CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE/The Irish Times debate: Yes says Gay Mitchell of Fine Gael, No says John Gormley of the Green Party
Gay Mitchell
In the second Nice Treaty referendum, a Government-sponsored wording elevated to constitutional language what has de facto been the case since the passing of the Amsterdam Treaty, i.e. if Ireland is to join an EU common defence body at some time in the future, prior approval by the people in a referendum will be required.
Ironically, under the Good Friday agreement, we could probably enter a defence community with the United Kingdom, presumably including NATO, without a referendum.
We should join an EU defence entity; not only should we be part of the architecture, we should be one of the architects seeking to design an EU defence entity which meets Ireland's and Europe's needs.
The Taoiseach, writing in The Irish Times on March 22nd, stated: "Irish neutrality is a policy choice." We are entitled to know the basis for this policy. For too long it has remained a State secret.
It is almost certain that the provisions on EU security will evolve. It seems likely that, just like EMU, the rules will be made by the willing and those joining later will do so on terms already established.
Crucial to Ireland's interests in all of this is what is contained in the Article V commitment of the Western European Union (WEU) Treaty. This requires automatic military and other assistance to be provided by each state which is a party to the treaty to any other state which is a party to the treaty if that state is attacked.
The Amsterdam Treaty provided that the WEU is an integral part of the development of the Union. This was modified by the Nice Treaty. If a similar article were to be incorporated in a future EU treaty, then an attack on one EU state would automatically be met by all EU states.
I believe we would provide such aid on a voluntary basis in any event, but the real issue would be if we were required automatically to become so involved.
If this were the case, we would lose any discretion or control and could be led into a situation where we would have to defend, for example, the interests of a large state in circumstances that we consider are not necessary and might not be justified.
Ireland should fully participate from the beginning in any negotiations to redraft treaty provisions in the security, defence policy or common defence area.
We should seek to ensure than an Article V-type commitment is not incorporated as a full treaty provision, but is instead inserted as a protocol to any future treaty.
A protocol could be drafted so as to allow each member-state to decide for itself which common defence issues it wishes to become involved in.
Our concern in Ireland should not be to shirk our responsibilities or to refuse to come to the aid of a partner EU state. We may well need them to come to our aid, given that our defence forces have been denuded of even the basic facilities to defend our so-called - and undefined - "neutrality".
Prior to [the attacks of\] September 11th 2001, US citizens felt cosy about security on internal flights. Do we feel similarly cosy about our supposed neutrality?
If so, I hope we do not receive an equally painful awakening.
Gay Mitchell TD is Fine Gael spokesman on foreign affairs
John Gormley
A European common defence would mean the definitive end of our already severely compromised neutrality, would result in significantly higher defence spending and would undermine our close relationship with the United Nations.
It is impossible to artificially divide common foreign and security policy (CFSP) from a common defence, as the Convention has attempted to do. Both are inextricably linked. If we had a common foreign and security policy, decided by qualified majority voting, which resulted in an attack against a member-state, we would automatically become participants in the ensuing war if we were members of a common defence.
Proponents of European common defence have often argued that it offers the only realistic possibility of a global counter-weight to US hegemony. This conveniently overlooks the fact that 15 of the 25 states in the proposed enlarged EU supported US action against Iraq. This experience has apparently persuaded Mr Jacques Chirac of the wisdom of retaining his common foreign and security policy (CFSP) veto.
It may also explain why France, Germany and the Benelux countries would now prefer to see common defence introduced under "enhanced co-operation". You may recall that during the Nice referendum debate the "yes" side explained that under Nice enhanced co-operation procedures applied only to CFSP and not to defence.
The Iraq crisis has also highlighted the dangers of unilateralism. Yet European critics of the US ought to know that the European Rapid Reaction Force does not require a UN mandate, as illustrated in Macedonia, nor indeed would a European common defence require such a mandate.
Since [the attacks of\] September 11th 2001, Gay Mitchell has repeated mantra-like that we are the "least-defended country in Europe". While it is true that Ireland has the lowest defence spending in the European Union, would increasing military spending significantly assist the fight against what are now called the "new threats"?
If the best-equipped military force in the world could not prevent the attacks against New York, surely the lesson is that conventional warfare cannot defeat terrorism and can sometimes even prove counter-productive? How could the purchase of a few F-16 fighter aircraft (at $20 million a go) stop a car-bomb going off in a city-centre or prevent a suicide-bomber from releasing biological or chemical weapons?
And if we are to increase our military spending to the European average as a result of being part of a common defence, what services would Gay Mitchell cut as a consequence? Would it be health, education or public transport? He needs to spell this out now.
There are some who argue that Europe does not need to spend more but to spend "better". I know from my experience on the Defence Working Group of the Convention that this is not the aim. The goal, quite clearly, is to increase efficiency through a European arms agency, but also to increase spending in order to create a European arms industry to compete with that of the US.
The great success of Europe has been the creation of a zone of peace and stability. Why change a formula that has worked until now? A military alliance within the European Union is not in the interests of the European citizen. It would serve only the interests of the warmongers and the arms-dealers.
John Gormley TD is chairman of the Green Party and was a member of the Defence Working Group of the Convention for the Future of Europe
Next week: Should Ireland agree to phasing out the veto on taxation voting? John Bradley v Charlie McCreevy