National Forum on Europe
MR. J. GORMLEY: Mr. Chairman, Ministers, Members of the Oireachtas, Members of the Forum, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity this morning to talk about these important issues. An EU Common and Security policy must be based on pro-active conflict prevention by peaceful means, in full cooperation with the UN and fully accountable to the European Parliaments. This should be founded on the twin beliefs that (a) The international settlement of disputes should rest solely with the United Nations and must be based on the UN Charter principles of international law (b) Security must be broadly defined with conflict prevention measures being directed at the full range of social, economic, political and environmental issues that breed insecurity, injustice and war.
The ambivalence of many European citizens towards the increased mitralization of the European Union was reflected very well in the last point of the Working Group document, point 33 which states and I quote, the fact that security depends on the use of military resources is sometimes seen as a contradicting the very essence of the tradition of European integration, which is on the contrary founded on the abandonment of force and on a state of peace between peoples. Mr. Chairman. The great success of the EU has been the creation of an area of peace and stability in Europe. The Convention on the Future of Europe should, therefore, be dealing with security in it’s broadest essence and not narrowing it’s focus to the defence/military dimension of these issues. There is a need for a more holistic approach to these issues. Defence cannot be artificially separated from Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Obviously the report from the Working Group on Defence, given it’s remit has quite a narrow focus. The European Union should be considering putting systems in place to monitor/audit all European Union policies to see how they impact on (a) the environment, (b) development, (c) areas of conflict and how far these policies can be reformed to enhance international security. For instance, what changes should the EU make in CAP policies, agricultural subsidies and other trade policies to ease the level of impact on developing countries? How can the code of conduct on arms sales be strengthened.
The Convention should consider amending the treaties as suggested in the European Peace Building Liaison Office position paper entitled building conflict prevention in the future of Europe. A focus of increasing the EU’s security should be enhancing it’s relationship with the United Nations. For example, 1. On the funding level the EU could be supporting new sources of funding for the UN, including of the achievement by the EU States of the 0.7% of GNP target towards development that the UN has; championing revenue raising for UN programmes and operations, including, for example, a Tobin tax, levies on arms sales and carbon taxes and ensuring via such methods that the preventative measures of achieving international development and security which is the remit of the UN are bolstered. 2. The EU could champion the reassertion of the UN’s role in the economic sphere as envisaged in articles 55 and 58 of the UN Charter, with the IMF, the World Bank and WTO being brought firmly into the UN policy framework. 3. Rather than focusing on troops and equipment for the EU’s Rapid Reaction Force much more consideration should be given by the EU States to contributing to the UN’s Stand-by Arrangements System.
Mr. Chairman, the European Union has been progressively militarised over successive treaties and this trend continues in the Convention for the Future of Europe. There are many who argue that this is a necessary development if the Union is to compete politically with the U.S.A. I do not see any evidence to suggest that this is so, particularly when one observes the huge split between old and new Europe in relation to Iraq. If we did have a common position decided by QMV, it could well be in support of the US given the stance taken by Britain, Italy and Spain and some of the applicant States. My fear has always been that far from removing us from American influence, CFSP has potential to move us even closer to NATO. There is a perceptible tension between those who would like a European Common Defend under the auspices of NATO and those, most notably the French and Germans, who would aspire to an independent European Common Defence. At the moment it is clear that the NATO ists are in the ascendant.
Only a number of weeks ago the Chairman of the EU Military Committee, Mr. Gustaf Haaglund, reportedly said that within a decade NATO and ESDP would merge. I believe we in Ireland are not neutral or I used to say we were non aligned but we are firmly, without it being openly declared, in the NATO camp. That is why we left the door open to join NATO when we supposedly enshrined neutrality in our Constitution. Now let me say this I agree with Gay Mitchell and John Cushnahan, we do require an open debate in this country on neutrality. Such a debate is taking place in other so called neutral and non-aligned States most notably in Austria and Finland where certain parties have come out and said we should join NATO. I would suggest if Gay Mitchell feels this, if he believes we should join NATO then I believe Fine Gael should publish a document.
MR. G. MITCHELL: You are constantly at this sort of Paisleyite nonsense. I have published our document. I protest at that .
CHAIRMAN: I’ll give you an opportunity to raise a question. Please let the speaker finish.
MR. J. GORMLEY: Mr. Chairman, our so- called neutral status is now a source of amusement in Europe particularly because of our performance in relation to Iraq. It is excruciating to watch Government Ministers engage in what has become known as “Bertiespeak”, where they insist that the Irish position in relation to Iraq is crystal clear. That is the position is we have no real position. The real position is if we were on the Security Council we would vote with the Americans. I have no doubt about this. Whether the General Secretary of NATO Mr. George Robinson addressed the Defence Working Group he made it very clear that any moves away from NATO could be very expensive. I believe if we try to match the US in terms of military spending it will impact significantly on any vision we have of a social Europe. Those who advocate increased military spending through a European Arms Agency should spell out to the people which areas of expenditure they would cut. Would it be health? Would it be education? Would it be public transport? Something has to give.
My experience on the Defence Working Group has confirmed my view that there are those within the European Union who want a strong foreign and security policy and who want a strong defence because they want a strong European arms industry. I recall one of my first meeting on the Defence Working Group being addressed by the arms manufacturers of Europe. I should add that even colleagues on the Group who support common defence felt affronted by this show of greed and militarism. During the Nice campaign we tried to highlight the nature of the European project, which is based on constitutional gradualism, a type of creeping centralisation which now continues. This is an attempt to undermine the Commission. In the Convention we now discuss the possibility of double hatting; that is the same person as High Representative and External Relations Commissioner.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the reason we discuss this issue is because we appointed a High Representative under the Amsterdam Treaty. It is clear that there is a potential conflict. We see a similar move now in the proposal for a President of the Council. This, in turn, will lead to a conflict and the Commission will, once again, be the loser. In many of the papers prepared by the Chairman of the Defence Working Group most of the arguments surrounded the need for increased military capability to deal with what is termed “the new threats”. It is as if terrorism was invented on September 11th. We in Europe have had to live with the reality of terrorism since the 1960’s. Our experience should tell us that you cannot deal with terrorists by military means alone. In fact in many cases the military response can be entirely counter productive.
What is required is better cooperation in the intelligence area. If there was a non State attack I would have no difficulty in offering humanitarian solidarity. But when it comes to military assistance, the decision to provide this must remain with the Dail. It cannot become an automatic commitment. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that we are heading inexorably towards a United States of Europe, devoted to the globalised free market with a slight social consciousness and environmental awareness thrown in. In other words a slightly better version of the United States. Is that what we really want? Is that what the people of Europe want? Remember Laaken said that the Convention should bring Europe closer to the people. If that is the case then the European Constitution should be put to the people of Europe in a Europe-wide referendum. If this step is not taken it will have been the first sign that the Convention has failed.
MR. J. GORMLEY: Every time I come here we seem to provoke a fairly strong response but I’m glad. That is good. We can get a proper exchange of ideas. I come first to Deputy Gay Mitchell. Now Gay Mitchell has accused me of name calling. Occasionally I do indulge in a bit of name calling in the Dail but I did not do so here this morning. That is very clear. In fact, he has called me in the past a “Paisleyite bigot”, again this morning “a bigot”. I do not know where he gets all the stuff from but anyway he has a problem. That is his problem. Would I engage in debate? Yes, I would have no difficulty Mr. Chairman and I think it is quite a good idea. I would look forward to people putting forward their ideas in a very clear fashion. Does his party want to join NATO? Does that party want to have a European Mutual Defence. If we have that clarity I think that is very welcome indeed. Talking about clarity I come down to Michael Mulcahy who claims he is confused by what I have said. I do not understand why you would be confused because it is very clear what I have said; that the United Nations yes it must be through the United Nations. Absolutely. And it must be in keeping with the United Nations Charter and I made that very clear. Now to come on the point of resolution and I made this clear to the Minister yesterday, my belief is those resolutions are in breach of the United Nations Charter and I think it is also the position, if I understand him correctly, of Michael D. Higgins and I absolutely cannot support resolutions which are in breach of the Charter.
MR. MULCAHY: What is your authority for saying that ?
MR. GORMLEY: ‘ll give you actually two authorities. The other say 70 Irish lawyers came out with their assessment of it and in fact the law firm of Sherry Blair was asked to do an assessment as well for British CND and they came and gave their assessment that it is a total breach of the United Nations Charter.
MR. B. COWAN: Kofi Annan does not know what he is doing ?
MR. GORMLEY: Even as I speak I’m provoking reaction. It’s great! On the question of pacifism, no I am not a pacifist and we supported and the Dail record will show we supported UN actions, particularly in East Timor. You can check the Dail record and you will see that. I am not doing this in any particular order but I am just taking them as I see them here. Mary Banotti says if I were in Switzerland I would be going up the mountains with a gun. The fact is I do not have huge expectations any more of what neutrality entails. I expect the bare minimum and we do not have even that the bare minimum. The neutral States that I have spoken to about our position on Iraq just find it hilarious that we can allow U.S. troops to go through Shannon because they are not permitting it and that is a fact.
PROFESSOR N. MULCAHY: It’s about time somebody said it. There is no war at the moment. Those of us who live beside the Shannon are going to lose a quarter of a million people going back through Shannon.
CHAIRMAN: Will you please allow the speaker to answer and if you want to argue with him afterwards please do so but please give him the opportunity of replying.
MR. GORMLEY: Chairman, the last speaker has said there is no war, well when you drop bombs on people and kill six people you may not call that war but I do. There was a comment about why do we need clarity. I think we need clarity because I am a politician for clarity. I’m not in politics to fudge. I expect clarity from politicians and I don’t like sitting on fences. That’s what we have had to date. Paschal Mooney said that we are not neutral and we have never been neutral. If your Party had said this during the various Referenda perhaps we have would have a different result because during the Referenda you kept on talking about how important neutrality was, how it was such a core value for Fianna Fail and how you were going to enshrine it. Now you have changed your tune. Maybe you are softening up people for something in the future. You asked about what I have done. If the check the website you will see a 12 page summary on the draft that I have done and I went through it piece by piece in a very rigorous fashion and Tony Browne is absolutely right that we did have some degree of success–
MR. MOONEY: In the context of the Forum not the website.
CHAIRMAN: Senator Mooney please.
MR. P. MOONEY: On a point of order. No reference to his own participation.
CHAIRMAN: Will you allow me, Senator Mooney, to chair the meeting please.
MR. GORMLEY: Mr. Chairman, some of what I actually said was taken from my submission on the Barnia report which was quite a substantial document and indeed I did succeed in getting some changes, along with my Finnish colleagues particularly in a statement saying the EU was not a military alliance. Again if you check and I do not have the time here this morning to go through it with you because it’s a very long submission by you can be damn sure I took it point for point and to such an extent that on the last day when we were discussing the draft document it is fair to say that the doves outnumbered the hawks and I remember afterwards listening to a conversation talking about the “damn neutrals” and I think we actually managed to dominate and if it had gone to a vote on that day we would have won the day but of course the Chairman said he did not want any votes so I think we had an input but obviously not as much of an input because I get the impression that the way the Convention does it’s business is that the Presidium is guiding it in a certain direction so what we managed to do is simply tweak things a little bit but not to get the substantial changes.
I’ll give you an example of that. On the Group there was a Mrs. Kaufmann from Germany who at one stage said, “Mr. Chairman, we want a very strong reference to disarmament in the document.” The Chairman said, “no problem, we can put a reference to disarmament”. Then she said “but I mean disarmament in Europe” and he said “oh, we can’t have that. We need more arms, not less”. You can see that there was a preconceived idea I think we just managed to tweak it a little bit but I do not think we made substantial progress. Hopefully that deals with Tony Browne’s point.
There was another point about QMV in general and I think I do not agree with QMV in relation to defence matters. I do not think it is the position even of the Government but I have to say this, generally speaking I am not wedded personally to the veto. In our own Party we are discussing where we would like QMV and we are conducting seminars but that is a matter for the Party to discuss in more detail but I do say very clearly when it comes to defence matters I would not agree with QMV.