Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Apr 1989

Vol. 388 No. 6

Taoiseach's Meetings with President Bush and Chairman Gorbachev: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I should like to inform the Dáil on the details of my visit to Washington over the St. Patrick's Day period and my meeting with President Bush, members of his administration and members of Congress. I would also like to report on my meeting at Shannon on 2 April with Mr. Gorbachev, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet.

I went to Washington in the first instance in response to an invitation issued to me by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Wright, to be the guest of honour at a lunch hosted by him on Capitol Hill, for colleagues of the House and the Senate, on St. Patrick's Day. During my visit I was received by President Bush. I had discussions with Speaker Wright at the House of Reprepresentatives and with Secretary of State Baker and Secretary of the Treasury Brady. I also met with a group of the Friends of Ireland in the House of Representatives.

In addition, I met with Senator Kennedy and with other important members of the House and the Senate at a dinner, which the Senator was kind enough to give at his home in my honour.

I hosted a working lunch, which was attended by Washington media representatives and editorial writers, at which I took the opportunity to brief members of the Washington press corps.

Together with the lunch offered by the Speaker in my honour, the high point of my visit was the opportunity it offered me for a meeting with President Bush at this early stage in his Presidency. I was received very warmly by him; I found him particularly friendly and well-disposed towards Ireland, and I was very glad to have such a useful opportunity to hear his views and to brief him on our concerns.

During my talks with the President we covered a wide range of issues, including the general international situation; the situation in Southern Africa and Namibia; the United Nations and UN peace-keeping, and the situation in Lebanon. The President spoke very favourably of Ireland's role in international peace-keeping, and he expressed to me his personal regret at the loss of life among our soldiers in Lebanon.

We also had a very useful discussion on the international economic situation. The President spoke of the dangers of protectionism and the importance of maintaining good lines of communication between the major world economic powers in order to avoid a counter-productive and damaging growth of protectionist pressures. For my part, I took the opportunity to assure the President that, as a small, open economy with a very great dependence on foreign trade, we would be concerned at any growth in protectionism and in my view there was no support in the Community for any concept of a "fortress Europe". I assured him that within the Community our voice would be used to encourage open trading policies.

I was very glad to be able to brief the President on recent improvements in our own economy. We talked, too, about the persisting unemployment problems, notwithstanding our success in turning the economy around in other respects; and I explained to the President about the consequential emigration and the problems which arise for young, undocumented Irish people working in the United States.

I also took the opportunity to brief the President on the Northern Ireland situation and our approach to it. I indicated that progress had been achieved through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, although we believe that a good deal more needs to be done; and I told him of my standing invitation to the leadership of the Unionist community to engage in political dialogue. I expressed to him my appreciation of US support for the Anglo-Irish process and for the International Fund.

These issues were covered also in my meeting with Secretary of State Baker, and I had very wide-ranging and useful discussions with him. I spoke to him about our interest in obtaining landing rights for Aer Lingus at Los Angeles, and I understand the administration is currently engaged in an overall review of air transportation issues within which this matter will be considered.

In my meetings with the Secretary of State and with Secretary of the Treasury Brady, I took the opportunity to raise some difficulties for US investment in Ireland arising from changes in tax legislation in the United States. I also raised the so-called "super-royalties" issues, and emphasised that it is in the mutual interest of both countries to resolve problems for US firms operating in Ireland. I found Secretary of State Baker, Secretary Brady and their officials were open and sympathetic to our concerns, and I believe they now have a good understanding of the problems posed for us and our concern to see changes in the PFIC rules and in the super-royalties question. In particular, it was agreed that arrangements would be made for us to put forward our views in detail to the Treasury Department on the super-royalties issue which is still only at the proposals stage.

I was very glad to avail of a St. Patrick's Day visit to meet many of our friends in both Houses on Capitol Hill. I found them, as always, interested in Ireland and eager to assist us in our concerns. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Wright, received me for discussion, and then kindly hosted a special lunch in my honour, to which he had invited a large and representative group of members of the Congress and Senators.

Earlier, I had had discussions with the Friends of Ireland. I briefed them on the progress we have made in dealing with our economy and the situation in Northern Ireland. I was able to thank the members of the Friends of Ireland for their excellent St. Patrick's Day statement and for their continuing interest in the situation in Northern Ireland. I expressed my appreciation for their part in securing the immigration legislation passed by Congress just before the end of the last session. I am confident that they will continue their good work in the current session. We discussed US tourism to Ireland; they undertook to keep in touch with the administration on the question of landing rights at Los Angeles, and they are pursuing their efforts to have the PFIC rules changed to take account of our concerns.

In general, I must say that I am satisfied with the results of my visit. I found in all my meetings, with President Bush and his administration as well as on Capitol Hill, a great warmth and a willingness to hear what I had to say and to see how our concerns might be taken into account. I assured the President that he would be welcome to visit Ireland at any time, and I hope Secretary of the Treasury Brady will visit us duing the course of the year.

Finally, I would like to mention that I availed of my meeting with Speaker Wright to renew an invitation which I had already extended last year to him to lead a delegation from the Congress on a working visit to Ireland later in the year.

My meeting with Mr. Gorbachev took place at Shannon Airport at his invitation on 2 April. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Lenihan, Deputy Albert Reynolds, Minister for Finance, and Deputy John Wilson, Minister for Tourism and Transport. Mr. Gorbachev had with him Mr. Shevardnadze, member of Politburo, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kamentsev, Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Yakovlev, member of Politburo.

The meeting was concerned with developments in the USSR and in international relations, matters of bilateral interest and Irish affairs. I took the opportunity to congratulate Mr. Gorbachev on his progress with perestroika or economic and political restructuring, which both influences and is influenced by international developments. Recent elections have demonstrated the support for perestroika by the people who, in fact, want the process speeded up.

In a detailed discussion of disarmament, which arise from the new approach of the Soviet Union in international affairs following on perestroika, the Soviet Leader was critical of the pace of arms reductions. I said that Ireland as a country without a nuclear or other arms connected industry could speak as a disinterested party. We have a very strong wish for disarmament, globally. World expenditure on armaments wastes resources, hinders economic development, hurts Third World countries and lowers the standards of living of people everywhere. I said that, in co-ordination with our partners in the European Community, we would urge our position in the United Nations, in European Political Co-operation and other fora open to us.

At our meeting in Shannon, there was considerable discussion on the situation in the Middle East which the Chairman referred to as explosive. There is now an opportunity of untying the knot on the basis of international co-operation. I said that we favoured an international conference with participation of all interested parties and a role for the PLO as a spokesman for the Palestinian people, with guarantees for the security of all the countries concerned.

I said that Ireland, through the UNIFIL operation, was helping to maintain stability in the area and would welcome any help that could be given to ensure that the force could carry out their mission without danger or interference from anybody. The Chairman said that they would look at the position sympathetically and keep our interests in mind.

On Northern Ireland, I said that the problem there had an impact on our internal situation and complicated our relations with the United Kingdom. Until it is solved, our relations with the United Kingdom can never be normal, as they should be, between two neighbouring friendly democratic States. I said that political progress must be in the framework of Ireland as a whole. I also thanked the Chairman for his interest in the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, on which we hoped a solution could be found. The Chairman took note of our position.

On bilateral relations, I raised the Aer Rianta-Sheremetyevo co-operation at Moscow and Leningrad airports which was very successful. I said that we would be glad to help in the process of perestroika, in air transport, marine matters, fisheries, ships repairing and service industries generally. We saw the Soviet Union as having a need for consumer goods, especially food, which we can supply. For us, the oil situation is of some concern. Mr. Gorbachev agreed that the possibility of exchanging oil for commodities would deserve attention and practical examination. We agree that all the possibilities should be explored further in detail by a group of Ministers who will be visiting Moscow later this year.

On the European Community, I said that Ireland would not support the idea of a "fortress" Europe. Ireland was in favour of developing international trade to the greatest possible extent. As a member of the Community, we were interested in trade with all countries. Mr. Gorbachev developed his ideas about the need for a closer relationship between the European Community and the countries of Eastern Europe, linking trade and international accord with the progress of perestroika and political development in the Soviet Union generally.

I conveyed the good wishes of the Irish Government and people to Mr. Gorbachev for his work on economic and political restructuring at home, for global disarmament and for the reduction of world tensions. Our meeting lasted more than an hour and was open, friendly and substantive. I feel I was reflecting the view of the Irish people as a whole, when I said to the Soviet President that his visit was a great honour for our country.

Mr. Dukes

Obviously we must all be pleased that the Taoiseach of our Government is pursuing international relations in quite this way and that these kinds of contacts are taking place between our Government and two of the most powerful Governments in the world. There are some things about which I should like to ask the Taoiseach, although I know he will not have an opportunity of replying in the course of statements.

The first concerns the position of undocumented Irish immigrants in the United States. When the Taoiseach returned from the United States on, I think, 18 March last he was reported to have said that fairly considerable progress had been made on the question of Irish illegal immigrants and he is reported to have gone on to say that the issue is not so much an administration issue, it is really a legislation issue. I should like to know whether the Taoiseach raised any of that with President Bush or with any of the other people he met in the United States.

The Taoiseach

It is in my statement.

Mr. Dukes

Further than that. It is rather disingenuous of the Taoiseach to make the point that it is really not so much an administration issue but a legislation issue. We all know that it needs legislation. We all know that any further progress of the kind we would like to see will require legislation, but it is obvious that the chances of securing the kind of change in legislation that we would like to see would be vastly improved if the administration were working with Congress, rather than as we have seen on a number of issues in the United States, the two working against one another in different directions. I wonder if the Taoiseach has been or is in a position to form a view as to whether it is likely that President Bush and senior members of his administration would be disposed to be sympathetic or supportive of the kind of initiatives which have been taken on so many occasions by a number of our friends in the two Houses in Washington, some of whom the Taoiseach met during the course of his visit.

I note that the Taoiseach and President Bush had useful discussions on the international economic situation and on world trade. An area of considerable concern to us and one which might well have figured in the Taoiseach's discussions is the issue of farm trade. On Friday last in the context of the GATT round the partners there agreed to a freeze on levels of farm support and levels of export support for farm products.

I had the opportunity last Friday of having a discussion on this matter with Commissioner MacSharry. As I said yesterday, for other partners involved that is the beginning of a much longer process which in their view should lead to the complete dismantling of systems of subsidy and support for farm produce. In that we will be a very interested party, all the more so because while that is going on and while some of the partners in the GATT are preaching the doctrine of free and untrammelled trade, they are in fact taking measures at home to expand their own levels of production. That is particularly the case in the United States where the "set aside" programme is itself largely being set aside. The prospects are for a substantial increase in cereal production in the United States.

We also see moves to begin a new wave of expansion in dairy production. That must be a matter of great concern to us because we have seen the European Community play a very constructive role in bringing order and stability back into world dairy markets and it would be very damaging and very galling for us in the European Community, who have been through so many difficulties in that area, if we were now to find that the apostles of untrammelled trade and lower export supports and so on were again to create a situation where they destabilised the world markets.

Last there be any misunderstanding, I would have to make it very clear that there is not any obvious advantage for the countries which unfortunately have to be recipients of food aid in a return to the kind of instability in world dairy markets which we saw during the seventies. If anything, there is an advantage for them in having a well ordered stable world scene where the rest of us can get on with proper development aid and emergency aid in the knowledge that it will not ruin markets either for us or for those of the developing countries which are now beginning themselves, to appear on the market.

During the course of his visit I wonder if the Taoiseach had any opportunity to look at some aspects of the Northern Ireland situation other than the ones he mentioned here. I find it extremely disturbing to see the facility with which a number of States in the United States have adopted the so-called MacBride principles. I find it all the more disturbing when I look at the people in the United States who are advocating the MacBride principles because I would have to say that very many of them are not in any way real friends of Ireland or of the Irish people.

My approach in that regard in meeting United States Senators and Congressmen and State legislators, as we all do here and elsewhere from time to time, has been to say to them that by far the most constructive approach that well disposed, friendly United States legislators can take is to make it quite clear to the United States administration that there are two Governments, the ones directly involved, who have between them a binding agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and that if they believe either or both Governments are not doing enough to bring about fairness in employment in Northern Ireland, then pressure should be put on the two Governments to use the structures in the Anglo-Irish Agreement to achieve that aim and not to have this rather quirky and eccentric approach that we now see being adopted in a number of American States.

I wonder, a Cheann Comhairle, if again during the course of this contact, or perhaps in the course of other contacts, the Taoiseach had the opportunity of raising questions with the United States Administration about the United States funding of the UNIFIL operation. The Taoiseach will know that there have been difficulties in the past. He will know also that both his own Government and the last Government had some difficulties in relation to the funding of our UNIFIL contingent because there was a delay on the part of the United States in making its full contribution. I note that the Taoiseach and President Bush discussed the value of the UNIFIL operation, and I would agree with the Taoiseach that we have every reason to be proud of the contribution that we and our troops have made in that respect. It is necessary that the Taoiseach should use every opportunity to encourage the United States administration to support that operation fully and completely so as to avoid any recurrence of the kinds of difficulties we had in past years because the United States were slow in making their full contribution to the United Nations funding.

In relation to the Taoiseach's meeting with Chairman Gorbachev, the Chair will forgive me if I say that what the Taoiseach has said today confirms me in the belief that my questions of yesterday should not have been disallowed. In the event, my questions did not anticipate anything that the Taoiseach said. They had to do with two issues which the Taoiseach has not mentioned at all. I asked the Taoiseach yesterday — and I will ask again, Sir, and hope that when my questions come before you they will not be disallowed on the grounds of repetition because the Taoiseach has not given us any information about these — if the Taoiseach had any opportunity to raise with Chairman Gorbachev a number of issues that are of concern to us and that I believe are within his power to affect in some way. There is first the position of Soviet Jews who wish to leave the Soviet Union. I would put this and other issues very clearly in the context of the Helsinki Declarations and of the objectives that have been expressed there. We all know that there is a substantial number of people being prevented from leaving the Soviet Union who cannot in any way be described as enemies of the Soviet Union or of wishing to damage the Soviet Union but they find extreme difficulty even to the point where they are now nicknamed refusniks. We should all encourage Chairman Gorbachev to take a much more open view of requests by people of that kind. It is surely one of the hallmarks of a confident and free country — and we know it to our cost — that its citizens are enabled to leave it at any time they wish.

There is another area in which Chairman Gorbachev could be asked to take steps where it might be of use to us. We have seen far too often, and I regret to say that I am sure we will see it again, finds of armaments and explosives that have been manufactured either in the Soviet Union or in some of the Warsaw Pact countries. One of the favourite weapons of the terrorist today is the Kalashnikov AK7 assault rifle. That, so far as I know, is manufactured in a number of places within the Soviet sphere of influence. Semtex explosives are manufactured in Czechoslovakia. This is an area where Chairman Gorbachev could see what kind of action could be taken if he is really interested in taking action on a wide front to reduce tensions and promote peace in the world. Let us not be in any doubt about it; the Soviet Union, its satellite countries, the countries of the Warsaw Pact, are all centrally planned economies still, and it is very clear that the wishes of the Soviet Chairman would carry a great deal of weight in relation to the conduct of their affairs.

The Taoiseach has mentioned the fact that in his meeting with Chairman Gorbachev he thanked the Chairman for his interest in the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six cases. I believe that in previous reports it was reported that Chairman Gorbachev said he believed that the Northern Ireland problem was a matter for the British Government. There is some confusion about that. One of the questions I had put down to the Taoiseach was to ask him if indeed the question of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six had been raised and if the Taoiseach himself had asked Chairman Gorbachev to take that up with the UK Prime Minister when he met her. The reason I asked the question is that we should be very careful and selective about the people for whose assistance we ask in areas like that. There is little point in asking somebody to intervene on our behalf if he is not in particularly friendly standing with the person in question. The UK Prime Minister has a certain reputation for handbagging — I do not know whether that is true. I could imagine that her reaction to Chairman Gorbachev speaking to her about civil rights and freedoms in the UK would be——

Mr. M. Higgins

Educational.

Mr. Dukes

——perhaps a little thorny and she might be tempted to refer to the greater level of similar problems in his own country. I just wonder if it is really useful to raise those kinds of questions when the relationship between Chairman Gorbachev and Mrs. Thatcher is not perhaps one calculated to produce the best results.

I note that the Taoiseach and Chairman Gorbachev spoke about the possibility of barter deals. I understand that a group of Ministers is to visit Moscow to examine all of that. There I would just make the point, for the record, that barter deals of that kind require a fair amount of attention. There are obvious problems in relation to fixing price equivalents. If the product one is getting in return is oil, we have seen a number of fluctuations on oil markets sometimes working to one's advantage and sometimes not. I believe that experience in Ireland among commercial operators who have been involved in deals of that kind have indicated that it is always wise to have a position taken so that the oil can be unloaded in the Rotterdam spot market before any barter deal is done. That is an area to which the Government would need to pay some considerable attention because we would have to get manufacturers of food products here to accept this secondhand relationship with the payment that they would be finally getting for their product.

I note that the Taoiseach has informed Chairman Gorbachev of our strong interest in disarmament. I was tempted to pick the Taoiseach up on a word he used when he said that Ireland as a country without a nuclear or other arms connected industry could speak as a disinterested party. I am sure the Taoiseach was using the word "disinterested" in a purist sense because of course, we all have a very strong interest in disarmament. I am very encouraged to find that the Taoiseach said to Chairman Gorbachev that we would urge our position in the United Nations in European political co-operation and other fora open to us. I am very encouraged to find the Taoiseach taking that view of what we can do and of the scope of the action we can take in the context of European political co-operation, and would encourage the Taoiseach to keep going along that road because it is very largely to allow the European Community and its member states to exercise that kind of influence that the process of political co-operation is so important.

The Taoiseach conveyed good wishes to Chairman Gorbachev for his work on economic and political restructuring at home, for global disarmament and for the reduction of world tensions. The Taoiseach was probably speaking for all of us when he said that. Let us not get too carried away. We should in every way we can, constructively encourage the process that is going on in the Soviet Union. Let us not forget the difficulties that are there and let us not forget the point from which they are coming, so to speak. We look at television news and read the various journals and there is a whole list of areas where we can empathise with people within the Soviet sphere of influence who are trying to change their situations. These include Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. In Hungary developments are taking place. It is difficult to see whether anything is really happening at present in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, we now see reports of unrest in Georgia and there have been similar problems in Armenia in the past. The process that Chairman Gorbachev has embarked upon is certainly a very new and a very great adventure in his terms but it is a process that is aimed at bringing the people of the countries in the Soviet sphere of influence so far to a level of human rights, civil rights and civil freedoms that will still be a long way behind the standards that we regard as acceptable. That process must be encouraged but we should not get the view that in what is being done so far any headline is being set for the rest of the world. We should bear that in mind in the praise and support that we give to the process because the bottom line must always be that we want to see it going a great deal further.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I welcome the making of this statement by the Taoiseach about these two meetings that he had with President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev. The statement confirms the view that most people had that these meetings were largely ceremonial ones. They are not to be denigrated for that reason; they are still to be welcomed. It underlines for me how regrettable it is that while the Taoiseach can meet the President of the United States and the President of the Soviet Union and have friendly discussions with them of that kind, it has not been possible for him or, indeed, his predecessor, for the past three and a half years to have a meeting with the head of government that is perhaps most relevant to our problems, other than the twice a year short meetings on the margins of the European Council. The very fact that the Taoiseach found it necessary to convey his views to Mr. Gorbachev about certain matters in Northern Ireland and certain aspects of Anglo-Irish relations in order, hopefully, that they would be conveyed or reinforced by Mr. Gorbachev, underlines the necessity for a real, substantive meeting taking place between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister without any further delay. I presume the Taoiseach has made many efforts to have such a meeting and I presume we all know that the reason it is not taking place is that the British Prime Minister is not prepared to have it.

The Taoiseach

That is not so. It is simply not true.

Mr. D. O'Malley

It seems to be a great pity that the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be going on in some fashion for the last number of months and that it should presumably be completed without a meeting between the heads of the two Governments involved. We recall that in 1985 the heads of the two Governments were very much involved, particularly in the latter part of the arrangements that were then made. It is not clear from what the Taoiseach has said whether or not the United States propose to make further contributions to the International Fund that was set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. My hope obviously is that they would be prepared to do that and that it would go on for some time.

The position of Irish immigrants in the United States was raised by the Taoiseach, as indeed it should have been, but it is not at all clear from the statement what the response was in terms of what can be done for the very large numbers of people who, unfortunately, are there now on what the Americans call an out of status basis, or whether their position is going to improve at all in the next number of years. It is not clear either what number of Irish emigrants or wouldbe emigrants are going to be covered by the arrangements being made now for the Berman visa, as the latest round of visas are called. I hope the position of the very large number of our people who are in the United States can be clarified and regularised during this present year.

In the discussions with Mr. Gorbachev I note that the Taoiseach discussed disarmament with him as one of the main topics and I am obviously very glad that he did. It seems strange, however, that an Irish Taoiseach can discuss the very essential topic of disarmament with the Soviet President but appears not to be able to discuss it, nor were his predecessors, within the European Community or in the European political co-operation process. Some time ago a speech was made by the former Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, in which he said that matters of this kind came up at discussions at which he was present and that he felt his obligation was not to contribute but simply to listen. That is unreal. We should be getting away from that sort of situation and it is underlined by the fact that if we are in a position to talk to the head of the Soviet Government surely we should be in a position to talk to our own partners in the European Community about these matters.

The question of the closer relationship which Mr. Gorbachev would like to see between the European Community and the countries of Eastern Europe was raised. That is going to be a very important development insofar as the whole of Europe is concerned in the next number of years and I would like to see us play our part in that. One aspect of it that will be particularly important is the question of Austrian membership of the European Community. Austrian membership seemed to be unthinkable up to a few years ago and it is only in the Gorbachev era that the Austrians have made serious approaches to the European Community. Their neutrality, of course, is a genuine one in the sense that it is imposed on them by treaty which they signed with, among others, the Soviet Union. In the last resort, whether or not they can join the Community is dependent on the attitude that will be taken by the Soviet Union. It has considerable ramifications and our position is particularly important both from the point of view of the Soviets and the Austrians. It can influence greatly what is likely to happen in terms of defensive arrangements within this Continent well into the next century.

On the question of the arrangement whereby oil might be exchanged for food or other commodities which we would be in a position to supply, perhaps that is not as attractive as it was portrayed here, as if it were some sort of major breakthrough. There is no shortage of oil at the moment and nobody is really seriously looking for oil as something that is needed to trade. It is just another commodity. We could just as easily take other goods in exchange for whatever we would supply ourselves. Unless we can pre-sell whatever oil is given to us it is not much use to us and it is no better than any other commodity. Nonetheless, since one cannot engage with the Soviet Union in normal trade where one is paid in hard currency for what one sells, one has to make arrangements on whatever basis they are made, whether on the basis of barter or on the basis of counter-trading. I hope we can increase trade between the two countries because it is at a relatively low level.

We are not just talking about trade in goods because one of the most interesting and heartening things that happened in recent years was the arrangement made by Aer Rianta, particularly the Shannon sector of Aer Rianta, in one of the Moscow airports and in Leningrad. The provision of services of that kind gives an opening for this country that, perhaps, could be much easier and more lucrative for us than simply the sale of goods in the traditional way in which trade is carried on.

I could not help being reminded by the unfortunate event in the northern Norwegian sea within the last week when a Soviet nuclear submarine was lost with, unfortunately, the loss also of a substantial number of lives, of the threat that we are subject to all the time in the Irish Sea in relation to nuclear submarines, Soviet, US and British. That brought home to us the necessity to try to work towards some control of the use to which the Irish Sea is put and the dangers that are very much part and parcel of it at present and from which we would be major sufferers if there was an accident of that kind. The difficulty about the Irish Sea is that, unlike the Norwegian sea, where the submarine sank to a depth in excess of 5,000 feet, the deepest part of it is about 500 feet. A geat deal of it is a lot shallower than that and if there is any contamination of the sea from those nuclear sources the dangers will be enormous.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I welcome very much the fact that the two meetings took place. Meetings with American Presidents are common enough and nothing very different or unusual happened at this one. On the other hand, a meeting with the chief political figure of the Soviet Union is very different. It is new and, as far as this country is concerned, it probably would not have happened up to some years ago. Like everybody in Western Europe we should rejoice at the huge changes that are taking place within the Soviet Union and the remainder of Eastern Europe. We look at them with great interest and with great sympathy. We realise also that it has been the initiative of Mr. Gorbachev, and his various supporters within the Soviet Union, that has brought this about. What he has done is of huge significance not alone for that country but for Europe and the world as a whole. I congratulate him on that and hope he will succeed in the objectives he has set himself.

Mr. M. Higgins

I should like to join with other Deputies in welcoming the statement from the Taoiseach on his two meetings, one with President Bush and the other with General Secretary and Chairman Gorbachev of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is a mark not only of the change in public attitudes but of more deeper institutional relationships that we have a report from the Taoiseach's meetings with both leaders in the same statement. It indicates a more positive concept of balance in relation to what are referred to on occasions as the two super-powers. Having listened to the speeches welcoming and commenting on the Taoiseach's statement I am prompted to raise one critical point and it does not say anything about the language used in the statement. My point is that the mechanism used for discussing meetings and issues as important as the ones referred to is quite unsatisfactory. At the risk of introducing some tedium I should like to say that what we have listened to this morning clearly makes the case for a concept I so often proposed, that there should be a foreign affairs committee of the House. The issues to which the Taoiseach adverted could be discussed more substantially at a meeting of such a committee. If such a committee had existed one could envisage the careful preparation of themes and the reaction to the heads and points of discussion that took place between the different leaders. Such a committee would be of powerful assistance to the House and, in terms of public education, to the evolution of new attitudes and interests. It could take account of the extraordinarily under-estimated public interest there is in aspects of world affairs. I hope that the Taoiseach and the Government will have an opportunity before the Irish Presidency of the EC commences of rethinking their attitude to such a committee. It would be a very valuable mechanism that could be used prior to such meetings and for a discussion on the consequences of them.

Putting myself imaginatively into an atmosphere in which such a committee might have existed I would think that what it would have before it would not just be the Taoiseach's statement but statements of the Speaker and it could have requested a copy of Mr. Gorbachev's speech. People are not inclined to pay sufficient attention to what Mr. Gorbachev said in his speech. One must ask what was the status of a meeting at Shannon Airport in relation to the more formal meetings, social or ceremonial, that have taken place in other contexts. Mr. Gorbachev did not drop into Shannon in the role of a penitent to explain to people of this small country that he was hoping they would grow to love him or something like that. There was a significant passage in his speech in which he invited the Western world, with its enormously large levels of poverty, unemployment and worker insecurity, to discuss the importance of there being a perestroika within Western thought and a perestroika particularly in relation to economic democracy. He said that in the evolution in the West people who were working in perilously badly managed firms should have the opportunity of removing the franchise from their owners who are inefficient and threatening not only the firm but the jobs and livelihoods of the workers. He spoke about the possibility of extending democracy beyond the political and into the realm of the economic and the social and about the right of workers to a freedom of information and so on.

We would be very wise not to put ourselves into the role of confessor and to start saying that we are going to watch with care how Mr. Gorbachev gets on. It behoves us to read his speeches with great care. They appreciate our support in the difficult internal reformations that are taking place politically, economically, socially and culturally within the Soviet Union. There is some merit in taking some of his observations about the West on board. It is in that regard that one will find people less forthcoming.

In the brief time available I want to make a couple of points that arise in the statement. I am not going to criticise the Taoiseach for not making more use, or putting more into the agenda, of what, after all, was just an hour's meeting. At the same time I must say that the cynic in me suggests that they must have been moving very quickly across an enormous agenda to manage to discuss all the points that are listed in the Taoiseach's statement.

One I am delighted to see included is the question of Ireland's role as a possible venue for a future summit. That imposes some responsibilities on us. I do take the point about the use of the word "disinterested" in the Taoiseach's statement as being disinterested only in terms of our not being involved in arms production and dissemination. I think that was its intended use — because obviously everybody is interested in the removal of the potential destructive effect of nuclear weapons.

But what was even more interesting and is surfacing more and more in Chairman Gorbachev's speeches, and indeed in the United States, is what is taking place in relation to development particularly among the poorest countries. I am delighted that that topic came up because people do not realise the extent of what has happened particularly in the light of a new economic consensus that is developing, a concept of what I have often referred to as the depeopled economy. In relation to the world, that is resulting in an enormous increase in child death, in a reduction in health expenditure, in expenditure on social provision and so on. For example, in 1979 the average flow of funds in terms of loans, aid, interest and capital subventions from the North — if you like, the less peopled world — to the South — the vastly peopled world — was of the order of $40 billion. By 1989 this had been entirely reversed. If one took repayments alone and did not include trade one would find the net payments from the South to the North were $20 billion. If one included deterioration in trade in terms of the basic, often very few, primary commodities on which the least developing and less developed countries are dependent, then one would find that the flow from the poorest to the richest, in other words, from South to North, was $60 billion.

I hope, in future meetings, that the question of not only reducing armaments but also of more positively engaging the concerns on the issue of the urgency of deflection from military spending to the genuine tasks of development will prevail and be enhanced.

Should we be preparing for summits, it is very interesting to note that the 1988 Summit in Moscow, the joint statement issued at the end of that Summit, took account of the circumstances of which I speak and said:

Both leaders reaffirm their support for the World Health Organisation/ UNICEF goal of reducing the scale of preventable childhood deaths through the most effective methods of saving children. They urged other countries in the international community to intensify efforts to achieve this goal.

I want to conclude the point I am making by simply saying that the issue as to whether or not armaments cannot only be contained but vital resources transferred to the urgent needs of development, affects not only the lives of children today but those of the many children who have been saved by intervening and innovative medical techniques such as oral rehydration therapy, immunisation and so on, and who are now at risk beyond the age of five. The children of the world are the principal beneficiaries of every move we make towards peace.

It is important that the point I made — that the international economic consensus, which is concentrating on indicators of economic performance which do not necessarily take into account the human populations affected by that economic thinking at macro level is responsible for the danger to children on this planet — be emphasised. At home I believe such policies are perceiving unemployment — and I note it in the Taoiseach's statement — almost as not the major priority towards which economic measures are taken but rather as an obdurate consequence of economy which simply will not remove itself. It is possible, as many economies in the world show us if we care to look at them, that world economies can have high export rates, low interest rates and, at the same time, cannot have any kind of labour-intensive investment opportunities, when the unemployment figures can take off quite separate from the overall better performance of the economy on other indicators that do not necessarily take account of demography or of people.

I am glad that the unemployment issue was honestly raised. I do think it is a dreadful reflection on us, in a way, a reflection of an intellectual and basic political kind in that we are, here again, dealing with the very last bulge that will take place in the Irish population. Demographic trends suggest that we will never again have the same expansion of population we have now. Here we are discussing the welfare of emigrants. It is right to discuss the welfare of emigrants. Their position in the United States is something that must be kept at the top of the agenda in any talks that take place. However, behind it lies a great confession of failure. It is insufficient to say that the country is incapable of keeping all its people at home. This raises questions about the kinds of redistribution investment, the kinds of strategic investment of which I speak that are necessary to create the jobs that will provide the opportunities which in turn will render emigration simply an historical problem.

I did not find precise reference to it and it would probably have been inelegant of the Taoiseach to have raised it in the atmosphere of St. Patrick's Day, but I wondered about the United States budget deficit. If we decide to cast our contentious eye on Chairman Gorbachev, it behoves us to look at the economic policies of President Bush and what they are doing in the rest of the world. The United States budget deficit could be crudely described as a beggar-my-neighbour approach to world economy. In fact, it has created enormous difficulties for the rest of the world. The nature of the structure of the external relationships of a budget deficit are ones that are beneficial to the inhabitants of the country involved. If one combines it, as in the United States, with a low tax régime, effectively what one is doing is living off one's international neighbours. That is how the budget deficit is operated in the United States. It is something we should think about.

I am delighted that the detail on issues of trade was taken up. I do not share the concerns many people have in relation to barter. I simply want to say this: there was a time, and it was not so long ago, when even for a plane to have touched down at Shannon would have created a great furore in that part of the world I was reared. I often wonder and I hope the fact that we earn many millions of pounds from servicing planes for Aero-flot, and now also for Cubana, has not brought about this extraordinary metamorphosis in Newmarket-on-Fergus, in Limerick and Clare. Someone said there was not a single anti-Communist banner in sight. What a conversion. How was it related to the possibility of trade? Let us not be cynical. People are now more sophisticated. People have come on and seen that a great deal of the rubbish and nonsense which wasted decades of our time in this country, in abusing and insulting people who live in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is past. We have great opportunities for trade which can be managed within a complicated set of arrangements.

For example, people spoke about oil. Just think of the manner in which this can be facilitated by the provision of services to aircraft. There are very neat ways of making the transaction. I will not say much more about them but I do know that they exist. We should expand those trade opportunities.

I shall conclude by saying that I welcome the Taoiseach having come into the House and making the statement on his two meetings but I find it hollow and totally insufficient. For goodness sake, how can we speak about disarmament, about the Irish and US budget deficits, about aid, trade, GATT and so on in an hour? It is rather like someone describing how they had a flush of global thinking to the head. It is not this that we need.

We are a Parliament and we are unique among European Parliaments in being deprived of a forum to debate all these issues in detail so that we can be of assistance to whoever is the Government of the day and reflect the widespread welcome public concern with regard to issues of peace, disarmament, development, mutual understanding, the removal of misunderstandings and so forth.

In fact, the mask only slipped once during the course of the visit to Shannon. I particularly deplored the despicable comments in some of the British newspapers about Mr. Gorbachev having talks with the Taoiseach and Ministers at Shannon Airport. They let themselves down very badly by making statements about what would Mr. Gorbachev have to say to an Irish Government and so forth. As I said, these statements were despicable and revealed to us how, in relation to other matters, we have a very long way to go in acquiring an equality of treatment in relation to certain sections of the British media in particular. I do not say that in any anti-British way: I say it with a mutual concern for the responsibility of comment.

Also, it is not fair to ask, because we are a country with an independent foreign policy and we speak to Mr. Gorbachev and President Bush, when are we going to speak to Mrs. Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher's backward and recalcitrant views in relation to world politics are primarily a problem for her and the unfortunate and suffering British people who have to live under her. I think the Taoiseach is correct, and I hope that this will be the case during the Irish Presidency, in pursuing as many contacts as possible and in avoiding an obsession with somebody who may not be bringing any kind of creativity, openness or, very often human understanding to great and urgent issues. In a way, a small country talking to the representatives of a very large one should be an indicator of our mutual interdependence. I request the Taoiseach to think again on the issue of a foreign affairs committee which would provide a proper forum for the discussion of these issues.

Proinsias De Rossa

I was disappointed to some extent at the negative and begrudging attitude from some speakers in relation to the Soviet Union. If we sit back like contented tom cats believing that we have in some way created new life in the Soviet Union we will be making a serious mistake. Very good things are happening in the Soviet Union but they are happening there because the people in the Soviet Union want them to happen. We would also be mistaken in thinking that all we have to do is sit back and wait until things happen in a way which satisfies the countries of the West. I do not believe there is any way in which the Soviet people will accept the values of the West in the way that western people or some western Governments see them. They have very different concepts of democracy and freedom and in many ways they have a much more expanded concept of democracy and freedom.

President Gorbachev's willingness to break the political and military moulds in the search for world peace has quite rightly led to him being acknowledged as the outstanding world statesman of our time. It has won him the affection and admiration not just of socialists and communists but of all those throughout the world who want to see a lasting and secure peace. The remarkable enthusiasm demonstrated for President Gorbachev by the Irish people during his short visit here is an indication of how much progress has been made in defrosting the cold war. Not too many years ago it would have been unthinkable for a Soviet leader to get such an enthusiastic reception from virtually all sections of Irish society. Indeed, it is not too long ago that to be a communist in this country effectively placed a person outside the pale of civilisation in Ireland.

The Irish people have demonstrated a maturity in relation to this matter in recent times. It is a tribute to the remarkable contributions made by President Gorbachev to the successful conclusion of the treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States for the destruction of certain nuclear weapons. The efforts of the Soviet Union to secure solutions to the many regional conflicts throughout the world in such places as Afghanistan, Southern Africa and South-East Asia, have also clearly had their impact. The decision announced at the United Nations last December to reduce by almost one-third the number of Soviet conventional forces in Eastern Europe was a particularly significant development. It opens up the possibility of real progress towards a demilitarised Europe if, and I emphasise the word "if", there is a reciprocal response by NATO countries. I urge the Government, and I think the Taoiseach indicated in his statement that he would do this, to use all available international fora to exert pressure on the NATO countries to leave the cold war thinking behind them and to respond to the clear wishes of the people of the world for peace and a demilitarised world. The announcement by President Gorbachev in London last week that the Soviet Union would cease production of enriched uranium used in the production of nuclear weapons, is a courageous initiative which merits the support of all those who want to see the end to the nuclear madness.

Following President Gorbachev's short visit here there is now clearly the possibility of real and substantial developments between Ireland and the Soviet Union in the cultural, trade, economic and political areas. The potential for trade is enormous. Apart from our immediate neighbours in Europe, we have tended to look west to the United States for trade developments but we should also be looking east. There is a great potential market in the Soviet Union and the successes of Aer Rianta demonstrate how well we can do there. The heaviest concentrations of population are in the western areas, not that far away from Ireland and, in fact, Moscow is far nearer to us than New York is.

In the context of the present bootboy tactics by a small group of multinational oil companies in trying to deprive this country of petrol supplies, the Soviet offer of a barter deal involving oil is particularly important. To deny the multinational oil companies the stranglehold they now enjoy over this country, we must find alternative sources of oil and, as I said yesterday in the House, establish an independent distribution system. The Soviet Union are now offering us the prospect of an oil supply independent of the oil giants. The Government must follow up on this offer and transform it into a firm deal which would, of course, not only break the oil companies stranglehold on this country but would also give a much valued and much needed boost to our food industry.

The Taoiseach's visit to the US was much longer than the visit of President Gorbachev to this country and, unfortunately, does not seem to have thrown up anything of the same potential or significance. Indeed, what is now almost an annual visit by the Taoiseach to the United States around St. Patrick's Day to present shamrock to the resident of the White House, unfortunately, and with all due respect to the Taoiseach, conjures up images of a 19th century tenant farmer presenting a sprig of shamrock to his lordship in the big house. I say this because I believe that we should be careful about how we present ourselves to powerful countries, whether they be the United States or the Soviet Union. We must not present ourselves as suppliants who are looking for scraps from anybody's table. It is important, of course, that we maintain good relations with the United States and, indeed, all other countries. It is an important source of investment and, therefore, job creation for this country. It is also, unfortunately for Ireland, home for more and more of our people and as long as the Fianna Fáil Government persist with their current economic policies more and more people will have to look for a job and a living in other countries. The severe difficulties faced by the Irish people illegally in the United States is highlighted again by a report this morning of a young girl who was virtually held prisoner there and has been well documented. It is essential that the Government do all possible to ease those difficulties.

On his return the Taoiseach said he had received a good response to his representations but nothing seems to have happened since then. Our moral case for a sympathetic consideration for Irish people illegally in the US would, I believe, be far stronger if we showed a similar degree of sympathy and consideration for illegal immigrants in Ireland. This is far from the case. Illegal immigrants are whisked out of this country in most cases without any opportunity to take legal advice or challenge the decision in any way.

In conclusion all our Taoisigh have been regular visitors to the United States and a number of US Presidents have visited this country. I hope the short visit of the Soviet leader will be followed up by a visit to the Soviet Union by the Taoiseach and a longer visit to Ireland by the President of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Dukes

I might arrange to meet you there Deputy.

Proinsias De Rossa

Such a development would mark the opening of a new phase in our State's foreign policy where we must seek equally good relations with all the major countries of the world. Such a policy can only strengthen our neutrality, an essential principle for the peaceful development of this world and unfortunately, one which Fine Gael appears to be abandoning.