Simply untrue that Nice could erode neutrality

By voting Yes, we will, for the first time, insert a written guarantee onneutrality into the Irish Constitution, writes Gay Mitchell…

By voting Yes, we will, for the first time, insert a written guarantee onneutrality into the Irish Constitution, writes Gay Mitchell

The Nice Treaty campaign has unfortunately already seen scare stories and wild claims masquerading as serious political comment.

One of the worst examples has been the allegation that the Nice Treaty undermines Irish neutrality and paves the way for the formation of a European Army, which Ireland would be forced to join. This claim is simply untrue. The Nice Treaty contains no provision which could undermine Irish neutrality.

Indeed, unlike the previous Nice referendum, the current proposal by the Government elevates to constitutional language that which has always been, de facto, the case - should there be implications in some future treaty which would give rise to common defence commitments by Ireland, this will be put to the people in a referendum.

READ MORE

By voting Yes on October 19th, the Irish people will, for the first time, insert a written guarantee on this matter into the Irish Constitution. The claim of anti-Nice campaigners that they oppose the treaty because of their concerns about Irish neutrality is, therefore, extraordinary.

Neutrality has always been a popular message to convey to an electorate not anxious to get involved and hoping, by keeping our heads down, that defence issues will be the care and responsibility of others. Not even Srebrenica moved us from our self-satisfied policy.

This means the Republic of Ireland is one of the least protected states in Europe. This is the direct result of politicians being cowered into out-bidding each other to eulogise neutrality and denounce common defence arrangements, without making any provision to equip ourselves to defend the State, unlike other neutral states.

Political self-interest and lack of leadership has failed to provide for the safety and security of our citizens, the first responsibility of the State. The Nice Treaty does not provide this need, as those who oppose the treaty outrageously claim.

The Maastricht Treaty provides for the possibility of "the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence". Clearly, a common defence policy is not the same as common defence.

The Amsterdam Treaty defined the common defence policy area, following an initiative by two neutral states, Finland and Sweden. These are called the Petersberg Tasks and include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management (on a case-by-case basis), including peace-making. The Petersberg Tasks do not include a mutual defence commitment, i.e., a common defence where one member of an alliance agrees in advance to aid another in the event of an attack on any of them.

The European Council (heads of state or government) established the European Security and Defence Policy in 1999 and this included proposals for a European Rapid Reaction Force from a pool of pre-assigned national forces equipped to undertake Petersberg Tasks. The policy provides for a significant conflict-prevention dimension to include concerted diplomatic efforts to prevent conflict. It also requires the unanimous vote of all member-state governments before any of the Petersberg Tasks can be undertaken.

Any decision to deploy the Rapid Reaction Force is made on a case-by-case basis and subject to the right of veto by a member-state. Even when a decision on deployment of the force has been taken, member-states individually will decide whether or not to participate.

The principles of the UN Charter are incorporated in both the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy. Both the UN and EU envisage that deployment in the future may arise at the behest of the UN, which is increasingly looking for regional participation to establish peace.

By 2003, the Rapid Reaction Force should have a capacity to deploy up to 60,000 troops within 60 days and to keep such a deployment in the field for up to one year. By contrast, the numbers in the defence forces of the 15 EU states total 1.7 million.

At the Seville Summit in June this year, the European Council agreed to declarations confirming Ireland's position on military neutrality and European security and defence. Two declarations have been added to the Nice Treaty to underline the Irish position (a national declaration and a declaration of the EU heads of state and government).

These declarations confirm that Ireland's policy of military neutrality is in full conformity with the treaties and that there is no obligation arising from the treaties, including the Treaty of Nice, which would or could oblige Ireland to depart from that policy. The latest referendum Bill being put to the people spells this out and will, if passed, incorporate this provision in the Constitution.

Perhaps, when the people have decided on the Nice Treaty, we could consider returning to a calm debate on the security and defence needs of Ireland and Europe. Nice does not influence these but it is time Irish politicians gave leadership on this issue and that we had real and rational debate on the security and defence needs of Ireland and of Europe. If we want the security architecture of Europe to suit our needs, we should be one of the architects.

Gay Mitchell is Fine Gael spokesperson on Foreign Affairs.