The Treaty of Nice

Review of Ireland's military policies required following Nice Vote

Afri's reaction to the last vote, and to subsequent suggestions and developments, is as follows.

(1) First, the Irish people's wishes must be respected. Suggesting that the Treaty can be put to the people again without being in any way altered is farcical - the attitude of the government (and of the EU Council of Foreign Ministers) is akin to that of someone whose application for planning permission is turned down, but who says he will simply re-submit the same application with the exact same building plan for the same location. (Does anyone seriously think that there would be any talk of a second referendum if the YES side had won? How would the NO side be treated if they demanded a second vote on the grounds that people were obviously confused the first time round?)

(2) Following from the first point, the Treaty has to be altered and, therefore, a new Treaty has to be negotiated. Irish people voted NO for many reasons, but, from the point of view of Afri, our concerns about the militarisation of the EU can only be tackled by a Treaty protocol that excludes Ireland from participation in, or payment for, the new EU-NATO security structures.

(3) The proposed appending of a Declaration, making reference to Irish military neutrality, to the existing Treaty would be meaningless. A Declaration is not a legal part of a Treaty so the substance of the Treaty itself would remain unchanged (see point 1) and the Declaration would be legally worthless. The suggestion of a constitutional amendment here in Ireland to enshrine neutrality in the Constitution is also likely to be inadequate because the government defines neutrality in the ludicrously narrow sense of non-participation in a mutual defence pact; but Nice was never about a mutual defence pact anyway. The new EU-NATO structures codified in the Nice Treaty facilitate Irish participation in a European army designed to operate against others well outside the borders of the EU - only if Irish participation in these structures is excluded will Afri be satisfied that progress is being made. In other words, a meaningful conception of neutrality - a commitment to non-aggression - needs to be promoted, not the red herring of non-participation in a mutual defence pact.

(4) One of the advantages of the NO vote is that it has raised important questions about Irish defence and security policy, and laid bare serious reservations about the current direction of that policy. While accepting that these are not all issues directly associated with the Nice Treaty (and the need for renegotiation thereof), Afri believes that these reservations can be addressed by measures including the following:

• Irish withdrawal from NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP), which we were enlisted into in 1999 without benefit of a promised referendum;
  
  
• The immediate cessation of military training exercises under the auspices of the PfP or the proposed EU Rapid Reaction Force (RRF);
  
  
• The cancellation of all purchases of military equipment designed to ensure 'inter-operability' with other countries' armies for purposes of participation in the PfP or RRF;
  
  
• A renewed commitment to the reform of the United Nations so that it can play a more meaningful role as a truly global and impartial peacekeeper, and the continued commitment of Irish troops to such UN missions as have a genuine peacekeeping mandate;
  
  
• The undertaking of research to identify how the expanding Irish overseas aid budget can be best used for the purposes of conflict prevention and resolution.