asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs why Ireland abstained in the recent vote in the United Nations General Assembly on the Security Council to impose a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa and to ban all military co-operation with the South African Government.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - UN Vote Abstention.
19.
Because of unsubstantiated allegations against certain friendly countries, contained in the preamble of this year's resolution, we abstained on this vote while reaffirming our support for the general objectives of the resolution.
The Government have consistently supported and observed the Security Council resolutions calling for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. In 1974, Ireland voted in favour of a United Nations resolution which called upon the Security Council to impose a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. Government policy has not changed since then.
The Minister will recognise that our representative in explaining that vote did not make any reference to the unsubstantiated allegations he has referred to now and I have a copy of the record here before me. Will the Minister tell me if there has not been an increasing trend on our part in the UN recently to abstain on matters of fundamental principle? For instance, we abstained on the resolution on the economic collaboration with South Africa, on the programme of action against apartheid and now we are abstaining on the resolution calling for a military arms embargo against South Africa when there is evidence to suggest that the terrible murders at Soweto were committed by people using weapons supplied by these people. Is that the position our Government are taking up? The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, have been known——
Order. This is Question Time. Brief questions, please.
If the Deputy has any information in his possession as to the source of arms used in Soweto, I should be grateful for it because no information has come to my attention suggesting that any arms imported from these countries mentioned here have been used internally. I am not excluding the possibility; I am only saying quite sincerely that if the Deputy has any information to that effect I should be grateful for it.
For the first time this year's resolution contained references to particular countries as exporting arms to South Africa. In one instance in particular, the government in question, a friendly government, made representations to us saying that this was false. That government's statement has been circulated by the anti-apartheid committee of the United Nations in New York without comment. This would seem to suggest acceptance of the fact that the allegation made in the preamble to the resolution against that country was incorrect. When such a false allegation is made against a friendly country, while we support the general tenor of the resolution, it would be inappropriate for us to vote for it and we marked our disapprobation of what appeared to be an incorrect allegation by abstaining.
Let me add in the general issues the Deputy raised on the pattern of our voting that there has been a growing tendency to introduce into resolutions on matters of principle with which we are deeply concerned, material which is of such a character as to make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for us to support the resolution. This includes, for example, the case of the introduction into the resolutions about racism of references to Zionism. The tendency is to elaborate resolutions year by year in a form which introduces matter which we cannot accept as being factually correct or that could be supported by us. This means that there are a number of resolutions which we would have been happy to support in the past, and which we will support again if they are in the same form as they used to be, but there may be resolutions in respect of which we may have to abstain or in certain cases even to vote against. There is no change in our policy; there is a change in the form of resolutions.
I can assure the Deputy that in every single instance the question of our voting pattern is carefully scrutinised and this often has to be done, because resolutions are submitted with 24 hours' notice, at very great speed and at very curious hours of the day and the night when one is in very curious places in order to make the best decision possible. The guiding principle throughout is that we stand by the principles we have always stood by in relation to matter of this kind. If the resolution changes its form and unacceptable matter is introduced, it can and sometimes does become necessary for us to change our vote in those circumstances.
Why did our representative not make that reference? The Minister is now trying to excuse an outrageous decision on our part, when our representative explaining his vote, did not make any reference to unsubstantiated allegations. The Minister is now trying after the event to justify the unsubstantiated allegations——
The Deputy is not asking a question.
If the Minister is allowed to make a long statement on a matter of principle——
The Deputy may not debate this. He may only ask a question.
Is the Minister satisfied that our consistent policy, as he calls it, is now effectively expressed by reference to our abstentions on matters of such fundamental principle when these emerging countries are looking to us as a guardian of fundamental rights? Finally, and I want a precise answer on this, does this represent our official policy that instead of supporting resolutions of this kind the best way to remove apartheid would be through a process of peaceful change involving all the people of South Africa? Is that the position our Government are taking?
This is a very long question tending towards debate and debate is not in order.
The best way to resolve international and domestic disputes is by peaceful change. I should be surprised if the Deputy and his party held a different viewpoint on that issue. With regard to the explanation of the vote, if it did not contain a reference to this as the reason, it should have done so. That was an error and I accept it.
A final question.
A brief question, please Deputy.
Is the Minister suggesting that the actions which took place in Soweto and other townships are processes of peaceful change? Where they occur, should we not consistently, clearly and courageously, like the Danish Government, take the view the Minister might have taken in Opposition a few years ago?
I hold the same views about events in Soweto and about the whole South African situation, but when a resolution is formulated in terms which are changed and which involve statements that are incorrect about friendly countries, we have to take account of that. We would be untrue to ourselves to vote in favour of a false statement even about an unfriendly country, never mind a friendly one.
Question No. 20.
One final question.
I have allowed the Deputy a great deal of latitude.
Is this the first time that the preamble to the motion——
I have called the next question. Question No. 20.
The preamble to the motions is vital and we are constantly having to modify or consider our votes in relation to the wording of the preamble.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Question No. 20.