We could set about having a new Constitution tomorrow and surely nobody here would suggest that we should delay in respect of anything we could do towards solving the problem. We could frame a new Constitution that would be free of the sections contained in the present one that offend. That would not be a gigantic task. Much to the horror of some of my friends, I suggested here before that we could do worse than look at the first Free State Constitution, the Constitution of 1922. Admittedly, that particular Constitution contained certain provisions regarding relationships between this country and Britain which we would not need to incorporate now but in relation to civil rights the 1922 Constitution was superior to the Constitution of 1937. It was nearer the spirit of a united Ireland than was its successor and, to my knowledge, it contained no feature to which Irishmen in the North of Ireland, regardless of whatever might be their tradition, could find objection. Therefore, we do not need a great deal of preparation. In the course of a few months we could prepare a new Constitution, consult the people in Northern Ireland, ensure that it anticipated in all its provisions a future all-Ireland Constitution, whenever that would come about, but ensure that Unionists were deprived of one argument when talking about a united Ireland and when charging that the Constitution of this Republic involved provisions which many of them found repugnant and which involved for them a limitation of their civil rights, as they saw them. We could at least do that tomorrow. That is a step that, for political reasons which I do not understand, we refuse to take. I do not exaggerate its impact. I do not suggest that it will convert one Unionist to the belief in the justness of the unity of this country. I suggest that it would deprive many enemies of the unity of this country of a strong argument.
Anybody who has taken part in any discussions or programmes, in the United States or anywhere outside this country, on the desirability of the unity of this country will know how powerful an argument it is in the hands of Unionists that our Constitution has provisions which do not faithfully anticipate the Constitution of a future united Ireland. Yet, this is a step we could take now without any further delay. We do not have to have the permission of Mr. Heath. We do not have to go to London or Belfast to do it. We can do it ourselves. We can enact a new Constitution with updated social directives. We can provide in that Constitution a fundamental guarantee which our own Constitution does, to some extent, at present. I do not suggest this would be something to be examined solely by politicians. We could consult with people in outside life, such as the judiciary and various organisations. We could also consult with Northern people, and with whoever, in fact, would be willing to talk with us.
The weakness of the 1937 Constitution may be due to the fact that it was the work of too few people. There was not sufficient consultation with the Irish people. Too few people were involved in its production. This is an initiative which I suggest. We do not need to go anywhere. This is an initiative on which we can embark ourselves. I do not exaggerate its value or suggest that it would ease all problems. It would deprive the enemies of Irish unity of one strong argument which they have at present.
The Minister went on a trip abroad when affairs here were in a bad way a few months ago. The Minister went to Washington. I do not see anything wrong about his going there. That acknowledges that the US is probably the primary world power. The Minister's visit to Washington did not make that claim any stronger or weaker. It was correct that he should go there. I said at the time, and I still believe, that if one consults with one great power on a problem one should equally have contacted his opposite number in Moscow. The Minister should have done so if he was serious about explaining, as he says he was, our problems. The Minister said that we simply wished to consult with a great power and to explain our problem to our friends in the US so that they could speak to their friends in Britain, and ask them to stop being a nuisance to us. The Minister should logically have contacted his opposite number in Moscow. That may seem to be an inflammatory thing to say. Another country in similar straits would have done so.
It is trumpeted abroad that we should have gone to speak with the EEC countries. I believe we should have done so. There is a lot in what Deputy Ryan said. The Deputy said that we should have consulted in Europe first and then gone to Washington. I do not know which way it should have been done, but since Washington has so much to do with the shape of Europe it probably does not make any difference. If our problem was serious enough to be discussed with one great power it should have been discussed also with another great power. I am not suggesting that one great power would have been more impressed by our story than another. No matter what social system they may say they have, all great powers, in fact, are much the same in their principles at home or abroad in relation to foreign policy.
I do not understand how it was suggested that we, of all the so-called future partners in the EEC, should not have diplomatic relations with an Eastern European country. All the EEC countries have diplomatic relations with an Eastern European country. Is it suggested that Ireland, on becoming a member of the EEC, should have no diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union? What rule of life suggests that while Italy, France, Germany or Norway all have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union Ireland should not have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union? What danger does this hold? What temptation is there? What approval would it entail of the social system in the Soviet Union? Having diplomatic relations with a country does not convery that one approves of the social system of the country involved. Nobody would suggest that the Soviet Union's record in freedom operations is to be admired. Let us not forget Budapest or Czechoslovakia. That does not get away from the fact that the Soviet Union is a great world power with every bit as much legitimacy to be regarded as a world power as the US. It does not turn us all into young pioneer communists to suggest that we should have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.
Some years ago I suggested that we should have diplomatic relations with Poland if people objected to our having diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, as if that country were the scarlet woman herself. We should have considered having diplomatic relations with Poland. It is ludicrous that we should be entering the EEC without having such diplomatic relations, when every other country in the EEC has diplomatic relations with Eastern European countries. So far as I know all these countries have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. It portrays a colonial attitude to say that we may not do as others do in this matter.
I do not see how a country can be taken as having a foreign policy that is adequate if it ignores one whole side of this part of the world in which we live. How can we suggest that our country has a foreign policy when we ignore one such large country? How can we suggest that we are neutral? What is the meaning of neutrality if we have no diplomatic relations with the damned on the other side? What is the point of indulging in the making of strident anti-British speeches here when, in fact a campaign is launched by several of the cheaper versions of the British press, which we have seen dealing so blindly with the North of Ireland, suggesting that we should not have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union? Why should we run when these newspapers suggest that it would be a dangerous thing for Ireland to have diplomatic relations with Eastern European countries? Is this why politicans here should run for cover in this so-called supreme Parliament and call for a debate in this House? Must we be for ever frightened of the Mother Macree vote in this country? Have we a foreign policy or have we not? Have we only a pretence of a foreign policy or one on loan from the Foreign Office?
I am under no illusion about our reasons for joining the EEC. Our wish to join the EEC arises from our economic dependence, which the Minister frankly admits, on the British market. Once Britain decided she was going in we were left with very little choice. Considering the economic policies pursued by the State over 40 or 50 years, very strong arguments could be adduced favouring the membership of this country in the EEC. Therefore, we cannot point to any philosophical reasons that would compare with the strong material reason involved in that dependent relationship.
However, I was disappointed in the Minister's speech. Those of us who oppose membership would have expected to be given some reasons for qualifying our opposition, that the Minister would have mentioned some of the political objectives we would have in that community. The Minister's speech reads like the speech of any other Minister in the Cabinet. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who, as Deputy Ryan rightly says, must have built up, by now, a bank of sophisticated knowledge as a result of his numerous visits in Europe, America and elsewhere, for six or seven pages dallies with the idea of enunciating a foreign policy. We were entitled to expect something distinctive from the Minister in regard to the EEC, that the Minister would say: "Here are the political goals and the kind of political future I would see in the Europe we propose to join." Certain political decisions have to be made if this country joins the EEC. Is it proposed to bring a political illiterate into the EEC? Our foreign policy so far would suggest we lie in that kind of country. Have we any viewpoint on European security? Do we know there is such a thing as a Warsaw Pact? Do we wait until the decision is made for or against before we open up diplomatic relations with East European countries?
Surely the day has arrived when we may say that the "Reds under the bed" league have finally taken leave of Irish politics. To listen to certain politicians one might believe they were still in their heyday. I have confidence enough in the maturity of Irish people to believe that those bad old days are gone. The very same speech which did not mention the question as to whether we should have diplomatic relations with East European countries, in three or four lines disposed of the matter that our vote had been behind the admission of the People's Republic of China. Not so many years ago mentioning the name of the People's Republic of China was enough to drive a politician out of public life. Some years ago the Minister's predecessor faced strong opposition in this House stretching over almost two years of a Dáil's life, as politicians pitched into him every day on the mere suspicion that he might have permitted a discussion of the admission of China into the United Nations. Today there is no comment. Today everybody accepts the admission into the United Nations of the People's Republic of China whose social system is no more desirable than that of the Soviet Union. Freedom is just as scarce in the People's Republic of China. Yet there is no protest in this Assembly about the support which we gave to the admission of the People's Republic of China into the United Nations.
I am all for discussion in this House on widening our diplomatic contacts, and I see nothing wrong with the Fine Gael motion saying that the matter should be discussed here. I think it would be a very useful convention if, before we open up diplomatic relations with any country, this House could discuss it. However, we should not be dishonest in this matter. We should not seek to stroke the prejudices of people, to suggest that some people are more Christian or more democratic than others because they do not approve of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. I predict that, before a Minister for Foreign Affairs comes with his next speech on this Estimate, in two or three lines, he will also be writing off the fact that we have opened up diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.
If the objective of our foreign policy is independence, political and economic, and if no less a body than the Exporters Association, which is certainly not a home for subversives, of dangerous revolutionaries, can say that our trade could possibly be helped by the opening up of diplomatic relations with these countries, how can any one here who wishes to see an expansion in Irish jobs in conscience stand up and argue against it? As I say, it does not imply approval of these regimes. I do not approve of these regimes; they have little respect for human freedom or democracy, but they certainly exist and will continue to exist with or without diplomatic relations with us. In the meantime, we may help our job situation and our balance of trade with these countries by opening up diplomatic relations with at least some of them. I see nothing wrong with having a discussion on the extension of our diplomatic relations. I know that in foreign policy heretofore the whole content of the debate was related to who had the last sherry at the last embassy reception in which foreign capital. That may be an over-generalisation, but Deputy Burke will recall those stirring debates on such topics over many years.
The smaller the country the more essential is an adequate foreign service. A powerful country with a strong home market can afford to ignore the eddies of international opinion. It can afford to ignore the sensitivities of its neighbours, can afford to miss opportunities, but not a small country. Ideally, we should try to have a diplomatic presence in all the major countries, always attempting to improve our trading position. In our straitened circumstances, with only a limited amount of money available, more could be done in those countries where we have consular or diplomatic status to involve any Irish people who might be in such countries, private citizens, in the work of the consulate or embassy.
There have been complaints. I read one lately that a British consular office in Belgium, I think, dealt with a request by either a university or a drama group in a matter of Irish cultural interest. The tragedy is that so thin is our diplomatic representation around the world that I suppose British consular offices very often supply matter of Irish interest. We must be more imaginative than the ordinary protocol connected with diplomatic relations would require. In many countries there are Irish graduates or professional people or Irish people in some other capacity who would very willingly give their service gratis in this connection. It should be possible for the embassy or consulate to involve such Irish nationals in the work of the embassy or consulate. It would be of some assistance, I think, to have part-time diplomats who could lecture on matters of Irish interest.
The Minister should look into this. In most European countries and in the United States of America there are Irish professional people who could take on this particular work. It would certainly be some improvement on the British consular office sending out pictures of the Lakes of Killarney when it is really Lough Neagh and describing James Joyce and George Bernard Shaw as British. This would put an end to the cultural pilfering that goes on because we do not have adequate diplomatic representation. I do not suggest that the personnel in our diplomatic service is deficient in any way or unacquainted with Irish culture. I suggest we might even have some economists in our foreign service. Careerists might suggest that this would be doing what the shift workers allege the other ESB operatives have been doing in the last few days, taking away their jobs, but we should have room in our diplomatic service for one or two people from outside the service. The Minister should explore this idea. It may not be a popular idea with those who work their way up the ill-paid ladder of the foreign service, and ill-paid it is. Our diplomats are at a great disadvantage in comparison with their opposite numbers in other embassies and consulates. They do excellent work, the maximum that can be humanly expected from them. I am a bit worried about a possible "Old Boys" network growing up in our foreign service and it would do no harm at all if one or two posts were reserved to meet what Mr. Macmillan in South Africa described as "the wind of change". It is an idea that could be examined.
The Minister devoted a great deal of his speech to the United Nations. If our entry into the EEC becomes a reality possibly so much space will not be devoted to the United Nations in the future since we will have to be more concerned with events in Europe. The disappointing feature is that we do not seem to have taken any decision on the kind of foreign policy we would like to see in that Europe.
It is not sufficient to say that Ireland renders aid to underdeveloped nations through her voluntary agencies. Only the other day I was hearing about a British mission to Nepal where six doctors and 12 nurses have been sent to combat tuberculosis. We have a proud missionary tradition and one would imagine that long before now the State itself would have become involved in providing aid to underdeveloped countries. Youth today is more committed than it was in the selfish days of the Minister's youth and surely the State should assist these young people after university to go abroad and help these underdeveloped countries instead of losing them to some impersonal international body. The world gives no credit for hiding one's light under a bushel and we should examine the question of sending our young people abroad for two or three years to help the underdeveloped countries. We have doctors, engineers, architects and so on who would be only too willing to work abroad. If we have a good name as a non-colonial nation, then let us capitalise on that good name and ensure that the work done by this State on behalf of underdeveloped nations is known and admired. If we cannot send powerful armies to help our friends when they are in trouble we can at least help them in peacetime to combat disease and to spread education. This is the more christian way of helping as against making speeches about peace at international forums like the United Nations. The tragedy of the underdeveloped countries is that the countries with the money which trade with them trade with them to their further degradation and oppression. The help that is given is paltry. We are a small country. We are not fully developed, but we have to some extent a sophisticated structure educationally and we could provide the personnel to help these underdeveloped countries. There would be no strings attached. The State could continue the historic and generous work of the missionaries of the past by ensuring that our young lay people can go out and work for two or three years in the underdeveloped countries.
It seems to me to be an indictment of our so-called Christianity and of the kind of charitable nation we are supposed to be that this has not yet been done and this State has not yet put its hand to the wheel to try to help those less fortunate countries. I hope the Minister will consider this a bit more seriously and come up with certain proposals. It need not cost a great deal. I think we have the young people who are willing to work in these countries for a period of years. All it need cost is the will to set up the organisation and to invoke the aid of these young people. We have been proud of the peace work of Irish soldiers abroad. Equally, we could be proud of the work of Irish youth abroad if human standards in these countries are to be preserved. We have an embassy in India. How much more valuable it would be to have in India also, a country with which we have many historic ties, a group of young people working in some area of need there—in agriculture, in irrigation, in the medical field, in the setting-up of factories. All these capacities are ours. We have only to tap them to send the young people out to help in these areas. We would not be the losers. Our young people would have participated in the most exciting work of this century. If it is a dark century the thing that marks it off from other centuries is that at least it has displayed in some areas, such as the ones I am talking about, a greater compassion between man and man.
I said at the beginning I would not speak for long and I intend to follow that advice given to myself. I am disappointed that the Minister has not given us any information on the kind of political direction he would like to see in Europe. I am disappointed that the Minister gave no indication of the establishment of diplomatic relations with one or other of the East European countries again carefully saying, lest somebody misunderstand us, misinterpret us, and we know that such people, unfortunately, are abroad, that the establishment of such diplomatic relations would not imply approval of these regimes. It would simply mean that we had grown up at least in relation to foreign affairs. I do not believe that a country can be said to have foreign policy where all its embassies, all its contacts, are with what are roughly called the western countries without any diplomatic contact with the East European countries. I suggest that if we do join the EEC it would be ludicrous to think that every one of our so-called partners in the EEC would be enjoying diplomatic relations with East European countries, ourselves alone having none.
I do not think anybody would suggest that any of these countries are in any way soft on communism, that in any way they approve of these regimes, but, obviously, they find that their trade is advanced by having diplomatic relations with these countries. No less a body than the Irish Exporters' Association has called frequently for the establishment of such relations which they imagine would help our trade. Certain sections of the British press would not be pleased. That well known Republican, Mr. Enoch Powell, would not be pleased, but if the worth of our so-called foreign policy is that if the British press does not like what we are doing we must stop, then I suggest it is time we packed up the whole myth of having a foreign policy. I think we should go ahead despite the British newspapers. I think we would gain if not greater activity on the part of those to whom we seek at least greater appreciation of our problems. If Washington knew that we spoke also to Moscow I do not think it would alarm Washington that we were suddenly going Red or anything like that. I do not think it would be suggested that this was happening simply by the ordinary job of setting up diplomatic relations.
I urge also that since Irish foreign policy is simply Anglo-Irish relations writ large, since that relationship has deteriorated very badly ever since the eruption of the Northern tragedy, since it now hangs by the very delicate balance indeed of the Heath initiative, if the internees are not released and political talks take place and the violence becomes intensive, then, quite obviously, on this island we face a bloody kind of doom, certainly a very bad turn of events. I simply say it is disappointing that this Government cannot take one initiative which is open to them and that is to produce a Constitution for the attention of the people of this State which will, to the greatest extent possible, anticipate the provisions of a future all-Ireland Constitution. I repeat that I do not suggest that such a Constitution being passed here would mean that Unionists would from that moment be committed to the idea of a united Ireland. I simply say that it would deprive many people who oppose a united Ireland of the argument that our Constitution includes clauses that are repugnant and that it would limit their civil rights. It has already been announced that Mr. Roibeárd Molloy will go to the country with a referendum in October seeking votes at 18. This is a very non-contentious matter. None of the parties here is likely to oppose that. None of the parties represented here is likely to get many votes at 18. I suggest we should avail of that opportunity in October of presenting a new Constitution to the people.