The ability of the Defence Forces to participate in future peacekeeping missions could be affected by the fact that the State does not take part in the NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace programme, according to the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Mr Padraic MacKernan told the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday he believed the fact that Ireland had not decided to join was "curious". He said there was "much to be said for, and little to be said against, participation in PFP".
It had obvious advantages in that it would allow Ireland to participate more fully in security co-operation in Europe, while it also had implicit advantages for the Defence Forces.
"Training and inter-operability of defence forces will be an issue in the selection of forces for peacekeeping" in the future, he said. Virtually all other European states would be accustomed to co-operation through their PFP membership. There was a concern that Ireland's peacekeeping involvement should continue to be efficient and effective.
The committee chairman, Mr Desmond O'Malley, Fine Gael's foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Gay Mitchell, and Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Dick Spring, agreed that Ireland should join PFP. However, Fianna Fail's Mr Michael O'Kennedy and the Democratic Left leader, Mr Proinsias de Rossa, strongly challenged Mr MacKernan's view that membership would be good for Ireland.
Mr De Rossa asked Mr MacKernan if he believed PFP was no longer "a creature of NATO". It was to the Secretary General of NATO that Ireland would have to apply to join PFP, he said, and he asked if the Department had examined the extent to which PFP "can move away from the objectives of NATO".
Mr MacKernan replied that while PFP was a creation of NATO, "whether it is a creature of NATO is another matter". Participation was voluntary and the principal objective of NATO - defence of its member-states - was not a function of the PFP.
Mr O'Kennedy said the title Partnership for Peace was a euphemism. "If some of the partners for peace are suppliers of armaments for destruction and suffering and murder, is it not the case that Ireland has a unique role outside such partnerships?" he said.
However, Mr Mitchell said it was not just curious but "untenable to be outside PFP". This was doing serious damage to our credibility and reputation in Europe, he maintained.
The former minister for foreign affairs, Mr Spring, said he too believed Ireland should be within Partnership for Peace. Mr O'Malley said it was "strange that Ireland is not in Partnership for Peace when countries as egregiously neutral as Switzerland" had joined.
Mr MacKernan said the Minister, Mr Andrews, had said he wished to stimulate a debate on this issue. There was an active discussion going on within the Department on the matter and a number of papers on the subject were under review by the Minister.
He said that "most of the objections to PFP were founded on the fact that it was originally a NATO-inspired initiative aimed at taking account of the new realities in Europe." However, he said that while it was sponsored by NATO it was "not an alliance".
Asked about the progress of Ireland's campaign for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council Mr MacKernan said the Government was confident "at this stage" of 30 votes which had been explicitly committed. A total of 120 votes would be needed but having 30 commitments at this stage was a "rather good" position to be in.
While saying Ireland had an "excellent chance" of being elected to the Security Council, he warned against complacency.