I want to ask the Minister three questions. Does the Government accept the proposition that it is in the national interests of this country to strengthen the influence of the Western democracies in the U.N.O.? Secondly, is the Government in favour of a more neutralist position in world politics than that maintained by its predecessors? And, thirdly, will the support that this Government will give to individual members of the U.N.O. be contingent upon whether they support this country in our efforts to end Partition?
I ask these three questions in an effort to obtain from the Minister some clear idea of the Government's foreign policy. The Minister has been remarkably silent on the affairs of his Department and on the foreign policy of this country since he went into Government. Within the last three years he has spoken on, I think, three occasions in this country; on not one of them has he given any indication of what the foreign policy of this Government is and what principles they act on when representatives go to represent this country at international organisations.
The Minister at the General Assembly of the U.N.O. last year made certain proposals and voted in a certain manner—something to which we took strong exception—and because of what he said then, and because of what he did, and because of what he had said in the previous year on this Estimate here, it appeared to us that his actions and his speeches were a manifestation of a change in the foreign policy of his predecessor. We could only deduce from what he said, we could only infer from his actions, that a change had taken place. We had a debate here in November of last year on the foreign policy of the Government and we suggested to him then that his actions and his speeches indicated that his Government appeared to be in favour of adopting a more neutralist position than his predecessors had done in the U.N.O. He neither confirmed nor denied that suggestion. It is of more than academic interest that we and the country as a whole should know exactly where the Government stands in regard to the vital issues at present being debated in the world generally and where exactly our support is to be given in relation to the countries ranged on opposite sides in these issues.
Last year, we had a debate in this House which took the form and pattern that this debate is taking to-night. The Minister opened his remarks and moved his Estimate in a short speech in the Irish language. That speech did not contain one statement on Government policy. Last year several Deputies spoke on this side of the House asking the Minister to state the Government's foreign policy. We were interested to know it. The country was entitled to know it. Outside observers wished to know if there was any change. The Minister at column 620 of Volume 163 of the Official Report replied as follows to the queries and requests by Deputies for elucidation of his foreign policy:—
"I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the many broad issues that have been raised here. It is not the first time that this Parliament has debated external affairs and all the Deputies and the country know the policy upon which Fianna Fáil has acted in the past in relation to external affairs, and that is the policy upon which we propose to continue to operate."
Certainly in July of last year it appeared from the Minister's statement that he envisaged no change from what had been the policy of his Party in the past. Something apparently happened between July and the autumn when he went to New York. We are anxious to know what change, if any, has come about in Government policy with regard to foreign affairs.
The Minister's suggestions in the United Nations Assembly were debated here last November. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that were dealt with then but there are certain aspects of what was said then to which I wish to refer. I do this in the light of some recent comments on the Minister's proposals for a withdrawal of troops in Europe.
There is at present in European circles considerable discussion on the merits and demerits of what is generally called disengagement in Europe. There is no doubt that proposals for disengagement have had champions of very great repute and men to whose views we should listen with a degree of force and with whose point of view we may in many cases have sympathy. Similarly, the opponents to the idea of disengagement in Europe have among their members many of great integrity and honesty and political acumen to whose views we should listen.
I should like to refer Deputies to a debate that took place recently in the German Parliament in which Dr. Adenauer and his Party fought strenuously for three or four days on the principle of allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed in West Germany. On many occasions since the debates on disengagement have taken place Dr. Adenauer has expressed very cogent reasons for his disagreement with them. Similarly such people as M. Spaak, General Norstad and M. Renaud, as a representative of the French point of view, have expressed the view that disengagement proposals would, in fact, weaken the West and would be a strengthening of the Russian position. Even such attenuated disengagement proposals as the Rapacki Plan have not met with favour in some circles, to whose views we must listen, and in this particular case their views are almost coercive on us.
In yesterday's paper it appeared that the Defence and Armament Committee of the Western European Union declared that the Rapacki plan was, in fact, a Soviet plan. A prominent writer in a French newspaper last month described it as against peace. We must listen to these very cogent arguments against plans, even watered down plans, for disengagement such as the Rapacki plan, and the more ambitious forms of disengagement outlined by Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Healy of the British Labour Party.
The point I want to make is this. What the European publicists and statesmen are arguing now about disengagement is not proposals such as the Minister for External Affairs of our country has made. The proposals for disengagement by Mr. Gaitskell and Professor Kennan differed in one very fundamental respect from the proposal the Minister put forward at the United Nations Assembly last year. The Minister ignored completely the problem of the division of Germany in his proposals. One of the criticisms we made of his proposals, apart from the fact of their impracticability, and apart from the fact that they were going against the declared foreign policy of Powers that had been friendly disposed to this country, was that his proposals ignored one of the vital sectors in any disengagement scheme, namely, the division of Germany.
The theory behind disengagement proposals is fairly simple. If armed forces are withdrawn, if points of friction are minimised, there is less likelihood of an outbreak of war. It is precisely because the division of Germany is just one of the most combustible points in Europe that people such as Mr. Gaitskell and Professor Kennan have made it an integral part of their suggestions for disengagement in Europe that the plan for withdrawal of troops should also include a solution for the partition of Germany.
It is no harm, in view of the fact that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding of the disengagement proposals that are being debated at present, to point out that one of the most cogent criticisms of the Minister's proposals last year was the fact that he ignored completely this vital problem. It seemed to me that it might have been an oversight on his part but, when questioned in the Dáil about it last year, in the debate that we had on the 23rd November, and when it was put to him that his proposals were different from Professor Kennan's and that Professor Kennan's proposals included proposals for a solution of the German problem, the Minister went again to outline his own proposals and stated: "If that were done the unity of Germany could look after itself." That is from column 1220, Volume 164. of the Dáil Debates.
It is regrettable that the Government have failed to give the country an outline of where they stand in regard to the rôle we should play in the U.N.O. It is regrettable that we do not know whether the Minister and his Government accept the three principles the inter-Party Government put forward as the three guiding principles of their actions in the United Nations Assembly. Deputies will recall that, speaking in July of 1956, the Minister for External Affairs of the inter-Party Government announced that his Government would be motivated by three principles: firstly, that they would themselves apply the principles of the U.N.O. and see that they should be applied at every opportunity in which they would be applicable; secondly, that we should maintain a position of independence in the U.N.O. and thirdly, that we should, consistent with our position of independence, give support to the Western democracies and endeavour to strengthen the Western democracies in the U.N.O.
If the Minister says that he agrees with those three principles, divisions that have appeared between us in this House concerning the foreign policy of the Government may be minimised. Our division would then be based on the fact that we regarded the application of these principles by the Government last year as being very flatfooted indeed. If, however, he disagrees with these principles, he owes a duty to the country to inform the people of exactly what principles his Government holds should motivate their votes and their speeches in the United Nations General Assembly.
It is important for the country to know the view the Government has on the present developments in Western Europe. It appears to me that it is in the national interest to strengthen the move for greater European unity. The move for greater European unity has recently been given an impetus by the ratification and implementation of the Rome Treaty but it is now generally agreed that the ratification of the Rome Treaty carries dangers for the political division of Western Europe and it would be of interest to the House if the Minister had given some idea of the views of his Government on the problems which arise as a result of the creation of the Common Market and as a result of the present negotiations for a Free Trade Area.
One of the political problems that will arise as a result of these developments is, to my mind, that unless the Council of Europe is greatly strengthened, it will decline into a rôle of comparative insignificance by virtue of the importance of the creation and development of the Common Market. I can envisage, if no changes are brought about, that the delegates and the Parliaments of the six countries of the Rome Treaty will regard the Assembly of the Common Market as the vitally important assembly as far as their nations are concerned and disregard, and largely ignore, the work of the Council of Europe.
This danger to the Council of Europe and the danger of the political division in Europe are, of course, appreciated and proposals are at present in being to help avoid that, not just by the creation of a Free Trade Area but also by a reorganisation of the existing European institutions.
I want to say that I am strongly in favour of the proposals for a merger of the O.E.E.C. and the Council of Europe. I should be glad if the Minister would indicate his view on it to-day. I know that there are differences, quite strong differences, between the framework of the Council of Europe and the O.E.E.C. and there is the problem that there are two nations, Portugal and Switzerland, which are members of the O.E.E.C. and not members of the Council of Europe. Those difficulties can be overcome and special arrangements could be made for Switzerland and Portugal so that they would be free not to participate in all the organs of an amalgamated organisation.
There are coming before the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in the next few weeks proposals for a merger of the two organisations, proposals which have got to the stage of a draft form of statute. It is very likely that both proposals will get very strong support in the Council of Europe and will be sent to the Committee of Ministers. I would urge the Minister to realise the desirability of the drive for greater European unity and that greater European unity would be assisted by a merger of the two organisations.
There are economic problems that have arisen as a result of the creation of the Rome Treaty. I do not think this is the time to go into the negotiations that have been going on for some months with regard to the creation of a Free Trade Area around the Common Market.
I should have liked if the Minister had given us his views on certain of the matters that are being debated at the present time, which appear in the Press. In particular, the country would have been interested to know what the views of the Government were on the question of the French proposals which have appeared in the Press and which have caused so much adverse comment in Great Britain and on the Italian proposals which have recently been put forward to the Committee of Ministers of O.E.E.C. and which have been referred to an expert committee.
I appreciate that these are matters which are at present being negotiated and that no strong line need be taken on them but we should be an adult assembly and we should discuss these matters. These matters are discussed in other Parliaments and were discussed quite recently in the British House of Commons. The fact that the French proposals are only unofficial and have not been officially made known, and the fact that the Italian proposals have been sent to an expert committee should not stop the Government giving its views on these matters. If they were to do so, it would assist the knowledge of the country on these difficult negotiations.
A further matter that appeared recently in the Press concerning the organs of the proposed Free Trade Area was the question of majority decision in the Executive Committee of any Free Trade Area Convention that might be concluded. It did appear from statements in the Press that a considerable victory had been won over the British point of view on this matter and it appeared that the British Government had conceded the principle that decisions on all matters in the new Free Trade Area Organisation would not have to be unanimous decisions. In the Rome Treaty there is provision for decisions binding on all members which need not necessarily be unanimous. So that, in fact, countries may be bound by a convention to undertake obligations against which they had themselves voted. I should like to know whether the Irish Government would be prepared to accept such an obligation if, in fact, it was written into the Free Trade Area Convention.
I put down a question to-day to the Minister concerning the advisability of an approach being made to the Rome Treaty Organisation at the present time. I think the arguments for Ireland joining a Free Trade Area at the present time are stronger than the arguments for Ireland joining the Rome Treaty. I feel nonetheless that we should endeavour to ascertain what type of conditions would attach to our adherence to the Rome Treaty. Luxembourg is a signatory of the Rome Treaty and she has been given favourable consideration by protocol attached to the Treaty.
There can be no doubt that the Governments of the six would be prepared to allow other countries to adhere to the Rome Treaty if it appears that the Free Trade Area negotiations will not prove successful. I do not think it is time to start negotiations when the Free Trade negotiations themselves have broken down. I think the time is now, and I can see no reason why approaches should not be made to the relevant organisation of the Rome Treaty powers with a view to ascertaining how a country such as Ireland could become associated with the Common Market.
Newspaper reports indicate that countries such as Austria and Denmark which are vitally affected by the Rome Treaty and who are vitally concerned that the Free Trade Area negotiations should not break down have already made approaches in Brussels with a view to seeing in what manner they could become associated with the Common Market. I could see little to be lost by such approaches and a lot to be gained.
It is customary to refer to the question of Partition when discussing external affairs and I wish to do so very briefly. It has been made very clear by spokesmen of the Party to which I belong that we believe that the prejudices, suspicion and hostility that exist in the Six North-Eastern Counties among our fellow Irishmen against this part of the country can be diminished by active co-operation by the Governments of the two parts of the country. In the last few years this has proved eminently successful on more than one occasion and the way to break down the barriers that exist in the minds of 750,000 people in the Six Counties is, I believe, by cooperating on as many fields as possible with them.
Quite recently in January of this year a debate took place in the Seanad concerning co-operation between this part of the country and the Six Counties, and in the course of his speech in the Seanad the Taoiseach, as reported in Volume 48, No. 15, column 1416, said:
"One point has been made — and it is a good point. It has been asked: has there been a systematic survey of the situation and the facts to see whether, and in what direction, co-operation is possible? That is the duty of the Departments of State. Knowing the policy of the Government as a whole, the various Ministers would naturally be interested in finding out what the possibilities were in these various directions. That side of the work will certainly be done. The examination can take place, and if anything of value, or anything that would seem to be of value, emerges, the present Government — and, I am sure, any Government that would be here — would be only too anxious to consider it."
I am anxious to know from the Minister whether any examination has taken place by the Departments of State with a view to seeing how they in their particular fields could co-operate with the Northern Ireland Government, or is that merely lip-service paid to the principle of co-operation? Have any steps been taken since January of this year in an endeavour to get the Departments of State in this part of the country to examine their various fields of activity to see where they could co-operate with their opposite numbers in the Six Counties?
I do not think much can be gained by paying lip-service to the principle. We shall not break down the barriers that exist in the North by merely talking about how pleasant it would be if we could co-operate. The work of co-operation would, of course, be a lengthy one and a long-term one but it is advisable that it should be started and started on a systematic basis. I hope the Taoiseach in fact carried out the proposals he made in these remarks and is asking the Departments of State to find out how they can co-operate with their opposite numbers in the North. I think we would be interested to know what progress has been made in that respect.
I want to make some comments concerning the administration of the Minister's Department. It is a fairly common criticism of the Government's administration to say that we are overloaded with civil servants. I do not think that criticism is applicable to the Minister's Department; in fact I feel that Department is understaffed at present in many important fields. The Minister has many expert advisers arduously engaged in various activities to which they have been assigned and in many cases the tasks they have been given should be undertaken by six persons instead of one. Economic advantages are to be obtained from membership of the O.E.E.C.; we should not ignore those advantages by understaffing our representation in the O.E.E.C. Political advantages are to be gained and questions of prestige are involved in membership of the U.N.O.; yet so far as I know, there has been no increase in the staff of the Department dealing with the tremendous problems that arise from membership of that organisation.
I want to reiterate the criticism I made last year of the Minister's speech in moving this Estimate. The Minister may have certain views about the Irish language and the desirability of restoring it as the vernacular, but I do not feel he should demonstrate his point of view by speaking in Irish in moving this Estimate. In this case it does not matter very much because the people who do not know Irish have not missed very much. The fact is, although some Deputies do not appreciate it, that a certain amount of interest is taken in our debates on foreign affairs, outside the country.
There are people whose job it is to look at and read the debates that take place in national Parliaments on foreign affairs. These people do not know Irish. I think the Minister is doing a disservice to the country by speaking in the Irish language on the Estimate for External Affairs. This is not like a debate on an Estimate which will be read and studied in this country only. It is perhaps the only Estimate in which an interest is taken abroad and it does seem to me that the Minister is doing a disservice to the country by making his remarks in Irish.
Finally, I want to say that the Minister last year announced that there was no change in the foreign policy of his Government, that everybody knew it and that it was unnecessary to labour it. Within a few months he had gone to the United Nations Assembly and raised a considerable body of criticism against this country by nations normally friendly to this country. I trust the Minister will not repeat that performance this year. If he does not tell us what the foreign policy of his Government is, I certainly hope that he will not ignore the Dáil as he did last year, by making no statements here and then going abroad and creating an impression, as he did last year, about this country. If he is going to go abroad next August and vote for a resolution favouring a discussion on Red China I think we ought to have a debate in this House in July on the desirability of such a vote.
If he has any such announcement to make concerning the foreign policy of this country I suggest that he should adopt the ordinary democratic method of allowing the national Parliament to debate the matter so that we shall not be in the position of having a representative of this country going abroad making speeches and casting votes on subjects which vitally concern the country without an opportunity being given to the national Parliament to discuss the matter.
