Andrews admits change of mind on PfP

The Minister for Foreign affairs admitted that the Government had changed its mind about its approach to membership of Partnership for Peace (PfP). Mr Andrews was opening a debate on a motion approving Ireland's participation in PfP. "To those who claim that this Government changed its mind on PfP, I say yes we have, and we are not afraid to admit that we can change our minds in the light of new facts and changed circumstances," he said.

He added that Fianna Fail had openly and fully recast its views on PfP in crystal-clear terms in its European election manifesto. "In that manifesto, we restated our commitment to military neutrality. We emphasised our readiness to consider participation in Petersberg tasks under the Amsterdam Treaty. And we stated our intention to join PfP, subject to Dail approval, as a logical extension of our existing policy, and not as a departure from it."

Mr Andrews said it was not true that participation in PfP would oblige Ireland to engage in peace-enforcement operations. Irish involvement in any peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operation was voluntary, subject to Dail decisions and required a UN Security Council mandate. "Participation in PfP does not alter this situation." It was not true, the Minister said, that Ireland would be obliged to participate in exercises. "Any participation in PfP exercises would be entirely voluntary and at our discretion. In any event, we have served alongside NATO countries in UN peacekeeping missions for over 40 years, and I see nothing inappropriate in training with such countries for peacekeeping purposes." Rejecting claims that there had been insufficient debate on the issue, the Minister said the record of debates and statements in the House and elsewhere, including the media, should be looked at. "Look at the explanatory guide on PfP, which was published under my direction in May of this year, and which is seen by other PfP nations as a model of its kind."

The Minister said that for the past 40 years, Ireland had been actively engaged in UN peacekeeping, which was a defining element in Irish foreign policy and a matter of justified public pride.

The reality was that the UN was increasingly reliant on regional security organisations to support and carry out missions on its behalf. Ireland had already moved into the new UN approach to regional peacekeeping through its participation in the Sfor operation in Bosnia and the Kfor operation in Kosovo.

It was Government policy that Ireland should stay in the mainstream of peacekeeping. "Our Defence Forces must have a full voice in preparations for peacekeeping missions and, understandably, Ireland should not be absent from PfP, a forum in which best practice is being discussed."

Mr Andrews said: "We neither need nor wish to join military alliances, but we do need to co-operate actively with the principal regional organisations involved to maintain peace and security in Europe. And we will do so in keeping with our distinctive peacekeeping traditions."

Welcoming the motion, the Fine Gael spokes man on foreign affairs, Mr Gay Mitchell, said his only regret was that it had taken the Government so long to come to the realisation that this was the right thing to do.

"I regret, in particular, that Fianna Fail has so seriously misled people for so long as to what membership of PfP involves and made promises about a referendum, which they are now breaking."

Fianna Fail, he said, began its road-to-Damascus conversion to PfP with an article by the Minister in The Irish Times on November 28th last year. ail meeting in UCD, followed by ail last January on a Fine Gael motion arguing for membership. ail opportunistic opposition and eventual U-turn this has at times been a confusing debate. Mr Ahern, according to Mr Mitchell, had said as opposition leader in 1996: "PfP involves joint exercises with NATO on sea or land. Will they take place in Ireland? Will we be able to choose the NATO countries with whom we wish to have exercises? Will we have British troops back in the Curragh, the French in Bantry Bay, the Germans on Banna Strand, the Spanish in Kinsale and the Americans in Lough Foyle? Is that what we are talking about, or will we take part in exercises abroad under NATO command?"

Mr Mitchell said he knew that Fianna Fail's weasel words that things had changed were nonsense other than if they meant: "That was opposition and this is government." But Fianna Fail cynicism and U-turns should not blind people to the facts. "PfP does not present any participant with any commitments other than voluntary participation in those PfP programmes. It is not a treaty in any sense and PfP membership certainly does not imply any mutual defence commitments or membership of NATO or any commitment to NATO membership."

The Labour leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn, said that the Government had stumbled to where it found itself today. "It has duped the Irish people along the way. No amount of obfuscation in this House, or reference to legal and constitutional principle, will hide that, and the public know it too."

He said that what might go some way to restoring the Government's credibility would be some kind of explanation as to why it changed its mind.

Membership of PfP represented a significant departure in foreign policy, he said. "There is a fear, and a genuine one, that the Taoiseach must address because it is clearly evident within his own party that PfP is a means to backdoor entry into NATO. It is a fear that I believe to be groundless."

Mr Quinn said that the manner in which the Government had decided to join PfP deeply offended many people, not just within Fianna Fail but right across the State. "Instead of an open debate and decision involving the Irish people - which I believe would have endorsed this Government's decision to join PfP - we have mounting cynicism that the Government is pursuing some secret agenda in respect of our foreign policy."

The debate on the motion continues today.