andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for External Affairs what was the wording of the resolution condemning the present policies of South Africa in relation to apartheid recently approved at the UN; what was the action taken by this country in the matter; and if he will indicate the strength of the vote for and against the resolution, and the names of the countries with which Ireland voted.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - South African Apartheid Policy.
21.
The full text of the resolution referred to and the report of the proceedings of the General Assembly of the United Nations which gives the voting thereon are in the Dáil Library. The resolution contains over twenty clauses but in effect it calls for the breaking off of diplomatic relations with South Africa and the imposition of trade sanctions.
As I explained in answer to somewhat similar questions on the 21st November, 1962, we supported resolutions and clauses of resolutions condemning apartheid but that in our belief resolutions calling for sanctions hinder rather than help the ending of apartheid. At the last session of the General Assembly the Irish delegation voted against the Afro-Asian resolution on apartheid on the grounds that it contained sanction clauses and called on the Security Council, if necessary, to consider the expulsion of South Africa from the organisation. We had supported a motion calling for a separate vote on the contentious clauses. As these objectionable clauses were retained in the resolution, we were obliged to vote against it. Had the motion been carried, we would have, as in previous years, voted for the clauses condemning apartheid and calling for its abolition and voted against the clauses calling for the imposition of sanctions and the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations.
Why have this Government taken this stand in relation to the use of sanctions, boycott and condemnation of the South African Government when they, not so very long ago, believed particularly strongly in the efficacy and the idea of a boycott and sanctions?
I think anybody's experience of the attempt to impose sanctions in the middle 1930's would have created grave doubts about the efficacy of sanctions for the curing of international injustice. If we believed in sanctions, we could not stop at South Africa. There are a great number of other countries in which democratic and human rights are denied, as the Deputy well knows. If there were to be a policy of sanctions to cure a grave injustice that exists in South Africa, we could not stop there. I do not think we should begin until a joint policy is thought out and could be made generally applicable, if possible.
Surely this argument by the Minister on the efficacy of sanctions would have occurred to the members of the African countries which recommend them? Furthermore, leaving aside the principle of trying to help these unfortunate people in their struggle for freedom, does the Minister not believe that, on the long view of Ireland itself at some time looking for the establishment of self-determination in the six north-eastern counties, by this action they are alienating the African countries——
This is developing into an argument.
I do not think we are alienating anybody. The African and Asian countries know where we stand on apartheid and on the upholding of human rights, as far as it is possible for us to do so at present. The Deputy knows that it is not only in Africa that human and democratic rights are denied. There are countries in Europe and Asia——
You have only to look at the Six Counties——
——which are dominated by an outside power or by a small group consisting of an undemocratic minority——
What about the issue at the United Nations?
That is one of the issues involved.
Is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands, twice—I hope in the hearing of the Chair but certainly in my hearing and in the hearing of some members of the House — to make references to me in connection with Communist Russia? Is it reputable for Deputy Lenihan to make such statements in this House?
You think you are the only one with any rights.
Is Deputy Lenihan doing the hatchet man?
Next question.
On a point of order.
What is the point of order?
It may be funny to the Taoiseach but is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to say twice that Deputy McQuillan should consult Soviet Russia on this particular matter?
Remarks passed from bench to bench and not to the rest of the House cannot always be heard by the Chair. The Chair does not know——
It was heard here.
It was not addressed to the Chair.
We all welcome Deputy McQuillan's enthusiasm for order.
If the Chair does not deal with these matters, the Chair is definitely going to allow this House to be used as a cockpit. I will not take it and, if I do not take it, I shall make definite charges that this Taoiseach and the members of this Government are corrupt in their practices, both in regard to insurance companies and otherwise.
Next question.
The Taoiseach knows they have held up the report on Irish Estates, Limited, because of the connection of Government members with it. Produce that report.
The Government cannot allow that report to come in on top of what has happened recently in regard to the Equitable Insurance Company Limited.
The Government have the two of them coming up together.
There was a time when Macmillan sniggered as the Taoiseach is sniggering now.
If there is dirt to be thrown, Browne will throw it. You will have to dig deep for dirt.
There is no need to dig this time.
Deputy Lenihan is the apprentice of Deputy MacEntee.
Next question.