknowledge these links during the Amsterdam Treaty referendum. Why was that? At its summit in Washington in April, NATO offered its "collective assets and capabilities" to the EU for the Petersberg Tasks and to further the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. The Government's PfP explanatory guide says that this NATO offer:

will entail increased co-operation involving NATO, the Western European Union and the European Union. For those EU states which are not members of NATO, PfP is likely to be a principal point of contact with NATO in this connection, in particular as regards the planning for the Petersberg Tasks.

The impression given is that we have no choice. If the Petersberg Tasks are to work, Ireland must also join PfP. The EU's summit in Cologne in June has further hastened this militarisation.

The Green Party firmly believes that this undemocratic push to join PfP is inextricably linked to the military commitments in the Amsterdam Treaty which the Greens so strongly warned against, and just as we were misled about Amsterdam, we are now being totally misled about Partnership for Peace. The presentation document says that Ireland is a neutral country and "does not intend" to become a member of NATO. The Green Party is very uncomfortable with the choice of words. It should be remembered that the Taoiseach did not intend joining Partnership for Peace either. He was stronger than that, he said we would not join. Why does this document not state that Ireland will never become a member of NATO?

Let us be clear about the game plan of NATO and PfP. The best explanatory guide to PfP came not from the Government last spring but from PfP's architects. William Perry was the US Secretary of Defence under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997, and Ashton Carter was Assistant Secretary of Defence. In their recently published book, Preventive Defence, they explain NATO's new role: “NATO's principal strategic and military purpose in the post-cold war era is to provide a mechanism for the rapid formation of military potent ‘coalitions of the willing' able to project power beyond NATO territory.” They go on to say that the experience of partnership should be “as close as possible in practical military terms to the experience of membership in NATO”.

All this clearly shows that our neutrality is being severely undermined. We have already conducted thousands of PfP exercises with and on behalf of the real partnership for peace, the United Nations. Irish troops are the epitome of effective UN peacekeepers. Our troops are and continue to be accepted throughout the world as impartial peacekeepers serving the UN and its universal interests, not the special interests of NATO or a militarised EU.

It is shameful that Fine Gael has allowed the Government to do this U-turn. The position of the Labour Party is strange and ambivalent. It now wants a referendum but did not want one when in Government. It is now split on PfP but supported it while in Government. The Labour Party leader still supports PfP and has admitted this in the Dáil. The Labour Party, while expressing concern about NATO and nuclear weapons, fully supports the European army, an army which will inevitably be linked with NATO and based on nuclear weapons. I would like to know how the French and British nuclear deterrents will be dismantled. When the history of this time is written, this decision to join PfP will be seen as momentous and wrong. Much is being betrayed, but the greatest betrayal of all is of the people and the democracy upon which the country was founded.

Mr. McGuinness

Having listened carefully to all the arguments about Partnership for Peace and analysed the views sincerely held by those on both sides, my position is one of support for the Government, albeit with some reservations. The debate on Partnership for Peace has been extensive and well documented and I commend the Minister and his Department on the production of the booklet, Ireland and the Partnership for Peace. It contains all the information required, answers many questions, clears doubts and paints a clear picture of the position to anyone interested in the debate or who wants to learn about the position.

I have also considered the argument about the need for a referendum. Many contributions to the debate raised this issue and the commitment said to have been given in the previous general election. I do not consider this decision on Partnership for Peace to be one which cannot be made by the Dáil. Therefore, there is no need for a referendum in this regard. The process upon which we have embarked in this debate is the correct one. Page 24, paragraph 66 states:

The Attorney General's advice is that there is no legal reason why a referendum would be required prior to Irish participation in PfP. PfP, which focuses on cooperation for peacekeeping and humanitarian activities, and has no mutual defence commitments, is not in conflict with our neutrality...has no implications for Irish sovereignty. PfP does not cut across the constitutional prerogative of Dáil Éireann.

Having listened to the debate, that is my assessment. I also accept the Minister's position that he has changed his position in light of facts and changed circumstances.

The harsh reality is that, in a world where so much progress has been made, mankind still needs arms and has developed those to the point where large numbers of people can now be destroyed at the press of a button. Furthermore, the development and use of these arms depends to a substantial extent on the use of uranium, which is harmful in many ways. These weapons affect not only those against whom they are used but also generations of blameless people and even those who produce and use the weapons. I am also mindful that a build-up in military might by any one party usually encourages another party to seek parity. However, it is useless to deny there is evil in the world. There are military dictatorships run by people whose stability and commitment to even basic principles of justice can be questioned. Some of those have nuclear capability, more are acquiring it and none of them should have it.

Against this backdrop of war, conflict and crises of one kind or other, there is Ireland's position as a peacekeeping force which is recognised worldwide and respected for its policy of involvement in peacekeeping activities and its policy of neutrality. These positions on peacekeeping and neutrality are recognised and respected worldwide. In a developing world moving forward at an ever-increasing speed, we must keep our peacekeeping operations and skills up to date. Partnership for Peace offers all that is needed in this area and, at the same time, allows Ireland to tailor its involvement and contribution to the cause of world peace. Page 21, paragraph 57 of the Government's explanatory guide states:

PfP is explicitly anchored in the principles of the UN Charter and the OSCE. Participation in PfP does not entail membership of NATO, nor any Alliance commitments.

Each participating state decides on the scope of its own participation. It is true that a minority of the States participating in PfP are applicants to join NATO. Equally, it is clear that other States, including our fellow European neutrals, see PfP as a means of enhancing outreach to countries such as Russia, and as a means of co-operating in the peacekeeping and crisis management areas.

That is significant in our approach to Partnership for Peace.

It has been said that this is only the thin edge of the wedge in relation to NATO and I understand that position, but the "thin edge of the wedge" argument can be used in any situation. It is up to us and the other members of PfP to ensure that the hidden agenda and the thin edge of the wedge, if they exist at all, never become more than that. Partnership for Peace must not become more than its user-friendly name implies. I, for one, will be on my feet in this House if it does.

Having regard to the backdrop of conflict throughout the world, there is a need for a well skilled peace force. Partnership for Peace fulfils this role. Everywhere we look we can see controls over injustice and crime, but these are almost meaningless unless taken on a worldwide basis. The EU demonstrated that principle in its approach to fraud. We cannot and should not avoid making a wholehearted contribution to world peace and that means involvement in Partnership for Peace.

I commend all the forces involved in more than 50 years of participation in peacekeeping activities throughout the world. They have proven that this small country has a positive role to play in peacekeeping operations. During our 40 years of service throughout the world, we have excelled in our methods of peacekeeping. We have proven the point in almost every area of conflict that, as a small country, we are positive in our approach and are clearly seen as peacemakers. It would be a shame, therefore, if we failed to recognise what is happening in the world around us and did not step up our activity in this regard. We should provide the Army with the skills necessary to equip its members to play a fuller role in a world that is too often faced with a crisis of one kind or another. It is, therefore, imperative that we make this move forward, make our contribution to the world and equip ourselves to do so.

If one was to study all the arguments involved, one could probably summarise them by saying that Partnership for Peace is the lesser evil for the greater good. I commend the Government in its approach to this issue and I have no difficulty in supporting the Partnership for Peace proposal.

Mr. Gilmore

I wonder when a large sector of Irish people will learn a very simple lesson, namely, that one cannot trust anything Fianna Fáil says in Opposition. When in Opposition, Fianna Fáil will say anything, do anything, adopt any cause and promise any remedy in order to get back into Government. The Fianna Fáil Party is particularly deceptive at election time. If Fianna Fáil identifies any lobby or group, no matter how small, it will read its material and tell it exactly what it wants to hear.

Dr. Moffatt

That is far-fetched.

Mr. Gilmore

In the run-up to the last election, the then Government, for the first time in the history of the State, engaged the public in a debate about Ireland's foreign policy. A different approach was being taken to the preparation and formulation of Irish foreign policy. A series of public seminars was organised by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, the White Paper on foreign policy was published and an attempt was made, for the first time, to take the making of Irish foreign policy out of the exclusive preserve of the mandarins in Iveagh House and engage the public in its formation. Inevitably, in the course of that debate, issues relating to neutrality were discussed. What did neutrality mean in the modern context, what role would Ireland play in collective security in the modern world and what implications had the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy for Ireland?

Prior to the last general election, Fianna Fáil saw enough in this public debate to make it scream "sell-out" on the question of neutrality. It identified a constituency of voters to which issues such as neutrality, Irish foreign policy, security issues and the Partnership for Peace, in particular, were of concern. Fianna Fáil's approach to that constituency was to identify what it wanted to hear and repeat it verbatim.

There was no mistake about the message from Fianna Fáil in the run-up to the last election. The message was crystal clear – Fianna Fáil was opposed to Partnership for Peace and intended to hold a referendum on it. The message that it was opposed to Partnership for Peace was crystal clear, particularly from the speech given by the current Taoiseach in this House when he was Leader of the Opposition. That speech has been referred to on a number of occasions by other speakers. The commitment that a referendum would be held on Partnership for Peace was made quite explicit in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto and in statements leading up to the election. There was absolutely no doubt but that Fianna Fáil intended, in the run-up to the last election, to communicate to the public a general opposition to Partnership for Peace and a commitment to hold a referendum on it.

Now, two and a half years later, Fianna Fáil is introducing a motion to join Partnership for Peace and speaker after speaker on the Government side of the House is saying that circumstances have changed. Only one circumstance has changed in that two and a half year period, namely, Fianna Fáil has moved from the Opposition side of the House, where it thought it was convenient to oppose PfP, to the Government side where it now proposes that we join it.

The most insulting aspect of this debate, as far as the public is concerned, is the invitation from the Taoiseach and others to examine the small print of the commitment made prior to the general election. We are now being invited to consider the proposition that Fianna Fáil's position was not that it would hold a referendum on PfP – that was not in the small print – but that it would hold a referendum only if there were implications for neutrality. That is worse than a good, old-fashioned Fianna Fáil U-turn because it tells me that this is not a U-turn at all and that Fianna Fáil had no intention of holding a referendum on the PfP. It crafted its election manifesto so carefully that it would subsequently be able to justify not holding a referendum by reference to the small print in the text of the document.

Mr. Kelleher

An all-embracing party.

Mr. Gilmore

That was nothing more than downright deception by Fianna Fáil of the people prior to the last election.

I am not making the case that we should have a referendum simply because it was in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto. God knows we have learned the hard way that things in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto have to be taken with a Government health warning. There has been, particularly in the context of our membership of the European Union, a long-standing political commitment on the part of the general political leadership in this country to consult the people by way of referendum in relation to the military, defence and security implications, certainly of our membership of the European Union and anything impacting on neutrality. I recall, for example, in particular that in the run-up to the Maastricht referendum, explicit political commitments were given that there would be a referendum if the political commitments into which we were entering at that stage in relation to the common, foreign and security policy was at any time going to deepen and become a military or defence commitment.

The idea being peddled by Fianna Fáil that this meant we would only have a referendum on neutrality is nonsense because, as we know, there is no requirement to have a referendum on neutrality. Neutrality is not referred to in the Constitution, so it does not arise. There has been a commitment that there would be a referendum in relation to the core issue of the direction of Ireland's defence and security commitment where that went beyond a purely political commitment as it was in the Maastricht referendum.

Partnership for Peace represents that critical core departure. The decision on Partnership for Peace is not as it is being represented – simply a vote on the proposition which has been put forward. It is basically about the direction this country is taking on matters of defence and security where they have military implications for us. It is fundamentally different from the commitments and arrangements we already have through the United Nations and the European Union. Our membership of the United Nations is accepted by the people, and has been for a long time. The people take great pride, as I do, in the commitment and sacrifice of the members of the Defence Forces to UN peacekeeping operations in different parts of the world through the years, and there is widespread support for that. Notwithstanding that widespread support, however, there has always been a requirement that proposals on individual missions would have to come before this House for decision and approval because it was always recognised that there was a democratic requirement to give involvement by the Defence Forces a democratic authority and mandate through a vote in this House.

Similarly, our commitment and participation in the common, foreign and security policy of the European Union has already been voted on and approved by the people through the vote in the Maastricht Treaty referendum. That, as we know, commits Ireland to participation in the common foreign and security policy and it defines the Western European Union, for example, as being an integral part of the European Union. In both cases – this is where they differ from the PfP proposition – there are two distinct differences. The first is that in the case of the United Nations there has been general universal acceptance of our participation in the UN process. In the case of the common foreign and security policy arrangements of the European Union, that has been approved by way of referendum through the Maastricht Treaty. Second, in both cases security arrangements are in the context of a political arrangement, our political institutions which, in turn, have democratic legitimacy. In the case of the United Nations, it is the global political institution which is universally acceptable and in the case of the European Union, although we do not have any military or specific defence commitment in relation to our membership of it as of yet, our involvement in the common foreign and security policy is in the context of European Union political institutions which, in turn, have democratic accountability. In other words, there is a political and institutional context for our participation in both the United Nations and EU arrangements.

What is the political context or what are the institutional arrangements which surround our participation in Partnership for Peace? I see no democratic intergovernmental political institution which corresponds to the states signing up to the Partnership for Peace. The Partnership for Peace arrangement was established by NATO and since the end of the Cold War NATO has been desperate to carve out a new role and justification for itself. Indeed, arguably so desperate was it that it undertook a very poorly thought out military engagement in the Gulf region in recent times which itself was the subject of considerable criticisms from people such as Henry Kissinger, for example, who criticised it on the grounds that it was not well thought out and who questioned the role of NATO in the modern world.

Mr. Creed

I would not take Kissinger's word for everything.

Mr. Gilmore

He is hardly an entirely disinterested commentator on the issue. He is as good a commentator and as good an authority to speak on it as some of the people who have been speaking on it, certainly in the course of the debate in this House.

NATO has been developing a defence arrangement which is an alternative to the United Nations and it is one at which we should look fairly critically. My political outlook is very much an internationalist one. We live in a global society. We need to have new, strengthened global political institutions and a reform of the United Nations to respond to that. In that context, clearly there is a role for a global security arrangement and for regional security arrangements. Clearly, there will be requirements for military intervention, the defence of human rights and so on at different points in time. It is essential that the exercise of that role, the bodies which exercise it and the institutions which govern them belong to a democratic institutional international framework and are not simply established on an ad hoc basis. It is not good enough to join Partnership for Peace simply because everybody else is doing it. What would Frank Aiken say today to those members of Fianna Fáil who are advocating that our membership of Partnership for Peace should be undertaken simply because everybody else is doing it?

Mr. Kelleher

This is a timely opportunity to debate this issue and to clarify some misconceptions. Deputy Gilmore alluded to the fact that the small print was important in our manifesto prior to the last election. I thank him for reading it in-depth and studying it. It is a pity he did not explain it prior to this debate so that some of his people would have realised where we stood on this issue. I would like to read the Irish Presentation Document for the Partnership for Peace programme:

Ireland wishes to respond positively to the invitation extended in 1994 to States of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—

Mr. Creed

Did the Deputy deliberately omit "extended by NATO"?

Mr. Kelleher

—to participate in the Partnership for Peace. Ireland also wishes to participate in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. The broad participation in Partnership for Peace since 1994 underlines the fact that Partnership for Peace, including the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, has become an important framework for co-operation and confidence building in its own right.

In accepting the invitation to participate in Partnership for Peace, Ireland reinstates its commitment to a just and peaceful international society based on the rule of law; democracy; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Partnership for Peace and the co-operative values which underlie the Partnership are compatible with these commitments and objectives.

Ireland pursues a policy of military neutrality and does not intend to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Ireland's decision to participate in Partnership for Peace is in full accordance with Ireland's policy of military neutrality, which has always been pursued in tandem with full and active support for collective security, based on international law.

Ireland agrees with the basic concept of PfP: that stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area can be achieved only through co-operation and common action. Ireland shares the values fundamental to PfP, set out in the PfP framework document, including protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights and safeguarding of freedom, justice and peace through democracy. In joining PfP, Ireland, in common with the other PfP nations, reaffirms its commitment to fulfil in good faith the obligations of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Equally, Ireland reaffirms its commitment to the Helsinki Final Act and all subsequent documents of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Participation in PfP entails reaffirmation of the commitment of participating States to the fulfilment of the commitments and obligations they have undertaken in the field of disarmament and arms control. Ireland reaffirms its commitments and obligations in this area.

Ireland plays an active role in UN peacekeeping [is acknowledged throughout the world for its independence and fairness] and supports the continuing elaboration of effective international strategies and action for conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management. In this connection Ireland attaches importance to effective and mutually reinforcing co-operation between those institutions with a role to play in the search for peace and stability in Europe.

Ireland welcomes the role that co-operation for peacekeeping has assumed in Partnership for Peace and looks forward to contributing to partnership activities in this area. The calls on the international community to be able to respond to the humanitarian needs of populations in crisis have become increasingly apparent in recent years.

In 1997 the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council came into being as the overarching framework for political and security-related consultations for the enhanced co-operation under PfP. Ireland has welcomed the development of the EAPC as a flexible forum, involving a wide range of European and North American countries, for consultations and co-operation on political and security-related matters of common concern, including regional issues, arms control, peacekeeping, civil emergency planning, scientific and environmental issues.

Ireland welcomes the intention of the EAPC to examine ways in which it might support global humanitarian action against mines. Ireland also welcomes the initiative to examine how the EAPC might contribute to controlling the transfer of small arms, recognising the high number of innocent civilian casualties caused by the use of mines and small arms.

That is an outline of the Irish Presentation Document for the Partnership for Peace programme. Reading it should allay the fears of those who are concerned that our neutrality may be infringed. Our commitment within Partnership for Peace to try to bring about nuclear disarmament and to control the sale of small arms and landmines is very positive and in keeping with our policy, as a small nation, to develop a common foreign policy on such issues.

When Partnership for Peace was launched by President Clinton in 1994, it was seen primarily as a means of outreach and reassurance to new democracies in eastern Europe, many of which wished to join NATO. Hence the early percep tions that PfP was primarily intended as a waiting room for NATO membership. PfP has since developed into an important framework in its own right. Many neutral European states have joined and there are now many states involved which do not wish to join NATO. The fact that a majority of neutral states are interested in joining Partnership for Peace shows that the initial aim of Partnership for Peace has changed dramatically. There are now 43 states involved in Partnership for Peace, 24 of which are not members of NATO. Most are European states which have expressed their positive approach to neutrality in their own Parliaments and are not interested in joining PfP. That should reassure those who feel that Partnership for Peace is a stepping stone to NATO. We are not going down that road. Partnership for Peace is a framework for co-operation and is not the same thing as NATO. PfP does not oblige Ireland to support NATO policies or actions. It does not involve any mutual defence guarantee or commitment and does not affect Ireland's policy of military neutrality.

There have been important developments in PfP since 1996 that confirm the validity of the conclusions of the 1996 White Paper to which Deputy Gilmore referred. Regarding Deputy Gilmore's contribution, the fact that Deputy Spring travelled the country and brought in a broad spectrum of people to consult on Irish foreign policy was a positive step. However, in wanting to join Partnership for Peace he also had grave difficulties in his own party and with colleagues on the left who are now members of the Labour Party. While it was a useful exercise, it was also a stalling exercise.

In May 1997 the EAPC provided the overarching framework for political and security-related consultations under Partnership for Peace and the EAPC has become an important forum for discussions, bringing together the PfP states on a wide range of matters, including developments in peacekeeping, humanitarian issues, regional matters, arms control, civil defence and disaster relief, which is an important issue that will be expanded upon in future.

Ireland is on the periphery of Europe and will have to play a huge role in the protection of Europe in the future. I hope Partnership for Peace's parameters will be pushed out to ensure that it encompasses intelligence gathering on drug dealing and arms importation, having often said that Ireland has been let down by the EU in its war against drug trafficking. I am sure that in the European context, Ireland would try to defend European borders against drug importation.

The origins of PfP lie in the situation in Europe following the end of the Cold War some ten years ago. New patterns of security co-operation involving former adversaries and neutral European states have emerged and continue to evolve. The emerging European security architecture emphasises co-operation, not confrontation, and reflects values which have always been at the heart of Irish foreign policy. These include the importance of collective security, based on principles of international law, the necessity for a comprehensive concept of security, going beyond purely military aspects, which responds to the emerging risks and challenges of our common security, effective international action for conflict prevention, peacekeeping and international crisis management. Effective co-operation, not only between states but between all the organisations with a role to play in the search for peace and stability in Europe, is important.

Traditional concepts of European security and defence have been overtaken by general acceptance that strategies of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management are key to ensuring stability and security in Europe. This evolution goes in the direction of Ireland's approach, which has always emphasised conflict prevention and peacekeeping. A clear example of this new approach to European security issues can be seen in the Amsterdam Treaty which accords priority to the Petersberg Tasks of humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management activities. The EU was lacking when it came to dealing with recent conflicts which took place outside its borders, even humanitarian issues. The Union was unable to get basic humanitarian supplies to areas in which conflicts were taking place and in which massive refugee problems were developing. Unfortunately we stood idly by and were unable to address the problems. As we move into PfP I hope there will be closer co-operation between member states, neutral and otherwise, and that we will be able to ensure that, wherever there is a conflict, Ireland will be able to play a positive role in peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and crisis management under UN resolutions.

Unfortunately some issues have not been addressed because of the different organisations, the ineffectiveness, in some cases, of the UN, and the politics within the Security Council. The people of East Timor were blatantly let down by the UN which guaranteed them a vote on independence. NGOs warned of a humanitarian catastrophe if military personnel were not sent in. Unfortunately, the UN acted belatedly and we saw the result. I extend my best wishes to the Irish troops travelling to East Timor and wish them safe passage and a safe return. East Timor is an example of where the UN failed to act decisively. I hope that the broadening of PfP will mean that we will be able to play a more proactive role internationally to ensure that we safeguard human rights and democracy. If they are threatened I hope that PfP will give us the ability to address the situation through providing humanitarian relief, logistics or troops to ensure that we can enforce peace through a UN Security Council mandate. This is very important.

For too long countries have sat back and condemned those who took pre-emptive action. Sometimes this action was unnecessary but, for example, the US addressed the situation in Kosovo. No one liked the fact that there was high altitude bombing, some of which was indiscriminate and had unfortunate consequences. However, in the overall context of the US involvement, at least it tried to address the problems. Kosovan refugees arriving in Ireland were very appreciative of that fact. Unfortunately the EU was unable to address many of the humanitarian problems close to its borders. I commend the Government for its decision and I am confident of defending that decision on any platform as it is in accordance with my view that Ireland has to take its place among the nations of the world and play a proactive role.

Mr. Creed

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. It is evident from the debate so far that there are divided opinions within the House and within all parties on this issue. This debate takes place within the context of where Ireland sees its role in terms of foreign policy. Is that role always to be one of hand-wringing and proclaiming from the high moral ground that someone should do something about a crisis in Kosovo, East Timor, Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia, or that we should tackle genocide or internal conflicts which have the capacity to destabilise regions? This debate should be about defining where Ireland sees its role in the context of foreign policy and playing a positive role in contributing towards a more peaceful and stable political environment.

The security architecture of the world has changed significantly over the past ten to 15 years. We have seen the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall. As a child I can recall the great heads of state meetings between the presidents of the US and the Soviet Union. There was always tension as to whether there would be agreement or disagreement at these meetings and what the consequences would be for the world. That system has changed but there was an element of security in the balance which existed between East and West. PfP has emerged because of the new-found political realities, primarily in the former Soviet Union. It is a policy response to the uncertainty and the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the need to construct a new security architecture to take account of the world in which we now live.

Many speakers have reflected almost wistfully about the role the UN should, could or would play if given the chance. That is an academic debate as, unfortunately, notwithstanding the good intentions of most members, the reality is that the UN has become virtually powerless and incapable of taking the swift political decisions often necessary in terms of intervention in conflicts and preventing local conflicts escalating to threaten entire regions. The UN is incapable of intervening in situations where there is widespread discrimination against populations leading to genocide, such as that in East Timor where it took an extraordinary length of time to respond. Ultimately the UN did respond, but there are numerous other examples where it failed to respond in a meaningful way.

The ideal solution would be if the family of nations, under the banner of the UN, was able to respond effectively to crises. There would be no need for PfP, NATO or other such political institutions in such circumstances. However, the sad reality is that it has not been possible. Most regional conflicts are being resolved by regional forces, some with the imprimatur of the UN and others with the imprimatur of the local superpower. The response to the situation in Rwanda was headed by an African led force, the UN played a role in the former Yugoslavia, NATO played a role in Kosovo and NATO and the UN are playing a role in East Timor. Obviously UN involvement would be the ideal solution, but that is not proving practical and that is why we need to look at new institutions which will play a practical and efficient role in conflict resolution.

Much of this debate has focused on the promises made by Fianna Fáil in Opposition concerning a referendum. As politicians, we would do well to take stock of the dismal standing of politics and politicians among the public. I have been campaigning in the Dublin by-election and the response on the doorstep is frighteningly apathetic and hostile. I canvassed in urban elections before but I have never witnessed such a level of anger, frustration, contempt and disillusionment with the political establishment. By and large this is due to the actions and inactions of politicians. I do not want to make a party political point of it, but I think we will be judged on our words and deeds, and if our deeds do not match our words, we invite criticism. That is what is happening in the context of this debate and it is regrettable.

There is no necessity for a referendum. It has been Fine Gael policy for a long time that we should join Partnership for Peace and we have never seen a conflict in that context between that proposal and the commitments which we have given along with other parties that should we wish to join a military alliance we would consult the people. Hiding behind a referendum is a way of abdicating our political responsibility. We should recall that on previous occasions when we gave in to pressure for referenda, the reality came back to haunt us. I speak, in particular, about pro-life amendments in the 1980s, where this House capitulated to pressures, both internal and external, the consequences of which we are still trying to grapple with and resolve. The type of comments which were made by the Taoiseach when he spoke about the French in Killala, the Spanish in Kinsale and whatever else – I cannot recall exactly the words he used – reminded me of the response of Fianna Fáil on previous occasions when we signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement and there was talk of the RUC coming down to Tralee. As politicians, we must be very careful about the language we use, particularly when we are talking about foreign policy because words have meanings and they come back to haunt us. This treats with contempt the electorate who are beginning to treat us with contempt in return and that is a very dangerous development for democracy. I regret very much that the main party in Government saw fit to play politics with what I believe was an important issue.

Much has been said about the fact that there has been no debate about our proposed membership of Partnership for Peace. I cannot accept that because four years ago we published a White Paper on Foreign Policy and there has been intermittent debate on the merits and demerits of Partnership for Peace since then. Last January Fine Gael tabled a Private Members' motion in this House where the first straws in the wind of a change in Government policy emerged. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, has discussed this matter in some considerable detail. Those who repeatedly make the point that there has been no debate, there must be a debate and we cannot take this momentous step in foreign policy without having a debate appear to have little else to say other than that we need a debate. They make no actual meaningful contribution other than scaremongering and raising issues, which have little foundation in reality, about us allegedly selling our military neutrality down the drain if we were to join Partnership for Peace.

It must be remembered, in the context of our closer co-operation with other nations of the world and, in particular, within the European Union, that the people have voted repeatedly for closer co-operation, be it in the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty or the Amsterdam Treaty referenda. While I do not support the need for a referendum on Partnership for Peace, I do not see that that step is in any way out of kilter with the increasing willingness of the Irish people to participate more closely with other nations on these matters.

The question then raised is what is Partnership for Peace. Is it closer alignment with nations? Is it the slippery slope to full membership of NATO? The reality is that Partnership for Peace is what we make it. It is what we want it to be. It can be closer co-operation. It can be co-operation at arm's length. In reality, we can cherry-pick the issues in which we want to get involved, be it peacekeeping, peace-enforcement etc. The list in the Presentation Document outlines them in detail: co-operation on peacekeeping, humanitarian operations, search and rescue, co-operation in the protection of the environment and co-operation in marine matters. It could involve much more, it could involve much less. The reality is that we hold the policy cards in our own hands. We can decide the level of participation we want.

Much has been made of the fact that key NATO people have stated that it is seen as a backdoor to full membership of NATO. They can say what they like. The reality is it will be what the Dáil decides and, according to the commitments given by all the political parties, if Ireland is to join a military alliance such as NATO, the Dáil will first consult the people in detail.

It is interesting that other nations, which, like Ireland, would be considered neutral militarily, have seen no difficulty with participating in Partnership for Peace. This was evident from the consultations which the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs conducted on this matter. For example, Switzerland, which has said "No" to membership of the United Nations and membership of the European Union, has been able to say "Yes" to Partnership for Peace. It said "No" to joining the aforementioned organisations because of the obligations membership would impose on the state in terms of closer co-operation, but it sees no difficulty with membership of Partnership for Peace. That is a significant nail in the coffin of the argument that joining Partnership for Peace is in some way a sell-out of our military neutrality. Likewise, Sweden, Austria and Finland have equally argued that it does not conflict with their policy position of military neutrality.

I was disappointed to hear Deputy Gormley attack Fine Gael because we were not in favour of a referendum. We do not do U-turns as the Government has done. Fine Gael's long-time stated policy outlined clearly where we stood prior to the last election, in Private Members' motions, at Question Time and on numerous other occasions. I suppose imitation is a form of flattery, which we welcome in that both Government parties are now taking the same line as Fine Gael.

I found it comical that the Green Party attacked Partnership for Peace, saying that it was anything but that. If one was to question the labels which people hang on themselves, one could have good fun analysing that for which the Green Party stands. I do not propose to go down that route now, but I thought it was a snide and cheap comment by Deputy Gormley on the matter.

I welcome our proposed membership of Partnership for Peace. I look forward to closer integration between the member states of Partnership for Peace and NATO in areas where I believe we can make a meaningful contribution to the improvement of international relations and to the lives of many people who currently live in conflict zones, where some form of intervention is what they desperately cry out for on many occasions.

Mr. Daly

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this timely debate, which has been by and large constructive. Fifty years ago Ireland was one of the 11 states which established the Council of Europe. In the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the European Union, Ireland has been to the forefront in seeking and advocating European and international partnerships to alleviate some of the distressing problems in the international community. This new Partnership for Peace and the new Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council are important developments in co-oper ation and the consolidation of the peace effort. In our participation in the alliance and in the partnership, we are signalling Ireland's continuing efforts to establish peace with justice throughout the international community and to work with our partners in Europe and other countries in finding ways in which the huge problems in the international community can be effectively tackled and dealt with in this new alignment.

In 1993-94, the NATO countries and, in particular, the United States were, as is well known, fairly actively involved in finding ways to attract the emerging democracies.

Debate adjourned.