Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Mar 1981

Vol. 328 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Rugby Team's Tour of South Africa: Motion.

The following motion was moved by Deputy Quinn on Tuesday, 24 March 1981:

"That Dáil Éireann aware of the continuance of the repression practised by the racist South African regime and of the evil nature of the apartheid system, which extends into the world of sport, deplores the decision of the Irish Rugby Football Union to send an Irish national touring team to the Republic of South Africa; calls upon the IRFU to reverse that decision in the interests of justice and of Ireland's international reputation, and calls upon the Government to take steps to introduce an immediate and effective boycott on all commercial and trading links with South Africa."

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "international reputation," and substitute the following:

"and supports the Government in their efforts, including the pursuit of internationally agreed measures, to influence South Africa to abandon its apartheid policies."

—(Deputy O'Donoghue.)

Mr. R. Ryan

I suspect that when the Irish Rugby Football Union decided to go to South Africa, most of the people making the decisions were not fully conscious of the appalling regime in South Africa. South Africa is one of the richest countries in the world. It is by far the richest country on the Continent of Africa. The African Continent is the poorest, least developed and most underprivileged continent in the world, due to a large extent to the fact that it is still suffering from the consequences of colonialism. In South Africa, the number of coloured people compared with white is in the ratio of five to one.

The incomes of people in South Africa, in relation to white and non-white people — I do not like raising the issue of colour but I must having regard to the way in which South African society is divided — is in the ratio of 17 to one. If one knew nothing or read nothing about the philosophy of apartheid — the word in Afrikaans means separate development — one would surely have to raise a question about a society in which the income differential between peoples can be in the ratio of 17 to one. It raises further questions when you find that the ratio is dependent upon the colour of people's skin.

One cannot for one moment accept that sport in South Africa is organised on non-racial lines. Apartheid involves separation. At the time of birth people are segregated into categories of white, black or coloured, which means a combination of black and white. From the moment of their birth and that moment of legal segregation, under the laws of apartheid, a person's future development is determined. Where they live, where they work, the extent of their education, the amount of money spent upon their development by the Government, is all determined by the colour of their skin. Although the number of coloured people in relation to white people in South Africa is in the ratio of five to one, the amount of money spent by the Government is of the ratio of 12 in favour of the whites, to one in favour of people who are coloured. Segregation occurs from the moment of birth and all through the lives of the people of South Africa — they are even segregated in cemeteries because coloured people may not be buried with people whose skin was white. I doubt very much if there is any difference in the colour of their bones. There is certainly no distinguishing mark when they arrive before their Creator. That segregation takes place and this is a society into which the Irish Rugby Football Union is going to conduct a tour and to play.

I accept and I know, from contacts which I have with concerned people in South Africa, that significant improvements have taken place there in relation to sport but they are minimal compared to the size of the problem. The world's conscience has spoken out against involvement of free nations like ourselves with South Africa in sporting events. To fly in the face of world opinion and to ignore the sensitive feelings which Africans necessarily have in this area, leads Ireland to a situation in which our name is going to be dragged through the mud. In South Africa, the upholding of the racist regime has led to a situation where, in the last 18 years, 51 people have died under violent circumstances while they were political detainees. These and many other facts could not have been borne in mind when the Irish Rugby Football Union made its decision to go to South Africa. I accept the bona fides of those who say that one should not allow politics to decide sporting matters but, in relation to South Africa, you cannot be as simplistic and naive as that. We believe here in the principle of the free movement of people all over the world. We would like to see that respected. I would like to see an end to passports from one end of the world to the other and certainly within the European family. If there is to be the freedom of movement of people, there must be a sense of responsibility on the part of those who have the right to move freely. We have the right to move freely and I would not ask our Government to put an embargo on passports or to withdraw passports from people who want to go to South Africa, Russia, Afghanistan, China or anywhere else. If we are to enjoy that freedom, it must be matched by a sense of responsibility. It is a responsibility not to use a passport given by Ireland in order to go to a country which is anathema to the majority of nations.

The system of Government operated in South Africa is not acceptable to people who have respect for human rights. The system of Government in South Africa involves also, because of the system of segregation and separation, separation in sport. The system operated there is not acceptable to people who have regard for the equality of men and women and for the dignity of human beings. To use an Irish passport for the purpose of insulting those principles is totally unacceptable. That is why I join with representatives of all parties in making another appeal to the Irish Rugby Football Union not to go ahead with the proposed tour of South Africa. I believe they will find many other opportunities in which our young sportsmen will be able to compete with their fellows of all nations, colours and races throughout the world. If they were to step down from their decision that they have already made in this regard nobody would fault them except the segregationist regime in South Africa. The rest of the world would applaud them. I believe that the most genuine sportsmen in Ireland, not only those interested in rugby but those interested in other sports too, would applaud them for making a decision as a result, I presume, of the enlightenment which they have obtained over the last few months. This is a very serious matter. They have now an opportunity to put things right.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

The debate here has been very constructive because it is quite evident from the whole tenor of the discussion that there is a civilised unanimity on this matter amongst all of us here in this House. For that reason I regard this as a very timely and important debate coming at a very crucial period of decision with regard to this matter. I congratulate the proposers of the motion and I welcome the very valuable contributions which have been made up to now from all sides of the House and I am sure that that will be the situation until the end of the debate.

At the outset I would like to say, however, that, while I agree with the basic thrust of the motion, I have reservations about the call for a unilateral trade and commercial boycott which I will explain later when I come to deal with the question of sanctions against South Africa and the amendment which the Government have put down. The debate is timely not just because of the proposed rugby tour of South Africa but also — I mean this very seriously — because I sense that we are approaching a historically crucial period over the development of Southern Africa as a whole. The actions taken by black South Africans in support of their demands for an end to the repressive system under which they are forced to live, are intensifying and so too are the counter measures adopted by White South Africians to protect the regime and system against the pressure by the majority. I believe, and all my information is to that effect, that the recent interventions by the South African armed forces in Angola and Mozambique in support of apartheid and South African's illegal occupation of Namibia are a real threat to the stability of the region and to international peace and security.

How we in Ireland and the international community generally respond to the demand of black South Africa and how we react to the threat created by the policies of the South African Government will be a very real test of our adherence to the basic principles of human rights and a measure of our commitment to peace and justice throughout the world, principles which we have advocated in international fora over the years. The debate is important also because not alone does it afford the House an opportunity to express the degree of national opposition, which I welcome, to the proposed rugby tour, but it also enables us to examine the nature of apartheid and our response to it as a nation and to discuss the implications of the tour for Ireland's international reputation and for Irish sport.

All speakers in this debate from all sides of the House have condemned apartheid. We should ask ourselves what it is about the apartheid system that enables us to transcend political and party differences. Why does it evoke such a strong and unequivocal response? The answer must be that all of us here in the House recognise that racial discrimination is a threat to the whole lot of us and that apartheid, which is a wrongfully unique political expression of racist philosophies, is a threat to the very basis of human rights and to the democratic values to which we all in this House subscribe. We can change our politics but we cannot, no more than the black South African, change the colour of our skin.

In South Africa an individual is classed at birth on the basis of the colour of his skin and assigned by the white administration to one of four racial groups. That decision fixes irrevocably his or her destiny and the fact of being assigned to one or other group determines once and for all the entire course of his or her life down to the smallest detail. As the system works, if he or she is classified as white he or she will join a minority of five million people, 17 per cent of the total population, who occupy 85 per cent of the land and enjoy a complete monopoly of politicial, social, economic and any other power that one wants to think of. If he or she is assigned to one of the non-white racial groups he or she will join the majority of over 20 million but will not have the right to vote or participate in Government, and will have restrictions in regard to his or her place of residence. He or she will be denied the right of any movement, assembly and association of free expression and will have to endure, as a result of deliberate Government policy over which he or she has no control, inferior housing, public health and education as well as rudimentary cultural and sports facilities.

These are the facts of life in that country and that is all in the name of — a phrase used in South African terminology —"separate development" The South African Government again claim that this is a "logical" response — the word used by them — to the specific conditions in South Africa. All of us here would agree that the logic is entirely spurious and wrong. "Separate development" is a euphemism. The regime is racist in philosophy, in intent and in practice. I am being factual about the situation. South Africa is the only state in the world which has built its political system on race. This needs to be emphasised. It is the only state in the world that has done so with the avowed objective of assuring the dominance of the white ruling group and of perpetuating the inferior social, economic and political status of the majority black and mixed race population. Such a system can be sustained and maintained only by repression, and this is what has happened there under the whole organisation of the state in South Africa.

It is no wonder therefore, that the regime has had to construct, by reason of that, a complex network of controls and laws which permeate every facet of South African life. In pursuance of that unfortunate, ill-intentioned and malign objective they have had to have recourse to brutal security measures and these have resulted in numerous deaths, hundreds of long-term political prisoners and suffering by millions of people. This is the unfortunate and real outcome and logic of "separate development" or apartheid.

There is no evidence as the South African government and others sometimes assert, that real and substantial improvements have taken place or are likely to take place. It is true that there have been some changes — and any change which improves the wretched lot, however slightly, of the black South African is of course to be welcomed. There have been some miniscule changes in that respect, but all the evidence suggests that the intention is not the abolition of the apartheid system but rather the adjustment of it. Whatever minimal changes are suggested, they are merely to meet the changing economic requirements of South Africa rather than any point of principle or morality, or a real approach to dealing with the problem. The fundamental principles and mechanisms of apartheid remain entrenched in the system.

How can it be, one may ask, that after years of condemnation at the United Nations, countless debates and numerous resolutions in which Ireland has participated with other like-minded sensible countries, the apartheid system remains intact? Could it be that the answer is just that — resolutions, condemnation and debates are just not enough.

Mr. Quinn

Or weak amendments.

Mr. Lenihan

I suspect so. Let us be unanimous. Necessary as they are, they are no substitute for concerted or sustained action. That brings me to the question I posed in my opening remarks. How can we in Ireland help the black South African to achieve his demands for equality and justice by peaceful means? How can we help to avert an escalation of violence throughout Southern Africa with its consequent very serious risks to world peace?

First, we must continue to assert that apartheid is unacceptable and that we totally reject South Africa's claims to speak for and defend our values. The South African regime must be under no illusion that the colour of their skin or a shared European history blind us to the fact that they represent a totalitarian ideology and a threat to democracy. The Government have already made this clear at the United Nations and elsewhere and I believe that this debate, which unites the whole House, will underscore this fact.

Second, we must continue our assistance to the victims of racism in South Africa. The Government here for a number of years contributed to the United Nations South Africa fund and I am happy to say that we will this year be maintaining our level of contribution to these funds at £35,000.

Third, we must seek out ways at international level to increase the pressure for change within South Africa. I would like at this point to refer to the Government's amendment to the Motion before us. While I go along with the general philosophy behind the motion, I am not convinced that action of the kind proposed in the motion — that is, a unilateral Irish commercial and trade boycott — would at this time help significantly towards our objective, which is an end to the apartheid system. That is what I am concerned with. I am being very candid here. I do not think the motion will be progressive in that direction. Indeed, it could be counterproductive and Deputy Quinn, while I respect the philosophy behind his thinking, will agree with me on this, as well.

Instead of unilateral action of the kind proposed in the Labour Party Motion, we should concentrate our energies to achieving the maximum international pressure, through co-ordinated measures agreed by the international community and implemented through the force of international law. That is why Ireland has consistently supported the arms embargo against South Africa and will in the forthcoming Security Council debate on the issue, which is pending very shortly, seek to strengthen that embargo. That is why we support early Security Council action on an oil embargo and on a ban on new foreign investment in South Africa. We are prepared to consider any further action that may be proposed by the international community. However, I would emphasise that such action must be carefully worked out and properly co-ordinated if it is to win support in the Security Council and be implemented successfully. These are the facts of life which operate within the United Nations. Weak or ineffective sanctions would signal to South Africa that the world community is weak and half-hearted in its response to its policies and confirm South Africa — I say this very advisedly — confirm South Africa in its belief that it can continue to ignore the demands for change. Whatever we devise, we must have a multilateral United Nations response which is practicable and needful.

The Government's amendment seeks to highlight our active and determined pursuit of effective, internationally agreed measures. As such I believe it would commend itself to the House. It goes further than that. The amendment also emphasises the other efforts of the Government to persuade South Africa to abandon its apartheid policies, which brings me to the question of the action we can take here at home.

We must act domestically in support of our international efforts. The Government have taken steps at the national level consistent with their international stand. The House will be aware that Ireland does not maintain diplomatic relations with South Africa and that no official encouragement is given to the promotion of economic relations with that country. In a positive vein we have in our development co-operation programme deliberately sought to assist in the economic development of the states neighbouring South Africa, so that they can reduce their dependence on South Africa, and, if need be, withstand the effects of sanctions. Our whole thrust of development aid has been precisely in these weaker black African countries adjacent to South Africa itself. I mention Lesotho, Ruanda, Burundi and Tanzania in this context. In addition, the Government have consistently discouraged sporting contacts with South Africa and have taken action in recent years to ensure that racially selected South African teams could not participate in sports events in Ireland.

Why sport, it can be asked. Naturally, we are a sporting people and no one would question that. It is clear from the analysis I have mentioned and the analysis which has been made by previous speakers to this debate, that the very nature of apartheid results in racial discrimination which permeates every facet of life in South Africa and that racial principles are dominant in all areas of political, economic and social activity. In South Africa, sport and politics cannot be divorced by reason of the very nature of the system there, because genuine non-racial sport is impossible while the apartheid system lasts.

But it goes further than this. Sport in South Africa is not just a passive indicator of the political system. It is an instrument of the system and is actively pursued internationally as a means of gaining international recognition for the South African Government and its policies. The visits to Ireland in recent months of apologists for the South African regime demonstrate more eloguently than words the fact that in South Africa politics and sport are inseparable. That is a fact of life within the South African community. That is why over the past ten years South Africa has been excluded from numerous international sports organisations and from the Olympic Games, why national sports organisations have refused contact with their South African counterparts and why governments have acted to prevent South African teams competing in their country and have sought to dissuade national teams from travelling to South Africa to compete there. The successful isolation of South African sport in recent years has encouraged those working for peaceful change within South Africa and has brought home in a very concrete way to the South African Government and to the white population there that the international community will not, cannot, under any circumstances, accept the continuance of apartheid.

In this context, taking what I have said into consideration and what has been said in the course of this debate, the proposed IRFU rugby tour in May acquires major significance from the wrong point of view as the first tour by a "home" rugby football team since the early seventies. There can be little doubt that the ending of South Africa's isolation in rugby would be widely received in South Africa as representing the normalisation of relations with countries such as Ireland. Thus, a critical test of this country's international susceptibility is one way of looking at it, and of South Africa's susceptibility is another way of looking at it. The tour is not a sporting event. That is the point I am making. It is, whether or not the players and organisers choose to regard it as such, a political act and that again, to use the common phase, is the reality of the situation.

Since the rugby union announced their decision to proceed with the tour there has been widespread reaction throughout the country and the Government's opposition to the tour has been expressed on several occasions by myself and others. Deputy Quinn in the course of the debate yesterday evening listed numerous bodies which have publicly declared their objection. There is no need for me to itemise them now. Sufficient to say they include almost all the representative organisations in the country, all the political parties, all the churches, the trade union movement as well as organisations involved in very constructive missionary and aid activities in which Ireland, because of our particular background and tradition, has played a very real and constructive role, not just recently but over many years.

It is not surprising that this sort of momentum of support should have arisen. Our historical experience helps us to identify with the victims of oppression and colonialism wherever they are found and in whatever form they are practised. The foreign policy of successive Irish Governments has sought to respond to such oppression and colonialism by supporting the process of decolonisation in Africa and Asia and the promotion of peace, justice and human rights throughout the world. As a result we have rightly earned as a nation an international reputation of which we can be proud. That reputation is now at some risk because of the attitude being adopted by the particular people who propose to go ahead with this tour.

International reaction to the tour has been as loud and clear and sustained as the national reaction. The tour has been raised at the United Nations and at the European Parliament. It has been condemned by the Organisation for African Unity, by the UN Special Committee against Apartheid and the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa and by many African States, including Nigeria. The strength of this reaction should not be underestimated. The Supreme Council for Sport in Africa, which organised the boycott of the Montreal Olympics in 1976, in response to a New Zealand rugby tour in South Africa has said and I quote:

Should the Irish Rugby Football Union in defiance of its government and world opinion undertake a playing tour of racist South Africa this year Africa will reserve the right to reconsider her participation in all sporting events in which the supporters of and collaborators with racist South Africa are also a part.

The peoples of Africa view the apartheid system as an affront to their dignity and an insult to their worth as human beings. They cannot understand how a single sports organisation can act in defiance of representative opinion throughout the country. They are prepared to act to defend their dignity and their sense of human values. It is a basic effort and they have thecapacity to affect our interests in a very practical way.

With a view to protecting our interests by taking steps to ensure that the governments of other countries, particularly Africa and the international bodies to which I have referred, the Supreme Council for Sport in South Africa are kept informed of the government's position and of the actions we have taken to persuade the IRFU to cancel the tour. We have done this through our embassies throughout the world and, in particular, in black Africa itself.

That action has not been inconsiderable. I have tried to persuade the IRFU so far as one can logically. I met members of the IRFU and explained the position in detail in regard to the Government's opposition to the tour and spelled out the divisive situation that would arise and has arisen since then from their own point of view. The Minister for sport has informed the Irish union that their application for State aid cannot be approved as long as their present policy and sporting contact with South Africa is maintained. Special leave will not be granted to any State employee to enable him to participate and a further concrete demonstration of our governmental disapproval and the disapproval of the whole House was demonstrated by our decision not to attend at Lansdowne Road.

It is not easy, as previous speakers have said, to ask young Irish rugby players to forego an opportunity of playing the game they love. It is something one does not like asking them to do, but I want to put the other side of the coin. I applaud the players who, as a matter of conscience, have taken a stance and decided not to participate in the tour and I want to take this occasion to thank them and applaud them for being outstanding Irishmen in that respect. The team that travels to South Africa if the tour does take place — I hope it will not — will not have the support of the majority of the Irish people and cannot be said to be representative of the Irish people. This debate has made that clear. It is not often we have a situation in which there is unanimity in the House. I will be meeting the IRFU at a final meeting this week and I will emphasise that the outcome of the debate here reflects very genuinely and sincerely the strength of feeling among the democratically elected representatives of the people against the tour and I shall ask the rugby union not to proceed with the tour in the interests of justice, in the interests of Ireland's international reputation and also in the interests of Irish sport.

Mr. B. Desmond

While I consider it to be of the utmost importance that the IRFU should be under no illusion whatsoever as to the strength of feeling within the House about the participation in this tour, nevertheless it is important that we should also be under no illusion that there is a great schizophrenia, politically speaking, here and in the western world about what is happening in South Africa. Many politicians, including with respect the Minister for Foreign Affairs, work themselves into a white sweat of moral indignation about South Africa and we go through a ritualistic exercise in Dáil Éireann and declare our general abhorrence. Then we go to the United Nations and deliver well-rounded and impressively-worded resolutions of condemnation. By the time we finish there we have to go to the European Parliament and once again there we deplore the fascist regime. We then go to an EEC meeting of Ministers and reiterate our condemnation. Before we know where we are, we have a meeting of the Lomé Convention where we assist in a general way the countries facing the regime in South Africa and once more we declare our liberality, our objection to and condemnation of South Africa. Our capacity for self-deception grows with each successive meeting — not just the capacity for self-delusion of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs but of successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs — because while the Minister comes in and wrings his hand in deep sorrow about the travesty of human rights, when it comes to supporting a small amendment here it is another matter. The amendment merely asks the Government — and I quote the final two lines of the Labour Party motion "to take steps to introduce an immediate and effective boycott on all commercial and trading links with South Africa." We have not defined what these steps should be; we have left it broad and general.

If I were in the Minister's position and had Cabinet sanction I would say: "We import about £12 million worth of commodities from South Africa each year. We will take half of these imports, fresh and dried oranges, other fresh fruit, fruit and nuts prepared and preserved. Of these categories we import £5.4 million worth a year." Overnight, if this glorious country were seriously concerned about doing something about apartheid in South Africa and helping to get this odious system out of the international community we need only say to the Irish people: "We shall now take steps to reduce by 50 per cent our imports from South Africa." Deputy Lenihan would go to Clondalkin and tell the ladies in the supermarkets: "Sorry, Ireland has taken steps to eliminate 50 per cent of our trade with South Africa and from next week we will not have any oranges and you will not have other fresh fruit in the mornings. You will not have fruit and nuts for the children at Hallowee'n. This will contribute to a 50 per cent reduction in Irish trade with South Africa. We in Ireland, this glorious, Christian, liberated Republic will make such a contribution against apartheid".

But the Minister says here: "We can only reduce the distribution of fruit and nuts from South Africa in the Republic of Ireland on a multilateral basis." The Minister's amendment says "... and supports the Government in their efforts, including the pursuit of internationally agreed measures". Ireland must have another multilateral piece of schizophrenia in terms of doing something about South Africa. I have been personally long involved in this area, since 1957 when I first became a trade union official and had to argue with dockers at branch committee meetings as to why we should not import slave-labour oranges into the docks in Dublin. When I subsequently became the first secretary of the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement I heard the arguments over and over again. Regrettably in 1980, having seen this go on for over 20 years, I have come to the conclusion that when the blood bath and holocaust occurs in South Africa — personally I have little doubt now that it will occur — the Minister will probably say: "My God, I never knew we were really on the wrong side. It did not dawn on me. I thought we were doing the right thing. When we went to the UN, to the European Parliament and the Lomé Convention and so on, we thought we were doing the right thing. There is no doubt that, as in the other states of Africa which liberated themselves in the sixties and seventies, in the eighties South Africa will liberate itself probably according to all the indications at this stage by way of bloody revolution.

It is easy for us on the outside to say that. The decision about such a revolution will be taken within the country. It is not for us to propose that there should be a revolution. The people fighting for liberation in that country will take that decision democratically. But it looks that way. In fact, I can imagine President Reagan coming to Minister Lenihan——

Mr. Lenihan

Thank you.

Mr. B. Desmond

A Freudian slip on my part — Deputy Lenihan if he is shadow Minister on the other side — and saying to the Minister of the day: "We must support the white regime and the present democratic though admittedly minority Government in South Africa with American arms, American guns and American threats because you would never know what the Russians might do; the Russians are supporting the other side."

Let us be brutally frank: the odds are that the majority of the black people of South Africa do not need the Russians, the Irish or the Americans. They know what they want and they will do it just as the other independent states of Africa by and large did not have to avail of Russian help but did what they wanted themselves and were beholden to nobody. Indeed they have a jaundiced respect for the role of Ireland in that period. When the revolution finally explodes — and it is now on as is evident from any analysis of the situation in South Africa — and when the situation comes to full fruition, I have little doubt that the black majority will face the combined onslaught particularly of the multinational weaponry which will be placed at the disposal of the current regime because as everybody in Ireland knows and as every multinational company knows, when it comes to uranium, gold or the strategic geograpical location of that country, it is an international war and the war will take place on that soil. The Russians, who have gold and uranium, are not particularly preoccupied about what happens there. They know they will not lose but that the West will lose, and the West are already losing catastrophically in that area. I would like to visit that country, but I never dared even apply for a visa since the sixties. A number of us hope to have an opportunity in the eighties of going there and meeting the representatives of a democratic government. Some of us might not have to indulge in the wringing of hands in sorrow, a practice which is carried out in this country.

This is the most important international test case for the international community in the history of the world. That might sound a sweeping statement but with international capital working in that country, there is the exploitation of precious world commodities of gold and uranium involved. There is a lot at stake in terms of what will emerge as the ultimate form of government in that country, whether it be an extreme form of socialism, which I very much doubt, or a national republic of a democratic social form, which I think will emerge. All these things are playing themselves out now in South Africa in the most stark form that could be imagined.

It would be difficult to expect the IRFU to be preoccupied about such an issue. I do not know how we are going to suggest that their participation in this international match is a form of diluted endorsement of what is happening in South Africa now. Obviously they are impervious to that kind of political understanding and argument, and all the indications are that the tour is going ahead.

We should put a number of things on record. We could congratulate the rugby players who decided, on principle, not to go. They understand the situation. We could also congratulate the many national organisations, church people of all denominations and other national and international bodies, who have decided to add their voices of condemnation in suggesting to the Irish people that they should not travel to South Africa for this sporting occasion. One has to face many different kinds of criticism when condemning this trip. I have been asked why we are being so hypocritically selective. What about Chile? What about Russia? What about E1 Salvador? What about Argentina and the World Cup? The only answer I can give is that issues must be taken as they are put before us in a particular context. I do not feel particularly selective. I go to the Council of Europe as an Irish delegate with my four fellow Irishmen and if the Soviet Union are persecuting Jews, as they are doing and have done, I have no hesitation as a Social Democrat in denouncing that form of discrimination and denial of human rights. The denial of human rights does not have a geographical boundary and therefore I do not feel I am being selective about South Africa. Those who allege we are being hypocritically selective are really telling us to be quiet and not get involved. I hope my sentiments are conveyed to some of those who are hypocritically selective, such as the American President in relation to E1 Salvador where there is a degree of selectivity and hypocrisy which we in Ireland would not accept.

No matter how selective one might want to be in relation to the denial of human rights throughout the world, South Africa is the only country where it does not matter if a man is a Communist, a Christian, a Mohommedan, a Jew, an agnostic or an Irish converted Catholic. If he is black, that is it. Ideology, political beliefs, whether you are for or against the Government do not matter. In South Africa one unique characteristic applies, namely, colour. That determines everything. On that basis South Africa is unique and deserves condemnation even, I suggest, a selective condemnation.

For these reasons I support this motion. We will be voting in favour of it. I thought the Government's decision to put down an amendment was ill-advised because all we asked was that steps be taken. In my view the Minister should not press his amendment; all we are asking him to do is take steps. If he does not press his amendment we will not press a division and we could have unanimity on this matter, because unanimity is important. The Government will have to decide what steps to take. I do not think the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy O'Malley, is going to lose one shilling of national investment should we take the necessary steps. It is important that the international press, particularly the press in South Africa, should know that we in Dáil Éireann were unanimous in condemning this proposed trip.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are 16 minutes left. By agreement the Chair will give eight minutes to each Deputy.

Dr. Browne

It is very important that unanimity should be established and I am very glad to accept that proviso quickly. It is very satisfying to know that there is competition between us as to the severity of the condemnation, expressed on both sides of this House, of racialism in South Africa. I have already congratulated the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his speech, on his consistent policy on this matter and on his position in the United Nations. I would like to remind people of the stand taken by his predecessor, Deputy Andrews, on a number of occasions which were on the same lines — a condemnation of this type of racialism and an appeal to the IRFU not to disgrace the name of our people all over the world by going to South Africa.

I am old enough to remember being advised not to go to Hitler's Germany for much the same reason because we would be spending money and supporting a racialist and anti-semitic society. The horrible sequence to that, which Deputy Desmond suggested is inevitable in South Africa, is something through which I have already lived when the horrible forces of racialism were destroyed in Germaney during the war period.

I am particularly glad to support the Labour Party motion because I and Deputy Jack McQuillan made a similar suggestion about 25 years ago to the then Taoiseach, Seán Lemass. It is very satisfying that there is unanimity tonight on the idea that we must try to bring every possible pressure to bear on these people to stop them going to South Africa.

Because of our historical background as a colonial society, we suffered because of our race and religious beliefs, especially during penal times, the kind of oppression which black Africans are now suffering. We have been through all this. Very few western societies have been through an experience which is such a precise microcosm of the kind of humiliation and degradation which the black African suffers at present.

I recall that during the war I was moved by something which was done by a king. As a socialist it is unusual that I would find it worthwhile complimenting such a person. The person concerned was the King of Denmark who wore the star of David on his sleeve. If it were possible for us to do it we should claim to be black Africans and expect to be treated in the same way. There is no difference whatsoever, and the attempt to create any kind of discrimination on the question of colour is quite as outrageous as it was in relation to race or religion or many of the other issues we have discussed here from time to time.

I wonder if there is any way in which we can make it difficult for these people to go to South Africa. I share the Labour Party's belief that we need to do rather more than simply say that we regret the decision of the IRFU or that we are sorry about apartheid. Sacrifices probably need to be made. As a small nation and as one of the non-committed nations we should give leadership because it is very difficult for the great nations to take up an independent position, especially when enromous amounts of money are probably involved. Moral leadership could be shown by small countries like ours. It may be idealist and Utopian but if we were in the ideal society we should not do business with these people. It is not as if we would have to deprive ourselves of goods which we buy from South Africa. There are alternative sources of supply and there are alternative markets for the goods we export to South Africa. I do not believe it would require sacrifice on our part. There is no doubt that goods we buy from South Africa are made available as a result of the use of slave labour. The development of a serious trade union movement has been prohibited or restricted and the unfortunate people who are creating the end product are doing so in conditions of such humiliation and degradation that we are depraving ourselves if we take any part in it by purchasing these goods.

During the thirties many of us sought to close off the fascist countries by cutting down on trade and other relationships with them in the social or recreational sphere. There is no doubt that above any other nation we were associated with the marvellous power of the boycott movement rather than the gun and destruction.

Aer Lingus is a semi-State body. Is it not possible for us through the trade union movement to see that these people cannot fly to South Africa or cannot travel there by our ships? I sincerely hope that this will be the decision of the trade union movement and that they will not allow these people to go to South Africa unless they walk or swim there. They should not be allowed to use any of the semi-State institutions.

Mr. O'Keeffe

A very cosy series of condemnations of apartheid and the IRFU tour have developed in the course of this debate. I have to question the credibility and sincerity of the Government on this issue.

In December last at the general assembly of the United Nations a motion was proposed calling for an end to all sporting contacts with South Africa. One hundred and thirty-one nations supported that resolution which re-affirmed the importance of a complete cessation of all sports exchanges with South Africa in the campaign for the elimination of apartheid. It emphasised the urgent need for an international convention against apartheid in sport. It condemned sporting organisations which collaborated with South Africa. As I said, one hundred and thirty-one nations supported that resolution but in going through the list of those countries I did not see the name of Ireland. Fifteen nations abstained on that resolution; Deputy Lenihan and his Government abstained. It is important that in debating this issue we should know what happened in the name of our country at the general assembly of the UN. We have heard much talk about the commitment of this Government to the principles of peace and justice which they are alleged to be advocating in the international fora. I am ashamed that this Government did not on 15 December last at the United Nations support the resolution calling for an end to all sporting contacts with South Africa. I must say the credibility of Deputy Lenihan and the Government in speaking to the IRFU and in calling on them to cancel the tour must be very suspect to those with whom the Minister is having discussions.

The Fine Gael Party have been consistent on this issue. Reference has been made to the Soviet Union where there is a major denial of human rights. At a very early stage Fine Gael advocated that this country should not support the Moscow Olympics, a view based in particular on the invasion by the Soviets of Afghanistan. Ultimately we were followed by the Government after months of dithering.

On this issue of South Africa, I strongly support measures to ensure that we do not support, or are not seen to support, the apartheid system in that country. If there is anyone in the IRFU who will listen to us, I join with the other politicians in this House in a last minute appeal to them to cancel the tour. I do this for two major reasons. The first is because of human rights which has been dealt with very suitably here and we agree with the sentiments expressed on this matter. A unique system exists in South Africa where, as a matter of public policy, a society is built on a political system of race. The regime is committed to strengthening the existing system through the establishment of states of the Bantustans, by abolishing the citizenship rights of the blacks and by the forcible removal of millions of people who do not accept this racialist system. We cannot support that and we add our condemnation to what has been said about it.

There is another reason I make this final appeal to the IRFU not to go to South Africa. I spent many years playing rugby and enjoyed it. I have discussed the question of the tour with many people who are still playing rugby and who administer the game. I say to them that this country will be damaged internationally if the tour goes ahead. I know that is a selfish reason but we are Irishmen and we want to do the best we can for our country. To those people who so proudly wear the green jersey at Lansdowne Road I want to give them the clear message that they are damaging the country. Even if they do not accept they are damaging the country, they must accept there is a danger they may do so. I say to the rugby men that they should not consciously damage the country or put it in danger of being damaged. For that rather selfish but patriotic reason I add my voice to those who have asked them not to go ahead with the tour.

If, despite all the appeals, they decide to go ahead with the tour. I accept that there can be no question of the withdrawal of passports. The major difference between our country and countries such as the Soviet Union and South Africa is that we are a free, democratic society and there can be no question of adopting measures that would be taken in those countries.

I must go back to where I began. The Government would have had far more credibility in their appeal to the IRFU if they had followed it through in the United Nations last December and had added the name of Ireland to the 131 nations who supported the resolution for an end to all sporting contacts with South Africa.

Mr. Quinn

On behalf of the Labour Party and on behalf of the black people of South Africa who have asked us to sponsor this motion, I should like to extend our thanks and appreciation to all of those people who have spoken in favour of the principle of non-collaboration with the racist regime in South Africa and who have spoken against the tour.

As the Minister has rightly said, and as was stated by the mover of the amendment on behalf of the Government, let us recognise and celebrate the area in which we are in full agreement. I was glad to hear the Minister's announcement tonight that yet again he will meet the IRFU executive towards the end of the week. I do not doubt his own powers of persuasion but on foot of what no doubt will be a motion passed by this House, I ask him to involve the Taoiseach at some stage in this matter, to emphasise quite clearly the Government's view. I am saying this in view of the fact that the Taoiseach has taken an active role in other areas of Government policy and administration. I trust the Minister will accept this suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered.

The IRFU should be left in no doubt that if they persist in going to South Africa they are not going in my name, in the name of the Labour Party, in the name of anyone in this House or in the name of the Irish people whom we represent here. The tour does not have the support of all the organisations that were referred to and after tonight it will be formally condemned by way of motion in this House. I thank the Minister for clearly identifying that and for communicating it to various countries throughout the world. I trust that the journalists and the representatives in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery will recognise the strength of feeling on this matter by all parties.

Having said that we are against the tour—I recognise that we are all agreed on that—in the remaining time I shall try to focus on the area on which we do not seem to be in agreement because the Government have seen fit to amend our motion. In consultation with the International Affairs Committee of my party and with representatives of the trade union movement here, we discussed seriously the question of sanctions to be taken against South Africa. We discussed this matter in the terms mentioned by Deputy O'Donoghue last night. There are real problems.

The phrasing of the last clause in the motion which seems to have caused some difficulty calls on the Government to take steps to introduce an immediate and effective boycott on all commercial and trading links with South Africa. We are a small country and our trade is insignificant in international terms. Our sporting links with South Africa are far more significant than our trading links. The argument of the IRFU executive is, why pick on sport, why not apply this right across the board? That is a bad argument. All sporting and other links should be broken off until such time as white South Africa mends its ways.

Ireland being able to argue vigorously and aggressively, whether it be from our new position in the Security Council or in the EEC or in the Council of Ministers, that we have done it, that we have imposed a trade boycott, gives us some extra leverage that we do not now possess. Though I congratulated the Government last night on their vigorous stand on 6 March on Resolution Draft L/59, it was in marked contrast to the abstention of different Ministers for Foreign Affairs, not the current incumbent.

What is the import of the last clause of our motion? It calls on the Government to take steps to introduce an effective boycott. As Deputy Desmond has said, we could start by pointing out that we invented the mechanism of boycotts in Ireland. We should start by refusing to buy South African produce and replace it with other replaceable produce. Of the £12.136 million imports from South Africa in 1979, £5.4 million worth were oranges, fruit and nuts. Surely they are replaceable. If we were to go to the Organisation of National Unity, to the group of seven countries and to the EEC and say we wish to replace these imports from South Africa on a planned basis, and if we asked them to assist us and to facilitate us, everybody knows that the alternative markets and suppliers are there.

to put profits into the hands of the South Africans. This could be done without cost of Irish jobs because the same dockers would be employed to handle Israeli oranges or Nigerian oranges or Zimbabwe oranges, wherever the oranges happen to come from. If we start there our import trade with South Africa will begin to be reduced. These steps we are asking the Government to take would be co-ordinated with two principles in mind, to have the maximum effect on the South African economy so that we would bring home to the South Africans that we no longer wish to put profit into their hands, and at the same time not to add to the disastrous total of 126,000 unemployed here.

Then we would have to look at the question of exports to the South African economy. Out of the £8.3 million we exported to South Africa according to 1979 statistics, exactly £3 million were pharmaceutical products. The Irish pharmaceutical industry, though it employs Irish workers, is generally controlled by the same multi-national corporations that have heavily invested capital in South Africa in the last 20 years. We might have some difficulty in preventing them from exporting to South Africa, but that should not deter us from attempting to do it.

All the motion is asking the Government to do is to take steps to introduce an effective and immediate boycott on all commercial and trading links with South Africa. The Government argued last night and again tonight that Ireland on its own, acting unilaterally, will not carry much clout. As Deputy O'Donoghue argued reasonably accurately, it would do some damage at home at a time when we cannot afford any more damage to our economy.

However, we can do two things if the Government accept the resolution. We can start to take the steps, first with imports from South Africa. We would be doing that with the full support and encouragement of the African National Congress in South Africa who have called for such a boycott. Indeed our very first step should be to insist that produce coming into this country would be labelled accurately. If you try to buy orange juice in any supermarket we find it described as the produce of divers countries, which is a sure sign that it has come from South Africa. We would leave it to the discretion of the Government to decide the rate and the pace of these steps and thereby we would be beginning what I believe to be the last chapter of the struggle against South Africa. Unequivocally and clearly we would be on the side of those around the world who have made the choice that they will not in any way give tacit, explicit or silent support to the economic base of Southern Africa.

Now I come to what is my fear not just in regard to this administration but to the previous administration since we went into the EEC. Because of the scale and the extent of EEC economic investment in South Africa, Ireland, whether in European political co-operation or in the Council or in the United Nations, seems to have lost its voice on this question to an extent which Frank Aiken would not recognise if he was alive today. We need to get back on board with those countries who not only claim they are neutral but who make their neutrality something that is real and perceptible to the rest of the world.

If we are to take advantage of the historical position of this country and our current proclaimed position of neutrality, we must clearly side progressively and actively with the African countries and the non-aligned countries in the United Nations on this issue. For various reasons and at different times, different administrations have found reason for abstention in the UN, and I exclude the present incumbent in Iveagh House in this regard. We may agree with 90 per cent of a resolution but we find some clause in it that makes us unhappy, and we abstain. The Labour Party do not believe that Ireland any longer can afford to indulge in that kind of debating nicety.

The last chapter will be written with the collapse of the Cordon Sanitaire around Southern Africa. Angola, Mozambique and finally Zimbabwe have rung the bell for the last chapter in the struggle for human liberation in Southern Africa. Then Southern African racism will have gone from the face of the globe.

We have a very clear choice in the next 20 years. This sovereign republic can decide clearly to identify itself by deed as well as by mouth with that group of nations who will be in there at the beginning of that last chapter. The refusal of the Government to take steps to introduce an immediate effective boycott can be said to be an indication of our unwillingness to put our money where our mouth is. How will that affect the country if we want to talk foreign policies in terms of national self-interest?

If we do not take a clear position on this we will be damaging the credible and perceived international identity of the country. We will be damaging our potential to act as a mediator and broker in the EEC which is the largest single trading bloc in the world. Whatever potential there is for an independent Irish foreign policy which would complement the whole North-South dialogue will be blunted and diminished by our self-censorship and subservience to the economic needs of our partners in the EEC.

Irish history is full of songs, stories, tragedies of Irish people who lived in exile throughout the world and who travelled to France, Spain or America seeking assistance from those countries for the liberation of this State and this island. In some countries we got help, in others we did not. In the final analysis we liberated ourselves in the same way as the people of Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The people of South Africa will eventually liberate themselves, and as a free liberated people they will remember as a major economic power in the world countries who gave them aid and assistance and support when they needed it and wanted it.

Dr. Browne

The IRFU are scabbing on the rest of us.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 10.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Coughlan, Clement.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• Gallagher, Dennis.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, P.J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Nolan, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Horgan, John.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairi.
• Treacy, Seán
• Tully, James

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies B. Desmond and Horgan.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.