It is wrong for a Minister for External Affairs to go abroad and deliberately look for Ireland's friends to give them a kick in the pants, to offer them all sorts of insults. The function of such a Minister is to expound the foreign policy of his Government, nothing more. The difficulty here is to find out what that foreign policy is. We have the Minister for External Affairs advocating one line and the Taoiseach, the Leader of his Government, advocating another. I would advise the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs to consult with each other and try to agree on one policy. The way the Minister has spoken in world councils is belittling and degrading to the Irish nation.
I might point out that we in the Fine Gael Party do not take any delight in that. We are rather sorry about it and want to ensure, through constructive criticism, that a concrete and solid foreign policy is agreed on between the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs and pursued vigorously. One thing that should be avoided is the giving of offence to our best friends, to Britain and the United States. If there has been a temporary misunderstanding between Britain and France in relation to EEC membership, it is no reason to assume that France will be any less friendly to Ireland. Our attention has not been called to any statement by President de Gaulle or any of his Ministers that France would be likely to oppose Ireland's entry into EEC, though I think it would be very unwise for Ireland to enter the Common Market, unless Britain is allowed to join as well.
We must not forget that we are closely linked, economically, culturally and geographically, with Britain. All our energies should be directed to cementing this relationship, but at the same time we should not allow the breakdown between Britain and France at the Brussels talks to influence our friendly dealings with France. While on this subject, I must say I cannot understand why the Minister made no reference to the Common Market in his introductory statement. Everybody now realises the wide gap there is between the information given by the Taoiseach in replies to Deputies Dillon and Corish and the actual truth about events at Brussels. It only serves to strengthen our belief that the Government have badly mishandled and mismanaged our application for EEC membership, that they are guilty of a high degree of negligence. Not only that, but they have continued to withhold vital information on this subject from the Irish people.
I am afraid, therefore, that the Minister for External Affairs and the Government are not fit and not qualified to carry out the further negotiations which will, we all hope, arise in the future in connection with our efforts to join the Common Market. We all now realise the importance of a united Europe, backed up by the USA in the fight to save the world from the heavy and cruel hand of Communism. In his speeches abroad, the Minister should therefore leave no shadow of doubt as to Ireland's position in this regard. He should take every opportunity, in every world assembly, to show where Ireland stands in relation to the activities of Russia and her Iron Curtain satellites — that we are 100 per cent behind the policy of a united Europe, backed by the United States. That is the only hope of obtaining peace and progress in the world and Ireland may be able to play her part in securing these conditions.
We have much to be proud of in our association with the United Nations in relation to the manner in which Mr. Boland conducted the business during his period as Chairman of that body. His wise counsel and capable handling of affairs have contributed greatly to enhancing the fame of Ireland's foreign representatives. It is a great pity that a man of Mr. Boland's intellectual attainments and international achievements should be handicapped by doubts as to the Government's foreign policy. I think the Government are unfair to those who speak for us abroad in not giving them a clear-cut policy on external affairs.
A number of new African States have recently come into being. Why should this country not join with Britain, the United States and European countries and concentrate on making new friends for Ireland? If more intelligence and commonsense were displayed by the Government, it would not be left open to any of these countries to think of Ireland for a moment as anything but friendlydisposed. I trust as a result of this debate steps will be taken to increase the number of our friends and reduce the number of our enemies.
Reference has been made to the Cuban crisis of last October in which President Kennedy, with great wisdom and restraint, made what was probably one of the world's finest pronouncements. He deserves to be complimented and supported by all free nations and should receive officially from Governments appreciative messages saying that they are solidly and firmly behind that pronouncement. Apart from the Pope as an adviser, practically no other statesman exercises as much power in the world to-day and I believe that the President of the United States has contributed more to peace in the past 12 months than any other man. Our Minister for External Affairs when abroad and our representatives in the United States should take every opportunity of making it known that President Kennedy's action in the Cuban crisis was appreciated here and had the support of all free peoples.
In the Congo, the United Nations force is being reduced by 7,000. Serving there at present are 868 members of the Irish Defence Forces and I am glad that the Minister has very properly paid tribute to the conduct of our soldiers there. But I am not completely satisfied that the Government have done all they could in the past 12 months to counteract the false, misleading, malicious, damaging and scandalous propaganda which I feel was deliberately sponsored by Communist interests to belittle the forces of the United Nations and to single out the Irish soldiers. Any money spent in an effort to counteract that campaign would be well spent. The Minister must have information in his Department to the effect that of all the soldiers sent to the Congo, the Irish battalions were of the highest standard in the matter of religious duties, general conduct and discipline and particularly the sympathetic manner in which they dealt with the Africans. Despite efforts to damage the reputation of our soldiers, they have won a very special place in the heart of the Africans for their courtesy, sympathy and assistance. They have helped this country by their good example and their officers deserve the highest appreciation of the Irish people.
Any Deputies who have spoken to any of the chaplains returned from the Congo find that they all testify to the high standard of conduct maintained by our soldiers. These chaplains are in a position to give impartial views because they were with the soldiers not only in the hours of battle and danger but also during relaxation and social moments.
It may be said that we get little value from our Army but the Minister must know that, small though the Army is, there were numerous applicants for service in the Congo. They were disappointed that they could not be called for service in the Congo. That goes to show the fine quality of courageous men whom we have.
Our men went to the Congo, not to look for fight, not to enter into battle but for one purpose only — to preserve, maintain and keep law and order. I really feel that while law and order have been and are being maintained there, the Irish have played no small part in bringing about the peaceful conditions that prevail in the Congo at the present time. We can only hope and trust that the activities of the United Nations in the Congo will be successful entirely and completely and that the time may came when the United Nations may be able to leave the Congo to the natives when they have built up a steady condition of law, order and respect.
We must bear in mind that these people whom the United Nations are now helping and assisting in the Congo are people whose country has only been given birth to. They lack a high degree of discipline, understanding and education — and a general allowance has to be made. Whilst our State is only 40 years old, we are able after 40 years to take our place with the nations of the world in helping to assist in the establishment of law and order in countries which require such assistance. That, in itself, reflects credit on this country. It reflects credit on our Army, on our men and on the United Nations. That is why I feel that the stand that has been taken in the United Nations is worthy of support and co-operation.
Reference was made here last night by a Deputy to the External Relations Act. Why, I do not know — but I suppose the External Relations Act would come up for comment on every Estimate in relation to the Department of External Affairs. Whether that Act was right or wrong, it was passed by this House. I really feel that the passing of the External Relations Act at least decided where we stood. I can recall many years ago asking Parliamentary Questions of the then Taoiseach as to where we stood internationally. Very often, he would reply one day and say: "We are in the Commonwealth but we are not of the Commonwealth." The next day he would reply and say: "We are of the Commonwealth but not in the Commonwealth." The result was a high degree of uncertainty as to where Irishmen stood — whether we were in the Commonwealth or out of the Commonwealth. It could never positively be located where we stood.
The one thing the External Relations Act did was to show clearly where we stood. In addition, if we wanted to appoint our Ministers abroad, those appointed usually had to be referred to the reigning British King or Queen. The passing of the External Relations Act at least raised the status of the head of our State. He was in a position to receive the accredited Ministers and to accept the credentials of foreign Ambassadors, and so on, coming here. They could be presented to him as a representative of our State and we could accredit without any reference to the British King or Queen our Ministers abroad and they could get full recognition in that regard. The passing of that Act, which was never tackled by the Fianna Fáil Party, nevertheless succeeded in having our country recognised abroad as an independent State.
Probably there could have been bargaining at the time. I feel, in that regard, it was a good thing and it is a good thing that the constitutional status of this country abroad should very clearly be defined and that we should not be in the position in which we were prior to the passing of the External Relations Act that we were in the Commonwealth today but not of it and the following day of the Commonwealth but not in it. At least we know now where we stand.
I think it was, again, extraordinary that no reference was made in the Minister's statement this year to the Border, the Partition problem or the problem of a united Ireland. Why, I do not know, because this is one year in which there should have been special reference to that. We can recall a reference made, I think, by the late Cardinal D'Alton some time ago when he spoke of a United Ireland within the Commonwealth. I feel that, as far as the Commonwealth of Nations is concerned, the Commonwealth in non-existent. When we see the position in relation to Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and particularly when we examine the Commonwealth of Nations as it was, say, 25 years ago, it is practically non-existent today.
The point was made as to whether it should be wise to have a United Ireland, a 32 County Ireland, linked with the Commonwealth. But we find that the real position today is that, for all purposes, the Commonwealth is crumbling away and is practically non-existent. Now, what will the Minister for External Affairs do? What is his definite policy in relation to the Six Counties and to the Partition of our country? Has he a definite policy on it or is his policy the same policy as referred to this country before the passing of the External Relations Act when the policy was that we were in the Commonwealth today but not of it and, the following day, that we were of the Commonwealth but not in it and back again the next day to in the Commonwealth but not of it, and so on?
The position is that, for the time being, until the Partition problem is solved in this country, the Government of Northern Ireland are there. There are as good Irishmen in the Parliament of the Six Counties as there are in this Parliament. There are Members of Parliament in the Six County Parliament as Irish, as national and as Gaelic as we are. They possess the Irish language, they think the same way as we think and they care for the people they represent just as much as we care for the people we represent.
When will we reach the stage in this country when we shall grow up? We seem to be remaining small very long. The older we get the more narrowminded we appear to become. I venture to say that in County Down today there are as good Irishmen as are in any part of Ireland. The evidence is clearly given, when the people of Down come to Croke Park to play the people of Offaly, that even though there is a Border between them and for the time being they are under two different Governments they are the same people and they have the same understanding. They are devoted to Gaelic pastimes and have the same allegiance to the GAA as we have in Offaly. They come down to our national stadium in Croke Park to participate in the games and they are as good Irishmen as we are in the south of Ireland. The same applies to Tyrone, Antrim, Armagh, Fermanagh and Derry.
The Minister for External Affairs is himself an Armagh man. Is there anyone in a better position to bring about a closer link-up than he? The Tánaiste is a Belfast man. Are the Tánaiste and the Minister for External Affairs Irishmen to a lesser degree than the Irishmen they left behind in Armagh and Belfast? The men who are in the Six-County Parliament are the political brothers of the Tánaiste and the Minister for External Affairs.
How can we continue to seek friends abroad, to get the new states of Africa to be our friends, to encourage greater friendship with European countries and the United States while we seem to give the blind eye and the deaf ear to our own flesh and blood in the Six Counties? The one year in which there should have been a special reference to the conditions in Northern Ireland is this year and I want to express great disappointment that there was no reference in the Minister's Estimate to the fact that there is a new Prime Minister in the Six Counties.
In this country and in the Six Counties, things have changed during the past ten years. Some of our own leaders in the South have gone, temporarily anyway, into cold storage. The old leaders who carried on the bitterness in the North are fading out and are also, I hope, in cold storage. Lord Brookeborough never wanted to extend the hand of friendship because he was brought up in that old school of narrowmindedness and bitterness. While other Deputies may say, as some of them said last night, that it does not matter who the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is, that they are one sack, one sample, I disagree with that argument. I believe the new Prime Minister of Northern Ireland will infuse new life and will provide a ray of hope of closer friendship and a greater degree of co-operation between the North and the South. The days of the Brookeborough Government are past. The old references by the Six Counties to Southern Ireland are past and gone. I wish to ask the Minister what has been done in a practical way to help our fellow-Irishmen in the Six Counties. Would it not be better to try to help them economically, and for them to try to help us in our economic difficulties, rather than politically? Is it not a fact that Irish Shipping placed orders abroad for shipping while the Belfast docks and the Belfast shipyards were idle and the shipworkers were walking around unemployed?
