I move:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Reports:
Developments in the European Communities—
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Reports.
Developments in the European Communities — Seventeenth and Eighteenth Reports: Motion.
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Professor Dooge)
Deputies will be aware that reports on developments in the European Communities are required by section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972, which provides that the Government shall make such a report twice yearly to each House of the Oireachtas. The reports before the House today are the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Reports on Developments in the European Communities and cover the period from July 1980 to June of this year.
In my introduction to this debate I should like to give a brief resumé of the major developments in Community activity covered by these reports. I shall of course be happy to respond to any queries raised by Deputies during the course of the debate.
The Community at the present time is going through a further process of enlargement. On 1 January of this year Greece became the tenth member State of the Community and negotiations for the accession of Spain and Portugal are proceeding satisfactorily. Ireland, along with the other member states, welcomed the decision of the democratic Governments of both these countries to apply for membership of the Community, seeing their application as an element in their return to democracy. While we appreciate the difficulties for the Community posed by the applications of Spain and Portugal, we are anxious, along with our Community colleagues, to bring about a speedy and successful conclusion to these negotiations.
Turning to institutional matters, I would like to take this opportunity to refer briefly to the nomination of Mr. Cluskey and Deputies Pattison and Treacy to the seats in the European Parliament vacated by Deputies Mr. O'Leary, Kavanagh and Mrs. Eileen Desmond. The House will be aware that the Community provisions for the directly elected Parliament make ministerial office incompatible with the holding of a seat in the Parliament. As the nomination of successors has in this case been the subject of some comment, I would like to assure the House that the nominations were declared to be entirely in order by the Credentials Committee of the Parliament and were formally approved by the Parliament on 15 October on the basis of the report of the Credentials Committee.
The House will also be aware that a debate is currently under way on ways in which relations between the different Community institutions can be developed and, in particular, ways in which the Parliament could be given an enhanced role in Community affairs. Fresh consideration of these matters was stimulated by the Report on European Institutions presented by the Committee of Three to the European Council. The Parliament subsequently addressed itself to the matter with a number of recent resolutions and reports. An aspect of the debate we may expect to hear more of will be the improvement of relations between the European Parliament and national legislative bodies. All aspects of the matter will be considered fully on the basis of Commission proposals expected Shortly.
The so called "British Budgetary Problem" has already been referred to in a number of earlier reports to this House, and Deputies will be aware of the background to that problem. However, since I intend to speak at some length on this particular issue, I should like to just briefly summarise the main issues involved.
The British Government have for some time now insisted that the level of their "net" contribution to the EEC budget is unacceptable. In an attempt to meet these concerns the Foreign Affairs Council on 30 May 1980 agreed to a scheme whereby for the years 1980 and 1981 Britain would be re-imbursed a proportion of their contribution through an adapted financial mechanism, together with special measures involving extra expenditure of EEC funds in the UK. As part of this agreement the Community pledged itself to resolve the problem by means of structural changes. In this context the Commission was given the task of preparing a report concerning the development of Community policies.
This 30 May Mandate laid down some very specific limitations for the Commission report. It was not to call into question the Community's common financial responsibility for the funding of Community policies, nor the basic principles of the Common Agricultural Policy, namely, a unified market based on Community preference and funded from the Community budget. The purpose of this Commission study was to attempt to prevent the recurrence of unacceptable situations for any member state. On 24 June 1981 the Commission issued its report and this report is currently the subject of intensive discussion among the member states in Brussels.
While it is not my intention to enter into the details of what is no more than a basis for discussion, regrettably, I have to record here my view that the Commission has not in its report kept wholly to the terms of its mandate. Our rejection of certain features of the report, which we consider incompatible with the established principles of Community financing and of the CAP, has been made clear in Brussels. It would perhaps be more useful if I were to take this opportunity to outline the major elements underlying the Irish approach in these negotiations.
We accepted the "Acquis" of the Community when we joined. Deputies will be aware that we use the word "Acquis" as a code word to describe Community achievements which are accepted by all and no longer negotiable and are embodied in the treaties and the legislation derived therefrom. Some elements of this "Acquis" operate to our advantage and others operate to our disadvantage. The decision to join the Community was based on our assessment of the balance of advantages and disadvantages of membership. Any attempt to undermine the "Acquis" in one area will inevitably upset this balance for member states, with consequent negative effects across the entire range of Community policies.
We are fully committed to the "Acquis" both as regards the "Own Resources" system and as regards the basic principles of the CAP. The Community's Own Resources consist of duties collected from the common customs tariff, agricultural levies and that proportion of the VAT receipts of the member states needed to finance Community policies up to a maximum limit of 1 per cent. These resources belong to the Community and not to the individual member states. To discuss the issued in terms of "net budgetary gains and losses" is misleading and wrong in principle and could reverse the process of European integration.
The basic principles of the common agricultural policy are non-negotiable. We will not accept any deviation from these principles. There has been a lot of criticism recently of the operation of the CAP — much of it misleading and inaccurate. In the first place, the cost of the CAP is overstated in the Community budget, where such items as food aid and so on are included in the agriculture section, rather than the development co-operation section of the budget. In the second place, without a common Community agriculture policy, national Governments would incur even greater expenditure in the support of agriculture. The real cost of the CAP amounts to no more than ½ per cent of the GDP of the Community. Many of the critics of the CAP often fail to mention its achievements, both in terms of ensuring an adequate supply of food to the consumer and in terms of its support of farm incomes. We can, of course, accept the need for prudent management in the operation of the CAP and in this context we have agreed in the past to limited measures of co-responsibility on a product-by-product basis, as the situation has demanded.
Our main concern must be to ensure that the Community will use this opportunity to move forward, both through the development of new policies in such fields as energy, industry, transport and so on and through the adoption of concrete measures to promote the convergence of the living standards as between the various member states. The preamble to the Rome Treaty sets out as an objective of the Community, the reduction of the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less-favoured regions. However, the Community has had little success in the promotion of this objective. Irish per capita income as a percentage of the Community average continues to decline. The recent National Economic and Social Council report highlighted the fact that whereas in 1973 the level of income per head in Ireland as a percentage of the EEC average stood at 65 per cent, by 1979 this had declined to only 61 per cent. Thus the gap in living standards widened, despite the fact that aggregate Irish GDP increased at a faster rate than that of other EEC states during the same period. The National Economic and Social Council concluded rightly that regional policy is “an essential complementary measure to the effects of free competition” and that without it “economic integration would lead to increased concerntration of economic activity in the more industrialised centre”.
The present size of the Community budget, amounting as it does to only 2.6 per cent of the national budgets of the member states cannot make any real impact on the problem of convergence. With the further enlargement of the Community, this problem will become even more acute. If the Community wishes to move forward at all, there will have to be an increase in the present ceiling of Own Resources. In our view, such an increase cannot be long delayed. The alternative is stagnation and retrogression for the Community.
On the external front the severe difficulties facing the international economy continue to affect the Community's external relations. These difficulties have led to an intensification of the pressures on the governments of the industrialised world for a reaction along protectionist lines. It is our view, however, as a small open economy, that the benefits of any such approach would be illusory and would inevitably hinder the effective operation of the international trading system. Therefore, we were greatly encouraged by the declaration of the Ottawa Summit in July which expressed the determination of the Community and the major industrialised countries to maintain and strengthen the liberal trading system and to resist protectionism. The summit also welcomed the decision to convene a ministerial meeting in 1982 under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in order to consider the overall condition of the world trading system.
Over the past year the Council of Ministers has devoted a great deal of attention to the Community's unhealthy trading balance with Japan. There are signs that the Community's expression of concern on the matter has elicited a helpful response from the Japanese. In June the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Suzuki, visited a number of Community capitals for discussions on all aspects of his country's relations with the Community. While Ireland was not included in his itinerary, I am pleased to report that the follow-up mission from the Keidanren, the organisation representing the most important Japanese business groupings, are visiting Dublin today as part of a European tour. The delegation will be received by the President and the Taoiseach and are having talks with Ministers and representatives of industry.
We regard this mission as extremely important for the further development of relations with Japan. The delegation have a brief from the Prime Minister to discuss EEC-Japan relations at Government level. We hope to impress the members with the opportunities for increasing the already high level of Japanese investment in this country and with the wide range of Irish products available for export to the Japanese market.
The Community has continued its discussions with the US administration on a number of bilateral trading problems and on the general trends in the international economy. On the question of cheap imports of US chemicals and synthetic textiles, Deputies will be aware of the welcome given to the administration's decision to decontrol US oil prices. However, the Community is maintaining pressure for similar action with regard to natural gas.
The period covered by these reports witnessed an important development in the Community's efforts to expand trade with the People's Republic of China. In the spring of this year the Commission organised an EEC-China Business Week in Brussels which provided an opportunity for the coming together of a delegation of 100 Chinese officials and up to 700 European businessmen. We would hope that the meetings and discussions held on this occasion will contribute to a greater awareness on both sides of the trading opportunities opened up by the conclusion of the EEC-China Trade Agreement in 1978.
The most significant development in the Community's relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries during the period under review was the signature in Luxembourg, on 4 November 1980, of an agreement on the Accession of Zimbabwe to the Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé which came into force on 1 January this year. Deputies will be aware that this convention governs relations in trade, aid and other areas of co-operation between the European Community and certain African, Caribbean and Pacific states and is considered a unique instrument of co-operation between developed and developing countries. Zimbabwe is expected to become the 61st ACP State after the completion of formal ratification procedures. The 60th nation to join the ACP group was the Republic of Vanuatu, formerly the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides, which formally acceded to the convention on 18 March 1981.
On 16 December 1980 the Council of Ministers adopted a completely revised generalised system of preferences for 1981 which will form the basis of the system for the next ten years. Ceilings and quotas in all sections were increased by 2 per cent to take account of Greek accession to the Community. In the case of industrial products there were significant revisions in the scheme to ensure that the major benefits are accorded to the least developed countries. The 1981 list of beneficiary countries includes Zimbabwe, bringing the number to 123.
On 18 September 1980, following an extensive debate, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Community's contribution to the campaign to eliminate hunger in the world. The Council of Ministers responsible for Development Co-operation followed this up by adopting a resolution of their own on 18 November 1980 stating their determination to act on the Parliament's conclusions.
The ACP-EEC Council of Ministers held its sixth meeting in Luxembourg on 9 to 10 April 1981. It adopted a number of decisions regarding the implementation of the new Lomé Convention, notable among which were those concerning the delegation of certain powers to the Committee of Ambassadors, the composition and rules of operation of the Committee on Industrial Co-operation and the establishment of an ACP-EEC Committee set up under the convention to study measures for improving financial and technical co-operation.
The Joint Committee of the ACP-EEC Consultative Assembly held its tenth meeting in Freetown, Sierre Leone, from 23 to 27 February 1981. The Joint Committee is made up of half the membership of the Joint Consultative Assembly and convenes between meetings of the assembly to review developments under the convention. At the end of its meeting the Joint Committee adopted a final declaration which referred to global development policy, enlargement of the European Community, ACP-sugar exports, the position of the least developed landlocked and island countries, as well as reviewing the progress achieved under the various types of co-operation covered by the convention.
On the raw materials front the Council of the European Communities took a significant policy decision during the period covered by these reports relating to its competence in negotiations arising under the UNCTAD integrated programme for commodities. Council agreed that on the part of the Community these negotiations would be conducted on the basis of a common position enunciated by a single spokesman, normally the Commission. Resulting agreements would, however, be signed both on behalf of the Community and on behalf of the member states.
There have been quite significant developments with regard to specific commodity agreements—the International Rubber Agreement, 1979, the first wholly new commodity agreement to be negotiated under UNCTAD's integrated programme for commodities, entered into force provisionally on 1 October 1980. Negotiations on the Third International Cocoa Agreement were concluded in November 1980 and the Community and member states signed the agreement on 31 March 1981. Negotiations for a Sixth International Tin Agreement were concluded on 26 June 1981. Pending completion of ratification procedures, the operation of the Fifth International Tin Agreement has been extended to 30 June 1982. Negotiations are also in progress for an International Jute Agreement.
As Deputies will be aware, the common fund for commodities is to serve as a key instrument in attaining the objectives of the integrated programme for commodities. The preparatory commission established to bring the common fund into operation is continuing its work. The agreement establishing the common fund was signed by Ireland on 24 February 1981. The necessary steps are in hand to enable Ireland to ratify the agreement within the specified time frame.
Requests from Poland to the Community for emergency food aid in December 1980 led to a decision by the Foreign Affairs Council to allow Poland to buy food products from intervention stocks at prices 10 per cent to 15 per cent below world market prices. The quantities of food to be supplied were allocated among the member states. Ireland was asked to provide 4,000 tonnes of beef. The Polish authorities then applied to individual member states for credits to enable them to purchase these supplies and, in common with the majority of our Community partners, we agreed to extend such a credit. In April 1981 the Government decided to provide a credit of IR£4.2 million to Poland so that they could buy 4,000 tonnes of beef from Irish intervention stocks. This food has since been delivered to Poland.
As Deputies are aware, a Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on international co-operation for development was held in New York in August-September of last year. Agreement was reached at the session on the text of a new international development strategy for the 1980s and this was later formally adopted by the 35th Regular Session of the General Assembly. The text of the strategy is wide ranging and it will serve to guide and influence developments in the field of economic co-operation between the industralised countries and the countries of the Third World over the next decade.
The Special Session did not, however, succeed in launching the proposed new round of global negotiation on economic co-operation for development, although a text on procedures and a time frame for them was agreed by all delegations except three — the United States, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. Discussions continued on the proposed negotiations at the Regular Session of the General Assembly and were resumed on an informal basis in January of this year under the auspices of the President of the General Assembly. Full agreement was not reached, however, mainly due to the position of the United States, which has been conducting a major review of its overall approach to relations with the developing countries since the new Administration came into office in January 1981.
Meanwhile, both European Councils held this year have discussed the future of the North-South dialogue, with particular reference to the global negotiations. Following the Maastricht Council on 23 and 24 March, a series of Commission proposals on various aspects of Community policy regarding international economic co-operation for development were examined by the relevant expert bodies and approved by the Foreign Affairs Council for submission to the European Council at the end of June. The latter approved the report and said that:
co-operation with developing countries and the intensification of international economic relations serve the interests of all concerned and are necessary, not only in order to strengthen the economies of the developing countries, but also to promote the recovery of the world economy.
The Council also called for the completion of preparations for global negotiations "as soon as possible" and emphasised the importance of the Summit meetings in Ottawa and Cancun, Mexico, in this context.
Deputies will know that the Ottawa Summit has helped to give a positive impetus to the search for a new way forward in relations between developed and developing countries. It remains to be seen if the major summit meeting of a group of political leaders from both sides, as it were, being held in Cancun, Mexico today and tomorrow, can complete this process and help to re-launch a dialogue, which in recent years has tended to founder somewhat, in the face of growing economic difficulties on all sides.
I would now like to turn to agriculture and say a few words about this sector, which is of such vital importance to this country. The prices agreement reached in early April provided for an overall average price increase of 9 per cent which, together with the green £ rate adjustment of 4 per cent, gave a total increase of 13 per cent. Included in the agreement were a number of measures concerning agricultural structures, one part of which was a package of special aid measures for Irish agriculture, making provision in particular for aid to the livestock sector. In October 1980 the new sheepmeat market organisation, which is of considerable interest to Ireland, came into effect. Agreement was also reached on the new sugar market organisation, which came into operation on 1 July, while another feature of note was the reduction in the New Zealand butter import entitlements to 94,000 tonnes for 1981 and 92,000 tonnes for 1982. In the agri-monetary sector by the end of the period, monetary compensatory amounts only applied in Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Following a commitment in the prices package to consider further action for Ireland, the July Council approved an extension of the West of Ireland Drainage Programme by an additional 50,000 hectares field drainage, as well as extra funds for arterial drainage and a 5 per cent interest rate subsidy for development farmers under the Farm Modernisation Directive. The drainage measure provides FEOGA aid estimated at 30 million ECUs, while the interest rate subsidy is for two years and covers new as well as outstanding loans.
Discussions are still continuing among EEC Ministers for Fisheries with a view to reaching agreement on a revised Common Fisheries Policy. While progress was achieved during 1980 on certain aspects of a new policy, the momentum was not maintained during the first half of 1981, despite the political impetus given by the Heads of Government meeting at Maastricht on 23 and 24 March, which urged a speedy resolution of the fisheries discussions. The main outstanding areas for resolution include the difficult problem of the amounts of total allowable catches and, within this, the quota to be allowed to each member state for each particular species.
Linked to the question of quotas is the thorny political problem of access for member states to coastal zones after 1982. Ireland has held many bilateral and multilateral discussions with interested parties, in particular the British, the French and the Commission, on these subjects. Despite the obvious difficulties we are hopeful that the political will exists among member states to reach agreement on an overall policy, if not by the end of this year by at least early next year. The substantial progress registered on certain important aspects of a new policy at the most recent Council of Fisheries Ministers, namely marketing and temporary structure arrangements — (both of which are very important for Ireland) — together with the agreements with certain third countries, leads us to hope that this momentum will be maintained in an effort to reach agreement on the outstanding aspects of the fisheries "package". We are under no illusion that the solution to the access problem will be easy, but the Government remain committed to negotiate for a 12-mile coastal zone and certain areas beyond for our own fishermen.
The major topic for discussion in the Regional Policy area in 1981 has been, and continues to be, the forthcoming review of the Regional Fund, scheduled to take place before the end of the year. Ireland has for long called for the development of a comprehensive Community Regional Policy which could make a genuine contribution to lessening disparities between regions and it is intended to press for this in the review. Approvals for Regional Fund operations for Ireland in 1981 will amount to IR£53.5 million.
Concern about the high rate of unemployment in the Community dominated social policy discussions in the period under review and culminated in a Joint Council of Economics, Finance and Social Affairs Ministers in Luxembourg in June of this year, where it was agreed that there was a need for a action at community level to complement member states own policies. The Commission is to make appropriate proposals to the Council in this regard. Social Fund approvals for 1981 operations in Ireland are expected to total IR£70 million.
On energy matters I am glad to say that, despite the relaxation of tension in the oil market, the Community has continued to address itself to the question of our energy future. Conservation and the fall in demand due to the world-wide recession has fortunately prevented the Iran-Iraqi war from provoking a third oil crisis. Only time will tell, however, whether this fall in demand throughout the OECD regions is just a temporary setback to an accelerating and insatiable demand for ever-increasing oil supplies, or whether it represents a real structural change, with industrialised countries switching to other traditional or new and renewable forms of energy. What is certain is that this period of relative tranquility on the oil market should be used by the Community to maximum advantage, to Consolidate systems of emergency oil-sharing, to develop indigenous and alternative forms of energy and encourage conservation. Events in the Community within the six months covered by this report confirm that it has the will and the ability to make progress in all of these areas.
As has been the practice in previous reports, the 17th and 18th Reports contain a summary review of developments in European political co-operation over the period under review.
Among the matters which have been the subject of co-ordination of views among the Ten in political co-operation during this period are Afghanistan, Poland, the Arab/Israeli conflict, Lebanon, Kampuchea, Southern Africa, the Madrid CSCE meeting and the Euro-Arab Dialogue. Developments on these and other matters are described in the reports and I need not go over this ground again in my opening statements.
What I would like to discuss today is the process of political co-operation itself, which is assuming a growing importance in relations among the ten member states of the Community. This importance is recognised by the Government and is reflected in the commitment set out in the Government's programme to arrange time for a Dáil debate twice a year on developments in European political co-operation. It is proposed to implement this commitment by including developments in European political co-operation in the debate on the regular motion, introduced every six months both in the Dáil and in the Seanad, noting the Report on Developments in the European Communities. It is also proposed to ensure that future reports will contain an expanded account of developments in political co-operation in a separate chapter of the report, so that Deputies and Senators will have the fullest possible opportunity to comment on this important aspect of our membership of the Community.
As Deputies will be aware, the Foreign Ministers of the Ten at their meeting in London adopted a report containing improvements to the machinery and procedures of European political co-operation. A copy of the report has been laid before the House and placed in the Library for the convenience of Deputies. Before taking up the ideas that are in that report, it would, I believe, be useful to set out the main features of our present participation in EPC. The preamble to the Treaty of Rome states that the objectives of the Community shall be to establish an even closer union among the economies and peoples of Europe. The precise form of such a European union, wisely, has never been defined. It certainly seems more prudent that the member States should establish gradually the structures, forms and pace of evolution towards European union rather than seek to impose an abstract and, most likely unrealistic, blueprint at the beginning. When we acceded to the Community in 1973 the position was that we not only accepted the acquis communautaire established by the various treaties, we also undertook a political commitment in the context of progress towards European union, to consult and co-ordinate with our partners on foreign policy in the non-treaty inter-governmental framework on European political co-operation. The main features of political co-operation as established by the Luxembourg (1970) and Copenhagen (1973) Reports are:
The objectives of political co-operation are mutual information and consultation among the member states on all important questions of foreign policy. Whenever possible and desirable, the members states will seek to co-ordinate their views, take a common position or undertake joint action.
Political co-operation does not have a treaty basis; rather it is a voluntary inter-governmental process and the member states are bound by decisions only to the extent they all agree. Thus the rule of consensus applies, and this requires the unanimous agreement of all of the member states.
Foreign Ministers meet at least four times a year in the EPC framework — in practice more frequently — to discuss a wide range of foreign policy questions. Senior officials also meet regularly to consider the latest development and report to the Ministers. A communications system links each of the Foreign Minister of the Ten so that member states can exchange views rapidly in the intervals between meetings.
Political co-operation is essentially outward-looking, being concerned primarily with the Ten's collective relations with the rest of the world. Consequently its field of application is primarily external.
The means of action available to the Ten are essentially the normal instruments of diplomacy. These include joint representations to other Governments, common statements of position, public declarations, concerted negotiations and co-ordination of voting positions in international bodies. From time to time, an agreed view reached within political co-operation will influence the economic action of the Community in the field of external relations.
Ireland, in common with other member states, has been quite satisfied with the way political co-operation has developed within this framework. It has been possible to reach a high degree of agreement on a wide range of subjects, for example, issues arising in the CSCE process and the Middle East conflict. Within the United Nations, the Ten have managed to co-ordinate their views so that they now hold common positions on the majority of the issues arising at the General Assembly. Of course, there are some issues where positions still diverage and this is how one would expect it to be, given the varying interests and traditions of the member states and the essential flexibility and pragmatism of the way political co-operation works. Notwithstanding such divergences, the experience of all of the Ten, including Ireland, has been that to the extent the views of the Ten coincide, we have opportunities to play a far more significant and influential role and serve our interests more effectively on many issues, acting together with our partners in the Ten, than we would have as individual states acting alone.
In recent years, the deteriorating international environment, together with the success of political co-operation in pro- jecting a European presence in the world at large, have prompted suggestions that political co-operation be further strengthened and expanded. Some of these suggestions focus on improvements in the way that political co-operation works in the practical sense and as such are eminently sensible. Here I am thinking of the innovations introduced in the Report on European political co-operation adopted in London on 13 October last such as a rotating support team to assist the Presidency, arrangements to enable the Ten to react to major crises and ways of involving the European Parliament more fully with political co-operation.
I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on the London Report of 13 October 1981 on European political co-operation. A number of statements made to the press have suggested that a secret agreement involving this country in defence commitments was signed in London on 13 October. Let us be quite clear that no such agreement, secret or otherwise, was involved. Nor did I, as the Irish delegate to that meeting, sign any legally binding document. What the Ministers did was to adopt and publish openly a report — a copy of which Deputies can consult in the Dáil Library — which sets out a number of desirable, but scarcely major improvements to the machinery of European political co-operation. The first part of the report reiterates the political commitment of the member states to consult on foreign policy questions. An important element is the recognition that the report gives to the importance of the Treaties as the basis for further integration, and the maintenance and development of Community policies in accordance with the Treaties, before further steps can be taken to strengthen political co-operation.
As Deputies will be aware, much has been made of the reference to security in the London Report. I would again like to make matters clear. Political co-operation is concerned with co-ordination of foreign policy. Within that context discussion has taken place from an early stage in political co-operation of foreign policy matters which have a security dimension. For example, the member states of the Community have consulted together on questions arising at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and on disarmament issues arising at the UN. This has not presented a problem for Ireland. In common with all of the 35 CSCE participating states and the members of the UN, we have to address these issues in any case, and to the extent that Ireland's position is shared by our Community partners, we can together have a greater influence on discussion in these areas by co-ordinating our positions within the Ten. That is a situation that has been recognised by successive Governments since we first began to participate in European political co-operation upon our accession to the Community. It is regrettable that in the context of domestic political controversy our participation in EPC has been represented in such a way that could give rise to misunderstanding and ambiguity. For this reason it is useful and important that in the London Report it is clear that the scope of political co-operation on these matters is confined to political aspects of security and that defence or military issues as such are excluded. The relevant paragraph in the report, far from being an extension of the scope of political co-operation, is in fact an explicit restatement, in a form acceptable to Ireland, of the practice established under successive Irish Governments.
But to return to broader issues, in the course of the recent debates on the development of political co-operation and parallel to that debate, other suggestions have been put forward in recent months which raise more fundamental questions about the nature of the Community and the direction in which it is headed. In this connection Deputies may be aware that the Federal German Government recently endorsed Mr. Genscher's ideas on establishing a new framework for evolution to European union. These ideas have yet to be set out in detail including placing both the Community and EPC under the single institutional aegis of the European Council and extending co-operation to cover security policy, culture, and legal harmonisation. These ideas on European union no doubt will be elaborated on further, in discussions between the Federal Government and its Community partners. I hope to report fully on developments to the House in due course as the debate proceeds.
It is right and appropriate that we should debate these proposals on their own merits. While the debate has not yet reached a sufficient degree of maturity to enable me to go into detail, some fundamental points must be kept in mind in so far as political co-operation is concerned:
This debate is taking place at a time when the Treaty framework of the Community is also facing important decisions both on budgetary matters and on the future of existing and new Community policies. For us, the relationship between the two debates is particularly significant.
In our view, the commitment to political co-operation is based upon and, indeed, flows from the commitment to economic integration set out in the Treaties establishing the Community. For this reason, both debates must be considered together.
Political co-operation on foreign policy is not simply an arrangement of convenience but a means of expressing our growing common interests as a member of the Community in the wider world. Moreover, it is hard to see how political co-operation can respond effectively to external problems unless internal cohesion and common interest within the Community are first of all increased and developed.
I have attempted in this introduction to give a brief summary of the major developments in the Community in the 12-month period covered by this report. I will of course try to respond to any questions raised during the course of what I am sure will be a very useful and constructive debate.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Tá fáilte romhat.
Professor Dooge
Táim buíoch díot.
I should like to re-echo the sentiments expressed by the Chair and to welcome Senator Dooge to the House as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I wish to say very sincerely that we have had from him an excellent resumè of Ireland's position within the Community both in the economic and social areas and also in the area of European political co-operation. The whole approach on the part of the Minister, both in his manner and presentation and in the content of his speech, is at complete variance with what I would regard as the highly irresponsible manner in which aspects of this whole area were dealt with yesterday by the Taoiseach, from whom we had a repetition of the sort of hysterical outburst which is rapidly making the impact on the Irish public that the Taoiseach is suffering from very real incapacities that are a severe hindrance to him in the conduct of the nation's business. We had from him a similar hysterical outburst on radio some time ago in regard to launching the crusade concerning Articles of the Constitution and there was a similar type of outburst from him also on the occasion of Deputy Haughey's appointment as Taoiseach. The contrast between the Taoiseach's outburst yesterday in relation to European political co-operation and the balance of presentation we have just had from the Minister should be emphasised.
To put into perspective the whole aspect of political co-operation I intend dealing with the matter in some detail, especially in the light of remarks made yesterday by the Taoiseach which impugned on my integrity in the conduct of the very important office that the Minister holds now. I must put the record straight. The reportage in regard to this matter tends also to impugn on my integrity as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Consequently I consider it incumbent on me to ensure that the integrity not only of myself but of the previous Government is put into proper, honest and straight-forward perspective.
During each Presidency of the Community there is an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers for the purpose of reflecting together on current and long-term problems facing the Community, particularly in the area of European political co-operation. In Venlo in May last, because of the Dutch presidency, there was such a meeting. As I stated in the House, four options were put forward at that meeting. The Taoiseach made great play about a breach of the Official Secrets Act in referring to these four options. I was quoting from a speaking note which I took legitimately from the Department on my departure in order to ensure that I would be informed in respect of the matters pertaining to foreign affairs on which I would be speaking. I have that note in my hand. There is no question of its being in any way an official document or a document that is vital to the security of the State. It is simply an informal briefing prepared by officials in the Department in order to provide me with the sort of information I needed to conduct Ireland's case properly. I need this note now in order to conduct my case from the Opposition benches in this, the Parliament of the people. The allegation made against me yesterday under the protection of the House was very serious, and all the more so when it was made by the man who purports to be the Taoiseach. I have never heard such an allegation made before by any previous Taoiseach in such a light-hearted manner. This allegation was particularly serious in that it concerned someone who has occupied a number of ministries in Government during a number of years. The document is public now. I made it public here. An allegation that I would act in some way that was contrary to the interests of the country must be taken seriously.
As I said already, there were four options at that meeting in Venlo. These were published before the meeting and discussed by the ten Foreign Ministers present in the context of the way in which European political co-operation might develop in the future as a result of that meeting. That is the specific position. The options were: to maintain the present system as it is, to make minor administrative procedural modifications in the present system while retaining its aims and basic features, to draw up a new report which would change the nature and expand the scope of political co-operation; and fourthly, to draw up a treaty on political co-operation. There is no breach of the Official Secrets Act in having a discussion here in this House on political co-operation on foot of this report in regard to that matter. That is all I quoted from in this debate here the other day and, on the basis of quoting these four options, the Taoiseach shows audacity, nerve and stupidity and displays a remarkable lack of capacity to grasp what it means to be in Government, let alone Taoiseach, in suggesting that in talking about these straight-forward options—they have been the source of public debate among the Foreign Ministers of the Community for the past six months at any rate and are public knowledge—in some way Ireland's interests are being harmed.
At any rate, we came to a decision on foot of our discussions on these options. Contrary to the newspaper reports which would indicate otherwise, I am glad to have the note of what the Taoiseach said yesterday here. This is the note of the stenographer which will appear in the Official Report on this matter. I quote from what the Taoiseach said after a big smear campaign initially in the course of his remarks to indicate that in some way I had sabotaged or damaged Ireland's interests. He challenged me as to whether he would say what was recorded at the end of the meeting and I said, "Say what was recorded", and he did say it. I quote from what will appear in the official record:
"In these circumstances I have to say that the recorded conclusion of that meeting at which Deputy Lenihan was present"— then followed a typical Taoiseach's gratuitous remark —"— I presume present to the end and awake"— nice language from a Taoiseach discussing a serious matter —"when the conclusion was being discussed — the conclusion was"— this is the important aspect —"that it was agreed that the political directors, the heads of the political sections of the Foreign Offices, should examine options 2 and 3".
That was the conclusion of the last meeting of EPC that I attended. In other words, what was decided was legitimate compromise. The fourth option was rejected — that was the formal treaty, the extreme option on one side. The option to maintain the situation as it was was dropped and the two middle options were adopted for examination by the technicians of the Foreign Offices of the Community. Our stance was made quite clear, that in that context our strong preference was for option 2, to make minor procedural improvements. The other option, No. 3, was to draw up a new report which would change the nature and expand the scope of political co-operation to include the discussion of the security question.
Deputy FitzGerald, Taoiseach, is reported in today's The Irish Times as saying and I quote:
..... Did Deputy Lenihan now deny that at the meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers in Venlo he had accepted what was called the third option,...
I did not accept the third position. In the Taoiseach's own words, I agreed to the adoption of options 2 and 3 for examination by the officials of the Foreign Offices of the Community. Also in a comment in the The Irish Times is an allegation that “a concession was made which the official records indicate was made by Mr. Lenihan himself”. I did not make any concession whatever as Foreign Minister. This is what smear is all about. This is the sort of technique that is going on behind people's backs in our present Administration. This Administration for some hours yesterday spent their time twisting arms to ensure that their version of what happened would emerge on the media. The fact is that no decision was made at the meeting at Venlo that I attended that compromised in any way the existing position which Ireland held in the EEC. The only decision made was that the political directors, the technicians of the Foreign Offices of the Community, were asked to examine Nos. 2 and 3, the two middle options, and to come back to the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers. I looked forward to attending that, but because of the desires of the Irish people I was not able to do so. The decision-making meeting which would have considered the reports on these two options occurred subsequent to the election and the decision that has been made marks a very serious departure from our position up to now within EPC. I say advisedly that I see very real dangers in the whole aspect of, and I quote here from the report which has been adopted by the Foreign Ministers at the London meeting, “inducting into this procedure questions bearing on the political aspects of security”. If one goes into that area one is straight away into the whole area of defence and military involvement. I quoted sufficiently in the House the other day from various British establishment newspapers to show that, as far as The Guardian, Financial Times and The Times are concerned, that is also their perception of what was involved. That is, that this marks a very important departure, a very important innovation which has been secured by the British Presidency so as to ensure that as far as the future is concerned the EEC will have a much tighter and closer foreign policy geared to defence and military matters. After the London meeting The Times had the editorial headline “Towards a Common Foreign Policy”. The Guardian headline was “Closer Security Links in the EEC”. The Financial Times headline was “Europe Closes Ranks”.
The Guardian comment of 14 October 1981 was most revealing. I quote from their European editor:
Security issues have long been discussed informally at EEC meetings, but until now this has not been officially recognised for fear of upsetting Ireland, which is not a member of NATO and pursues a "neutral" foreign policy.
Obviously there is no need to fear any more about upsetting Ireland. That is the implication of the remark "up to now". The Financial Times and The Times quoted similarly on that aspect on which I quoted at length the other day. I do not propose to go into detail on it now.
This is very real and constructive criticism based on the fact that once we embark on this type of involvement the floodgates are open. It is a serious aspect. It can drag us into areas of entanglement which at the moment may not be obvious. EEC Commissioner Tugendhat was reported in yesterday's papers, the day after I spoke, as emphasising precisely the point I am making. He said that as far as the Community were concerned it was time to become involved positively in defence and security matters and to have a co-ordinated foreign policy.
In today's papers we see that the EEC are getting involved in activities in Sinai. There is a relationship there which may involve joining the Americans in policing the Sinai peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.
Professor Dooge
Is the Deputy saying that the EEC are getting involved?
I am quoting from today's Times. I am not saying it. I am not being facetious. The Senator has been in his seat for some months now and he will realise very quickly that when the Establishment newspapers speak they speak for the British Government. Whenever you hear The Times, The Guardian, the Financial Times or the Economist making pat remarks in any area, that is official British policy. They are adept at that kind of thing. In today's Times it is suggested that some European countries might send peacekeeping forces to join——
Professor Dooge
Some European countries, not the EEC.
The Senator should learn the rules of the House or ordinary protocol at least, that the speaker is not interrupted.
——the Americans in the Sinai Desert which would directly involve the Ten in policing the Sinai peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. Was this discussed at the recent political co-operation meeting in London? I would like to get some elaboration from the Senator when he replies. Is this the main security item now on the EPC agenda? I understand it is. How can the sending of troops to the Sinai Desert be construed as the political aspects of security?
Traditionally, we have embarked on United Nations peacekeeping missions and have performed very successfully and well in that capacity. We are now also performing that mission in the Lebanon and have done so in other areas where there has been conflict. There is a very big leap forward in that and being associated with an American European police keeping initiative in the Sinai Desert. That is a different ball game altogether. That is not peace keeping as such; it is a different military role.
Yesterday we had another warning sign. It is amazing how day by day we are getting warning signals in this area. Yesterday the President of the EEC Commission, Mr. Gaston Thorn, is reported in The Times as saying that the solution to the mistrust between the United the States and Europe, as evidenced by the heated reaction to President Reagan's recent answer about the possibility of limiting a nuclear war in Europe, was to ensure that the European pillar of what President Kennedy has called the “two-pillar partnership of the Atlantic” was strengthened. He went on: “By pressing forward with its ideas of political co-operation up to the point of covering security, the Commission believes it will be able to relieve the United States from the pressure it feels from being the dominant member of the Atlantic Alliance”. This all adds up to an attempt by some European countries with whom we are associated within European political co-operation, to set up a military bloc within Western Europe, a Western Alliance. It adds up to a strengthening of the military and nuclear capability within Western European countries. It adds up to a situation where, under the cover of the formula that has been mentioned here of the political aspects of security, we will be participating in discussions on this matter. That is the new development which I opposed in Venlo last May. That is the option.
I take the point made by the Taoiseach that it has been somewhat refined by Senator Dooge's endeavours. However, that is the report that has been adopted, refined or otherwise, by all ten countries — in future to formalise meetings and questions bearing on the political aspects of security. That is all to do with direct military involvement. It is a departure from our traditional position of neutrality. When I was Minister for Foreign Affairs I was never on any occasion asked by any Minister for Foreign Affairs within the Community to depart one iota from our traditional position in regard to the conduct of our affairs. They welcomed the fact that we had a different approach and we could usefully perform a task, as a country with a neutral policy in regard to military and defence matters. They knew that as far as political aspects were concerned we were ideologically in tune with the other countries within the Community and that we could perform a very useful bridge-building role on behalf of the Community in certain areas.
I was happy to have participated in one such effort in getting the CESC conference off the ground in Madrid last summer 12 months when Herr Genscher of the Federal Republic of Germany asked me to participate with other neutral countries in going to Eastern European countries and trying to get that meeting going. That conference did not meet with any great success, but it is an example of how countries like Ireland, Austria and Sweden can play a useful role. There is no need for us to compromise ourselves in any way. That is why when at that meeting in Venlo options 2 and 3 were to be examined, I was looking forward to a meeting where modification if necessary of the existing system as recommended in option 2, such as improving the whole machinery and the operation of European political co-operation, something pragmatic of that kind, would emerge from the meetings of the political directors. I as Minister for Foreign Affairs, would have been totally opposed and would have rejected any formalisation of the system of European political co-operation such as is envisaged in this document.
I agree it does not go to the full extent of option 4 in regard to a formalised treaty. But I believe it is a step in that direction. Once the procedures are formalised the next step — maybe not this year or next year — will be a formal defence or military treaty involving countries within the Community. This is a step in that direction. Our consistent stand has been that our whole participation in European political co-operation could have been improved by better machinery and better administration, better decision making, and so on, but everything in that area could have been done within the broad framework as it then existed prior to this formalisation of the system. The continuation of European political co-operation among the ten Foreign Ministers was an excellent idea. It needed to be strengthened by administration modifications and so on but not any formalisation, nothing of that kind that led one, inevitably, towards institutionalisation of defence, security and military matters.
There was always very good sense behind that policy. We have consistently taken the view, within the Community, that our priorities are social, regional, agricultural and financial. In all these areas of practical consequence as far as Ireland is concerned, we want progress; we want a very real transfer of resources under the social and regional headings. We want a strengthening of the EMS. We want to ensure that the common agricultural policy, as a community policy, is maintained and developed. Above all, we want to see a real evidence of bona fides in regard to the convergence of the economies and regions of the Community. Ireland must move upwards in regard to the scale of prosperity and economic and social development. Our whole emphasis was on thinking in that direction, maintaining an ad hoc association in foreign policy in matters of that kind of political co-operation with the view, at the end of the day — when one had a really integrated Europe, with the spread of equal development and prosperity throughout, when Europe would really be Europe, and I am thinking over a long period of time — at that stage political co-operation, defence and military matters could be formalised and institutionalised. It makes tremendous sense. At that stage only, could one call the Community a real Community. At present, it is not a Community in the full sense of the word because of the disparities which still exist in regard to regional, social, economic and financial matters.
The British administration take another view, legitimately from their point of view, which is not in our interest, not in Europe's and may not even be in Britain's own interest. They do not really regard Europe as a Community, or themselves as part of a Community. They regard Europe, as far as they can achieve it, as a loose alliance and their main aim, within Europe, is to ensure that Britain's defence, military and foreign policy objectives are maximised. That is their view of Europe and the European Community can be used to that extent, and for that British advantage. They are supported in that approach by some other European countries, particularly Italy and Germany who are strongly orientated towards NATO. A combination of these three countries is pushing, at the moment, very strongly in this direction on which we have embarked and it is not by reason of a decision made in Venlo, the Netherlands, last May. It is by reason of a decision made by this Government.
All that happened in Venlo in May was that option 2, which we wanted, and option 3 were sent to the technicians to be examined and the implications worked out and having pursued and concluded their examination a report would come back to the Foreign Ministers and then a decision would be made as to how far along this road we would go. Our view was that the second option, representing minor modifications and improvements in the existing ad hoc system, was the correct approach. I said this specifically recently and make no apology for saying it again. This is my stereo note which makes for good debate. It is certainly very interesting. From page 11 of that note which I had before the Venlo meeting of 9-10 May — and this is exactly the line I took at the request and behest of my officials and I consider that they were right — I quote:
We would see the explicit extension of the EEC to include security questions as a major change to the present system. Consequently, any proposal in this sense would be acceptable only in the context of a formal treaty or a new report on political co-operation after careful and confidential consideration at official level.
I do think that it is a major change in the present system. It will not be immediately apparent, although the warning signals are all over the place, in Commissioner Tugendhat's statement reported yesterday, in President Thorn's statement, in Lord Carrington's statement, in Herr Genscher's statement and in the various statements which I have quoted from the British establishment press. There is no doubt about what they think, whatever our perception of it, whatever gloss we put on it here, or cosmetic refinement the Minister for Foreign Affairs may have been able to achieve recently in London. The fact is that the perception of the situation is that there has been a very real change in the whole direction of European political co-operation.
That real change may involve us in a situation where our vital role as a neutral nation and the main pillar of the State's policy on neutrality for a number of years may be damaged. We may find ourselves drifting into an entanglement which we do not want and which the Irish people certainly do not want. We will also be becalmed in pursuing a very useful role which we have been able to play in aspects of foreign affairs not related to military matters — aspects such as CESC, disarmament, peace-keeping under the United Nations aegis. In all these areas of security co-operation — detente, disarmament, peace-keeping — Ireland has made a very positive and useful contribution over the years. That type of contribution is in accordance with our own people's wishes. It is our own people's wish, within the European Community, to maintain that sort of independence in regard to our neutrality policy, while participating fully in all the institutions of the Community.
To some extent this could be understood, although I could not understand it, if there were pressure in the matter. I assure this House and the country that at no stage during my period of 18 months as Minister for Foreign Affairs was there a semblance or scintilla of pressure in regard to Ireland departing from its neutrality policy. As I said earlier, it was even welcomed by various Foreign Ministers during my period there. I had the pleasure when present with the Taoiseach, of hearing Chancellor Schmidt at a news conference in Bonn, involving news people from all over Europe and the world, saying that, as far as the Federal Republic of Germany was concerned, there was no intention of interfering with Ireland's neutrality position. He added that it was a very useful matter to have a county within the Community which had a different stance in this area and which could be used as an honest broker or bridge builder with other nations throughout the world.
That applies particularly within the United Nations. We have been, and are, the acceptable face of the Community with a number of countries throughout Africa, South America, and the Far and Near East, the whole Arab World. The real reason that we secured overwhelming support in our efforts to secure membership of the United Nations Security Council was because of our special role as a bridge builder and honest broker between the other NATO countries, most of them with a colonial past which was suspect, one way or the other. Not having that colonial past, we had an empathy with other countries throughout the world and could act as the Community's emissary in contacts with these countries. That type of role is fully appreciated within the Community and by our Community friends, so there is no need to embark on any role of formalisation of security matters or political aspects of security. We can continue to have ad hoc discussions with our friends within the Community and, at the same time, maintain our independent stance as far as neutrality and non-involvement in any bloc are concerned.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 October 1981.