Vol. 318 No. 3
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the considerations which led the Government to conclude at this time, that recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation would best serve the interests of the Palestinian people in the assertion of their legitimate rights and aspirations.
15.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether in arriving at the decision to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Government sought and received an acceptable assurance that the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and its associated organisations, had abandoned involvement in international terrorism.
16.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether in arriving at the decision to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Government sought and received an acceptable assurance that the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and its associated organisation, had ended all contacts with the Provisional IRA and other terrorist groups in Ireland, and with Provisional Sinn Féin.
17.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in arriving at the decision to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Government sought and received an acceptable assurance that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had renounced those clauses of the Palestinian Covenant which call for the destruction of Israel, a state with which Ireland has diplomatic relations.
18.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in their recent deliberations on policy in relation to the Middle East, the Government had consultations with the Israeli authorities and whether they received any assurances as to Israel's willingness to reach an equitable agreement with the Palestinian people on the basis of UN Resolution 242.
19.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his recent statement on the Irish Government's attitude to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the context of a MiddleEast settlement reflects the result of his discussions during his recent visit to Arab countries, if he has satisfied himself that his statement assists the cause of peace in the region, and if he will outline the general principles of the Government's approach to peace in the region.
20.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline Ireland's position on Palestinian claims to the establishment of an independent state in Palestine, with particular reference to the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in representing the Palestinian people and to the withdrawl of Israel from all territory occupied since the 1967 conflict including Jerusalem and if he will indicate (a) whether Ireland supports the establishment of a fully independent Palestinian state or a Palestinian homeland with less than full sovereign status, (b) whether such support is unequivocal or is dependent on an acceptance by the Palestinians of the territorial integrity of the State of Israel and/or other factors, (c) whether recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation is dependent on a declaration of the right of the State of Israel to exist and the integrity and security of that State and/or other factors, (d) Ireland's policy on the future of the city of Jerusalem, and (e) whether the joint communique issued in Bahrein on 10 February 1980, fully and accurately represents the policy of the Irish Government in all its aspects.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 to 20, inclusive, together.
The communique issued after my discussions with the Foreign Minister of Bahrein on 10 February states that:
The two sides stressed that all parties, including the PLO, should play a full role in the negotiations for a comprehensive peace settlement. In this regard, Ireland recognises the role of the PLO in representing the Palestinian people.
Copies of the communique have been placed in the Library of the House.
Government policy towards the Middle East is based on our conviction that it is necessary that there should be a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement to the problems of the region. We believe that such a settlement must be based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, applied in all their parts and on all fronts and also on the principles set out by the nine EEC countries on several occasions in recent years.
These principles are as follows:
(i) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force
(ii) the need for Israel to end the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967
(iii) respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries
(iv) recognition that in the establishment of a just and lasting peace account must be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.
I would like to emphasise that our policy remains firmly based on these principles, which must be taken as a whole. We believe that they should be accepted by all parties as the basis for a negotiated settlement. What was stated in the Bahrein communique was simply a logical development of this position, expanding but not supplanting it.
In particular, we expressed the view that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians include their right to self-determination of their right, should they wish to exercise it, to an independent state. This would, of course, be within the framework of a negotiated settlement in which all parties, naturally including Israel, would participate fully. These rights of the Palestinians are therefore not unqualified; there is a conflict of rights in the present situation which must be reconciled in the context of a negotiated settlement.
If a comprehensive settlement is to be worked out, it is clear that all concerned must participate in the negotiation. This includes the Palestinians. It is our view that the Palestinians should have the right to decide for themselves those who will represent them in such negotiations. In this regard the Palestine Liberation Organisation appears to enjoy the support of a very substantial proportion of Palestinians, both among the refugees and in the occupied territories. It is also accepted by the Arab states as the legitimate spokesman of the Palestinians.
We recognise therefore that the PLO is indeed an important element and should have a role to play. That is why we stated in the Bahrein communique that we recognise the role of the PLO in representing the Palestinian people.
I would like to make it clear that the Irish Government totally condemn all acts of violence from whatever source they may emanate and consider that such acts are an obstacle to the effort to negotiate a peace settlement which would meet the legitimate rights of all parties. In the contacts we have had with the PLO, we have used every opportunity to express this point of view and to impress upon them also the necessity of accepting the existence of the State of Israel. In this regard, we have received assurances from the PLO that they maintain no links with the IRA. Likewise we have made use of our regular meetings with representatives of the Israeli Government to impress upon them to need to negotiate with the representatives of the Palestinian people and to recognise their legitimate rights.
What is now required in our view is that the willingness to abandon violence in favour of political means which has characterised many groupings and leaders within the PLO should be encouraged; and we would hope that it might be possible through a process of gradual acceptance on both sides for Isreal and the PLO each to acknowledge a role for the other in the negotiation of a settlement. We believe that this would contribute immeasurably towards the achievement of a peaceful and comprehensive solution.
With regard to the question of Jerusalem, the Government recognise the central importance of this issue and the importance of the city itself as a Holy City to three great religions—— Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We are aware of the various claims made to Jerusalem and we certainly have no wish to see a city which is an important centre of religious faith for many peoples divided between them in a way which promotes confrontation.
We believe, therefore, that a special effort will have to be made as part of any negotiation—whether at the outset, during the negotiation or at the end—to negotiate an acceptable status for Jerusalem. In our view this should at a minimum allow all parties access to the places which they consider holy.
We cannot accept, however, pending this settlement, that unilateral efforts should be made to change the status of Jerusalem or to annex it following occupation. This was made clear in Minister O'Kennedy's speech on behalf of the Nine to the United Nations on 25 September last. We look instead to a settlement of the Jerusalem issue which might perhaps be on the basis of an open city and which could make it a symbol of peace in a region which is now one of conflict and confrontation.
Will the Minister say at what level his discussions with the PLO took place and if he got any assurance that the covenant of the PLO which called for the destruction of the State of Israel would be deleted?
I had no personal discussions with representatives of the PLO but officials of my Department had and these have been going on for the past six years. This is an ongoing process and it occurred during Deputy FitzGerald's time and during my predecessor's time.
Will the Minister answer the part of the question relating to the convenant which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel?
I do not know anything about that.
The destruction of the State of Isreal?
A covenant?
Yes.
That has nothing to do with the present attitude of the PLO. I have not at any stage met a representative of the PLO, although Deputy FitzGerald as Minister, for Foreign Affairs met leading representatives of the PLO.
The Minister described Mr. Arafat as being a moderate. What was that statement based on?
That is his reputation among the leaders of the PLO and it was on that basis that Ireland voted for him to be heard in the UN some years ago, and he has been received by most of the leading politicians and statesmen of the western world from time to time.
Is the Minister seriously unaware that the convenant of the PLO calls for the destruction by military force of the State of Isreal?
That is in a polemical document attributed to the PLO. I have no comment on that, good, bad or indifferent. That is not the issue at stake. What is at stake is the recognition of the reality of the existence of an organisation that is in a position to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people and is recognised as such by all the Arab States.
Is the Minister saying here that the State of Egypt which is an Arab State——
It is not, it is an Egyptian State. They would be very annoyed if they were to hear themselves being described as Arabs.
They are not Arabs?
They are Egyptians.
They are not part of the Arab world?
The Deputy should get himself up-to-date. At present there is in existence a new Arab League which does not include Egypt. The Deputy should be careful about this.
Order.
I am glad that the Minister is concerned about my being careful as it is obviously too late for him to be careful. Has the Minister given any consideration to the position of President Sadat, who is at present negotiating with Isreal regarding the occupied territories, in his recognition of the PLO and his description of Mr. Arafat as a moderate?
The Deputy will appreciate that the situation with regard to Egypt and the Arab countries as such now incorporated in the Arab League, is not one of co-operation in which they see eye to eye——
I know that.
——since the Camp David decision. The realities in the Middle East are that all of the Arab States, other than Egypt, are grouped together in the Arab League and all of those countries including countries as disparate as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States recognise the PLO as the spokesman for the Palestinian people.
Would the Minister agree that because the President of Egypt is trying to find a peaceful solution and because the convenant of the PLO that he is unaware of calls for the military destruction of Israel——
The Deputy must be aware—and it is not just my view but the view of every western European country—that there cannot be peace in the Middle East unless there is mutual recognition of a homeland for the Palestinians and the territorial integrity of the Israeli State. Those two factors must be negotiated.
Could I ask——
Other Deputies are entitled to ask a question.
We are dealing with seven extremely important questions, six of which are mine. While there is no doubt as to the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland, would the Minister agree that peace in the Middle East is impossible as long as the PLO stick to the convenant that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel?
I am not here to comment on what the PLO say or do not say, nor was it in any of the questions. I am concerned with the realities of the situation and I was very heartened to see in a recent statement by the British Chief Rabbi which was reported in the Jerusalem Post of 13 February last, that he did not rule out the possibility of a Palestinian State on the West Bank in the Gaza Strip and that he would even allow such a state to have its capital in Jerusalem. That view has also been expressed by all of our EEC partners in the last number of years and it is a consistent attitude adopted by the great majority of states represented at the UN. It is also the view of the Fine Gael Party as expressed here by Deputies Mitchell and O'Keeffe and by Senator Staunton, and followed by Deputy FitzGerald as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I do not understand why Deputy Cluskey insists on being out on a limb in this matter.
The Minister has given ample evidence that he does not understand. Has there been any representation by Irish business interests to the Minister, to his predecessor or to the Government, seeking the recognition of the PLO for their own commercial interests?
There is no foundation in that suggestion.
Will the Minister answer the question?
There is absolutely no truth——
No representations, formally or informally?
There were no formal or informal representations and there is no basis for Deputy Cluskey's suggestion.
I have reservations on that.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that we accept that there is no difference between the September statement of Minister O'Kennedy and the Berlin Communiqué, bearing in mind the September statement to the UN, paragraph 3 of which refers to the right to a homeland, and the Bahrein communiqué, which at paragraph 5 refers to the establishment of an independent state in Palestine?
I am very glad Deputy O'Keeffe raised this point because the whole position has already been stated by other member countries of the EEC. My statement in regard to self-determination is an amplification of what my predecessor said as President of the EEC. The Foreign Minister of Belgium, Mr. Simonet, has stated that it is up to the Palestinians themselves to decide upon the actual manner in which they wish to express their national identity. With the parties concerned they will decide whether they prefer a status of autonomy or an independent state, a federal framework or a confederate one; it is open to negotiation.
Mr. Forlani, the Italian Foreign Minister, has called for concrete recognition of the legitimate right of the people, who cannot be denied a fatherland, to express their own national identity through the constitution of a state entity. He has also stated the wish to afford recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people, aiming at the establishment of their own state, national rights which must be translated into facts. The Foreign Minister of France, M. de Guiringand, has stated that the right of the Palestinian people to express their national identity cannot be exercised without a territorial base which, at the proper time, could be given the structures of statehood. Mr. Genscher, Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, has said that a peace settlement should make allowance for the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, including the right to establish a state authority.
Nobody is in disagreement with that. Everyone agrees that the Palestinians have a right to their own land.
State.
We must not get into a debate on the PLO.
We are trying to get into a debate on the Minister's incompetence.
Taking into account that I have not received a satisfactory answer from the Minister in regard to the distinction between a homeland and an independent state, there are a couple of other issues I want to raise.
A state is a formalised or institutionalised homeland.
With full sovereign status—which is not what was agreed in the September statement. Would the Minister not have thought it more advisable to have engaged in discussions which might have led to positive assurances in regard to any future PLO-IRA links and also the question of infiltration by the PLO through UNIFIL lines in the Lebanon where our troops are serving? In that connection there was a promise made at the Tunis conference but I gather some infiltration is still continuing.
The Deputy is giving information rather than seeking it.
I have to give a certain amount of information to the Minister so that he can understand the point. Would the Minister not have considered it advisable to have had some further discussion to obtain positive and possibly written assurances and guarantees in regard to PLO-IRA links and the question of Palestinian infiltration through the UNIFIL area in the Lebanon before talking about further steps on the road to recognition? Would that not have been an advantage to us?
I was much encouraged in my consideration of this matter by Deputy O'Keeffe's own remarks as quoted in a Beirut newspaper on Monday, 12 January this year when he was a member of the Irish delegation in the Lebanon. He said in an interview that if his party came to power and he became Foreign Minister Ireland's progress towards more support of the PLO position would be accelerated to a greater degree. I was much encouraged.
I am calling the next question.
I am asking the Minister not to deal with a serious matter in this manner. He was blundering in Bahrain and we want a straight answer from him here.
The Deputy was blundering in Beirut.
The Minister should read the entire article. The question is whether the Minister in the interests of this State——
The Deputy has put that question.
I did not get a reply. I am asking the Minister whether he would have considered it beneficial to this State to have received something more than assurances given to the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, some more concrete guarantees in regard to PLO-IRA links and also in regard to infiltration of Palestinians through the UNIFIL lines. If the Minister refuses to answer that question, then there are some other questions I wish to ask.
Deputy FitzGerald to ask a question.
When I have heard the answer to the last question.
I have not got a question. The Deputy should phrase a question in a succint fashion.
The Minister is aiding the IRA then.
Would it not have been advisable to get some more detailed assurances and guarantees than a verbal assurance to the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs and to have obtained some assurances in regard to PLO infiltration through the UNIFIL lines where our troops are serving?
This is a question of argument. I am calling Deputy FitzGerald.
Before recognising the PLO or moving towards recognition, would it not have been advisable to take some of these steps?
We did not recognise the PLO. We recognised the role they would inevitably have to play in any progress towards a negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East.
Without regard to the safety of the Irish troops.
I was also much encouraged when Deputy Mitchell asked in this House on 20 November whether the Minister would agree that the provision of a homeland for the Palestinian people should be a major cornerstone in any foreign policy of any EEC country. I was standing in for my predecessor on that day and the Deputy queried me as to what was being done during our Presidency of the EEC to help bring that about.
What about the safety of Irish troops?
The Minister should appreciate that the House is disturbed at his attempt to confuse the concepts of homeland and state and at his extraordinary dismissal of the PLO convenant as irrelevant when it is the major obstacle to negotiations. Is the Minister aware—it would not appear from the words he used that he is so aware—that my only contacts with the PLO as Minister were informally at two receptions and that I used these contacts to seek formal repudiation of alleged statements by PLO spokesmen in support of the Provisional IRA, for example at the Habitat conference in Vancouver, and the public recognition by them of the existence of this State and public rejection of any aid to terrorists in this island? Before proceeding to what has been loosely described as recognition of the PLO, off which hook he is now trying to get, did the Minister secure such public statements as I was seeking to secure?
In a very detailed discussion with a prominent person in the PLO in 1974, the record of which he himself signed, Deputy FitzGerald committed himself to the Palestinian case, subject to the matters he is now speaking about. There is no evidence of any association whatever between the PLO as at present constituted and the IRA. That is absolutely clear. I agree that Deputy FitzGerald was at pains to seek these assurances in 1974. The assurances have been given since to Deputy O'Keeffe and to officials of my Department and our ambassadors in that region have investigated the matter. We are absolutely satisfied that there is no connection whatever between the PLO as at present constituted and the IRA.
Has the Minister secured a public repudiation by them of the statements made, allegedly on their behalf, in Vancouver and in another place and a public statement that there will be no assistance for any terrorist organisations in this island? That is what I was seeking when I came across these people at conferences, as the Minister will know from the account which I dictated afterwards. Would the Minister not agree that it would be desirable to have got such statements and assurances as the previous Government sought to do?
The Deputy is well aware of the position and during his period as Foreign Minister he was of the same view as myself in this matter. The Deputy is aware of that.
In reply to the Minister, I should like to state that to be of the same view as to the importance of helping the Palestinians to find a solution to their tragic problem is not being of the same view as to what is a necessary prerequisite by way of public statement by them before we act in a form of recognition.
This is argument.
I received a letter from the Minister this morning stating that at Question Time today he would deal with a letter and a copy of an interview attributed to Yasser Arafat given the day after the Minister made his statement. I should like to know if the Minister will deal with one aspect of that interview. In the final part of that interview Mr. Arafat is alleged to have referred to some Arab leaders who were seeking a peaceful solution to the Middle East problem and to have said that, if they achieved it, he and the PLO would oppose it. Would the Minister care to comment on that?
That was an unsigned statement from a Venezuelan source. My information is that it is a fabrication.
In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply and obvious lack of knowledge of the subject, I should like to give notice of my intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
