Liz McManus
Ceist:13 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's views on the proposed establishment of an EU rapid reaction military force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25506/99]
Other Questions. - Military Neutrality.
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:44 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's views on the appointment of Mr. Javier Solana as head of the Western European Union, having regard to his existing role as EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and the need to maintain a clear distinction between the EU and the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25505/99]
Nora Owen
Ceist:68 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the recent joint EU Foreign and Defence Ministers' meeting. [25486/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 44 and 68 together.
The General Affairs Council on 15 November reviewed progress since the Cologne Summit on how the EU, acting on the basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam, can have a more effective role in the conduct of Petersberg Tasks, and also in non-military aspects of crisis management. The Finnish Presidency intends to draw up a progress report for the Helsinki European Council, comprised of two subsidiary reports on military and non-military aspects, respectively.
In the context of the EU discussions on Petersberg Tasks, in the light of the Amsterdam Treaty and the conclusions of the Cologne European Council, particular consideration is being given to questions of decision-making procedures and crisis management capabilities. The Cologne conclusions underlined the importance of UN principles in this connection.
With regard to the question of capabilities, a British proposal for a capability target of 40,000, which is about the size of KFOR in Kosovo, is one of the ideas that has been put forward and is being studied carefully. It is important to emphasise that participation in the Petersberg Tasks under the Treaty of Amsterdam is on a voluntary basis, and is a matter for sovereign decision in each and every case. There is no question of a European Army being set up.
At the most recent General Affairs Council on 15 November, Defence Ministers of the 15 member states were invited by the Finnish Presidency to participate in the discussions, particularly with reference to the question of military capabilities for the Petersberg Tasks. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, contrib uted to this discussion, emphasising the strong and long-standing tradition in UN peacekeeping and crisis management which we are bringing to the EU table. The focus of the debate has been on voluntarily agreed goals which should enable a better practical focus on peacekeeping and crisis management. The EU discussions are not concerned with collective defence.
The other main issue discussed has been decision making, so that the EU can take effective and informed decisions on Petersberg Tasks when necessary. Final decisions are not foreseen until the end of the year 2000. In the meantime, there may be a need for interim structures in Brussels, which would be geared to ensure effective implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty's provisions on Petersberg Tasks – a political and security committee has been proposed, as has a committee with military expertise which would advise the political and security committee, as appropriate. The need for access to sound military expertise and advice is clear from the experience in UN peacekeeping.
One sensitive area is the issue of consultation procedures with non-EU countries which are following this debate carefully and, in some cases, with a degree of concern. I would hope to see appropriate consultation procedures set up.
The question of EU contacts with NATO has also been discussed, in view of the reality that the EU and Western European Union, which do not wish to duplicate the resources existing within NATO, are likely to be dependent on NATO resources for peacekeeping activities. As I said in response to a priority question today from Deputy De Rossa, in parallel with this work, the Presidency has been seeking to improve the EU's non-military crisis management capabilities. I see this work as very important.
Javier Solana has an important role to play in relation to Petersberg Tasks. With the retirement of the current Western European Union Secretary General, the Western European Union members see a need for closer working links with the EU on Petersberg Tasks. The EU neutral states, including Ireland, came to the conclusion that Mr. Solana's second job does not affect our neutrality. At the insistence of the neutral partners, the EU has made clear that the decision does not affect the position of the Treaty of Amsterdam, nor the Cologne conclusions which define the EU's role in relation to the Petersberg Tasks, and that it will have no implications arising out of the Western European Union's Article V clause.
The GAC of 15 November also noted the inconclusive work on armaments co-operation which has been under way for several years now. Ireland does not manufacture arms. Our priority is to ensure effective restraints on arms exports.
We have already dealt with this, to some extent, under Priority Questions. However, I want to pursue a number of aspects. Why is the Government opposed to col lective security of the European Union? What is the Government's attitude to the clear drive towards creating a single, modernised arms industry, with a view to making a contribution to a European defence arrangement, whatever that might be?
Is Ireland making its voice heard in the current debates within the European Union on nuclear deterrence? What is the Government's position on that? Given the Government's current stance, are we likely to end up, having not engaged in the debate, with a European defence arrangement which includes nuclear deterrence? We can stand back and say our hands are clean, but we will have nuclear deterrence in Europe.
As I understand it, the reason the Government is reluctant to get involved in the discussion on a common security and defence policy is our neutrality. I know that causes difficulties and that there are different views in Ireland on this matter. The confused debate on our membership of PfP is a manifestation of that.
The PfP plays an important role in co-operation and planning for the Petersberg Tasks. The Minister for Foreign Affairs signed Irish membership of PfP yesterday. He made it clear there was no question of Ireland joining NATO, now or in the future. Ireland, with our capacity and experience in UN peacekeeping, would far rather focus on conflict prevention than on military crisis management. We dealt with this early during Priority Questions.
Ireland takes a positive view of the outcome of the Cologne Summit, which clearly reflected the views of the four neutral EU member states. The Cologne declaration meets our key concerns in a number of areas. It is clearly situated in the framework of the Amsterdam Treaty. The issue is cleared defined as the Petersberg Tasks, and not mutual defence commitments which are appropriate to alliances. Most importantly, the declaration does not contain prejudicial references to the integration of the Western European Union as an institution into the EU. We can look at including Western European Union's peacekeeping and crisis management functions into the EU, but not the Western European Union's Article V clause. This is a mutual defence commitment which binds Western European Union members. The principles of the UN charter are highlighted and the rights of the EU neutrals in participation in the Petersberg Tasks are clearly registered.
In answer to the Deputy's question about why we are not in favour of a common security and defence policy, it is very much related to our reluctance to become involved in heavy-handed security policy, which some other EU member states are more in favour of.
I suggest we are now in a circular argument – we are against collective security because we are neutral, and we are neu tral because we are against collective security. That is not an answer to the question. There are all kinds of definitions of neutrality. The latest one is a quote in The Irish Times from the Minister, Deputy Andrews, who said Ireland would maintain “moral neutrality”. I am not sure whether he means we will be morally neutral or our neutrality will be moral. What exactly does he mean?
We will be neutrally moral.
I remind Deputies that Question Time is nearing completion.
There is a need for clear thinking and talking on this issue. There is a confused debate because this and previous Governments have been unclear about precisely why they are adopting this position. There must be a redefinition of neutrality.
I would agree—
As Question Time is almost over, I will call on Deputy Gay Mitchell, who indicated he wished to contribute. Perhaps the Minister of State could then reply to the two questions.
That is probably appropriate because my question is along the same lines as that of Deputy De Rossa. I interpreted the Minister of State as saying that we are neutral because we are neutral. On this day, when the matters in Northern Ireland have moved along in a fantastic way, we must recall that the only basis for not joining NATO in 1949 was partition. I accept that situation has moved on.
That was Seán McBride, but the Deputy should look at what else he was doing.
The Deputy should let me make my point. I accept the situation has moved on and that many other matters have happened in relation to NATO. However, why, in terms of European Union security, are we keeping our heads down, letting others make the running and reacting to what they are saying? Why have we not got a handle on this ourselves? Why are we not managing it proactively? Why have we not got a view on what European Union security architecture should be? Why are we not one of the architects?
There is, perhaps, a need for a modern definition of what neutrality means in the context of our membership of the European Union. Clearly, Ireland would be anxious to participate in peacekeeping, conflict prevention and other humanitarian endeavours. We are contributing to KFOR and SFOR in Bosnia. However, in common with other neutral states, we are carefully watching and participating in this debate. We have to be mindful that any change in our neutrality or proposed membership of a military alliance would have to be put directly to the people. If that is to be the case then let the debate begin. Membership of PfP gave rise to some confusion as to how Ireland views its role in the world in terms of being—
This issue should be addressed in the White Paper on Defence.
I agree and I would be in favour of the issue being discussed. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has a role to play in encouraging democratic debate in the House, as it played a major role in the evolution of Ireland's membership of PfP.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.