asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a report (details supplied) to the effect that Ireland belonged to the minority supporting the validity of South Africa's presence in the United Nations General Assembly; if this report is correct; and, if so, if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - South Africa's Membership of UN.
112.
I have seen the report to which the Deputy refers.
The facts are that at the current session of the General Assembly a proposal to reject the credentials of South Africa was carried by 72 votes to 37, with 13 abstentions. Ireland voted against the proposal.
Ireland's vote did not, of course, imply any approval whatsoever of the policies pursued by South Africa, since the question at issue was solely whether the credentials of the South African delegation had been validly issued by the competent South African authority in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.
While the question of South Africa's membership of the United Nations Organisation was not at issue in the vote, I am satisfied that the expulsion of South Africa from that organisation would not help to bring about the change in South African policies which we all in this House would desire. Our attitude is that in regard to its apartheid policies, South Africa should continue to be directly exposed to the pressure of world opinion in the United Nations forum. Ireland's abhorrence of apartheid has been repeatedly stated in the United Nations, the most recent occasion being my address to the General Assembly on 24th September last. It is not necessary to re-state it here.
Finally, there are two points I would like to add: first, Ireland's acceptance of a country's right to membership of the United Nations does not imply that we necessarily approve of the regime in control of that State; and second, the question of South Africa's credentials arose previously at the General Assembly in 1970, 1971 and 1972, when Ireland's attitude was the same in each case.
Can we expect the Minister to express equally strong and clear views on Ireland's abhorrence of the restrictions on individual liberties in Russia and in Czechoslovakia and other countries which have come under the immediate control of Russia?
I do not think there is any doubt about the Government's views and my own views on this matter. As I stated in a recent address to the anti-apartheid movement here, there is a particular dimension to apartheid which differentiates it from other forms of repression in that it is associated with something given to the individual by God: his race, his colour, which he cannot change. It is not associated with his religion or his politics, or anything else. It is inherent in himself and, as I said on that occasion, in that way apartheid is a blasphemy against God Himself. In that respect, it is more fundamental than other forms of repression. Therefore, it is something in respect of which one takes a particular position while, at the same time, our attitude to any form of repression or any intrusions on liberty in any part of the world, is known. There are many regimes, some of which we have associations with, some of which we have diplomatic relations with, and some of which we have not, where we do not find the conditions of freedom such as we would find acceptable. Nonetheless, the fact that we have diplomatic relations with countries according to normal protocol does not involve any expression of approval for those countries or those regimes.
Accepting what the Minister has said about there being a particular dimension to apartheid, does the Minister not accept that there are specific and characteristic dimensions to oppression in almost every part of the world in which it exists and that this imposes on us an obligation to protest against it as widely and as constantly as possible.
I think we can distinguish here. The degree of repression is one thing and the practice of apartheid is another. You could well have a situation where you might have apartheid practised in a way that did not involve shooting people or locking people up. There might not be those acts of repression and that regime in terms of acts of repression might be less repressive than another that did not practice apartheid. Apartheid itself as a concept, as a practice, has this dimension which makes it uniquely reprehensible and therefore distinguishable. There may be other regimes which in their actions may be more repressive than some which practice apartheid.
The Minister's distinction would not involve——
We cannot have a discussion on this matter. Question No. 113.
We can expect statements about it from the Minister from time to time?
Yes, indeed, and I might refer the Deputy to what I said in Helsinki.
If another ploughing championship is held here, will the Government object to a Russian ploughing team coming here?
Question No. 113.