Dan Boyle
Ceist:60 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence if the Armed Forces will be participating in the EU’s new battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28810/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 17 November 2004
Ceisteanna (21, 22, 23, 24)
Ciarán Cuffe
Ceist:97 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the Defence Forces September 2004 submission in favour of participation in the EU’s new battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28811/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Pat Breen
Ceist:105 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Defence if Ireland will participate in EU-led groups that can intervene in a rapid manner to prevent the loss of life; the circumstances under which such participation might take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28764/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Thomas P. Broughan
Ceist:109 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the position with regard to Irish participation in proposed EU battle groups under a United Nations mandate; if Irish participation in the battle groups will be subject to the triple lock procedure; if he has plans to bring a proposal to the Cabinet on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28821/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (95 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 60, 97, 105 and 109 together.
At a European Council meeting in Helsinki in 1999, member states set as a headline goal that, co-operating voluntarily, they would be able to deploy rapidly and sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks, as set out in the Amsterdam treaty, by 2003. Such tasks include being able to provide rapid response elements, which are available and deployable at very high readiness. The EU's ambition of being able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has been and continues to be a key objective of the development of the European Security and Defence Policy. The value of this effort was illustrated last year when the EU engaged in its first autonomous military operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The operation, which was undertaken rapidly at the request of the UN Secretary General, successfully contributed to the stabilisation of the security environment and the improvement of humanitarian conditions in that region.
As Deputies are aware, the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, recently visited Dublin. He outlined clearly his belief that regional organisations such as the EU can contribute to the UN's crisis management requirements. At a meeting of the Forum on Europe on 14 October last, Mr. Annan specifically welcomed the development of EU capabilities in the context of European Security and Defence Policy. He stressed the importance of strengthened EU capacities, particularly rapid deployment capabilities, to the UN. He paid tribute to Ireland's contribution to the UN over the years at a meeting in McKee Barracks on 15 October. He highlighted the key role played by Ireland during its Presidency of the European Union in promoting co-operation between the EU and the UN in respect of crisis management. He referred in particular to the possible use of EU rapid response elements to support UN peacekeeping operations.
Given its long tradition of participation in UN peacekeeping operations, Ireland can make a positive contribution to EU rapid response elements. At yesterday's Cabinet meeting, the Government agreed that I should advise my EU counterparts in Brussels next Monday of Ireland's preparedness to enter into consultations with its partners with a view to participating in such elements. The ongoing detailed analysis of the implications of an Irish contribution to a rapid response element will continue over the coming months. The analysis will cover various policy considerations. I intend to submit proposals on the level of such participation to the Government after the necessary analysis has been completed. I emphasise that any Irish participation in rapid response elements will remain subject to the usual requirements — a Government decision, the approval of the Dáil and UN authorisation.
It seems clear from the Minister's response that the Government is committed to EU battle groups. He should come out and say it clearly. Does the Minister agree the Government has done more than any other previous Administration to undo and dismantle Irish neutrality? We see examples of that in Shannon Airport almost every day. The apparent decision to participate in battle groups is another step in that direction, as is the new EU constitution. What is Ireland's role in the new European arms agency? Will the battle groups be part of the structured co-operation which forms part of the new European constitution? That important question also needs to be answered. Does the Minister accept that a common defence, as defined in the new EU constitution, is on the way? It is no longer merely possible that we will be involved in a common defence, as the EU constitution states explicitly that we will be part of a common defence. Do these developments not demonstrate that the Government's commitment to neutrality is about as plausible as its commitment to socialism?
I do not really know what Deputy Gormley is committed to, on any front.
I am committed to Irish neutrality.
He is obviously committed to not listening.
I listened to the Minister.
If he listened carefully to my reply, he would have heard me make clear that I will talk to my European counterparts about the matter on Monday. When I have received answers to the various questions I want to ask——
The Minister is very predictable.
There is no group as autocratic in this country as liberals. They do not want to hear anybody else's point of view.
I am listening.
I ask the Deputy to keep listening. I will ask the various questions compiled by the Department, the responses to which we are still evaluating. When I have received the answers to the questions, I will discuss the matter at Cabinet level. I will not make the decision on Ireland's participation in the battle groups. I have views on the matter, but the decision will be taken by the Cabinet.
I reject Deputy Gormley's spurious contention that the Government is undermining neutrality. The Government's definition of neutrality, which has been upheld by the courts, involves non-participation in military alliances. That has been the policy of this country for the last 50 years and it continues to be its policy. Ireland is not involved in any military alliance and it will not be involved in such an alliance. It is not involved in any mutual defence pact and it will not be involved in such a pact. Ireland has not taken any action in respect of Iraq or anywhere else that was not taken by successive Irish Governments over the last 50 years. It is clear that is the reality.
I remind Deputy Gormley that those with certain beliefs are entitled to have them. I allow them to voice their opinions and I wish they would let me voice my opinion, rather than trying to shout me down. As far as I am concerned, such people are entitled to their opinions. I do not send people around in the middle of the night to damage such people's property. My property was damaged on a number of occasions by people who, according to the Garda in Limerick, are associated with Deputy Gormley's party.
Come on.
My property has been damaged simply because I happen to hold a different opinion.
That is outrageous.
We live in a democracy. God help us if the Green Party, with its present autocratic attitude, is ever in charge.
It is outrageous.
Deputy Gormley has asked for various——
It is outrageous.
It is a matter of fact. If Deputy Gormley does not believe me, I will send him the evidence of the Garda in Limerick.
Charge them.
Do something.
I will. Deputy Gormley and some of his colleagues in the mid-west who shout the loudest have been asking for a debate on neutrality. I have no difficulty with having such a debate at any time, in any place. I suggest the putative coalition partners in the next Government should have a debate among themselves first, so they can come to me with a common voice.
Fine Gael definitely has a very clear view on this. Following the difficulties the UN encountered in the Balkans during the mid 1990s and the analysis carried out for the Brahimi report published in 2000, the UN realised that its traditional concept regarding preparing personnel and getting them out into the field of operation for peacekeeping no longer worked. Essentially it is trying to subcontract peacekeeping missions to various groupings or regional forces such as the African Union or the EU. It would be more beneficial to our Defence Forces and peacekeeping across the globe if the UN had forces on which it could call at short notice who had trained together and were properly equipped.
I agree with Deputy Timmins on the reason for greater regional emphasis, for example, the EU coming on board regarding Bosnia and the African support group coming on board from local countries regarding the situation in Sudan. In the changed conditions of the modern world, the UN must rely on having forces organised regionally. Kofi Annan explained during his recent visit to Ireland how that came about.
However, he also explained that the United Nations have no ambition to be in charge of a standing army. He wants the traditional situation to continue, but certain things have to change. For example, the earliest way that the United Nations had to put people in the field was to request various countries to deploy troops. That operation, from the time that the request went out until the troops could be deployed, took about four months. We know that, given the conditions of modern warfare with all the new types of weaponry available, such as gas and chemical weapons, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people are dead by the time those troops go into the field.
That is why the need for a more rapid response has arisen and peacekeeping has become regionalised in certain situations. We have no difficulty getting involved in any peacekeeping or even peacemaking mission, let alone humanitarian crisis management, regardless of whether it is organised at an EU or UN level, provided that it is a mission established and approved unanimously by the Security Council of the United Nations. That continues to be and will remain our position.
On Question No. 60, I have another brief linked supplementary question.
On 24 October it was stated — and not refuted by the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea — that Kofi Annan had made a request to him. The Minister confirmed yesterday that when he met Mr. Annan during his recent visit to Ireland the Secretary General had asked him to consider Irish troops being sent to Iraq under a UN mandate. Was such a request, made by Mr. Annan, and what was the Minister for Defence's reply?
As I have already informed the House, Kofi Annan and I discussed the situation generally. He told me that at some time in the future the situation might stabilise to the extent that the UN might decide to send in a peacekeeping force. In that event, it might request our participation. That is what I told the House and the media when the story was published. How the media wish to interpret what I tell them is a matter for them. However, I am stating the factual position.
According to the latest edition of The Sunday Business Post, the Minister received a briefing document from his officials on key developments in Europe regarding European security and defence policy, including the European Defence Agency, the Helsinki headline goal and the new battle groups. The briefing document states that each development poses a set of policy, financial and operational challenges for Ireland.
Yet in answer to a question from me to both the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Smith, on 11 May and himself on 12 October 2004 regarding the financial implications, both Ministers for Defence stated that there would be no resulting increase in defence spending. However, both also confirmed that the Department had not undertaken a comparative cost analysis before making such commitments. How can the Ministers give an answer in the House that contradicts the internal briefing document from their own advisers?
I am aware of the briefing document to which the Deputy refers. I have discussed it with senior officials in my Department. I asked them squarely how the extra costs arose and to check out whether they will definitely be involved. That is a matter for them to consider in the context of our considerations as to whether to participate in what are wrongly termed "battle groups".
I forgot to reply to the Deputy's earlier question about the European Defence Agency. The purpose is to establish a single market for the purchase of armaments. Obviously, if people are going on peacekeeping missions, they will need certain armaments to protect themselves. Currently all the countries participating in peacekeeping compete to purchase arms from dealers. The primary purpose of the European Defence Agency is to establish a single purchaser that in theory and, one hopes, in reality, will make those armaments cheaper for the member states.
I like to refer to it as the "European Arms Agency". I was on the defence working group that discussed it. It states explicitly in the new draft constitution that each member state will progressively improve its military capabilities. Is the Minister for Defence suggesting to the House that it could cost less money? It will cost more, and he should be up-front with the House, telling us how much more it will cost and where he will get the money.
The Minister did not answer my other question on structured co-operation. Instead he engaged in cheap smear and innuendo. I suggest that if he has any evidence of criminal activity on the part of members of my party, he go to the Garda Síochána and have those people charged instead of attending the House to take cheap shots.
I have done that. I have told the Garda Síochána.
Now the Minister is interrupting me. Perhaps I might ask him about structured co-operation. "Battle groups" are the proper words. Are they not the first step in structured co-operation, and is that not the first step towards a common defence?
"No" is the answer to both questions.
How can the Minister say "No" when it is quite explicit in the document?
The Deputy will not accept someone else's opinion.
Please do not talk absolute nonsense. I cannot stand it.
"No" is the answer.
It is not the correct or truthful answer. It is about time we had some truth in this regard.
Whether the Deputy approves of it is a matter of supreme indifference to me.
The Minister sold out on Irish neutrality.
Whether the Deputy accepts that is a supreme irrelevance to me. "No" is the answer to both questions.
We will see whether the Irish people accept it, because the Minister is not telling the truth.
Let us move on to Question No. 61.
Do not encourage people to damage others' property.
Will the Minister withdraw that outrageous remark? A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, he said that I was encouraging people to damage people's property.
I did not say that the Deputy did so, but his party.
Yes, he said it. It is on the record. He said, "Do not encourage people to damage others' property." That is what he said. The Minister should withdraw that remark.
Order, please.
People associated, according to the gardaí——
Withdraw that remark.
According to gardaí in Limerick, people associated with the Deputy's party have damaged my property twice.
On a point of order, I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark.
If the remark was made in a personal way, it should be withdrawn.
I did not personalise it. I said "people associated with the Deputy's party".
Yes, he did.
I said "people associated with the Deputy's party". How is that personal?
No, he said, "Do not encourage people to damage others' property." He addressed the remark to me.
If the Deputy did not encourage them, I withdraw the remark. Does he condemn it?
Order, please. I call Question No. 61.
I would never encourage anyone to do that. Withdraw the remark.
Does the Deputy condemn it?
Withdraw the remark.
Does the Deputy condemn it?
Withdraw the remark.
I will do so when the Deputy condemns it.
Does the Minister withdraw the remark?
I call Question No. 61. Order, please. If the remark was meant in a personal way, it should be withdrawn.
Does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle intend to ask the Deputy to condemn such damage to property?
That is not the question.
The Deputy did not condemn damage to property.
Can we go on with Question No. 61 now?
The Deputy did not condemn damage to property. Who damaged the aeroplanes at Shannon Airport? Did the Deputy condemn that?
I call Question No. 61.
I insist that the remark should be withdrawn. The Minister cannot accuse me of encouraging criminal activity.
Did the Deputy condemn the criminal activity of his party member at Shannon Airport?
The Minister cannot accuse another Deputy of encouraging criminal activity. He should withdraw that remark.
Order, please. I call Question No. 61.
Did the Deputy condemn the criminal activity at Shannon Airport for which people have been convicted?
That has nothing to do with this. The Minister should withdraw the remark. I have never encouraged criminal activity of any description.
Order, please.
One condones it if one does not condemn it.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there are rules in the House for which there should be respect. The Minister has damaged the House by the remark he made and he has damaged me. He said I encouraged criminal activity but I have never encouraged such activity.
One condones it when one does not condemn it.
I ask the Minister to withdraw the remark.
I did not make the remark. I cannot withdraw what I have not said.
The Minister must withdraw the remark because he has damaged me in the House.
I cannot withdraw what I have not said.
The Minister would not say it outside the House.
I will say it outside the House.
The Minister would never say outside the House that I encouraged criminal activity.
I have no hesitation repeating what I have said outside the House.
Order, please. Deputy Gormley should resume his seat.
On a point of order, there are certain standards in the House. The Minister has crossed the threshold and he has gone way beyond the Pale on this. He must withdraw the remark, Sir.
I have asked the Minister, if the remark was personal, to withdraw it.
It was made towards me. He said I encouraged criminal activity.
I withdraw any suggestion that the Deputy is encouraging criminal activity.