Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 17 November 2004
65 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the Defence Forces participation in the Partnership for Peace to date in 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28814/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra67 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence the number of joint training exercises in which the Defence Forces have participated in each of the past ten years; the nature of the exercises in each case; and the other forces participating in each case. [28806/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 65 and 67 together.
Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace to date is set out in our four individual partnership programmes, copies of which have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. Ireland's fourth IPP, covering the period 2004 to 2005, was completed in consultation with the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Justice Equality and Law Reform, Health and Children, and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. A total of 108 activities were chosen representing participation by the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Activities consist of training courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, staff exercises and table top exercises.
Defence Forces personnel have participated in a number of staff, technical and crisis management exercises in the context of both the EU and PfP as set out in the following schedule. In accordance with stated policy, the Defence Forces do not participate in multinational military field exercises.
Ireland also participates in the PfP planning and review process, known as PARP. In common with the other EU neutral states, Ireland is using the PARP in connection with planning for humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping and crisis management, collectively known as the Petersberg Tasks. The scope of our involvement in PARP is focused on enhancing inter-operability and familiarity with operating procedures in a multinational environment.
Participation in Partnership for Peace activities is voluntary and is based on the principle of self-differentiation, that is, a state selects for itself the nature and scope of its participation.
|
Exercise Title |
Exercise Type |
Participating Nations |
Host Nation |
|
Viking (held in 2001 and 2003) |
Computer-based crisis response exercise |
PfP nations |
Sweden |
|
Combined Endeavour (held from 2001 annually to date) |
Radio communications exercise (required to test DF communications equipment for inter-operability purposes in PSO) |
PfP nations |
Germany |
|
Co-operative Lantern 2002 |
Peace support command post exercise for crisis response |
PfP nations |
Netherlands |
|
Co-operative Nugget 2002 |
This exercised PfP nations on their planning and process and staff procedures. |
PfP nations |
Sweden |
|
Co-operative Safeguard 2002 |
Maritime command post exercise based on response to a natural disaster |
PfP nations |
Iceland |
|
Allied Action (2003 and 2004) |
Exercise to deploy a peace support operation joint task force HQ. |
PfP nations |
Turkey |
|
CMX (2001) |
Crisis management exercise |
PfP nations |
In capitals |
|
CME (2004) |
Crisis management exercise |
EU member states |
|
|
CME/CMX (2003) |
Crisis management exercise |
EU & NATO |
In capitals |
|
CME (2002) |
Crisis management exercise |
EU member states |
In capitals |
Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that Fianna Fáil did not honour its commitment to hold a referendum on the Partnership for Peace and our participation in it? Would he also agree that the Partnership for Peace is an important element of NATO strategy and is a stepping stone towards full participation in NATO?
Who are our permanent members and who participates in the Partnership for Peace on our behalf? Where are those members stationed? Are they based in Brussels? I visited NATO in Brussels some years ago and it was clear a number of Irish people were stationed there. Will the Minister elaborate on that?
Regarding NATO, we are talking about a partnership for peace not a partnership for war or for aggression.
That is Orwellian use of language.
Membership of the Partnership for Peace does not imply membership of NATO. There is no institutional link between the Partnership for Peace and NATO. That is a fact.
There is.
There is not.
Order, please. We must conclude.
I emphasise that there is no institutional link between the PfP and NATO. All European countries involved in the Partnership for Peace and in peacekeeping co-operate with NATO. It is the practical thing to do because they need access to NATO's transport infrastructure, aerial capacity infrastructure etc. That is the basis on which all neutral European countries deal with NATO, and not only EU countries but also Switzerland, whose neutrality was never in doubt.
Of course it is.
All EU member states are already co-operating with NATO in the context of participation in the stabilisation force in Bosnia, the Kosovo force and the PfP. The United Nations also has well established co-operation with NATO. The question of mutual defence commitments does not arise and there is no question of membership of the PfP being the slippery slope to membership of NATO. It is not. This is an old chestnut. All the unfounded rumours, fears and doubts that were expressed about this in the past have been found to be beside the point.
What about the referendum?
It is true that in its programme for Government, the previous Government committed itself to holding a referendum on this. It did not do so, although it met 99.9999% of its commitments in the programme for Government. We did not get around to doing one or two little things. However, the people adjudicated on that at the last election and we were returned.
The Minister said there is no link with NATO forces but is it true that the majority of countries participating in the Partnership for Peace are members of NATO? Although participation is voluntary, are all joint training exercises held under the auspices of the Partnership for Peace akin to membership of a military alliance?
It is not akin to any military alliance. It is a training ground for troops from countries who will be involved in peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks, crisis management etc. Sometimes it is necessary to go through certain exercises in training to see how something will work out in practice. Theory is fine but there is a practical element as well. It is not true to say that it implies membership of NATO or that this is the slippery slope to NATO.
I will send Deputy Ó Snodaigh a full list of the activities in which we will be engaged. I do not have any difficulty in making that available. The issue of whether most of those countries are members of NATO is beside the point. As I said, there is no institutional link between the EU and NATO and that is the reality.
In so far as Irish people being located in Brussels are concerned, I do not have any information on that but I will get it and communicate it to the Deputy.
It is a bit confusing for the Minister to be attacked by one side for giving away neutrality when Fine Gael recognises that Irish neutrality is a myth in many respects. As members of the EU, we believe it is worth defending. I urge the Minister to keep an open mind on the common European defence policy. Should we not be one of the architects of that policy rather than be on the outside?
It is incredible for the Minister to claim there is no institutional link between NATO and PfP.
I meant between the EU and NATO.
I am glad the Minister qualified that but, in fact, he is not quite correct on that score either.
I am.
It will make it very clear if he looks at the statement issued by the European Council dated 17 June 2004. It clearly states that the operational doctrines of the EU's military forces will be "in coherence with NATO". How does the Minister square that with his last statement? If he looks at the various treaties to which we have signed up, including the new treaty, we have to have interoperability with NATO. Does the Minister not accept that?
I square it by my understanding of the English language from the Oxford English Dictionary. That statement does not imply an institutional link between the EU and NATO. That is the reality of it.
The Minister should read the treaties.
The Deputy can interpret it whatever way he likes. I will interpret it my way. We still live in a democracy.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
