Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1998

Presentation by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance.

The next delegation is from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. I welcome Mr. Roger Cole and Mr. John O'Dowd. The normal format is a short presentation by the delegation and then a short question and answer session. The information gleaned from these hearings will be included in the report which will be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Cole

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance was established to maintain a policy of Irish neutrality and to oppose the transformation of the European Union into a nuclear armed super state. A list of affiliated organisations to PANA has been distributed to the committee. The president of PANA is the Rev. Terence McCaughey, who was the chairman for 25 years of the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement which helped bring to a successful conclusion the abolition of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa.

The Treaty effectively ends the State's commitment to the policy of neutrality in so far as Article J.7 commits the signatories to the progressive framing of a common defence policy. It is also clear that this common defence policy is to be framed in the context of the link between the European Union and the Western European Union, a separate body which is a military alliance armed with nuclear weapons. PANA will be campaigning for a "No" vote. If that is achieved, our objective is to ensure that the Treaty will be renegotiated and a new Protocol, similar to that put in place by the Danes which will exclude us from any defence commitments within the European Union, will be added.

With regard to the common foreign and security policy, the Amsterdam Treaty inserts a new Article J.1 which states that "The Union shall define and implement a common foreign policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy". This replaces Article J.1 of the Maastricht Treaty which states that "The Union and its member states shall define and implement" the common foreign and security policy. Therefore, the new Treaty attaches the common foreign and security policy to the Union itself. The new Article J1 empowers the Union rather than the member states acting in co-operation by defining the principles and general guidelines of the common foreign policy, deciding on common strategies, adopting joint actions, adopting common positions and strengthening systematic co-operation between member states in the conduct of policy.

There are also defence implications. The new Article J.3 is substituted for Articles J8.1 and J8.2 of the Maastricht Treaty and states "The European Council shall define the principles of and the general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications." Article J.7 states:

The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, in accordance with the second subparagraph, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to the member states the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

There is no Article in the Irish Constitution which prevents the State from entering a military alliance. As such, there is no reference to neutrality in the Constitution. The second subparagraph to which Article J.7 refers involves the link between the European Union and the Western European Union.

Another part of the Treaty is the Danish Protocol which we would like to see included in a new Treaty. It states:

With regard to the measures adopted by the Council in the field of Articles J.3(1) and J.7 of the Treaty of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of the decisions or actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer co-operation between member states in this area. Therefore Denmark shall not participate their adoption. Denmark shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures.

PANA does not see any reason Ireland should not have a similar Protocol and we are arguing in favour of its adoption.

With regard to the European arms industry, Article J7.1 states that "The progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as member states consider appropriate, by co-operation between them in the field of armaments." The Titley Report to the European Parliament states that a European armaments policy would be easier to pursue if there was consensus on the major objectives of a common foreign and security policy. Therefore, the link between the European arms industry and the point of having this section in the Treaty is clear.

The Western European Union, while it is a separate body, is perceived to be linked to the Treaty. Article J.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty states that the Western European Union:

. . . is an integral part of the development of the Union providing the Union with access to operational capability. . . It supports the Union in framing the defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy as set out in this Article. The Union shall accordingly foster closer institutional relations with the Western European Union with a view to the possibility of the further integration of the Western European Union into the Union should the European Council so decide.

The declared objectives of the Western European Union reaffirm support for nuclear defence. The Western European Union's platform clearly states that nuclear weapons can and should be used to confront a potential aggressor. We are asking the Irish people to sign up to a Treaty which envisages the progressive integration of this organisation into the Union, knowing in advance that the Western European Union is committed, if necessary, to using nuclear weapons. There are other aspects of the Treaty but I believe I have already taken enough of the committee's time.

Mr. Joe McCartin, MEP

In the context that what we are defending is neutrality, will the members of the delegation comment on my perception that someone was appointed to the presidency of an organisation affiliated to theirs on the basis that he took sides in the conflict in South Africa because he believed an injustice was being perpetrated in that country? The individual in question made an unselfish decision to defend the weak and those who were deprived of their civil and human rights. I believe I am correct in stating that his stance was not neutral. Therefore, we must move away from using the word "neutrality" because it is merely a dinosaur which has survived the Cold War. It is futile to discuss neutrality when there is no conflict.

Ireland remained neutral when conflict erupted in Europe in 1939. During the Cold War we were officially neutral but the then Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, stated that there was no neutrality and we were not neutral. Another former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, inquired why it was wrong for a group of nations to make common defence arrangements. That is a reasonable question.

Are the members of the deputation of the opinion that we should remain apart from common defence arrangements with other countries or are they of the view that we should prevent others from making such arrangements out of which we have the right to opt? While there are provisions in the Maastricht Treaty which was accepted by the people of Ireland and in the Amsterdam Treaty which advocate progress towards common defence, it is equally clear that those who do not wish to participate are not obliged to do so. If the Government decides not to participate, we are under no obligation to do so. That generous option has been extended to us in consideration of our traditional policies.

How can there be neutrality when there is no conflict? Why should we be concerned about common arrangements between other countries? Is it being suggested that we should use this right which was generously given to us as 1 per cent of the population of Europe to participate in the making of decisions relating to the welfare of the European Union and that we should use this privilege to prevent others from making common arrangements between themselves in which they do not expect us to take any part? Whether there is a European Union, a Western European Union was originally founded to forestall the re-emergence of a strong Germany and, eventually, Germany joined that union. Progress towards peace and reconciliation in Europe has brought about the Western European Union which has never fired a shot in hostility and, please God, it never will.

There was also a Cold War against Russia and now we are afraid to join the Organisation for Co-operation and Peace. The Russians sit there with the Germans and the Americans, so where is the conflict from which we wish to be neutral? Is Europe safer with one army or 15 armies? I believe it is safer if there is only one army.

Mr. Fitzsimons, MEP

I welcome Mr. Cole and Mr. O'Dowd; I do not know them personally, but I know of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and I understand its concerns. However, I do not agree with all that has been said. Fianna Fáil's concept of neutrality may be different to that of Fine Gael. We believe that our neutrality will not be affected by the new security measures in the Amsterdam Treaty. The Treaty only provides the European Union with a military role in humanitarian and rescue missions, peace-keeping and peace-making. These measures are totally compatible with the principles of the UN which Ireland fully supports. The Treaty clearly states that all its measures relating to European foreign and security policy must be carried out in accordance with the principles of the UN.

Ireland is already an active member of the UN. I would go further and say that the agreement of all European leaders would be required to establish a common European defence policy or to integrate the Western European Union into the EU. The Western European Union is a military alliance of ten of the 15 member states of the EU — Ireland is not a member. Another body, known as the Partnership for Peace which emerged after the collapse of communism, is concerned with security in Central and Eastern European countries. Fianna Fáil does not believe we should join the PFP because we would view that as a back door into NATO. However, that has nothing to do with this debate.

If the Irish people wish to join a European defence policy it would first have to be put to them in a referendum as it would involve a change to the Amsterdam Treaty. A recent newspaper opinion poll indicated that 70 per cent of people agreed with the points I have been outlining. They confirmed the justified concerns of PANA. I have come across this in meetings throughout the country. There is concern about our neutrality no matter how we define it. It is still close to the hearts of the Irish people. There is a huge international arms industry and we are mindful of that industry. We are willing to continue to participate in the noble traditions which have been carried out for decades at the cost of lives of members of the Defence Forces and the Garda by continuing to play a role in humanitarian and rescue missions, peace-keeping and peace-making.

I thank the Peace and Neutrality Alliance for addressing the meeting. It is a respected organisation which has put forward a valid point of view. I have much respect for many of its affiliated organisations, particularly those dealing with humanitarian issues.

The concept of neutrality is evolving. I have studied it over the years as a student and a Member of the Oireachtas. For many people neutrality was a symbol of our independence from Britain; in its early days it was anti-British. Today neutrality means the promotion of peace, justice and basic human rights throughout the world and I adhere to that view. If nothing else, it means the avoidance of military alliances. The vast majority of Irish people support neutrality as so defined despite the attacks made on it by various elements.

This committee gave much consideration to the Amsterdam Treaty in the run up to its completion. We gave much deliberation to the reflection group and the deliberations which went into the thinking behind the Treaty. Having come through that process, I am in no doubt that the Amsterdam Treaty is a cop out. Many of the countries in the EU could not agree on many issues — and defence is one such issue. It suited many countries, such as Ireland and the UK, that defence be put aside and some countries felt that each state should have maximum flexibility on these issues.

The committee came up with what are vague generalisations, so vague as to be meaningless. I listened carefully to the presentation and I will study the documentation. The representatives have spelt out where they feel the defence arrangements are stated clearly in the Treaty. However, I do not accept that. The time has not come for the people to vote on neutrality because it is not under threat in this Treaty. I do not believe we are heading towards a nuclear armed super state. The time has not come for a decision on the avoidance of military alliances.

Mr. Fitzsimons referred to the point that Fianna Fáil subscribes to the view that peace-keeping should be promoted under an EU mandate. If there was to be an army under an EU mandate it would be for peace-keeping and humanitarian tasks. Does PANA agree with that view?

Ms Malone, MEP

The committee is doing a service by having these groups make presentations on the Amsterdam Treaty. There is little evidence of the £2.5 million which was to be spent on informing the public. PANA has a valid point of view as has been noted but I do not necessarily agree with all Mr. Cole said. I believe in a positive neutrality but he and I do not come to the same conclusions. I share what Deputy Haughey said with regard to the fudge in the Treaty because agreement could not be reached with Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland to progress CFSP. Mr. Gary Titley's report on the future of the arms industry indicated that a European arms policy would be easier to pursue if there were consensus on the major objectives of CFSP. There is no such consensus at EU level and there has been no progress.

Those in favour of positive neutrality spoke out clearly when the initial wording to be put in the referendum was introduced but it was roundly rejected by many. We pointed out that we were unhappy with the wording because it could allow this or a future Government to compromise neutrality more than we would wish. I have looked carefully at the White Paper and the Treaty and I am happy to encourage a vote in favour of it, not only on the basis of the good employment and social policy aspects but also with regard to CFSP. Any change to CFSP must be by unanimity — any member state can opt out and no further action can be taken. That is clear from the wording.

Mr. Cole

I thank the members for their complimentary remarks about PANA, in particular Mr. McCartin's remarks about the president of PANA, Rev, Terence McCaughey. We are committed to a policy of positive neutrality — it is the rationale of our organisation. The organisations that have affiliated to us have done so on the basis that they agree with our five objectives. We do not wish our view of neutrality to be perceived as sitting back and not taking sides in a conflict where a judgment for one side or another should be made. We do not argue that positive neutrality means that one does not take sides. It means that a country has its own independent foreign policy and makes up its own mind in a democratic fashion on the best policy to be pursued on a particular issue.

It was not clear from Mr. McCartin's remarks whether he supported neutrality — there seemed to be some confusion as to his attitude and that explains the complimentary remarks to the Fianna Fáil Deputy. The Fianna Fáil election manifesto indicated that Fianna Fáil is committed to nuclear disarmament and would oppose any moves to edge Ireland closer to membership of an alliance still committed to the deployment and use of nuclear weapons. It stated "We oppose Irish participation in NATO, NATO-led organisations such as the Partnership for Peace or in the Western European Union beyond observer status". It continued "Fianna Fáil in Government will not participate in any co-operative security structures which have implications for Irish neutrality without first consulting the people through a referendum. Fianna Fáil will strive to achieve a fresh vision of the European Union as a political and economic community rather than as a military superpower or a federal superstate."

I speak for PANA when I say that I agree with the sentiments expressed but the problem is that they appear to be in contradiction with arguing simultaneously that one can progressively frame a common defence policy with other states including, for example, France. I have no idea what it means and we should not contemplate having a common defence policy with France or Britain as they are nuclear armed states. However, that is what we are committing ourselves to in the Treaty. Political parties standing for election always claim to be policy driven. It is, therefore, inconceivable how a party can say it is in favour of a policy of common defence but that it has no intention of implementing the policy. We can find no logical or rational explanation of that.

I agree with Deputy Haughey that neutrality is a symbol of our independence. When the negotiations were taking place with Britain in the time of de Valera and Collins, they were arguing for the right to be neutral. We have managed to achieve a long period in which we were not part of the British union, which was the last time we had a common defence policy. However, it is now argued that we should reverse that and slowly edge our way towards a common defence policy not only with Britain but other European countries which do not have a shining record on foreign policy issues.

Mr. Fitzsimons, MEP

As Mr. Cole knows we in Fianna Fáil are allied with the French Gaullists in the European Parliament with a derogation in respect of nuclear activity or a war against any other member state or any other country. Apart from that we are as one.

Mr. Cole

I hope Fianna Fáil follows that logic and votes against the Treaty.

Ms Malone is responsible for me taking a heightened interest in European affairs because of her generosity in allowing me to go on one of her European parliamentary visits. It is nice to hear PANA's valid point of view lauded. We have tried to put across the idea of positive neutrality — that is, neutrality is neither an historic accident nor, as Mr. McCartin suggested, a cold war dinosaur. I need not teach anyone Irish history. My grandfather was an active participant in a common security and defence policy — he fought for the British Army in the First World War, as did many other Irishmen. That is the logic of imperial policy but we now live in a post-colonial age.

It is not without interest that the other neutral states in Europe are Austria, Sweden and Finland. I visited Finland last year. It has had a rather rough time with a neighbouring country and, while it is still neutral, it pursues an active defence policy against Russia, including compulsory military service for its young people. That is the responsibility of the Finnish people because that is how they want to conduct their foreign policy. If it is the case, as Ms Malone has assured us, that there are safeguards and provisions for opting out, why did the Danes specifically seek a protocol excluding them from the defence provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty? It is not irresponsible, capricious or eccentric on their part to do so — and this is not a rhetorical question.

The accusation of fudge has been made before. If it is a fudge, it will be hard for people to swallow. If, as PANA believes, there will be a common security and defence policy, which means the formation of a European army, that army will not sit and twiddle its thumbs because generals like to fight wars under any guise. It will not be people of my age who fight those wars but the generation yet to come which does not yet have a voice in our affairs.

Mr. McCartin, MEP

I am sorry I had to leave but I had to meet my party leader. It is unfair to mention that Irish people fought in armies all over the world, whether in the American War of Independence, the American Civil War or the Russian, French and Spanish imperial wars. My grand uncle died fighting for the British; the fact that our relatives fought in the British Army has nothing to do with the fact that, after consulting with the Irish people, we have entered into a voluntary arrangement with our neighbouring states on the European mainland which is a political project of co-operation or a large co-operative of nations. To suggest that this has a parallel with our relationship with the British is neither fair nor reasonable — people who joined the British Army did so voluntarily but this country could not make a decision about that — but we have freely entered into the relationship we enjoy with our European neighbours.

As regards Denmark, some people have realised that the European Union will exist whether they want to be part of it or not and the Danes are one such people. I think the Danes, generally speaking, would prefer if the Union did not exist but since it does they feel they must be part of it because the decisions will be taken whether they are in it or not. They will, therefore, try to slow it down as best they can, which they are doing, but not because they are against common defence arrangements — they have already entered those. The Danish position is not the same as ours because they have already entered NATO. Such comparisons do not make sense, they are red herrings.

Ms Malone, MEP

The debate on the Amsterdam Treaty, whenever it starts, will centre on neutrality and nothing else, which is a shame because there is so much positive policy development in the Treaty as regards employment, social policy and non-discrimination, which was sought by the Irish Government. I welcome the neutrality debate but we have had it before. We should not frighten the public into believing there will be a European army in the morning; that would be unwise and unfair because there has been no progress towards that. The important thing to remember is that any new development in this area must be unanimous. This Government and the other major political parties have said that any change in our neutrality will be referred to the Irish people by way of referendum and I look forward to that debate, whenever it takes place.

That concludes our deliberations. I thank Mr. Cole and Mr. O'Dowd for being here because it helped to broaden the debate. History is my favourite subject; there were many historical references and I would like an opportunity to debate some of them again. As Ms Malone said, neutrality will not be decided on in this referendum but perhaps we should consider the following this country was neutral in the last war — rightly, to my mind. If we had been in the same position as Poland, which was assailed by armies on both sides, how would we have responded? It would be no harm to consider that in the future and that applies to us all, myself included.

Barr
Roinn