I thank the Senator and apologise to him. I hope it does not disturb the Chair in the ordering of his business. I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate to outline my views, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the issues raised by the motion before the House, and to hear the views of the Seanad on these issues.
I have listened with great interest to the statements from all sides of the House. I have been fortunate to have been present to hear all the speakers so far. I apologise to Senator McGonagle and I thank him for giving way to me. There is no guarantee that I could be here next week, and I understood that the debate was to be concluded tonight. I hope I have not upset in any way Senator McGonagle's plans for next week.
This debate is taking place against the background of two important developments in the international situation: the crisis in Lebanon which, if left unchecked, could pose a serious threat to international peace and security; and the change of leadership in the Soviet Union, from where I returned a few hours ago. These events give added significance and importance to the current debate.
The issues dealt with in the motion before the House are important, complex and some of them seemingly intractable. In the short time available to me, I will not go into great detail on these issues but I will set out what I see as the principal characteristics of the international issues which have been raised and outline the approach of the Government to these issues. I shall conclude by commenting on the conflict in Northern Ireland, a matter of the most immediate importance to all of us, to which Senators Robb and Ryan have made reference in their motion.
The relentless increase in the numbers and destructive powers of nuclear weapons, the growth of East-West tension, the numerous regional conflicts under way in the world, the crushing poverty of a large proportion of the world's population which can only be solved by massive infusions of development aid as several Senators have stated in the course of the debate, all of these aspects of the current unhappy global situation are linked. Let us consider the starker facts. East-West relations have deteriorated alarmingly in recent years. The nuclear arms race is continuing and shows no signs of slowing down, let alone reversing. $550 billion per year is spent globally on armanents. That is 15 billion dollars per day or a little over one million dollars per minute. In other words, since the Seanad resumed this evening some 30 million dollars has been spent on armaments. This almost equals the total annual amount of money given by this country in development assistance. The stark contrast of these two figures shows how serious the problem is. In the last half hour about 30 million dollars has been spent on armaments and for all of 1984 we will be giving approximately 34 million dollars in assistance. Those two facts alone tell the whole story. Of this, over 20 per cent is spent by developing countries.
Some 40 regional conflicts are taking place. All of them cause great loss of life, misery and suffering. The conflicts in Lebanon, in the Middle East as a whole, in Central America, Afghanistan, Southern Africa and South East Asia show little signs of being resolved.
The conflicts are tragic in themselves for they are never without great loss of life and human suffering but they also pose dangers of a wider conflict. We all know that superpower rivalries are never far from the surface in many regional conflicts, a fact of life which has been brought home yet again in recent days by the renewed intensity of the conflict in the Lebanon. Against this reality of conflict and massive expenditure on armaments should be set the fact that over one billion persons on this planet live in hunger and poverty, sickness and malnutrition. The World Health Organisation's programme to eradicate malaria is dragging owing to a lack of funds, yet its cost over the years is barely half of what is spent daily on armaments.
The scale of the problems outlined by the proposers of the motion is immense and can only be tackled by concerted action among nations. The policy of this and previous Governments has been to advocate and support such action. Before outlining the policies which the Government has implemented and will continue to implement, I should like to concentrate on two aspects of the current global situation which I see as central to any understanding of that situation.
I should like to focus on the interrelated nature of many of the problems before us. Interdependence is an inescapable reality of the current world situation. We all know that an economic event in one part of the world can have a profound impact throughout the world. We all know that deterioration in East/West relations or even an outbreak of localised regional conflict can have serious and dangerous global repercussions.
We all know that the more money that is spent on armaments, the less there is to feed, clothe or even provide basic medical attention for the world's needy. Senator Higgins made the point that the existing relationship between the developed world and the developing world does not constitute an appropriate base for the evolution of a new peace. I agree. Peace is a fragile commodity at the best of times, and given the economic circumstances in which many third world countries find themselves, it is not surprising that some of them are potential flash-points. At a time when there is rarely such a thing as an entirely local conflict, where virtually every dispute has possibilities of becoming a source of international tension, the need for developed countries to co-operate with developing countries to secure and accelerate the peaceful development of the latter becomes a matter of prudence as well as altruism. I am not saying that efforts to solve these problems should embrace all of these at the same time and in the same context. Indeed such an approach could well lead to no progress at all, but to be realistic about what we can achieve we need a clear identification of the nature of the problem.
In an age of unrivalled scientific and technological advances, in an age in which precision is measured by minute degrees, we are faced with a global situation which in many ways, strange though it may seem, appears to be a product of irrational forces. On the one hand, we hear on every side professions of a wish for peace and for the preservation of human life on this planet. On the other hand, we see a situation in which armaments increase at an almost exponential rate, thus increasing mistrust which in turn makes conflict more likely. In the one hand, doctrines of deterrence have entailed ever-increasing expenditure on nuclear armaments, with the stated aim of avoiding nuclear conflict and "saving lives". On the other hand, large numbers of lives are being lost in the Third World, owing to drought, poor medical care and malnutrition. A fraction of the world's annual armaments expenditure could give untold help to underdeveloped areas of the world.
The characteristics of the world situation which I have just outlined constitute a grave temptation to pessimism but pessimism leads nowhere. What statemen must seek is to formulate a policy aimed at improving things. The first essential of such a policy is a recognition that the present world situation is largely man-made. Interdependence is man-made. Irrationality is man-made. Of course there is drought and natural disaster in the world but mankind has the capacity and resources to cope with these problems through concerted effort if the will and commitment are present. The key to such progress is international co-operation. This recognises interdependence and builds on that interdependence in a rational way.
That is the backdrop to the issues which we have heard in this debate. What of Ireland's contributions to efforts to achieve progress and improvements in these areas? We are a small country with limited resources. Nonetheless, it is clear that under successive Governments, Ireland has been able to contribute in a number of ways to support the efforts to curb and reverse the arms race, to promote the resolution of conflict and to help to achieve international peace and reconciliation. We have spoken out independently in the UN and elsewhere on the issues in question. We have contributed practically to the cause of peace and peacemaking through the participation of many thousands of Irish soldiers in UN peacekeeping forces. We have endeavoured to enhance the impact of our own efforts through our membership of the European Communities and our involvement in European political co-operation. We have been engaged in practical efforts to assist developing countries. In 1984 we will spend nearly £34 million on official development assistance. In addition Ireland's activities on behalf of international peace and reconciliation also engage the efforts of individual Irish citizens through their contributions and activities in voluntary organisations such as Concern, Trócaire and the other bodies which engage in personal service overseas, particularly in the developing world.
I will return to the important question of disarmament and the need to encourage development in the Third World, but first I should like to say a few words about the call in the motion that a "positive neutrality" be pursued by Ireland. I endorse that call entirely, and I wish to explain what I understand by a "positive neutrality". It is clear that the policy followed by successive Irish Governments in remaining outside military alliances does not imply that we are indifferent in regard to the issues which face the international community as a whole. On the contrary, our position outside military alliances has enabled us to play an admittedly modest but nonetheless constructive role as a neutral country.
As I stated in the Dáil on previous occasions, I believe that this position has facilitated the pursuit of a foreign policy whereby we contribute to the achievement of international peace and security by speaking out independently in the United Nations and elsewhere on such important matters as the need to curb and reverse the arms race and the problems of Southern Africa. In our approach to specific international problems we have consistently sought to have the principles embodied in the UN Charter upheld. We do not shrink from identifying and seeking to help redress instances of deprivation or abuse of human rights throughout the world. Senator Ryan described positive neutrality as standing up for the values we hold irrespective of interests questioned by our commitment to these. I accept this definition, and I assure the House that we will continue to use our neutrality in this positive sense.
From time to time it has been suggested that Ireland should join or seek observer status with the Non-Aligned Movement as a means of consolidating our neutrality. I am not convinced that Ireland's interests would be better served by such an arrangement. I doubt whether membership would contribute to our being perceived as being in some way more neutral than we are at present, nor have any of the Western European neutral states fit to seek membership or observer status of the movement.
I should like to outline in greater detail Ireland's approach to the arms race. The proponents of deterrence have argued that Europe has been spared from war for 40 years by the existence of nuclear weapons. That may be an explanation but it is certainly no justification for the continued reliance on and expansion in the quantity and destructive power of nuclear weapons and the development of doctrines for their possible use. All Senators have reflected on the inherent contradictions and instability in the philosophy of deterrence. Paradoxically, the arms build-up has achieved the exact opposite of its professed aims. There can be no doubt that it has reduced rather than promoted international security or that it hinders rather than contributes to efforts to achieve peace among nations.
There has been a common recognition by the people of Ireland that the use, any use, of nuclear weapons would be disastrous. Senator Robb has described in graphic detail the consequences of any failure of the philosophy of deterrence. I cannot but agree with him that it would be folly to suppose that Ireland could expect to be entirely insulated from the horrific effects of a nuclear exchange. International concern at the arms race is entirely legitimate and it is the duty of the superpowers to alleviate it through concrete steps to reduce arms levels. Successive Governments have endorsed this point of view by emphasising the need for nuclear disarmament and by proposing measures which might contribute to that goal.
The fact that we have not been part of any military alliance has enhanced our ability to propose measures designed to curb and eliminate nuclear weapons. While in ideological terms and in terms of economic and political links we may be closer to the members of one alliance than to those of the other, in our horror at and opposition to nuclear weapons we remonstrate equally with both. Neither side must ever use them. It is the shared responsibility of the two alliances to prevent the use of these weapons.
The opportunities lost in the last year in particular to prevent a new and more dangerous surge in the nuclear arms race are regrettable indeed. Both at the United Nations in the autumn of last year and as recently as last month at the Conference on Disarmament in Europe at Stockholm, I pointed to the responsibilities of the two superpowers in particular to persist in their dialogue — a dialogue which they owe by their respective strengths to the rest of humanity. This applies nowhere so much as in questions of nuclear arms control and disarmament and at no time more than the present when mutual mistrust and tension between the superpowers appear greater than at any stage in the last 20 years.
There are, of course, limits to the possibilities of influencing the actions of the superpowers. Countries with small resources such as ours do not dictate to the great powers. They prod, they provoke debate, they put forward arguments, they offer openings for negotiation. Take the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. Ireland played a significant role in the preparation of that treaty. We did not elaborate the treaty itself. This was done almost entirely by the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union. We advanced the idea in a form which the states principally involved eventually found acceptable. We were among the earliest and we are still among the most vocal advocates of disarmament at the United Nations. It is fair to say that on disarmament issues, for example at the United Nations, Ireland has been listened to with interest over the years. The gap between being listened to and having practical account taken of our words can be great. Nonetheless it is true that on occasions in the past, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Ireland's views have struck a chord. That alone would be justification for our continuing to add our voice insistently to the call for nuclear disarmament.
I touched earlier on the effects of the arms race on the Third World. This is not only indirect through the consequent loss of resource transfers: the arms race itself has spread directly to the developing countries.
As the Secretary General of the United Nations has pointed out, over 80 per cent of the resources spent on armaments is taken up with so-called conventional weapons and the proportion of national resources squandered on arms in the developing countries is growing each year. Since the responsibility for the transfer of arms on such a massive scale is shared between suppliers and recipients, a joint solution must be found. The Government fully recognise the need to direct resources to tasks of development. The needs of the developing countries and in particular of the less developed among them are evident. In world terms we are one of the richer countries. As such we have an obligation to those countries poorer than ourselves. While we have our own economic difficulties we must never forget that the people of the developing world are faced with difficulties far greater than ours.
Support for the Third World is, as I have already stated, more than a matter of benevolence. International interdependence is not a matter of choice: it is a reality. As a country with a very heavy dependence on foreign trade we recognise the value of close relations with the Third World and the fact that greater development should result in new and enlarged markets for the goods and services we produce.
In conditions of interdependence, economic development is crucial to the maintenance of a stable and equitable international system in which relations between states are conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner. Instability in the Third World poses a threat to global peace and stability. Indeed, over the last 30 years most of the conflicts which have occurred have taken place in the Third World, and it is difficult to envisage lasting international peace if the great imbalances in the distribution of the wealth and resources of our planet persist. Our direct official development assistance programme gives tangible proof of our commitment to the developing countries. The present Taoiseach, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, saw the need for our foreign policy to take account of the predicament and the wishes of the developing countries. Our bilateral aid programme was established in 1974 and a special agency to sponsor Irish people working in developing countries — the Agency for Personal Service Overseas — was also established in the same year with Government assistance. Since then and under successive Governments our assistance programme has expanded. It is fair to say that there is an increasing degree of consensus among the political parties on the importance of our involvement in this area.
Finally, I wish to turn to the question of Northern Ireland. The conflict and violence which most immediately concern us in Ireland is, of course, the conflict which has continued in Northern Ireland for the past 15 years. With its terrible toll of injury, death and destruction, that violence poses a threat to all of us in this island and indeed to our neighbours across the water in Britain. The men of violence, as we know only too well from recent events, recognise no frontiers when it comes to carrying out their murderous deeds. It is all the more important when one considers the lives lost at Darkley, Ballinamore and Harrods, that we all strengthen our resolve to do everything possible to end violence and find a peaceful political solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. It is our determination to achieve those ends which is the main plank of the Government's policy on Northern Ireland and which it shares with all the Members in this House. That same determination has also been the inspiration behind the work of the New Ireland Forum during the nine months it has been in existence.
The Government have repeatedly made clear their opposition to those in this island who make use of violence in the supposed pursuit of some political end. Their activities have served to deepen the divisions which already exist in Northern Ireland and that have been so eloquently and so feelingly and with such first-hand knowledge put forward during this debate, and particularly tonight, by Senator Rogers. They can only postpone the development of a normal and healthy society there which is essential if we are to achieve the reconciliation of all the people of Ireland. The assertion by those violent organisations, who would claim the label Republican or Nationalist, that they are working on behalf of the economically and socially oppressed has been eloquently exposed for the lying hypocrisy that it is by John Hume. Organisations such as the Provisional IRA and the INLA have by their activities added to the burden of those who are poor and disadvantaged in Northern Ireland. They have murdered and maimed their fellow Irishmen; they have closed businesses and destroyed jobs; they have prevented new investment and they have sought to intimidate the very communities they claim to protect.
As Senators Robb and Ryan recognise in their motion, it is not enough to condemn violence: one must work positively to eliminate anything which might be used to justify it. The violence of the Provisional IRA and its political associates in Sinn Féin has allowed many Unionists and British politicians mistakenly to present the problem of Northern Ireland as simply one of containing violence — as a purely security matter. No Irish Government can see it that way, and it is because we recognise the situation in Northern Ireland as essentially a political problem and a consequence of the divisions in our country that all constitutional nationalist parties regard the Forum as so important. The commitment of the various parties involved in the Forum process is a recognition by us all, in the truly nationalist tradition, that the most effective weapon we have against the forces of violence is the strength and coherence of our own united approach to establishing peace and stability throughout our country. The Forum has already succeeded in a very powerful way in demonstrating the terrible cost to our people of the violence in our country. Violence is the major obstacle in the way of the creation of a society in Ireland where no part of our people need fear oppression or discrimination. We must all hope that the Forum will now provide the means to a peaceful and united approach to the reconciliation of our people. Indeed, it is from just such an approach the men violence have most to fear.
