Vol. 328 No. 4
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of times the Government have been requested by the State of Israel to agree to the establishment of residential embassies in the respective capitals of both states; and the reasons Ireland has so far refused to accede to the requests.
13.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that the State of Egypt has a residential embassy in Dublin and that Ireland has a residential embassy in Cairo, he considers that it is now time that Ireland ensures that a proper balance of diplomatic relations exist between this country and the various states in the Middle East and that a full residential embassy be established by the Government in Tel Aviv.
15.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will now agree to the exchange of residential embassies with Israel; and, if not, why.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 13 and 15 together.
As indicated in my reply to a similar question on 15 May 1980, it would be inappropriate and contrary to international practice to speculate publicly on the exchange of resident ambassadors between Ireland and Israel or indeed any other country where we do not already maintain a resident embassy as this would be a matter for discussion between the Irish Government and the other Governments concerned.
The exchange of resident embassies with other countries is a matter which is kept under constant review in the light of our international interests and the availability of the necessary resources. We already have diplomatic relations with Israel on a non-residential basis.
In view of the exchanges that have taken place in respect of earlier questions, would the Minister not agree that, first, we have a very real need for constant contact in this city with representatives of the State of Israel and that, secondly, the State of Israel has, effectively, given up requesting a residential embassy in this city on the grounds apparently that the Government have refused their requests up to now? Would the Minister either confirm or deny that the reason we are denying the request of the Israelis is based on the spurious grounds of security?
We have representation both in Ireland and from Ireland to a number of Arab countries on an accredited basis and with the great majority of the Arab nations the representation is on this basis. The same goes for Israel. There is a simple matter of cost involved in this whole question. The only country from that general region that has direct accredition here is Egypt. We have relations with Israel from Athens while Israel have relations with us through London.
Do we not have representation in the Lebanon?
Would the Minister not agree that since 15 May 1980 he has altered the sensitive balance in the relationship between this country and Israel and between this country and Israel's neighbours by reason of espousing the PLO? Having regard to the fact that unease is generated in our relations with Israel by virtue of that stance, would the Minister not consider it appropriate now to establish what has long since been sought by the Israelis, that is, an exchange of ambassadors on a residential basis? Should the Minister not consider also the odd relationship which exists between the political party of which he is a member and the state of Syria, which again is something that gives rise to a certain amount of unease?
In regard to the espousal of the PLO there is one matter I must emphasise and that is, as I have said in the House previously, that Gaston Thorn, as President of the Council of Ministers of the European Community, held an official meeting with Yasser Arafat on 4 August 1980. I have here a long list of French, Greek, Belgian, Italian and UK representatives in the form of Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers who have met Mr. Kaddoumi and Mr. Arafat as well as other members of the PLO. Anything we are doing in this respect in the way of talking to these people is entirely in the context of the Venice Declaration, which was agreed to by the then nine members of the Community and which was subscribed to by Greece, subsequently with a view to devising a formula which would achieve some peace in the Middle East. That formula must recognise the integrity and the security of the State of Israel as well as recognising some formula for the Palestinian people and for peace generally in that whole region.
Arising out of my first question, would the Minister indicate the reason for our not having acceded yet to the request of the Israelis for representation on a residential status? Is the reason one of cost or is it one of security vis-à-vis ourselves and the State of Israel?
Strictly, it is a matter of practicality. We find that our existing relations with middle-eastern countries generally, whether Israel or any other, are being satisfactorily conducted within the resources at our disposal and to that extent there is finance involved. I see the Israeli Ambassador whenever he asks to see me and the same goes for other ambassadors. The same applies in their countries vis-à-vis our ambassadors.
But would the Minister not agree——
This question has been turned into a debate. I am calling Question No. 14.
Is the Minister aware that the head of an all-party delegation to this country from the State of Israel stated that they were dissatisfied with the present relations between the two countries and that their request for a residential embassy was being denied?
I have called Question No. 14.
