Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 May 1982

Vol. 334 No. 7

Falklands Crisis: Statement by Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

I propose to make a statement informing the House of the latest position on the Falklands crisis particularly in the light of last night's meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg. In my statement to the House on Tuesday last, 11 May, I explained comprehensively the principles that have guided the Government's policy in relation to the crisis in the South Atlantic and the development of our attitudes and actions in the light of those principles and the evolution of what has been a constantly changing situation.

Those principles are that we are committed to the rule of law in international relations, and that we support action taken in furtherance of Security Council Resolution 502. That resolution calls for a cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of the Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands, and the achievement of a peaceful settlement by diplomatic means. I would emphasise that Ireland's position of support for these three demands has not altered.

When we agreed to Resolution 502 there was hope that a peaceful settlement was attainable. Indeed, it was in that hope that we supported the resolution of our partners in the European Community instituting a system of economic sanctions. With the increase in hostilities in recent weeks, that hope faded and we found ourselves moving into a situation which would seriously endanger our traditional policy of neutrality. We were being seen and obviously could fairly be interpreted as being associated with a serious escalation of military activity.

At the outset, the Government went along with sanctions with reluctance. We had reservations about the apparent tendency towards a proliferation of economic sanctions, the effectiveness of which is very doubtful, especially when they cannot be universally applied. However, a persuasive case was made that in this instance the primary effect would be to give a clear political signal that forceful seizure of territory was intolerable and could not be perpetrated with impunity. On this basis and in a spirit of Community solidarity, we agreed with our partners, on the clear understanding, certainly so far as we were concerned but I believe generally, that the measures were intended to reinforce political and diplomatic efforts to secure a peaceful negotiated settlement.

By 4 May, in the circumstances I have already recalled, the situation had completely changed. Hostilities had intensified and it appeared that on both sides negotiations might be put aside. We were faced with the prospect that sanctions would operate and be seen to operate in a situation of open war.

In these circumstances and in view of our neutrality, the Government had to review our support for sanctions. We indicated that in our view their continuation in a situation such as appeared to be then emerging, would no longer be appropriate. We were conscious that the relevant Community Regulation contained provision for a review before the expiry date of 17 May of whether the measures should be extended, amended or repealed. This required a proposal from the Commission.

While our view was put to his colleagues by the Minister for Foreign Affairs some time ago, no such proposal was tabled. While there was a consensus that the measures were intended to advance a diplomatic settlement, not a military solution, it was felt that it would not be right to lift the sanctions in advance of the expiry of the Community regulation.

On the other hand, it was agreed that a decision on any extension of the measures after 17 May should be left over until closer to that date. Clearly, member states wished to be in a position to monitor the situation and to decide their attitude by reference to the continuation and progress of meaningful negotiations, on the one hand, and the possible escalation or de-escalation of hostilities, on the other.

As Deputies will be aware, at the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg yesterday, Ireland and Italy made declarations to the effect that they would no longer apply sanctions and this was accepted. To avoid any distortion of trade within the Community, Ireland and Italy will not allow their countries to be used so as to permit goods imported from Argentina to enter the territory of our other partners. The other members agreed that the measures being applied against Argentina for the last month would remain in force in their countries for one further week until 23 May.

The objective of Ireland and of the other members of the Ten remains a peaceful negotiated settlement between Argentina and Britain in accordance with Resolution 502 of the UN Security Council. I wish to underline our own strong support for the continuing efforts of the Secretary General, with the support of the other members of the Security Council to bring about a peaceful and honourable settlement.

I know that the consistent and constructive approach we have adopted in relation to this problem has received very wide support among our people. I am also satisfied, on the basis of reports from our diplomatic missions, that our policy, which has been clear and consistent throughout, in a situation of great danger and complexity, has earned us considerable respect in many countries around the world. I think it is due to this country and its people that this should be more clearly understood and more openly acknowledged than has, I am afraid, always been the case in the recent past.

I would only add, for the information of Deputies, that the farm price package has been agreed by the Council of Ministers this afternoon. While the news has just come to hand about the agreement of the farm price package I will be glad to make available later in the day to Deputies some details of the farm price package. I could give them now but perhaps Deputies would prefer to wait until they have a written document in front of them.

Dr. FitzGerald

I note the Taoiseach's statement concerning the position taken up by the Irish Government with respect to EEC sanctions against Argentina. The basis of the Irish Government's decision, namely, that the maintenance of sanctions after hostilities have taken place would be a violation of Irish neutrality, a matter again referred to by the Taoiseach in his speech, is inconsistent with both the traditional Irish position in such matters and with previous actions by a Government led by the present Taoiseach.

First, it should be pointed out that on October 9 1935, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted economic sanctions against Italy precisely because hostilities existed, following the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. There were only two dissentients to this decision, other than Italy, namely, Austria and Hungary. Ireland, under the leadership of the then head of Government and Minister for External Affairs, Mr. de Valera, supported this decision without qualification. Irish policy was then, and has since remained, as I shall exemplify in a more recent case that economic sanctions are an appropriate action for our country to take as part of measures designed to deal with acts of aggression and to continue during subsequent hostilities.

Much more recently, as reported in the 16th Report of the European Community submitted to this House, Ireland joined with the other EEC States in taking steps against Iran, culminating in economic sanctions imposed on 17 and 18 May 1980, following the taking of Americans as hostages by Iran. These sanctions remained in force until the hostages were released. That decision by the Government then led by Mr. Haughey was not seen by him, or by anyone else at that time, as inappropriate for a neutral country.

Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union at the end of 1979 — the Taoiseach was in office then, too — the EEC Council decided unanimously, with the full support of the Irish Government that the Community countries would not substitute grain sales to the Soviet Union for those embargoed by the United States. So far as I am aware that decision remains in force, and it arose directly from the very existence of hostilities in Afghanistan following the Soviet aggression there.

More recently still further economic sanctions against the Soviet Union were introduced by the EEC, with full Irish concurrence, arising from what was regarded as Soviet intervention in the affairs of Poland.

It will be seen from these examples that the application of economic sanctions has not up to now been seen by the Government under the Taoiseach or by any former Government under the late Mr. de Valera as infringing our neutrality, nor is it so regarded in international law, and that the question of whether hostilities are taking place has no bearing on this issue.

It is clear therefore that the Government's stated grounds for their decision lack foundation, and one must look elsewhere for the rationale of this decision.

Such a rationale could be found in a decision by the Government that the lifting of sanctions would be likely to have a beneficial effect, through limiting hostilities or discouraging acts of warfare. If this is the Government's belief, and if this were the basis for their decision, then this should have been said from the outset, instead of producing the phony excuse about neutrality, the character of which I have just exposed. No such statement was made. Neither has the Taoiseach put forward any such claim today. The Government's ham fisted handling of this affair has left the impression in many capitals, including London, that the Government were motivated in this matter, not by considerations of neutrality, which every other country knows is irrelevant to this issue in international law, nor by considerations of the course of action most likely to lead to peace, but instead by a desire to achieve temporary popularity at home, at the expense of our international credibility.

I regret that these actions and in particular the manner in which they have been taken, and the unconvincing character of the excuse put forward, have weakened our ability to influence the present situation towards peace, at a time when the maximum effort needs to be made in this direction in view of evidence of intransigence and some unwillingness to seek a solution by peaceful means. It would have been much more useful from the point of view of securing peace if our Government had sought the support of others in pressing on both the contending parties, but especially on Britain as a fellow member of the EEC, the vital importance of a negotiated solution based on Resolution 502, which called for a cease fire — a point that has not been given full attention in many statements of the British position — and for Argentine withdrawal from the Falklands.

The basis for such a solution would on the face of it appear to exist in the light of statements made by both parties to the dispute, in particular taking into account an apparent willingness by Argentina to allow the decision on sovereignty to be left for a subsequent negotiation.

It was important that we should have been able, with our EEC partners, to press on the British Government the importance of pursuing this apparent Argentine position to a conclusion, requiring that it be clarified one way or the other without delay by the United Nations Secretary-General, before any further military action is taken. Unfortunately, by the manner in which our Government have acted, and as a result of the obvious invalidity of the grounds they have given for their actions, we have lost the power to work effectively towards a solution of this problem in conjunction with our partners. We have thrown away our traditional role as peace-maker, damaging, moreover, perhaps irretrievably, so far as this Government are concerned, our relationship with Britain on which the Taoiseach in 1980 and 1981 placed such importance as providing a way forward — he suggested at that time the only way forward — to a resolution of the Northern Ireland problem.

I should add that I recognise that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has done his best to limit the damage done by the Taoiseach's approach to this matter, adopting a low-key approach in Brussels throughout most of yesterday, leaving it to Italy to make most of the running. His firmness on television in his first interview on this subject several weeks ago also showed up in marked contrast to the Taoiseach's wavering and ambivalent attitude. But in the present situation there is little or nothing the Minister can now do to repair the damage done to our reputation — damage done not through the decision itself on sanctions, which could have been justified on rational and defensible grounds, but through the manner in which this affair has been handled without regard to the importance of working effectively for peace, without regard to our interests, or to those of our citizens in Britain, and above all without regard to the interests of achieving a resolution of the Northern Ireland problem.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Falklands crisis shows every sign of entering a new and more dangerous phase. It appears that the British Government are shifting the emphasis from diplomatic to military action. Last Friday night's landing by the British forces on the tip of the West Falklands lends credence to this interpretation of events.

There is, too, the return to London of the British Ambassadors to the UN and the US, an event which effectively has frozen peace discussions and suggests that there is an acceptance now by the British Government that efforts on the diplomatic front are close to termination. Therefore, a major landing by British forces on the Falklands appears imminent. It is against this background that last night's meeting of the Community's Foreign Ministers must be viewed. Britain is not without support for her position so far as EEC Governments are concerned. President Mitterand said yesterday in London that no new element in the present dispute would change France's stance and that given the failure to resolve the crisis by diplomatic means, he accepted that only military options were available now to Britain. Chancellor Schmidt has not abated his public support of the British position, regardless of what reservations he may have expressed privately at any meeting.

At the Foreign Minister's meeting, the Irish Government took a moderated stance apparently in comparison with the Italian position. The Italians vetoed a full renewal of sanctions by the Community. It appears from reports that we did not attempt to induce our fellow members to adopt a common position. The Taoiseach's statement does not make quite clear the distinction between the position adopted by us and that adopted by the Italians. The Taoiseach's statement seems to put both positions into a common denominator, a position that I would not consider to be correct on the basis of the report of the Community meeting. The Italian Government apparently took the course of looking for an all-Community sanctions common policy. It is not clear whether the Irish Government approved the continuation of sanctions in principle while reserving our position on the matter in deference to our declared neutrality. On the evidence of last night's meeting, the EEC no longer have a common position on the Falklands crisis. The renewal of sanctions by eight of the ten members, with Ireland and Italy withdrawing, reduces the political impact of trade sanctions by the Community. From the outside trade sanctions were primarily a source of political rather than economic pressure. The decision of Ireland not to be used as a back door for Argentine imports to other member states would appear to indicate that our decision to opt out of sanctions is based on maintaining our neutrality and does not give indirect support to the Argentine position.

We stated our position in defence of our neutrality but as I made clear in the House last week, a price may well have to be paid for this declaration though not an unnecessary price. Our neutrality is central to our foreign policy and is independent of any political division on this island or of any resolution of such division. I await a satisfactory clarification by the Taoiseach of the present basis of our neutrality, which has my support, and his formulation of Ireland's position on neutrality in the defence policy debate of 11 March last. I ask him again to clarify whether he has changed his view from the position adopted by him in that debate and if he is now of the opinion that Ireland's neutrality cannot be compromised irrespective of political developments regarding the future of Northern Ireland.

The implications for world peace of military action in the Falklands between a leading member of NATO and the largest military power in Latin America are extremely serious. The United States has already committed in advance to keeping the task force supplied and the interests of the Soviet Union are involved if grain shipments from the Argentine are disrupted by the outbreak of full-scale war. Indeed, those who see this as purely a British-Argentine dispute without the involvement of the super powers are not reading the position accurately because there is already great concern in the Soviet Union, due to the failure of their wheat harvest, about their supplies from the Argentine. The United States has also taken a position of support for the British.

Now that the EEC have finished with the matter of trade sanctions and that we are back to national states' reaction once more, it would appear that the pendulum of diplomatic activity swings back to the United Nations where we hope that the peace initiative of the Secretary General will not fail. If it does fail we must, through whatever influence we can wield in the UN, strive to work further to avoid a further deepening of this problem which cannot be confined to a purely British-Argentine quarrel but has global implications when one considers that the super powers are already indirectly involved.

Throughout the Falkland Islands events the Irish Government have stated that the position adopted by us is a consequence of our neutrality policy and yet there is still ambiguity about the constituent elements of the neutrality approach adopted by the Government. There was the position adopted by the Taoiseach in the March defence debate. Then the Taoiseach appeared to contemplate our willingness to review the most appropriate defence arrangements for the island as a whole in the event of a satisfactory solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. Effectively that view of the Taoiseach of our neutrality relegates our neutrality to being a mere by-product of the continued political division of the island. I view our neutrality as a core element of our foreign policy. I see it as independent of any settlement of the Northern question. Our neutrality derives from our independence and sovereignty as a State. In my view it reflects a realistic assessment of the requirements of our national interest. Our independence in foreign affairs is sustained by our neutrality. Our neutrality confers a leverage on the side of peace in the world which our membership of any military alliance would negate. Our neutrality is not a side consequence of the division of Northern Ireland which comes up for bartering in the event of any political settlement on whatever date our Government consider a settlement had arrived.

I have asked the Taoiseach for clarification of his view on neutrality and I mentioned that matter today again because throughout this dispute our neutrality has been referred to as the main element which has determined our policy. I hope the Taoiseach will not delay any further in giving that necessary clarification of his views on neutrality, either in this exchange or at an early date. The most appropriate thing would be for the House, since the matter is of supreme national importance, at an early date to have an opportunity of reviewing the constituent elements of neutrality as perceived by the Government.

Mr. De Rossa

I regret that my party did not receive any prior notice that the Taoiseach was to make a statement today and, consequently, we have not had an opportunity of preparing a statement to read to the House. However, I should like to make a number of points. We were dismayed initially when the Government decided to row in with other EEC countries in applying sanctions against Argentina because we felt that that was mitigating or watering down to some degree our neutrality. We felt that it was cutting across the efforts being made by the United Nations to bring some kind of solution to the problems in relation to the Falklands. In our view the efforts Ireland makes in terms of foreign affairs and on the international scene should be made through the United Nations and not through the process of the EEC. We welcome the recent move by the Government to step back from applying sanctions against Argentina and we look forward to a strengthening of our neutral position on the international scene.

Mr. Kelly

On a point of order, the format of these exchanges of statements of the kind we have just heard precludes other Deputies from asking questions, and I accept that. But I would have been anxious to ask the Taoiseach, for example, whether he is under the mistaken impression that this State has never operated sanctions in conditions where hostilities are going on. Would it be in order for me, arising from specific sentences included in the Taoiseach's statement, to put down a question to him in the ordinary way? I hope I will not find it ruled out of order in the grounds that the material has been adequately covered this afternoon.

An Ceann Comhairle

When the Deputy submits the questions I will examine them.

Mr. Kelly

May I take it that at least at first blush such an approach is not out of order, that such a question would not be out of order in as much as I do not have any opportunity to cross-examine the Taoiseach today?

An Ceann Comhairle

I must hear the questions first.

Mr. Kelly

I do not wish to hold up the business of the House but I should like an assurance that the mere fact that this ground has been traversed this afternoon in this format will not preclude other Deputies from taking up individual points in the statement made from the Government side in order to pursue them in the ordinary Question Time at the next opportunity.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will examine the questions when they are submitted to me and I will let the Deputy know.