Ireland should not stand by but help to shape the emerging European common defence system, writes Gay Mitchell
The Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties all contained sections which stated that co-operation on common foreign and security policy might lead to a common defence.
The question of EU common defence now arises as a result of the deliberations of the European Convention, under the chairmanship of the former French president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Both the Government and the Oireachtas are represented on this convention.
The latest draft of the convention report retains a proposal from an earlier draft which states: "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It will in that case recommend to the member-states the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." In Ireland this would necessitate a referendum.
The rules on EU common defence are now being made.
It has been Fine Gael's policy for some time that, not only should we be part of a common defence architecture, we should be one of the architects seeking to make the rules to meet our concerns.
This now becomes urgent. If we keep our heads down and allow the rules to be made by others, we will not have an opportunity to vary these rules in the future. The Western European Union (WEU) is disappearing, so our observer status there is now worthless.
Ireland is not neutral, nor has it been neutral in any principled definition of the word. The word "neutral" sounds good and has been bandied about by politicians to seek personal and political advantage for themselves without taking account of the national need or our responsibilities to our neighbours.
There is nothing inherently moral in adopting a neutral stance on every issue.
The first duty of government is to provide for the security of its people. In this, the Government has dismally failed. If we are not prepared to defend our fellow EU citizens in any circumstances, can we expect them to come to our aid in time of need?
The reality is that the Government has woven such a web that we are the only EU state which cannot even participate in the EU peacekeeping force in Macedonia on the EU's own doorstep. This enjoys both EU and UN support but our "triple lock" of Government, Dáil and UN formal mandate has made it impossible for us to even participate in such a force.
We are now faced with three alternatives:
1. To remain unaligned.
2. To join an EU defence entity.
3. To join NATO.
Remaining unaligned has its attractions until the hour of need comes. Then we may realise that we have wandered into the same sense of cosiness as US citizens did in relation to security on internal flights before September 11th, 2001. We should not gamble with the safety of our citizens in this way.
Our best option is to join an EU defence entity. If we move now, we may be able to ensure that that entity comes about based on rules which give us maximum flexibility and independence of action.
What we should seek to achieve:
The precedent of EMU whereby the rules have been set by those willing to participate initially, with all future members having to adhere to these rules, is a model likely to be repeated in relation to future security and defence arrangements in the EU. For this reason, it is in Ireland's interest to consider now what we want for Ireland and for Europe.
The crucial issue in all of this is the Article V commitment of the WEU Treaty, which reads as follows: "If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power".
The effect of this commitment is that an attack on one WEU state must automatically be met with all the military and other assistance in the power of every other WEU state. If such an article were to be incorporated in a future EU treaty, by declaration or otherwise, then every state signed up to that treaty provision would lose its right to decide whether to become involved and would be bound by these provisions automatically.
Fine Gael wishes, therefore, to see a future EU common defence entity based on the following principles:
Adherence to the fundamental principles of the United Nations.
A commitment to the vigorous pursuit of the goal of universal nuclear and biological disarmament and to a solemn undertaking by the European Defence Union, acting as an entity, not to use nuclear or biological weapons;
A commitment to mutual defence and support among all EU member-states but based on Article V protocol opt-in arrangements for those states which do not want to make this an automatic provision.
A commitment, as a priority, to the provision of resources to peacekeeping and peace-making operations and to the "Petersberg Tasks" of the WEU (humanitarian aid, search-and-rescue, peacekeeping and peace enforcement including tasks of combat forces on a case-by-case basis).
Respect for the right of other member-states, if they so wish, to be involved in other military alliances, such as NATO.
Fine Gael believes that by advocating a European defence entity based on the above principles, and with an Article V-type commitment as a protocol, not a full treaty provision, we would win a measure of support across the Union which would have good prospects of implementation.
Gay Mitchell is Fine Gael spokesman on foreign affairs