Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 21 April 2005
7 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence his views on the 2004 report commissioned by the EU and written by a task force of the EU’s Institute for Security Studies, European Defence: a Proposal for a White Paper; if this report has been discussed with the Irish Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12388/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe European Union Institute for Security Studies, EUISS, was created by a Council joint action on 20 July 2001. It has the status of an autonomous agency that comes under the EU's second "pillar", the common foreign and security policy, CFSP. Having an autonomous status and intellectual freedom, the EUISS does not represent or defend any particular national interest. Its aim is to support and contribute to the development of CFSP and European security and defence policy, ESDP. The institute's core mission is to provide analyses and recommendations that may be of use and relevance in the continued evolution of ESDP. While the political and security committee of the EU exercises political supervision over the activities of the institute, it does not impinge on the intellectual independence of the institute in carrying out its research and seminar activities.
The EUISS contributes to the development of the CFSP by performing three functions, research and debate on the major security and defence issues that are of relevance to the EU, forward-looking analysis for the Union's Council and high representative and development of a transatlantic dialogue on all security issues between the EU on the one hand and Canada and the United States on the other.
After the terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, the institute set up an independent task force to address the issue of European capabilities. In addition, the presidency report on ESDP approved by the European Council in Laeken in December 2001 stated that "the institute will work in particular on a publication on European defence in the framework of the Petersberg Tasks". The paper, entitled European Defence: A Proposal for a White Paper, was the outcome of the work of this task force. It should be noted that the paper and the views expressed are those of the members of the task force and have not been endorsed by EU member states. However, the analyses and publications of EUISS would fall to be considered in formulating the Union's policy in regard to CFSP and ESDP and would inform the development of that policy, as do many other studies and analyses, not least the views of individual member states.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The European security strategy, which was endorsed by all 25 member states in December 2003, sets out the Union's analysis and recommendations on the development of ESDP. This, together with the headline goal 2010, sets out the policy direction, objectives and capabilities of the ESDP and rapid response elements for the foreseeable future.
This institute is, according to the same Council joint action, an integral part of the new structures that support the further development of the European security and defence policy. Will the Minister confirm that the study published by this institute in October 2004 called for a comprehensive armament programme for the European Union's world role and, in the course of discussing various scenarios, did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons as part of a European Union defence policy? Does the Minister believe a White Paper will follow this proposal and are there definite plans to produce such a paper? What is the Minister's response to the inclusion of the nuclear option or nuclear scenarios in this proposed White Paper?
I have a summary of the study, which I can make available to Deputy Ryan. My reading of the study is that it is possible to interpret it as including a nuclear option. However, this is only one of many studies the European Union takes into account when formulating security and defence policy. The European security strategy, which was endorsed by all 25 member states in December 2003, sets out the European Union's analysis and recommendations on the development of a European security and defence policy. It contains nothing about nuclear options, and that is the official European position.
I do not know what plans there are for the development of a White Paper. However, regardless of whether a White Paper will be produced on the basis of this study, the study has not been endorsed by any member state. While this institute operates under the political supervision of the European Union, it has intellectual independence. It is entitled to write whatever report it wishes. We contribute approximately €40,000 per annum to the running of the institute. We are not bound by what it writes. We will certainly look at it; the European Union looks at such studies when formulating the security and defence policy but it is not bound by them. This is only one of a number of analyses and presentations the European Union takes into account.
The Minister appears to acknowledge the truth that should we proceed as proposed with the European Union common defence, as set out in the proposed EU constitution, we will be joining a defence policy that has a serious nuclear component, given the inclusion of British and French nuclear armaments in their defence capabilities.
I did not acknowledge that.
The proposed White Paper, as the Minister said, includes the possibility of a nuclear option or the use of nuclear armaments in defence actions.
Anybody can write a paper which suggests anything, but that does not mean it will suddenly be accepted policy. Deputy Ryan is wrong and should withdraw his statement — it was not an imputation — that I accepted that we would be tied into a nuclear option. I do not accept that. I have told the Deputy, in clear English and in words of as few syllabi as possible, that this is one of a number of papers and analyses which the European Union takes into account in formulating defence policy. I pointed out that as late as December 2003, the European Union formulated a security and defence policy. I can make a copy of it available to the Deputy. It includes nothing about a nuclear option.
The European constitution provides for a common defence but Deputy Ryan will be aware of the Seville declaration, under which Ireland opts out of it. There will be no participation by Ireland in a common defence unless the people, by way of referendum, decide there should be.
This report is not from an independent think-tank but was commissioned by the European Commission. The institute has an integrated statutory role within the structures of the European Union security and defence policy. This is not a think-tank, it is the future.
It is a think-tank. The European Union produced its policy in December 2003. That is European policy. The EU took account of everything said by everybody and the analyses of all types of think-tanks and produced its policy for the future. I am happy with that policy.
With regard to the debate on European Union security studies, the issue of common defence and the EU security policy, the concern is that we are moving in a direction with which the vast majority of Irish people are unhappy. They particularly do not wish to share a nuclear power position in the context of international foreign policy but believe they are gradually being brought down that road. People have genuine concerns. Does the Minister share those concerns? The issues of security, independence and Irish neutrality will emerge over the next year in the debate on the European constitution. The Government, particularly the Minister of Defence, must ensure that the Irish people are properly informed. There is an element of fear and doubt and we must respond to that.
I accept Deputy McGrath's comments. There is certainly an element of fear but that fear has been stoked by certain people for their own political ends. The Seville declaration is crystal clear. It states that Ireland will not be part of any common defence policy, whether that involves nuclear options, infantry options or any other options. It will not be part of any common defence policy unless the people, by way of a referendum, decide that it should be.
The Minister stayed silent on Shannon Airport.
That is a different topic. I am trying to answer the question the Deputy asked. If he wants to put down a question on Shannon Airport, I will be happy to give him an answer.
