asked the Minister for External Affairs if, in view of the just struggles of the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea for freedom and independence from Portugal and the condemnation of policies practised by that colonial Government in these territories in alliance with the Governments of Southern Rhodesia and South Africa, the Government will sever diplomatic links with Portugal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Diplomatic Links with Portugal.
53.
The Government have repeatedly expressed at the United Nations their condemnation of the repressive colonialist policies which Portugal is pursuing in its African territories and we have supported resolutions in the General Assembly calling on the Portuguese Government to grant independence to the peoples of the territories in question.
We have not supported General Assembly calls for severing diplomatic relations with Portugal, not do we consider that such action would have any useful effect on the colonialist policies of that country.
May I ask the Minister how, as representative of the Government of the only ex-colonial nation in Europe, he reconciles his rejection of the proposal of the United Nations, particularly bearing in mind that there are now some 70,000 Portuguese troops in these three territories enforcing military colonial rule with wide-scale imprisonment, deportation, torture and forced labour on seven million Africans and notwithstanding that the United Nations have recommended severance of diplomatic relations, sanctions and so on, with our general support for United Nations policies in this matter?
We believe that the maintenance of diplomatic relations with any power does not necessarily imply approval of that government or its policies. As I said, we have shown what we thought about these things. We disagree with Portugal's colonial policy; we regret the denial of liberties in Portugal itself but at the same time we believe that maintenance of diplomatic relations has certain advantages for us. The more serious the divergence of views between governments the more important it is to maintain diplomatic relations, as a channel of communication.
Yes, perhaps, an arid legalism, as a channel of communication. Would the Minister not agree that respect for Ireland among a large number of emerging African and Asian countries has, by virtue of our continuation of diplomatic relations with Portugal, diminished very rapidly in recent years and that this elementary step of rejection of Portugal's policies should now be taken by the Government if, in fact, we are genuine in our anti-racialism and in our general support for the aspirations of the United Nations?
I do not think so. We have clearly shown our disagreement with and disapproval of these policies and we have reason for retaining diplomatic relations for communications purposes.
May I ask what do we communicate?
The Deputy is aware that quite a number of Irish people travel to Portugal.
May I refer to the case of one Irishman who very recently travelled to Portugal for what we agree ought to be the legitimate purpose of observing procedures at an election there and who was expelled from that country? May I ask the Minister whether he or his Department has made use of the diplomatic links which they have maintained with Portugal for the purpose of protesting or expostulating in any way about that action?
That would seem to be a separate question. Question No. 54.
I think the Minister is replying and if we could hear his reply it would be interesting.
It is still out of order. It does not arise.
We would seek to ascertain the reasons the Portuguese Government had for that action.
They did not like to see people observing their farcical election.