8/9 May 1999
Address on International Relations section
By Sinn Fein Assembly Member for West Belfast, Bairbre de Brún
9 May, 1999
Sinn Fein is totally opposed to Ireland becoming part of the NATO sponsored Partnership for Peace (PfP). It is bad enough that the North-eastern part of our country is part of NATO despite the wishes of a large section of its population, without the rest of the country being drawn inevitably into the same alliance without any Irish citizen being given a say in a decision of such importance.
For a Fianna Fáil led government to advocate participation in PfP is a U-turn of monumental proportions and a betrayal of the mandate which the electorate gave Fianna Fáil in 1997 to form the present government. At that time they stood on a manifesto promise to oppose PfP membership which said:
`Fianna Fáil are committed to nuclear disarmament. We will oppose any moves to edge closer to membership of an alliance still committed to the deployment of nuclear weapons. We oppose Irish participation in NATO itself, in NATO-led organisations such as the Partnership for Peace, or in the Western European Alliance beyond observer status.'
Their analysis of the PfP at that time was a correct one, and their move from that position is a stance which we in Sinn Fein can in no way support.
A NATO report published in 1995 said:
`Active participation in Partnership for Peace will play an important role in the evolutionary process of the enlargement of NATO
Indeed the PfP involves an agreement negotiated directly with NATO, one which will increasingly see the Irish tax-payer pay an ever-increasing bill for armaments that are NATO compatible, with inevitable cutbacks in other areas, whether in housing, health or education. Our defence spending is currently among the lowest in Europe, thanks to our traditional position of neutrality. To bring our weaponry to NATO standards, therefore, will use up a massive amount of our resources.
PfP guarantees lucrative new deals to the arms industries of NATO countries, as those new members of this NATO -sponsored partnership update their weapons to NATO standards.
Can anyone seriously argue that boosting the arms industry, working in a military partnership with those committed to the deployment of nuclear weapons and undermining the role of the United Nations is in keeping with Ireland's position of neutrality?
On the contrary we should be re-asserting the UN's primary role in peacekeeping to ensure that international peacekeeping is based on the principles of the United Nations rather than on the muscle of a nuclear-armed NATO.
Ireland presently holds a special position internationally because of our strong , democratic, anti-colonial stance on world affairs. Of all the countries of Western Europe we have never been a colonial power, and this gains us an acceptability and respect in many areas of the world, where Irish troops play a valuable UN peace-keeping role and where political intervention by Irish politicians can have a positive role in the furthering of peace. Our policy of neutrality is an important cornerstone of our ability to play such a role.
Are we now to throw that away in order to become part of a European military superstate?
The most disturbing aspect of the present discussion is the suggestion that such a step can be taken without a referendum.
Bertie Ahern told the Dáil in March 1996, while in opposition, that to join the PfP without a referendum would be a serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic How can he now justify the refusal to hold a referendum?
The Irish constitution allows for a referendum on proposals of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained. This is clearly such an issue.
Sinn Fein will therefore campaign in the European elections and beyond for a policy of positive and active Irish neutrality and independence in foreign policy.
Membership of Partnership for Peace has such implications for Irish neutrality that any move towards membership must first be put to the people by way of referendum.