The Labour Party will not oppose these Supplementary Estimates. The conventions under which we necessarily have to work here in discussing Supplementary Estimates of this kind necessarily make our discussion a little bit artificial in the sense that, if we attempt to widen the scope of the debate, we will be pulled up, as the previous speaker was, by the Chair. On the other hand, if we concentrate strictly on the matters before us we are really not sufficiently well informed about the matters behind these subheads to know whether or not the increase is justified. There is an increase of £5,000 for telegrams. We do not know whether or not that increase is justified. It all depends on what was in the telegrams. We do not see the telegrams. The artificiality of the proceedings here is somewhat heightened by the fact that the responsible Minister is not able to be here. Furthermore, the Minister for Finance, who is acting for him and who necessarily is not familiar with the details behind these Supplementary Estimates, is not accompanied by any official of the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is no official of the Department of Foreign Affairs here. Perhaps it is rather a pity. The Department of Foreign Affairs has increased considerably in importance and significance in relation to the nation's life by reason of the Government's application to join the EEC. It has a bearing on every aspect of our national life, and the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is responsible for the EEC negotiations makes any discussion of the Vote for Foreign Affairs a matter of considerable moment, whatever about the question of the supplementaries.
I would like to say a word about the change of name. "External Affairs" still figures on the papers before us but the name has subsequently been changed to "Foreign Affairs". Personally I rather deprecate this change. We are disposed in this country to confuse frequent changes in nomenclature with progress. The change does not imply any substantial change. Nothing of substance has happened, nothing that would justify even the extra expenditure on official stationery which presumably is the main change required. At this stage of our national existence we ought to deprecate changes in name that do not involve changes in substance.
In general, I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs enjoys a rather wide measure of sympathy and support in this House. I think it is realised that he has been an active Minister, that he has sent a current of energy through his important Department and that he has, on many occasions, represented this country effectively. I am sorry to have to add to that a significant criticism. In the conduct of the Department of Foreign Affairs during the past year or so there have been two forms of activity which I think we will hope will cease. One was, of course, the spate of antiPartition activity in various parts of the world at one time. That has faded away but I hope it will not be resuscitated as a result of any future pressure.
The other form of activity is of more significance. The first might be ascribed to Government policy generally, but the second is an action of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I believe a mistake, that was, when he indicated that we would be willing to enter military commitments as part of our EEC policy. That was an unnecessary commitment and I think a mistake by the Minister himself, and I hope he will take the opportunity to withdraw from that position.
I will press on from that as I realise we may not discuss wide issues in any great detail here. I would, however, like to refer to two matters as we are asked to contribute here more money in connection with the United Nations. I would like to differ, in an amicable way, in emphasis from what my friend, Deputy Richie Ryan, said when he spoke of a shifting away from the United Nations and towards Europe. I do not think there should be any conflict here and perhaps Deputy Ryan did not intend to suggest that there should be. Our commitment to the United Nations and the contribution we make to it remain of importance. However, I would think our presence in the United Nations would be more justifiable and therefore the financial commitment we make would be more justifiable if our position in that Assembly became more distinct.
The Minister has been preoccupied with other matters, with Europe, but I have not been able to see that our representation at the United Nations has any very distinct position. There is a tendency for the smaller countries in the United Nations who are situated geographically as we are to be carried in the wake of a major power, particularly the United States. That has been so for some years in the past and it is still so. This is unfortunate at a time when the United States has been engaged on a course which seems to many people in this country and to a great many growing numbers of people in the United States disastrous. Ireland has had little or nothing to say or nothing of any clarity to say for example on the widening war in Indo-China which a growing proportion of the American electorate regard as a disastrous course. If we have nothing to say on a matter like that, then to that extent our involvement in the United Nations itself becomes questionable. If all we are doing is to acquiesce in the policies of a major power, what does our activity signify? Again I am aware I may not develop this line of talk but I hope to do so on the main Estimate when the opportunity arises.
Part of the Supplementary Estimate which is before us concerns aid to the people of East Pakistan in respect of a natural disaster. We welcome the support that Ireland was able to give there, but since that time a manmade disaster has befallen the same population and it has befallen for essentially the same reasons as brought about widespread sympathy in this country for the people of Biafra, as it then was, when they attempted to assert a right of self-determination. It does appear that the people of East Bengal, East Pakistan, are united or almost united on this issue, and there are 75 millions of them. They are now about to be suppressed by armed force. This is part of a general human tendency, to crush people over whom you have a military advantage.
The action being taken by West Pakistan against East Pakistan is an example of an imperialist, suppressive war. I would hope that in the case of East Pakistan, we will not be as mealy-mounthed as we were in the early days of the Nigeria-Biafra conflict. In the case of people who were affected by a natural disaster, we were willing to contribute to helping them and now that the people of the same area are struck by a manmade disaster, are we prepared to do anything to help them? This question relates also to matters nearer home—matters that affect us in our own island, essentially the claim of one group to impose their will on others. I do not care whether that is a claim by northern Protestants to order about northern Catholics and deprive them of rights and so on or whether it is a question of a claim made by some people that the majority of the inhabitants of this island have the right to lay down the law for a minority who are Protestants. It is the same arrogant and woolly state of mind. We ought to resist it. It belongs to the kind of principles that it is important for us to assert and without which our membership of the United Nations is a vague and empty thing. We shall support these Supplementary Estimates.
