It has been several years since a relatively simple subject has been so misrepresented as the whole issue of Partnership for Peace (PfP). The reason for the confusion is the action of the Green Party and self-appointed pressure groups such as the Peace and Anti-Nuclear Alliance (PANA), National Platform and others who, in my view, are spreading misinformation.
The confusion has been exacerbated by the fact that NATO is not exactly flavour of the month due to the air campaign against Serbia.
The main objective of the anti-PfP lobby is to confuse people by saying that joining PfP is the same as joining NATO. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the circumstances let me try to present the facts on PfP.
Why should we join it?
How do we answer the arguments of the anti PfP lobby?
1. What is PfP?
Partnership for Peace is a bilateral arrangement between NATO and individual non-NATO states covering co-operation and co-ordination in areas designated by the individual state as its priority. These priorities change from state to state but become part of a written agreement which is open for all to see and is discussed in the relevant parliament. The areas of co-operation break down roughly into 60 per cent political and 40 per cent military information exchange and training.
Some states, such as Romania and other former Warsaw Pact members, have declared as their priority eventual membership of NATO. Others, such as neutrals Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland, have as their priorities co-operation and training in peace support operations, humanitarian operations, human rights propagation, civil control of the military, democratisation, etc.
As one would expect, Sweden, Finland and Austria have as their priority training in peace operations. Switzerland sees its priority in human rights and democratisation.
A state entering into a PfP agreement is not locked in. Malta joined but after a change of government withdrew. Now, with a new government, Malta is contemplating rejoining.
These flexible arrangements have proved popular with most states. Our non-aligned or neutral partners in the EU are in PfP. All previous Warsaw Pact states are in PfP. All previous Soviet Union states, except Tajikistan, are in PfP. Russia is in PfP. Indeed, the only states outside PfP are the former Yugoslavia, micro-states Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, the Vatican and, incredibly, Ireland.
2. Why should we join Pfp?
Since the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty we are committed to a European Common Foreign and Security Policy. Of course, the search for a European defence identity will take some time, particularly in working out how the neutral states fit into the equation. This will involve us in discussion with our EU partners, 11 of whom are NATO members. These see NATO as providing for all their security needs but they are aware they must respect the views of the four non-aligned members, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland.
PfP membership would allow this State access to political discussion with NATO as a whole.
It is likely we will not be joining
NATO and will be retaining our non-aligned status. If that is the case, then membership of PfP will give us an opportunity to engage in political dialogue with NATO and our 11 partners who are members of the alliance.
Irish Defence Forces have 40 years experience in peacekeeping. When other states were deployed as part of the Cold War we were gaining a world reputation in peace operations. The inaction of successive governments on PfP has effectively sidelined our Defence Forces in the area of training states new to peace support operations in the techniques involved. We had a world reputation and much to offer but staying outside PfP blunted our ability to play a significant role in training newcomers and in developing new techniques.
Sweden, in particular, has supplanted us. It should never have happened. It has also kept us outside the development of new techniques in peace operations. As a result, we are losing our edge in an area of military activity that has always had the backing of the Irish people.
Operating as we are in Bosnia under NATO command, our non-membership of PfP also places us at a serious and potentially dangerous disadvantage. Detailed intelligence is restricted to NATO members, but a less-classified level of intelligence is available to PfP members adequate to their requirements. This arrangement covers all the nations which make up the force except Ireland. This lack of proper intelligence could prove life-threatening to our soldiers.
3. Is there any legitimacy to the arguments advanced by the anti-PfP lobby?
Most arguments put forward by the anti-PfP lobby are, in effect, arguments against going into NATO as alliance members. The Government has made clear it does not see Ireland in the alliance, yet the arguments go on.
Over the past few months the following have appeared in newspapers or have been put forward on radio, TV or at various meetings. All assume that if we enter into a partnership arrangement we are going into NATO and forsaking our muchloved neutrality. In essence, the arguments are as follows.
PfP is against our neutrality. How can it be? Surely if it was, "super neutral" Switzerland, our fellow neutrals in the EU and states such as Russia, would not be part of it.
It puts us into NATO. No, it does not unless this is one of our declared aims of membership when we join. But even then there is a fail-safe in that the Government has promised a referendum if we ever plan to abandon our so-called military neutrality.
It puts us in association with nu- clear powers. Yes, it does associate us with them. But are we not also associated with them in the UN, OSCE and EU?
It is NATO entry by stealth. Not necessarily. There are cogent arguments for and against joining NATO. The time for an honest decision on our neutrality was during the Cold War. Now it is less important. Now is a time for focusing on evolving European structures.
Ireland's peacekeeping record would be undermined. PfP links to peacekeeping are in the areas of training, experience-sharing, technique improvement, and in more efficient peace operations by states inside and outside NATO, with and without peacekeeping experience. In addition, NATO has been sub-contracted by the UN to carry out peace operations in Bosnia because the type of force required was too large and heavily equipped for an operation under direct UN control. Peacekeeping has changed.
The UN's "An Agenda for Peace" sees a wide spectrum of peace support operations stretching from simple UN peacekeeping, controlled directly by New York, to large sub-contracted operations. These are not competing types of peacekeeping: rather they are complementary operations designed to deal with very different situations but all under the UN Security Council.
Sweden, Finland and Austria are now being called non-aligned. They are therefore no longer neutral. Not true, just more accurate. They are not joining NATO, therefore they are non-aligned. Ireland's "military neutrality" means exactly the same thing. Non-aligned is just a more accurate term. Sweden says she will not join NATO, and because of her non-aligned status she is an enthusiastic member of PfP because it allows her to co-operate with NATO in peace operations without having to join the alliance.
Had we been in PfP we would have been asked to condone the bombing of Serbia by NATO. This is not true. European neutrals have not condoned it. Previous members of the Warsaw Pact who are not members of NATO have not condoned it. Russia, which is vehemently opposing the bombing, has certainly not condoned it. Yet, all of these are in PfP. It is a NATO action, not a PfP action. If anything, it proves that PfP membership is not NATO membership and should not be confused with it.
Should there be a referendum on proposed membership of the PfP? There is no legal requirement to put this to a referendum. It is interesting to note that Switzerland (which has a referendum-driven political decision process and averages four referendums each year) held no such referendum when it entered into PfP arrangements.
In conclusion, it is worth recalling how membership of PfP was proposed by the Rainbow Coalition but not pursued because of the lack of support from Democratic Left and some Labour Party TDs. Ironically, Fianna Fail did not support the issue in opposition but, in government, it has seen the error of its ways and changed its mind.
It is to be hoped the campaign of misinformation will not succeed. And that NATO's action against Serbia will not again be used to create confusion as between NATO membership and PfP membership. One can only hope the Government is not cowed by unsubstantiated and incorrect claims.
Lt Gen Gerry McMahon is a former Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces.