Jim O'Keeffe
Question:4 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline Ireland's response to the latest developments in the Baltic States.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Developments in Baltic Republics.
Mervyn Taylor
Question:10 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have expressed concern to the Soviet Ambassador in relation to the activities of the Soviet troops in the Baltic States.
Austin Deasy
Question:19 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government has registered a protest with Soviet Union authorities over the recent repressive action taken against Lithuania and Latvia; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Peter Barry
Question:35 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will contact the President of the Soviet Union and express to him the concern felt in Ireland over the events in Lithuania.
Roger T. Garland
Question:59 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he accepts and recognises the democratically elected Lithuanian Parliament and recognises Lithuania as a sovereign State; if so, whether he views the recent actions of Soviet troops as part of the international conflict; and if he will raise the issue at the United Nations, should this be the case.
Roger T. Garland
Question:64 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has sent a message of support and encouragement to the democratically elected Government of Lithuania; and, if not, if he will consider doing so.
Roger T. Garland
Question:66 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he has taken in support of the people in the Baltic Republics.
Roger T. Garland
Question:67 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his views on the demands of the Baltic Republics to take over and resume their own responsibility for Government through democratic and peaceful means.
Roger T. Garland
Question:68 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Ireland has ever recognised the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union; and, if not, if he will begin the process to open diplomatic relations with them.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 10, 19, 35, 59, 64, 66, 67 and 68 together.
Ireland, like a number of other countries, did not recognise the annexation of the Baltic Republics by the USSR, which occurred in 1940. However even states which maintain this position, as we do, consider that none of these Republics has at present the attributes necessary in international law for recognition as an independent sovereign State. For this reason the question of establishing diplomatic relations with them does not arise at present; nor, regrettable as such actions may be, can what was done recently by Soviet troops in these areas be considered to be part of an international conflict in the ordinary sense of the term.
I would add that it has been our practice to extend recognition only to states and not to Governments or Parliaments. We do however acknowledge the standing of members of the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian Parliaments, as democratically elected representatives of their peoples.
I have not sent a message direct to the Government in Lithuania nor would I consider it appropriate to do so at present. However regular contacts are maintained with representatives of the Baltic peoples through our Embassy in Moscow and these representatives are well aware of our views.
In general I should say that we have considerable sympathy for the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic peoples to achieve self-determination. We believe however that the best way to achieve a solution and to satisfy their legitimate aspirations is through a dialogue between their elected representatives and authorities in Moscow.
Since March of last year when elections in the Baltic Republics returned majorities favourable to self-determination, we have paid particular attention to developments there, in close co-ordination with our partners in the European Community. Following the recent tragic events in Vilnius and Riga which resulted in the deaths of 21 persons and injuries to over 100 others, we made clear our grave concern at these developments both in bilateral contacts and in conjunction with our partners in the Community.
For my own part, I had two meetings with the Soviet Ambassador, on 15 and 23 January and I made clear to him, and through him to his authorities, the deeply-felt views of the Irish Government on this matter. On 13 January I issued a statement describing the use of force in Lithuania as unjustifiable and calling on the Soviet authorities to halt military action and to return control of the occupied buildings to the people of Lithuania.
On 14 January, I joined with other Foreign Ministers of the Twelve in issuing a declaration which called for an end to military intervention and called on the Soviet authorities to resume negotiations with the elected representatives of the Baltic peoples, with a view to satisfying their legitimate aspirations. This declaration made clear that if the situation in Lithuania were to be prolonged or extended to the other Baltic republics, the Twelve would have to react through appropriate measures.
Following the subsequent intervention in Latvia, the Twelve, in line with this policy, adopted a number of such measures. These included the postponement of a meeting of the EC-Soviet Joint Commission which was to have taken place on 24 January; and a decision not to proceed at present with the processing of credits of 500 MECU or with a 400 MECU technical assistance programme for the Soviet Union both of which had been agreed by the European Council in Rome in December. We decided, however, that 250 MECU of food aid should be maintained together with three MECU emergency aid programmes. We also decided that highlevel contacts with the USSR should continue in order to make our views known; and the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve hope to meet shortly with the new Soviet Foreign Minister.
The Twelve have also made statements on the issue at the current session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, at the CSCE meeting of Senior Officials in Vienna and at the CSCE meeting on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in Valletta. In addition on 23 January the Twelve raised the situation in Lithuania with the Soviet authorities under what has come to be called the Human Dimension mechanism of the CSCE. We await the Soviet response to this approach.
The Minister said in his reply that none of the Baltic States had the attributes necessary for independent sovereign status. Can he give an indication to the House of what exactly he considers is missing so far as the Baltic States are concerned from the point of view of independent sovereign status bearing in mind, as he said himself, that we have never recognised their annexation? What is missing from the point of view of the attributes to which he referred in his reply?
Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of Irish people are sympathetic towards the aspirations of the people in the Baltic States? Will he clarify the degree to which Ireland and the European Community are restricted from making their views known as they may not wish to unduly upset Mr. Gorbachev who is dealing with other difficulties?
As Deputies are aware, the recent poll in Lithuania — I suppose, strictly speaking, it was not a referendum — clearly indicated that there is overwhelming support among the Lithuanian people for independence.
Ninety per cent.
As Deputies know, we welcomed the holding of that poll which together with the other polls which will be held over the coming weeks in Latvia and Estonia, will promote the resumption of constructive and substantiative dialogue between the Baltic countries and the central authorities in the Soviet Union. As I have said, a solution to the problems in the Baltic countries can only be brought about through dialogue with a view to satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic peoples, with which the Government have sympathy. A solution to the Baltic question must be found through negotiation between the elected representatives of the Baltic people and Moscow. We hope the negotiations aimed at satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic people can commence as soon as possible.
With regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, as I have said we have made our views on this issue clearly both bilaterally and through the European Community. The Deputy seemed to suggest that we might have been intimidated from making our views fully known. When the Deputy has had a chance to read fully what has been said by me on behalf of the Government and the statement by the Twelve, I believe he will have no grounds for such a thought, if he does hold it.
A number of questions are being replied to together and four are in the name of Deputy Roger Garland. I offer that Deputy the option of intervening now.
I am very disappointed at the Minister's reply. He said that Ireland never recognised the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union. That is correct. Will the Minister say how he arrived at the extraordinary conclusion that those states, whose annexation in 1940 was clearly illegal, should negotiate with the Soviet Union? That is an outrageous suggestion. These states are clearly independent and should not have to go cap in hand to Moscow.
In his reply the Minister said he has considerable sympathy with the people in these states. I put it to the Minister that those are crocodile tears. What use is sympathy to these people when what they want is a clear message of support? The Minister said in his reply that he has not sent a message of support to these people. This is another cop out by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I wish to assist the Deputy in eliciting information but he may not embark upon a speech.
It was a fairly provocative speech. I regret that Deputy Garland feels as he does about the comprehensive reply I gave to the House which clearly outlined the Government's position on this issue. I should point out to the Deputy that within the Community we maintain close communication links with the peoples in these three Baltic countries. We have very good communication with them and we know each other's views on different matters. They know that the Community has put maximum pressure on the Moscow authorities to try to see to it that negotiations get under way. All I can say to the Deputy is that he should have regard to the reality of the situation in the Baltic states so that he will have a better appreciation of the complexities of the problems.
I now call Deputy Austin Deasy whose Question No. 19 refers.
With all due respect to the Minister, Deputy Garland was 100 per cent right in what he said. We are totally ignoring the legal situation——
Questions, please.
——which pertains in regard to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. I note that the Minister has visited a number of countries in recent times.
I am still awaiting some relevent questions.
Does the Minister not agree that his time would be better spent if he visited countries such as Lithuania and Latvia——
Deputy Deasy must adhere to the procedure at Question Time. The Deputy knows that.
I am asking the Minister if he agrees that his time would be better spent if he visited Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to show solidarity with their cause. Is the Minister aware that there is a very serious danger the Soviet army may take power and adopt a hard line attitude to those states? Does the Minister not agree that that is likely to happen? Is he also aware that the Soviet Foreign Minister resigned to show that this is likely to be the outcome of the present conflict in those countries?
I share Deputy Deasy's concern about the problems in the Baltic countries. As I said in the earlier part of my reply, even before the European Community came together to voice their protest at the incidents in Vilnius and Riga earlier in January, we made our protest as best we could and in the only way open to us by calling in the Soviet Ambassador in Dublin.
Everyone recognises that there are serious problems in the Soviet Union in regard to the future leadership of the country. However, this is not the time or place to deal with this issue. Everyone who is concerned about future world peace will have read the statement by the former Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze. The reasons he gave for his resignation, and his insistence on going through with it, clearly shows that there is much cause for concern. Having regard to all these circumstances, the Twelve took the action I outlined in my main reply to show the Soviets that they protested in the strongest possible way against the military heavy handedness they were using in these Baltic countries.
Will the Minister visit those countries?
Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
I should like to thank the Minister for his extensive reply and to indicate that for once we agree with his approach to this issue.
They will not let their friends down.
I regret that he has not adopted a similar approach in regard to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The Deputy might not be too happy by the time I am finished.
I put it to the Minister that what is important in this case is not the legality of the situation but rather the need to avoid chaos and disintegration in the Soviet Union which cannot be of any benefit to the people in the Baltic countries or the rest of the world.
Why not?
Brevity, please.
It is important that provocation is avoided and restraint exercised by all sides in relation to this issue.
Deputy Garland was right.
Thank you.
I do not know if the last comment made by Deputy Deasy was a question. It it was, I do not accept it.
It was a factual statement.
There is a lot in what Deputy De Rossa has said. He did not offer it by way of a question but there is a lot of food for thought there. That does not in any way take from what Deputy O'Keeffe said with regard to concern within the Community for stability in leadership and, hopefully, continuation of perestroika within the Soviet Union which we also very much want to see. If that can be done through the methods we are encouraging on this issue we will have struck the right balance.
Is the Minister inclined to follow the principle of Cicero when he says that tyranny is better than anarchy?
No, that comment is very unfair and totally unjustified. The Deputy has had no regard whatsoever for the comments I made in quite a comprehensive reply. I suggest to the Deputy that if he studies my reply carefully he will see that his last remark is totally unjustified.
Beware of the red army.