asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he is prepared publicly to support the principle of a ceasefire without political preconditions in the Nigeria-Biafra war.
31.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Nigeria-Biafra Conflict.
30.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he is prepared publicly to support the principle of an international arms embargo applicable to Nigeria and Biafra.
32.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will protest to the British government on the recent increase of supply of arms to Federal Nigeria.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 30, 31 and 32 together.
Our policy is to avoid taking stands on specific issues of the type raised in the Deputies' questions, when we are certain that to do so would have no useful effect whatever, but on the contrary might prevent us from making a positive contribution in promoting peace and in helping in relief both now and later on.
Will the Minister not agree that in view of the very long-standing connection between this country and the area most devastated by this war, the eastern region of Nigeria, and in view of the way many people in that area are looking to this country with hope, replies of this kind occasion considerable disappointment? Will he not agree that it is possible for us, in fact, to take initiatives of the kind suggested here which do not involve recognition of Biafra? We are not asking that. We are just asking the Minister to do something; he is doing nothing.
This is neither fair nor true. We are not doing anything publicly but we are doing a lot privately. I think the Deputy will remember that in closing the debate on the Estimate I did say that we favoured a cease-fire. I think that in any dispute, and this is the worst type of dispute, one must accept that a cease-fire must be negotiated between the parties concerned. The parties concerned are seeking certain guarantees against the abuse of a cease-fire for political or military purposes. We shall be glad if we can contribute in any way to having it brought about, but I believe it must be negotiated and, as I said, when summing up on the Estimate, I think the best we can now do is to try to get a minimum contact between the parties so that they can negotiate.
If we make any contribution with which either side does not agree, we are not contributing to a cease-fire. If we take a rigid position at this stage, we are removing any possibility of our being able to contribute later on.
Can the Minister say whether he has considered at all the feasibility of supporting or participating in the initiative to ask the Swiss Government to act as mediators in this matter?
Yes, I have considered it. This is quite new and, at this time, I would not like to say anything about it.
Accepting the fact that it is possible to do something privately in this, and that we may believe the Minister is trying to do something in relation to a cease-fire, I should like to ask him about the question of an international arms embargo. That is something which surely he will agree cannot be attained by private discussions? It would require public initiative, and that is the kind of initiative which many of us hope for. Perhaps the Minister might say something about that.
The only thing I have against an arms embargo is that the Governments supplying arms are permanent members of the Security Council. The only possibility of an effective arms embargo would be one which the Security Council had agreed on and agreed to implement. I am not against an arms embargo. In fact, I would support an effective arms embargo. I think it is an academic question at the moment.
Would the Minister call for it publicly? That is really what we are asking.
I would. I would agree with it.
The Minister will do that?
I think it is academic. Once the position is that only the Security Council can do it, and when permanent members are supplying arms, I do not think there is any chance of an effective arms embargo.
Can the Minister say whether he has, in fact, approached the relevant Governments and sought from them a view whether, if other Governments agreed not to supply arms, they would also agree not to supply them?
That arises on the following question, question No. 31.
I took that.
We are on questions Nos. 31 and 32.
The British Government did try to find agreement but could not.
As a supplier?
As a supplier. I gather that the British position is that they tried to get agreement with France and the Soviet Union but failed.
I appreciate that, but I wondered whether the Minister had sought to get this agreement. I can quite see that the French and Russian Governments might not have welcomed very much an approach from the British Government as one of the other Governments concerned. Our position as a neutral in this affair would enable us to take an initiative and I am wondering whether we have taken such an initiative privately.
This might have some effect. I will consider it, but I should like to say that, even if the Security Council did get agreement, which it will not, because the Governments supplying arms are permanent members of the Security Council, there are private suppliers of arms, surreptitious suppliers of arms, and there would still be a supply of arms. I think a cease-fire would be needed to make an arms embargo effective. I go back to what I said on the Estimate. The most we can do now is to get some minimal contact between the two sides so that they will be prepared to negotiate. Both sides are quite rigid and without negotiation of the two sides to any dispute—and this is the worst type of dispute—you will not get any solution.
Question No. 33.
The Minister's last reply raised a most important point. May I ask the Minister in what way he is in touch with the Biafran side in the civil war? Have we any representative in that area?
I am in touch but we have not an official mission. Is this what the Deputy means?
Even a temporary mission?
I have met several representatives of the Biafran side and I am in constant contact with people who are visiting Biafra and meeting the Biafran leaders.
Does the Minister consider that is enough?
The next step is one the Deputy said we did not take. The next step is to recognise Biafra and have a mission there.
Question No. 33.
Would the Minister not consider, without any question of recognising Biafra, restoring the representation we had there for about ten months at the beginning? We had an official in Biafra working in the interests of peace and in the interest of looking after our citizens. Would the Minister consider sending such an official back there? This does not entail recognising Biafra.
Is the Minister aware that there are 17 Catholic dioceses in Nigeria and three Catholic dioceses in Biafra? Our commitment, the Minister's commitment and the commitment of this House, should be to the entire country and not to Biafra or Federal Nigeria.
The House is aware that we have interests in the whole of Nigeria and Biafra. We have citizens in Nigeria and Biafra. This is our basic interest. We have an interest in helping people with whom we have had long and good relations. We have an interest in helping on the humanitarian side. The balance of Government policy is to do as much as we can for these three interests.
Question No. 33.
33.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will consider setting up a refugee camp in the Republic for refugees from the war zone of Biafra.
34.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will consider sending a voluntary team of Irish medical personnel to Biafra.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 33 and 34 together. As regards Government relief aid, I have already set out in detail our programme in my reply to questions in the Dáil on 20th November. I indicated at that time that we had made available a sum of up to £25,000 for Irish Red Cross medical teams for either side. I see no merit in the suggestion to set up a refugee camp in this country for the victims of the Nigerian conflict.
The Minister indicated in an earlier reply that he would consider channelling supplies throughout the devastated area—both Biafra and around Biafra—through channels in addition to the Red Cross which might include Joint Church Aid and Caritas Internationalis. Has consideration of that matter advanced to any point—the diversification of the channels of aid?
I am in touch with the Red Cross. This particular question refers to medical teams and I am in touch with the Red Cross about maintaining and extending the activities of their medical teams on either side or both sides. The matter to which the Deputy refers is now at the stage of trying to make it technically possible. I will be coming to the House about that.