NEUTRALITY, PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE ETC.
John Goodwillie
The programme of the Fine Gael-Labour-Democratic Left government
states clearly:
“Ireland is not a member of the Western European Union. Observer
status does not imply that we will become members, nor does it
require us to take part in WEU decisions. We will not become a
member of NATO... We will put the outcome of any future negotiation
that would involve Ireland’s participation in a common defence
policy to the people in a referendum.”
Well, is that clear? Read it carefully. The government would not
be breaking its pledges if it negotiated Ireland’s entry
into the WEU (Western European Union) and Ireland’s participation
in a common defence policy and then held a referendum to get the
people’s endorsement.
Nor would this be breaking Labour Party policy. The recent Labour
Party conference, on the insistence of the leadership, passed
a resolution that there would be no change in Ireland’s military
neutrality unless a referendum decided otherwise, turning down
the proposal specifically to support neutrality and oppose WEU
membership.
No doubt any such abandonment of military neutrality or entry
into the WEU would be part of a package which would include some
good features and could be sold to the people on the basis that
we couldn’t afford to lose out on the good bits.
That’s exactly what happened on the previous occasions. They
have been engaged in a process of cutting slices off a salami
sausage. When there was a referendum on joining the EEC (as it
then was) in 1972, we were told of all the benefits. And we were
told that there might be political implications, but they were
down the road and we could discuss that when it came about: we
were only being asked to cut off the first slice.
Then there came the Single European Act in 1987. We now had to
accept that the EC involved aspects of security other than military
security. The second slice.
Then there came Maastricht in 1992. Now we were asked to accept
that security of any kind could be discussed by the European Union,
but implementation would be sub-contracted to the WEU. The third
slice.
Now we are faced with the Intergovernmental Conference next year,
when a common defence policy, possibly involving association with
the WEU, may be agreed. The fourth slice. And Jacques Santer,
the President of the Commission, assured us on 10th April that
at this Conference arrangements could be made for us to have special
arrangements in regard to defence co-operation for a “transition
period”. In other words, after the transition period further
demands would be made on us.
How does all this affect Irish neutrality? The government has
arrived at its own definition of neutrality. Instead of something
that involves an independent foreign policy, not tied to any bloc,
the government now talks about our “military neutrality”.
This helps to disguise the way in which our foreign policy is
now largely decided through the mechanisms of the European Union’s
Common Foreign and Security Policy. At a seminar on 16th February
as part of the process leading to a government White Paper, Dick
Spring said: “On any one day Irish officials will attend
several of the twenty-nine committees and working groups that
meet to prepare the work of Ministers on issues such as the Middle
East Peace Process, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the
Pact for Stability in Europe, our relations with China, with Iran,
with the countries of ASEAN.” This is the atmosphere in which
Irish foreign policy is now decided. It has got very little to
do with independence from blocs.
At that seminar, Dick Spring put forward his thinking on joining
the WEU, and John Bruton used almost exactly the same words when
speaking in Cork on 7th April. There are three options, they say
(ignoring the obvious fourth option - getting out). Their three
options are: to remain as observers, to become full members which
involves a commitment to give military help to any member that
is attacked, or to work out a new status which would allow us
to co-operate on things like “crisis management and conflict
prevention” without having to commit ourselves to the mutual
defence arrangement of full membership, which “would involve
an end to our military neutrality”.
So military neutrality, according to Dick Spring, will only be
abolished by signing up to a mutual defence commitment. An interesting
thought: we could even join NATO without ending our military neutrality,
since membership of NATO only involves an obligation to consult
if another member is attacked, and not necessarily to give military
help!
One of the other things which the government is considering is
whether to join the Partnership for Peace, the arrangement under
which NATO is expanding its co-operation with Eastern Europe.
Russia and the former Soviet-bloc countries are now involved in
this series of agreements, which have no set constitution but
involve agreements in areas such as “military co-operation,
peacekeeping, humanitarian missions and crisis management”,
to quote from a recent article by Joe Carroll in the Irish
Times - a list from which “military co-operation”
was curiously omitted when Dick Spring was listing the areas in
his seminar speech referred to above. The government tells us
that the other neutrals in the European Union, Sweden, Finland,
and Austria have signed up. But they have a specific interest
in developing relations with eastern Europe because of their geographical
position: Finland and Austria have borders with these countries
and for Sweden they are only just across the sea. In any case,
these three countries are in the same dilemma as Ireland. Their
governments have convinced their peoples that for economic reasons
they must join the European Union, and that some concessions may
be necessary in the area of neutrality. Because they have felt
obliged to get involved does not necessarily mean that we must
follow their example. NATO is trying to retain some credibility
in a situation where its old purpose - defence against the Soviet
Union - has vanished. If we are able to stay out of an involvement
with this pattern of development, that may help to prevent these
countries from being sucked in further.