I move:
That a sum not exceeding £9,042,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain sevices 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 and also (as agreed with the Whips) the Eleventh and Twelfth Reports on Developments in the European Community. These reports deal with developments in the Community during the period 1 July 1977 to 30 June 1978. In the course of my Estimates speech I will deal with significant developments in the Community which are covered by these reports.
A year ago when I was presenting the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs for the first time I set out some general views on our foreign relations and on the aims and objectives which I believe the Department of Foreign Affairs should seek to pursue. It is not necessary for me, therefore, to repeat these on this occasion. I shall instead report on the considerable foreign policy developments since then and indicate the major areas of current interest and importance for us.
When adverting last year to the main issues of continuing concern to us I stated that the first of these was Northern Ireland. The reconciliation and coming together of all the people of Ireland is a fundamental principle of Government policy. This remains a dominant concern for my Department, not only as the major element in our relations with Britain but also as a significant element in our policies within the EEC and in relations with many other countries, in particular the United States.
During the past year there has been some small progress in Northern Ireland and between the two parts of the island. As a result of our initiatives, there is now more active north-south economic co-operation than there has been for many years. There is also a better understanding of Irish Government policy on Northern Ireland, both within Ireland and abroad. However, as against these relatively modest gains must be set the continuing contrast between an ever rising toll of death and destruction and the lack of any progress on the political front. In the past year more than 80 people have died as a result of political violence in Northern Ireland. At the end of the period, the political parties seem to be as far apart as they were at the beginning.
Political discussions in Northern Ireland in recent months have been dominated by the lead-up to the recent British general election. In fact, the shadow of that election was cast much further back. Since our Government came to power in July 1977, the British Government had been in an unstable position and the political parties in Northern Ireland have been unwilling to commit themselves to any political innovation because they realised that the British Government would not necessarily be in a position to deliver on any promises that they made. This has caused a prolonged period of expensive frustration—expensive not only in financial terms but also in terms of death, damaged lives and foregone opportunities.
During this period, British policy towards Northern Ireland appears to have been essentially one of containment. It became obvious at an early stage that Northern politicians were not prepared to go along with the proposal put forward in December 1977 for a local administration based on a committee system but no further initiative was taken by the British Government to seek a way forward out of the deadlock.
I welcome the fact that the recent British general election resulted in a Government with a majority sufficient for a period of stable and authoritative rule. It is, of course, as yet too soon to judge how this new authority will be used, and the statement of British Government policy at the opening of the new Westminster Parliament, in common with the election manifestos of the two major British political parties, has shown as yet no sign of new initiatives or new thinking. However, the British Prime Minister indicated to the Taoiseach on 10 May that she would like time to allow the new British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and indeed Mrs. Thatcher herself also to get a fuller knowledge of the whole Northern Ireland situation. This was a reasonable suggestion on the part of an incoming government and we look forward to continuing contact between the two Government. We have taken note of the positive elements in the speech made yesterday in Belfast by Mr. Atkins. From reports of this speech the British Government seem to have embarked on a full examination of the economic position in Northern Ireland and to be conscious of the sensitivity of the political situation which requires a cautious step-by-step approach.
The experience of 50 years of Stormont rule and indeed of the subsequent years of direct rule do not suggest that a permanent solution to the North's problems will be found within the existing structures. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is widespread support in Northern Ireland as well as here and in Britain for the idea of a restored devolved government in Northern Ireland which both parts of the community there could support. To attain acceptable devolved structures it is clear that a more dynamic political initiative than we have seen in recent years will be necessary and there can be no hope of any progress simply by putting forward theoretical structures and leaving it to the political parties in Northern Ireland to determine whether what is on offer is acceptable.
Political initiative by a British government implies the existence of a long-term view of British policy and intentions and a single-minded effort to achieve these intentions. If the aim is to make progress on an acceptable devolved administration, no doubts must remain about the possibility of such alternatives as increased powers for local government. Unfortunately, if a choice is offered between, for example, an acceptable form of devolved administration and the continuation of the present drift towards the further integration of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, such a choice will give rise to the emergence of the "not an inch" mentality that has bedevilled Northern Ireland politics over the years.
It would be less than candid of me to hide my belief that the ambivalence and drift which marked the Northern Ireland policy in recent years has made the task of reconciliation and reconstruction more difficult. We hope that the new British Parliament will deal in a forthright and even-handed fashion with the political parties and the two communities in Northern Ireland. We shall continue to argue this point of view in our contacts with the British Government and we certainly hope that they will carefully consider our approach. The question is no longer "What concessions can sway a bloc of MPs to vote this way or that in a division?" but rather "Where will Northern Ireland stand in 20 years' time and what then will be the relationship between the two parts of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain?" All the political parties here have availed of the hiatus which ensued in Northern Ireland, after the failure of the convention, to carry through a comprehensive analysis of their policies and the means to achieve them.
This process will remain a priority for the Government in our commitment to eradicate the causes of violence in Northern Ireland and to lay the foundation for a better future for all in Ireland in the new economic and political realities of today's world. The Government recognise that continuing economic progress at home and international respect and recognition are key elements in these developments. It is now incumbent on the major British parties, faced with the failures of their policies of the past ten years and indeed since Partition, to undertake a similarly fundamental re-examination of their policies and hopes for the future of Northern Ireland. Such a fundamental re-examination would promote rather than compromise progress towards peace and prosperity in Ireland and harmonious relationships between the British and Irish Governments.
The policy of this Government has been set out in various documents and speeches over the years and there is no need for me to repeat it here in detail. I should like, however, to make one point clear. When we speak of a coming together of the Irish people we are openly declaring what we consider to be the best and in our opinion the only stable solution for the troubles of this island. We have disavowed violence as a means of attempting to achieve this objective. The only kind of coming together which interests us is one based on the reconciliation and freedom of choice of all the communities on the island. Accordingly, in no sense do we suggest that the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland can be compelled or pressurised any more than they can be terrorised into accepting our way of thinking.
It is part of the tradition of British pragmatism that policy should deal with the short- and-medium term and that long-term aspirations can be left to look after themselves. From the point of view of the minority community in Northern Ireland, this is, of course, a less than even-handed approach as the long-term aspirations of one community have been an actuality since 1922 while, for much of the period, the aspiration of the other was regarded as seditious. While the short- and medium-terms are the areas in which policy can operate, I think these must be aimed at a just and stable long-term solution. Accordingly, I welcome the recognition given in his first public statement on Northern Ireland by the new Secretary of State, Mr. Humphrey Atkins, to the legitimacy of a number of political aspirations which are sincerely held in Northern Ireland and democratically and peacefully expressed.
In the coming months, we hope to resume our dialogue with the British Government at all levels and to continue our contacts with political leaders in Northern Ireland. I hope, within those months, to have the opportunity of meeting the new Secretary of State of Northern Ireland. In this context, I believe that it is in the interests of both parts of this island, irrespective of our long-term ambitions, that we and the leaders of the Northern Ireland Unionist parties should meet regularly and discuss our differences. I have no wish to compromise political leaders with their constituencies nor any desire to take improper advantage of them from such contacts. I believe, however, that peace in Northern Ireland can only result from reconciliation and that full reconciliation will be possible only when the bitterness has been taken out of public exchanges between politicians with different long-term aspirations. Accordingly, I would suggest that in the coming months and years all our interests would be better served by more openness and more confidence in our relations, through continued personal contacts.
While the Border which was drawn in Ireland is not based on any visible physical features the political and economic consequences of the divisions it imposed have been a major burden for all. The economic underdevelopment of the regions contiguous to the Border on both sides have been a consequence of, among other factors, a lack of common infrastructural and economic development. The cross-Border economic projects to which I will return are aimed at correcting this position. Another immediate problem has been the crushing burden of the costs of Border security. I would like to pay a special tribute to our security forces for their ever vigilant and effective Border duty and surveillance. A Border that runs through homes, villages and communities can never, of course, be sealed off, as if it were a natural river or mountain frontier, much less a Berlin Wall. This would not appear to be taken into account in some of the criticisms that have been made from time to time by sources in Britain and Northern Ireland about the security consequences of an unnatural division they have promoted.
However, to the extent that it is humanly possible, our Garda Síochána, supported by our Army, will continue to co-operate as much as possible with the RUC in the fight against violence. Since such co-operation can only be based on mutual respect it is essential that more determined efforts be made to end abuses of the kind most recently outlined in the Bennett report and subsequent disclosures and to remove from the RUC those responsible for such abuses. Such mistreatment is not a reason for the indictment of the RUC as a whole nor should it be allowed to obscure the significant improvements that have been made in that force in recent years. One of the worst aspects of these abuses is the re-enforcement of the alienation of the police force from a significant minority. This alienation will continue and may even tend to increase until there is confidence that those suspected of terrorist offences are not being illtreated during interrogation. The problem is that until such abuses are seen to have been eliminated there can be no hope in a divided society of acceptance by that society as a whole of the existing police structures.
This Government have never acknowledged political status or special category for those convicted of crimes of terrorist violence. The special category status accorded to some such prisoners and not to others in the North of Ireland has been one of the factors of the H Block protest which has been given widespread publicity throughout the world. The Government and the overwhelming majority of the Irish people reject the idea that the ideals which violent men profess can justify murder and assault and robbing and therefore we cannot accept their claim for special treatment as it would be tantamount to justifying their horrific actions.
Is there then a claim for these prisoners based on humanitarian grounds? The most obnoxious part of their conditions, the dirt in which they live and their isolation, are self-inflicted. Nonetheless, I believe—and I have expressed this belief on a number of occasions to the former Secretary of State—that it may be possible to remove some of the grievances of the prisoners and thereby to improve their conditions without compromising the views that I have expressed.
It is with reluctance that I turn again to the misunderstandings which appear to persist on the problem of extradition. In his speech "No Haven for Terrorists" on 29 April 1978 the Taoiseach referred to "the barrage of envenomed criticism" to which Ireland had been subjected on this issue. In some quarters, this criticism has continued in the past year although the Taoiseach pointed out that no single application for the use of the extra-territorial provisions of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act had been made to the authorities here since it entered into force on 1 June 1976. Another year has passed without any such application being made.
The Taoiseach also referred to the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which under an adapted section 9, has permitted since December 1973 the bringing to trial in this jurisdiction of persons suspected of complicity outside the jurisdiction in the crimes of murder and manslaughter. Again, a further year has passed without any application to the authorities here to instigate a prosecution. The claim is made again and again that non-extradition is allowing criminals to escape responsibility for their crimes. But, in all the period covered by the legislation to which I have referred, there has been only one extradition application in respect of a person located within this jurisdiction where the application related to a terrorist crime committed in Northern Ireland in the relevant period and in that case the accused person in question returned voluntarily to the North.
The Government have continued to participate with their partners in the European Community in discussions aimed at improving the arrangements obtaining among the member states on the prosecution of fugitive offenders and other aspects of co-operation in criminal matters. It is hoped that an announcement will be made shortly on an agreement of the Nine on the application among them of the Council of Europe Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism on the basis of the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, the choice between trial in the area where the suspect was arrested or extradition to the area of original jurisdiction. The new agreement among the Nine will apply between the member states arrangements analogous to those which we have applied in our relations with Britain for some years past. It is sometimes suggested in Britain that we have come under pressure in Europe to modify our position. Not only has there not been any such pressure, or indeed criticism of our position, but it is now envisaged that the principle of aut dedere aut judicare will now be applied generally among member states.
The Government attach particular importance in the context of their Northern Ireland policy to the promotion and development of cross-Border economic co-operation. Greater contact at all levels in the economic, commercial and social spheres can only lead to a fuller understanding of our common interests in these areas and of the benefits of genuine co-operation. At a time when the European Communities are entering a new and dynamic phase—in which process Ireland will have a particularly important part to play over the next six months—the opportunities for, and the benefits from, co-operation were never so great. The challenges posed by EMS, a directly-elected European Parliament, enlargement and the consequent need to review and reshape Community policies will require a heightened involvement in the affairs of the Community. For our part we in this part of the island have already shown how a smaller member state fully involved at every level in the decision-making processes of the Communities can work to ensure that Community policies reflect its needs and potential.
Unfortunately Northern Ireland has not been so well-placed. Obliged to deal with Brussels at one remove, excluded from pressing her interests except in a United Kingdom context, which must needs reflect a much broader perspective, Northern Ireland has been unable to realise the full potential of Community membership. The North has also been compromised by the attitude of the British Government to the EEC in recent times. While we are committed to strengthening and developing the policies of the Community the last British Government sometimes seemed to take the opposite view. In recent informal discussions in France, Lord Carrington assured my European colleagues and myself that the new administration would adopt a much more positive approach to Europe and indeed that it would be the priority area of his ministerial responsibility.
I look forward to clear signs of this commitment in action and, so far as it impinges on the North of Ireland, a realistic promotion in common with us of the agricultural, industrial and regional advancement of the area.
Northern Ireland's inability to realise the full potential of Community membership is no reflection on the industry, application and adaptability of the North's working men and women. It indicates rather that prosperity and security for all our people, South as well as North, can be best secured in the context of political structures which better reflect our common interests, be they in agriculture, industry or regional development. I am convinced on the basis of the information available to me that our message in this regard—which not so long ago would have been ridiculed by many in the North—is, if not yet always accepted, being digested and assessed with considerable interest throughout Northern Ireland.
We have at the same time been making considerable progress with the various economic studies which are being carried out with EEC assistance along the Border. In the Derry-Donegal area we are already moving ahead with a vigorous programme of implementation of the recommendations in the communications study for that area which was completed in December 1977. We are examining at present the potential of the newly-established non-quota section of the Regional Fund as a vehicle for increasing the flow of Community development assistance into this and other Border areas.
In the Erne catchment there is now under way a study of the development potential of that area with particular reference to tourism and the improvement of land resources through arterial drainage. The study, which is expected to cost in the region of £80,000, is being half financed by the European Communities from moneys specially set aside at the request of the European Parliament—and here I would like to pay a particular tribute to Senator Yeats who was instrumental in having the Parliament support this initiative—with the balance being met by the Irish and British Governments. This study will be completed at the end of this year and will represent the main demand on the funds allocated under the cross-Border subhead in this year's Estimates. The balance is available to finance further studies on which agreement may be reached during the current year.
As envisaged in the reports on Economic Co-operation published by the two Governments in June 1978, joint North-South discussions on the co-ordination of infrastructure development in the Newry-Dundalk area are currently taking place at official level and a report to Ministers on the possibilities for future co-operative action in the area, which I look forward to receiving, should be available in the near future.
It has been a consistent element of Government policy to seek support for their proposals by diplomatic and political endeavour abroad. In the United States in particular we have been at pains to explain Government policy to the US administration, to the Irish-American community and to Americans generally. Our aspiration to a peaceful solution to the problems of a divided Ireland has always been sympathetically viewed in the US, but there has been a need to promote among Americans an understanding of the real nature of the problem, the division within the community in Northern Ireland. It is our belief that, as the Irish-American community understands the abhorrence of people in Ireland for IRA violence and also understands the concrete and positive steps the Government here are taking, we now can rely on the support of the vast majority of the Irish-American community for our policies.
The last year was marked by the visit last month, at the invitation of the Taoiseach, of a US Congressional delegation headed by Mr. T. P. ("Tip") O'Neill, Junior, Speaker of the House of Representatives. This visit formed part of a continuing series of contacts between the Government and leading US political figures in order to improve mutual understanding of approaches to the Northern Ireland question. Speaker O'Neill availed of his visit here to express his views, in particular on the urgent need for the incoming British Government to play a more active role in seeking political compromise in Northern Ireland. This approach of the Speaker is broadly coincidental with the view of the Government and the Government consider Speaker O'Neill's visit useful in emphasising the need for initiative in the coming months. Some of the initial reactions to the Speaker's statement failed to appreciate the understanding and goodwill which he brought to the subject, based on personal contact with leaders in both parts of Ireland and in Britain.
A similar failure appears to lie behind the recent letter which Unionist leaders are reported to have addressed to President Carter protesting against what they call American intervention in Northern Ireland affairs. I have no doubt, however, that this clear and unequivocal expression of the views of one of America's leading politicians will be a factor which must be borne in mind by the new British Government. One must distinguish between the views expressed by people like Speaker O'Neill and other distinguished representatives to whom I referred, who have been very helpful in containing any support in America for violence, and those of a limited number of people who seem at least to have an ambiguous approach. This distinction does not seem to have been clearly understood by all representatives in the North, some of whom have recently published open letters.
Some of those who criticised Speaker O'Neill gave the impression that he, and indeed the Irish Government, thought that the Northern Ireland situation was a simple matter which could be solved by the manipulation of pressure from one quarter or another and that ultimately, for a British Government to decide to put pressure on the Northern majority could resolve the problems of the area. This sort of criticism is not only absurd in practical terms, but in no way reflects the political ambitions of the Government here. We have made clear on numerous occasions that our ambition is to persuade, not to coerce or pressure, the Northern majority into recognition of the advantages we can all derive from a joint approach to our various problems. There can be no mechanical compulsion of a reluctant Northern majority into new political arrangements of which they do not approve. But it is our firm belief that in recent years the British administration gave up dealing in an even-handed manner with the two communities in Northern Ireland and we regard it as being of fundamental importance that an even-handed approach be restored. Such an approach and the security which it will offer for the future of both parts of the community in Northern Ireland will, we are confident, constitute a basis which will facilitate the coming together of the peoples of this island.
I would like to pay a particular tribute to Speaker O'Neill who, far from pandering to minority elements in the US supporting violence in Northern Ireland, has very courageously and effectively isolated those elements from any level of respect or influence in the political scene in the USA.
Other very prominent and respected political figures in the USA, such as Senator Kennedy, Senator Moynihan and Governor Carey, have also been active in promoting a responsible and concerned interest in the USA towards peace and reconciliation in Ireland and the Government greatly value their consistent support.
One of the principal concerns of a Foreign Minister must, by definition, be his country's reputation and image in the world. Promotional work in this area is undertaken by my Department's information service, operating through our network of diplomatic missions abroad, in co-operation with the various semi-State bodies in their particular spheres of economic promotion.
The task of obtaining the right kind of international coverage of the Northern question was in the past year made particularly difficult by the stagnating political situation in that part of the country and the exploitation by the IRA of human suffering for propaganda purposes. Nevertheless, in spite of these obstacles, the attention of influential international media has been kept focussed on the central issues of the Northern question, on the political plight of the minority and on the necessity for the British authorities to embark on new thinking. A growing consensus of international opinion in favour of moves towards an ultimate settlement based on reconciliation within the island of Ireland has been cultivated.
The methods employed to this end have been flexible. At times, contacts with the international press, whether abroad or at home, have been necessarily discreet. At other times, according as I have judged it appropriate, public opportunities have been taken to give press conferences abroad, to address influential audiences of opinion-makers or to contribute personally to major foreign journals, as, for example, my recent article in the New York Times.
I can report that international editorial opinion was generally very positive from our point of view during the past year; in the US and Japan, in Britain, and in other EEC countries too, particularly and importantly, in the Federal Republic of Germany.
The manner in which we manage our Presidency of the European Communities later this year will also of course have implications for our reputation abroad; and I am making arrangements to ensure maximum impact in the international media. It is largely with this in mind that the Estimate for Foreign Affairs provides for an increase in funds for information work so that distinguished foreign journalists and commentators may be invited to this country during our tenure of the Community Presidency.
It should be appreciated that the information services of my Department, in addition to the task of ensuring a more accurate general knowledge about the more favourable image of Ireland abroad, have the specific task of presenting Government policies to the media abroad and, through them, to public opinion in relevant countries. For example, information and press officers in embassies abroad—and there are at present seven officials engaged wholetime in such duties—keep leading political correspondents in major capitals fully informed about our policy on Northern Ireland, European Community questions, the Irish economy and other matters of national importance. Our diplomatic missions operate in close harmony with the overseas offices of semi-State bodies such as IDA, Bord Fáilte, Aer Lingus and Córas Tráchtála in presenting a coherent overall message about Ireland to international opinion. Thus our Embassies, in addition to the normal diplomatic task of conveying such policy information to the authorities to which they are accredited, also attempt to create a broader public climate of understanding for our national policy objectives.
Other areas of expenditure defrayed from the information subhead include the commissioning and purchase of films. Commissioning of films is a particularly expensive area and, though I am conscious of the value of this form of activity, the limited resources available do not unfortunately permit me to do as much in this field as I would wish. In the current year, commissioning will be largely concentrated on the provision of material for inclusion in the weekly news magazine of the European Communities which circulates widely in 62 developing countries. On the occasion of our assumption of the Presidency of the Council of the European Communities, an entire issue of this film magazine will be devoted to Ireland.
My Department's regular activities in the field of films include the purchase and maintenance of a large repertoire of quality Irish short films and their distribution to non-theatrical audiences abroad. It is estimated that as a result of these activities, Ireland is brought to the attention of about half a million people annually in countries where our interests are greatest. I am confident that this number can be increased several-fold over the coming years through continuing investment in this area.
In the field of publications, Deputies are, of course, familiar with the bulletin of my Department, Ireland Today. This publication circulates widely abroad and it has, over the years, been extremely successful in projecting an accurate image of Ireland in the round through attractive specially commissioned articles on a wide variety of topics including especially current cultural, social and economic issues.
Deputies will also be aware that a new edition of Facts about Ireland has just been published, together with two other booklets, the first in a series on aspects of Ireland designed to meet in an attractive format the many requests for information which my Department receive. Though these booklets are primarily designed for dissemination abroad, copies have been placed on sale at home as well to afford the public at home an opportunity of judging our efforts in this field. I am happy to say that their initial judgment has been positive. Work is continuing to extend the range of publications to meet the demands on my Department and on our embassies abroad for them.
Before I turn to other aspects of my responsibility I must stress the importance of presenting a favourable image of Ireland to the world in the highly-publicised period of our Presidency. The achievements of recent years and the growing interest and goodwill towards Ireland can be given further impetus if we show ourselves as a responsible and progressive people. The prospects are indeed great but the alternative is too tragic to contemplate if in the full glare of publicity we were to choose instead to advertise self-interest and irresponsibility in our country.
The grant-in-aid for Cultural Relations goes to support projects for the promotion and development of cultural relations between Ireland and other countries. I am sure Deputies will appreciate that this is an important aspect of our foreign relations. The outstanding success of the exhibition of Treasures of Early Irish Art in the United States illustrates the value to the nation of making known abroad what we have to offer in the area of art and culture. It helps to counteract the cumulative effect of all the bad publicity which events in the North have had on the image of Ireland and Irishmen.
The amount provided under this grant-in-aid in the past has been very modest. I have decided, however, to increase it this year to £90,000, the first increase in three years. This will enable a number of important projects to take place—for example, a festival of Irish culture in London in February 1980 in which the Northern Ireland authorities are co-operating. In passing, I should like to mention the liaison now established between an Chomhairle Ealaíon and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, which hold periodic meetings to discuss matters of national interest.
The larger grant-in-aid will also give us scope to take a more active role in planning cultural activities, especially in countries of importance to us. Our relations with many countries as far as cultural exchanges are concerned—even with some of our neighbours in the European Community—are still relatively undeveloped. Several European countries are interested in having formal cultural agreements with Ireland and we wish to be able to respond positively to them. To make a worth-while impact exhibitions, musical performances and so forth, must be planned in advance and be on a reasonably large scale. This requires the commitment of some resources but it is money well spent. The enhancement of the country's image abroad is a worth-while objective for its own sake, but in the long run it can also yield economic returns in the form of tourism, investment and exports.
The grant-in-aid is administered on the advice of the Cultural Relations Committee, which comprise 18 members of recognised competence in different aspects of cultural affairs. The committee give their time entirely voluntarily and I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to them for the valuable public service they are rendering. Because of its importance I have arranged for the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy David Andrews, to take special responsibility for the activities of the committee.
A task of particular importance confronting my Department and myself this year will be the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities, which Ireland will hold from 1 July to the end of the year.
There is a constant development in both the range and complexity of the issues dealt with by the Council of Ministers and its subordinate committees and working groups. This makes increasingly heavy demands on the Ministers who will chair Council meetings and on the officials who will be involved at the preparatory stages of the decision-making process. As President of the Council of Foreign Ministers, I shall have a particular responsibility in the field of co-ordination and, in addition, the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers will also be deeply involved in the Presidency in their areas of competence: the success of any Presidency depends greatly on the efficient discharge of the business of these councils.
I should like, as the Minister responsible for the co-ordination of the preparations for the Presidency, to pay tribute to the excellent co-operation which I have had from the other Ministers and Departments who will be involved in the Presidency. The demands will be heavy but I am confident that the best possible preparations have been made. I will also have wide-ranging responsibilities to discharge on behalf of the Council in the external relations field and in its relations with the directly-elected Parliament. This will be demanding in terms of time and I may have to ask the indulgence of Deputies in regard to absences which will be necessary in the discharge of these responsibilities.
Our work programme for the Community during our Presidency is already well advanced and I discussed it with President Jenkins and his colleagues at a session of the Commission on 23 May. It will be finalised after the meeting of the European Council on 21 and 22 June, and I shall then present it to the European Parliament at its inaugural session beginning on 17 July. I was pleased to note that the Commission welcomed the general lines of our work programme and undertook to give us all possible support and assistance during our term of office.
I can assure Deputies, as I did the Commission, that the Irish Presidency will at all times be conscious of the interests and aspirations of the entire Community and that we are determined to conduct Community business in a well-organised and consistent fashion. I should like to mention in connection with our preparations for the Presidency that I this morning opened in my Department a two-day Conference of Irish Ambassadors and senior officials who will be in key positions during the Presidency.
The advent of a directly-elected Parliament will have important implications for the Community generally. Much debate has taken place on this subject during the present campaign. The involvement of the peoples of the Community directly in the European Parliament should, it seems to me forge closer links between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments, leading to a greater understanding of the respective roles of each. Some of the members of the directly-elected European Parliament will in fact be members of the national Parliaments and this should lead to more, rather than less, mutual understanding between the European Parliament and national Parliaments.
Though the directly-elected Parliament will not acquire any extra powers by virtue of being directly elected, it seems certain that this will result in a broadening of its influence and an intensification of the dialogue between the Parliament and the other institutions. We see the directly-elected Parliament principally as a means of strengthening the democratic base of the Community. While we must not overstate what can be achieved, the direct involvement of the people of Europe is a significant achievement in itself and the Parliament must be accorded its due weight as a democratically-elected institution.
It goes without saying that the Council of Ministers must clearly recognise the fact that there is a directly-elected Parliament and be prepared to respond positively in terms of explaining its own position on various issues. More time will have to be devoted to participation in debates particularly where the Council disagrees with the Parliament.
The tone of relations between the Council and the Parliament is affected to a significant degree by the Presidency's attitude and activity. This will be particularly so in the case of the first directly elected Parliament. I am conscious of the responsibilities which will devolve on me in that regard during the Irish Presidency. I intend to make every effort to ensure the smooth functioning of the more intensive dialogue between the Council and the Parliament.
The fact that for the first time in nearly 60 years elected representatives from this part of Ireland and from the North—though in much smaller numbers—will be members of the same Parliament will give us new scope for co-operation in the range of very important European issues which will affect our common well-being in Ireland. I shall be very anxious to promote the most effective possible liaison and co-operation between parliamentarians from both parts of Ireland and I shall be pleased to meet them whenever possible at the sessions of the European Parliament.
Though we have been concerned to improve decision-making in the Community we have also been concerned to maintain the balance of the Treaties to preserve the institutions established under them and to maintain the equality of status of all member states of the Community. Naturally we have made these concerns known to the Committee of Three Wise Men set up by the European Council last December. It is our hope that the Committee will produce practical proposals which can be implemented quickly.
There is general agreement, I think, that there has been a loss of momentum in the Community and that enlargement called for an examination of the machinery and procedures of the institutions if the situation is not to be exacerbated in a Community of twelve. We hope that the views which we have put forward, taken together with those of our Community partners, will lead to perhaps unspectacular but practical progress in the years ahead.
This leads me to the matter of the enlargement of the Community to include Greece, Portugal and Spain, a development which clearly will have an important effect on our future. Deputies will know that agreement between the Community and Greece on all the major issues outstanding in the accession negotiations was reached at the beginning of last month. A Treaty of Accession was drawn up and signed in Athens on 28 May. The Taoiseach and I represented the Irish Government at the signing on that date. Allowing for the usual time for ratification of the treaty by the national parliaments, Greece will become the tenth member state of the Community on January 1981.
I can also record that progress is being made with Portugal and Spain. Accession negotiations with Portugal were opened on 17 October 1978 and are proceeding according to an agreed schedule. As regards Spain, a formal opening session of negotiations was held on 5 February 1979 and substantive negotiations will begin in the autumn. This will of course be of significance for the Irish Presidency.
As you know, the Irish Government have all along been fully in support of the accession of Greece, Portugal and Spain. We believe firmly—and I think that I can speak for the other parties in this House—that the Community would be incomplete without the membership of these countries which have contributed so much to Europe and the world.
Throughout the negotiations with Greece and particularly during the debate in the Community on the Commission's overall view of the implications of enlargement—the so-called "fresco"—Ireland has insisted that the Community must be strengthened both economically and as regards their institutions if enlargement is not to lead to an attenuation of the Community's basic aims. We have referred to the serious regional disparities within the existing Community and have stressed that enlargement must not be carried out at the expense of the weaker member states. In the context of the negotiations with Greece, we were satisfied on this score.
Enlargement of the Community can bring problems but it can also mean a challenge and a stimulus to renewed vigour. When the idea of a European Monetary System was put forward at the European Council in Bremen last July and finally agreed by the Heads of Government at Brussels in December the Community received a further stimulus and challenge.
It was against the odds that such a scheme could be successfully elaborated and brought into being so soon after a period of severe economic depression and sluggish or non-existent growth. That EMS has come into being is, I think, evidence as much of a renewed dynamism and political will in the Community as it is of the generally improved economic and social situation in Europe.
The system is the nucleus of a wider strategy aimed at the achievement of sustained inflation-free growth, the progressive conquering of unemployment, and the gradual equalisation of living standards throughout the EEC. The movement towards economic and monetary union should receive a new injection of life from the operation of the system. It should serve in particular to develop a better climate for international trade and investment, reduced inflation and unemployment.
The transfer mechanism which exists side by side with the monetary arrangements was designed to ensure that the less prosperous member states could more readily remain within the system. The fact that there has been some delay in the final adoption of the interest subsidies regulation due to procedural reasons—chiefly the consultation procedure with Parliament—need not give rise to alarm. At the Finance Council in March, Ireland sought and received an assurance that the interest subsidies facility will apply retrospectively to loans entered into from 1 January 1979. The Community assistance will enable Ireland both to develop its economic structure and to reduce the potentially adverse effects of the initial years. It is important however that these advantages should not cause us to lost sight of the wider benefits to this country. Participation in the system means that we accept a certain discipline, particularly as regards the fight against inflation, in order to benefit from monetary stability and the prospects it offers of increased growth and higher living standards for all. This means that we must continue the effective economic management and satisfactory results of the past year.
Our economic policies are not formulated in isolation from current European and world conditions. Accordingly, the Government have kept the Commission and our partners fully informed on our programme for economic development. These have been endorsed by the Community as appropriate to our position and potential within the EEC. I must, however, point out that the achievement of our aims will be realised only if the pattern of wages and inflation in Ireland is reasonably in line with those throughout the other member states. I have to regret, therefore, that this reality does not seem to have been accepted fully in Ireland if one is to judge from the inflated wage demands of from 20 to 40 per cent in many sectors in our country. The considerable economic progress we have made in Europe would be undermined completely if the Government were to concede these unreasonable demands. Let me give some examples of the pattern of general wage settlements in some Community countries. The general wage increase in the Netherlands last year was about 7 per cent and the figure emerging this year is of the same order. With regard to Belgium wage rates last year increased by about 6 per cent. In the Federal Republic of Germany predictions are that wages this year will increase by between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. Recently, a strike in the German steel industry, the first for very many years, was settled at about 5 per cent for 1979. As regards Denmark, official calculations are that the present general framework agreement running for two years from March 1979 will result in a general increase of 9.4 per cent. These increases are related to the national economic circumstances in the states which in almost every case do not exceed the norms decided as national objectives. It seems clear that our increases should also be related to national economic circumstances and programmes in our country and should take account of the circumstances in Europe to which I have referred.
We hope that during our forthcoming Presidency of the European Communities we will see the EMS completed by the entry of the UK into the system. This would provide an additional fillip to the forces of integration and cohesiveness, taking the Community further in the process of economic and political integration. Not only will EMS bring monetary stability to the Community, it should also play a significant art in reducing disorder in the international monetary system. Co-operation in the monetary area is made even more necessary in the context of the economic disadvantages associated with current energy problems—to which I shall be turning in a moment.
EMS is a step towards economic and monetary union and the concomitant of such a union is a policy of comprehensive assistance for the weaker or disadvantaged regions. We have constantly stressed the importance of a proper regional policy and an adequate regional fund. The fund, however, continues to be very much underendowed. We welcome the fact that the present fund shows some increase and the quota for Ireland this year amounts to approximately £38.5 million. Furthermore it is a matter for satisfaction that the Commission budget proposals for next year show a substantial increase in the money allocated from the fund. We are also guardedly optimistic that the Commission Guidelines for a Community Regional Policy introduced in conjunction with the new fund and regulations represent the first concrete step in the evolution of a comprehensive Community regional policy. A further major innovation is the introduction of a 5 per cent non-quota section of the fund intended to support specific action designed to take account of the regional effects of existing and future Community policies, and to finance transfrontier studies and projects.
All this being said, we must and shall continue to press for a comprehensive regional policy and for Community mechanisms which effectively reduce existing disparities.
It must be recognised that the Common Agricultural Policy is and will remain a cornerstone of the European Community. Any development which made it less effective in any way would be a step in the wrong direction, the effects of which could have repercussions in other areas.
No one denies that certain problems exist in the CAP; continuing market imbalances in sectors such as milk are an obvious example. Likewise the problem of the monetary compensatory amounts has not yet been definitively resolved. Problems such as these can and will be solved within the framework of the CAP. We for our part have shown our willingness to adopt a reasonable approach towards price policy in the negotiations for the 1979-80 review, which is still under negotiation. Attacks are often directed at the CAP from certain quarters on the grounds that it accounts for a very high proportion of the Community budget. So it does. But this is because it is the only fully developed Community integration policy. The cost of the CAP must be put in proportion. It represents less than 1 per cent of Community gross domestic product. Furthermore it looms so large in the Community budget for the very reason that other expenditure—on the redistributive mechanisms like the Regional Fund for example—is so small.
The Government are fully committed to resisting any tinkering with the essential principles of the CAP and are convinced that this is in the interests not only of the country but of the process of European economic integration.
The protracted problem of a revised common fisheries policy is still with us. I am hopeful that the Commission will take a new initiative in bringing forward fresh proposals which can form the basis of a Community solution satisfactory to all.
The social Fund has been of considerable benefit to Ireland. Last year, for example, £28.7 million was approved for Irish schemes, most of which went to retraining grants.
Nevertheless when one considers the very serious problem of unemployment which confronts us, not only here in Ireland but in the Community as a whole, one cannot consider that action in the social sphere—and I am not referring here just to the fund—has been anything near adequate.
The high level of unemployment continues to pose a grave problem for the Community and a major preoccupation for the Heads of Government who at their meeting in Paris in March laid down guidelines for proposals to alleviate the situation. We intend during our Presidency to make every effort to push forward the measures to tackle the problems which will be before the Council in concrete shape. Such measures will of course need to be adopted in a Community framework.
One of the major factors in the international situation since 1973 is energy, particularly oil, and if we were in any danger of forgetting this, the shortages resulting from the disturbances in Iran have underlined it for us. The squeeze on supplies which was predicted for the mid-1980s is in a sense with us already. The safety margin on which we have been operating is very small. The strategic importance of energy for the world economy and for our own economy has to be stressed. We are still coping with some of the effects of the last recession, notably unemployment and inflation. The strength or weakness of a country's energy situation helps to determine the value of its currency. To secure our energy supplies at as reasonable a price as is possible is a major objective not merely of our energy policy but of our foreign policy as well. At an international level, and particularly through our membership of the EEC and of the International Energy Agency, we give our support to initiatives designed to take the tension out of relations between producers and consumers and to promote a dialogue and co-operation based on material interdependence. The role of the EEC is complementary to that of the agency. During our presidency one of the major themes of both organisations will be energy conservation and October 1979 will be the international conservation month. During our Presidency we will also make the formulation of a common energy policy a fundamental priority and I have so indicated to the Commission and to my colleagues in the Council of Ministers. It is unthinkable that a community which has professed itself to be an economic community should not have the solid foundation of an energy policy on which to build its economic programmes. The task is a complex one but the issue must be faced by all our partners in a community spirit. In addition to our participation in the work of international organisations we are also exploring the possibilities of bilateral arrangements which could usefully supplement the existing network of supply. However, I must warn against any premature euphoria about such deals. To bring a bilateral deal to a successful conclusion not as easy as it might appear, as a price is usually sought for the advantages and security that a bilateral agreement might bring. To conclude on this subject we cannot look exclusively for salvation abroad. Our efforts abroad must be matched by efforts at home, and it is necessary to fit both into a coherent, overall strategy. Our security, independence and prosperity as a nation will depend much on our ability to come to grips with the energy problem and to accord it a major priority, as there are few factors which have greater potential to all the best-laid plans and target.
In the external relations area the multilateral trade negotiations (MTN) held under the auspices of the GATT, are on the point of concluding. The agreed package was initialled by the Commission on behalf of the Community on 12 April last. The aim of the MTN is to liberalise international trade and to stabilise it to the extent possible for the decade by reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade between the participants, thus combating the rise of protectionism.
Ireland played its part in the formulation of Community policy throughout negotiations and Ministerial colleagues and myself, as well as officials form my own and other Departments articulated our concerns in the Council of Ministers and other meetings. The reduction in tariff rates resulting from the negotiations will be of benefit to our export trade. Being a country particularly dependent on export trade, the whole GATT negotiations have been strongly supported by us as in fact liberalising international trade and thereby opening up new opportunities and new avenues of trade for us. Sometimes this aspect of it has been overlooked.
During the Irish Presidency the MTN package will go to the Council of Ministers for approval, and formal ratification by the participants will follow in Geneva.
When I presented last year's Estimates, I described in some detail the role which my Department and their missions abroad play, and the contribution which they make, through their commercial work, in pursuit of the Government's economic goals. I also referred to the fact that both the Government and myself rate economic considerations among the most important in determining the role of our representatives abroad. The determination of the Government, as part of their overall economic strategy, to maximise the return from our embassies abroad is clearly reflected in the White Paper "Programme for National Development 1978-81" where it is stated (Paragraph 4.17) that "the activities undertaken by [CTT] offices in supporting the export efforts of Irish business firms and in helping to identify and exploit new market opportunities are complemented by the work carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs. In recent years an extended network of embassies has been established. Increased emphasis is being put on the role of embassies in faciliating the activities of CTT, and particularly in those countries where CTT is not represented, the embassies are an important source of commercial market information and assistance to Irish exports in making contacts in overseas markets."
In addition the White Paper refers— Paragraph 4.57—to the marked increase in the involvement of Irish service organisations in consultancy work overseas and to the study being carried out by the Department of Economic Planning and Development to identify the measures which could be taken to maximise the return to the country from foreign earnings activities such as engineering, architectural and management consultancy, as well as from increased involvement in overseas projects by the building and construction industry. My Department and their missions, drawing on their considerable experience of the situation obtaining in different parts of the world, are contributing to this study. Its recommendations, when made, will no doubt form a sound basis for the further realisation of the country's foreign earnings potential and I look forward to utilising to the fullest extent possible the resources of our missions to this end.
The contribution by embassies to the country's foreign earnings effort, of course, also involves day-to-day activity in the promotion of Irish goods abroad in close liaison with CTT and exporters alike. Our embassies represent a significant investment on the part of the Irish people. They also represent a valuable resource—a resource which is being tapped in many ways at present, and one which is available to be utilised further as required by the various economic interests of the country and in particular by exporters and by the Industrial Development Authority in their highly successful endeavours to attract new industry to Ireland.
Another area where my Department is active is in the negotiation and administration of Government-to-Government agreements for economic, industrial, scientific and technological co-operation. I have referred in the past to the part the Government-to-Government co-operation agreements can play in assisting the development of trade. In the case of many countries, bilateral economic contractual relationships, of the type provided by co-operation agreements, are important in creating the conditions within which meaningful trade with these countries can develop.
An important aspect of these agreements is the provision they make for the establishment of inter-governmental joint commissions which meet to review the state of and encourage the further development of co-operation. Recently, the second annual session of the Irish-Polish Joint Commission took place in Warsaw and the third annual session of the Irish-Soviet Joint Commission is to take place in Dublin shortly. These meetings, although administratively burdensome, provide useful opportunities to highlight and provide support in a Government-to-Government context for individual export sectors, products and businessmen.
I have in the past expressed disappointment at the low level of our exports to the Soviet Union. It is only fair then that I should now express my satisfaction with the recent improvement. According to provisional figures, Irish exports to the USSR for the first three months of 1979 were £9.6 million. This, Deputies will agree, compares very favourably with exports of £2 million for the same period last year. It is, indeed, almost double the figure for the whole of 1978. This growth can be attributed mainly to agricultural exports to the USSR. I hope that the improvement turns out to be a permanent one.
Events in the past year have brought home to us even more clearly than before that we live in a world which is increasingly complex and increasingly interdependent. Small as we are, we are a part of the international community; and we can be deeply affected by distant events in the international political field. This means that we need to follow international political developments with close attention and be ready to take a distinctive position in relation to them—at the United Nations or elsewhere. This position should reflect the outlook and concerns of our people. It should take account, too, of our national interests—since economic and political issues are clearly inter-related.
Since we joined the EEC in 1973, we have an additional important reason to try to follow international political issues with close attention. Our EEC membership meant that we became involved also in European Political Co-operation. This is the name given to the separate, intergovernmental framework of foreign policy co-ordination in which the nine member states of the Community try to work out common positions on international issues. I explained to the Dáil in some detail last year what this consultation process involves. As I said then, our involvement in these consultations means a new commitment to try to work towards common positions with our partners on international issues. It is of course not always possible to reach common positions. But where it is, there can be new opportunities for us, too, since it is obvious that the positions we take will have greater weight and effectiveness if they are held in common with our partners in the Community and if they are expressed to the rest of the world as the co-ordinated position of the Nine.
As from 1 July of this year we shall have a particular role, as Presidency, in the operation of this system of political co-operation, in parallel with our Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Community. This means among other things, that we will be responsible over a six-month period for organising and chairing a whole series of meetings in Dublin at official and at Ministerial level. We must also initiate proposals for common or co-ordinated action by the nine governments in relation to various world events. This will impose a particular burden on my Department which must handle all of these arrangements because there is no secretariat and the EEC Commission has, in effect, merely the role of an observer at these meetings. But our Presidency means that we will also have an opportunity to contribute more actively on many issues and it would be my hope to see that we do this.
A particularly important area of activity for us is the United Nations. Since we became a member of the organisation in 1955, our delegation has worked in every way open to us in that body to ensure that the aims and ideals of the charter are given expression in practice in the effort to find solutions to world problems.
We try to work for this aim through our actions at the United Nations General Assembly and in other related bodies such as the UN Conference on Trade and Development—UNCTAD —and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—UNESCO. In doing so we maintain contacts with a wide variety of countries from every region of the world. In particular we consult closely with the other member states of the Community and try, as far as possible, to work out common positions with them. This year Ireland, during our Presidency, unlike our last Presidency which occurred in the first half of the year, will have particular responsibility for organising and steering co-ordination of the Nine during the three months' session of the General Assembly. The Irish representative will frequently have to speak in debates as spokesman for the Nine; and I will myself be addressing the Assembly on behalf of the Nine during the General Debate at the end of September.
We are now also members of ECOSOC—the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations—to which we were elected for a three-year term at the end of last year. This body which has 54 members is a very important organ of the United Nations. It is responsible for the general direction of a series of working commissions which deal with a wide range of economic, social, cultural, educational and health matters within the United Nations framework. It also has an important role in relation to human rights issues and it helps to maintain liaison between United Nations bodies and specialised agencies and other intergovernmental bodies which are active in these areas.
Already in the first regular session of ECOSOC which has just concluded the Irish delegation played an active part in work on various social issues, including human rights questions. We believe that we can play a particularly active role in these areas at future sessions—particularly during our Presidency of the EEC. Here too, on a number of questions, we will have to try to co-ordinate positions between member states of the Community and to act as spokesman in putting forward positions of the Nine on certain issues.
Of the various major issues facing the international community as a whole one of the most vital and long-standing is certainly the competition between East and West and the disastrous arms race to which it has given rise. Ireland, which is not a member of a military alliance, has always felt that it should do what it can to work towards an end of the arms race, and a lessening of international tension and bloc-to-bloc confrontation. In this we give expression to the concerns of the Irish people and indeed to those of a great part of mankind. As a member of the European Community we continue to advocate these views. In particular, in common with our partners, we strongly support the concept of détente.
There is indeed no real alternative to détente. In the long term, peace can be assured only through the creation of an atmosphere of greater trust in international affairs. The best way to ensure this is through the creation of a strong network of international relationships in the economic, cultural and other fields. This will allow partnership, co-operation and mutual interest increasingly to become the basis for relations between States and peoples.
As part of this general process we also welcome the improved relations between China and the West. We do not see that this should introduce a new element of uncertainty into East-West relations since, in the long run, it is in the common interest to involve all countries in a world-wide network of exchange and co-operation. A country of China's size and importance should certainly not stay apart from this process.
In the effort to build up such relationships we attach particular importance of course to relations within Europe. Here the détente process has been given expression in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe signed by 35 Heads of Government in Helsinki in 1975. A meeting to review the way in which the Final Act was being implemented was held in Belgrade in 1977-78. The next such meeting will take place in Madrid in 1980. The Nine member states of the European Community have played an important role in the CSCE process; and during our forthcoming Presidency again Ireland will have the task of helping to co-ordinate the position of the Nine within the framework of European Political Co-operation in preparation for the Madrid meeting next year.
The Belgrade meeting in some ways was something of a disappointment— but it did perhaps lead to a greater measure of realism about the limits, as well as the possibilities, of the CSCE process. In our view it is essential that the idea that it is a process and the authority of the Final Act of Helsinki as a basic document should both be maintained. The success of the Madrid meeting will depend largely on the extent to which the participating states fulfil their commitment to the full implementation of all parts of the Final Act. In particular, we hope to see fuller implementation by all of the humanitarian provisions. These are now recognised as an essential element of détente, and Ireland attaches particular importance to human contacts and to respect for human rights in all parts of the world.
However, there are also limitations which must be recognised. The Madrid meeting will not take place in a political vacuum. It will be influenced by the general climate of East-West relations at that time just as it, in its turn, will affect the future development of détente. Ireland intends to play an active role in these matters. I have recently discussed these questions, which are subjects for continuing discussion among the Nine, together with other issues with my Austrian, Yugoslav and Finnish counterparts. I am confident that there is a strong desire among the participating States to see détente develop and that they recognise that the CSCE process is essential to the realisation of this goal.
Disarmament and arms control have traditionally been a major concern of this country. At the United Nations and elsewhere we have consistently supported all proposals made in a genuine effort to further this objective. We are opposed to the arms race because it is wasteful, because it debases human values and, above all else because we are convinced of the dangerous inadequacy of any system of international security which relies principally on a build-up of armaments and on military strategies for its success. Our aim is general and complete disarmament. This would mean that armaments and military expenditure would be limited to the level needed for police and internal security purposes. However, it is of no help merely to proclaim this goal while failing to take steps to meet the very real difficulties which must be overcome. In his speech at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament almost exactly twelve months ago the Taoiseach outlined our approach. He said that while our long-term aim should be complete disarmament under effective control, we should welcome any serious disarmament measures even of a more limited kind. He called for a serious and comprehensive programme of arms control and disarmament measures which would cover the main issues of nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and conventional weapons. He then listed a series of specific steps which could mark a real beginning on the difficult road towards disarmament.
He gave the highest priority to the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which would prohibit all nuclear tests and called for a moratorium on testing in the meantime. The Irish delegation at last winter's session of the General Assembly of the United Nations also co-sponsored a resolution calling for a Test Ban Treaty. While some progress has been made we are disappointed that the negotiations on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, after several years of delay, have still not been brought to a successful conclusion and we hope the states involved will expedite their negotiations.
We particularly stress this in view of the forthcoming Second Five-Year Review Conference of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. We regard this Treaty as the cornerstone of international efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons. If this Treaty is to be truly a means of preventing further nuclear proliferation it is essential that, on the one hand, greater control over the transfer of sensitive technology should be achieved and, equally, on the other hand, that a more determined effort should be made by the nuclear powers to fulfil their own obligations under the Treaty.
I welcome the recent conclusion of the SALT 2 negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States and hope it can soon be ratified. This is not, properly speaking, a disarmament measure since its main purpose is to set upper limits to the further development and deployment of nuclear weapons systems. But it is an achievement which should not be underestimated and without it the nuclear arms race between the superpowers would proceed and intensify in an even more dangerous way.
We must not lose sight of the fact of course that, dangerous as nuclear weapons are, it is conventional weapons which have actually taken the heaviest toll of human life. These weapons are in daily use in the several conflict areas throughout the world. They cause immense human suffering. This is due not only to their enormous destructive power but also the diversion of vast sums of money and the waste of technical skills, both of which are in such crying need, particularly in the Third World. A Conference on Inhumane Weapons is due to take place later this year and it is our sincere hope that, at the very least, restrictions will be placed on the use of those weapons which are excessively injurious or indiscriminate in their effects. This is a minimal aim and does not even begin to deal with the problem of the growing transfer of conventional weapons which the Taoiseach referred to in his speech at the Special Session.
Ireland will continue to work for disarmament. We are only too well aware of the difficulties involved and we have a realistic assessment of the degree to which we can influence other nations in this regard, but we have a clear duty to make our contribution.
In recent months there have been several major developments in Africa, some of a broadly positive nature and others which give rise to grave concern. Our interest in these developments is a particularly close one; Ireland has traditionally fostered its links with Africa, both directly through the involvement of many Irish people in African countries, through the expansion of our development co-operation programme and through the growth of trade; and indirectly through the strong interest that we have always shown in the process of decolonisation and in the support that we have given, in the United Nations and elsewhere, to the right of African countries to achieve genuine independence and majority rule.
In view of this very close interest which Ireland, both historically and as a member of the United Nations and also of the EEC, has had in the political and economic development of the African continent, I have given—and will continue to give—special priority to the development of Ireland's relations with African countries. Ireland's increased involvement in Africa has been reflected in the opening of diplomatic relations with more African states. In addition to the embassies which already existed in Lagos and Cairo, an embassy in Nairobi was established this year.
Our efforts to develop closer relations with African countries have also been reflected in an intensification of contacts at Government level. During the past year Irish Ministers have visited a number of African capitals, and we in turn have received several distinguished African visitors in Dublin, including, in May, the Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs. In August-September last year, I visited five African states with which we are keen to develop closer relations. I may say that I was deeply impressed by the hospitality which I received everywhere and by the genuine and special warmth of feeling that exists towards Ireland—a measure, perhaps, of the amount that we share in common as a result of our own historical experience. I should also like to say that it is a tribute to the voluntary efforts particularly of our many missionaries who have given so many years of dedicated service in these countries. I was also impressed by the efforts that are being made in economic development in these countries.
While the progress that is being made in many African states is indeed impressive, it is regrettable that serious difficulties arise in many others. Severe economic strains are imposed on those who are least able to bear them by changes in world trade, increasing costs of petroleum and other essential imports, and the shortage of capital; these may be compounded by the more long-term effects of factors such as desertification, and population growth. Against this background, the effects of political disputes of the type that currently exist in the Western Sahara, in Chad, in Sudan and the Horn of Africa can be particularly devastating. I do not want to go into these disputes in detail, but in each case we sincerely hope that current mediation efforts, whether being carried out under the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity or otherwise, will prove successful and that the dangers of escalating conflicts, with all their international repercussions, can be averted. I would like to pay particular tribute here to the mediation efforts undertaken by Nigeria in relation to the conflicts in Chad. I had the opportunity to hear about this at first hand recently when the Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs visited Ireland. I would also add that we have great sympathy for the people of Uganda who have suffered so much under the Amin regime and that we wish the new Government every success in its efforts to rebuild the country for the benefit of its people. We feel confident that the way has now been opened for the re-establishment of close relations between Uganda and all its neighbours, and that this will itself in time prove a stabilising factor in East Africa.
Overhanging the whole of Africa is the shadow of an impending catastrophe in the southern part of the continent. It is indeed ironic that the region which ought to have the most to offer appears to have set its face towards disaster—a disaster which threatens to overwhelm not only the minority regimes of southern Africa but their black neighbours as well. There can be no long-term acceptable solution to the problems of southern Africa that does not address the core problem—the evil of racism. White racism is not only a savage assault on the human dignity of the black people of southern Africa itself—its continuation in institutionalised forms is an insult to the black man throughout Africa, throughout the world, and, indeed, to all who believe in our common humanity.
The root of the problem lies in South Africa itself. The system of apartheid is rightly condemned by the entire world community. It is offensive to this country in a particular way since those who profit from and perpetuate apartheid lay claim to values which are cherished in this country. They claim to be Christians although the fundamental values of their society and the system which they practise are in direct conflict with Christian values. They claim to be a democracy although they exclude the vast majority of their citizens from the political process.
International Anti-Apartheid Year which had been declared by the UN General Assembly, and ended in March, served as a useful reminder of the growing urgency of the need for change. South Africa, however, appears deaf to international criticism and refuses to recognise either the inevitability of change or the fact that the longer it is delayed by savage repression the more certain it is that when it comes it will be accompanied by violence. International concern and rejection of racism and apartheid must now be translated into effective pressure. Ireland will continue to do what it can to contribute to this pressure both at a national level and internationally with our partners in the European Community and at the UN.
Ireland does not promote trade with South Africa. The Government have repeatedly made clear their opposition to contacts, in the sporting area for example, which may bolster the practice of apartheid. The cancellation of the world cup golf, at great loss incidentally, to that region of Ireland and to the tourist industry generally, has been noted by our African partners as evidence of the consistent principle of this country in that area and indeed has been an example to our Community partners in the EEC as well.
We called for a mandatory arms embargo to be imposed against South Africa by the UN Security Council and when it was imposed in November 1977 we welcomed it. We believe that the UN Security Council, which has the power to make measures mandatory and therefore effective, should consider further measures such as a ban on new investment in South Africa or an oil embargo and Ireland has supported UN resolutions to that effect.
We have stepped up our contributions to UN funds which are designed to alleviate the suffering for which racism in South Africa is responsible. This year contribution to these funds shows an increase of 66 per cent on our contribution for 1978 and this year we will be contributing to the UN Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid. In January I was glad to give the opening address to the International Conference organised in Dublin by the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement.
In Southern Rhodesia the situation is also tragic. It is very difficult to assess at this point the possibilities for avoiding a further escalation of the conflict with all the loss of life and human suffering that this would entail: what is clear is that there can be no solution acceptable to either the people of Zimbabwe or to the international community which does not involve all major parties and groups and free and fair elections under international supervision. We supported the Anglo-American proposals to this end, and still hope that a peaceful settlement on similar lines may be achieved. It is not easy in my view to believe that the recently held internal elections fulfil the conditions laid down for the return to majority rule. The United Nations Security Council does not believe that they can do so, and we fully support the Security Council's decision. We believe that the best hope for achieving a genuine solution acceptable to all parties lies in further efforts to bring the parties together and in continued support for the decisions of the UN Security Council. Ireland will continue to abide by UN sanctions and will strongly urge others to do likewise.
In Namibia, too, earlier hopes that an acceptable solution might be at hand now seem to be receding. Despite the best endeavours of the UN Secretary General and of the "Five" western members of the Security Council last year, South Africa is still blocking the implementation of the decisions adopted by the United Nations for transition to majority rule and independence. Recently there have been disquieting indications that South Africa may be conniving at an "internal settlement". Such a settlement, however, would not achieve international recognition and would simply postpone the day when Namibia finally achieves its independence. I very much hope, therefore, that South Africa will abandon its objections to the proposals, presented by the UN Secretary General.
The Middle East is obviously an area of great importance because of its strategic position and because continuing conflict in the area has at times in the past given rise to great dangers to world peace. Upheavals in the area have also affected the world economy—including that of Ireland—because of their effect on energy supplies and prices. For a number of reasons, therefore, we must be deeply concerned about developments in that region.
Within the past few months the conclusion of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt has brought considerable changes and produced new political alignments within the area. It is too soon to see what the long-term consequences of these new development will be. It is not easy at present, however, to be very optimistic about the future.
Our own position remains that we want to see a comprehensive political settlement which will bring peace and stability at last to this very important region. The central elements in such a settlement as we would see them were set out clearly in a common statement issued by the Nine member states of the EEC on 29 June 1977. In particular this statement, to which Ireland fully subscribes, stressed the need for withdrawal from occupied territories, the right of all states in the region to secure and recognised boundaries and the central importance of the recognition of the legitimate rights of Palestinians, including their right to a homeland and their right to participate through their representatives in any settlement affecting their future.
While the outlook is not very bright at present we note that the parties to the Egyptian-Israeli agreement, and President Carter of the United States who helped to negotiate it, have all recognised the need for a comprehensive peace settlement. In face of the present divisions and indeed disarray in the area, we are convinced that such a settlement is more necessary than ever; and we very much hope that despite present setbacks a way will be found by all concerned to work seriously towards it.
The Minister of State at my Department, Deputy David Andrews, recently visited the Middle East to examine at first hand the functioning of our representation in the area and to make contact with Irish commercial and other interests there, in the context of our wish to improve our own relations with those countries in which we are represented.
In Iran within the past year the repressive policies of the previous Government led to a popular revolt which has sought to establish greater freedoms for the Iranian people. Recent instability in the country is, however, also a cause of some concern. The impact of some of these developments has already been felt in Europe and indeed in Ireland. Continued instability in the area, including the countries bordering on Iran and on the Gulf, must of necessity be a matter of concern to Europe, given the relations which exist between the two areas in the matter of energy. This area is, in addition, one in which the interests of the Great Powers could easily come into conflict. Our hope is that the approach of outside parties will be characterised by restraint and caution so that the peoples of the region will be free to manage their own affairs in a way which will bring peace and stability to the area.
The situation in Lebanon also gives us cause for concern. Stability in southern Lebanon is essential to stability in the country as a whole, and this in turn is vital to the peace of the Middle East. Efforts by outside interests to exploit the situation in southern Lebanon and to maintain instability in the area could bring about a highly dangerous situation throughout this region.
Ireland has tried to play its part in the international efforts to achieve peace in the Lebanon. In addition to the efforts we have made at the political level in various international fora, we have—as Deputies will be aware—contributed a contingent to the UN Interim Force in the Lebanon. In this way we are maintaining our traditional commitment to United Nations peacekeeping. We believe our participation in such forces is valued by the international community because of our non-involvement in military alliances and because of the proven record of courage, competence and impartiality shown by Irish troops in the various UN observation and peace-keeping missions with which they have served.
I do not intend to dwell on the various UN operations with which Irish troops have served in four continents. The proud record speaks for itself. But I would like to focus on our long and continuing involvement in UN peacekeeping in the Middle East. Irish personnel have been involved in UN observation and peace-keeping missions in the Middle East since 1958 when Irish Army observers first went to the Lebanon. Since then, we have had an unbroken link with the area through our participation in the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) in Palestine in which Irish officers have held high positions. We have played our part, too, in Cyprus, maintaining a full contingent there from the inception of the UN Force there in 1964 until 1973. The Commander of the UN Force in Cyprus is currently an Irish Army officer—General Quinn. We have also participated in the UN Emergency Force in Sinai.
It was therefore in full accordance with our views on the value of UN peacekeeping and with our desire to give continuing practical expression to those views, that the Government agreed in May 1978 to provide a contingent of troops for service with the UN Interim Force in the Lebanon (UNIFIL). Since the 43rd Battalion was dispatched to the Lebanon in May 1978, to serve an initial six-month tour of duty, two further battalions, the 44th and 45th, have gone out in succession as replacements. In addition to the Infantry battalion of 650 men stationed there, Ireland contributes a company of some 100 men for service at the UNIFIL Headquarters in Naqoura. These men have maintained, and are continuing to maintain, the high reputation of Ireland in UN peace-keeping operations.
The House will be aware that the Force has experienced severe problems in attempts to implement its mandate from the UN Security Council. In summary, this mandate was to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory occupied during the Israeli invasion of March 1978; to restore international peace and security; and to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of their effective authority in the area. As the House is aware, the Irish contingent along with other contingents of the Force have faced continued harassment and, regrettably, casualties, from the so-called de facto forces to whom Israel handed over a strip of territory on the Lebanese side of the border after its final withdrawal in June 1978. I view this harassment with the utmost concern. The House will be aware of the representations made to Israel in this regard through diplomatic channels and by the Taoiseach and myself.
I appreciate that this is a lengthy statement but I do not know if there is a precedent for this because there is only one Opposition Deputy in the House at the moment. I should have thought that——
