andMr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have made any direct representations to the Soviet Embassy in Ireland concerning the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR and, if so, if he will make a statement on the matter.
9.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Occupation of Afghanistan.
8.
andMr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Irish Government condemns the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the steps (a) already taken and (b) proposed, to indicate Ireland's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
11.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the steps taken by the Government to express their opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, together.
The Government consider that the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan is unacceptable. It is a breach of the generally recognised principles of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states and a massive use of military power by a super power against a neighbouring country, a member of the non-aligned movement.
The concern of the Government at this military intervention by the Soviet Union was expressed to the Chargé d'Affairs of the Soviet Union in Dublin at the Department of Foreign Affairs on 4 January last on my instructions.
Since that date Ireland has joined with the other member states of the Nine in a series of statements and other measures which give expression to our common concern at the Soviet military intervention and the dangers which we feel it poses to international peace and security and to the policies of detente and relaxation of tensions to which the remain committed.
On 14 January 1980 Ireland voted for a resolution on Afghanistan adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its sixth emergency session. This resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority—104 in favour to 18 against with 18 abstentions.
The resolution appealed to all States: to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and non-aligned character of Afghanistan and to refrain from any interference in the internal affairs of that country.
Ireland strongly supports the provisions of this resolution. In particular we support its call for:
the immediate unconditional and total withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan in order to enable its people to determine their own form of government and choose their economic, political and social systems, free from outside intervention, subversion or coercion or constraint of any kind whatsoever.
At a meeting in Brussels on 15 January last the Foreign Ministers of the Nine, including Ireland, issued a statement expressing their grave concern at the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan as a serious violation of the principles of international relations enshrined in the Charter. On the same occasion the Council of Ministers decided that action should be taken to ensure that Community products do not substitute for grain sales cut off by the United States.
At our meeting in Rome on 19 February, which I attended, the Foreign Ministers of the Nine again discussed the Afghanistan crisis. On that occasion we were agreed in proposing what I believe would be a very constructive outcome of the crisis—an arrangement which would accord Afghanistan a neutral status.
A proposal in these terms was launched by the Italian Foreign Minister as President in Office on behalf of the Nine at his press conference following that meeting and we are hopeful that it will be taken up as a helpful initiative on our part. Our hope would be in the coming weeks to have this idea studied further and to concert our position with other countries with a view to seeing whether it can be implemented and if so how that aim might best be achieved.
In event of failure on the part of the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops in accordance with the United Nations resolution and also in the event of a rebuff being received from the Soviet Union in regard to the neutralisation proposal from the EEC—which appears likely taking into account their initial response—has the Minister, from the point of view of this country on its own or from the point of view of any proposal he might make to the EEC, any further suggestions regarding the application of pressure on the Soviet Union to get out of Afghanistan?
As it stands, the matter has been put up to the Soviet Union. The issue lies with them to show their bona fides in the matter and approach and that of our partners in the Community and also of the world at large waits on the demonstration of bona fides on the part of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union did not show much bona fides when it marched into Afghanistan. Is this policy of waiting for total rejection not a very negative one? The question I asked the Minister was whether he had any further proposals in regard to any action that might be taken by this country on its own, bearing in mind that we are a small country, or if there were any proposals to our EEC partners to bring further pressure to bear on the Soviet Union.
At our January meeting it was decided unanimously by the nine countries that in our dealings with the Soviet Union we would not substitute for any embargo imposed by the United States on supplies from that country to the Soviet Union. That principle came into immediate effect particularly with regard to grain supplies which were suspended by the United States and which the Community are not filling. That is the principle on which we are working in concert with the United States.
I do not recall in the course of the Minister's reply whether he said that our Ambassador in Moscow had made any protest in Moscow with regard to the invasion——
It was done here.
But not there. Does the Minister not agree that, having made our protest in company with other countries, the important thing from our point of view since we have a vested interest in the continuation of détente is that we should do all in our power to prevent any lapse into a cold war atmosphere between countries and that we should use our influence to see that this does not happen? By all means let us make our protest in an attempt to get the Soviet Union to see reason in the matter but, at the same time, we should avoid the kind of cold war hysteria engulfing the countries making the protests.
Much of what the Deputy has said has been uppermost in the minds of the countries of the Community with regard to the preservation of détente as a matter of fundamental importance. That governs our approach to this whole matter, both as a country and as a Community.
I am asking this supplementary question arising out of an earlier question I put to the Minister and to which he did not give me a reply. I shall summarise it again. Apart from the steps that were taken in the past, the condemnation, the calling in of the Chargé d'Affaires, the United Nation resolution and the agreement not to fill the shortfall created by the American grain embargo, has the Minister, either on his own initiative on behalf of this country or through the EEC, any further proposal to make for further pressure to be brought to bear on the Soviet Union in the event of their failure to withdraw from Afghanistan or to accept the neutralisation proposals?
Only last week in Rome we took a positive initiative to fill a political vacuum as a community by proposing the neutralisation of Afghanistan. That is being supported by the USA and it represents a positive approach to the whole matter. We are waiting the Soviet response to that aspect. Depending on that response——
Deputies
You got that response.
——further action will be considered on a Community basis.
On what lines?
That, in this situation, is certainly not going to be answered by me.
Is the implication that countries such as the UK who are critical of the proposal to continue supplying butter to the Soviet Union from the Community's stocks any indication that any of these countries are thinking of cutting back on credits for equipment which would be of value to the Soviet Union in modernising their economy? Are they proposing to continue to provide these credits and to continue to get the benefits of trade without taking any action in that area while criticising the supply of butter?
I understand that that aspect is being considered by the governments of the Community who are concerned in what Deputy FitzGerald refers to. That was part of the discussions which some of these member countries had with Secretary Vance last week.
Question No. 13.
Would the Minister regard that approach as being totally compatible with his concern for détente?
This is not a matter that concerns Ireland. It concerns other members of the Community and I am not in a position to speak for them.
Surely we have some interest.
It is a separate matter.
The reason for the supplementary question was the concern of the Community and of our own Government for the continuation of détente. How is that compatible with the last reply given to Deputy FitzGerald?
The last reply related to matters which concern other members of the Community and the USA.
Is the Minister saying that we would not agree to it?
It is not our business.
Is it part of the EEC reaction? How can the Minister seriously tell the House that action by the EEC as such is none of our business?
Deputy Cluskey is talking about something he knows very little about.
As far as the Minister is concerned I would be at no disadvantage.
The Deputy is self-indulgent.
The Minister has a very poor subsitute for foreign policy.
Question No. 12 is for written reply.