John Gormley
Ceist:50 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer. [13051/01]
Other Questions. - Official Engagements.
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:69 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he plans to visit Germany in the near future. [13053/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 50 and 69 together.
On 30 April, German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, travelled to Dublin to deliver an address to the Institute for European Affairs. He and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, took advantage of the visit to Dublin to meet briefly. Both Ministers had also met in Berlin on 7 March and their discussions in Berlin and in Dublin formed part of the normal round of bilateral contacts between EU partners. Deputy Cowen has no plans to travel to Germany in the near future.
There was no formal agenda for the meeting on 30 April. The two Ministers reviewed a num ber of key EU and international issues. The Minister for Foreign Affairs briefed his German counterpart on our preparations for ratification of the Treaty of Nice, and on the importance which the Government attaches to a positive result from the referendum. Mr. Fischer referred to the paper on the future of Europe which the German Social Democratic Party had produced, emphasising that it was a contribution to Germany's domestic debate, just as similar debates were taking place within all EU member states on how to come to grips with a Union of up to 27 members. Continuing with the theme of EU enlargement, they also discussed the freedom of movement issue.
Turning to international issues, the two Ministers exchanged views on developments in the Middle East, and on the role the EU could play in facilitating agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. They also discussed the situation in Kosovo and in the Western Balkans generally.
Is the Minister of State aware that Deputy Sargent and I attended the public forum, which formed part of the meeting at the institute? Is she further aware that I asked Mr. Fischer if he was puzzled that the Finns and the Swedes no longer describe themselves as neutral, yet Ireland continues to do so? He replied that he favoured the militarisation of Europe. Will the Minister of State clarify Ireland's position? Can she explain why the Government continues to describe itself as neutral, even in the condensed White Paper, yet the Finns and Swedes no longer do so?
We still describe ourselves as neutral because it is Government policy but that does not mean we want to hide ostrich-like from any responsibilities in responding to humanitarian and peacekeeping endeavours as part of the EU. That is the difference between the Petersberg Tasks and any aspect of neutrality. The Petersberg Tasks have nothing to do with a common defence or entering into a military defence pact. Does the Deputy suggest that I should articulate a policy whereby Ireland should no longer be neutral? If that is the Green Party position, it is extraordinary.
Some honesty would be nice.
Does the Minister of State accept we have always regarded ourselves as neutral because Ireland has never been a member of NATO and that we continue to do so because we have no notion of joining that organisation? Is it correct that Joschka Fisher is the leader of the Green Party in Germany and the leading Green Minister in Europe?
He is not the leader of the party.
I stand corrected. He is one of the leading Green figures in Europe. Is it cor rect that he is in favour of the Nice Treaty and that he has indicated his desire that the Irish people support it?
The Deputy is correct that he is in favour of ratification of the Nice Treaty. The Greens in Ireland are at variance with their counterparts in Europe on this issue.
That is not true.
Was the question of the defence of the EU raised at the meeting? Did Mr. Fischer make any reference to the future of the German army in terms of whether it would be a professional army in years to come rather than a conscription-based army as it is currently, which basically is not any more fit for involvement in conflict than the Irish Army?
According to the brief, there was no discussion on those issues. There was no formal agenda for the meeting. The Ministers reviewed a number of key EU and international issues, as I outlined.
It is important that I correct the Minister of State's comment that we are at variance with other Green Parties throughout Europe. I hope she is aware that other Green Parties include the Swedish and UK Greens who have a different approach from the French and German Greens. That is only right and proper in a democracy.
Is it the case that because the Government states Ireland is neutral, it is neutral? Is it the case that whatever the Minister of State says is correct? This is bizarre.
The questions that were tabled do not relate to neutrality. I ask the Deputy to relate his supplementary questions to the subject matter of the questions.
They are related.
They are not.
I am asking a specific question. Is the Minister of State defining neutrality solely in terms of Article 5 commitments?
That is not specifically relevant to the questions that were tabled.
It is relevant to the Minister of State's earlier reply. With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I ask her to reply.
Our neutrality is not in question. The Constitution does not state that Ireland is neutral. It has been the policy of successive Governments that Ireland should remain neutral. Nothing in the Nice Treaty affects that position and to misrepresent that to the people is a travesty.
We have signed up. I am referring to previous treaties.
(Dublin West): With regard to the Green German Foreign Minister moving away from the founding principles of his party, the Minister of State knows one or two things about that and we need not develop that point.
With regard to the discussions with the German Foreign Minister, did he outline his views, which are shared by Herr Schröder, the leader of his Government, that they favour an EU superstate and fast-tracking procedures in that regard? Does the Minister of State agree her Government should be embarrassed because the German Government is being more honest about the real agenda for Nice which is the creation of an EU economic unit to rival the United States in, for example, matters of trade and, similarly, with regard to the rapid reaction force, Minister Fischer is perhaps being more up-front than other Governments in Europe about the armed wing to that economic unit? Is the Government embarrassed by the German Foreign Minister being more up-front about the real agenda?
The first point to note about the document in question – the one in relation to a superstate – is that it was an internal draft party document and not an official statement of the German Government position. In any event, it is just one aspect of a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe which, as agreed at Nice, will intensify over the coming months. We have already had contributions from the Belgian, Finnish and British Prime Ministers. The Taoiseach outlined the Government's views in his speech to the Irish Council of the European Movement on 6 November.
While discussions are at an early stage and will be further reviewed by the forthcoming Councils in June and December, it is already clear that opinion within the European Union is not supportive of a radical departure from the existing institutional balance and does not favour ideas for a so-called federal superstate. Foreign Minister Fischer of Germany, during his recent visit to Dublin, emphasised that the European Union was a Union of states and of peoples and that the individual member states would remain the essential building block for the Union into the future. This is certainly the view of the Irish Government.
As to the rapid reaction force, we consider that this is an aspect of Ireland owning up to our responsibilities with a view to undertaking the Petersberg Tasks of humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, and it is not a European army.