Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Apr 1989

Vol. 389 No. 1

Illegal Weapons Dealing: Statements.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

I have received a report from our embassy in Paris about the arrest last weekend of an official attached to the South African Embassy in Paris, an American citizen and three persons from Northern Ireland, who were allegedly in possession of military material. The American citizen and the three persons from Northern Ireland have been charged with illegal dealing in weapons. I understand that the South African official was a technical and administrative officer and that he was released after his arrest because of his official status. I also understand that the South African Ambassador in Paris has declared that the official concerned has left the country. The matter is now under judicial investigation in France and Deputies will understand that my comments on the matter must, therefore, be restricted.

I would like to say first that the Ambassador in Paris has conveyed our congratulations to the French authorities on the success of their security measures against an operation which, apart from its possible implications for security in Northern Ireland, could have resulted in the breaking of the arms embargo on South Africa imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of 1977.

Yesterday, I instructed that a protest be made in the strongest possible terms to the South African Government. The protest was delivered by our Ambassador in London to the South African Ambassador in London.

In the course of the protest, our Ambassador reminded the South African Ambassador of sectarian attacks by loyalists in Northern Ireland which, in the past 20 years, have killed almost 700 people. The South African Ambassador was also reminded that already this year 11 people have been killed by loyalist paramilitaries. The Ambassador was told that the Government condemn in the strongest terms the provision of weapons, or funds for the purchase of weapons, to any group engaged in violent activity in Northern Ireland and that they wish to have the assurance of the South African Government that South Africa will not supply any such weapons or funds.

The South African Ambassador has transmitted the Government's message to the South African Government. He informed our Ambassador that the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs had said that the South African Government were investigating the matter, that he had given the assurance that the South African Government are not supplying weapons to any terrorist organisation and that he had stated that should any organisation or individual in South Africa have transgressed in this sphere, action will be taken against those concerned and an assurance will be given that this will not happen again.

I have informed the British Government, through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat, of our deep concern about the security implications of this affair. The ability of Loyalist paramilitaries to steal weapons from establishments in Northern Ireland is a grave matter. The question of recent breaches of security at Shortts and at a territorial army base at Newtownards were discussed. We have been informed by the British Government that, following the theft from the Shortts factory at Crossgar, Ballinahinch, at the end of October 1988, a thorough review of security has been carried out under the aegis of the Ministry of Defence. This had resulted in a number of improvements to security arrangements both in relation to the security of the premises and to the security screening of staff employed at the factory. Similarly, since the theft earlier this month from the territorial army base in New-townards, a full security review is being carried out into security at the base and other such bases in Northern Ireland. It was confirmed that the items stolen from Shortts were parts of the Blowpipe missile system, a Blowpipe training simulator and parts of the Javelin missile system. None of the items was of itself capable of operational use. The Blowpipe equipment stolen from the territorial army base was a training model in sections which was not capable of being used operationally.

The British Government are not in a position at the present time to offer a conclusive judgment on whether Loyalist paramilitaries in the North have already received supplies of weapons from South Africa.

I wish to add that the security threat in Northern Ireland, including the threat posed by Loyalist organisations, is kept under constant review in the Anglo-Irish Conference and in the daily contacts between the police forces. These discussions include the organisation known as Ulster Resistance.

I believe it is essential that the greatest care should be taken by constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland to say and do nothing which might encourage paramilitary organisations. In this regard I note the remarks yesterday by Reverend Ian Paisley that his party have no connections with Ulster Resistance.

I can assure the House that all aspects of this affair will continue to be closely monitored by the Government and that discussions will take place with other Governments as necessary.

Mr. Barry

I do not understand the circumstances under which statements are being made here when Private Notice Questions put down were refused. It appears to me that what the Minister is saying now is precisely what he should be saying in answer to the Private Notice Questions. That is another matter we will have to investigate.

I welcome the Minister's statement. There are three points I want to make about this whole incident which came to light last Saturday. One is the concern that we must all express about the ability of Loyalists to obtain weapons and secret blueprints in Northern Ireland; second, the effects of those blueprints being swapped for weapons or the weapons themselves being used to kill Nationalists and Catholics in the North; third, and this applies not only to the South African Government but to the Libyan Government, the cynicism of both those Governments meddling in the affairs of Northern Ireland, resulting in Irish people being killed because they supplied arms to either side in the North.

There must be a big question mark over the security arrangements of the British security forces, given the fact that one of the people arrested yesterday was a member of the territorial army and the parts of this missile that were stolen were stolen from a territorial army base in Newtownards. Likewise, it is known that the South African Government, since the embargo was placed by the United Nations and some other countries to sell arms to them, have become 90 per cent self-sufficient in arms, and the only part they are missing are these types of missiles. Yet it appears that the blueprints, if not the missiles themselves, can be stolen from a factory that makes them.

This shows grave naivety on the part of the British security forces that they will allow that to happen knowing, as they do, that the Arms Procurement Organisation in South Africa have at least one member, and in some cases many more, in every embassy in the world in countries that produce arms and that, as the South African Foreign Minister said yesterday, armaments co-operation in South Africa is required to maintain South African defence capabilities and consider any offer of weapons capability. That obviously means that they are indifferent as to where they obtain these arms, whether they are obtained by blackmail, by stealing or on the blackmarket, as long as they have the arms to maintain what is a totalitarian régime. The remark about defence capability is, to my mind, an extraordinary thing for a South African Minister to say, given the type of régime they run, the use to which they put the arms there, and also their record in Mozambique, Namibia and Angola over the last few years.

The UK Government would be very naive if they thought the South African Arms Procurement Organisation would not attempt to fill the gap in their armaments capability by going to people in Shortts, given the situation in the North and given the possibility of being able to strongarm or blackmail, or by other means, entice people in Shortts to steal either the blueprint or the missile and supply to the South African Procurement Organisation co-operation in return for money to buy arms or directly in return for arms.

I certainly join with the Minister when he condemns this and advises constitutional politicians in the North on either side to stay away from organisations connected with violence or that use violence as one of the means of advancing their cause. We are never tired of lecturing the Nationalists in the North to stay away from the IRA, and I certainly can accept that. It is time also that the British Government took note of the close association between the Democratic Unionist Party and the setting up of Ulster Resistance a few years ago. In spite of the fact that there is no record a statement from the DUP in the last three or four months saying that they no longer have any connection with Ulster Resistance, the leaders of the DUP must accept some of the responsibility for the setting up of Ulster Resistance and what has happened now. Since this was set up the number of deaths of Nationalist and Catholics in the North has been twice that in the preceding seven or eight years. These are matters the Minister has been rightly bringing to the attention of the Northern Ireland authorities through the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The final irony in all this is that one of those arrested on Saturday in France is in the same French prison as the owner of the Eksund who was arrested on charges of importation of arms into Ireland from Libya in 1987. The Minister's Government have strong connections with the Libyan Government and the UK have strong connections with the South African Government. I want the Minister, through the Anglo-Irish Conference to impress on the United Kingdom, the Libyan and South African Governments that the solution to Northern Ireland problems is not to be found by sending arms to paramilitaries in the North. Whatever solutions are to be found will be found by Irishmen in Ireland, not through the meddling of totalitarian regimes in South Africa or North Africa.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I am sure everyone in this House has an absolute feeling of horror at what was discovered in Paris last Friday. It is a frightening prospect that the northern part of this country is now apparently subject to importations of large quantities of arms from two totally different sources. Two of the most disreputable regimes in the world, South Africa and Libya, are supplying arms to two different sides in the unfortunate conflict in Northern Ireland. It is a chilling thought that this is so and it is indicative of the type of régimes they are that they are prepared to do this.

It is significant that on each of these occasions, at the time of the Eksund and again last Friday, it was the French authorities who uncovered what was going on and who prevented what could have been substantially greater carnage on this island, and our thanks are due to them. It underlines the international character of terrorism at present and the unsatisfactory nature of countries trying to deal with international terrorism by way of extradition. It underlines the call I made several months ago for the European Community to look at the possibility of having an international court within the Community to try crimes of this nature — terrorist-related crimes of a transnational character. This is certainly one that comes into this category.

It is disturbing for everybody, and particularly I would have thought for the British Government, that one of their major suppliers of one of the most advanced western missile systems is subject to infiltration by people who can remove objects and sell them or swop the technology involved for weapons to kill people in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, one of the features of the Shortts factory in Belfast is that their workforce is sectarian, to say the least of it, with 95 per cent or more being of one religion and it seems to be very difficult for people of another religion to get employment there.

The most worrying aspect is that their technology was stolen by Loyalists for the purpose of getting arms to kill Catholics. Second is the treasonable activity of people who call themselves Loyalists, who are prepared to barter their own country's most advanced defensive systems for the purpose of acquiring arms to carry on sectarian warfare. We have often doubted the meaning of the word "Loyalist". When we see what apparently happened in Paris last Friday it makes us ask again what do these people purport to be loyal to.

There is, in addition to the two missile systems which have been stolen from that factory or from Army bases in Northern Ireland, a third, more up-to-date system, the Starstreak system, which, if it were to fall into the wrong hands, would have very serious consequences indeed for western defence as a whole. For that reason it is difficult to exaggerate the significance of what has happened in this regard.

It is worth noting that the apparent reply of the South African Ambassador yesterday to the Irish Ambassador does not include a denial of what the Irish Ambassador complained about. It does not deny that the South Africans have done what has been alleged and the fact that they have withdrawn the diplomatic officer involved and sent him back to South Africa certainly gives every credence to what has been suggested. It is also noteworthy that when the assertion was made in the British House of Commons yesterday that the South African Government had already supplied arms to these Loyalists in Northern Ireland, the British Government were not in a position to deny that. It is again a frightening thought that that appears to have been the case and that the supply of these arms in the past two years may well have been part of a major contribution to the escalation in sectarian violence and death which have occurred during that time.

The Tánaiste notes in his statement the remarks made yesterday by the Reverend Ian Paisley that his party have no connection with the Ulster Resistance. If that is the case it is only in the present tense, and perhaps in the very recent past. It was not the case some time ago and that too is a factor that should be borne in mind. This puts the whole question of violence in Northern Ireland and the potential violence which might break out there, on a new and even more serious footing. It behoves the British Government in particular to get to the bottom of this problem and to ensure that it is stamped out.

There was much speculation in the last number of years as to how various cargoes of arms from Libya had come onto this island and whether they had come to Northern Ireland through the Republic. I presume there can be no suggestion that the arms that were supplied by South Africa to the Loyalists were brought into Northern Ireland via the Republic. The British Government would do well to discover as rapidly as they can precisely what route was used to convey these arms from South Africa to Northern Ireland. Of course, this is not the first time that the South African Government have tried something of this kind, and this clearly underlines the type of Government and the type of regime there.

The attitude that has been taken by successive Governments here has been shown through this alone, apart from the apartheid question, to have been the correct one. Nonetheless, several of our partners in the European Community still have full diplomatic relations with South Africa and the Government here should request them, as a matter of urgency, to try to get an explanation from the South African authorities as to what precisely they were up to. This whole matter is a cause of the gravest concern and has internationalised the tragic consequence on this island in a way none of us could have foreseen.

Mr. Spring

I welcome the statement made by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Government. Obviously we are all shocked, to say the least, by what happened, and what potentially could have happened arising from the meeting that took place in Paris last Friday. Needless to say, the French security forces should be complimented — I believe a message has been already conveyed to them. We are indeed indebted to them for the second time in recent years for their efforts to prevent arms being brought onto this island.

All of us on this island, North and South, are conscious at all times of the potentially explosive position that exists in Northern Ireland and the consequences of what would happen to either side in Northern Ireland as a result of the importation of arms. I am glad the Government have protested in a strong manner to the South African Embassy in London and I would like to feel that they will pursue this protest until we get at least some satisfactory response from the South African Government.

Likewise, there are questions to be answered by the British Government in relation to this matter, to their own security and to the armaments being manufactured in Northern Ireland. I would like to think that the Tánaiste and his ministerial colleagues will pursue this matter at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. From the Tánaiste's statement it is apparent that contact has been made through the secretariat, but I would like to think that this will be followed up at the next Intergovernmental Conference so that we will get some replies from the British Government as to what steps they are taking to ensure that this sort of liaison does not continue.

As regards this Government's actions against South Africa, we have been somewhat restrained in recent years by virtue of seeking unanimity in the European Community countries. Despite the reservations of all parties in this House towards the appalling regime of apartheid in South Africa, the Government should now press for unilateral sanctions against South Africa and should make that known to the South African Government. We should certainly seek a European ban on coal from South Africa. The displeasure and anger which should be felt in this country about the happening last Friday in Paris would certainly justify the Government taking unilateral action outside the Community at this time.

I would call on the Tánaiste, and the Taoiseach on his return, to take strong action in relation to South Africa. I believe they will have the support of the people of this country. We should leave no stone unturned in conveying the anger and the displeasure of the Irish Government and the Irish people in relation to the activities of diplomats operating for the South African Government in Paris last week.

Proinsias De Rossa

Like other Deputies, I welcome the opportunity the Minister has given us to comment on the events that took place in Paris over the weekend. We, too, tabled Private Notice Questions to him but they were disallowed on the basis that these statements would be allowed. Unfortunately, this deprives us of the right to question the Minister on any particular aspects of his statement and to get replies from him. There is no doubt that the attempted arms transactions involving South Africa and loyalist paramilitaries is an alarming and, indeed, a sinister development. Had this deal come off and South African arms reached Northern Ireland it could have contributed significantly to a worsening of the already serious situation there. Given the sectarian murder campaign conducted by loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, as well as their bomb attacks on targets in the Republic, the prospect of them receiving a large consignment of arms from South Africa is frightening.

The incident demonstrates once again the total hypocrisy of the Pretoria regime who, on the one hand, preach opposition to terrorism but, on the other, are prepared to do business with those engaged in vicious acts of violence in Ireland. It is also outrageous that anyone should attempt to provide South Africa with weapons technology which could be used against the black population and all those working for a democratic multi-racial South Africa. We should perhaps not be too surprised that these contacts have emerged, given the fact that the vicious sectarianism practised by the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, both loyalist and nationalist, has much in common with the racial hatred enshrined in the apartheid system in South Africa.

These events strengthen the case for the introduction of comprehensive trade and economic sanctions by this country against South Africa. I welcome the Minister's statement that he has lodged a strong protest with the South African Government but I feel strongly that it should be followed up by unilateral sanctions against that country. This incident, as well as the continuing campaign of sectarian murder by the Provisional IRA and loyalist murder gangs, shows that not only are the paramilitaries not turning away from terrorism but are actively preparing for further acts of violence and it emphasises the need for political progress in Northern Ireland to isolate and defeat all paramilitary violence. This political progress can only take place when all the democratic parties in Northern Ireland sit down to talk about the future of Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland itself and agree that despite their differences deriving from their history or ideology that peace, democracy and civil rights is the basis for pursuing individual objectives. In the Republic it is time the Government put on record a clear and unambiguous statement that the kind of progress I refer to can only be made in this way and they should drop their coy, meaningless statements about being generous to Unionists in the context of the so-called totality of relationships.