I attach importance to ensuring proper understanding of Partnership for Peace and what it entails. It is for this reason that the Government is today publishing a comprehensive explanatory guide to PfP, with a summary. The approaches of the four neutral states in PfP are set out, as is the clear conclusion of the Attorney General that there is no legal or constitutional requirement for a referendum on membership, which does not infringe our neutrality. This was also the previous government's view.
What are the realities of PfP? It is a voluntary framework for regional security co-operation between NATO and individual non-members of NATO. PfP is explicitly anchored in the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and is open to all member-states of the OSCE. It was designed to intensify political and military co-operation in Europe, promote stability, reduce threats to peace and build strengthened relationships by promoting practical co-operation between the participants.
PfP must be viewed against the background of the recent significant evolutions in European security. With the end of the Cold War division of Europe, new patterns of co-operation involving former adversaries and European neutral states have emerged. The growing emphasis has been on co-operation, not confrontation; on outreach, not exclusion; on building confidence and stability through dialogue and shared perspectives. Outmoded Cold War approaches to security and defence have been overtaken by acceptance that strategies of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and crisis management are keys to ensuring stability and security in Europe.
These are positive evolutions from an Irish perspective. As a nation, we have traditionally emphasised international co-operation, conflict prevention and peacekeeping. The new and positive approaches to European security issues can be seen in the EU's Amsterdam Treaty which has accorded priority to the Petersberg tasks of humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management. The Cold War conflict between East and West is in the past. New challenges have now emerged in Europe. Although these crises are increasingly internal to states, they have the potential to grow into broader sources of instability. In the 1990s, conflicts in Europe have exacted a toll in death and human suffering through ethnic cleansing and other human rights abuses many times greater than in the previous four decades of the Cold War combined.
The United Nations is the primary international security organisation. The UN, however, is increasingly reliant on the support of regional organisations for regional peacekeeping. The State has already moved into the new UN approach to European regional peacekeeping through our participation in the Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR), established to maintain the peace agreement in the Dayton Accords of 1995. SFOR is mandated by the UN Security Council, but is conducted by NATO.
I believe we should approach the new realities in Europe with confidence and a sense of national purpose. Our policy of military neutrality has always gone hand in hand with support for collective security based on international law. This was clearly demonstrated through our involvement in the League of Nations, and now the UN.
Our neutrality has never been doctrinaire or inward looking. At a moment in Europe's evolution when the need for effective peacekeeping and humanitarian operations has never been greater, it would be strange if we, with our distinguished record in these areas, should step back from voluntary involvement in PfP, which has developed a leading role in facilitating co-operation for UN-mandated peacekeeping activities within Europe.
When PfP was launched in 1994, it was seen primarily as a means of outreach and reassurance to the new democracies in eastern Europe, many of whom wished to join NATO, hence the early perceptions that it was primarily intended as a kind of waiting room for NATO membership. PfP has since developed into an important framework in its own right. Of the 43 states in PfP, 24 are non-NATO states, including our fellow neutrals Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. Indeed, only nine PfP states are applicants to join NATO.
PfP is not the same thing as NATO. It does not involve any mutual defence guarantee or commitment, and does not affect our policy of military neutrality. PfP does not oblige the Republic to support any policy or action with which we disagree.
Since 1996, PfP has increased its focus on peacekeeping and crisis management. In May 1997, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) came into being. This body provides the framework for political and security-related consultations under PfP. The EAPC has become an important forum for discussions involving PfP states on a wide range of matters including developments in peacekeeping, humanitarian issues, regional matters, arms control, civil defence, disaster relief, and mine clearing activities - all matters of direct interest to Ireland.
As far back as May 1997, I raised the issue of whether Ireland should join the EAPC, in view of its possibility as a significant framework for dialogue involving many European countries and North America on a broad range of political and securityrelated issues. It seemed the EAPC could offer the possibility of making our own contribution in a way in which we feel comfortable and that is most appropriate to our political traditions.
I am convinced that joining PfP, and participating in the EAPC, is clearly in our interests.
The State is committed to the development of inclusive co-operative security structures in Europe in the post-Cold War situation. PfP is an important development in the new and growing emphasis in European security towards peacekeeping.
PfP will allow the Defence Forces to acquire the necessary training, techniques, operational procedures and peacekeeping doctrines which are essential prerequisites for the new style of peacekeeping missions.
THE State can contribute its own experience in PfP. The experience of Irish peace-keepers, drawn from 40 years of UN service, can be shared, through PfP, with other European nations. PfP participation does not entail acceptance of nuclear deterrence, which arises only for the members of NATO. The State is fully committed to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Countries which share our commitment to nuclear disarmament, for example Sweden, are active participants in PfP.
It is sometimes said by opponents of our participation that staying out of PfP would buttress our neutrality, as if we should be more neutral than all the other neutrals themselves. I do not agree with this essentially defensive and negative view. We have had observer status with the WEU, which is an organisation closely linked to NATO since 1993, without any undermining of our neutrality.
It is the Government's intention, following the European elections, that we will join Partnership for Peace in the second half of this year. Prior to joining, a decision in favour of participation in PfP would be submitted to the Dail for its consideration and approval. This decision ail would include the terms of the national Presentation Document setting out the nature and scope of the State's proposed participation in PfP.
At the heart of our commitment to a peaceful world has been support for collective security, and active engagement in peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks. Partnership for Peace is a framework geared to the need for greater co-operation in peacekeeping. Participation in PfP, on terms set out by us, and subject to the approval of the Dail, will be a logical extension of our foreign policy, not a departure from it.