asked the Minister for External Affairs if, having regard to the Irish people's opposition to apartheid, he will now make direct representations to the British Government to express Ireland's condemnation of the British proposal to break the UN embargo on sale of arms to South Africa; and, if not, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Arms Sales to South Africa.
2.
I would refer the Deputy to the replies which I have given to similar questions in Dáil Éireann on the 2nd and the 28th July and on the 29th October, 1970.
Without in any way diminishing the importance or the defects of UN resolutions, would the Minister not agree that the existence of apartheid in South Africa is such an appalling human injustice that every country is under a solemn obligation to bring direct representations to bear on the British Government in this matter in the hope that the British Government will be persuaded along the right path which apparently they are not prepared to go upon simply on the basis of UN resolutions?
I agree with the principle expressed by the Deputy in his view on apartheid. We have made our views known plainly in the UN and we have been behind the Security Council's resolutions. It is another matter for this Government to tell another Government how to do their business.
Does the Minister not agree that this is international business?
It is.
And does he not agree that this matter of human injustice far transcends the niceties of diplomatic discretion?
Does the Minister agree that the Taoiseach's failure to refer at all to the matter of the sale of arms to South Africa in his speech to the UN in which he made reference to Britain's democratic and freedom-loving character was not helpful in the matter of Ireland's relations with African and Asian countries who consider that the sale of arms by Britain to South Africa is not consistent with democracy or love of freedom? Surely it was damaging to our relations with these countries for the Taoiseach to indulge in his unsolicited testimonial to Britain without referring at all to the matter of the sale of arms to South Africa?
I do not propose to follow the Deputy into this cul-de-sac. I am not concerned with side issues here.
Side issues?
I am concerned here with answering the question put down by Deputy Ryan, which is concerned with representations which he says should be made to the British Government. The gist of my reply and of previous replies given by the Minister for External Affairs is that we fully support the Security Council's resolutions. We have expressed ourselves publicly at home as being completely opposed to apartheid in any form, but this does not take from the fact that we as an independent sovereign State should make our views known to the United Nations, make them publicly known; but in regard to a particular Government's decision, that is a matter between the Governments concerned. We make our stand in the UN and we make our views quite plain there. The question of the sale of arms between Great Britain and South Africa is a matter between Great Britain and South Africa and is not a matter for us.
Will the Minister agree that it is entirely inconsistent and not in the national interest that, whereas many European Governments have communicated their abhorrence directly to the British Government, Ireland should place itself in a unique position of not conveying any view to Britain except through the UN? Surely this is one of the most inconsistent vacillations——
The Labour Party are full of idle intellectual pretences. We try to be as effective as possible in our actions.
If the Minister says the sale of arms to South Africa is "not a matter for us", it would be more honest of him to say the same about apartheid.