The Forum on Europe has been discussing Ireland's peacekeeping role as relations between the UN and EU continue to grow. Maurice Hayes looks back on that debate
On Thursday last, at the last public session of the Forum on Europe, before the elections, I delivered an end of term report. I hope this will be the basis for another interim report to the next government before the summit of European leaders in Seville. The full text of my remarks are available at www.forumoneurope.ie
I am prompted to write this article by the headline in Friday's edition of The Irish Times "UN could benefit from EU army, Hayes says". As I introduced this report I made it clear that while the speech was mine, the words were those of the members and contributors to the Forum.
My remarks were intended to fairly reflect as accurately as possible, the content, and more importantly, the tenor of the debate. The second clarification is one of fact and substance. I did not say, no one in the Forum said, that the "UN could benefit from EU army". What I concluded was very clear:
We were struck throughout the debate by the pride in Ireland's record of peacekeeping through the United Nations, and by the real humanitarian concern to prevent genocidal conflicts and help bind up the wounds. All parties spoke in favour of Ireland's traditional commitment to collective security continuing to be pursued through the UN. It was noted that the UN is increasingly looking to regional organisations such as the EU to undertake peace support operations on its behalf and that the depth and intensity of the EU's relations with the UN can be expected to grow.
Most of our speakers and participants accept and support Ireland's continued role as a peacekeeper under UN approved operations. Some speakers questioned whether our commitments under Amsterdam (the Petersberg tasks) and Nice are moving us away from our "foreign policy tradition". Prof John Maguire asserted: "We are in danger of abandoning a duty we owe to other people namely the retention of clear-eyed democratic scrutiny over the use of force within a wider panoply of conflict resolution." Others feared that the introduction of the Rapid Reaction Force might lead to a "microcosm of a European Army".
Conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping and peacemaking do involve military as well as non-military means. Commissioner Chris Patten addressed that issue and concluded that as a small militarily neutral country Ireland must continue to maintain "a very rigorous notion of the ethical basis for foreign policy". I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that some speakers in our debate questioned whether the use of the moral authority of the EU in entering into conflict situations on a political or military basis could not be used as a cover for other less altruistic strategic objectives.
Mr Brian Cowen frequently addressed these sensitive issues, insisting that the development of military capabilities does not imply the creation of a European army and that an important distinction needs to be drawn between, on the one hand, Ireland's participation as an EU member, in the process of developing policy at EU level and on the other, participation in a particular operation. Any decision, he said, to participate in an EU-led operation will be a sovereign decision on a case by case basis.
In accordance with Irish constitutional and legislative arrangements a specific government decision is thus required, as is the approval of Dáil Éireann. In accordance with the Defence Acts, Ireland's Defence Forces will only participate in UN authorised peace support operations. In spite of this, some, including Prof Maguire expressed doubts.
My sense of the debate is that a two-pronged approach is being called for; one at European level and one more at the level of national debate. At national level, there appears to be support for a public and sustained debate on the nature and definition of Ireland's military neutrality and international role in the prevention of conflict and instability, including possible commitments in the context of the European Union's security and defence policies. Second, but more urgently, members underlined the importance of assurances from the Government that;
Nothing we commit to under Nice, or indeed earlier treaties, requires, suggests, or implies a departure from Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality or the values underlying it;
That there is no plan to enter any alliance for mutual defence, that it is not a party to any plans to develop a European army, it does not intend becoming so, and would not move from these positions without the express approval of the Irish people;
No plan to change the basis on which Ireland participates in peacekeeping and conflict prevention operations; (i.e. through UN, Government and Dáil approval processes).
At European level, a confirmation by our partners that Ireland's neutral status would be fully respected in relation to any initiatives in the security domain would also be a gesture of reassurance. This could be achieved through a plainly worded statement of the Government's perception of Ireland's commitments under the treaties which could assuage these fundamental areas of concern and which EU partners could be invited to confirm in some broadly acceptable format, which some members of the Forum consider should have sufficient legal effect.
• Senator Maurice Hayes is chairman of the National Forum on Europe