I move:
That a sum not exceeding £14,322,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1983, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.
I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, with your permission to debate the Estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation together.
The sum of £14,322,000 is required to meet the cost of running my Department in 1983. It includes the salaries of staff at headquarters and at 39 missions and offices around the world. In all, my Department have about 800 people working in all grades at home and abroad. Of our 39 offices abroad, 31 are staffed by three diplomatic officers or less. Most of our embassies are, therefore, quite small. The average cost to the Vote for Foreign Affairs of a typical small embassy is about £150,000 a year.
The proposed Vote also includes travelling expenses and communications services, which in my Department are understandably high. A sum is provided for the repatriation and maintenance of Irish citizens who get into difficulties abroad. There is a provision for the cultural and information services which are an important part of the work of my Department. A sum is also provided for the furtherance of North-South and Anglo-Irish Co-operation and also for cross-Border studies. A small provision is included for contributions to bodies in Ireland which exist for the furtherance of international relations.
The gross Estimate for my Department is £18,972,000 but receipts from passports, consular fees, sales of information booklets and films, repayment of repatriation and maintenance advances, recoupment by the EEC of certain travelling expenses and some other miscellaneous receipts are expected to defray £4,650,000, leaving a net Estimate required of £14,322,000. This figure represents 0.25 per cent of the total Estimates for the public service.
I am glad to have this opportunity of addressing the House on the external policy of the Government. I hope that it may be possible later in the year to have a more lengthy debate on this increasingly important subject. It is important that we come to an agreement about that when the Dáil resumes after the summer recess. A debate of one hour and a half on this important Department is not sufficient. I hope to have at least a one-day debate on Foreign Affairs in the autumn.
My task as Foreign Minister is to defend and promote abroad the interests of Ireland and its people and to that end I need the support of all sides of this House. In Ireland we have a particular need for our traditional domestic concensus on external policy. Our small size limits our influence on other countries: without broad agreement here at home on foreign policy, our ability to shape our external environment would be very slight indeed. Serious divisions on foreign policy would be particularly damaging to Ireland.
We are a country whose continued existence as a member of the developed world depends on external trade, to a greater extent than in the case of any of our neighbours. In 1983, for example, more than half of our gross domestic product, 55 per cent, came from exports. Moreover, our further development depends not only on trade, but on a continuing inward flow of foreign investment, so that the productive potential of our people will not be frustrated by lack of capital.
The efforts of our diplomatic missions overseas are increasingly directed to the promotion of exports and the attraction of foreign investment. Diplomatic offices have a special role in relation to trade and investment in those areas of the world such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East where either State-to-State dealings are the rule or where the presence of a diplomatic mission is essential for doing business.
Wherever they are located, our diplomatic missions provide a network through which the capabilities of Irish firms and organisations can be made known. My Department work closely with other Departments, with Córas Tráchtála, the IDA and other semi-State bodies and with firms and individuals to help ensure that the total Irish external economic effort is successful.
As I have mentioned, many countries in the Middle East and all in Eastern Europe conduct trade more or less exclusively through State organisations. A State-to-State bilateral co-operation agreement is virtually a precondition for the satisfactory development of trade with such countries. In recent years my Department have negotiated such inter-governmental agreements or similar arrangements with the Soviet Union, Poland, Iraq and Libya. These provide for the establishment of joint commissions which meet annually to review progress and to examine ways in which co-operation can be improved.
The general international political environment is of great importance to us. It is self-evident that in today's world not only our national prosperity but our survival as a national depends on peace, on peace in the world in general, but above all, in Europe and the surrounding area. Equally, it is evident that in Europe today peace depends on a stable equilibrium of forces between the two military alliances on our continent, or, to be more precise, on a mutual perception by the leaders of those two alliances that such a stable equilibrium exists. A climate of minimal trust, predictability and understanding between the Soviet Union and the United States is, therefore, of fundamental importance to us all.
Perhaps the best index of the state of health of the relationship between the two superpowers is their ability to discuss in meaningful and practical terms the control and reduction of armaments and particularly of nuclear weapons. It is difficult in present circumstances to see the emergence of any early alternative to the present armed equilibrium. What one can hope for is that the apparently inexorable growth in the size of overall forces will be halted and indeed reversed. If this is to be achieved it is obvious that the means must be found for clear and adequate verification at each stage of the disarmament process that agreed reductions have been carried out.
Even if progress in disarmament is dishearteningly slow, and if at times one is left with the impression that what is occurring is regression rather than progress, it is crucial that the effort should continue. Ireland, therefore, attaches great importance to the two major sets of arms control negotiations now taking place at Geneva between the Soviet Union and the United States on strategic or intercontinental nuclear forces (START) and on intermediate nuclear forces (INF). All the states of Europe, whether allied in military alliances or, like ourselves, outside all such alliances, have a vital stake in the success of these negotiations.
In this connection no one should be in any doubt that this Government will maintain our military neutrality and will take no action which would be incompatible with it. There is language in the recently-signed Solemn Declaration on European Union which envisages the "co-ordination of the positions of member states on the political and economic aspects of security".
It is important that it be clearly understood what is involved here. The discussions on the political and economic aspects of security which take place with our partners in the Ten are conducted within the framework of European political co-operation, in which no decision can be taken other than unanimously. We have, therefore, in effect a veto at all stages of the discussion and on any conclusions arrived at. As the Taoiseach explained to the House after the recent European Council, what is essentially involved is an attempt to arrive at a common approach among the Ten on security-related matters which are discussed or negotiated in fora in which all ten member states participate — for instance, disarmament and arms control deliberations at the United Nations or the negotiations at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). There is no question of any discussion of operational military questions.
Our policy of military neutrality is, like all other aspects of our foreign policy, all the stronger because it is shared by an overwhelming majority in this House. I am sorry that doubts have been expressed recently about the Government's commitment to that policy. Neutrality is a subject which touches on the fundamental questions of peace and war. It is, therefore, natural that it should arouse deep concern. It relates also to areas of great complexity in the external world, and it is not surprising that periodically, a reassertion and clarification of basic concepts becomes necessary.
I do not believe that this House would advocate neutralism or neutrality independently of the reasons for that neutrality. I should like to try to state as simply as possible what I conceive to be, and to have been from the beginning of this State's existence, the essence of its policy of military neutrality.
There is no mystery about it. We are talking about the field of national security, that is, of physical safety for our people in time of war. We look at the world around us and we ask ourselves whether joining a military alliance would increase our security, would reduce it, or would leave it unchanged. We find ourselves closer to the members of one alliance than to those of the other, both in ideological terms and in terms of economic and political links. We find, as I said earlier, that in present conditions the balance between the two alliances is an essential element of world peace and, therefore, of our security. We find no reason to believe that our membership or non-membership of the Atlantic Alliance makes, or will make in the foreseeable future, any crucial difference to the overall security of the region in which we live. We do find, however, that non-membership enables us to play a modest but constructive diplomatic role as a neutral country.
Looking at the world as it is, I see no sign in the foreseeable future of any change in conditions which would require us in the interests of our people's safety or national security to re-examine that policy.
A responsible foreign policy must be pursued within a framework of respect for international law and morality. The oppression of human beings, whether individually or as nations, and the failure or refusal to grant them those things, whether food, freedom or hope for the future, to which they have a basic right, must claim the attention of those responsible for the external policy of any state, That claim is independent of the geographical location, race or religion of the oppressed or deprived and of the identity of any oppressor. This Government will not shrink from identifying and from seeking to help redress instances of deprivation or abuse of human rights, whether these occur in Afghanistan, in South Africa, in Central America or elsewhere.
There are elementary human rights — the right to the basic necessities of life, to food, shelter and clothing — which are still denied to many millions of people, often as much because of force of circumstances and history as of any selfishness or bad will on the part of their fellows. Fortunately, this is one area in which we as a country can make a positive and practical contribution, and we have in recent years become increasingly involved in the international efforts aimed at promoting the development of the Third World.
We shall continue to work through the international organisations of which we are members for the development of new policies which reflect the needs and wishes of all countries and which provide a greater measure of equity and justice in the distribution of economic resources.
On the bilateral level we shall continue the programme of aid to developing countries which we have built up over the last decade and which gives expression to our determination to contribute to the development of the Third World, however limited our contribution may be in absolute terms. The Minister of State at my Department, who has a special responsibility for our Overseas Development Assistance, will deal in more detail with this area of policy later in the debate.
The mutual economic and political interests which bind us to other countries and regions naturally tend to be deeper, more far reaching and more complex the nearer those countries or regions are to our own. Our nearest neighbour is Great Britain, to which we are bound by uniquely close ties of people, language, history and culture, and with whom we share the tragic problems of the Northern part of our country. Not least among the benefits which a solution to those problems would bring is a final resolution of the last vestiges of the ages-old Anglo-Irish quarrel and a definitive understanding between two peoples who have lived for so long in such close intimacy, but always with some shadow, greater or lesser, of mutual misunderstanding and unease. I shall return to this subject later.
There is no doubt that the quality of our ties with the United States of America places that country in the first rank of our overseas friends. America is home from home for many of our people and to many of the people of that country Ireland is also a home from home. We can be thankful that there are few, if any, bilateral problems of any magnitude between our two countries. This was clear from the discussions which we had with Vice-President Bush, whom we had the pleasure of welcoming to our country earlier this week. Whatever difficulties in the trade field there are between the US and the EEC can be overcome by open and frank negotiations between friends.
Over ten years ago we bound ourselves by the strong institutional links of the European Economic Community to our European neighbours, inspired with the ideal of political and economic union between countries which shared a common cultural heritage and a multitude of common political and economic interests. We foresaw a deepening of the union between our peoples and foresaw as the fruit of that union a greater mutual understanding and knowledge among the countries of Western Europe and some levelling of the differences in economic development between them.
The reality, however, is that in the past ten years there has been no significant bridging of the gap between the central regions of the Community and the less prosperous areas, such as Ireland. I can only express disappointment at this lack of development, despite — and let us be fair here — the considerable advantages that have come to us from Community membership. That said, however, I believe that the agreement at Stuttgart for a very specific and urgent set of negotiations on the prime economic questions facing the Community at the moment gives a basis of hope for the future.
Over the coming six months we shall be involved in the most intense and far-reaching negotiations that any Irish Government have faced since our accession. The issues at stake in these negotiations, which concern the very nature of the Community as we know it and its future direction, have major implications for us. Successive Governments over the last three years have, of course, had to face similarly tough situations. The difference on this occasion, however, is that the Community is fast running out of financial resources and that in consequence that European achievement of which I spoke some weeks ago to the European Association of Journalists is today in danger. That danger threatens the basic structures of the Community and its policies, prominent among them the Common Agricultural Policy. We should all be fully aware of these realities.
In recent years the Community has been stumbling from one crisis to another. We need in Europe to take quickly the necessary decisions to recreate a sense of direction and a new momentum in the Community. We must in particular come to an early agreement on the provision of new financial resources for the Community so as to ensure the maintenance of existing policies and the development of new ones, which is the only way to make the Community once again relevant and responsive to its peoples. I shall ensure that we play a full, forceful and positive part at all stages of the forthcoming negotiations, as we have already done in the preparation of their terms of reference. Here again the tradition of consensus on external policy is of vital importance — our hand as negotiators is immeasurably strengthened by our partners' knowledge that there is a consensus among the political parties here on the basic interests which we defend.
The search for common positions in matters of foreign policy within the framework of European Political Co-operation (EPC) has recently become more wide-ranging and intense. This is a welcome development, but in my view the various aspects of European progress are indivisible. It will be the Government's endeavour to ensure that European integration proceeds in a balanced way, the political integration and co-ordination are paralleled by a convergence of the economies of the member states. This economic convergence can be assisted by the co-ordination of the economic policies of the various Community countries, as well as through the Community's Regional and Social Funds. But we are an agricultural country and there is no question but that in our case convergence can have little meaning unless it is associated with continued effective operation of the Common Agricultural Policy within the basic principles laid down by the Treaties.
Looking beyond Western Europe, which includes — apart from Spain and Portugal, soon to become part of our EEC family — several neutral states with whom our relations are warm and mutually beneficial, we come to the other half of our tragically divided continent: Eastern Europe and the USSR. These countries, too, share in our common cultural heritage of European civilization and it is a tragedy that human contact between the two halves of our continent has been reduced by political and ideological differences to a level far below what the bonds between our peoples would in normal circumstances bring about.
Historical faults on both sides have contributed to the present level of tension in East-West relations within Europe. On the one hand there was perhaps less than sufficient understanding in the West of the Soviet Revolution in its early years and occasionally of certain aspects of the Soviet Union's sensitivities in relation to its security in more recent times. On the other hand the Soviet Union cannot but be aware of the deep mistrust and even fear which are generated in Western countries by the combination of massive military power with a doctrine of the inevitability of conflict between social systems and of the ultimate triumph everywhere of the Soviet model of society. I believe that the Soviet Union could only benefit from a loosening of the constraints on human contacts between East and West. I do not believe that greater human contact would damage the national security of the USSR and I look forward to the day when the cultural unity of Europe, which has continued in spite of all barriers, will again be permitted a full self-expression.
These thoughts are particularly apposite as we look at the situation of Poland, a country with which we in Ireland have so much in common in the shape of Christian and European heritage. I cannot believe that it is beyond the powers of any of the authorities concerned to devise a modus vivendi for Poland which will reconcile the Christian and European vocation of that great country with the essentials of the socialist system and with the security interests of the Soviet Union.
Outside of Europe, North America and those countries which are historically and ethnically offshoots of Europe, no part of the world is closer to us in terms of geography or of political and trading links than those countries which together make up the Arab nation. It would be foolish to attempt to deny that part of the importance to us of that region derives from its vast reserves of oil, but the links between the Arab world and Europe are older and deeper than any forged by a 20th century oil crisis. Our diplomatic efforts, through European Political Co-operation and at the UN, have in recent times of necessity focussed upon the urgent question of the rights of the Palestinian people. Along with our partners in the Ten, we accept the right of that people to self-determination with all that that implies.
The creation of a Palestinian homeland, a state — the precise model is a matter for negotiation and for the Palestinians themselves — is an essential element of a solution that would be just and lasting.
The other central principle on which Ireland and the Ten operate is the right of the State of Israel to a secure and peaceful existence behind borders recognised by its Arab neighbours. But Israel's rights do not extend to the implantation of settler colonies in the West Bank and Gaza. These are a major and growing obstacle to peace efforts.
In the immediate future progress depends on the success of the efforts to have all foreign forces removed from Lebanon and to restore to that long-suffering country its independence and territorial integrity. The recent signing, with considerable assistance from the US, of a troop withdrawal agreement between Israel and Lebanon is a step in that direction. I hope that it will be followed by others.
Ireland has had close links with Africa, through missionary endeavour and otherwise, for many years. The situation in Southern Africa at present gives rise to great concern.
South Africa's continued intransigence has blocked progress in efforts to bring about a negotiated independence settlement for Namibia in accordance with the United Nations Plan. I hope that, as a result of the efforts of the UN Secretary-General, agreement on arrangements for a ceasefire and the emplacement of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group will be achieved. The Government remain willing to provide a contingent of gardaí for service with the group, as well as military observers and support personnel, if requested by the Secretary-General.
In South Africa itself there are no signs of any serious efforts by the Government to dismantle the odious system of apartheid. As a result there is increasing frustration and anger on the part of the black majority and, if the pressures for change are not heeded, an explosive political situation seems inevitable. Moreover, South Africa's destabilising activities in neighbouring states may well cause a major conflict on a wider scale with unforeseeable consequences for all concerned.
The Government will continue to work at the United Nations, for the adoption of further mandatory sanctions against South Africa, such as an oil embargo, a ban on new direct investment and a strengthening of the arms embargo. We will also continue to urge, in the framework of European Political Co-operation, that the European Community should use its economic weight to persuade South Africa to abandon apartheid.
The United Nations, on whose Security Council Ireland has just completed a two-year term, has always had a special place in Irish foreign policy. This is because of its universal membership and its role in settling disputes between nations and in helping to create an international atmosphere which reduces the likelihood of such disputes arising. The Government support the present efforts of the UN Secretary General to revitalize the United Nations. I was very glad to have the opportunity to discuss these efforts with Sr. Perez de Cuellar when he visited Ireland last April. Participation in UN peacekeeping forces is one of the chief ways in which we in Ireland give practical expression to our commitment to international peace and security. Our main involvement in UN peacekeeping at the moment is in UNIFIL. In the present period of uncertainty we are following closely the developments affecting the future of that force.
I have spoken of the tradition of consensus in our foreign policy and of the need, which is indeed growing, for a united front by the parties in Dáil Éireann in the external world. I will do what I can to sustain and promote this Irish solidarity. This Government will not seek ephemeral political credit from the promotion of the Irish interest abroad. I look forward to hearing in this short debate and later, both inside the outside the Dáil, the contributions of all sides, and I will take them seriously into account in devising a common Irish approach to our international problems. In this one domain let us adopt as our guiding principle an old Irish saying: "Ar scáth a chéile 'sea mhaireann na daoine". In no area of policy is this standard more vital than in Anglo-Irish relations.
The three main parties in Dáil Éireann together with the SDLP are now participating vigorously in the New Ireland Forum. None of us should anticipate the results of the deliberations of the Forum other than to hope that they will indeed achieve our common objective, which is the promotion of peace and stability in our island. Policy on Northern Ireland and on Anglo-Irish relations should not be a matter of competition or dispute between parties in this House. I hope that a major benefit of the Forum will be to reinforce that principle in practice and I would like to use this occasion to express appreciation of the attitude taken by the other parties in the Forum to its work so far. The task ahead of the Forum is enormous but the challenge which faces us all is far greater. The price of failure could be, as the Taoiseach has said, "to make a bad and dangerous situation worse; it is a price that would be calculated in human lives and in ever deeper misery and despair". On the other hand the prize of success, the fruit of successfully confronting the reality of Northern Ireland, would be to construct for the first time the basis for a real dialogue on this island.
The work of the Forum is of fundamental importance. It cannot however delay the work of developing Anglo-Irish relations and reconciling the Irish traditions. The Government are actively engaged in galvanising the Anglo-Irish process at several levels, including preparation for the Anglo-Irish Summit later this year. Our objects is indeed to ensure that both Governments and both sides of the community in Northern Ireland will be in a position to give full and reflective consideration to the results of the New Ireland Forum in due course.
My Department are engaged more intensively, I believe, than at any time before in expanding our range of contacts in Northern Ireland. Since becoming Minister I myself have visited the North and I intend to continue to visit regularly. We are working to ensure that the British Government and British politicians on all sides realise the dangers which lie in inaction, neglect and an excessive timidity of approach. We are also engaged, both in the United States and in the other capitals of the European Community, in sustained attempts to reinforce an awareness of the seriousness of the situation we all face on this island.
The area of foreign policy and, most of all, of Anglo-Irish policy is not the place for partisan politics. The difference between politics and diplomacy was once defined as that between winning the argument and winning the result. It is the common effort of all parties here in Dáil Éireann which will ensure that we win the result, to the advantage of all our people.
