Deputy Sherwin was in possession.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 59—External Affairs (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy Cosgrave).
Will you let Deputy Sherwin in, if he comes in later on?
No; it is not customary, when the Deputy is not in his seat on resumption.
He only drew breath and convenienced the Minister. However, he can argue that out with you when he comes in, I suppose.
It is a welcome development that the Minister has at least made some gesture, however limited, to indicate his views on foreign policy, for the first time in three years, but there are certain matters relative to foreign policy in general which I should like to bring before the House. I do not think I am wrong in believing that the fundamental purpose of diplomacy is to serve the vital interests of Ireland, in so far as our Minister for External Affairs carries on diplomatic activities at the United Nations or anywhere else. If we lose sight of that fundamental fact, our diplomacy is liable to lose itself in a maze of good intentions, oblivious of the fact that good intentions constitute the pavement to hell. There is only one sound sheet anchor for the Minister to cling to in his diplomatic activities and that is, does this answer the vital interest of Ireland? It is important to realise that the language of diplomacy is founded on the universal assumption that the Foreign Ministers of countries attend international gatherings or represent their countries abroad for the purpose of defending the vital interests of their own countries and that the language employed by them in the course of that work is interpreted in the light of that assumption by other diplomats or other Foreign Ministers with whom they are engaged in controversy or discussion. I cannot help feeling that the activities of our Minister for External Affairs, especially at the United Nations, seem to be wholly divorced from that fundamental assumption.
It is not always what you say that matters. It is the way you say it. It is when you say it and it is to whom you say it that may be very important. I think that what has been said by our Minister for External Affairs at the United Nations (1) in respect of the question of the admission of Communist China to the United Nations being placed upon the agenda; (2) his quasi-Rapacki plan for disengagement in Middle Europe and (3) his current proposal in regard to what he describes as the "Atomic Club" are all resulting in discomfiture for our friends and gratification for our natural enemies.
It is no use for the Minister to say in effect: "All I meant was that we would put the question of the admission of Red China on the Agenda and when it was there, God knows what I would say but those of you who know me can pretty fairly guess what I was likely to say on such an occasion." The fact is that the Minister found himself aligned with all those opposed to democracy and freedom and in opposition to all those who believe in the things in which we believe.
The Minister gave bitter offence to the American people who ordinarily have been our traditional friends and, as Deputy Esmonde stated here today, he apparently entirely overlooked the fact that in respect of a very large part of the world's surface, there is no means of communication for the dissemination of news except the Communist-controlled radio. Throughout a whole vast area where persecution was rampant in China, there was disseminated the news that the representative of Ireland had aligned himself at the United Nations, as they may have tendentiously put it, on the side of giving consideration to the admission of Red China to the United Nations.
What vital interest of Ireland is served by voting for the inclusion of that item on the Agenda of the United Nations? When Deputy Cosgrave was Minister for External Affairs, that matter came up. I think he said, with perfect propriety, on that occasion that at some date this matter might come on the Agenda but certainly Ireland would not take the initiative in precipitating that event. On the occasion on which Deputy Cosgrave was speaking as the Irish Minister for External Affairs, he adverted to the fact that the United States of America and others were not prepared to include this matter on the Agenda at the present time and that so far as he was concerned he was not prepared to go against them, though he was quite conscious of the fact that the march of events might result in this item turning up at some future date, in which event he would be prepared to deal with it, if he were so charged.
Deputy Cosgrave's successor, the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Aiken, rushes into the affray and says he feels he has a high duty to insist that this item forthwith be placed on the Agenda. What vital interest of Ireland was served by that? It exasperated and enraged our friends and provided our traditional enemy with material with which they were able to discomfit and dismay millions of people suffering persecution who had no source of information other than the possible distortion which was made possible, in my judgment, by the indiscretion of our Minister who should have foreseen the capacity of international Communism to use his position for any misrepresentation which they thought would serve their basic purpose of discomfiting and discouraging those who are holding out against that particular form of tyranny that Communism is concerned to impose on the countries they conquer.
To me, the greatest element of error in our Minister's decision on that occasion was gratuitously to do something which was in no way necessary for the vital interests of this country and which caused consternation, dismay and humiliation amongst a vast section of the best friends we have in the United States of America. I have never yet heard from the Minister any genuine justification for that, except the implication on one occasion that he wanted to establish the fact that he was following an independent line at the United Nations and was not subject to dictation or direction from anybody. That is a deplorable occupation for our Minister for External Affairs to be engaged in.
I do not think it was ever necessary for Deputy Cosgrave when he was representing this country at the United Nations to swagger up and down the corridors announcing that he was an independent man. I do not think he ever had to go to the rostrum there and declare that he was not a paid hireling. He was received there as a representative of an independent State charged faithfully to carry out the instructions of the Government he represented. He was quite prepared and well-equipped to speak on behalf of this country. He was never put upon his proof that he was anything but the independent representative of a sovereign Government, a co-equal member of the United Nations. It is that cracked obsession of our Minister that he has perennially to give a demonstration of his independence at the United Nations Headquarters at New York that betrays him into some of the foolish activities in which he is engaged.
If I am correct and I think I am—I do not think I am being unduly harsh —we begin by carrying consternation and dismay into the hearts of our friends in America. Our next stage is the quasi-Rapacki Plan. Here we are on the fringe of Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. We have never taken any part in any European conflict— we have declared our firm intention not to—but we take the initiative to propose a plan to require the troops representative of N.A.T.O. to undertake substantial withdrawals from vital parts of Europe. We know or we ought to know that the Administration of Chancellor Adenauer in Bonn is passionately opposed to that course.
It will be appreciated that, in so far as this country has any Continental relations, they should be cordial with those of the Government of Bonn but it appears to me that for no other reason than to show off the strategic equipment of our Minister for External Affairs we start throwing our weight about in regard to the disposition of N.A.T.O. troops in Europe which causes a Government which I believe is well disposed for various reasons to this country and to which we certainly ought to be well disposed, the utmost possible annoyance, confusion and dismay.
Is there rhyme or reason in doing a thing like that? I cannot understand it. It may be just as embarrassing to the Minister for External Affairs as it is to me that the substance of this plan is associated in the minds of most people who are interested in this matter with the Rapacki Plan and the Rapacki Plan was conceived in Warsaw and is greatly beloved of Mr. Khrushchev who thinks it is just wonderful and who thinks that Adenauer is a cranky old rascal that he will not fall in with it, that Adenauer does not want peace and that Mr. Khrushchev has come to the conclusion that he is the nigger in the woodpile and wants to keep the cold war going. In fact we discover that the Rapacki Plan is a powerful propaganda instrument in the hands of Mr. Khrushchev for the purpose of misrepresenting the Christian Democratic Government of the Federal Republic of Western Germany.
Nobody is in the least interested in the Aiken Plan but inasmuch as it corresponds pretty closely to the Rapacki Plan, it is represented that if this issue ever comes to be determined at the United Nations our Minister for External Affairs is closer to Rapacki than he is to Adenauer. What vital interest of Ireland is served by representing this country as being in much closer understanding with Mr. Rapacki than it is with Mr. Adenauer? I certainly do not feel nearer the mind of Mr. Rapacki than I do to the mind of Chancellor Adenauer. I doubt if any Deputy here does and I doubt if anybody would wish to be so represented in the world. What vital interest of Ireland is served by getting embroiled in this way on the wrong side?
The only vital interest that confronts this country in that sphere is that there are 200,000,000 Russians and 600,000,000 Chinese and, if some control is not kept on that horde, Christian civilization as we understand it will be overrun and trampled underfoot. That is the only vital interest we have in European politics at the present time and that there should be maintained between us and that horde, which is disciplined, orgainsed and resolved to wipe out Christian civilization, an effective screen which would preserve us and our other neighbours who survive in freedom with the prospect of continuing in the enjoyment of the freedom we now have.
If that is a correct assessment of the fundamental, vital interest of Ireland in European politics, how are these interests served by our Minister for External Affairs appearing to say 12 months ago that he is in favour of restricting control of atomic weapons to the United States, Great Britain, Russia and France and of now announcing that he intends to introduce a resolution into the United Nations the effect of which appears to me to be to exclude France from that control and to restrict control of atomic weapons to Great Britain, the United States and Russia as being the only nations at present in control of such armaments?
I am not prepared to argue and I am not equipped to argue the rights and the wrongs of whether France should be recognised as eligible for similar atomic status with the United States, Russia and Great Britain, but France has always tried to show us consideration, respect and friendship. At this most crucial moment when we have every reason to believe that the Government of France attaches supreme importance to the recognition of its right to be on atomic equality with the other three Great Powers, why should Ireland take the initiative in proclaiming we think she is not? What do we know about it? Why should we take the initiative—I do not think I use too strong a phrase—in slapping General de Gaulle across the face?
It may be that if the United States or if Britain or Russia brought the question before the United Nations as to whether steps should be taken to prevent France having the atomic bomb, we would have to consider our position in regard to that. I would be prepared to argue that strongly, but I do not think it falls to be argued here. All I am asking is: what vital interest of Ireland is served by our appearing to take an initiative which cannot but be offensive to the Government of France? That continued childish meddling in order to show what busy bees we are in the United Nations is causing this country very serious loss, loss of a much more significant kind than anything that can be measured in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. We are manoeuvring ourselves into the postion of being looked upon as that kind of a friend on whom nobody can depend.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.