I move:
That a sum not exceeding £2,484,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take the Estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation together.
Since the foundation of the State Ireland's foreign policy has had three broad concerns—to gain and develop international acceptance of the distinctive national identity of the State; to protect and promote abroad its interests and those of its nationals; and to contribute to the evolution of a peaceful and just world community for the benefit of all mankind. With these concerns in mind foreign policy was pursued under general guidelines which varied the emphasis on specific aspects of policy according to changing circumstances at home and abroad.
The main thrust of foreign policy in the early days of the State was to establish and assert independence within the international community. Circumstances in the Second World War dictated that the survival and integrity of the State be paramount considerations in foreign policy and neutrality in that conflict was an expression of these concerns. In the post-war years when international co-operation in political, economic and social spheres, rapid growth in travel and communication, and the expansion of world trade were dominant factors in relations between states, Irish foreign policy became less single-minded, seeking simultaneously several less clear-cut objectives—the consolidation of the independent position of the State, and the creation of conditions in which Irish interests would be afforded adequate protection and be enabled to prosper. It also sought to contribute to the preservation of world peace both by participating in peace-keeping activities of the United Nations and also by such initiatives as the resolution in favour of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In recent years the international community has moved rapidly towards greater interdependence expressed particularly in the economic sphere. For Ireland the present juncture has been reached with the coincidence of two major and decisive factors which affect the nation as a whole and change the emphasis which must be placed on the main aspects of foreign policy for the future. These are, the evolving situation in Northern Ireland which profoundly alters Ireland's relations with the United Kingdom and influences many other aspects of foreign policy; and the accession to membership of the European Communities from the beginning of this year, which has a major impact on relations with the other eight member states and influences in varying degrees relations with all other states. It is essential, therefore, to reexamine at this time existing general guidelines and to formulate new ones for future foreign policy, to clarify foreign policy objectives and to determine priorities for their attainment.
I, therefore, convened a Conference of Heads of Mission and other senior officials of this Department from 16th to 19th April, 1973, to advise and assist me in this task. Since then I have discussed the main conclusions I have reached with the Government and I now submit to the Dáil the general lines of policy which I propose to follow in the period ahead.
The basic objectives of Irish foreign policy, in the view of the Government, are:
(A) to help maintain world peace and reduce tensions between the super-powers, between blocs, and between states;
(B) to resolve, even on a provisional but open-ended basis, the Northern Ireland problem and to pursue relations with the United Kingdom Government to achieve this purpose;
(C) to contribute to the development of the European Communities along lines compatible with Irish aspirations and to the creation within the Community of a stable democratic and healthy society;
(D) to secure Ireland's economic interests abroad, thus facilitating economic and social progress at home, and particularly to secure our interests in the economic, social and regional policies of the EEC;
(E) to contribute to the Third World in a manner and to an extent that will meet our obligations, satisfy the desire of Irish people to play a constructive role in this sphere, and add to our moral authority in seeking to influence constructively the policies of other developed countries towards the Third World.
First, I will deal with the maintenance of world peace. The basis of all moves to security and economic progress for Ireland as for the whole world is the maintenance of peace and the reduction of suspicion and tension between all states. Failure in this sphere entails failure in all others; there may be no other problems to resolve if world peace is not maintained and nuclear war breaks out.
The role which Ireland can play in this because of its size and resources is necessarily a limited one; nonetheless it can be imaginative and constructive—all the more so as we are not involved in any military alliance and have a voice in important international organisations where our role has been recognised in the past and where we have made useful contributions. These contributions have received all the more recognition because their disinterestedness has been patent.
It is, therefore, proposed that our policy should be to do all in our power to create an atmosphere of understanding and compromise in those international bodies in which Ireland participates. These at the moment are most obviously the Council of Ministers of the European Community, the quarterly meeting on European Political Co-operation of the nine Foreign Ministers, the projected Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the United Nations.
There does exist a climate of détente throughout the world. The major powers seem to be moving, however slowly, towards a measure of accommodation with each other, having finally computed the cost of the Cold War and even of the limited conflicts that have existed since the end of World War II. This development has, perhaps, been stimulated by the growth of tension between the Soviet Union and China which, on the one hand, has encouraged the Soviet Union to seek for improvement in its relationship with the United States, and which, on the other hand, has brought china to seek a closer relationship with Western Europe.
At the same time, it must be recognised that the new balance thus created is not yet a stable one—the world has yet to learn to cope with the more complex interactions between powers and blocs in this new situation. The emergence of China from a long period of isolation, the growing economic power of Japan, as well as the increasing economic power of the European Community itself, are capable of creating fresh strains, unless this new situation is carefully handled—all the more so because some Europeans may be tempted to envisage a role for western Europe as a world military superpower—while others see it playing a less dramatic part in future world relationships.
A product of this re-alignment has been the anxiety of the United States to review its relationship with western Europe, and in particular with the European Community—a desire stimulated by economic as well as political factors. There are signs that in the forthcoming negotiations between the European Community and the United States an attempt may be made by the latter country to draw into the discussion of the economic relationships between these two areas, the question of the defence role of its European allies. The Irish attitude on this question of defence has been one of not wishing to become involved in any pre-existing defence organisation such as NATO or WEU. It seems likely that NATO will remain in existence for the foreseeable future and it would not be profitable to speculate on the emergence of any other form of defence organisation at this time. The Government propose to continue this policy but as occasion arises to make more explicit the distinction that in their view exists between the possible independent European defence body in the more distant future, and the existing alliances that exist between some EEC members and extra-European countries, or non-Community European states some of which are not fully democratic.
The Government believe that Ireland, because of its freedom from defence commitments, is well-fitted to play an active, if necessarily minor, role in bringing about an atmosphere of further détente in the European context. We can, for example, encourage our partners in the Nine in any initiatives that will lessen tension in defence and military matters and we can also discourage ambitions for the emergence of a European military super-power. In pursuing such a policy we must, however, have regard to the importance that many of our partners in the European Community for the present attach to the United States defence link, given that an acceptable and exclusively European defence system is unlikely to emerge for some considerable time to come. We must also recognise the un-wisdom of pressing on our partners initiatives which they, with their very great experience in these matters, may regard as excessive or dangerous for their security. Nevertheless, our position enables us to pursue a policy of openness to non-members of the Community, whether they be the neutral States of Europe, the US or the Third World, or, indeed, the countries of Eastern Europe.
Such a policy can, however, be limited by the range of our existing diplomatic representation which as of now is confined basically to western Europe and North America, with a few significant exceptions. The actual pursuit of a constructive détente policy requires a greater range of contacts with countries from which we are now cut off by the absence of diplomatic representation.
Nevertheless, within the limits currently imposed on us by lack of resources, this Government will seek within the Nine to encourage moves towards improvements in East-West relations, and balanced troop reductions on both sides in central Europe. Greater progress could, we believe, be made in this sphere.
Two separate issues arise for us in relation to eastern Europe. First, the question of our relationship with the Soviet Union, as one of the two world super-powers with whom Ireland, almost alone amongst the countries of the world, has no diplomatic contact. Secondly, our relationship with the countries of eastern Europe which in various ways, and within limits imposed both by the power of the Soviet Union and the ideological rigidity of their systems of government, are seeking to express their own personalities. Our indirect relations with these countries through diplomatic contacts in other capitals are uniformly friendly. The fact that Poland abstained on our application for UN membership, when the Soviet Union took a different view, is worth recalling. Rumania in particular is seeking to establish a greater degree of independence in foreign policy. Yugoslavia as a non-aligned country is also of interest to us.
Moreover, significant trade possibilities exist in a number of these countries, which we have not yet been able to exploit fully. Irish exporters and CTT have found it very difficult to make progress in these markets because of the absence of diplomatic relations with any of them. Both for these reasons, and because of the political importance of preparing for a détente in East-West relations and easing the path for eastern Europe countries, closer contact with a number of them seems desirable. These are matters to which the Government will be turning their attention in the near future.
With respect to the United States of America, there is no immediate prospect of a situation arising in which western Europe would be prepared to, or indeed could with security and assurance, dispense with the US troops now stationed in Europe whose involvement is seen by many western European countries as essential to make the US nuclear deterrent effective in defence of western Europe. Moreover, it must be recognised that, if this relationship ended, the whole of western Europe would face the need for a radical re-appraisal of defence policies, including pressure for a European nuclear deterrent, and an expansion of conventional forces, the inadequacy of which could encourage, and perhaps make inevitable, resort to nuclear weapons for defence against attack.
Such a re-appraisal could pose complications for this country, both in terms of pressure for involvement in any European defence arrangement involving the withdrawal of US troops from Europe and pressure for a multiplication of expenditure on defence, to bring us up to the new and much higher level of European defence expenditure in relation to national output which would then be needed. However, it does not seem likely that we shall be faced with this situation in the foreseeable future.
Our economic situation vis-á-vis the United States is that we need US investment on a large scale in the years ahead. This is at present threatened not only by the proposals contained in the Burke-Hartke Bill but also by the proposals relating to trade and to taxation of US investment abroad recently announced by the US Administration. It is not anticipated that the Burke-Hartke proposals will be adopted by Congress in their present form. The threat to our economic interests is also lessened to some degree by the discretionary nature of the powers contained in the Administration's proposals.
At the same time, we should not rely unduly on having a special position in relation to the United States that would protect us, more than other countries, from the impact of any shift in US policy in matters of this kind. The economic relationship between ourselves and the United States will not be unduly influenced by sentiment.
We must recognise that the United States may, in the forthcoming negotiations with the enlarged EEC, seek to achieve substantial modifications of the Common Agricultural Policy, which could be to the disadvantage of this country. On this matter we shall, no doubt, find ourselves allied with a number of other members of the Community, seeking to achieve agreement between the United States and the Community which, while offering reciprocal benefits to both, will not undermine this Common Agricultural Policy.
At the same time, having thus realistically assessed our relationship with the United States, it must be noted that since an independent United States came into existence two centuries ago, Ireland has had close, friendly and constructive relations with that country, even if mostly at the level of contacts between individual citizens. A common language, certain similarities in legal and political structures, and ties of blood can, perhaps, give Ireland a useful role at certain times in US-Community relations. It is proposed to strive to improve understanding in relations between Ireland and the United States and to initiate action in the informational and cultural areas for this purpose.
In thus briefly reviewing American-Irish relations reference must be made to the recent Kissinger initiative for a new examination of the relationship between the US and Europe. This initiative is currently under examination by the Government, and will, of course, be discussed with our European partners. President Nixon's forthcoming visit to Europe will also be considered. As a member of the European Communities we must now concern ourselves more closely than at any time in the past with policy issues in many parts of the world, issues on which we are called on month by month to express a view in the Council of Ministers of the Community or at meetings of Foreign Ministers of the Nine.
In the Far East the emergence of China has changed the world situation. China's relationship with the Soviet Union has in recent times led it to a re-assessment of its attitude towards Europe. China is now pursuing a policy of rapprochement towards western Europe, and seems to have an active interest in greater European unity. Chinese policies in other parts of the world are reported to have changed in line with this new situation.
The new role of China in relation to Europe, together with its potential importance with respect to trade, will perhaps at some future date cause us to examine the question of our diplomatic relationship with that country. In the meantime, useful contacts can be pursued through our representatives in various capitals, in touch with Chinese diplomats.
The increasing wealth and influence of Japan is a new force in world affairs. Growing Japanese competitiveness may have an adverse effect on the trend towards free trade in GATT. Apart from this aspect, growing Japanese technological expertise and its economic expansion, are creating for it a preeminent position not alone in the Pacific area but also with repercussions extending to Australasia and Latin America. For these reasons Japan is now emerging as a major economic power in the world. It is already of interest to us as a market and as a possible source of new industrial projects and tourism. The opening of a mission in Tokyo reflects this interest.
As for economic relations with India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Pakistan and Singapore, the European Communities have declared their readiness to discuss with these countries the problems that might arise for them in the trade field. India and the Community have agreed to open negotiations for a Commercial Co-operation Agreement. In this context we favour meeting India's wishes as far as possible.
On the Bangladesh issue, we will support the Nine in seeking to induce the three countries immediately concerned to find a solution to their differences in a spirit of generosity and conciliation and with full respect for humanitarian considerations and, of course, their international obligations. The question of humanitarian aid to post-war Vietnam has been discussed among the Nine and the Government will consider what Ireland might usefully do in this matter.
The explosive problem posed by the Middle East is one on which we, like others, will wish to move cautiously. We support the UN resolutions, and sympathise with the plight of the refugees, while being unable to sympathise with some of the forms of protest on their behalf.
Together with the other members of the European Community we shall take any opportunity that may be open to us to assist the countries in the Middle East in finding a peaceful solution to their problems, based on acceptance by all countries concerned of Security Council Resolution No. 242.
In certain parts of the Middle East there are important possibilities for this country of expanding trade and other economic contacts. In view of the growing wealth of a number of these countries and their need for goods and services that we can provide we shall pursue contacts with them which hold promise of considerable advantage to us. We hope and expect that the friendly and constructive relationship which we would wish to establish with these countries will be reciprocated. We would wish to clarify any misunderstandings that may exist there, or elsewhere in the world, about the Northern Ireland problem and about the position of our Government as the only lawful authority in this part of Ireland.
Southern Africa, an area which contains not only the Republic of South Africa and Rhodesia but also the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique, poses a serious problem for the world and particularly for Europe since its problems tend to complicate relations between Africa and certain countries of Western Europe and North America. The European countries have major investments in these territories and considerable trade links. They also have historical and cultural links with them. In some countries of the Nine there are pressure groups which support the regimes now in power. There is also a large group of Irish descent and with Irish connections in the English-speaking countries.
Ireland is strongly opposed to the Apartheid system and seeks an end to colonialism. We are committed by the UN resolutions we have supported to achieve these ends. We are also committed to the maintenance of the blockade of Rhodesia and to independence for Namibia, formerly SouthWest Africa. This policy is in line with our historic position as a nation which has suffered from colonialism and various forms of discrimination; it is also in line with our commitment to human rights and the dignity of the individual. In addition, the continuation of injustice in this area gives rise to increased possibilities of unrest and subversion. Until a settlement of these problems is reached it is difficult for Europe to establish completely satisfactory relations with the Third World. For these reasons it is proposed not alone to carry out fully our UN obligations but also to work for a just solution to these questions in the UN and in the European forums of which we are members. It is not proposed to support guerilla activities in Southern Africa as some other countries have seemed to do.
We are particularly concerned with the question of Namibia and fully support the United Nations position in regard to the termination of the League of Nations mandate exercised in regard to this territory by South Africa.
Ireland will have the task of presiding over the EEC Council of Ministers in the first half of 1975, and hence we shall have an added interest in the African associated and associable states; the renegotiation of the Yaounde and Arusha agreements or alternative trade agreements with these countries will be concluded during this period when we will be in the position of occupying the presidency of the Council of Ministers. We are not at present well-equipped to cope with this major issue, however, due to lack of information on the position of the French African countries. Our resources do not permit us to contemplate establishing diplomatic missions in these countries at an early date but we may have to consider sending an official as a "roving Ambassador" to some of these countries during the next 18 months so as to bring us sufficiently into the picture to enable us to undertake creditably our responsibilities in the first half of 1975 when we shall be presiding at meetings of the Council of Ministers of the Community. I should add that the responsibilities involved in presiding in that position are very considerable. There are, I understand, over 200 committees in the Community for which Ireland would have to provide chairmen at official or ministerial level within that six-month period. This will pose a heavy strain on our resources.
We would be concerned about any aspects of agreements with African or other Third World countries which would have neo-colonial overtones. Some mutual preferential treatment may need to be negotiated to satisfy the requirements of GATT but we should take care to ensure that these are at the same time essentially in the interests of the developing countries concerned.
One aspect of the European relationship with the Third World which we now have to consider is the question of agreements to stabilise commodity prices. Our economic interest may suggest that we should oppose such agreements, but their value to the Third World—far greater than aid—makes it necessary for us to take this aspect into consideration also.
Ireland's position as a nation which has experienced colonialism enables us to understand the feelings of many of these countries better, perhaps, than our EEC partners. While we should not delude ourselves that this gives us a particularly important role, it does suggest that we may be able at times to help to create a more equal relationship between Europe and these countries and we should strive to do so.
Our economic relations with East and Central Africa, and the number of Irish people living there, suggest that diplomatic relations might be opened with that area in the not too distant future.
We recognise that the Continent of Latin America faces special problems in trying to secure orderly economic development, free of external exploitation, on a democratic basis. The association arrangements of the European Community with, principally, African countries pose problems for some countries in Latin America and even in our own case our economic relationship with Latin America has been modified, to the marginal disadvantage of that Continent, by the obligations imposed on us by membership. Within the Community we shall seek to mitigate any unintended ill effects of community policy on Latin America.
We shall also seek to expand our economic relationships with these countries, some of which, such as Brazil, are expanding extremely rapidly and provide potentially important markets. This may involve some extension of our diplomatic representation in that Continent, which is at present limited to an Embassy in the Argentine. We shall in the Government maintain our constructive involvement in international organisations, especially in the UN, OECD and the Council of Europe.
The scope for effective action in the UN may not be as great today as it was a decade and more ago. The UN is nonetheless still important as the only world body in which international issues threatening world peace are regularly discussed on a universal basis. Its powers of action are severely restricted where great power interests are involved but it can contribute significantly in other political issues. We propose to work to enhance its role and to consider in what way it is possible for us, having regard to our own failure so far to implement in domestic legislation certain human rights provisions, to initiate a proposal or proposals for conventions in the human rights field covering areas not yet the subject of international agreement; also whether it is possible to help to establish a "middle" group of countries, comprising the more moderate developing countries and some of the non-colonialist European or Commonwealth countries, so that opinion would not be so unfortunately polarised in the United Nations between the western powers and the Third World countries. We should also continue to support peace-keeping activities, subject to ensuring that lack of UN finance does not leave us to pay a disproportionate financial burden, and subject to availability of our forces.
The OECD continues to have importance for Ireland in key economic, social and technological policy areas —in the annual economic and development reviews, investment in education, the recent science policy confrontation, technician training and so on. As the only international body of the developed market economy countries it has particular significance in the field of development aid and other relations with developing countries. Our policy will be to maintain the level of our involvement with this organisation.
The Council of Europe is seeking a new, or revised, role. We should help it to find its place—concerned with issues too broad to be confined to the EEC, that is to say, the environment, legal reform, culture and education, human rights. The Council of Europe is a useful bridge between the Nine and most of the rest of western Europe. It also provides an additional arena, together with the European Parliament and Interparliamentary Union, for members of the Oireachtas to meet colleagues from other countries.
I turn now to the question of relations with Britain and the Northern Ireland problem. We are now in a period when our relations with the United Kingdom are undergoing considerable change. On the one hand the former bilateral relationship between Ireland and the UK has been radically changed into a part of a much more widespread multilateral relationship between Nine member countries of the Community. On the one hand this emphasises interests held in common by ourselves and the United Kingdom in relation to many aspects of Community policy, especially those involving legal matters, the professions, the relationship of the university to the State, et cetera. On the other hand, within this new and broader framework divergences of economic interest between ourselves and the United Kingdom may become more apparent and, for example, in the field of agricultural policy, our two countries will at times be pursuing notably different policies.
At the same time as our relationship with the United Kingdom is being considerably modified as a result of the enlargement of the European Economic Community to include our two countries as well as Denmark, Anglo-Irish relations are also undergoing a transformation in respect of the Northern Ireland problem. The evolution of British policy in respect of Northern Ireland since early 1972 has created a radically new situation to which we must respond. During the past year there has been a new openness in British thinking—a willingness to facilitate and indeed encourage a rapprochement between North and South in Ireland and a recognition that Britain's best interest lies in finding a solution to the long-standing “Irish Question”. British policy has found its expression in the Green Paper, and more recently in the White Paper. “Northern Ireland Constitution Proposals” of 20th March, 1973. The first action of our Government, within hours of our appointment, was to submit to the UK Government our views on the issues raised by the Green Paper— views which I had the opportunity of reinforcing personally some hours later when I had the opportunity of meeting the British Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath, and the Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas Home.
The Government's reaction to the White Paper was indicated in a statement issued shortly after its publication. We would have wished the White Paper to have contained more explicit references to the policy of the United Kingdom with respect to the establishment of a Council of Ireland, but we accept the genuineness of the UK Government's commitment to the establishment of such a council. Our Government recognises also that it is only on the basis of proposals such as those in the White Paper, designed to secure a reconciliation of the communities in Northern Ireland and a new and more realistic relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic that effective progress can be made towards a solution of this whole problem.
However, as this matter was fully debated yesterday, I do not propose to say more about it at present. It remains, however, a major preoccupation of Irish policy to resolve this issue successfully on the basis of a secure reconciliation and peace with justice.
I turn now to Ireland's role in Europe and our interest in securing the evolution of a democratic, stable and healthy community. There is a need to reassess previous policies in relation to the European Communities. Firstly, it is necessary to ensure that the attitudes and tactics of the pre-accession negotiating phase when we were outside the Communities are adjusted to meet the dynamic situation of membership. Secondly, our membership has coincided with the implementation of the main Treaty policies and we must now decide on the broad lines along which we would wish the Europe of the future to evolve. Without a coherent policy we run the risk of reacting to proposals in a fragmented way to the ultimate detriment of our national and our Community interests.
The full acceptance of our Treaty obligations and of their political objectives is basic to our approach and is not in question. Our immediate concern must be to define our attitude to the question of Community supranationality and the development of the Community institutions and to relate this to the Community's progress towards economic and monetary union and the question of European union.
It is not sufficient at this stage that we should pay lip service to the ultimate evolution of the Community into a European union while at the same time committing ourselves to no specific action with a view to attaining this goal. There are, of course, those who are slow to accept any further evolution of the Community and who believe that the interests of this country are best served by simply concentrating on retaining to the maximum degree possible our national sovereignty in every sphere of Community activity. This approach depends, however, upon a number of assumptions which I believe to be dubious.
Firstly, the idea of concentrating on the retention of maximum national sovereignty, and wishing to have the right of veto in all cases, appears to assume that our interests would best be served by stopping decisions being made rather than in moving to a system that facilitates decisions and prevents their being obstructed by one other country. There do not, however, appear to be grounds for assuming that we are likely on major issues to find ourselves thus isolated and without support. On the contrary, on most of the issues likely to arise and likely to be important to us we will have allies—other members—whose interests coincide with ours and who can be expected to pursue them in alliance with us. It is, in fact, difficult to conceive of any kind of issue that would be likely to arise, of vital interest to this country, in which we would find ourselves in total isolation, and where a veto would be the only protection against the implementation of a policy clearly to our disadvantage. On the other hand, there are areas where we may legitimately fear that another country might exercise a veto on progress that would be clearly in our interest—e.g. a veto on increases in farm prices compensating for general price inflation.
Secondly, given our interest in the preservation of the common agricultural policy, upon which the economic case for Irish membership substantially rests, and given the threat to this system posed by the lack of fixed currency parities, it is arguable that our interests—more, indeed, than those of any other member state—are best served by a rapid movement towards economic and monetary union. But such a union would be surely unacceptable to us as to others, unless its policies were under adequate democratic control— a control which could be exercised only through a re-shaping of the existing institutional system involving a greater supra-national element than exists at present. Failure to introduce such strong democratic control at the Community level could leave an economic and monetary union to be run by central banks—something which no democratic country would find acceptable at home and which this group of democratic countries could not find acceptable within the Community.
Thirdly, it is also arguable that in the absence of a more supra-national system, the large member states will pursue their own interests to the disadvantage of the smaller states and of the Community as a whole. Ireland's interests may, therefore, be better served by bringing the exercise of sovereignty by these countries, if possible, under some kind of restraint, rather than by seeking to retain to the fullest degree the Luxembourg compromise concerning unanimity in decision making.
Again, as a democratic country, we cannot, surely, be content with the very indirect form of democratic control that at present exists within the Community.
The chain of responsibility from the Council of Ministers, through individual Ministers in their Governments, and through these governments to the Parliaments, and through the Parliaments to the people, is, perhaps, too indirect to be democratically effective. Under this system there would always be a temptation for individual governments to evade their own responsibilities by pleading the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers, and it will always be difficult for the Parliaments of member countries to exercise control over the decisions of the Council of Ministers through their own ministerial representative on that Council.
We must also be concerned that there has been an in adequate response by the people of Europe to the Community and its institutions, which to the public appear increasingly remote. This is potentially dangerous. At best, many people in the Community countries are indifferent to the Community and its institutions; at worst, and especially amongst the young, there are disturbing signs of hostility, not unconnected with the remoteness of the Community institutions from democratic control.
There is also the problem under the present system that the European Commission, intended to be a completely independent body, will come under pressure from member governments who are solely responsible for the appointment of members of the Commission. In theory, these appointments are the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers but in practice they have increasingly become, in the case of each individual member of the Commission, the prerogative of the particular member government of the country of which he is a national. There is a danger here of a politicisation of the Commission along national lines—something which Ireland as one of the smaller member states, must be concerned actively to prevent.
Moreover, at a broader level, it must be recognised that the present balance between the institutions of the Community is an imperfect one. The founders of the Community understandably introduced the democratic element gradually in the early stages of its functioning, fearing otherwise undue pressures from vested interests anxious to prevent the dynamic development of the Community during its first ten or 15 years. The Community has, however, now reached a stage where the democratic element can be given greater scope; today it seems clear that increased powers for the European Parliament will be likely to operate to speed up the development of the Community rather than to slow it down.
The conclusions to be drawn from these considerations, in so far as Irish foreign policy is concerned, seem to this Government to be the following:
1. Our long-term interests will be best served by an evolution of the European Community towards a more democratic structure, involving a greater supra-national element in the form of a strengthening of the powers of the European Parliament and, in time, possibly a movement towards the implementation of the qualified majority voting system, perhaps at sub-Council level in the first instance.
2. In the short-term, recognising both the unlikelihood of an early abandonment of the veto in favour of qualified majority voting, and the possible value to us of the veto in the years immediately ahead, we should concentrate our efforts on pressure for increased power for the European Parliament and direct elections to it.
Direct elections to the European Parliament are very desirable in their own right, as being likely to give to that Parliament a much greater authority, and, therefore, to justify transferring to it much greater power. This would also meet the practical problem posed for parliamentary representatives who are sent to the European Parliament from their own national Parliament at present and who, because of their frequent absences abroad, are liable to lose support amongst their own domestic electorate in subsequent national elections. This problem is a particularly acute one for Irish TDs and Senators who are sent to the European Parliament owing to the electoral system in this country which gives to the voter exceptional freedom—unique freedom so far as the other countries in the Community are concerned—to reject one member of a party in favour of another.
The increased powers which we should seek for the European Parliament should include at least the following:
(a) Support for the Commission's proposals for a "second reading procedure" to be introduced concurrently with the second stage of Economic and Monetary Union in 1974. This procedure would apply to proposals for major legislation having general application and would provide that if the Council departed substantially from the Commission's proposal and the opinion of the Parliament, the altered text would have to be resubmitted to the Parliament before being again laid before the council for decision.
(b) Support for the Netherlands' suggestion that when a general renewal of the Commission has to take place, the appointment of members nominated by governments should become effective only when the parliament has pronounced itself in favour or has failed to pronounce itself within a specified period.
(c) Support at the appropriate time for the idea that the parliament should be given greater control over the Community budget.
(d) Full and sympathetic consideration for the proposals which are in the course of preparation as a result of the decisions of the Paris summit on the reinforcement of institutions, having regard also to certain of the suggestions in the Vedel Report, to which Senator Mary Robinson, from this Oireachtas, made a notable contribution.
We believe that it is in our interest, moreover, to seek out other means by which the power of parliament can be increased without risking a slowing down in the evolution of the Community by introducing an excessive number of checks and balances into the system.
Other policies which we should pursue within the Community include:
1. the maintenance of the common agriculture policy and a resistance to any adjustments to it that would undermine its value to Irish farmers;
2. strong pressure for advanced regional and social policies and insistence on the maintenance of the linkage between these policies and the European Monetary Union, as set out in the summit Communiqué;
3. the further enlargement of the Community by the adherence of other democratic European countries to the Rome Treaty at an appropriate time.
In connection with these proposals the Government believe that it is important to have an effective European Community Parliamentary Committee along the lines discussed towards the end of last year between the then Government and Opposition. Such a committee should, we believe, be adequately serviced so that members of the European Parliament may be helped to play an effective part in the interests of this country and in the interests of the development of the Community.
In playing our part in the European Community the Government believe that it would be wrong for this country to confine its activities narrowly to the pursuit of selfish objectives of interest to Ireland only. The Community was not conceived in this narrow sense; it has not operated in such a narrow way; and we would do justice neither to ourselves nor to the Community were we to adopt such an approach.
On the contrary, it should be, and will be, the aim of our Government to make a constructive and positive contribution to the evolution of the Community and to seek out ways of helping its institutions to be more effective in working in the interests of the Community as a whole and not merely in the interests of this country. The way in which the European Community develops will in the decades ahead determine the way in which our society in this country develops. If we do not work constructively, and in alliance with like-minded people in the other countries of the Community, to create at Community level a healthy democratic society throughout the Community, we cannot expect that our society, evolving within a Community context, will develop along the lines we should like to see.
This means that we must enlarge our horizons and be prepared to take a lead where in the past we have been content too modestly to follow. To this end we should try to mobilise the intellectual energies of our people, to stimulate thought on how this Community can increasingly become one in which the peoples of Europe will be proud to participate and to which they will feel a genuine loyalty deriving from their recognition of the contribution the Community can make to their own individual lives.
We should, of course, have no illusions that our contribution can be more than a modest one, for we are a small country with limited resources. But, equally, we should not be too hesitant about endeavouring to contribute to its development. In the 1920s this small country made the major contribution to the evolution of the Commonwealth from a group of self-governing units of the British Empire into full sovereign states. This past achievement should inspire us in our work within the Community. This Government will be guided by this inspiration.
In so far as relations with other European States are concerned it must be remembered continually that Europe means more than the Community. There is a danger that the Community may be tempted to forget this at times, and may tend to adopt an exclusive and even at times an insufficiently sympathetic attitude to the remaining countries of the Continent. This would be a short-sighted and counter-productive attitude.
With some of these other countries we have had a close identity of views on many matters of common interest. It is proposed to maintain and improve these links where possible. In particular it is considered important that in the Community our efforts should be to ensure at all times the maximum co-operation and understanding with these other countries and to obviate causes of friction. In particular, Norway would appear to merit special consideration and we will consider what can be done to make the idea of Community membership more attractive to her since Norway's decision not to join the Community represented a great loss for the Nine collectively and individually.
I turn now to the question of Ireland's economic interests. Economic interests abroad are immediately and directly affected by EEC policies as well as being influenced by developments in the climate for trade and investment in the major markets outside the Community.
As I have already mentioned, Ireland's main economic interest in joining the European Communities was the common agricultural policy, the aim of which is to maintain farmers' incomes at a level comparable to those pertaining within the industrial sector. Having regard to the importance of agricultural exports to the Irish economy, we should be concerned to ensure the maintenance of the Communities' present pricing policy in relation to agricultural produce, particularly the maintenance of a unified market coupled with Community preference. The fact that a high price policy tends to benefit the large and more efficient producer is a factor which will need to be counteracted by appropriate regionally orientated measures such as the incentives towards hill farming recently agreed by the Councils and, perhaps, by other suitable measures in the future as well.
The interaction of proposed common Community policies for the regions in the social field and for the future development of the CAP with movements towards economic and monetary union, EMU, must be borne in mind if a co-ordinated assessment of the national interest is to be arrived at. This is of particular importance having regard to the increased competition which domestic industry will face in conditions of complete free trade at the end of the transitional period.
Agreements between the Community and third countries negotiated in accordance with the common commercial policy now govern Ireland's foreign trade outside the Nine. The implementation of the CCP and the negotiating directives given to the Commission can have consequences for Ireland's trade prospects and require continuing examination. Without being too rigid, our general interest would be to ensure that in the forthcoming GATT multilateral trade negotiations no concessions are made by the Communities, particularly in relation to agricultural produce, which would have a detrimental effect on any area of the Irish economy. While efforts to diversify exports, particularly to our new partners in the Communities, in order to reduce dependence on the British market will be continued, it seems clear that the direction of our major trading flows will remain basically unchanged in the immediate future. In this context, efforts to maintain and expand exports to the United States, Canada and Australia, to open up new markets in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and to acquire further knowledge of potential markets elsewhere, acquire particular significance.
Policy in respect of the promotion of foreign earnings has been to give the highest level of assistance to the State-sponsored bodies, such as Córas Tráchtála, the Industrial Development Authority, Bord Fáilte and Aer Lingus, in their activities abroad so that maximum benefits will accrue from the utilisation of the limited State resources available for this purpose. Let me say here that I was impressed, when we had this foreign policy conference, with the close co-operation and the warm relationship that clearly existed between the officers of my Department and those of the State bodies working effectively abroad in a common way in the interests of and to the benefit of this country. Assistance to other export interests is also given high priority. It is proposed to continue this policy in the future.
Relations between Ireland and the countries of the broad geographical area of Africa, Asia and Latin America and consisting of some 96 countries known as the Third World, are developing on the basis of traditional Irish interests in those areas, cultural links with some of them, and growing trade interests in particular cases. Politically, the countries of these regions exercise an influence on Ireland and the European Communities in two major respects—the essential resources for the developed world which they control, and the demands for assistance which, as poorer regions with, in many cases, a history of colonial and neo-colonial oppression and exploitation, they can justly make upon the developed world.
In so far as their control of resources influences regional and world peace, it is all the more important that our foreign policy be directed towards measures which promote harmony and avoid the exacerbation of differences between developing countries themselves or between developing and developed countries. Within this broad and continuing definition of policy, I shall adopt attitudes on particular issues which conform to this general line as closely as circumstances permit in each case. Control of resources is also an economic and trade issue which is in some cases of vital concern to Ireland, to the European Communities or to the developed countries as a whole, and this aspect will also be given appropriate priority in the annunciation of policy in individual cases.
The demands of the developing countries for assistance from the developed world are concerned with questions of trade and questions of aid. Policy in regard to trade is now a matter for the EEC Commission and the Council where decisions are taken by Ireland with the other eight member states. In general terms, the trade arrangements negotiated or to be negotiated by the Community with developing countries will include commodity agreements and the affording of preferential treatment in the market of the Community for other products of the Third World. Apart from exceptional cases where serious injury would be caused to major Irish economic interests, our foreign policy will support an outward-looking, progressive and non-discriminatory attitude by the Community in such trade matters.
General policy in regard to aid is still a matter for final determination, however, by individual governments although an approach to BBC coordination in this sphere is developing following the Paris Summit which invited the institutions of the Community and member states to adopt, progressively, an overall policy on development co-operation with developing countries on a world-wide scale. Such an overall policy is to include the commodity and preferential trade arrangements referred to in the preceding paragraph, increases in the volume of financial aid and improvements in the terms for aid. Those provisions will not detract from the advantages enjoyed by certain states with which the Community have special relations such as the Association Agreements with Turkey and the Yaoundé States. Ireland will be obliged to contribute to the financial provisions of these agreements in due course or to new agreements which may be negotiated to include the Arusha States or other Commonwealth countries after 1975.
Our foreign policy in this regard will remain flexible with a view to having the Community promote aid to developing countries on the most favourable and non-discriminatory terms possible while permitting developing countries the greatest margin of freedom to determine for themselves the form of agreements they wish with the Community.
Apart from aid obligations arising out of Ireland's membership of the European Communities, there is need for a real and substantial improvement in the level of Irish Government aid to developing countries. The commitment of the Government of this country to aid poorer countries in the international community has long been accepted in principle but has operated in practice on an unplanned basis at a relatively low level. I am being generous in using the word "relatively". The forward commitment by Governments in the past was to increase aid as resources permit but did not provide for an overall forward programme for implementation. This is now a quite inadequate basis on which to pursue policies in relation to the Third World either nationally or as a member of the European Communities.
For these reasons the Government propose to increase very substantially this year the sum provided for official development aid and thereafter to increase the annual level of this assistance in absolute terms and as a percentage of our GNP in a planned manner over a period of years. We propose also that, within the resources so provided, a comprehensive and coherent programme be developed which will show balanced growth in its various sectors and will be consistent with achieving the greatest benefit for developing countries, particularly in fields where Ireland has a special interest or competence. We propose that adequate implementation machinery be established for regular and comprehensive review of the programme in the light of performance by other developed countries, in the light of the commitments arising out of EEC membership and in the light of other international developments.
A comprehensive and coherent aid programme will, of course, take time to develop fully but I will seek to have policy directed in some measure towards areas, perhaps for bilateral projects, which show tangible results both to the recipients and to the Irish public whose goodwill is undoubted but who may not otherwise, unless we adopt this policy, fully appreciate the extent of the Government's commitments and activities. A proposal for a central agency to sponsor Irish persons wishing to serve on economic and social development projects in developing countries has been approved in principle by the Government and the arrangements for this scheme are at present being discussed with representatives of voluntary organisations and I shall be making a submission to the Government on this matter shortly. I hope, within a matter of weeks, to have such an agency established and operating, adequately financed.
I turn now, in conclusion, to the implications of what I have said about the implementation of policy. The new obligations undertaken by Ireland as a member of the EEC involving us in policy decisions in respect of a whole range of world problems hitherto beyond our sphere of interest, and the problems posed by the development of the EEC itself and the need to ensure adequate liaison between the Community and this country, require increased resources. Existing staff at home are seriously overstretched, and many desirable and important activities have had to be skimped for lack of manpower. An effective Irish presence abroad, promoting and defending our interests, requires adequate staff to represent us at an ever-growing number of conferences, committees, and other meetings. It requires adequate staff to prepare the Irish position for such occasions; and, above all, adequate staff to consider and formulate proposals for longer-term developments in foreign policy—a task which has imposed excessive strain for some time past due to constant pressure of urgent matters.
We also need to ensure that we are sufficiently widely represented abroad to secure that we are kept in touch with the thinking of other governments with which we have important political and economic relations, and to cover the range of Irish interests involved in many countries.
For some time it has also been evident that there is a need to strengthen Irish Government press and information services abroad. This has now become particularly important because of the serious interests which we have at stake internationally as EEC members, and because of developments of recent years in relation to the North.
Proposals have been formulated to strengthen and improve the Department's press and information work on a coherent and organised basis. It is felt that an adequate structure within the framework of the Department is necessary irrespective of other measures, if any, which might be thought advisable at particular times; and that until and unless the Department's services were strengthened in this way, temporary and costly expedients would continue to be called for at times of crises—despite the fact that these temporary measures have proved less than effective in the past. Accordingly and as a priority it is proposed to assign an additional head of staff for information work to our missions in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the United States.
This, then, is, in general outline, the policy that this Government will pursue in their relationships with other states and international organisations in the years ahead. I have felt it proper to take this opportunity to speak at some length on this subject, rather than to pursue this year the customary practice of reviewing in some detail the work of the Department during the past year.
It would be remiss of me, however, not to tell the House and the country that it owes a considerable debt to the Department of Foreign Affairs both for the manner in which their staff have worked to bring this country into full membership of the European Community and to represent it abroad with skill and distinction. The Department are lacking in resources because their development was for a long time unduly restricted, leaving them quite inadequately equipped to cope with the enormous expansion of work imposed on them both by preparation for entry to the European Economic Comunity and also by the developments in Anglo-Irish relations brought about by the events in Northern Ireland since 1969. If these inadequacies in staff and other resources can be overcome reasonably rapidly, the Department of Foreign Affairs will, I can assure the House, serve the country well and help it to achieve those of the national objectives that depend upon action in the external forum.
I commend these Estimates to the House.
