asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will state the precise arguments against Ireland joining NATO.
24.
Ceisteann—Questions. Oral Answers. - Neutrality Policy.
16.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the views expressed by the Minister for Defence about Irish neutrality in recent interviews represent Government policy on this issue.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 24 together.
The Government are committed to preserving Ireland's neutrality outside military alliances. Membership of any military alliance would not be compatible with this policy of neutrality. The question of joining NATO does not, therefore, arise. In the recent interviews to which Deputy Haughey refers, the Minister for Defence said that he was in favour of this policy. His view on this matter is, therefore, fully consistent with that of the Government.
What have the Government against stating precisely why they oppose joining NATO? Will the Minister agree that a reasoned and rational debate on neutrality would be welcome at this time, so that people will understand why and in what circumstances we are neutral?
The Government are commited to preserving our neutrality outside military alliances, and joining NATO would be incompatible with that policy. As regards the second part of the Deputy's question, I have no objection to a debate on neutrality taking place in this House if somebody wishes to put down a motion to that effect. I would give my views. Such a debate would have a value only if every Deputy from every party was free to speak his or her mind without the constraints of a party Whip. Our history in that regard has not been good. A debate on neutrality with every Deputy relieved of his or her party Whip, if that were possible, would be of value and I would be delighted to take part in it.
Does the Minister not find it deeply disturbing that successive Fine Gael Ministers for Defence, Deputy O'Toole and Deputy Cooney, have displayed a total lack of conviction with regard to the official defence policy of this country? Will he agree that this disloyalty inevitably damages and undermines the international credibility of this policy? What are foreign Government to think of our neutrality when the Minister for Defence, with no reprimand, states that the policy is totally illogical and that he would have no hang-ups about joining a military alliance? Would the Minister for Foreign Affairs like to avail of this opportunity here this afternoon to dissociate himself from such remarks? Will he agree that if his ministerial colleagues announced they would have no hang-ups about joining NATO this is bound to increase suspicion about the language in the Single European Act which states that the high contracting parties consider that closer co-operation on questions of European security would contribute in an essential way to the development of a European indentity in external policy matters?
We must get some kind of rules into this House so that a Deputy can ask only one supplementary at a time. A fellow like me has problems in keeping five or six supplementary questions in my head at the same time.
I agree. There are many precedents, which I regret are not being observed for ruling that only one supplementary can be asked at a time. I agree it has fallen into disuse.
I did not mean to criticise the Ceann Comhairle. I am sorry.
I am not having a great success at eliminating speeches and I will have to try again. Deputy Collins is a very infrequent offender in that regard.
What Deputy Collins said about the Minister for Defence is incorrect. The Minister for Defence said in that article that he is fully in favour of the policy of neutrality.
He said that the policy is totally illogical.
He did not say that. He said that having adopted the policy our attitude was illogical because we did not follow it through by supplying the means to support the policy. That was the tenor of his remarks.
He said that our policy was illogical, not our attitude.
The Minister said this against a background of saying that the single European Act does not in any way affect our neutrality, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions by a number of commentators in the papers. It has no bearing at all on our neutrality and——
The Minister said that he had no hang-up about NATO.
——that was the context in which the Minister for Defence was speaking.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I will allow Deputy Mitchell a question and then Deputy De Rossa and then I am going on to the next question as this subject could be debated for quite some time.
In relation to what the Minister said about a free Whip, that is the approach that should be adopted. In relation to Question No. 16, would the Minister agree that it is not possible to remain neutral in every situation, for instance, in a situation such as occurred before where six million Jewish people were sent to the gas ovens grasping their naked children? Would the Minister agree that there are circumstances in which we could not remain neutral?
I said "preserving Ireland's neutrality outside of military alliances". In other matters we are certainly not neutral.
Is the Minister saying that neutrality is now qualified by the term "outside of military alliances"? Is that our policy now?
It was always such. No Government has ever hidden the fact that we are outside military alliances but our place, our values and our traditions are with the democratic western societies.
Question No. 17.
To take Deputy Mitchell's example of the atrocities against the Jews in the Second World War in Germany, that was a western society, although clearly undemocratic at the time——
That is the difference.
——and pursued western values. It is not enough to say that we are simply on the side of western values in that qualification.
Question No. 17.
The Deputy answered his question when he said that during the war it was not a democracy.