The draft articles on external action are based on the recommendations of the convention working groups on external action and defence. The Government was not represented on the defence working group, of which Deputy Gormley and Proinsias De Rossa MEP were both members. I was on the external action group, as was John Cushnahan MEP. The external dimension, as members will be aware, is to be discussed at the convention plenary on 15 and 16 May along with the institutional questions. This will be a particularly important and heavy session.
I will start by trying to focus on the wider picture. As a community of values and common interests, the European Union is uniquely placed to play a significant role for international peace, stability and progress. It also has a unique range of instruments at its disposal, ranging from trade, aid and political and diplomatic relations across the globe through to developing conflict prevention and crisis management tools. The Government's overall approach to these issues at the convention has been to seek ways of bringing greater coherence, efficiency and effectiveness to the Union's external relations, while at the same time ensuring that the values and traditions of the member states are fully respected. This has been the yardstick by which we have assessed the articles published by the presidium on the external area at the end of April.
The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, along with other convention members, has submitted a number of proposals for amendment to these articles which reflect the Government's approach to these issues at the convention. As in the other areas, these amendments are a preliminary response and are without prejudice to the Government's final view, which cannot be determined until the final draft of the constitutional treaty is available.
On the whole, there is much to commend in the presidium draft on the external area. The broad intergovernmental basis of the common foreign and security policy remains, as do those areas for which the Commission currently has responsibility in the area of external relations, notably trade. The principles and objectives of the European Union's external action are based on the language agreed at the external action working group. Reflecting Irish priorities, the Government, together with other partners, worked to ensure appropriate reference in the text to, for example, the United Nations Charter, human rights and fundamental freedoms, conflict prevention, development co-operation, sustainable development and environmental protection. We can be pleased that this language, which provides the framework for the Union's external action, reflects so much of our thinking.
In the external relations area, the principle innovation is the proposal to combine or double-hat the position of the High Representative with the External Relations Commissioner. According to the proposal, the holder of this new position would be a vice-president of the Commission and a member of the Commission college for the non-CFSP aspects of the Union's external action. On the other hand, he or she would be responsible to the Council for CFSP matters. The title of European Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, as was mentioned earlier, is proposed for clarity and overall it offers the prospect of greatly enhancing the coherence, effectiveness and visibility of the Union's contribution on the world stage. Ireland has proposed the appointment of a number of deputies to assist this position, as it would not be possible for one person to cover the whole world and continue the valuable work currently carried out by both Mr. Javier Solana and Mr. ChrisPatten, for example, in the Balkans and the Middle East peace process. This is a specific Irish idea which an increasing number of our partners now support.
The presidium has also proposed that the new double-hatted European Union minister for foreign affairs chair the External Relations Council. In our view, the member states should continue to chair the Council and the Minister of State has proposed an amendment to that effect, as have the government representatives of Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Austria, the Commission and a number of applicant countries. On this issue, we were, again, the first to take the lead.
Many of the CFSP provisions in the proposed articles are closely based on existing treaty language. There are some proposals to enhance the way in which the member states co-operate within international organisations. During Ireland's period as a member of the UN Security Council the Government was active in sharing information with partners and we welcome the proposals in this area, which do not restrict the ability of member states to speak out on issues at the United Nations or in other international organisations.
There is also a proposal that the Union minister for foreign affairs should be able to present agreed EU positions at various international organisations. However, as this will not always be possible in practice, we have proposed that the member states should take it in turns to do this on such occasions. There is no question of the European Union replacing the member states at the United Nations.
The enlargement of the European Union to 25 member states will have a significant impact on the way the EU works, not least in the CFSP area. It is necessary to review the existing arrangements to assess how a union of 25 can respond to fast moving international events. In this context, the possible further extension of qualified majority voting in the CFSP area has been proposed, for example, for proposals which are jointly presented by the new European Union minister for foreign affairs and the Commission. We are willing to look carefully at this proposal in a constructive manner.
In a union of 25, the extent to which Irish interests and concerns would be shared by many of our partners in practice is an important consideration, as is the question of an emergency brake which has been proposed by the presidium, whereby a member state could invoke such a brake on matters of particular national concern. At the same time, we remain strongly of the view that the key requirement for an effective CFSP is the political will of the member states and voting procedures are not the principle issue in this respect. It is important to note there is no suggestion of any move to QMV as regards security and defence matters.
The articles published include a number of proposals based on the report of the defence working group, one of which relates to the possibility of a common defence commitment for those member states which express an interest. The Government's position on this question is clear. In keeping with the view of the people expressed in last October's referendum, Ireland will not be party to a defence commitment unless the people approve it. In our response to the draft articles put forward recently by the presidium, the Government noted that provision for a possible EU common defence is already contained in the current treaty and that this is for decision both by the European Council acting unanimously and member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In our view the inclusion of a further such provision in the treaty is, therefore, not appropriate.
The Petersberg Tasks, as set out under current treaty provisions, are humanitarian rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, the tasks of combat forces in crisis management and so forth. The Presidium of the convention proposes that these should be expanded to include conflict prevention, disarmament, military advice and assistance, post-conflict stabilisation and support to third countries against terrorism. We can broadly support the proposed additions in this area as, in a number of respects they are close to the Government's views, particularly as regards the need for a more explicit conflict prevention dimension.
The Presidium draft also includes a new provision for a solidarity clause. Our response to the proposed treaty articles in this area has confirmed that we are open in principle to the idea of a possible solidarity clause which would assist in the European Union's response to emergencies and new threats arising from terrorist and non-State entities directed against civilian populations and democratic institutions located within EU territory. We do not consider that this should extend to pre-emptive military activity. As has been underlined previously, the idea that in the event of an emergency the Union would be in a position to mobilise all of its assets and call on those of its member states, both civilian and military, is very much in keeping with our traditions. In principle, Austria, Finland and Sweden also support a solidarity clause along these lines. The idea of a solidarity and common security clause extending beyond emergencies would be more problematic, especially if it was in the direction of a mutual defence clause. Again, it would be necessary to maintain a clear distinction between emergency arrangements arising from natural or man-made disasters and more hard defence issues.
Security and defence matters were specifically excluded from the scope of enhanced co-operation under the Amsterdam treaty and, again, under the Nice treaty. The parameters of any proposed provision for enhanced co-operation in the security and defence area require further clarification and explanation at the very least. In the meantime, and as has been reflected in our response to the proposals which have emerged from the Presidium, we remain cautious. We are prepared to listen to the views of our EU partners on this matter. In practice it may not be feasible for Ireland to prevent other member states from co-operating in an area which they perceive as of national importance. I would, however, note once again, that the EU already has the potential to achieve much under the existing arrangements including through constructive abstention.
The report of the defence working group made a number of recommendations in the area of armaments co-operation including a proposal for an agency that would co-ordinate research and co-operation in this area. These ideas are reflected in the draft articles. The armaments and military equipment aspects of the ESDP have arisen in the context of ensuring that member states' respective military forces are properly equipped to carry out crisis management operations, not least from the perspective of protecting the forces themselves as well as the people they might be trying to help. The current EU and EC treaties already provide for a degree of armaments co-operation between member states but on the proviso that this should occur as member states consider appropriate. Ireland, which does not manufacture armaments, will approach proposals in this area in that context. A number of ideas are being put forward in this area, possibly extending to defence research projects. For our part we will emphasise that an appropriate balance should be maintained between the constituent elements of the European security and defence policy and this is reflected in the amendment of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, to the relevant article which has been put forward by the Presidium. I would also point out that it might not be realistic for Ireland to seek to prevent other member states from co-operating more closely in an area which they perceive to be an issue of vital national importance. As was noted in a recent report by the national forum on Europe, conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping and peacemaking involve military as well as non-military means. We cannot ignore the reality that armaments are part of the equation is so far as the military is concerned. From an Irish perspective it would be key to ensure that we can continue to take our decisions on these matters, in so far as they affect Ireland. The provisions also deal with trade matters and development co-operation.
The Government has taken the view that development co-operation should retain its treaty-based objectives and its primary focus on poverty reduction in low-income countries. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, made this position clear when the plenary discussed the external action report in December. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, and development ministers from six other countries, including Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK have agreed a joint paper on development co-operation and the Convention. The articles on development co-operation and humanitarian assistance are largely based on existing treaty language, as put forward by the Presidium. However, we have proposed amendments to copperfasten the status of development co-operation in the treaty, including the primary focus of poverty eradication in low-income countries and to ensure that existing treaty obligations to consider the impact of EU policies on developing countries should be retained. These amendments are very much in line with the like-minded countries I mentioned earlier. I understand Deputy Carey has also proposed a similar amendment. The amendments submitted by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, are a first response to these important articles and as with other sets of articles it will not be possible to form a definite view of the external action articles until the full text of the constitutional treaty is published by the Presidium at the end of May. This has been a feature of the Convention process since the beginning. The plenary will be debating these issues next week. The Government will play an active and full part in the discussion as in other plenary debates.
