Recently the possibility of Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace has been the focus of renewed attention and discussion. There have been several articles and reports, both in this newspaper and elsewhere.
I welcome discussion of the issue: it is important that the public debate should be as informed and broad-ranging as possible. While political parties, at the time of the last government's White Paper and during the general election, including my own, took up different and opposing positions on this, it is time now, two or three years on, to conduct a reassessment.
Why, it might be asked, should we need such a debate? What is so special about Partnership for Peace that would, on the one hand, make it seem to many that our participation is desirable - even essential - if we are to play our full part in the new European security architecture; while others believe equally strongly that we should not join, even if this results in a position of isolation? Are there new developments which make it necessary to look again at our position?
Whatever may be the answer to these questions, I believe we must be clear about the reasons underlying the approach that we decide to follow in the future. We need clarity both as to the nature and purposes of Partnership for Peace and the possible implications for us of participating in it. My aim is to contribute to the debate and stimulate discussion of the issues involved so that the Government will be able to benefit from the views both of individuals and organisations.
The origins of Partnership for Peace lie in the situation in Europe following the end of the Cold War. The ending of the Cold War has had many positive effects. The polarisation of Europe into two hostile camps has been replaced by inclusive approaches to co-operation between the states of Europe. The Cold War nightmare of a massive military confrontation on our continent has effectively disappeared. My party's founder, Eamon de Valera, was a strong advocate of collective security in keeping with the principles of international law.
New and complex challenges, however, have emerged, and these require improved crisis management, including better conflict prevention and more effective peacekeeping. I need only mention the several conflicts and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in the first half of this decade, and the tragic repetition of such events in Kosovo this year.
When Partnership for Peace was launched in 1994 by President Clinton it was seen primarily as a means of reassurance to the former Cold War adversaries in eastern Europe, which had become the "new democracies". It was designed to intensify political and military co-operation in Europe, promote stability and reduce threats to peace.
It is generally recognised that Partnership for Peace has since developed into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN-mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management. Perhaps it was the very flexibility of Partnership for Peace that led to its remarkable growth over the last five years. As a voluntary, non-binding security framework based on co-operation, it appealed to all those European states keen to participate in the activities I have mentioned. These included all the other European neutral states, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland.
Indeed, the participation of 17 non-members of NATO, including the other neutral states and Russia, makes it clear that participation in Partnership for Peace is not the same as membership of NATO, which is not at issue as far as we are concerned. Earlier this year I launched with other governments an initiative designed to lead to total nuclear disarmament.
There can be no question of Ireland joining a military alliance based on nuclear weapons. It would seem clear, therefore, that participation in Partnership for Peace would not be incompatible with our policy of military neutrality. However, I believe from the many representations that I have received on the subject that this is an issue of some concern, and I believe that it merits particular attention. As a former minister for defence, and as current Minister for Foreign Affairs, I can see both the political and the military arguments.
Ireland's policy of military neutrality has served us very well and is cherished by most people. There are many deeply-held and sincere views about possible threats to it. This emerged clearly in the course of the debate on the Treaty of Amsterdam earlier this year. I, too, fully support our neutrality, and I reiterate the absolute commitment of the Government to consult and abide by the wishes of the people in this regard. If Partnership for Peace posed a threat to our neutrality, then it would be entirely proper to focus attention on this aspect in the debate. However, since it does not entail membership of any alliance, and since a country which goes to such enormous lengths to defend its neutrality, such as Switzerland, has no difficulty in participating, I do not believe that the case against our participation on these grounds is persuasive.
This might suggest that a more pragmatic approach is called for. Is it in our own interests, in terms of our foreign policy objectives, in terms of the contribution that we wish to make towards maintaining peace and stability in Europe, in terms of our broad relations with our European partners to remain outside? Ireland has never sought to stand in the way of the natural evolution of the European Union, and indeed in many areas we have preferred to be in the vanguard.
In the light of the developing importance of Partnership for Peace, I am seeking to encourage understanding and informed discussion of its realities. I am trying to move discussion away from the polarised views and slogans which seemed to me to characterise a good deal of such discussion as there was about Partnership for Peace, on either side of the argument.
I welcomed the initiative earlier this year of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, to devote attention to new developments in European security, including Ireland's possible participation, and I believe that this has enhanced understanding of the issues within the Oireachtas.
I have briefed the Government on the issue, with particular reference to the fact that Partnership for Peace has developed since 1994, but more particularly over the last year, into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN-mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management.
Partnership for Peace is assuming an increasingly important role in planning for the Petersberg tasks (humanitarian, peacekeeping and crisis management activities) conceived in the context of support for the efforts of the United Nations and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which the European Union will seek to develop under the Amsterdam Treaty.
In short, Partnership for Peace is a flexible form of bilateral co-operation with the organisation that other European countries have recognised as having the principal role to play in keeping peace on the continent both now and in the future, that is, NATO. For my part, I am determined to ensure that Ireland stays in the mainstream of peacekeeping. I also want to ensure that our Defence Forces have a full voice in preparations for peacekeeping missions, and I do not want to see Ireland absent when matters in which we have a legitimate interest are being discussed.
I believe that further discussion of the issue is needed, and also that this discussion must address realities of the kind that I have already identified. I intend to facilitate such discussion, both in the Houses of the Oireachtas and more broadly.
