Partnership for Peace: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, on Wednesday, 27 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 5 October 1999.

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).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Kenny is in possession and has nine minutes remaining.

Mr. Kenny

Members on all sides have made a wide range of contributions to the debate. When the Taoiseach was leader of the Opposition he gave the people a solemn undertaking that there would be a referendum on PfP and he reneged upon that in Government. Fine Gael, as has been outlined by Deputy Mitchell on numerous occasions, has been consistent in its position on PfP. We believe in it and think that it is an important element of Ireland's progression on the European stage. It does not involve becoming a member of NATO. Ireland will not be forced into war games or send young soldiers to fight in wars all over the world. PfP will provide a long list of opportunities for Ireland and it can decide on those which it wishes to take up.

The opportunity for young men and women to participate in the Army should be grasped because it delivers challenge. Young people will not stay in jobs which are mundane and where they are likely to go to seed because a challenge is not offered. When one speaks to soldiers who have participated in peacekeeping operations one formulates an understanding of their career pros pects and their desire to meet other military personnel and garner knowledge about various equipment and technology. While the Army has done a first class job, of which all of us are proud, young people do not want to be on standby to drive refuse trucks or deliver water supplies, which is necessary on occasion.

Only 12 soldiers remain in the Army out of a class of 43 which joined in 1980 because of a lack of career prospects; a lack of challenge; and the improvement in the economy. One cannot expect bright, intelligent young people who display initiative and want to be involved in Ireland's participation in the military landscape to stay in what many of them perceive to be a dead end job with no career prospects. That should not be so and we should not be ashamed of involvement in the five areas put forward by the Government – co-operation in peacekeeping; humanitarian operations; search and rescue; co-operation in the protection of the environment; and co-operation in marine matters. These are important issues and Ireland can decide on the issues in which it wants to participate. It is important as we move forward.

The Swiss have decided to join PfP without fear. Switzerland has a structured society and it holds referenda on various issues several times a year. Ireland should get on with it. I regret very much that the Taoiseach did not honour his word when he was leader of the Opposition. I recently saw him togged out in camouflage gear in Kosovo. I have received complaints from Army personnel that similar gear has not yet been made available to the Army, which requires it more than the Taoiseach, or perhaps not, depending on the fall out from various political issues. He should ensure that this gear is provided to the Army as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hayes

It is interesting that having debated this matter for a number of weeks Members of the Government parties have decided to excuse themselves from this debate. There is silence on the opposite side of the House as a result of the gigantic U-turn in policy by the Fianna Fáil Party. As director of elections for Fine Gael in the Dublin South-Central by-election, I noted that the level of cynicism was palpable with regard to politicians who people perceived as not keeping their word.

A manifesto is the most important document that any party can present to the people. It sets out clearly what a party wants to do in Government and it is, therefore, disgraceful that Fianna Fáil, which made an explicit commitment to a referendum on PfP, has done a complete U-turn. This issue has increased cynicism about politics over the past month. Fianna Fail made an appalling U-turn as it gave one commitment in Opposition and another in Government. I do not agree with the Green Party's stance on PfP but it is at least consistent, as is Fine Gael's. These are the only two parties in the House which have consist ently maintained their position on Ireland's participation in PfP.

Fine Gael is proud of its record of consistency on this issue. I congratulate our spokesperson, Deputy Mitchell, not just for his contribution on this motion but for the work he had done on this issue over the past two years. A number of Deputies said that the debate has only been thrust upon us in recent times. That is absolute nonsense and some members of the media have not paid attention to the assiduous work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the publication of the White Paper on Foreign Policy when my party was in Government with the Labour Party and Democratic Left.

It is typically hypocritical that when we come to making a decision on such a matter, we claim that we have not had a debate. There has been debate and it is time to make a decision. Furthermore, it is time that people were consistent regarding the position they presented to the people at the last general election. The thumbprints of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, are all over the White Paper. It states:

The Government has decided to explore further the benefits that might derive from participation in Partnership for Peace and to determine the contribution that Ireland might make to that participation. A decision on participation in PfP will only be taken by the Government in light of consultations, including with the relevant Committees of the Oireachtas, and such a decision will be subject to a motion and the terms and scope of any participation by Ireland being approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

That is exactly what has happened. I understand the Committee on Foreign Affairs has discussed this matter on nine separate occasions in the past 18 months. The Government has presented its view and it is right in suggesting that a referendum is not required. The Government has presented, by way of substantive motion, Ireland's entry to PfP. That was set out three years ago when the White Paper was published by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The White Paper was quite clear. That is the reason I cannot understand why some parties who were involved in the publication of this document have done a U-turn by asking for a plebiscite. A plebiscite has no standing in Irish law. Article 29 of the Constitution clearly states the obligations we are entering into in relation to international affairs. That article specifically puts responsibility on this House to pass any binding contract we make with other international organisations. That is precisely what the Government is doing. My party and I support that view.

It was a disgrace that in the last general election and in the run up to it in this House the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Taoiseach, used the issue so cynically. It is interesting to reflect that a later section in the White Paper, which outlines the new role PfP would have in international relations, states: "However, the overall objectives of PfP are consistent with Ireland's approach to international peace and European security and participation in the partnership could have several important advantages." This document which was debated substantively in the House some years ago has been proven to be correct and the procedures followed were correct. If we are to rule ourselves as a completely irrelevant Legislature, we would run to the country every time an issue such as this had to be faced. There is absolutely no difficulty in maintaining our current position of neutrality and our membership with PfP. Furthermore, the Amsterdam Treaty which was accepted by the people in 1998 clearly outlines the Petersberg Tasks which are consistent with Ireland's membership and our participation in PfP. That consistent line has been maintained throughout. The overriding endorsement which the Irish people gave this House when we signed the Amsterdam Treaty was that we were prepared to accept future involvements in terms of the Petersberg Tasks involving rescue and peacekeeping missions, crisis management and other areas.

I remind the House of the appalling speech by the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Taoiseach, some years ago when he said: "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 appeal to decide on all questions of national policy as a serious breach of faith as fundamentally undemocratic." Those were the words of the Taoiseach some years ago when his mind was put to this task. It is a disgrace that he comes into the House and admits readily this gigantic U-turn is not important and that the commitment he gave to the people some years ago does not matter. It does matter. In his correspondence with the Leader of his party, I hope the Minister will put it to him that he and his party are increasing cynicism in politics by saying one thing in opposition and another in Government. This is something which the Minister and his party are particularly good at. The party cannot get out of that conundrum which it has put itself into.

My party has consistently supported Ireland's membership of PfP. We have said that for the past number of years. Our influence in respect of the White Paper can be seen as one reads through that document. We have taken that position because Ireland's membership of PfP involves no mutual defence mechanism whatsoever, which would be unconstitutional, because there are clear commitments in the Constitution in respect of going down that avenue. There is no difficulty with our country joining with every other country in central and western Europe. As Deputy Kenny pointed out, substantive benefits can accrue to our Army and other agencies involved with PfP. We have much to give Partnership for Peace and we have much to learn.

Three years ago I was a member of a delegation which visited Sarajevo to see the SFOR troops on the ground. The visit was paid for by the American Embassy in Dublin. I was joined by the Green Party and the Labour Party. It is interesting to note that Fianna Fáil decided not to send anybody because it was so implacably opposed to Partnership for Peace. I saw at first hand what an international brigade such as that can do in an area of crisis management. Ireland is very good at pointing the finger at other international organisations and other countries in relation to crisis management and resolving ethnic and nationalistic problems in the former Yugoslavia. We are very good at pointing in the direction of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in regard to foreign policy.

When it was decided to send military police to Sarajevo three years ago, following acceptance of a motion in this House, there was no demand from any party for a referendum on the issue because those people were taking their place with other countries in helping to bring peace and security to Bosnia following the appalling ethnic wars in the Baltic region during the past ten years or so. No referendum was promised on that occasion. In arguing for a referendum today we are pandering to the worst forms of nationalism.

Much of our foreign affairs policy for the past 50 years has focused exclusively on how we can take a position against the United Kingdom. It is time this country grew up, took its international obligations seriously and was prepared to commit to these theatres where there is a need for international mobilisation of defence forces to bring about peace and security to help the whole issue of crisis management, ostensibly the Petersberg Tasks. I passionately believe that if Ireland is to play a further role in the European Union we should take these obligations seriously. We should not pander to any kind of little Ireland or nationalism, something which is evident from the contributions to this debate. I make no apology for saying I am pro-American. I support what the US has done in many parts of the world. In many cases it was the only country that was prepared to put its dollar where its mouth was. It was only after the failure of the European Union to intervene in Bosnia and when many of its member states decided to debate the matter that the United States decided to take part in the SFOR and KFOR initiatives. While I support the motion, it is a gigantic exercise in Fianna Fáil cynicism.

Mr. McGrath

When the record of the debate on Partnership for Peace in this House is read by historians there will be cynicism and laughter. Given the stances adopted previously by various parties, they will point to certain individuals and ask, "What were they at? Why did they act in that way and what was the outcome?" When the attitude of Fianna Fáil in particular is reviewed there will be tremendous cynicism.

In opposition the Taoiseach spoke strongly about the dangers and said there should be a referendum on whether Ireland should join. In government he has done a complete U-turn. What is the reason for this? There are many possible answers. In opposition did he adopt the stance that he took purely to oppose the then Government? When one looks at the approach adopted by Fianna Fáil to many issues one can only come to the conclusion that that is the case. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, adopted the attitude that he had to oppose Deputy Owen no matter what she did. It appears she was responsible for all the bank robberies that occurred at that time. Bank robberies are occurring daily but the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform just wrings his hands and says that he has no role to play in the administration of justice.

This leads to cynicism among the public. My famous constituency colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, summed it up well. When asked why Fianna Fáil adopts a different attitude in government her response was, "That was then, this is now"; in other words, the position changes when one moves from one side of the House to the other. If that is its attitude it is a sorry state of affairs.

Another possible reason Fianna Fáil acted in the way it did is that it had not looked closely enough at what was involved in PfP and it decided to run with the approach recommended by the spin doctors as it would make good reading. If that is the case it has to be severely criticised.

The sad part is that the Taoiseach did not set out clearly the reasons for the change in attitude or apologise to the people for getting it wrong. In such circumstances politicians would do a great deal to enhance their reputation if they came out and said, "I was wrong, I made a mistake for which I apologise".

Deputy Roche indicated some time ago that he was opposed to PfP and that he would call for a referendum. He also insinuated that he would vote against the Government – perhaps the whip was cracked or he realised his future within the party did not look good – but somewhere along the way he got the wobblies. When his Independent constituency colleague, Deputy Fox, indicated that she would definitely vote against the Government he changed his position once again and in a watered down version has called for a referendum on neutrality. I do not know from where he is coming but his approach can only be described as muddled.

The Labour Party is practising what Fianna Fáil did in opposition. In government with Fine Gael it was prepared to support Ireland's membership of PfP and knew that a referendum would not be required, as indicated by some of its contributors to this debate. Despite this it is saying the people should be given an opportunity to vote on the issue. Most of the Labour Party Members seem to think that because Fianna Fáil promised to hold a referendum it should be held, end of story. Is that a good reason to hold a referendum or a logical position from which to come?

A senior member of the Labour Party said that if we are to bring the people with us there must be a referendum. How does this make sense? Despite the fact that the electorate are well informed and there are many current affairs programmes on radio and television there is tremendous ignorance about what PfP is all about. Shortly after the local elections in June I was informed by a soldier that he had conducted a survey of the local election candidates who knocked on his door, on where they stood on PfP. Only one knew what it was all about. Some had the guts and the gumption to say that they knew nothing about it while two or three who should have known better and see themselves filling prominent positions in later life thought it had something to do with the Northern Ireland peace process about which they went on to speak. If this is an indication of where the public stands on PfP it is a sad state of affairs, although it may be said that it was not a fair sample. One would imagine however that many local election candidates would be fairly tuned in.

On taking office the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, said that the first thing he would do was develop understanding and informed discussion of PfP. This has not happened. While there are many debates in this House and the matter has been dealt with in talk shows on radio and television, the public has not been informed with the result that it is not aware of what is involved. The participants in these talk shows tend to adopt polarised positions and shout down anyone who holds a different position. We owe it to the public to ensure that such programmes are balanced. The Green Party speakers were at least consistent in their approach to Partnership for Peace. They vigorously oppose it, but then the Green Party seems to oppose almost everything that is internationally based. It opposes most things that happen here with great gusto and it is a pity its members cannot be more constructive. The bouquet, however, must go to Deputy Ó Caoláin, the Sinn Féin representative in this House, who is opposed to any kind of military alliance or partnership. He is opposed to anything to do with "military". That is hard to take from someone who is a member of Sinn Féin when we note the former allegiances and alliances of Sinn Féin and when we see what is happening in relation to discussions on demilitarisation in Northern Ireland.

We need to carefully examine PfP, and many speakers did that in their contributions. It is a new organisation, only six years in operation. It involves 43 countries, 24 of which are non-members of NATO. It includes the neutral countries, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. Many of those countries joined Partnership for Peace with little discussion at local level. Switzerland is a case in point and the Minister made clear in his contribution that Switzerland tends to have a referendum on most matters. It could have several referenda in one year on various issues concerning its external affairs but it did not have a referendum on PfP and joined without any major debate.

What are we to do? Is our neutrality to be compromised? Will we find ourselves in difficulty in relation to this? I do not think so. We are not joining a particular treaty. We are not entering into defence commitments. We are not entering into a military alliance. We are simply joining PfP with an à la carte menu in that we can participate in some areas and withdraw from others. Membership is mainly about peacekeeping and international co-operation on various issues, and Ireland has a particular role to play in that regard.

Ireland has played a tremendous role in peacekeeping across the world. Thousands of our soldiers have been involved in missions in many countries, and let us not forget the gardaí. More recently, a small but important number of gardaí worked side by side with soldiers in various countries on peacekeeping missions. A total of 76 Irish soldiers have died abroad on peacekeeping missions. They gave their lives in the cause of peacekeeping. The people of Ireland are proud of the job our soldiers have done in peacekeeping. They are proud of the fact that they helped to keep the peace in many countries of the world. When we saw the television pictures of Kosovo, Rwanda and East Timor, many people wanted to know if we could do something. They wanted to know why the UN or EU countries could not do something. Our involvement in PfP will strengthen the alliances of many countries and strengthen the will to avail of peacekeepers and international co-operation to quell the terrible atrocities which have occurred in some countries. Our soldiers have much to gain from Ireland's membership of PfP. They have attained particular skills in terms of peacekeeping and service abroad but they can learn much more and our membership of PfP will help in that regard. I ask the House to support the motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

In concluding the debate on the motion, I thank all the contributors for and against the proposition. It was a wide-ranging debate. People were given as much time as they wanted, as is appropriate, and the subject has been advanced by the quality of the contributions from all sides of the House.

I would like to review some of the fundamental issues involved in Partnership for Peace and to respond to some of the specific points raised during the course of the debate. The first point relates to the quality of the public debate on PfP which the previous speaker suggested was not great in the sense that, inevitably, there is always a brouhaha on radio and television programmes and the main point is missed. I would not altogether disagree with that because it is difficult to inform both the listener and the viewer if there is an argy-bargy between the antagonists and the protagonists on a particular programme. I understand that. It is difficult to get the specific message across in the context of what the viewer beholds or a listener hears at a particular time and if the debate is "hot", the subject and the specific points related to the subject are inclined to fall by the wayside.

There were suggestions during our debate that the public debate has been unsatisfactory or incomplete. I do not necessarily accept that view. I accept some criticism in relation to it. PfP has been in existence for almost six years. When I became Minister for Foreign Affairs I sought to develop an understanding of the issues involved and to stimulate and inform subsequent public debate.

In introducing the Government's motion, I set out at some length the efforts which I and my colleagues in Government have made to encourage a healthy and open debate. The record of this House over the past year is testament to our efforts. Since October 1997 there have been over 40 parliamentary questions related to Partnership for Peace, Dáil debates were devoted to the issue in January and May 1999, there has been an Adjournment debate, the Foreign Affairs committee has considered the issue on a number of occasions and a detailed explanatory guide was issued at my direction in May of this year, along with a summary. The guide, which was distributed to all Deputies, is available free to members of the public and is also available on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Both the Taoiseach and I contributed newspaper articles and have been interviewed a number of times on the issue.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Everything but a referendum, which the Minister should allow.

Mr. Andrews

I will deal with that if I have the time.

Mr. Gormley

Just give us the referendum. The Minister should stop talking about it and give us the referendum.

Mr. Andrews

I will not stop talking about it and I certainly will not allow a referendum. That is gone now.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The Taoiseach promised it.

Mr. Andrews

If the Deputy will give me the opportunity of expressing myself further on the issue I will deal with it in some depth.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): We want the Irish people to be able to decide.

Mr. Andrews

There is now far greater clarity about and understanding of Partnership for Peace. I recognise that there have been genuine concerns in regard to PfP. I recognise Deputy Gormley's concern and that of the Socialist Member, Deputy Joe Higgins.

Mr. Gormley

What about the concern of the Irish people?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Andrews

However, the approach we are taking to PfP, as set out in the excellent Presentation Document which I produced under my own direction and which is clear and concise for those who address it—

Mr. Gormley

Complete obfuscation.

Mr. Andrews

—is fully in keeping with our values and peacekeeping traditions.

Partnership for Peace has no implications for neutrality. I have followed the public debate very carefully and nothing in it has caused me to change this view. I can understand the anxiety which many people have expressed about implications for our neutrality. I have sought at every opportunity to allay these fears and to demonstrate that they are groundless. The reality is set out in our Presentation Document, which states plainly that "Ireland's decision to participate in PfP is fully in accordance with our policy of military neutrality which has always been pursued in tandem with full and active support for collective security, based on international law".

The period of public debate has reinforced my conviction that we can pursue an approach within PfP and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, EAPC, which is fully in accordance with our fundamental values. In this context, attention has focused, in particular, on our contribution to peacekeeping. The pride which we can take in our UN peacekeeping record is fully justified. It represents common ground in this debate that we should maintain and, where possible, strengthen this peacekeeping role. Quite properly, tributes have been paid to the Garda and the Defence Forces, who have brought immense pride to the good name of Ireland in their peacekeeping roles abroad.

A positive result of the public debate on PfP is that the changing nature of peacekeeping has come to be generally recognised. We are willing to face the challenges which the new style of peacekeeping presents. Our recent decisions to contribute to KFOR in Kosovo and INTERFET in East Timor demonstrate this willingness clearly.

It has been suggested that PfP would represent a move away from our support for the United Nations or a breach of our tradition of peacekeeping. This is not an either-or issue. The role of regional organisations in peacekeeping is recognised and accepted by the United Nations. No one state or institution can, by itself, deal with the multi-faceted crises which we have seen in recent years. These crises have complex humani tarian, political and security dimensions. I have set out clearly our interest in PfP's work on humanitarian aspects of peacekeeping, to give one example of an area of interest to Ireland.

New models of co-operation at the regional level have been endorsed by the United Nations and by the OSCE. This House has wholeheartedly approved our participation in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. These missions are part of the new pattern of peacekeeping. In the case of Bosnia and Kosovo, the United Nations has authorised NATO to lead these forces. I reject any suggestion that our contribution to these missions is in breach of our finest traditions of peacekeeping.

This motion offers us an opportunity to show confidence in our future contributions to peace and stability in Europe. Rather than express a clear choice for the future, some have sought to look back. I have made a frank admission that we have changed our minds on this issue. I hoped that we would have similar frankness and clarity on all sides.

There are those who were clearly in favour of PfP when they were part of the Government which issued the 1996 White Paper on Foreign Policy. Now they cannot bring themselves to support this straightforward motion. They prefer to call for a referendum. In Government, they were quite clear – and the words of the former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, are on the record of this House – that there was no need or basis for a referendum on this issue. Before judging others on the grounds of consistency, perhaps they should examine their own record and tell the people what has changed, in their view, to support their change of position.

I should also like to respond to remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition during the course of the debate, when he suggested that the broad approach that the Government is taking in the ongoing security debate in Europe is not consistent with our earlier position.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): He is only the Leader of Fine Gael.

Mr. Andrews

I assure the Leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Bruton, that the approach we have been following, both before and after the European Council in Cologne, is fully consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, as negotiated by the previous Government.

I was surprised by a suggestion from the Leader of the Labour Party that membership of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council would pose difficulties. The EAPC is a welcome development which provides a voluntary political consultation framework for PfP countries. It responds to the wishes of non-members of NATO for such a forum. It has no implications for our neutrality. In line with the basic approach of PfP, the EAPC is based on a self-differentiating approach. I remind Deputy Quinn that the con cept of the EAPC was elaborated and came into being during the period in office of the previous Government, of which he was a member.

Concern has also been expressed over the question of the appointment of an ambassador to NATO for the purposes of representation at the periodic ambassadorial meetings of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. This does not change the approach we are taking to PfP and it will not be construed as a signal that we intend to join NATO.

Mr. Gormley

Yes it will.

Mr. Andrews

In this regard, we will be in line with the practice of other neutral PfP nations. All 24 of the non-NATO PfP countries have appointed, or are in the process of appointing, ambassadors for this purpose.

Our excellent Presentation Document sets out clearly Ireland's approach to PfP. In this debate, there are those who complain that it is too restricted. Others complain that it is more detailed on peacekeeping than the Swedish and Finnish documents, which were drawn up when PfP was in its infancy, more than five years ago. Our Presentation Document is fully in accord with the approach to PfP which I have consistently set out over the past year.

There have been suggestions that participation in PfP would impose enormous costs on the tax payer and that these costs would even result in cut-backs in social expenditure. These suggestions are simply groundless.

Mr. Gormley

They are not. The Minister has not given us any figures. This will cost many billions of pounds.

Mr. Andrews

They are attempts to frighten people and are quite wrong and irresponsible. In introducing this motion, I indicated that the costs of PfP would be modest, balanced and proportionate to our involvement. The costs in administration and staffing are being worked out in consultation with the Department of Finance.

Mr. Gormley

How much?

Mr. Andrews

Beyond these administrative and staffing costs, there is not a mandatory contribution to PfP. Instead PfP operates on the principle that each country funds the cost of its own participation in PfP activities. This means that our costs will be proportionate to the nature and scope of our participation. As these activities will relate mainly to peacekeeping, the costs will be a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Defence, in the first instance. Expenditure decisions of this kind will remain entirely a sovereign choice for this country.

A point was made by Deputy O'Kennedy in regard to the commitments of PfP nations in respect of disarmament and arms control. In subscribing to the PfP's framework document, each PfP participant reaffirms its commitments to the fulfilment of its obligations in the field of disarmament and arms control. The EAPC's work on global humanitarian mine action and small arms transfers is intended to complement, and add value to other international and national efforts aimed at these terrible scourges to humanity.

Mr. M. Higgins

While they continue to produce and sell armaments.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Will the Minister accept a brief question?

An Ceann Comhairle

Very briefly.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): How can the Minister talk about disarmament, when the whole thrust in certain circles of PfP is to get Hungary, Poland and other Eastern European countries to renew their armaments industry and to flog them armaments, gun ships and aeroplanes from the West?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may only ask a brief question.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): How does that square with disarmament?

Mr. Andrews

The suggestion has been made, time and again, that in joining PfP we will somehow be implicated in policies of nuclear deterrence. Ireland's commitment to nuclear disarmament is second to none. Participation in PfP will not entail acceptance of nuclear deterrence; that arises only for NATO members and there are no such obligations in PfP. Many PfP countries, such as Sweden, not only share our commitment to nuclear disarmament, but support our efforts to achieve it.

Mr. Gormley

There are obligations under PfP.

Mr. Andrews

I reaffirm a point I made in introducing this motion and which was mentioned by a number of Members. It is a point on which there is no room for confusion. Participation in PfP will not cut across the constitutional prerogatives of the Dáil in relation to our Defence Forces, nor will it change the current situation, whereby a UN mandate and Dáil approval are required for Irish participation in peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations.

In concluding this debate, I would stress that joining PfP, which is engaged in co-operation for peacekeeping, is entirely consistent with our basic long-standing approach to international security. It is also fully complementary to the Petersberg Tasks of humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management activities, as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Mr. Gormley

And peace enforcement.

Mr. Andrews

Membership of PfP will afford the Defence Forces the opportunity to improve their capability to fulfil these tasks. I invite all Members of this House to support this motion, as amended by amendment No. 3 introduced by Fine Gael.

Mr. Gormley

We will not.

Amendment put.

Tá

Coughlan, Mary.Coveney, Simon.Cowen, Brian.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.D'Arcy, Michael.de Valera, Síle.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Durkan, Bernard.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Flanagan, Charles.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip. Tá–continued

Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCormack, Pádraic.McDaid, James.McGahon, Brendan.McGennis, Marian.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.

Noonan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Blaney, Harry.Broughan, Thomas.Ferris, Michael.Fox, Mildred.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.McDowell, Derek.McManus, Liz.

Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, William.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and S. Brennan; Níl, Deputies Ferris and Stagg.

Amendment declared carried.

Mr. Quinn

I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann:

(a)having regard to the views expressed by the current Taoiseach in the Dáil on 28th March, 1996, that any attempt to push Partnership for Peace through the Dáil without reference to the people would be a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic;

(b)conscious of the fundamental change in Irish international relations represented by the proposal to join PfP;

(c)aware of the strong desire among the electorate that they should be consulted on this proposal;

declines to approve the participation by Ireland in Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, pending the determination, through a plebiscite, of the views of the Irish people on the Presentation Document, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 5th October, 1999."

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.

Allen, Bernard.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán. Tá–continued

Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Donal.Carey, Pat.Clune, Deirdre.Collins, Michael.Connaughton, Paul.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cosgrave, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Coveney, Simon.Cowen, Brian.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Cullen, Martin.Currie, Austin.Daly, Brendan.de Valera, Síle.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Durkan, Bernard.Ellis, John.Flanagan, Charles.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.Killeen, Tony.

Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCormack, Pádraic.McDaid, James.McGahon, Brendan.McGennis, Marian.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Blaney, Harry.Broughan, Thomas.Ferris, Michael.Fox, Mildred.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.McDowell, Derek.McManus, Liz.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and S. Brennan; Níl, Deputies Ferris and Stagg.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): On a point of order, I would like to press amendment No. 2 in my name and in the names of Deputy Ó Caoláin and others.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise. The question has been decided. We must proceed to the next business, item 34, the Broadcasting Bill, 1999.

Mr. Stagg

On a point of order, this is a very substantive issue.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will put the motion, as amended.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Allen, Bernard.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Donal.Carey, Pat.Clune, Deirdre.Collins, Michael.Connaughton, Paul.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cosgrave, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Cullen, Martin.Currie, Austin.Daly, Brendan.de Valera, Síle.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Durkan, Bernard.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Flanagan, Charles.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.

Kenneally, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCormack, Pádraic.McDaid, James.McGahon, Brendan.McGennis, Marian.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sheehan, Patrick.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Blaney, Harry.Broughan, Thomas.Ferris, Michael.Fox, Mildred.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Joe.

Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.McManus, Liz.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan. Penrose, William.

Níl–continued

Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.

Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Barrett; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Ferris.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 9 Nov 1999

Partnership for Peace: Motion (Resumed).

Mr. Hayes

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Nov 1999