asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government propose to exert pressure in international organisations to apply full economic sanctions against South Africa.
5.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Sanctions against South Africa.
4.
Tomás Mac Gillla
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the deteriorating situation in South Africa, the increasingly repressive measures adopted by the Pretoria government, including mass arrests, the shooting of unarmed civilians and the execution of Benjamin Moloise, and the decision of many countries throughout the world to introduce new measures against South Africa, the Irish Government plan to take any new steps to increase the pressure on South Africa to abandon its policy of apartheid; if the Government will now introduce economic sanctions and, particularly, if they will ban the export of computer and electronic equipment to South Africa from Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
26.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's view on economic sanctions against South Africa.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 26 together.
I have stated many times, before this House and elsewhere, the Government's opposition to the abhorrence of the system of apartheid in South Africa. I would like to reaffirm this now as well as the Government's wish to see an end to the system by peaceful means and the emergence in South Africa in its place of a democratic and multi-racial society. The aim of Government policy is to seek to help bring this about by applying pressure on the Government of South Africa to persuade it to change its policies.
The Government consider that the imposition of effective mandatory sanctions against South Africa is a means of further increasing international pressure on South Africa to abandon its apartheid policies and to this end has supported proposals that the UN Security Council should consider such sanctions. In 1984 Ireland co-sponsored a resolution to this effect at the UN General Assembly and has previously co-sponsored resolutions urging the imposition of an oil embargo and a ban on new investment in South Africa. The Government believe that sanctions should be carefully chosen, graduated, properly imposed by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and fully implemented.
Within the European Community the Government have actively sought agreement among the Ten on common measures to be taken against South Africa. Agreement was reached on a number of such measures by the Foreign Ministers of the Community on 10 September last. These measures were not intended to be a substitute for sanctions or other stronger measures. The measures were regarded as a minimum and the Ten in their statement specifically referred to the fact that the question of other measures, including sanctions, remained on the table. The measures were designed to make clear, in unambiguous terms, the seriousness with which the Ten viewed the situation in South Africa and the need for the abolition of the apartheid system in that country and the opening of a genuine dialogue with the representatives of the black majority population.
I need hardly add that the Government keep the situation in South Africa under close scrutiny and that our policy with regard to finding ways of increasing pressure on South Africa to achieve peaceful change in that unfortunate country is kept constantly under review. In this connection, and with specific reference to Irish action at the United Nations, I wish to inform the House of the following additional steps which the Government propose taking in the matter:
(1) Ireland will work for international implementation of the measures recommended in Resolution 39/72G — the resolution we co-sponsored — on Concerted International Action Against Apartheid. This resolution calls for a cessation of further investment in and loans to South Africa, an end to all promotion of trade to South Africa, to all military and nuclear collaboration with South Africa and for further aid for victims of apartheid and those struggling to bring about a non-racial democratic society there.
(2) Ireland will work for strict compliance with Security Council Resolution 418 of 1977 which established a mandatory embargo on supplies of arms to South Africa.
(3) Ireland will work towards making mandatory the embargo on the import of arms and paramilitary equipment from South Africa set out in the provisions of Security Council Resolution 558 of 1984.
(4) Ireland will seek to have the provisions of Security Council Resolution 569 on the suspension of all new investment in South Africa and the suspension of guaranteed export loans to South Africa made mandatory.
The Government do not consider that a unilateral ban on trade with South Africa would be appropriate or effective. Such a ban could be in conflict with our treaty obligations arising out of our membership of the European Community and the GATT.
On the specific matter of a ban on exports of computers and electronic equipment, I would point out that the Government already take steps to ensure that no exports of this type go for the use of the South African security forces and that this was one of the measures agreed on by the Ten in September. The Government's view remains that, for pressure on South Africa to be effective, broad international agreement is required on measures such as the strengthening of the existing arms import embargo, the introduction of an oil embargo and a ban on new investment in South Africa. The Government will continue to seek international agreement on the adoption of such effective measures.
Does the Minister believe that the Community should and must take effective action to mark its abhorrence of the systematic killing of unarmed black civilians and the attempt to suppress international coverage of this in defence of a totally unjust and iniquitous system of government? Can the Minister possibly be satisfied with the Community's action and attitude to date? Would he agree it has been absolutely minimal and has been more designed to fend off public opinion in Europe than to effect any real change in South Africa?
The Deputy has asked three or four questions. I would wish that the Community and the UN would take stronger action against South Africa — I said that in my reply. It is not correct to say that the measures adopted by the Community on 10 September last were designed to fend off, as the Deputy said, public opinion. There was a basis on which we could get the Twelve to agree. I personally wish they could go further but at the moment there is no willingness among all members of the Community to go any further.
Proinsias De Rossa
Would the Minister specify precisely the steps being taken to ensure that the computer and electronic equipment being exported from Ireland will not be used by the South African security forces? Will he accept that the type of equipment being exported is a key element in South Africa's operation of its pass laws? Would he indicate whether the Government have considered the ten point programme which the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement presented to his Department last June? Have steps been taken to pursue any of these ten points?
In regard to the first point, the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism seek an assurance from people exporting to South Africa that such equipment would not be used by the security forces in South Africa, and the Department seek an assurance from the people buying the equipment and sending it that it will not be used by or sold to the security forces in that country. We have no reason to believe that that condition is not adhered to. The Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement submitted a programme to my Department four or five months ago and, as I said here and in the Seanad on a number of occasions, the programme contains many good points, but our most effective action can be in partnership with our colleagues in the EC and in the UN. We have been working effectively there.
Does the Minister agree that the British Government have been particularly unhelpful and obstructive in respect of sanctions by the Community?
I would not accept that any one country has been obstructive in the implementation of sanctions. The Community endeavours to work closely and to find measures on which all member states can agree.
Does the Minister agree that it is deplorable that two of his EC colleagues, proceeding with their fact-finding mission in South Africa, were refused permission to meet the imprisoned Nelson Mandela?
Three representatives went down in early September. When they arrived they had not decided whether to go ahead with their trip or not because conditions were imposed on them some of which they could meet but some of which they could not. I do not argue with the decision made by them on the spot. Their main purpose while there was to seek to influence the South African Government and to gather whatever information they could. They went there as representatives of the 12 member states. They made a decision on the spot and I do not suggest they could have made a different decision.
Does the Minister agree with the decision?
I did. They made the decision on the spot and I do not think I would have acted differently if I were in their position.
Does the Minister agree it would be unacceptable if we had any cultural or sporting organisations organising tours of South Africa at present?
It would be totally unacceptable.
Proinsias De Rossa
Have the Government considered withdrawing from the "no visa" agreement with South Africa in view of the stronger hand it would give to the Irish Government to control visits of various South African diplomats to Ireland? This applies also to sporting organisations of one kind or another. Is the Minister aware that we are likely to have a visit this weekend from the South African Ambassador in London? Have the Department been informed or consulted about this visit? What would the Department's attitude be to such a visit?
I am not aware of such a proposed visit. We would not necessarily be informed because the South African Ambassador in London is not accredited to this country. There is free movement of travel between here and Great Britain and therefore he would be free to step on a boat and come here without informing anybody. The imposition of a visa has been considered, particularly in the light of what occurred when the workers in Dunne's Stores went there. On balance, we decided we should not do it. A no visa requirement does not necessarily mean that people from one country cannot go to another country. We do not allow South African sporting organisations to come here even though there is no visa requirement. We decided that if a visa were required by South African citizens coming to Ireland, undoubtedly the South African Government would reciprocate and this would not be of benefit to the many people who go to South Africa seeking information and to meet various groups of people there. Missionaries have to go through South Africa to get to Lesotho where we have a big aid programme.