Foreign Policy: Motion.

Mrs. Hussey

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to make a clear statement of Ireland's foreign policy in the light of recent events in Iran and Afghanistan.

I am extremely glad that we are able to take this motion today. When the motion was first brought to the attention of the House a number of Senators from all sides stressed that they felt the Seanad is a body particularly suitable for a discussion on foreign affairs in a cool, rational and non-party manner. I very much hope that the debate which we are about to begin will be extremely constructive and will be free from party positions being taken. The seconder of the motion is Senator Murphy who will speak directly after me, I understand.

I should like to begin by quoting from a pamphlet called "Irish Foreign Policy". It is a statement by Deputy Garret FitzGerald when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs in May 1973. At the beginning of that statement, made in the Dáil, he set out the basic objectives of Irish foreign policy in the view of the then Government. I will not read the basic objectives set out, but it would be worthwhile taking note of one or two of them:

(a) to help maintain world peace and reduce tensions between the super-powers, between blocs and between States;

That was set as the first objective of Irish foreign policy. The second objective dealt with Northern Ireland, and the fourth one was:

(d) to secure Ireland's economic interests abroad, thus facilitating economic and social progress at home, and particularly to secure our interests in the economic, social and regional policies of the EEC;

A lot of water—perhaps it would be more suitable to say a lot of oil—has flowed under a lot of bridges since that statement was made in the relative calm of May 1973. The world scene has changed totally since then.

We were quite unaware of the new factor in world affairs which was to influence international politics almost completely in the following year. That was the sudden and dramatic shift in oil prices and the realisation by oil producers that they held in their hands not only an economic weapon but a political weapon which has recently taken a new and dramatic twist. In the light of the events following May 1973 I am quite sure that that fourth aspiration would have probably been placed second—to secure Ireland's economic interests abroad. There has been an increasingly new ball game since 1973.

I have thought about Irish foreign policy recently and anything I will say about it in the course of this speech will be in the form of a series of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whom I am very glad to have here. Many Irish people are slightly confused and always. perhaps have been confused about Irish foreign policy. We are aware that foreign policy is no longer something rather esoteric which in a small country like Ireland has very little relevance to what might be described as the ordinary life of the people. In the old days people felt that way and this was reflected in the lack of effort by Governments to educate public opinion on foreign policy.

The position has changed dramatically. A modern Minister for Foreign Affairs of this country carries an enormous burden. That fact should be constantly communicated to the people. The people are well capable of understanding the intricacies of foreign affairs and foreign relations. I would hope the very welcome willingness of the Minister to come into this House today might be an indication of a trend in that direction.

One of the main reasons why foreign policy must be made clear to every man, woman and child in the country is that as well as the arrival of oil as an enormous factor in world politics, there is the new and dreadful situation for this generation, that behind all the spectacle of world politics, the interactions of powers, great and small, there is the terrible threat of nuclear war.

In these circumstances there is not anybody in any country who is a passive bystander in foreign affairs. That old expression about armchair generals no longer has relevance because there will not be generals smoking cigars in armchairs sending young men to war because in any future world conflict we will all be involved and in the front line. In the United States recently I heard a slightly academic debate as to whether women should be registered for draft into the US Army, considering that women, men and children will all be in the front line in the event of any conflict requiring that kind of registration or draft. Therefore, there is a question of what the role of a country like Ireland would be in world affairs. We have to ask ourselves what could we do on the very large world stage when we are such a very small cipher.

So soon after St. Patrick's Day, with its usual Irish-American interaction, we are well aware that despite our very small size and our economic weakness we are, in fact, a very well-known country, particularly in the world's largest power. In my view, Ireland has a voice which could be made a voice that people would listen to. Being an independent neutral nation which commands some respect in the world means that we must have a voice and that we must use it. We should use that voice to inform ourselves and the world on foreign affairs. We should use it where at all possible to mediate in any circumstances where it looks as if Ireland would be an acceptable mediator: we should use any talent and skill we have to mediate and we should be very quick to give credit and praise where they are due.

Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer occasions where that seems to arise on the world stage, but we should use that voice to protest meaningfully when countries great or small break all the rules of international behaviour. It seems to many people, and it seems to me, that Ireland has an uncertainty about the kind of voice we could have in international affairs. Apart from well-cushioned censure motions in the UN and various other forums, we do not seem to have taken a separate initiative or a particular stance which we might have been qualified to take because of the world standing which I believe was gained for us over the years by successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs and, in my view, brought to its height by Deputy FitzGerald when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I do not think it is a matter of pride that we have joined so well with all these various bodies to which we are aligned in condemning recent events in Iran or Afghanistan. We have certainly enthusastically joind in strong condemnations which have been shown to be ineffectual in this instance. Perhaps we should look at what we actually have done since the invasion of Afghanistan on 27 or 28 December 1979. We sent a note to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires on January 4 protesting against this invasion. We issued a joint statement with the nine countries of the EEC. We voted on the UN Resolution of January 14 condemning the invasion, and we joined in a statement from Foreign Ministers in Brussels on 15 January. We also have supported the idea of a neutrality status for Afghanistan.

These do not really amount to actions: they amount to statements—they are not doing, they are saying. It has been shown that saying has not cut any ice in this instance. A great many people in Ireland, and I certainly, are confused as to what Afghanistan was before it was pulled so abruptly behind the iron curtain. It seems to have been a country which for a great number of years was an uncomfortable buffer zone between opposing great powers, a very mountainous country which was self-sufficient in food, poor but not in a desperate condition. It was always considered that the British lion roared at the Russian bear across the intervening zone of Afghanistan. In recent years, because of its importance as a buffer between the Russians and the oil producing countries, Afghanistan was receiving enthusiastic aid from the US and Moscow, aid which obviously was politically motivated, something that is part of modern politics.

All sorts of upheavals began in Afghanistan in 1973 with the overthrow of a monarchy but the country really began to simmer in 1978 and there was a succession of dramatic events one of which was that the US Ambassador was killed there about a year ago. The upheaval has continued since then. President Teraki was endorsed in Moscow by the Russians until he was overthrown by a man called Amin. Amin was not popular with the Afghan people and he was losing ground quite rapidly. I am quite sure that there were contacts and connections between this man and the United States who were anxious that Afghanistan would not go the way it seemed to be going, which was straight into a Communist regime totally sustained by Russia. However, Amin faced the same fate as he had bestowed on Teraki and just after Christmas there was yet another upheaval and Amin was killed. That same day, from Moscow, the Russians flew in to take over the country.

On 28 December Russian troops arrived and it is estimated that at the moment in Afghanistan there are 105,000 Russian troops. The reason for such enormous numbers is that in a country like Afghanistan, which does not have any vast, flat plains to send large tanks over, mountain warfare must be resorted to by the invading army, because the Afghan mountain fighters for centuries have been very adept at hiding themselves in the mountains.

The significance of the Afghanistan invasion compared to what has happened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia is that this was, in fact, the first invasion of what was a neutral country not accepted as part of the Soviet bloc since the second world war. Such an enormous and blatant invasion obviously had some very important reasons behind it. The important reasons behind this invasion are the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. It is important that we realise that if Russia advances any step further in that area she could quite quickly control the supply of oil to the whole of western Europe. If Russia should gain control of Iran and Saudi Arabia—and Iran being in such a very unstable position at the moment is a great worry to all countries—western Europe would lose overnight its own freedom of movement because, as we have seen, oil seems to control the economies of the western world. A most alarming result of the invasion of Afghanistan by the Russian army is that it completely disrupted progress towards ratification of SALT II which had been proceeding in the American Senate. The American President had been negotiating and pushing for the Senate to ratify that treaty against quite strong resistance. It had been scheduled for debate in January for signing in February. Of course, the fact that this whole movement towards ratification of that treaty, which is absolutely and vitally essential for every one of us trying to put some reason, as it does, on the crazy arms race, has been disrupted is an extremely serious element in this whole thing. The Russians must have been fully aware that this would happen.

The debate that has gone on in this country, in the media and so on, over the Afghanistan invasion seems to have concentrated on one area only, sport. It might be a good thing to look for a moment at what else has been done by the US in her attempt to emphasise to Russia that in the delicate balance of world relations there are things that cannot be done and steps that cannot be taken. Steps have been taken which fall short of the real military confrontation which is so unthinkable and which must remain unthinkable. The other steps that were taken were a grain embargo, technology embargo, cultural relations cut off, some movement of ships in the oceans of that area and, lastly, a request by President Carter to have an Olympic boycott. The idea of an Olympic boycott came from sport writers in the United States, I was told when I was there.

I would like to see Ireland, instead of talking about it, doing something about it. Could we talk about why, for example, our Minister for Agriculture urges that we should sell subsidised butter to Russia from the EEC? Why can we not, for example, call off Córas Tráchtála's planned exhibition of Irish technology in Russia? Why do we not call it off totally and say that is why we are calling it off? Why do we not call off cultural exchanges? Finally, why do the Irish Government not take a firm lead on the Olympic Games? I do not mean that we should do anything like interfering with people's freedom to go if they wish to go. I am talking about taking a strong position and strongly discouraging Irish athletes from going.

To go to the Olympic Games is a political gesture in itself. We all are aware that the Olympic Games in Russia are, in fact, a political event. They are not a wonderful festival of young athletes competing against each other in a spirit of freedom. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the International Olympic Council have allowed the Olympic Games to drift into a situation where they are no longer a sporting festival of freedom, where they have become extremely political. The Russians have greeted the decision to allow the Olympic Games to be held in Moscow as a tribute to Russia's role in the freedom of the world. They have claimed it as such.

I believe an Irish presence, encouraged by an Irish Government, in Moscow is a very dangerous step towards the creation of a situation where Russia begins to feel that you can actually get away with anything, that all those people will draw back as well and will not take any real steps, they will just talk.

Ireland has an enormous amount to gain from having maximum friendly relations with the United States. We have entered a period where there has been, apparently, a new and vigorous approach towards the Northern Ireland tragedies, an approach which involves internationalism and talking to people in other countries. It seems to me that we could, in fact, use the enormous goodwill which exists in the United States to help us to make Britain realise her responsibilities in the whole Northern Ireland area, which would put real pressure on Great Britain to use the kind of diplomatic initiatives that she is well able to use to begin to cut through the layers of tragedy, history and misunderstanding that keeps Northern Ireland in its thrawn of violence. We need to have the help of the United States Government in this very important effort. It escapes me, for this reason and for the other reasons I have mentioned, why Ireland seems to teeter on the brink of inarticulateness in its reaction to the Afghanistan crisis.

I believe that words simply do not mean very much in these circumstances and words should be backed up by actions. I, therefore, would like a firm statement by the Minister on why we have not taken action, only words, on this issue. I would like a final statement on whether the Irish Government will be passive in the area of the Olympic Games or whether it will take a directing role in this issue, as I believe they should.

Professor Murphy

Let me begin by wishing the Minister well in his relatively new office. Time was when the Foreign Affairs ministry was seen as the most glamorous of Departments relatively immune from the backlash of the electorate. Now it is an increasingly onerous office and highly responsible. I wish the Minister well.

I would also like to say how much I admire the people who work in our foreign service. Many of them I know very well, and they are doing an extremely good job. Sometimes they are not immune from very bitter criticism to which they cannot respond.

I am glad, like Senator Hussey, that we have been given the opportunity to debate foreign policy in the context of recent events and I support her plea for a clear articulation of what that policy is. Beyond that however, I must take issue in relation to almost everything else she has said. On the question of Iran, let me make my position clear. I regard, as 99 per cent of us do, what happened in Teheran as a monstrous violation not alone of the civilised conventions on which international affairs rest but of basic humanity itself. I deeply sympathise with the American Government and people who suffer daily in the anguish of their concern for those unfortunates in the embassy.

Afghanistan is a very different matter indeed. One factor which it shares in common with Iran is that Afghanistan has more than its share of mad mullahs—and the Lord protect us from the excesses of institutionalised religions, east or west. It also, in addition to mad mullahs, has quite a number of feudal reactionaries who have controlled the destinies of that benighted country up to recently. There has been Soviet intervention but it is a much less simple issue than representing it as one of a brutal super-power ruthlessly tramping on the rights of a democratic western-style country. On one level the conflict arises from the attempt to impose marxist style socialism with all its restrictions on personal freedom on a country which has been the very antithesis of socialism. On another level, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is an attempt to recover a lost sphere of influence.

In this sense it is no more, or no less heinous than the interventions of various imperial powers, with whose descendants we are allied in partnership in Europe, who acted repeatedly in this manner in the nineteenth century. One of those powers, France, it could be argued, continues to act in this interventionist manner in what she regards as her legitimate spheres of influence in Africa. What has happened in Afghanistan differs no more that in degree, not in principle, from American intervention in South East Asia or Latin America. Witness the plea of the tragically assassinated figure, Archbishop Romero, only a week or two ago to the United States Secretary of State Mr. Vance, not to support the Government in El Salvador. What has happened in Afghanistan is no more or no less heinous in principle than what the People's Republic of China did not so long ago in Tibet.

The mention of China should make us reflect soberly on the improbable allies of the West in the Afghanistan crisis—China and Pakistan, no less—paragons of liberal democracy, indeed. As Senator Kennedy said, it is a gross exaggeration for President Carter to refer to the Afghanistan crisis as the greatest crisis since World War II. I am reluctant to criticise our American friends.

To paraphrase Hillaire Belloc, every European has two countries, his own and France. Every Irishman really has two countries, his own and the United States of America. It is with great reluctance that I make these criticisms, but it is perhaps the prerogative of kinship. At least, Ambassador Shannon deemed it so in his criticisms of us in recent months. In terms of the obscenity of the armaments race, in terms of intervention in other people's affairs, whether to spread an ideology or to maximise economic profits, I see no difference in this respect between the United States of America and the USSR. I see no difference in terms of super powers between Gog and Magog.

Afghanistan has become a major crisis only because of a number of contingencies, one being the energy crisis, because the oil hungry West sees the Middle East and the Persian Gulf as its sphere of influence. Why should it be the western powers' sphere of influence any more than the Soviet Union's sphere of influence? The first reason why Afghanistan has become inflated as a crisis is the perennial energy question; secondly, the domestic imperatives of the United States Presidential Election. But there may be some evidence from yesterday's happy results that the good sense of the American people is asserting itself in this regard. Of course Afghanistan has become an exaggerated crisis because it offered a welcome diversion from the shameful frustrations of the outrage in Teheran. So Prime Minister Thatcher is permitted, with exquisite indelicacy to threaten the Soviet Union with a repeat of the sufferings of the great patriotic war of 1941-1945, and President Carter is enabled to proclaim himself the champion of freedom on the North West Frontier. We may well envisage him uttering in a parody of President Kennedy "ich bin ein khyber passer". Let us remind ourselves also that the present crisis did not really begin with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It began, if we cast our minds back, with the stridency that attended the thirtieth anniversary of the setting up of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Last autumn there was quite a lot of verbal sabre rattling on the part of NATO military and political chiefs and that sabre rattling was accompanied by the placing of new weapons on Western European soil, thus presenting a very dangerous threat to the delicate nuclear balance.

These are my views on the present crisis. I share Senator Hussey's anxiety as to what our policy should be. It obviously has short-term consequences for us, but it has long-term implications as well. Our foreign policy now any more than in the past is not being clearly presented or sufficiently articulated.

On the question of the Olympics, the Minister of State, Deputy Tunney, has made it clear that he is very anxious that we should go ahead and participate. What his bosses want is less than clear. It seems to me that what they are saying is "Let us wait and see what way the wind is blowing". The Minister, with respect, calls this pragmatism. I call it opportunism or expediency. The results of the recent poll may help to make the Government make up their mind. I find it very gratifying that the plain people of Ireland—and not so plain women of Ireland particularly—have rejected the cold war hysteria which has been so sedulously cultivated over the last few months by a section of the media and by some of our politicians. Not to direct all the heat to the Minister, some of these politicians on the Opposition side are of course in the great tradition of hysteria dating back to the Spanish Civil War, when it was a question of God or no God in Spain. We are now saying that it is a question of God or no God in Afghanistan.

The great argument against the boycott is why in 1974 or 1976, whenever it was, when it was decided to award the next Olympics to Moscow, at a time when the Soviet Union's record on human rights and on intervention in other countries' affairs was well known, did no one then raise the question of principle? It was because of the accidental combination of contingencies which I described foremost of which is the oil crisis, had not presented itself at that stage.

The present crisis raises the long-term issue as well. Do we any longer exercise an independent foreign policy? When we discussed, maybe a couple of months ago, the possibility of having this debate Senator Ryan said: "We will have to wait and see what happens next Tuesday in Rome". My definition of an independent country is one that does not have to wait until next Tuesday to see what its partners are going to do. The most important question that arises from all this debate is, is the pursuit of an independent foreign policy at all compatible with the increasing emphasis on a common EEC foreign policy? The Minister gave some answers to that question yesterday in the Dáil but they do not sufficiently allay the anxieties of those of us who believe that neutrality is a crucially important part of the personality of this country, vindicated by our history, with a long tradition stretching back to the foundation of the State, and by no means confined to the expression of a negative expedient. Those of us who see neutrality as vital internationally as a just society at home, want a more comprehensive answer from the Minister on this question. We really should not wait until the French and Germans make up their minds on the boycott, we should take every opportunity to reassert our independent and neutral stance in the presence of our partners. We should have the moral credibility and stature to be able to say to the French "Knock it off in Africa" and to the Germans "Stop exporting your nuclear and arms technology to South Africa".

In conclusion, we need a clear explanation of the foreign policy we are pursuing. It seems to me that whatever foreign policy we had has been grievously modified in recent years. We are sometimes at a loss to know what our policy is. We see our delegates at the United Nations sometimes voting in what seems to be a most extraordinary manner. Why should an Irish delegation vote against a disarmament proposal? Why should an Irish delegation give anything less than unstinted support to anti-apartheid policies? I suggest to the Minister that that excellent bulletin of his Department—Ireland Today—should be more widely distributed and that it might carry a section explaining to the ordinary people the fundamental principles of our foreign policy and why the decisions made in our name are made from time to time.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

The motion is a question of a statement on Ireland's foreign policy in the light of recent events in Iran and Afghanistan which is, if you like, pinning the matter down in a certain area. I would like on another occasion to have a fuller discussion on foreign policy. This motion relates to Irish foreign policy in its aspects related to the events that have just occurred, unfortunately, both in Iran and Afghanistan. I am very glad to have this opportunity to debate this matter in the Seanad and to get some priorities emphasised.

First of all, the primary concern of the Government in Ireland's foreign policy is to promote the well-being of our own people. Allied with that it is important also, of course, that we as a nation standing for certain fundamental principles in international relations try to advance and promote principles as well, so that we have a two-tier approach—our own interest and the well-being of our own people allied to a moral attitude which we as a small country can take in in regard to serious matters that arise. In many of these cases throughout the world we do not have a strong vested interest and can take an independent or neutral attitude.

In my view, once we see our foreign policy along those lines, with two bases—our own self-interest and at the same time a moral attitude standing for certain basic principles—we are giving an expression to the basic values and views of the Irish people. We are working in that way on the ground of what one might call enlightened self-interest. It is on that basis that a small country like ours can best survive and prosper and seek to ensure a world of peaceful and orderly relations with these states.

I will outline the broad approach we seek to take in foreign policy matters. We want to do what we can as a small country to make a world where peace and justice and order increasingly prevail in international relations. That is very basic and fundamental. We reject relations based on domination by any one group over another. Instead, let everyone see participation and co-operation take the place of domination in every area of human life. We believe that this is in accordance with our own national inheritance. People have the right to self-determination and they should be free to decide for themselves, without outside interference, the political and social structures under which they will live. We are also committed to what would be a greater measure of justice in international economic relations and the resources of the earth shared more fairly and also properly conserved.

Our concern and our sense of human solidarity extend not only to states and peoples but to individual humans. This is, in my view, fairly fundamental, particularly having regard to our own inheritance. We know that views on human rights differ from one country to another. We believe very strongly that there are certain minimum requirements for human dignity and that men and women everywhere are entitled to these rights.

This is very important because over a large area of the world at present there is not a sufficient degree of accord given to human rights, or sufficient appreciation of the degree to which human rights are not recognised. We consider that the massive build-up of armaments in the world, not only between the super powers but even in the developing world, which is even more horrific, is a major danger and a wasteful diversion of resources from the pressing needs of humanity. It is important to maintain and develop a framework of law to govern relations and establish justice between nations. International obligations and commitments freely undertaken should be fully respected. In the relations between nations we believe that dialogue should replace confrontation. Every effort should be made to ease tensions. The growth of a network of mutually beneficial economic and other relations between states and groups of states can greatly help.

Broadly speaking these are the outlines of what I would regard our foreign policy to be and the lines on which I would hope to see it proceed. Certainly it may seem idealistic to think along these lines. I, certainly as a person, have no illusions about its success. One must set targets and at the same time have a realistic appreciation of the difficulties of achieving targets of this kind, particularly in an age as at present where tensions are growing and the international climate is deteriorating. However, I feel that as a small country we must never cease to emphasise the ideal objectives and the moral objectives.

On that aspect I must take issue with Senator Murphy in regard to our UN attitudes. Our attitude in disarmament motions and in regard to apartheid is one of giving totally constructive support for resolutions dealing with disarmament and in regard to apartheid and we have resolutely and totally supported and approved all resolutions genuinely put down in a constructive way in this respect.

Over the past two years, out of about 80 resolutions on disarmament we only voted against one which we regarded as a frivolous resolution. Frivolous resolutions do arise in all institutions as we know.

Dr. West

Maybe we should have abstained on a frivolous motion.

Mr. Lenihan

Either abstained or voted against it. Certainly out of 80 resolutions over two years on disarmament we voted positively in 1979 or 1980 and our record in regard to apartheid is the very same. I think that there is no doubt in anybody's mind in Ireland and in the world about where we stand on both of these issues.

One of my predecessors, Mr. Frank Aiken, took a positive lead in the whole area of disarmament leading up to the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty and subsequent to that we have consistently moved positively in this area. I referred to it in detail yesterday in reply to a question in the Dáil. Our record stands very high in the whole area of disarmament in all its aspects, both in regard to proliferation, in regard to testing, in regard to the nuclear end, in regard to the proliferation of conventional weapons. Similarly, our record on apartheid is good. Again I take issue here with Senator Murphy although it is not strictly in accordance with the motion. I had occasion yesterday to reply to a question in the Dáil on our policy on apartheid, which is essentially a moral stand. We are opposed to any form of racial discrimination such as exists in South Africa; we will continue to adopt all means that we have at our limited disposal to discourage the continuation of that type of development and to discourage any association with the authorities there that might seem in any way to encourage apartheid or to lead people to believe that apartheid in any form can continue to be a part of what we regard as acceptable.

I know that I strayed away from the motion but the matter was raised by Senator Murphy. Even though we are a small State we do have a very positive moral attitude in areas of this kind. I hope that there will be unanimous consensus in this House and in the other House and within the country at large in support of that approach.

As a member state of the European Community, we try to advance this point of view and indeed our militarily neutral position has helped in this respect also in that in a Community of Nine, where we have a contribution to make as a small disinterested country, we can voice our views, without having a vested interest, on many issues and thereby be taken as an honest broker in many areas within the Community. At present the Community is seeking to evolve a higher degree of political co-operation and this is part of our commitment to membership of the Community, to consult as far as possible and to co-ordinate as far as possible on foreign policy with our partners within the European Community.

Professor Murphy

Was it not decided in 1972?

Mr. Lenihan

A substantial majority of our people supported that approach in 1972. I happened to participate in that particular campaign and at no stage did any people supporting our entry into Europe suggest that we would not participate in political co-operation with the other countries within the Community with whom we wished to join. We have joined with them since and have participated honourably in political co-operation that does not involve in any way defence commitment vis-a-vis NATO or any other military alliance.

There is a very positive difference here. We can do positive good in political co-operation and that is a totally separate matter from the question of membership of a military alliance such as exists between a number of our partners in the Community and North American nations. It is an entirely separate matter and I want to emphasise again here, as I said yesterday in the Dáil, that there is absolutely no political pressure now, nor has there been any political pressure from any source, on us as a nation to participate in NATO or in any other form of military alliance.

To come back to a point I made some minutes ago, our position is a positive asset within the Community in putting certain points of view and in advocating certain measures, being outside the NATO involvement, which do involve most major Community partners. It is a positive asset to them and to us, in enabling us to take a particular type of stance in particular areas, being recognised as not being involved in any military, defence or any other entanglement of that kind.

I regard our membership of the Community in that respect as far from being a constraint. That is looking at it rather negatively which I feel people sometimes do. Senator Murphy did, to some extent. I do not look at this in a negative manner at all. Our membership of the Community must be looked at in a positive way.

In political co-operation we can make a positive contribution by influencing negative thinking to come around to a more positive orientation and this is a contribution as far as we are concerned, rather than having a negative approach of staying in our corner and not engaging in fruitful political co-operation talks. It provides us with a significant opportunity to work together with our partners as far as we can to promote the broad aims that I have outlined.

The fact of the matter is that the world has shrunk in many ways. That I take it is the spirit of the Seanad motion. Problems, even in distant countries affect us almost immediately today. Problems in Iran and Afghanistan have an immediate effect on us here and elsewhere in the world. That is why the motion is very valid in emphasising this interdependence which I would like to emphasise here. Senator Murphy referred to an independent foreign policy—one can pursue a positive policy but it must recognise the fact that we are all interdependent today.

This is a tiny trading country on the fringe of Europe, within the European Community. It is a country very involved in this whole process of interdependence. To operate an independent foreign policy per se, irrespective of recognition of the fact that we are part of a very inderdependent world would be a futile type of exercise. That is a debating-society type exercise which I certainly do not approve. We should not automatically project an independent policy for academic self-pleasure or indulgence or merely to project such a policy without regard to the realities of the world in which we live and the realities of the interests of the Irish nation. I regard enlightened self-interest as consistent with having a moral approach. Legitimate self-interest and a moral approach are the two concepts which should form the basis of Irish foreign policy.

As far as Iran is concerned, there is no question but that there is a chaotic situation in that country. We have nothing but the height of goodwill for the people of Iran. We fully accept their right to a Government in which their rights will be recognised and their political and social structures can be properly organised as well as their own religious and cultural traditions. At the same time, it is important that the respect internationally for the rights of others, which is a fundamental principle governing the relations within nations of people, should be emphasised here. One of the great principles in this respect is the recognition of the independence of diplomats and citizens of another country residing in a particular country. This applies across the world and it has been recognised as a precent of international relations for centuries, not just in recent years.

In holding hostages, American diplomats and other citizens since early November, the people who have occupied the American Embassy in Teheran certainly have not shown respect for these basic rights and their action in that respect must be deplored. Immunity of diplomats is basic to international relations. International relations involve having people on the ground to carry out the necessary work. It is more than obvious that international relations, which are tenuous enough at present, would cease to function without basic ground rules which have existed over centuries in regard to diplomats and their immunity. The Iran situation cannot but be deplored in that respect. If that sort of treatment of diplomats in embassies becomes a more general way of treatment in revolutionary and quasi-revolutionary situations then, obviously, the whole basis of diplomatic relations will be seriously impaired. We have made our position quite clear in regard to Iran and the holding of the hostages there. We fully support all the countries of the world that have deplored that action. However, I would hope that, in Iran, there may be still some hope that the crisis can be resolved without further loss of life or trouble. The election, by a large majority, of Mr. Bani Sadr as President and his known commitment to establishing the democratic authority of the Presidency and restoring the rule of law are hopeful signs. It is true that the hopes many had placed in the UN Commission have been disappointed. It is true also that there have been some other discouraging developments in statements recently. Nevertheless, if a careful and patient approach is adopted and if the President is allowed to strengthen and reassert his position, we may arrive at a situation where the release of the hostages can be secured.

As far as Ireland is concerned, in co-operation with our partners in the European Community, we have tried to promote a peaceful solution and a restoration of respect for international law. We have had an embassy in Teheran and a Chargé d'Affaires there for some years who during the months of November and December, in particular, as we held the Presidency of the EEC, had to act in a very key role as representing the Community. The Chargé d'Affaires, during a very difficult period, at the end of last year, conducted these negotiations on behalf of the Community in a very commendable manner. I wish to say that here and pay tribute to him.

In regard to Afghanistan and the Soviet military intervention there, of course—and we have expressed this view in statements both on a national basis and on a Community basis—it is a completely unacceptable breach of international principle. It was a naked display of strength and force, not based on any principle whatever, with a total disregard and disrespect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of a neighbouring State. That sort of massive military intervention has been deplored rightly by us and by all sensible nations throughout the world who came together in a very substantial vote within the United Nations to indicate clearly their view of the Soviet action. However, it is important also that the response from powers throughout the world to that action, deplorable as the action was, should be of a measured and sensible kind. Within the Community we have supported very strongly the whole idea of a neutral status for Afghanistan and seeking to promote a situation where there would be disengagement by the Soviet forces and the gradual evolution of an Afghanistan on the lines of Austria in the middle of Europe, whose neutrality was respected with the support of the major powers. It may seem like an idealistic objective but it is one to which we have made a commitment as a nation and to which the Community as a whole have made a commitment and which remains a positive response to the action taken by the Soviets. So far we await a Soviet response to that action.

Our position, therefore, in regard to Afghanistan is quite clear. It is apparent that any deterioration in the situation there could have, to put it very bluntly, disastrous effects on the rest of that part of the world. One is then into an area of serious tension involving Pakistan, India, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East in general. So that any further deterioration in Afghanistan— and, indeed, this applies also to Iran —could result in a domino situation in the whole Gulf State area in the Middle East which could lead the world into a very, very serious situation.

That sort of growth of tension is what we have to avoid. That is why it is important, both in regard to Afghanistan and in regard to Iran, to have cool political leadership. The European Community is equipped to give that type of leadership in this situation. Any further escalation of that situation could lead to a quasi-doomsday position. There are sufficient sophisticated armaments and thermo-neuclear weapons in the world to cause serious trouble if there is any escalation of the situation in that area. With the sort of matters that are at issue. particularly in regard to oil and energy, the whole situation demands a very cool sophisticated political approach and coming back to something Senator Murphy said earlier, not always declaring one's policy too much.

I believe that in the world today to some degree foreign policy must continue to be—and, indeed, to an even greater degree than in the recent past—and maybe go back to what it used to be, a matter of personal relations, personal exchanges; making progress inch by inch on the basis of personal diplomatic exchanges and personal relations, rather than making statements and declarations as to a particular country's foreign policy or attitudes. To a greater extent today than ever before, future peace will depend on the interrelations of statesmen, without formal communications, communiques or declarations. This is one of the purposes behind the European Councils and the Summit meetings. Meetings of that kind can do far greater good than structured meetings where attitudes are set and tend to be set pieces because countries have set declarations and set policies on foreign policy.

That type of approach can become self-defeating, nugatory and negative and can lead to a situation where decisions cannot be made. I say that advisedly because one of my peers at present said that within the European Community, by reason of this lack of sufficient exchange between people, this lack of exchange of views between personalities at the top as Foreign Ministers and as heads of states, there tends to be a freezing of attitudes, an atrophying of the system. I personally see that that can be very dangerous, if with over-institutionalised systems we over-emphasise a particular national foreign policy. It is far more sensible to adopt a pragmatic attitude and a flexible attitude and seek to get solutions as they can be got and to move forward, inch by inch towards any given objective or any given solution.

Professor Murphy

In secrecy?

Mr. Lenihan

In many cases, yes. This notion of projection of foreign policy and projection of diplomacy and engaging in public in diplomatic and political activity between nations can be very dangerous. I take that view advisedly and seriously.

Some other matters were raised. The question of the Olympic Games is a classical example of what I have just mentioned. There is absolutely no reason in the world why at this stage we should make any decision as a Government in regard to the Olympic Games. It is a matter for each national Olympic Committee whether to send or not to send their athletes to Moscow. This does not arise until 24 May which is the final date for the receipt of entry applications from countries seeking to compete in Moscow. We as a member of the Community are very keen on participating with other members of the Community in a common attitude to this matter. In the Community we have decided to reserve our position, and Ireland has taken an attitude in this. I personally have. I believe it would be very nonsensical for us to take a public attitude at present in a matter of this kind, because there are many implications involved.

First of all, we would wish naturally to see the Olympic Games take place, we believe in detente. We believe in peace between East and West and a greater flow of trade and people and information between East and West. At the same time, the United States of America is a major investor in this country, an important friend of this country. We feel very strongly that the Community as a whole should take a political view of this matter at the end of the day. The end of the day does not arise until 24 May. In the interim period we are testing out the bona fides of the Soviet Union in regard to its behaviour in Afghanistan. If the test of the Soviet Union's bona fides show that there are none, if there is no move towards or indication of disengagement on the part of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan between now and 24 May, then there is a strong probability that the Olympic Games in Moscow would be meaningless anyway. Large numbers of nations will refuse to go there.

Mrs. Hussey

Will that include us?

Mr. Lenihan

In that event our stance will be the same as the stance of other member countries of the European Economic Community but, as I said in the Dáil yesterday, as a free country, with free associations, free bodies, our national Olympic Committee are quite free to utilise their Irish passports and bring Irish athletes to Moscow and there can be no way in which an Irish Government in a free society can deter them from doing that. That is precisely the situation and we are presenting it in that way.

Mrs. Hussey

Wait and see.

Mr. Lenihan

Wait and see can often be a very wise policy, as long as it is positively wait and see. As long as we know what we are doing and what we are at. There is nothing wrong with that. That is positively a worked out position. We are not alone in that. It is precisely the same position as has been adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany. We are in good and sensible company in that respect. Both countries have adopted almost precisely the point of view that I have mentioned and have pushed that point of view within the Community. We are adopting a stance of that kind which is separate from the stance adopted by the British who have tended to be pro-American and the stance adopted by the French which has tended to be the other way. The stance I have mentioned as being the German and Irish stance that has been precisely our approach. I think it does make sense having regard to the complexities of the situation.

Senator Hussey, who proposed the motion, very ably talked about the question of cutting off other trade and cultural links with Soviet Russia. We have moved in this respect on a Community basis. All that the United States of America asked the European Community to do was not to substitute for the cutting off of American exports to Soviet Russia. This applied in particular to grain exports which the United States cut, and the Community said, "Right we will not substitute for that; we will not fill the shortfall of American grain exports to Russia". With regard to other exports in the non-substitution category we and the other Community countries are continuing to export. Dairy products are continuing to go to Eastern Europe and other exports are continuing from all Community countries. All the United States of America asked us to do was not to substitute for their cut-off in regard to exports. That the Community has done, and that is all we are doing. All of this is a delicate balance between——

Professor Murphy

All that is hypocrisy, Minister.

Mr. Lenihan

With all due respect, Senator Murphy, that is a very simplistic view of what foreign affairs are about.

Professor Murphy

Then that is no harm.

Mr. Lenihan

As far as we are concerned at any rate, we deplore the action of the Soviet Union. I believe very strongly anyway that they will learn to deplore it themselves. It is quite obvious now that they have made a gross error of judgment in the whole matter of Afghanistan. While I deplore that completely and while we should take what actions we can in regard to the matter, at the same time detente is a very important development and the whole detente that has been built up between East and West has led to an expansion of trade and investment which should not be switched off automatically. I believe in a series of sophisticated responses in a subtle way to matters of this kind. We cannot just drift into a world war situation having regard to the hardware that is available to countries at the present time. The very existence of that hardware, in my view, has led the world into an area of diplomatic responsibility and subtlety and sophistication where responses are now calculated in a sensible way.

This again comes back to my point of view that this sort of thing cannot be conducted in public either. Again it depends on a subtle knowledge of what is going on in the other person's mind, what is not going on in the other person's mind, how the response should be made, how diminished should it be, how escalated should it be, up by 1 or 2 per cent, down by 1 or 2 per cent. That is exactly the way modern diplomacy is being conducted and has to be conducted.

If we adopt a simplistic approach we are into a crazy area of tension and a crazy area of war of a kind that never before confronted mankind. The whole effort must be the exercise of human intelligence and ingenuity and contact between people in key areas backed up by crucial advice, utilising the communications that exist in the world to prevent that sort of situation happening. That is not the type of thing you can prevent out in the open by public debate. I do not like saying that but that is a fact and it has been my experience in my brief few months in my present position. I hold very firmly to the way I have described as a practical way to go forward, particularly as far as a small country is concerned.

Senator Hussey spoke about foreign policy being communicated to the people. I have spoken sufficiently on that already. I believe it should be communicated to the people in broad principle but that the day-to-day decisions and the day-to-day movements and exchanges need not necessarily be communicated and, indeed, should not be in many cases.

The question of oil was raised by Senator Hussey. Oil and the related energy area are the crucial problems of our time. This is why the Middle East problem, which is not referred to in the motion, is one which should really be settled, because unless we get stability in the whole Saudi-Gulf-Jordan-lraq, Syria-lsrael-Lebanon area and a negotiated peace settlement in that area, then there is obvious tinder there and the risk of a really serious war. I regard the two matters in the motion of Afghanistan and Iran as very important matters. But the one I have just mentioned is as important if not more important still and it is the real flashpoint as far as the survival of the world is concerned, and in particular as far as the survival of Western Europe and the European Economic Community are concerned.

The European Economic Community is now reaching a very strong consensus on the need to have a negotiated settlement in the Middle East that will recognise the need for a homeland for the Palestinian people and also a guarantee as far as the territorial integrity of Israel is concerned. There is no incompatibility whatever between the two. Indeed, it is in Israel's own interest as a small country among a number of Arab nations to have such a guarantee of her frontiers and her territorial integrity with the other Arab nations along with provision for the Palestinian people. It is in recognition of the fact that there is no incompatibility in this objective. There is a very strong Community view on this at present and the views I have expressed in this regard are exactly the views of all the other countries within the Community. This is a positive Community attitude that will be formulated into a constructive and detailed policy in the months ahead. It is a psychological question of convincing the nations in the area that this is the right thing to do from the point of view of all of them, from the point of view of Israel and all of the Arab nations and from the point of view of providing a homeland for the Palestinians. The right thing to do is to reach a negotiated peace settlement in the area with positive, permanent guarantees written in by all the major powers concerned.

Finally, I should like to thank the Seanad for giving me the opportunity to make these remarks. From time to time I strayed from the motion but the points were raised by both Senator Hussey and Senator Murphy. I am very grateful to them for giving me the opportunity to speak here and I will be glad to hear the views of other Senators.

Mr. Cooney

I, too, should like to express appreciation to the proposer and seconder of this motion for putting it down and enabling this debate to take place and principally for the opportunity it gave the Minister to tell us what the Government's foreign policy is in relation to the two countries mentioned in the motion and the issues which arise from the events taking place in those two countries. Up to now we have all generally regarded the world as being divided into a number of power blocs: the Eastern bloc, the Western bloc, and then the non-aligned group of countries. Having listened to the Minister I am afraid I cannot put Ireland into any of those recognised categories. That may be deliberate but it is regrettable.

I have no doubt as to where we should be in these matters of foreign policy. I have no doubt that, for a number of reasons, we should be aligned clearly and unequivocally with the Western bloc. We are inclined to forget the true nature of Communism. We are inclined to forget that the dominating imperative of that philosophy is to spread itself throughout the world. Any person who values freedom has an obligation to fight against that in whatever way it befalls him. Senators do not have to take my word for it that that is the motive and aim of the philosophy of Communism. We have only to read the writings of people such as Solzhenitsyn and the other Soviet academics and philosophers who have suffered because of the type and nature of the Communist ideology, the lack of freedom, the slavery imposed on people who have to live within that system. Every day there are further examples of it. Indeed, it is ironic that this debate could not take place in the Soviet Union. If by any chance it did, the only person who might have spoken with safety would have been the seconder of the motion.

Professor Murphy

Reds under the bed again.

Mr. Cooney

I make no apology for making the case that this country should align itself unequivocally with the Western bloc, and that principally means the United States. We in this country in particular owe a great debt of gratitude to the United States. I do not have to recall that the United States provided a home for millions of Irish people who had nowhere else to go. We are sometimes inclined to forget that the United States, because of its free society, enabled the majority of those people to prosper and permitted them to share their prosperity with us. America has contributed greatly to the growth and present well-being of this country, such as it is. The demands and obligations of gratitude fall to be observed by nations as much as by people. That is one point we have to remember when we are considering where we should align ourselves in international affairs.

This country and the other countries of Western Europe seem to forget that a comparatively few years ago this entire Continent was menaced by Fascism. There is no doubt that if it were not for the intervention of the United States Western Europe would have been overrun by Nazi-ism. We know the horrors of that system. The cynic may say that America intervened purely so that it could maximise its economic profit later on. I would prefer to give America credit for intervening to preserve a free society, the type of society that exists in the United States, to preserve the freedom of the western world. Whatever the reason, we have to remember, and it is appropriate for us to remember with gratitude, that it was American intervention in the Second World War that ensured the forces of democracy and freedom would come out successful from that struggle.

In 1945 Europe was a mountain of rubble and the people were destitute and, again, it was American aid that came and revived Europe. The prosperity of the continent today can be traced back to the American aid and support that was available in those times. Again, too, it was the American presence, military, financial and economic that ensured that the Russian menace stopped where it did stop.

We have to consider the conduct of those two blocs, east and west, since those days and decide on which side we want to be. Do we want to be neutral as against the eastern bloc when we bear in mind the ravages committed in Czechoslovakia, the outrages committed in Hungary, the swallowing up of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia? Can we consider all that history of communism in action and decide that our position is to be neutral? As I say, the obligations of gratitude, apart from the obligations of self-interest, demanded that we should align ourselves firmly in the American western camp. For that reason I am disappointed that the Minister in his speech has been extremely vague, and possibly deliberately vague, as to where this Government stand in regard to what position we want to take in the world today as between the opposing blocs. It is a matter of great disappointment to me because I have no doubt for the reasons of gratitude I have set out, where we should be. Self-interest also demands that we should align ourselves publicly and visibly with the western bloc. We are inclined to forget that the greatest amount of investment in this country, building up our industry and providing jobs for our people, has come from the United States.

On the other hand if we look at our trading relations with Russia, we can see a serious imbalance that has existed since we commenced trading with that country. We were under pressure for quite some time to exchange diplomatic representatives with the USSR and eventually, on the implicit promise of beneficial trading results, embassies were opened in the two countries. Since that time the trade imbalance has persisted in favour of the Russians. Bearing in mind that the original motivation for opening diplomatic relations was a trade one, I cannot see much justification for continuing those relationships much longer.

The other matter that is current at the moment is the question of the Olympic Games and our attitude to it. I must say I am disappointed that the Government are marking time as to what the official attitude of this country is going to be towards participation in those games. First of all, I go along completely with the Minister when he says that it will be the individual choice of the athletes concerned whether they travel or not. That is part of their privilege of being free men in a free democracy. They can go whether the Government want them to go or not to go. I think the Government have an obligation to indicate to them whether they would like them to go or not. They felt such an obligation and indicated to rugby players that they should not go to South Africa on the Lions tour. It is the Government's right to say that and it is a line with which many people would sympathise. Again, it is for the individual rugby player to decide; it is a free choice of his own whether he goes or not. The Government in that instance made their view clear.

However, with regard to the Olympics the Government have not given any lead or lines to our athletes. The Government should, and the line the Government should give our athletes is that they should not participate in the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games are no mere ordinary athletic contest. They are an exercise in chauvinism and that is very clear to any spectator who has observed the Olympic Games for the past decade or two. The league table of nations, the playing of the national anthems, the politicising of the whole event, all go to show that the Olympic Games are no longer merely an athletic contest. When the Russians stage this year's Olympic Games, it is going to be and will be seen as a political event, particularly in the light of developments in recent times.

With that element present, if we are to have a firm policy we will have to indicate to our athletes what they should do. I firmly believe the indication our Government should give is that they should not go and should give that indication as a gesture of solidarity with the western world and in particular with the United States, a country to which we and the entire western world owe an immense debt. We owe that debt for what America has done for us. We owe that debt for reasons of self-interest. America is our bulwark and our protection against the expansion of communism. I am well aware that what I am saying is possibly regarded as out-of-date and unfashionable but I am certainly not going to put myself in the position of trying to walk a middle line between east and west because having regard to the ideology of the east there is no middle line for a person to take if he is conscious of freedom and if he wants to see democracy preserved. Consequently, I make no apology for urging the Minister now to align this country quite positively with the western bloc.

Ruairí Brugha

With other speakers I welcome this motion. I fully appreciate Senator Hussey's sentiments that we are a small country but have much influence and that we should use it and let our voice be heard. Like any other Member of this House I agree with that sentiment but I question whether our voice is best heard by shouting out here in public expressing our views about the attitudes of different nations. Perhaps we could give a more sane and stable contribution at meetings in the Council of Europe and elsewhere. That is my view but I accept that others may have different views on the matter.

On the question of Iran which the Minister has dealt with, like others I deplore the holding of diplomats for many months now. Diplomatic immunity has been a tradition for many, many years, certainly throughout this century. There seems to me to be some degree of futility in endeavouring to negotiate with people who themselves are not in control of their own country. The tradegy of the American diplomats is that they were next to being a write-off the day the new elements took over in that country and I cannot see what purpose can be served in hoping to negotiate with people who make demands which everybody knows will not be conceded. The situation in Iran in relation to the American diplomats is similar to the situation that is developing in many other countries where people are being kidnapped and held to ransom either for political motives or for commercial reasons. It is the same type of gangsterism that seems to be developing and it is a great pity to see how frequently people tend to surrender to this kind of action.

In the area of our own involvement which is principally in Europe, since we joined the European Community we have been playing a reasonable, sane and constructive role despite the fact that in our own country Ireland's situation within the Community tends to be belittled by some of our own people.

I know from my own experience over a couple of years that in the committees of the European Community the spokesmen of the smaller countries get a hearing. Probably one of the reasons they get a hearing, possibly out of proportion to their influence or strength in numbers, is that the representatives of the larger countries in Europe are conscious of the fact that they made a mess of their own affairs during this century on several occasions, that they resorted to war when none of the small nations wanted it. I find that feeling alive in Europe today among the major countries. It is wrong to belittle the influence that Ireland and Irish spokesmen can have in influencing the affairs and the future of Europe because European statesmen even today are conscious of a sense of guilt on both sides that they were not able to avoid catastrophe.

In the case of Afghanistan, it is useful that the Minister should set out the Government's attitude. I tend to deplore the headlines one gets in relation to Afghanistan when one considers small nations that were taken over in the past 40 years by Russia about whom nobody ever hears anything. How many of the youth of today have ever heard of Es-thonia, Latvia or Lithuania? As I said earlier, to express frank views about these issues may not necessarily help in the process of developing a sane and constructive policy in Europe and throughout the world.

Afghanistan seems to be in a similar situation to that of the eastern European countries which are still under Soviet influence and of the other small countries that were occupied by Russia in the past 40 years. There does not seem to be any difference between the policy of Russia today and the policy of Russia under the Tsars. If any country on the borders of the Russian empire was independent it was seen to be dangerous to Russia and to Russian power and influence. That is the sad situation. It is not necessarily a question of communism; it is more a question of power and of the constant fear in the mind of the Russian Government that if they allow anything independent to exist on their borders, they are in danger.

The unfortunate people of Afghanistan are caught up in a situation which arises out of what Senator Cooney was talking about in terms of future conflict in this world, of a division and of a power struggle. Any of us can speculate about the motives behind this. It can be the one that I have mentioned, that any danger of any element taking over in Afghanistan that might become independent of Russia would be intolerable to Russia. It may be that the events in Iran itself causing doubt, fear and possibly suspicion in Russia may have encouraged it or it may be that the long-term objective on the part of Russia of getting into the southern waters was the motive. All that can be done by peaceful nations and by small States is to set out, as our Minister has done, our view on how wrong it is.

I should like to deal briefly with the question which has already come up a couple of times about our neutrality. The present neutrality of this small State in the European Community is a benefit to Europe. I deplore the efforts that are made by elements here to run down the Irish stance in this area. I agree that we have a good deal for which to be grateful to the United States but I do not think that should involve us in the assumption that the world is going to be torn to bits again by world powers. There is an onus on us as one of the small countries to try at least to think in terms of something other than world war. The viewpoint that I have heard expressed by Senator Cooney seems to be based on an assumption that there will be a war and that we should line up in it, whereas the entire policy as I understand it that has been put forward in relation to our membership of the United Nations and the European Community has been one of trying to bring reason and discussion into the international forum. The worst thing that, even a small country could do, is to start taking open sides on the assumption that war is inevitable, because if all nations did that it would make war inevitable.

The contribution that has been made since we became a member of the European Community has been worth while. I believe the direction that the Council of Ministers have been taking in international affairs on political issues has been a sane, sensible and mature approach. I support that approach and I believe that we have a part to play in it. I would encourage the Minister to continue along the lines that he has been following in relation to the Middle East, to Afghanistan and to the role that the European Community can play in maintaining a stable world, in ensuring that if some elements in the world do lose their heads, as happened twice during this century, perhaps it may be possible for Europe to set an example and to remain outside such an appalling conflict.

Mrs. Robinson

I, too, welcome the opportunity provided by this motion to discuss our foreign policy and, in particular, Ireland's response to the political situation in Iran and Afghanistan. Before turning more specifically to these two issues, I would like to refer to the contribution made by the Minister. I think the value of having a motion for debate in this House is to get the opportunity of hearing the Minister outline his approach and the principles on which he bases his approach to foreign policy. There was a good deal of vague and general comment on this which is perhaps understandable because it is a very general subject.

I was particularly interested and intrigued by his emphasis that his own personal approach was very much on the importance of private, informal contacts. He emphasised the importance of personal relations of a "non-talking" variety with the emphasis on private meetings. I wonder what Private Eye might make of that as an approach to external affairs? The sense of what he conveyed was that he places a great deal of importance on private, flexible, informal meetings and in this context he mentioned specifically the European Council and its development. I was certainly surprised at that because, as I understand it, there is a very considerable danger to a small country like Ireland precisely in the development of the European Council as a relatively non-institutionalised forum where, in reality, the larger countries can exert far too much sway. It has always been my own judgment that Ireland should not view with enthusiasm, and should view with a great deal of concern, that particular development of the European Council. Now the tendency of the European Commission is to put forward more directly its proposals to the European Council rather than through the in-stitutionalised, sometimes slow, but carefully structured system of the normal Councils of Ministers, thus upsetting that balance which has been very carefully created and which we looked at very deliberately before joining the European Community.

I have been bringing groups of law students in successive years to visit the EEC countries. I brought a group there this month. One part of the visit is a meeting with the Irish permanent representation in Brussels where members of staff of the representation, and very often the Ambassador himself as happened on this occasion, meet with the law students and discuss the issues.

This year, as in the previous years that I can recall, a good deal of emphasis was placed on a concern precisely about the development of the Community in the more private, political sphere of meetings in the European Council as causing a good deal of worry about safeguarding and protecting the interests of small countries and the balance in the Community. I feel that it may be possible in that kind of gathering for a small independent country like Ireland to exert some useful pressure and to try to steer other countries in a particular direction but there are also very grave worries particularly in the European Community context of a lack of institutional protection. I continue to view more with concern the development of the European Council and less that it is a good political development at the European Community level.

The Minister identified the principles underlying his approach to foreign policy. I do not disagree with any of those. They are all basically good things, against sin and for self-determination by small countries, for protection of human rights but one has to look through them for a particular emphasis, for a particular focus. What I hoped to see, because I believe this is the greatest challenge in our foreign policy and indeed the greatest challenge in world relations, was more of an emphasis on the need for a restructuring in the economic order of the world, a restructuring to bring together in an integrated way the north and south. We have the benefit now of the Brandt Commission Report which is still not freely available in this country but there are some copies in circulation. I had intended to table a motion seeking a debate on the report and recommendations of the Brandt Commission because I think it is one of the most important documents that has come on the world scene.

Mr. Lenihan

I agree with the Senator.

Mrs. Robinson

I hope the Minister will be available at a relatively early date for a debate on that report. In Ireland we must have a very acute sense of that as the greatest challenge and we must use our resources as a country in the level of our development aid. Here again I think the level is disappointing, if not shameful, in the light of the kind of commitment that is necessary but we must also use our moral voice and the fact that we are not a member of a military alliance, we are not a member of NATO. I agree with those who emphasised this and who said that in a very positive way we must use the fact that we are nonmembers of NATO, and not be overdefensive about it. We must have a clear and forward-looking policy on that basis and have a better possibility of a closer relationship with a number of non-aligned and developing countries precisely because we are a non-member of NATO and have not felt it necessary to be a member of NATO. It is rather disappointing to get the impression from the Spanish negotiations for membership of the Community that they feel that they will have to become a member of NATO. In discussions in Spain before Christmas, I was impressed with the fact that although nobody had said they must become a member of NATO they appeared to feel that as part of membership of the European Community there was some kind of political obligation on them. Ireland should use its own experience and commitment as a country to make it clear that there is no requirement to belong to a military bloc, no requirement to become a member of NATO, and that it is possible to fulfil the full obligations of membership, and possibly give a greater contribution in the Committee on Political Co-Operation or the other meetings at European level.

Turning more directly to the two issues mentioned in the motion, Iran and Afghanistan, they are in many ways different. Each of them is a complex subject. I cannot blame the movers of the motion for grouping them together because we all too rarely get these opportunities. I think it was right to put them together in a motion for the purposes of clarifying Ireland's foreign policy and response on these issues. I believe that this needs to be done because a great deal of the public media comment, not so much direct media comment in this country as the kind of comment that comes over the wires—Reuters and the United Press Agency comment—is very much conditioned by the American response and the fact that it is an American election year. This has undoubtedly heightened the tension at one level and has not helped the more mature and considered response to the crisis in both these areas. If I could deal briefly with each of them in that particular framework.

Take, for example, the situation in Iran. Before the capturing of the hostages in the embassy there was an insensitivity to the situation developing in Iran, which led to an enormous resentment, particularly against the United States, but also against western countries. In that instance, the European Community could have done more to enter into closer links at that time with Iran and to break down this monolith of a capitalist western world which had no sympathy for Iran as a developing country, which had sought to achieve its own autonomy and which was with difficulty establishing its institutional and economic structures.

This has led to an act which must be condemned unequivocally, namely, the capturing of hostages, of individual innocent victims in the circumstances, and holding them in a way that is extremely serious because of the possible spin-off effect or trigger effect it may have in other countries, because of the deep suffering of the hostages and of their families. Europe had, before that particular incident and has now to a very, very serious degree, a responsibility to enter into very close contact, not only with Iran but also with other countries in that part of the world so that there will be an avoidance of these chasms of culture, an avoidance of the kind of outraged response of a people when they feel threatened by a capitalist western bloc.

Similarly, the response to Afghanistan has been to some extent hypocritical at world level. There has been a substantial Russian presence in Afghanistan for a very considerable time and the world was not concerned enough in that. Indeed most people did not know where Afghanistan was on the map. Afghanistan is like a number of other countries where unless there is a very high degree of self interest, as there is, because of the sensitivity of that area of the world, we do not care enough about the situation of the peoples and of their aspirations for government or autonomy.

We are overreacting now to a certain extent because this has happened during an election year in the United States because for a President in office there is the tendency to make statements on these issues to evoke a general loyalty from the people of the United States; and for political opponents seeking office, whether within his own party or in the opposition party, there is the tendency, indeed the inevitability, that they will simplify the issues, that they will make simple statements on what are extremely complex and extremely difficult issues.

These factors would lead me to take a very different line from that adopted by Senator Cooney. Far from seeking to identify ourselves with some very coherent western bloc, as I listened to Senator Cooney it seemed clear to me that the western bloc is the United States full stop. There was a complete overlap in his approach to the words "western bloc" and the words "United States". Far from a simplistic identification with a western bloc in Senator Cooney's sense I believe what is needed is a Europe which from its own maturity, diversity and its closer links with the countries in these sensitive areas, should try to play an important role in lessening world tension, in promoting the need, yes, for the recognition both of individual human rights and of the collective rights of the peoples of those countries. That should be done in a way which is more likely to achieve not only the objectives of the people there but also the peace and security of the world. There should be polite but Firm resistance to any attempt to heighten world tension because of the electoral situation in the United States or because it is reported in a flashy way, by way of headlines.

Europe should also take a much more mature and prudent approach to events like the Olympic Games. It is impossible to calculate what the outcome would be of a general world boycott of the Olympic Games. We know what the Olympic Games are. We know the prestige the Soviet Union invests in them. We know that the concept of amateur sportsmen and women differs very much from country to country and from bloc to bloc within the eastern countries.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal of idealism, of coming together of young people, of very understandable and valuable aspirations of young people. It would be enough to have registered, as undoubtedly the world has registered, the condemnation, such as in the United Nations Resolution on the Invasion of Afghanistan. I would certainly agree with the word used by the Minister in his speech on the invasion of Afghanistan. It has been a very substantial blunder by the Soviet Union.

That does not make it any less dangerous or worrying for the world because it is not so easy sometimes to retrieve a blunder or to stay on a very difficult wicket. The skill at the moment will be to try to ensure that it is possible to create either a neutral non-aligned Afghanistan or certainly to make it very clear to the Soviet Union that its presence there in a massive number of troops is unacceptable and that they will continue to pay a very high price.

I would like to make one positive proposal arising out of this opportunity to debate Ireland's foreign policy, that is, that we increasingly need in Ireland an institute of international affairs. This is not a new subject. Three years ago I sat on a committee, which included the late and much lamented Ambassador Paul Keating when he was Secretary of the Department, and some senior members of the Department. It included representatives of the universities in Dublin, of the Royal Irish Academy and politicians. It ended in a rather unsatisfactory solution that there would be an international committee of the Royal Irish Academy which would hold meetings on issues relating to foreign policy or international affairs.

That is not adequate. We need an independent institute with its own library and research facilities, its own capacity not only to examine Ireland's foreign policy in relation to what is happening in other countries but to link into a very, very useful system at the moment of institutes of international affairs. There is a very close co-operation between Chatham House in London, Karl Kaiser's Institute in Germany, the Norwegian Institute, the Brookings Institute and the Institute of International Affairs in Japan. They all have the kind of inter-relationship and exchange of papers and of researchers and documents which we lack.

The fact that we do not have a counterpart here means that our foreign policy is not being evaluated and assessed independently and that our officials do not have this resource and potential library facilities. I ask the Minister to see if it would be possible to provide this resource even within the present budgetary constraints, preferably by looking for support either from the private sector in Ireland or from the very foundations which have given money to other international institutions because they see the need for this kind of independent evaluation. If I might end on a rather facetious note, if the Minister's approach is to be this intimate non-talking variety we badly need an institute of international affairs to evaluate that kind of activity.

Mr. Lambert

I welcome the motion, the explanations of the Government policy by the Minister and all the comments made by my colleagues in the Seanad. It is very interesting to get this breadth of opinion and knowledge. I look back. I am one of the few Members who remember when Neville Chamberlain came back waving his umbrella exclaiming peace in our time and there was much to learn from that instance.

Do we ever learn? History repeats itself. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain was about to surrender Czechoslovakia to Hitler. He described Czechoslovakia in a radio broadcast as a remote country of which we knew little. If Czechoslovakia was remote in 1938, Afghanistan, without this type of debate, would seem equally remote in 1980.

I can understand to a great extent the freezing of attitudes but I was pleased to hear the Minister is taking very seriously the strategic reasons why Soviet Russia has made this move. I do not think it was a blunder, as referred to by Senator Robinson. It is a well thought out strategic military move. To balance that we should examine very carefully the strategic moves made by the Americans. After all, they are to a great extent self-sufficient as far as energy is concerned, at least much more so than Europe. We are in a very difficult position regarding the take-over of the oil fields, referred to as a possibility by Senator Hussey. I was looking forward to the SALT Treaty being ratified, performing goodwill and a stable relationship to ensure the maintenance of peace in my time.

As far as the Olympics are concerned, obviously too much emphasis has been put on the United States' attitude, concentrating on making a venue and not enough news has been put on the other strategic moves made by the United States. While on the Olympic Games the time may have come for reappraisal of the whole objective of them. As Senator Robinson said, the attitudes of the superpowers are different from those of the smaller countries who look upon them as games and still look upon them as something to win from an amateur status point of view. If something positive comes out of this maybe it could be a reappraisal of the whole Olympic Games.

I find the pressure in the agricultural Field by the Americans very interesting because people in the food industry suffered enormously from the great Russian grain robbery in 1973, which caused a world shortage of grain, leading to rapid inflation ahead of the actual energy crisis. The price of flour rose even more rapidly than the price of energy did later on and had many implications. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the European countries will not agree to substitute although they could not in any way substitute the amount of grain which had been held back by the Americans. I believe it is 17 million tons of grain.

It is interesting to note that this makes a serious loss for the American farmers and one that they have shown themselves willing to accept. The feeling is very deep in America to give up that potential.

I am very glad of the positive attitude of the Minister. Perhaps he cannot encourage the Americans to use the surplus now to bring down the price of grain in Europe and to service the Third World instead of either destroying it or storing it. We should try and get some positive reactions out of this whole debacle and try to help normalise some of the things that have been aggravated because of the strategic moves by the Americans to try to bring the Russians to some common sense.

We all know the American technology. Drilling equipment and advanced electronics are fields in which America leads the world and in which Russia is lagging further and further behind. Naturally we have encouraged investment in this type of activity by the Americans. Obviously it would be very unwise, when the IDA have done such a wonderful job in encouraging American investment in Ireland, to defend them by taking any action which would be contrary to both their interests and our own interests in the future.

Senator Hussey referred to the postponement of the export of technology from this country for that reason. Another factor is that President Carter has asked Congress for legal authority to register young American women and men for military service. It would be an interesting study to see how women in America react to registration for military service. This could provide quite an opportunity for study by other countries who will probably introduce this for both men and women.

I do not agree with Senator Brugha because the prospects of a World War cannot be overlooked. It must provide another key point regarding the necessity for a united Ireland. The British Government must see the necessity to cultivate the support of our Government in achieving a solution to Northern Ireland in the context of the prospect of another World War. We must realise that it would be impossible to remain neutral as Mr. de Valera did ingenuously during the last war. I hope some positive action may arise out of this debate in keeping on friendly terms with the Americans to maintain their support for a political solution of the Irish question so that we are not torn by civil war if and when the two superpowers clash with each other in military combat.

Mr. McDonald

The dramatic events in Iran and Afghanistan have compelled most observers of the world scene to change their views on future development of world policies and their affect on the world balance of power. The dramatic experience of the Vietnam war shook the United States belief in the efficacy of military power as an instrument of foreign policy. The United States' attitude to the events in Angola in 1975 and Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa in 1978 hardened American opinion against the use of military force to assist allies in the Middle East and in Africa.

With all that change, with the occupation of the US Embassy and detaining of the hostages in Teheran, the invasion of Afghanistan last November by the USSR brought a striking change in the United States' foreign policy and in the attitude of the administration, the Congress and the American people to the utility of military power in foreign policy even in this nuclear age.

The Soviet Union has always maintained its projection beyond her borders as essential to Soviet foreign policy and long-term political goals.

The invasion of Afghanistan and the proximity of Soviet forces to the Persian Gulf and the oil supplies vital to the west have changed the geopolitical equation. NATO and the defence of Europe must still be the most important commitment in American foreign policy, but perhaps the United States is beginning to recognise that it is not the only one. Security of energy resources and raw material supplies is now regarded as a high commitment by the whole NATO alliance. There is a deplorable reluctance by America's partners in the alliance to give the tangible support that the changed world situation demands. The forestructure of the United States and the European naval and maritime air capability must be adapted to meet this new challenge.

I believe the cost of maintaining adequate defence forces in the NATO alliance in an era of rapidly advancing weapons technology and rising inflation presents problems more difficult to solve than those which confront the monolithic Soviet bloc. I believe, having listened to the Minister's opening remarks on self-preservation, that there must be options which we as a small nation can surely take. We cannot just sit as full partners in the Community, with the possibility of our Minister taking a stand in the United Nations, and see the invasion of a small independent State.

This is the first time for many years that the Soviet troops have crossed the border of a State outside the Soviet bloc. Therefore, it is a serious threat to world peace. The options open to us are that we make our voice effectively heard. We have the tradition over the years since the time of Mr. de Valera and the League of Nations, and when Mr. Cosgrave led our delegation to the United Nations, and during the Ministry of Mr. Aiken and his tremendous success in spearheading the lead for disarmament and, indeed, in the more recent years of Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, whose work evoked such tremendous response. The Minister has the options and I believe that we must have firm economic, political and peaceful deterrents even in the cultural and propaganda area. The only other alternative open to the free world is war, or the military deterrent.

We must support and indeed compliment the measures already taken by the United States. As the Minister has pointed out, the Community or this country must not sell grain to Russia. Also, I would suggest we must not sell subsidised butter or beef to Russia. I hope that the Council of Ministers will take a very firm decision on this. The US grain ban, as Senator Lambert pointed out, is costing the United States economy a considerable amount of money, having regard to the vast tonnages that were involved. Therefore, I believe that we should show solidarity to the cause of the rights of the small nations. Pious resolutions are not enough. We should be prepared to give a back-up because we, as a small nation, have absolutely no defence against aggression of Russia, or any other super-power for that matter.

We should state very clearly, as a matter of principle, that we will not sell banned goods or technology to the USSR. Cultural exchanges should be shelved. We should not send an Irish team to Moscow in July next. Many people say that we should not mix politics and sport. What are the alternatives? Do the people who propagate that view think that we would be better off with conscription and getting involved in a military conflict? It is all right when one is a couple of thousand miles away from the scene of the action. These things can come much nearer to home, even by the Russians being able, in a few years' time, to take over the supplies of oil in Iran. That possibly is at the back of their minds and it could be a blow to our economy.

Afghanistan has been a buffer state for the past 160 years and has always been looked upon as such. We must not hesitate to register every protest in our power against Russia sending in 105,000 troops to that country. This Soviet precedent must not be allowed to go unnoticed. I was a little disappointed to read recently that we were the only pro-western State who found it necessary to sign an agreement with Russia, just a few weeks ago. Surely that could have been deferred? It is not enough to come out with pious platitudes. We must be able to take a stand. In any agreement that is signed with Russia, they have traditionally always got the better deal. There is an unfortunate imbalance in our trade with Russia.

The scope of the motion is very restrictive but the Minister mentioned the Palestinian problem during the course of his address. In regard to his now almost famous speech on his last State visit to Bahrain and the Middle East, I was particularly upset about the fact that the Minister was reported as advocating the re-partition of Jerusalem. From an Irish point of view this would imply that partition of this country is acceptable.

Mr. Lenihan

I did not say that. I was not reported as saying that.

Mr. McDonald

The Government Information Services very kindly made available a copy of the speech and words to that effect were used. I accept the Minister's statement. It would be deplorable if we did not recognise, at all times, the rights of even a small state like Israel to have autonomy. We must not be selective. If we believe in the rights of one small state we must also believe in the right of the others.

I would like to compliment the movers of the motion. When it was placed on the Order Paper five or six weeks ago, it was quite topical. The Seanad should have more opportunities for discussing foreign policy because there are many points which Senators can bring up and contribute. It is not outside the realms of possibility that they might be helpful to the Minister when he comes to formulate his policy. Government policies should reflect the views and aspirations of the people.

I hope the Minister will be back very soon after the recess to discuss the six monthly reports—we are three in arrears now—on the European Community when we can have, perhaps, a discussion on another aspect of foreign policy.

Mr. Lanigan

I thank the Minister for giving us an opportunity to discuss foreign policy. Unfortunately, the motion is a bit restrictive in the sense that it mentions specifically Afghanistan and Iran. Over the last few weeks people were talking about discussing the Afghanistan motion rather than discussing foreign policy.

Foreign policy here is a two-tiered thing. As a small country which has evolved from a revolutionary situation, we have a definite influence in world affairs. As a member of the larger grouping in Europe we have a very important part to play. Our feelings on international policy will get through to some of the bigger countries who in the past were not without fault in regard to the colonisation of a large part of the world. Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and most of the members of the European Community were in a colonising situation at various times during their careers.

It is unfortunate, in discussing this motion, that Afghanistan and the Olympics have been very much intertwined. Mention has been made that politics and sport should be or should not be separated. There is absolutely no doubt but that politics and sport have been involved with each other for many years. It is not just now that politics has come into sport. Looking at the Olympic Games, if one goes back to 1932, Pat O'Callaghan could not compete for Ireland in the Olympic Games because he was a member of a Thirty-two county organisation. Today in the Olympic movement we have the analogous situation whereby if one boxes for Ireland one can compete for a Thirty-two county Ireland and where if one runs for Ireland, it is for a Twenty-six county Ireland. Sport and politics are obviously very much intermingled. The Olympic Committee might think that they are a separate body who have nothing to do with politics but they are dictated to by what are called political boundaries so, therefore, they are a politically oriented body. Looking at some of the anomalies that come up, there is a famous picture of the start of the road race in 1960 in Rome, where a man named Crystal was involved in a little incident with the starters and now he has three sons.

Dr. West

My pupil.

Mr. Lanigan

And a good pupil too. They compete for Ireland in a Thirty-two county situation.

As to whether or not we go to the Olympic Games, that is a matter for the Olympic Committee in consultation with the Government. Sports on an international level for many years has become something like the adult games that people play. For years, all one could buy were kids games, but now the emphasis has changed to adult games, 90 per cent of which games tend to be war games or war situation games. The Olympic Games have been for many years a war situation game where the major powers can fight each other on the field of endeavour in sport. At the end it is not the sporting aspect that is remembered, but whether the western side won more gold medals than the eastern side, whether America had more gold medals than Russia and whether East Germany had more gold medals than West Germany.

The reason for the starting of the Olympic Games was so that people could compete and mix in friendly competition where winning was not all. Now winning in the Olympic movement is all. People give up their jobs, their humanity and their lives to fight in the war that is the Olympic Games. Women take pills to get themselves into a masculine attitude, men take steroids so that they will put on big muscle and fat so that they can throw weights, emasculating themselves totally. If that is not the negation of amateur athletics or amateur sport nothing else is.

We should not equate the Olympic Games with the problem in Afghanistan. The problem in Afghanistan is that a major power invaded a sovereign State. We should condemn that wholeheartedly. If the United States were entering another sovereign State we should——

Professor Murphy

We never do.

Mr. Lanigan

——unreservedly go against that situation. The Olympic Games should be left as a separate issue. The British Government are not terribly pleased with the situation in Afghanistan and the only way they are coming out against it in public is by suggesting that a British Olympic team does not go to Moscow. Britain kept us out of the Olympic Games for many many years. When I say "us" I mean 32-county organisations. Now they decide that because Afghanistan was invaded by Russia another country should be kept from the Olympics, or that a number of countries should be kept from the Olympics. In America last month in the artificial snow of Lake Placid there were Russian teams. East German teams and African teams competing in the winter Olympics which is run by the same group who run the Olympic Games which, hopefully, are going to be held in Moscow. I did not hear many protests from here or from anywhere else about the participation of Russia in Lake Placid. When the Russian team arrived at Lake Placid they were there on American visas to compete, in an American situation, in Olympic Games. I cannot see what the difference is between keeping the sporting nations of the world out of Russia for one reason and allowing the whole lot of them into America at the same time. It is rubbish. The Minister should advise the Government to let our athletes compete in the Olympics in Russia or wherever they are held.

Dr. West

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lanigan

Hopefully that is what will happen. In saying that I am not saying that what happened in Afghanistan is to be condoned. But after all they are two totally separate issues. People say that Afghanistan is a country of which we know little and which is very, very far away. I am afraid it is a bit like the telephone, once it is in the house one lives with it. It is in our house every night and every day when we turn on the radio or the TV set. Very few people have not seen a map of Afghanistan at this stage on television, or have not seen what is happening in Kabul and various other places. It is not very far away, nor is the danger of a world war very far away, not alone because of what is happening in Afghanistan but because of what is happening in Iran where, irrespective of the problems that have been created because of the imprisonment of the diplomats, there are still a large number of people being killed daily in that country, where there is a civil war situation to a large degree. When Lord Mountbatten was killed here, it was Lord Mountbatten all over the papers and the 18 other people who were killed on the same day were very nearly forgotten. The imprisonment of the hostages in Iran is the one thing that is keeping President Carter to the fore in American politics. As long as they are there he will be to the fore. That is why the hostages are being given the publicity. Very little is being said about the many thousands of people who are being killed in Iran every day.

The last speaker spoke about the Palestinian issue. The Palestinian issue is one that could be debated in this House. It is not alone the Palestinian issue, but an issue of worldwide compass. The Palestinian people have every right to a homeland as have the Israelis. The Middle East will not be a safe area, or an area of economic or political stability until the position of the Palestinian people as a whole is settled. The Lebanon is a country which is divided into so many camps at this stage that one would not know where to begin or end to describe what is happening there. In the Lebanon there are religious factions, military factions, international intervention by the United Nations, a puppet army set up by Major Hadad with Israeli help, the Syrian Army, Palestinian Left Wing rebel groups, and left wing groups from all over the world. That is an area about which we should have as much concern as we have about Afghanistan, Iran or any other place in the world where there is conflict.

The fact that we are discussing in a narrow way what is happening in Afghanistan and Iran is relevant. But we should not forget that the world we live in is small and that the boundaries are getting smaller every day and that the conflict which has occurred in the Middle East and in the Far East might not be too far from our own door if we do not keep working very hard for peace in every place in the world. Mention has been made of a policy of neutrality. We should not have a policy of neutrality. A policy of neutrality means that one sits on the fence all the time.

Professor Murphy

No.

Mr. Lanigan

We must have a policy whereby we can be neutral in certain circumstances and can take sides in other issues. The taking of sides is not a bad thing at times. To be neutral at times is not a bad thing. But we should not have a policy of neutrality or intervention. What we should do, as has been done by Irish Government's in the past and by Irish Foreign Ministers, is have a policy of trying to persuade Governments and people that small countries have a part to play in international relations and that if they are part of bigger groupings they should use their influence within these bigger groupings to help to arrive at the stage where peace and stability will be available to people all over the world.

An Cathaoirleach

Unfortunately, Senator Goulding has only about four minutes left.

Lady Goulding

I want to make only one or two points. Senator Murphy said that Afghanistan was ruled by mad mullahs and businessmen. Maybe this was so until 1978 when there was a military coup and it was taken over by a Communist clique together with Teraki who was a poet as well as a politician and who was very left wing inclined. In 1978 it certainly was governed in a left wing manner. So much so that at the end of 1978 Teraki went to Moscow and was received by President Brezhnev. On his return he found that his friend Amin—not Idi—had taken over control. Amin murdered Teraki on his return and at that stage the Soviets sent in about 8,000 troops. Now they have sent in 105,000 troops.

Unfortunately, I like Senator Lambert, also remember Munich. I remember countries being taken over one by one. Afghanistan has been taken over now by the Soviets. Unless we say we disagree and unless we agree with our friends and neighbours, the United States, I can see by the middle of 1980 other little countries being gradually taken over by the Soviets. Now is the time to stand up and say that we do not approve of 105,000 or 108,000 troops being sent in to a small country like Afghanistan. The Soviets have a three to one in tank advantage in Europe against the western side and if they go on producing their armaments at this pace, all of us will be in real trouble.

Neutrality is marvellous on occasions but it is of interest to note that in the Second World War more people from the Republic went to join up to fight against what they thought was wrong, than from the North, who said they were members of the UK. A great number of the members of the fighting forces came from the Republic. What will happen when young women are registered for the armed forces? In Britain in 1942 they were conscripted into the armed forces and they accepted this because they were up against it. We are all up against it now and I am very worried indeed about what will happen in the eighties unless we, together with Europe and with the United States, which is much more important, take a very, very firm attitude on what is happening in Afghanistan now.

Dr. West

I congratulate the proposer and seconder of this motion for stimulating such an excellent and wide-ranging debate. It shows the Seanad fulfilling its true role. Foreign policy is not debated often enough in this Parliament by either House. The Seanad, particularly, can do this in a low key way. The fact that a highly political motion is put down by Independent university Members means that it will be discussed in a non-party spirit and this greatly contributes to the tenor of the debate. It has been an excellent debate and I congratulate the Minister, for not just sticking precisely to the terms of the motion, but for widening the scope and for giving us some insight into foreign policy in general. The fact that the Minister has been a Member of this House gives him an appreciation of the way the Seanad debates such a motion as this and he has taken advantage of that. It has been an excellent debate and, as a number of speakers have said, we look forward to other similar debates on foreign policy.

Foreign policy changes as the balance of power changes, as the weapons stock changes, as the world changes and perhaps the time has come to consider that a country such as this can exert maximum political pressure without necessarily breaking off all the links with the country that pressure is being exerted upon. I particularly talk about cultural and sporting links. Economics get more closely aligned with politics, but I believe that it may well be advantageous to exert maximum political pressure and yet retain certain important cultural links, that in fact one may be doing more good in that respect than by cutting off all avenues of communication. We may well be in that situation, at the moment, as far as the Soviet Union is concerned.

I do not have any particular love for Soviet policy, I think that the invasion of Afghanistan is a great crime and the fact that it is equalled by other crimes committed by other nations does not make it any less a crime. I do not think anybody has attempted to justify the arguments that the Soviets have put forward for taking over Afghanistan. I think it would be difficult for someone in this House to do so because it would seem to justify the taking over of small nations everywhere by larger powers and we Irish have a particular interest in this. I have just been re-reading the history of that most interesting period between 1912 and 1916 and the arguments that were used to deny this country its independence were to a large extent that it would be used as a base for foreign attacks on the mainland of Britain. That is precisely the argument that is being used by the Russians in the case of Afghanistan. It was the most utter nonsense in 1912 as applied to this country, as soon became clear, for when a measure of independence was obtained we proved to be one of the best friends that Britain has ever had.

It is strange that the relationships between this part of the country and Britain seem to be so much better and more straightforward, although, of course, there is an area of disagreement, than those between the North and Britain. Many Senators have made this point, Senator Goulding has just made it, that the sort of argument that is being used to justify the takeover of Afghanistan is the sort of argument which justifies the takeover of small countries everywhere by the major powers, and I think it is something that we have to protest against in the most vigorous way and we have to show our disapproval and disdain. However it may very well be that, in the case of the Soviet Union at the moment, it is worthwhile maintaining the cultural links and maintaining some contacts and communication. I would not like to see us taking the position which Senator Cooney advocated. In trying to paraphrase his argument, I hope I am not getting it wrong—that because of our debt to America we should follow American policy in every line and detail. I think that our independence is worth a great deal and I take the Minister's point when he said that as a member of the European Community we are not as independent as we were heretofore. But we may in a sense have more influence as a member of that bigger Community. Naturally there are occasions where diplomacy has to take place in secret. That is a fact of diplomatic life, and it has always been so. But at the same time I think that the fact that a debate such as this has given rise to very many points of view from all sides and from all quarters, not made on a party basis—something that can be done in the Seanad and not so easily in the Dáil—is very important. It is also important for the Minister and for his advisers to get some idea of what people, as a whole think.

This debate has been of the greatest value. I do not think that, as I said, we should break off our cultural links with the Soviet Union and since these two situations have already been mentioned side by side my belief is that we should send a team to the Olympic Games in Moscow and we should also send our rugby players on the Lions tour to South Africa. Neither of these political regimes do I like nor do I like their methods, nor do I like their theory or their practice, but I think that this particular way of showing our disapproval will not be effective and particularly in the case of the Olympics my guess is that the countries which have come out and said that they are going to stop their people going to the Olympics and they are going to ban their teams, they will end up with egg on their faces. That is not to say that the Olympic Games is not in some sense a travesty of what it should be.

I would also say that one of the important steps in de-politicising the Olympic Games would be to stop all this movement about and jockeying for position, and to stage them permanently in Greece, their home country and then the problems which arise, whether the proposed site is in Los Angeles, or Moscow or Montreal or west Cork, would not arise. We should fix the site where the games originally took place and where they originated—in Greece and then a lot of these problems would disappear.

To get back to the point of neutrality. I believe that neutrality is something which is precious to us, we fought for independence, it was a long struggle and it does seem to me that we have to some extent given up rather more than we should in our independent approach to foreign policy. We obviously had to compromise, to a certain extent, when we joined Europe, but there was an overwhelming desire in this country to join Europe and I do not think that if there was a referendum now there would be anything but an overwhelming desire to stay in Europe. On the other hand, there was a time when we took a very independent line over world problems and my feeling is that there was a curtailment of our independence because of certain incidents involving our officials in the Congo and it took a long time for us to regain this position. It is essential that we should clearly and distinctly maintain our independence and, at the same time, as the Minister has said, work closely with our European allies and use our influence in the European situation to affect European policy. I should not like to underestimate the moral force which this country can exert in those situations, because it is not simply commensurate with our economic power. It is wrong to equate the moral force a country can exert to its economic power. We have a vital role to play. I should like to see a more positive attitude being taken by the Minister. The more positive he is the better. There are times when we may have to differ from our European colleagues, and I think that is a good thing.

The Minister made a reference to the votes on disarmament and the fact that on one occasion we voted against a disarmament motion which he regarded as frivolous. The problem about that was that it did not get the appearance of frivolity in the press. It was reported as a serious motion on disarmament. There may have been reasons for frivolity, but it was imcumbent on the Minister and his Department to make the frivolity of the motion clear, because it appeared to me, and to many other people who were distinctly worried, that this was a serious motion, that we were being influenced by one of the power blocs and that we were not playing the role that we traditionally do play. There was a break-down in public relations there, and it is something we need to be very careful about, because foreign policy is a two-way thing. The fact that so many Members have contributed in such a diverse way to this debate has given the Minister and his officials an insight into the very wide-ranging feeling about the situation— clear detestation of the Afghanistan invasion, a great sympathy for people in Iran, but a desire to see the hostages freed. The Minister made the right point that it is a principle that diplomatic personnel should be given immunity and should remain in immunity when they are in their diplomatic context. On both of the situations mentioned in the motion basically I would take the position the Minister has taken in his speech. On the other hand, I should like to see our foreign policy being conducted at a slightly higher level. Although, of course, naturally a good deal of it has got to go on behind closed doors, on the other hand the Minister needs to keep the public behind him and so the communication between the Minister and the public has got to be two-way.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That concludes the business ordered for today. The Chair has been informed by Senator West that, at the request of the Minister concerned, he is not proceeding today with the matter of which he gave notice for the Adjournment.

The Seanad adjourned at 8 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 March 1980.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 26 Mar 1980

Foreign Policy: Motion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1980