asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposals, if any, he has for responding to the request of Central American and Latin American countries for either full diplomatic representations with Ireland or joint accreditation of their British Ambassadors to Ireland.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Diplomatic Representation.
6.
Ireland's network of diplomatic relations is small and must remain so for the foreseeable future given our limited resources. Possibilities and proposals for its extension are, however, examined from time to time having regard to our interests and resources. Proposals for the establishment of diplomatic relations are received from time to time from other countries and their Governments are made aware, through normal diplomatic channels, of our position.
The question specifically asked the Minister for a list of those countries which have lodged applications with his Department and the attitude that has been taken to those applications and the status of the consideration of those applications. Will the Minister say whether the reasons for not acceding to these requests are economic in all cases? There is a later question which we can deal with where there were no difficulties in considering South Korea.
They are all considered on their merits. I shall give the Deputy the list which I have here. Over the past decade we have had applications which include countries like Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, The Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru, Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago. That is a fairly full list of applicants.
The second part of the question asked for those which had asked for joint accreditation of their British Ambassadors to Ireland. That is certainly not the case of all the members on that list. Has the Minister disqualified all the members of the list on the same basis?
Some of the members are in that category, for instance, Cuba and Nicaragua. That is what the Deputy wants to clear up.
Which category is that? I do not understand the Minister's distinction.
They are in the category that the Deputy mentioned.
The question to the Minister is, will he respond to the request of these two countries that we have now identified for joint accreditation, in view of the fact that that request has been made repeatedly?
Certainly, I have met the Cuban representatives here and that matter is being followed up, as the Deputy is aware. I do not know what the Deputy is making a big deal about.
Would it be true to say that there could be no economic objections, on the basis of cost, to joint accreditation?
No economic objections?
No objections to joint accreditation on the basis of economic cost. The Minister has indicated that many applications are refused on the basis of cost to the State in establishing embassies and so forth in other countries. On the basis of joint accreditation there could be no significant additional cost involved.
That is the obvious way to reduce costs, but there is a cost factor involved although it is not significant.
Therefore, we can assume that the refusal for joint accreditation has not been on economic grounds and must be on political grounds?
No, there is a certain economic cost involved. There is an economic cost in joint accreditation, like everything else, in that there are travelling costs involved and expenses.
But of no significance.
Of no significance.
Could I finally ask——
I call Deputy Barry.
I gather there would be no objection, since the Minister has agreed to the South Koreans establishing an embassy here, to including all these countries.
There is a separate question on the Order Paper on that subject matter.
I gather the Minister would have no objection to any of these countries should they wish to open embassies here, even though we would not reciprocate by opening embassies in their countries.
If we thought fit. Each case is considered on its merits. For instance, in the case of South Korea, which is the most recent application, that was considered on the merits of South Korean investment which is taking place on a very practical scale here at the moment and is in response to the fact that although we do not have an embassy in Seoul we do have an IDA office that has been very successful in attracting investment here.
To Sligo.
To Sligo, as Deputy Nealon has stated. These considerations all come into play, whether they are trade, exports, tourism. All these considerations naturally are factors in making decisions of this kind.
May I finally ask the Minister whether the neglect by the agency to which he refers of the considerable economic benefits of Latin America trade and the considerable benefits to tourism and otherwise have, in fact, discouraged these embassies from opening in Ireland?
I would not go so far as to say that. I have not here the exact trade figures with the countries concerned. It is minimal in terms of trade figures, tourism and investment here compared with Far Eastern investment here, the potential of Far Eastern investment and the trade being done with Far Eastern countries, if one wants to compare economic advantage to Ireland on a pragmatic basis.
It is good to sell them meat.
I call on Deputy Barry for a final supplementary question and then I shall proceed to another question.
As the Minister is moving away from the arrangement of departmental policy rather than the principle Israel, which is a democratic country, should be allowed to open an embassy here now.
We are getting into some detail now.
That is a separate question but I shall not dodge it. The Deputy is very well aware that that is under continuing consideration. I saw the Israeli Ambassador in London only the other week on that issue.
Is he the Israeli Ambassador to Ireland.
He is the Ambassador to Ireland and Britain. He was in Dublin but he lives in London. I discussed this aspect with him and he appreciates all the difficulties involved. As the Deputy is aware this is not a simple matter.