DEMOCRATIC Left supports the development of a European security policy. It also supports in principle the notion of a common European defence.
DL supports, and actively participated in preparing, the range of, options for Ireland outlined in the White Paper on foreign policy. What DL rejects is the attempted usurpation of European security by the nuclear based and militarist Atlantic alliance (Nato).
DL supports an increased Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) under the auspices of the EU. CFSP, is tied into the EU structure which is, jointly controlled by the Council of, Ministers (the EU member states) and the European Parliament. The party supports the EU commitment to gradual enlargement and, as regards its security, to the mechanisms of the Organisation for Security Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). OSCE includes all the states of Europe (including Russia) and has effective conflict prevention, peacekeeping and emergency assistance mechanisms functioning in several areas.
European security arrangements, slow to develop as they are, are being concertedly undermined by Nato. This is what happened to the early EU intervention in Yugoslavia, and is currently happening to the EU operation in Mostar. If the EU-UN initiative three years ago in Yugoslavia had been purposefully supported, a better solution would have been found for Bosnia without the horrendous destruction and loss of life. Similarly, the OSCE role in Chechnya was bearing fruit until the decisive US intervention in favour of Russia's war of conquest there. The US State Department similarly cleared the way for its Nato ally and sanctioned Turkey's military operation against the Kurds of northern Iraq.
Those in favour of the Nato "Partnership for Peace" (PFP) have concentrated on its "peace keeping" mechanisms. But PFP is not solely, or indeed mainly about "peace keeping". Most east European countries, fearful of an unstable Russia, wanted to join Nato and come under the US military umbrella as quickly as possible. The Czech Republic, for example, whose single largest industry is the manufacture and export of armaments, in its eagerness to join the western alliance provided substantial numbers of troops in the Gulf War, including specialist biological warfare units.
The PFP was created to allow defence arrangements to be concluded between these countries and Nato, as Russia would simply not stand for an extension of the Atlantic alliance up to its frontier. This was also the context in which Russia was offered, and accepted, a PFP treaty with Nato. Under its framework document, PFP agreements can cover anything from joint peace keeping operations to mutual defence pacts with Nato and effective secondary membership of the alliance. PFP agreements do not exist outside direct negotiated defence agreements with Nato.
In a sense, the Nato of the Cold War years was a more acceptable organisation than the Nato of today. It was then governed by the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 which confined it to western Europe and committed it to respond only if attacked. This was thrown out with the adoption of the "New Strategic Perspective" in 1991.
The "New Strategic Perspective" abolished the territorial limitation, thereby ushering in the notion of "out of area operations". It also redefined "defence" to mean the defence of the "interests" of its members anywhere in the world. In such an understanding, a hypothetical Russian attack on Denmark is as much a cause for a Nato response as an attack on "western" oil interests in the Middle East or West Africa (Jacques Delors' "resource wars of the future").
Nato is dominated by the US and the other western nuclear powers whose agendas go way beyond the "defence of freedom and democratic values". In addition, the "new perspective" specifically states the centrality of nuclear deterrence to Nato strategy, and implies a first strike approach to defence "threats".
The nascent CFSP and the OSCE are being swept aside by Nato's ambitions. This State is extensively involved in peace keeping, conflict prevention and other security activities through the UN, OSCE and EU. This is enough. No one will tell us why we need PFP. The military lobby here is very keen on joint training and exercises with Nato forces. That is natural enough from a professional military point of view, but has nothing to do with the foreign policy interests of this State.
When asked why we should join the PFP, the most coherent response is that "everyone else is joining". Articles and statements in favour of PFP invariably list the countries which have concluded PFP agreements and then the few like Tajikistan which have not. The conclusion is meant to be obvious. Well, on defence and military matters, Ireland has always been one of those "funny places" and DL sees no reason to change that for its own sake.
It rejects as an insult the comment by Raphael Burke TD that we "support the Fianna Fail position". Fianna Fail's view of neutrality is an opportunist and dishonest one. In power during the Gulf War, it allowed Shannon to be used as a staging post for US military shipments, and its general (beef driven) approach to "neutrality" during the Iran Iraq war is well known. As anyone aware of European politics in Ireland will know, DL has developed its own position openly and clearly since its foundation in 1992. The party plays a prominent role in the New European Left Forum and for several years was very ably represented in the European Parliament by Proinsias de Rossa and Des Geraghty.
For the reasons outlined above, DL believes that PFP is wrong for Ireland. Maybe we are against the tide for the moment, but we in DL are firmly opposed to the security and defence of the EU, and of Europe, being absorbed into the militarist US dominated Atlantic alliance.
Instead, DL favours a vigorous development of the other aspects and structures of common European foreign and security policy outlined in the White Paper, and with special regard to the principles outlined (para. 4.114) in that document. {CORRECTION} 96040400004
