Blogs
Minister for Defence on Lisbon and Defence
21 Sep 2009What changes have been made to the Lisbon Treaty to protect Ireland’s interests in the defence area?
Treaties, of their nature, are complex documents and, in the case of European treaties, the language is designed to accommodate a range of differing perspectives and interests including Ireland’s. As a result, in last year’s referendum it was possible for some to misrepresent the intent of the Treaty. This time, having listened to the views and concerns of the Irish people, our European partners have responded to provide absolute clarity, to the Union at large and to Ireland in particular, around the security and defence issues. This was done by means of a legally binding Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the EU Member States at the European Council on 18-19 June last. The Decision, which includes a section containing legal guarantees on security and defence, will take effect on the same date that the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. It clearly states that there will be no European army, no conscription and that any involvement in any aspect of security or defence is entirely voluntary. The Union has no authority to determine how, where and on what we spend money on defence, or to suggest how much we should spend on defence. These are matters entirely outside the scope and competence of the Union and are solely matters for individual decision by each of the member States.
Are the Guarantees Legally Binding?
All member States have agreed to the legal guarantees sought by Ireland. The Decision on the guarantees is an international agreement and there is no question of any member State or the institutions of the Union being able to ignore what is a legally binding international agreement. In terms of putting the matter beyond doubt and incorporating it fully into law, the guarantees will be attached to our instrument of ratification if the people vote yes in the forthcoming referendum. The decision on the guarantees will also be registered with the United Nations as an International Agreement after the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. To provide further reassurance, if the Treaty is passed, the member States have also committed to attaching the provisions of the Decision containing the guarantees as a Protocol to the next accession Treaty. At that stage they will be fully embedded as part of European law.
Essentially what you are saying is that, in relation to Defence, the Irish people will be voting again on the same treaty they rejected last time?
If we look at the treaty as a package, then the treaty we are bringing to the people this time is substantively different from that presented last June. The new package includes retaining an Irish Commissioner, and a set of legally binding guarantees on the right to life, education and the family, on taxation and on security and defence, including our traditional policy of military neutrality.
The issue raised by members of the Public in relation to defence was the concern that certain decisions could be made by the Union which would be contrary Ireland’s interests and would conflict with our traditional policy of military neutrality. In the guarantees we have obtained specific provisions to make it absolutely clear that no such decisions can be made or imposed on Ireland or on any member State of the Union. Having got those concessions, it is entirely reasonable that we should now revert to the Irish people so as they can decide whether or not we have answered their concerns. It is my view that we have addressed those concerns comprehensively, not alone in relation to Defence, but also in all the other areas raised.
What’s the position on Ireland’s policy on neutrality and common defence? Will there be a European Army?
Ireland’s traditional policy on military neutrality is completely unaffected by the treaty. We are not and will not as a result of the treaty become part of any alliance or military formation. The triple lock will continue to remain in place. The guarantees and Ireland’s declaration make this clear. Any form of common defence can only come about if all the member States agree unanimously. Even if the member States were ever to agree this, Ireland could not participate without a separate referendum by the people approving Ireland’s participation. In voting on the Lisbon treaty, the people will carry forward a provision in the Irish Constitution prohibiting participation in an EU Common Defence. In relation to a European Army, the guarantee we have secured makes clear that the Lisbon Treaty does not provide for a European Army so the issue does not arise.
What is the implication of changing the name from European Security and Defence Policy to Common Defence and Security Policy. Does this relate to changes in the language on Common Defence?
There is no implication in the change of name. The European Security and Defence Policy is and remains an integral part of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.
There is some change in the language used on common defence compared to that which was already approved by the people in the Nice Treaty. In summary, the proposal in Lisbon is that the Union’s security and defence policy will lead to a common defence when the Council so agrees compared to the previous language which was that it may lead to a common defence if the Council so agrees. While certainly the language might be considered more definitive, the most important issue for the Irish people is that Common Defence cannot come into effect without the unanimous approval of all 27 member States. So, in the first instance, we have a veto on any move to introduce a common defence. In addition, even if a common defence was agreed, Ireland could not participate unless the Irish people approved of the common defence arrangement in a specific and separate referendum. In relation to the development of any common defence, Ireland is still fully in control of its own destiny.
The treaty expands the range of tasks which the Union may undertake?
It is probably more accurate to say that the Lisbon Treaty provides a more complete description of what is involved in the Union’s crisis management actions.
The Amsterdam Treaty (the Treaty on European Union) provided that the Union could engage in what are referred to as the Petersberg tasks, which are humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and the tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. In the Lisbon Treaty, these tasks will also include joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks in supporting the reform and restructuring of security services and legal institutions in fragile States, conflict prevention and post-conflict stabilisation. These are the sort of tasks already undertaken on UN mandated crisis management operations combining the efforts of both civilian and military personnel. The change also recognises the need for a comprehensive response to crises so as to prevent conflicts before they start and to ensure co-ordinated action in post conflict situations to rebuild State institutions so as to ensure stability.
Conscription was another issue raised by the public in the course of the first referendum?
This was a complete misrepresentation of the provisions of the Treaty. However, I can understand the fears and concerns that this created in the minds of many voters, in particular, parents. In the protocols we have obtained specific provisions which clearly state that the Union, under the treaties, cannot establish a European Army. As such, there is no European Army and, therefore, nothing to which anyone could be conscripted to. However, to provide absolute clarity, we have also secured a provision in the legal guarantees that nothing in the treaty allows for the conscription of Irish citizens to any military formation. All voters, in particular parents, can now put their mind at ease that there will be no European Army and no conscription to any military formation.
Could a European Army not be established under what the Treaty calls Permanent Structured Cooperation?
No. The legal guarantee clearly states that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the creation of a European Army. Clearly, therefore, Permanent Structured Co-operation cannot be used as a basis for creating a European Army.
Permanent Structured Co-operation, which is a bit of a mouthful, simply allows for a group of member States to come together, under the EU umbrella, to make available to the Union higher-end capabilities for the more demanding EU operations. It is not clear at this stage how this might work and no such arrangements currently exist. However, it could be the case that a number of member States may come together to provide the Union with, for example, large aircraft or helicopter transport capabilities. These are very expensive to acquire and maintain, as the Defence Forces have experienced in Chad where we had to have helicopters to ensure the success of the mission. Permanent Structured Cooperation could facilitate the sharing or pooling of assets like helicopters so as to eliminate duplication and allow these capabilities to be acquired more economically. For Ireland, the important thing is that any participation in permanent structured cooperation arrangements will be entirely voluntary and the legal guarantee puts this beyond any doubt.
You don’t therefore preclude Ireland possibly participating in Permanent Structure Cooperation?
No I don’t. As I have already stated there is no such arrangement in place at the moment and it is not clear at this stage how the concept might evolve. But I certainly would have to give serious consideration to the potential benefits for the Defence Forces and for our participation in UN mandated peace support operations of any such arrangements, particularly in relation to the provision of aircraft and helicopters for example. Any such decision, however, would be subject to Government and Dáil approval in accordance with the legislation we have recently published in the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009. The Bill sets out in clear language that not alone will any participation require prior Government and Dáil approval, but that the purpose of our participation is for the enhancement of capabilities for UN mandated missions.
You mentioned UN mandated operations there. Is it not the case that the Union could launch a mission without UN authorisation?
Firstly, let me say that there is absolutely no question of the Defence Forces participating in any mission in the absence of formal UN authorisation. As concerns the missions of the EU, while in theory a mission could be launched without UN authorisation, it would have to be in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. However, I cannot ever see a situation where the Union would secure the required unanimous support of all the member States to launch a military operation in the absence of UN authorisation. Firstly, all ESDP missions launched by the Union to date, have been under UN Security Council resolutions. Secondly, Ireland would have the right of veto over launching any mission. And, thirdly, our triple lock requirement would prevent Irish troops from participation in any such mission. As the guarantee on Defence clearly states, nothing in the treaty obliges Ireland to participate in any military operation undertaken by the Union and our national declaration confirms that the triple lock, as provided for in the Defence Acts, remains the basis for any participation by the Defence Forces.
Why is Ireland participating in the European Defence Agency?
Ireland’s objective, in participating in the Agency, is to achieve economies of scale in defence procurement and to keep abreast of best practice and new developments in the defence environment particularly as it impacts on multinational crisis management operations.
The European Defence Agency was established during Ireland’s presidency of the Union in 2004. Its primary role is to help the member States develop their defence capabilities so as they can contribute to crisis management operations launched by the Union. It also has a role in improving the structure of the European defence industry so as to eliminate duplication and improve the effectiveness of existing research investment. It is expected that the initiatives of the agency will reduce the cost base in the industry and thus the cost of acquiring and maintaining defensive equipment to the member States. Given the current difficult economic situation, we should pursue any economies we can achieve in this area. It is also the case that Europe has much to contribute in the field of crisis management and peace support operations and any assistance which the Agency can give to the member States in this regard has to be welcome.
What sort of initiatives have we participated in within the European Defence Agency?
Ireland, participates in the Joint Investment Programme (JIP) on Force Protection. Ireland’s key interest in the programme is in the development of technologies to protect troops from threats such as snipers, booby traps and improvised explosive devices. Body armour, sensors and systems to counter explosive devices are key elements of the programme. As part of the annual work programme we are also involved in ongoing work on defence against Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Explosives threats, improved communications systems for use on the ground in operations, health and medical support for EU military operations, and the development of improved Counter-IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) capability to enable military forces operate safely in an environment where such devises are present. Essentially our participation is focused on areas which are relevant to the protection of our troops when they are deployed on peace support operations. This is important work. It is essential that the Defence Forces have access to the latest developments in these fields so as we can provide the best protection possible for our troops, which is and must be my primary concern as Minister for Defence.
Will the Lisbon Treaty mean Ireland will have to spend more on defence?
No. Improving our capabilities is different from increasing our spending. It is about spending better; not about spending more. The guarantees are explicit: “The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure.”
The reality is that for most member States defence expenditure is declining and the objective is to improve capabilities within existing resources. The central point, which is completely unambiguous, is that all decisions on military capabilities and expenditure are solely the prerogative of the individual member State. Our guarantees put this beyond doubt. Ireland’s defence expenditure and investment is solely a matter for the Irish Government and Dáil Eireann.
The treaty still states that Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy. Does this not oblige us to send troops on EU missions?
Absolutely not. Again, the guarantee on Defence which has been agreed by all the member States clearly states that nothing in the treaty obliges Ireland to participate in any military operation. Any decision concerning the deployment of the Defence Forces overseas remains a matter for the Irish Government and the Dáil alone and is subject to the triple lock.
Finally Minister, there are two clauses in the treaty regarding mutual assistance and solidarity. What obligations does Ireland assume through these clauses?
As members of the international community, I believe, and I think the Irish people would wish us, to support any State which is the subject of a terrorist attack or a humanitarian or natural disaster. If we were the subject of such an incident or disaster, which was beyond our capacity to deal with, we would obviously look for assistance from neighbouring States and from the Union generally. The solidarity clause included in the treaty embodies this moral imperative. The important issue here for Ireland and the Union is that the provision of any such assistance by Ireland or indeed by any member State is a matter for the Government of each State. There is no legal obligation to respond in any particular way. In addition, in Ireland’s case any such assistance we might provide would have to be in accordance with our traditional policy of military neutrality.
A similar situation applies in the case of the mutual assistance clause. The mutual assistance clause provides that member States shall have an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power to another member State which is the subject of armed aggression on its territory. There are two important qualifiers to this, however, in that any assistance must be in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter (which relates to the right of States to self defence in the case of an armed attack), and, also that any assistance cannot prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the member State. In Ireland’s case this means that any assistance must be in accordance with our traditional policy of military neutrality – that means it will not be a military one.
Is the Mutual Assistance clause not the same as the obligations of NATO members to each other and thus common defence by another name?
No its completely different. The issue of a possible common defence is dealt with specifically under another article and can only come into place if there is a unanimous vote by the Council. In Ireland’s case we cannot participate in any common or mutual defence arrangement in the absence of the specific approval of the Irish people in a separate referendum. Mutual Assistance is a separate provision which recognises the rights of countries to individual and collective self defence and calls on other members States to support a member State which is attacked. But, and its an important “but”, the treaty clearly provides that such assistance cannot prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the member States. Given Ireland’s policy of military neutrality, the nature of our response would not be a military defence one. However, we could respond for example by providing humanitarian assistance.
The major consequence of all conflicts is the impact they have on civilian populations. In many such conflicts, Ireland has responded, not by military means, but through the provision of aid and assistance and through organisations such as the Red Cross and other Irish NGOs. I fully believe that the Irish public would support our providing such assistance to another member State of the Union if they were subject to an attack on their territory. In Ireland’s case, the provision in the Treaty formalises this moral imperative.
Could other member States provide troops under the mutual assistance clause?
They could. However, as I have already stated, the key thing here is that they are not required to. It is for each Member State to determine the nature of its response.
It must be recognized that the text of the Treaty has to encompass the views of all the member States. Most States in the Union are already members of NATO and, as such, have other binding obligations to each other in relation to self defence. I have no doubt but that certain members may wish to respond with supporting military forces. However, I would expect that they will respond through NATO, rather than the EU, in relation to military and defence support, since NATO has all the command and other standing arrangements for managing military forces. The important thing for Ireland is that we will not be responding with military force, that our traditional policy of military neutrality is fully respected and that that our right to determine the nature of any support thereafter is a matter for the Irish Government.
Any concluding comments, Minister?
I think it is important, given the concerns expressed about the defence and security issues in the Treaty, that the people of Ireland understand the context for European action in this area. The European Union has the potential to be a major force for good in the world. In all of its actions to date in the area of security and defence, the Union has sought to improve the lives of others and has always acted fully in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and in support of the UN generally.
In the opening paragraph of the Treaty on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the principles guiding the Union’s action on the international scene are clearly set out and I believe should be read by everyone. These principles include democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. These are positive and fundamental guiding principles for the world we live and the world we believe others should have a right to live in. I firmly believe that these principles find a clear resonance among the Irish people. They are also the principles which guide Ireland’s participation in international affairs and which support the extensive engagement of our Defence Forces on international peace support missions. By participating fully in the Union as it continues to develop, and remaining at the centre of the European debate on the role of the Union in international affairs, Ireland can help ensure that the principles and fundamental freedoms espoused in the Treaty can be realised for all.
As an Independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.
Latest Entries
- Jobless Europe
- Climate Change - Pachauri Vindicated From Smears
- A New EU Election Process?
- Power Struggles and Portfolio Overlaps at the European Commission
- Conceiving the Contours of A New Financial System
- "One Way to Save the Music Industry", technology feature in BusinessWeek
- Taxing Times for the EU Budget Commissioner
- European Council Meeting
- The Digital Agenda - EU2020
- European Neighbourhood Policy Video
- The Choice for Europe: Reform or Decline
- Altiero Spinelli: A Tribute
- UK Election Time - The Conservatives and Europe
- A Crisis That Could Go All The Way?
- International Cooperation and Taxing the Banks
Comments 1-2 of 2
I beleive that when irish independence came about from England that any existing rights were deemed to be still valid. The English 1689 Bill of Rights if still in force is a constitutional document, how does the lisbon treaty affect these rights and which one is superior.
How does the Lisbon treaty affect the constitutional understanding with the queen in relation to no standing army without the consent of parliament in relation to Constitutional Law under the 1688 Declaration of rights and the 1689 Bill of rights.