Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1984

Vol. 103 No. 2

Disarmament and Development: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator Robb on Wednesday, 1 February 1984:

That Seanad Éireann, appalled at the continuous proliferation of nuclear weapons, concerned at the impact in particular of arms expenditure on the poor of the world, determined to do everything possible to contribute to the resolution of the war in Ireland and recognising the growing acknowledgement of non-violent action as a form of resistance, calls on the Government to pursue a policy of positive neutrality committed to anti-nuclearism, nonaggression and support for the oppressed of the world.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "resolution of" and substitute the following:

"conflicts, and recognising the need to direct resources to the tasks of development, emphasises the need to pursue a policy of positive neutrality and opposition to nuclear armaments and calls on the Government to support development policies in solidarity with the oppressed of the world."

—(Senator Dooge.)

Mrs. Honan

Ireland is among the smallest states of Europe and nearly unarmed, with all due respects to our army, and we are not a member of any military alliance. Yet it would be foolish of us to cod ourselves that the big powers do not know or are not watching our moves. Indeed, if we only recall events of recent days it may be that history is repeating itself in this State.

We are all aware of the increasing anxiety among the Irish people of the dangers of nuclear war and the escalation of the arms race. Senator Rogers when speaking on this motion last week said: "The lucky ones are the ones who will die". That was a severe statement, but how true. The unthinkable horror of a nuclear war has added a new and terrifying dimension to the situation. It is the first time that we have certain death hanging over all of us, that is, if somebody presses the button.

We must not become entangled in any military alliance or pact. Every Irish Government must be vigilant and alert at all times to preserve our freedom and avoiding the siting of nuclear weaponry on any Irish soil — I presume the House will know the territory I am talking about. We must always stay alert, because while there is commerce being done by some of the great powers in part of our country it should in no way tie us to any military pact.

Our commitment to the democratic way of life is unswerving. In the EEC or in the United Nations or indeed in any other arena we must face the issue as it has had to be faced in recent times. I do not have to make reference to the place or to name it. Fianna Fáil will always seek by diplomatic and political means to prevent armed conflict; that is our tradition, even in difficult and dangerous times. Some of today's politicians do not think our neutrality is as important as I think it is. It is quite clear that the plain people of Ireland do not want any involvement in any military alliance that might jeopardise the neutrality of this nation.

We had a debate in this House on our air space, which still worries me, and a Bill which went through on 14 December 1983. In that debate we talked about the implications of Eurocontrol for our air space. I am still confused about whether we made proper decisions in the mid-sixties as a neutral country and with a positive stand on neutrality and as a non-member of NATO. I am still confused about some of the things that happened with air space and Eurocontrol. I am not talking about the movement of army personnel and their families; I am talking about military flights in our air space. We finished that legislation at that time and of course it was only the follow up of other legislation. I do not know if we saw the implications for our neutrality of the Eurocontrol Bill that went through. We want to be neutral and at the same time acknowledge the difficulties in preserving our neutrality. We should always be determined that we will not be the tool of any great power. That was our strength in the past; let us hope we will hold on to it.

Perhaps the papers do not always print the correct quotation, but Senator McGonagle was reported as saying that our neutrality is negotiable. I hope he was incorrectly quoted in the paper. Furthermore, Irish neutrality is very much linked with the need for Irish unity. If we exercise influence and command respect in international politics out of all proportion to the size of our country, maybe it is because we have such values as peace and our neutrality stand. We should try at all times to see that people are treated fairly in life, whether it be in regard to world peace or a nation at peace or even peace in the home, which is where peace starts.

I understand that negotiations were suspended between the Soviet Union and the USA in January 1983 on intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Geneva, and in Vienna between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I wonder have dates been fixed for new negotiations on these two matters. At all times there have been serious violations of human rights. Indeed in many parts of the world today they are continuing.

The phrase "not an inch" has been used many times, and I should like to put on the record of this House my positive stand on our neutrality, not an inch no matter what the gain might be. I have no doubt that in the long run we will not allow anyone to whittle away our ability to work for peace for all mankind. I am equally aware of the difficulties as a very small nation in hoping that the great powers might even begin to listen to us. I hope that at some time some Minister of the present Government will clear my mind about the confusion regarding our air space and the Eurocontrol legislation of past years, not just of last year.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I support the amendment to the motion and in so doing I would say to the proposers of the motion, Senators John Robb and Brendan Ryan, that in many ways it was due to a question of semantics that it was found necessary to put down an amendment. The motion itself is so complex and is comprised of so many diverse elements that it would be possible for somebody to agree with certain parts of it and disagree with other parts. To support it as a whole was not found possible, hence the putting down of the amendment.

I would preface my remarks by saying to Senator Honan that I spotted a correction in the press apropos of what Senator McGonagle was reported as saying about neutrality being negotiable. There was an apology to Senator McGonagle and a statement of what he had said in the debate in the Seanad. In Ireland neutrality has become one of our sacred cows. Every so often we take it down and we dust it off and have a look at it, groom it and talk about it, and then lead it back to where it came from. We are a small nation. We are non-aligned militarily and I suppose for the great majority of our citizens neutrality has no great impact on their consciousness. It is rarely debated with any vehemence and it is something that is in the recesses of people's minds rather than to the forefront of their consciousness. I feel, however, that there is a growing and very concerted lobby from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament people, and from all of those involved in peace groups and solidarity groups with oppressed Third World countries. This is bringing this issue more and more into the forefront of national debate. I would like to place on the record of this House my welcome for this kind of activity, my support for groups like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Third World solidarity groups which are springing up in the country and facing us with the reality of nuclear armament and of what this means to every man, woman and child in this country.

The recent screening of the film "The Day After" has given all of us something of an insight into what would happen in the event of a nuclear war, although many people felt that it was presented in a very softened way, that the actual and the real effect would be far more devastating than anything depicted in that film. In general the reaction following the screening of that film by RTE was one of horror and despair. Of course, there is a natural tendency with all of us when things become too horrendous, too horrific or too awful to contemplate that we just push them out of sight and out of mind. This is what a feeling of helplessness can do. It can bring about a relegation of something important into the "lost property" compartment of the mind.

This matter of neutrality and of nuclear disarmament is something about which we cannot be lethargic. We must take a constructive, positive attitude. In Ireland we are perhaps a little too modest about the impact that we could have in this area. We should be in the business of making our country a centre for peace studies. I do not see why we cannot in our third level institutes set up faculties of peace studies. This has been done successfully in other countries. In Ireland we are ideally placed to institute a faculty of peace studies in one or more of our universities so that we could become a centre and a focus for peace and peace studies in the world. It may seem something of a contradiction that a small country which is experiencing such inner turmoil should dare to consider setting up a peace faculty, but because we have known the actual effects of hostility, violence and struggle, we are the very people who are best placed to bring forward this idea. I suggest that it is something we could do in a very positive and concrete fashion to underscore and underline our neutrality. We are not powerless in the face of nuclear armament. We have a moral responsibility to act and it is one way in which we could be a force for peace.

I was interested to hear Senator Honan say she felt that peace and peace education begin in the home. I would absolutely concur with this. It begins from the very moment a child is placed in the arms of its parents. It begins with examining issues of conflict. It beings with negotiating. You can negotiate with a three-year-old and with a four-year-old. Too many Irish parents are not prepared for the hard slog that that kind of negotiating with a tiny child demands. How often do we see in a public place children slapped, children shaken, children just very forcibly told to pipe down or keep quiet, or "You cannot have that" or "Stop shouting". It is the very beginnings of peace education when somebody takes time to take a child aside and to explain, to persuade, to cajole and to bring about a situation of non-conflict.

I know that in Irish schools, often under the auspices of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace, there is a programme of peace education. In the Waterford area recently under the aegis of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, there was a very interesting weekend of peace education for primary school children. I was intrigued to learn from some of the participants that it had been very successful and that they had actually enjoyed the whole experience of being shown how to solve conflict, albeit in a very minor way when we compare it with the possibility of global conflict or national conflict. These children were shown how to solve a conflict of a very mundane, everyday nature — the sort of thing that would perhaps make them speak the harsh word or use physical violence in order to solve a disagreement. This is the way we must begin, both in the home and at primary and secondary schools.

In the context of the setting up of the Curriculum and Examinations Board, and particularly in the area of the reexamination of our curriculum, it should be possible for us to incorporate peace studies in our primary and secondary schools on a statutory basis or on a curriculum basis. All children would have a possibility to examine conflict, both in a personal and in a community and in a global sense. They would see that there are ways of handling conflict which do not mean that the first thing you do is to resort to violence or harsh words.

The other part of this motion deals with development. We recently had a debate in the Seanad in relation to the IDA loans. Some of us have gone to great lengths to discuss the area of disarmament and development and how the one takes from the other and the obscenity that exists in today's world which sees vast amounts of expenditure on arms. Then there is the awful tragedy of so many people living in under-developed countries, starving and hungry and deprived. There is not a Member in this House who would not agree that something has to be done to bring about a balance. It is even worse when you consider that in so many of the Third World countries so much money is being spent on arms right in the eye of the poverty, degradation and deprivation which so many people are suffering so needlessly, if there was but the political will, the effort and the energy expended to bring about a just allocation of resources in this world.

The motion also deals with solidarity with the oppressed of the world, and I would like to make a comment on that. Recently, Bishop Casey of Galway took it upon himself to fly to the Philippines as a gesture of solidarity with Father Niall O'Brien and the other people who are on trial in the Philippines. Father O'Brien's case has been highlighted in this country, and rightly so. He is one of our missionaries in the Third World. He is a signal or sign of oppression right across the world, and in reacting to him we are reacting to all oppressed people. He is the one we can identify with, the one whose situation we understand. Bishop Casey did us all a service in taking it upon himself to go out there as a gesture of solidarity.

I would also commend the decision of the Government to send somebody from our embassy in Australia to Father O'Brien on behalf of the Irish Government and people. All these gestures are important. The fact that the Irish Philippino group are holding a vigil tomorrow outside the American Embassy between 12 and 3 p.m. as a sign of solidarity with Fr. O'Brien is to be welcomed. I am confident that a large number of people, who would not be able to speak in any great depth or detail on oppression or nuclear arms or the Third World, will have a gut instinct and will want to express themselves in this gesture of solidarity.

Today in Managua in Nicaragua, there is a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the death of General Sandino whose political aspirations gave rise to a revolution there. Some Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas were asked to be present as a gesture of solidarity with the Nicaraguans at this time. To my knowledge people did not find it possible to attend. Such far-flown gestures of solidarity are not granted to all of us. I would like to express solidarity with the Nicaraguan people in their difficulties and wish them well in the peaceful development of their country.

The recent visit of the Minister of State — whom I am pleased to see here — to African countries, in particular Lesotho to examine the development work which the Irish Government are carrying out there under the aid programmes, is a gesture of solidarity with those who are working in the field of aid and with the people who are benefiting from the aid. As such it is done on behalf of all of us. It is important that it is so done.

I support the amendment to the motion. I regret that all the disparate elements could not have been teased out as individual motions. It made it difficult for all who contributed because there was so much to say about each section that it was difficult to make a global comment — I use that term advisedly. I thank the proposers of the motion for bringing it forward for discussion and I am pleased to have been able to add my comments to it.

Mr. Fallon

For me, as for people throughout the world, the thought of nuclear warfare is horrifying. The thought that mankind can be eliminated by a nuclear war is far too horrible even to contemplate. Yet from what we see and read it is a possibility. As Senator Bulbulia has commented, the film "The Day After" was unbelievable and caused shock waves throughout the nation. Indeed the picture painted by Senator Robb last week of what might happen was horrifying and something that we would hope never to experience.

For all of us and in particular for the young people of Ireland and throughout the world, the threat of nuclear war is something they worry about far more than the older generations. I know from listening to teenagers and students that it is a problem that worries them far more than we realise. We have cause for worrying because we are aware that East-West relations have worsened in recent years. We are aware that the nuclear arms race is continuing. We know from the Minister's speech that a figure of $550 billion per year is spent throughout the world on armaments. All these matters cause us concern.

When we consider the conflicts in so many regions throughout the world — Central America, the Lebanon, the Middle East and so on — and realise that in those conflicts there is a super power rivalry, we must express our concern that these super powers are directly or indirectly involved. That in itself is sufficient to cause concern and genuine worry. Nuclear war could have a devastating effect on countries far removed from the conflict, and is totally different to any other type of warfare. We have some experience in that the nuclear waste problem from Windscale has affected us in some way. News of an extension to the British fuel plant — at a cost of £2,000 million — must further worry us. The Government are correct in making their views known to the British Government, but more needs to be done. We need to be fully informed about what is taking place at Windscale. We have every right to be fully informed. In my opinion the British need to be far more forthcoming with information than they have been up to now. There is suspicions about the nuclear waste being poured into the Irish Sea, and assurances will have to be given about the effectiveness of our monitoring of the nuclear waste which finds its way into the air we breathe. These are matters which the Government should insist on and they should take every opportunity to have discussions with the British to find out exactly what is going on.

Regarding the question of neutrality, it is my opinion that the Irish people feel strongly about neutrality and they are as proud of what happened in 1939 as they are of any event in the history of the State. Neutrality is as important as it was in 1939. History has shown that Eamon de Valera, even when subjected to a measure of economic blackmail by the British for the return of the Treaty ports, or even when he was bullied politically by the British and Americans at a later stage of the war, remained cool, calm and knew exactly what he wanted. He favoured neutrality, the Irish people favoured neutrality and that was that. He steered the Irish ship of State safely through those turbulent years. The leader of the Government today can in some way take example from Eamon de Valera. Eamon de Valera in his international speeches did much to enhance his reputation in his own country. The Irish people were gratified to see their leader being accepted as a global statesman. Likewise for the leader of our country today, if he adopts a similar attitude and frame of mind, if at every international gathering he attends, in the United Nations or wherever, he assumes that type of role both in terms of neutrality for the Irish nation and in terms of his attitude to a possible nuclear war, then he too will emerge extremely high and proud in the minds of the Irish people.

People often ask what can we do and what should we do and as a small nation are we not very unimportant? I say, no, we are not. We can certainly take example from the late thirties. Whether it be the Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or whatever Minister is present, should speak out on our behalf at every opportunity to explain our abhorrence of the arms race, to tell the world that we want to retain our neutrality.

When one looks at it from a different angle, there are billions of dollars being spent on nuclear arms, and considering the large number of lives being lost in the Third World through malnutrition, hunger, lack of medical care and so on, what could this money not do for them? It seems to me to be clearly a world disgrace. Our role can be an effective role. We are a small nation but we are in many ways a respected nation of the world and our leaders can use every international platform available to highlight what we think of the problems of the world today.

Mr. O'Leary

The motion before us is one of the most comprehensive motions to come before the Seanad. It tends to deal with four distinct and different matters, some of which are interrelated or connected but some of which are not interrelated or connected. In my analysis the following are the four different elements which are contained within the motion which is before the House. Firstly, it deals with and makes reference to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Secondly, it deals with arms expenditure, in particular arms expenditure of a non-nuclear type in respect of poor countries. It attempts to deal with what it alleges to be a war in Ireland and, fourthly, it expresses support and solidarity for the oppressed people of the world. Individually each of these topics reflects great credit on the social awareness and social conscience of the movers of the motion. But I think the motion tries to deal within itself with all our foreign policy and tries to make judgments within that motion that are in conflict with our policy. It is too ambitious a motion. A series of motions on each individual topic would have contributed to the foreign policy of the Government of the country in a more comprehensive and constructive fashion. The amendment while not taking from the serious and comprehensive nature of the motion, seeks to limit it, in so far as it is possible, to a certain internal coherence, to bring a certain internal coherence into the motion, and it nearly succeeds in doing that. I would not make any further claim for it than that.

It goes without saying that everyone in this country is not only against the proliferation of nuclear weapons but we are against their very existence. Our objection is not only to the fact that more are being manufactured but to the fact that they were manufactured at all. We would not be satisfied with a policy by the great powers that would stop the manufacture of more nuclear weapons. We want to eliminate those nuclear weapons which are already in existence, so our policy in that regard has to go beyond the mere proliferation of nuclear weapons to the very core of their existence. In that regard the breakdown of negotiations in the various forums which are being used by the great powers to discuss disarmament in general and nuclear disarmament in particular is a source of very serious concern not only to the people and the citizens of the countries directly involved but also to the citizens of this country. It is timely that we should use this motion as an opportunity of expressing our support for the recommencement of those negotiations. We should not be too willing to ascribe bad or incorrect motives to what we would instinctively culturally and socially feel are the other side, the Communist power. The USA is not without its faults in this regard. The agreement which was called SALT II was signed by the United States of America but never ratified by the United States Senate. That was a very serious setback for the cause of world peace. Having said that, there is no doubt that the USSR has now or at least had in the recent past a substantial lead in terms of nuclear power aimed at the European Continent. But it was only a lead which made reference to a multiple of the capacity to destroy the whole Continent. There is a need for these powers to resume talks, and if it is necessary in order to resume these talks to include the United Kingdom and the French nuclear weapons in these discussions it is in the interest of the countries of western Europe that that should be done and that these talks should recommence without any further ado.

The problem of the arms exploitation, the money spent on arms and the effect which it has on the poor of the world is twofold. On the one hand the spending by countries who can ill afford it of a substantial portion of their gross national product on the purchase of arms is in itself something which should be condemned. In addition to that, the effect which the resulting arms can have on the internal politics of the country is something which again should make us all examine and criticise the situation. In this regard we have appealed in this House in the past and we should use this opportunity to appeal again to both the USSR and the United States of America not to base their foreign aid on the basis of an acceptable or friendly foreign policy. There is no doubt that almost all the foreign aid of the USSR has a political basis and a political bias. It appears to those of us who are friendly disposed to the United States of America that under the present administration their foreign policy is moving in the same direction. It is something which we should insist should be stopped. Aid should be given because it is needed and not because of a particular foreign policy.

The motion goes on to consider the question of the resolution of the war in Ireland. I could not accept this. As far as I am concerned there is no war in this country. Passing this motion would give a status to violence in this country which I cannot agree with. People have said that violence is violence and calling it war will not make it any different, but, whether we like it or not, the word "war" has a special legal status. If we mention war in a motion in this House, even though we do so without any particular significance, without meaning any particular thing, it will be portrayed outside as meaning war in the legal sense. It will be portrayed by the most objectionable and violent fascists in Europe who profess to act in my name and in the name of the Republic.

Fourthly, the motion goes on and discusses support for the oppressed of the world. Of course we must support the oppressed of the world, the poor, the victims of governments who have a political system that does not grant to their citizens the level of personal freedom which is compatible with every individual's personal rights. The poor of the world include the victims of dictatorship, even though they might be materially well off. It includes the victims of cultural deprivation. It includes emigrants who are badly treated in countries throughout the world. All these people are entitled to our support and our help but because the motion gives a status to the conflict in Ireland which would be misrepresented by those in whose interest it would be so to misrepresent them, the motion itself, as far as I am concerned, cannot be acceptable, much as I sympathise with three of the four headings of those who propose the motion.

I think the amendment, while staying, in so far as is possible to do so, within the comprehensive framework which was the intention of the movers of the motion, corrects the defects which are inherent in the motion itself and I hope the Seanad will pass the motion as amended.

Mrs. McGuinness

I am very glad to have an opportunity of speaking to this motion. To begin with, I look at both the wording of the original motion and the wording of the amendment and I find, in a way, that I have a sympathy with both sides in that I take Senator O'Leary's point about the use of the word "war" and indeed I am inclined to share his feelings about it, that the use of the word "war" carries a connotation which I think perhaps we ought not to bring into this. On the other hand, I would have liked to keep the acknowledgment of non-violent action as a form of resistance because I feel that in the way in which the various demonstrations and protests about nuclear weaponry have been carried out recently it is important to show that one can resist these things by non-violent methods and that we can support that kind of non-violent action which has indeed a very respectable history behind it. One has only to think of the campaigns of Gandhi in India and various other non-violent leaders who could successfully bring about a change in policy without the necessity of trying to destroy, maim kill or act in a way that would injure their neighbours. I feel that an acknowledgment of non-violence as a method of working is an important thing.

I would hold also with the idea of a policy of positive neutrality as in the amendment and the need to support development policies in solidarity with the oppressed of the world because neutrality, non-violence and anti-nuclearism are not just matters between east and west, between the powers of the Western World, as it were, the Americans and those who support them, the NATO powers, and the Warsaw Pact powers. If we are to have peace in the world and a lasting peace and a peace based on justice, we also have to deal with the gaps between the developed nations and the underdeveloped nations and we have to follow out the ideas that were included in the Brandt Report which was debated some time ago in this House.

In a sense, I feel that there are good things in both the original motion and in the amendment. This is not the first time that this House has dealt with this or related factors and in December 1981 Professor John A. Murphy, who was then a Member of this House, and myself put forward a motion: "That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to declare unequivocally that Ireland will not join a military pact". That was also a debate which turned out to be a debate on the issue of positive neutrality. It is important that we should keep on standing by this policy and not let it be nibbled away or gradually eroded by people who say that we need to support one side or the other, or that it is important to us in the context of the EEC to be prepared to trade in our neutrality for this, that or the other, or indeed, even more temptingly, by people who suggest to us that we may have to trade in this policy in exchange for a united Ireland, which puts a difficult choice in front of us. We should not allow ourselves to be put into a position of choosing between these things.

I would say that this kind of policy, this policy of positive neutrality, of "anti-warism" has a very respectable history in Ireland and it goes back much further than the beginning of the State. Theoretically one can say that we could pursue a policy of neutrality as a State only from 1922 onwards or, indeed, maybe even from 1938 onwards when the British evacuated the various ports and so on. If we look back into our own history there are several threads which come together in this, the reason why we feel the way we do about world affairs nowadays. There were in the past about three aspects of Ireland's international involvement before we were a State on our own, as it were. The first of these, perhaps, was our missionary activities in which we involved ourselves in the underdeveloped world, in various other countries of the world through our own mission, through our missionary religious activities, and by that means we learnt a great deal about how other people lived and the needs of the less well off countries of the world and we created a kind of sympathy between ourselves and, say, the countries in Africa who even nowadays very often prefer to have Irish consultants and so on advising them rather than consultants from a country in Europe that they know is committed to some particular side in the Cold War as it were. I think this was one of the threads. Another thread was our support for anyone who was an enemy of Britain because we felt that they were friends of ours, and this is something which went on through the centuries but which has now been overtaken by history.

The third and perhaps the most important aspect in connection with this motion is that the real ancestor of our present feelings about neutrality is that we have a general sort of nationalist unwillingness to become involved in imperial wars. There were numbers of imperial wars in the past, carried out by England but by other countries as well, and we rejected this particular type of war and we still do so. In this connection I would like to quote from a pamphlet written by Wolfe Tone in 1790. He wrote a pamphlet referring to the danger of Ireland becoming involved in a war between Britain and Spain. This pamphlet was entitled "An Enquiry: How far Ireland is bound as of right to embark in the impending contest on the side of Great Britain". He pointed out that with us the question was not who was wrong or who was right. He said that ours were discussions of a very different nature, to foster and cherish a growing trade, to cultivate and civilise a yet unpolished people, to obliterate the impression of ancient religious feuds, to watch with incessant and anxious care the cradle of an infant constitution. These are our duties and these are indispensable.

I suggest that the duties listed here by Wolfe Tone are, in fact, still with us. We still have to eliminate the impression of ancient religious views. We still have to guard the cradle of our infant constitution. We still should concentrate on doing this for ourselves without becoming involved in imperialist wars.

We saw this feeling arising in the nationalist attitude of Sinn Féin to the Boer War in South Africa where there was the wish not to become involved in what they saw as an imperialist war; and again in our neutrality in World War II, in our refusal to join NATO, which was connected with the position with regard to the Six Counties but was not entirely due to that, I would suggest. Our policy of neutrality throughout the years has not been just a matter of ideology or a matter of mere Government policy, it is firmly rooted in our history and in our feelings as a nation.

There have been times recently when one has felt that this policy is being nibbled away. There are newspaper articles, there are interviews with various leading people, NATO military men, different kinds of experts on foreign affairs, in inverted commas, who are trying one way or another in a subtle fashion to push us into the nuclear camp. We need eternal vigilance to make sure that this does not happen to us, particularly when it comes in the guise of people telling us: Well, after all, we support the Christian way of life and, therefore, our hearts are on one side, our hearts are obviously going to be on the side of the West, because they are supporting the Christian way of life. I cannot see what can be more supportive of the Christian way of life than a total rejection of nuclear weapons and a seeking after peace on all sides. I cannot see how one can argue that the preparation of a nuclear holocaust can be part of the Christian way of life. To me the people who are seeking, not only as Senator O'Leary said, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but to progress the dismantling of nuclear weapons, are the true Christians. We must at all costs resist any efforts to push us into a nuclear camp of one sort or another.

I would also feel, as I have said, that we need to couple this, as is suggested in the amendment to the motion, with the development of the Third World so as to end the North-South disparity as well as the East-West conflict. It is true, of course, that we, in common with all other countries in the developed world, are suffering very badly from a recession. Nevertheless the difference between our standards of living and our way of life and that of many of the countries in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world, the countries where we see not only famine and starvation but also oppression, is really extremely marked. We cannot evade our duty to try to do something about this, to try to evolve development policies that will end this kind of disparity or at least work towards its ending.

To conclude, I would like to support the motion, as amended, but I would have preferred had they not cut out the phrase about non-violent action as a form of resistance, because I feel that we can be a non-violent example to the rest of the world if we continue in our policy of rejecting nuclear arms and pursuing a policy of positive neutrality.

Mr. Ferris

I want to say a few words on this subject. I do not want to go over the ground that other speakers have gone over. The reason for the amendment was the inference in the original resolution that there is a war in Ireland, which would be quite a dangerous decision for this House to make or to agree that somebody else had made it on our behalf. It was because of that that the Leader of the House and myself decided that it would be proper that the House should discuss the whole area of our neutrality, our positive attitude to a continuing role of neutrality and a commitment from the Government to support development policy in the Third World. It was a reasonable way to approach the resolution which had been moved by Senator Robb and Senator Ryan. I was certainly glad of the opportunity which was given to us by both of these Senators to have this House express an opinion as to how we feel.

The great powers in the world are progressing down the road to a nuclear holocaust which, if it happens, is likely to affect all of us. If we maintain a positive role of neutrality, not taking part in any of the requirements of NATO or any other military alliance, the most we can hope for is that we would not become a target, deliberately or accidentally, for nuclear attack. Because of our stand on neutrality from the foundation of the State our voice is a very important voice. It has been used with tremendous force in assemblies such as the United Nations where we are listened to because of the power we carry as a small nation which has promoted the interests of underprivileged people thoughout the world and the fact that we are pacifist in our attitudes to war, nuclear war in particular.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, who is with us tonight, has had several opportunities of spelling out in detail in this House his particular attitude and his interest in this field for which he has shown a tremendous enthusiasm since assuming the office of Minister of State in that Department. His voice is recognised in many areas throughout the world as one representing a neutral nation such as ours. Naturally, we in the Labour Party will never be satisfied with the amount of money that we can make available to underprivileged people. Taking our limited resources, certainly the oppressed nations of the world must know that there is a commitment on our part to sustain to the highest possible degree the level of support that we would give to people who are suffering and in underprivileged conditions in parts of the world, not because nations are in a nuclear race with one another, the East or the West, but because of the overemphasis of the available capital that they have which is used for military purposes. The demands of these poorer nations get ignored by the major countries in the world, and that is a tragedy. That is why I feel the poorer nations, particularly in South America, could be helped in a much more positive way by people if they did not spend so much money on the arms race.

Several excellent documents were prepared on this subject by many leading people in the CND movement. The Irish trade union movement have a very positive view on our neutrality. In the twenties the Cosgrave Government endeavoured to pursue a policy of neutrality within the British Commonwealth, and later Mr. de Valera adopted a positive role on neutrality. All Governments since have followed that line of policy, and rightly so.

The trade union movement goes back much further than the foundation of the State as we understand it. It goes back further than 1922. At the outbreak of the 1914 war the executive of the Irish Council of Trade Unions and the Labour Party issued a proclamation, "Why should Ireland starve?" in which it declared that "a war for the aggrandisement of the capitalist class has been declared" and warned the women of Ireland! "It is you who will suffer most by this foreign war. It is the sons you reared at your bosom that will be sent to be mangled by shot and torn by shell, it is your fathers, husbands and brothers whose corpses will pave the way to glory for an Empire which despises you."

That was the attitude of the trade union movement and the attitude of Connolly to the then Irish Parliamentary Party when they were pledging support for the British war effort. Indeed, when Connolly set off for America at that time he had a banner stretched across the front of Liberty Hall with the slogan, "We serve neither King nor Kaiser." That attitude of the trade union movement would be confirmed today in even more vocal terms. If there was ever any doubt about our attitude to positive neutrality, the trade union movement would be to the forefront in ensuring that the strongest possible lobby would be launched in the defence of our neutrality.

Spectacular figures have been quoted which are spent by the large and powerful nations on armaments. They show that 15 million people are engaged throughout the world in providing military goods and services. That is a colossal number of people engaged in providing war materials or machines for the destruction of mankind. They show that a total of half a million people such as world scientists and engineers are involved in military areas and half a million qualified professional research and development workers are engaged in military programmes which currently consume $35 billion every year from world resources. If so much money was not spent in the area of armaments, look at the benefits to mankind throughout the underprivileged parts of this world in food, in assistance and in health services. People are starving because the nations who can afford to look after them do not do so. As a socialist I feel that richer nations should look after poorer nations. People are suffering. Because of this vast expenditure of public funds on armaments the poorer sections are neglected.

There is another statistic which is important in the context of the United States: 50 per cent of all their taxation is recycled not into making social progress but directly into military funding. As a small nation we will have to look at that. We are friendly with America. We have generations of historic connections with that country. We will have an opportunity in the near future, if the President of America visits us, to extend to him the courtesy his office entitles him to, but the opportunity should be availed of to express our concern about this policy and that of his administration on the whole question of the arms race.

Naturally the same would apply, and much more vehemently, to the Eastern bloc. Much of the information coming from there may be classified but from what we can gather, the USSR spent even a larger proportion of the money available to them on the arms race, instead of looking after people who are obviously in need. They spend money on armaments for status and to threaten the other side who already have a finger near a button with the fact that they have a finger near a button also. What worries me is that nations like ourselves are between the two buttons and people can fall between two stools.

The fact that there is a deployment of nuclear missiles in Britain is a frightening concept for us. We must compliment the women of Greenham Common who, over a number of years, have dedicated their energies to protesting about the deployment of that kind of missile so close to large areas of population. If one consults with our civil defence organisations and looks at the possible target points for a nuclear attack in Britain, they are so close that it is inevitable that we as a nation would suffer here in the event of an attack. I am glad that in the coming week through the national media the civil defence people will be alerting people to what they could do in the event of a catastrophe like that happening.

It is important that the Irish people should know we have people, voluntary and otherwise, in civil defence who have a specific programme to help people in that unfortunate situation. Please God it will never happen, but it is appropriate that we should be aware of it. They are about to launch a campaign which will confirm that they have a progressive programme which will be of benefit to ordinary people in the event of somebody in the east or the west losing his head and pressing buttons that could destroy half the world.

It has been argued that because people have deployed nuclear missiles wars have been prevented. In the 35 years since the last use of an atomic weapon, there have been outbreaks of violence all over the world, but there has not been any nuclear war, I contend that the deployment of these missiles created not an atmosphere of peace but an atmosphere of fear. Whether people will over-react in an atmosphere of fear worries me. I am pleased that the Government are following the line this House has expressed on numerous occasions in the past. The Government have reiterated it. That view has been expressed going back to Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. de Valera and the trade union movement in various forums throughout the world. Our stance on this issue is recognised.

We have to be extremely careful as a member of the European Community. The majority of the members are closely associated with NATO. There can be no doubt about our attitude. Our members out there should be in no doubt whatsoever about the attitude of the parties here and the Government's stand on this issue. That could be dangerous. It almost happened in recent times and I was extremely worried about it.

The amendment is reasonable. It covers the spirit of the original motion without getting into the area of a war being declared in this country which we know is not true. There are some minority sections on this side of the Border.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is using some of Senator Robb's time.

Mr. Ferris

I was not aware of that. I had forgotten the time. I will conclude my remarks as a mark of respect to Senator Robb. The motion, as amended, is worth supporting.

Mr. Robb

I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, although I feel that you are perhaps being a little generous as I understand a quarter of an hour is the time allotted for summing up. Am I correct? Secondly, I wish to thank Senator Ferris for being so generous as to take his seat and allow me to proceed.

Although the Coalition parties felt disposed to amend the original motion proposed by Senator Brendan Ryan and myself, and although the overwhelming majority of speakers could not accept the full implications of the original motion, I would very much like, on behalf of both Senator Ryan, an expectant father, and myself, to thank Senators for their extremely constructive criticism of the proposal which we brought before the House, and to thank them also for their interesting and, at times, provocative and informative contributions. Even though Senators have chosen not to accept the motion in its original form, and even though some, at least, will be voting in favour of the amendment, there has been a very good spirit throughout this debate as one might expect in a debate which not only deals with the local situation in Ireland but tries to give relevance to the Irish situation throughout the world.

We are both very grateful for the generous allotment of time, a Chathaoirligh, given to this motion. Perhaps in view of the comments that have been made by many Senators, it is not altogether surprising. We were both conscious of the fact that we presented the Seanad with a banquet of motions and Senators barely had time to enjoy one single course in the banquet so presented. However, this leads me on to another query. Have we allowed enough time and enough occasions to debate motions? There are 52 weeks in the year and we certainly do not have 52 motions. It is an opportunity for Senators to debate a wide range of issues, to get publicity for them, and to promote discussion of them. I welcome such an opportunity.

Because of the impossibility of finding time to discuss all the various elements in this motion throughout the course of a year in the Seanad, it is, perhaps, just as well that we endeavoured to put too much in to it and to embrace too much as a result. The issues encompass some of the most important matters of our time, such as nuclearism, both in the form of the arms race to oblivion and also in the form of nuclear pollution such as we have seen so well followed up and described in "Windscale Pollution of the Irish Sea". The Windscale pollution is only one aspect of pollution with its intra- and international implications.

Only this week we read in the Sunday newspapers in Northern Ireland of hundreds of tons of toxic chemical waste being dumped into the bar of Belfast Lough. We now have the Irish Sea being polluted from both the western and the eastern side of it. As I emphasised in proposing this motion two weeks ago, that also has implications for the food chain of fish life in the Irish Sea. Of course wherever pollution occurs for the food chain of animal life it ultimately gets into the human food chain. Not only do we have parthenogenic and genetic concern, particularly in relation to the effects of nuclear radiation, but we also have the toxic effect on vulnerable cells and organs such as the liver and the kidneys.

Pollution moves us into the whole area of ecological constraint to technological growth, and the need to develop new attitudes which are consistently pro-life in earnest, and not selectively so. It is a matter of a new attitude of mind to cope with the new dimension and the new propensity for self-destruction which mankind is now launching upon itself through the dark side of our nature to which Senator Higgins referred, and which refers to the dark side of technological development when so much could be expected of it for the benefit of mankind.

Senator Higgins developed his theme by appealing for a changed mentality or, as he put it, an integrated rather than a fragmented nature of approach. Like other Senators, he emphasised the irony of poverty and pollution side by side with plenty, the pleading of so many people in the world on the one hand and the hoarding by the lucky few on the other. In this respect while President Reagan chose to allocate — and let me say this for the benefit of the press who quoted me wrongly on the last occasion — $650 billion for the new MX system of missiles, $40 billion, as was pointed out by Senator Ryan, would be enough to meet the basic needs of the deprived people of the world.

Senator Dooge introduced a warning about the pollution of outer space through militarism and militarisation. Let us not divert our attention too exclusively to nuclearism. There are many other things we should be concerned about — the potential development of accuracy for destruction of laser beams and such like.

I should like to comment on the remarks made by Senator Hanafin. He stressed a very important point — speaking from the heart as he always does — when he emphasised the effect Russian youth had on his daughter when visiting that great country. He referred to the horror that youth have in Russia just as much as they have in the West for the potential of these ghastly weapons. Someone else emphasised that while we are free to protest in the West, they are not free to do so in the East. He emphasised the peace loving as well as the peace-making challenge to people such as ourselves and he alluded to Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Senator Rogers chose to emphasise — with a point which was picked up in the press — that the victors would be those who had died in a nuclear holocaust, that the ones who survived would be the real losers. Senator Eoin Ryan dealt with the Russian dimension, too, when he suggested that there was a lot of myth perpetrated in the West about the potential for nuclear violence on behalf of the Russian people and that they are just as scared of America as America seems to be scared of them and that we should consider this when we are dealing with the whole matter of East-West relationships. Senator McGonagle also emphasised this point. He said there was a great fear in Russia of the United States of America.

I was delighted to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs making an absolute commitment to neutrality on behalf of the State. He gave a graphic account of the £1 million spent per minute on arms, and he indicated that this could be spent on Third World development and for the use of the poor and the needy.

Senator Honan, speaking from the heart, reminded us, as she always does, that just as County Antrim is in Ireland so is County Clare, and that we speak for the whole country when we speak about these matters because they affect us all. I was glad to hear Senator Bulbulia emphasise that there was a danger of making a sacred cow out of neutrality. That brings us on to what we mean by positive neutrality. I must apologise to Senator Fallon as I was called out during his speech but I look forward to reading it. Senator O'Leary confirmed what we realised early on, that the motion was perhaps too ambitious, although as I have said we do not make any apology for it.

With regard to the war in Ireland, however, I must emphasise that having lived in it and close to it for the past 15 years, it may not be a declared war, but there is a simmering undeclared civil war situation in the North of Ireland. It has been allowed to persist because neither London nor Dublin have been prepared to face up together in relation to Northern Ireland to the implications for them of the resolution of a conflict which they failed — and I emphasise it again — to resolve completely some 60 years ago.

Again, I appeal to the press to make a correction. In extrapolating the casualty figures for Northern Ireland into Britain, we are talking in terms of 75,000 dead and three quarters of a million wounded if these figures were transferred to Britain. If that is not a war, I do not know what is. On the night before last the hopes of 175 people were blown out when they lost their jobs as their factory was blown apart. Last night, within six miles of my own home, three people were killed. There is now a wall in Belfast that separates the two sides. Unless we come to grips with this fact, we are doomed in Northern Ireland to continue to go round in circles, participating in a debate in a climate of unreality. Until we face up to the reality of the unresolved conflict in relation to Northern Ireland between Dublin and London, we in Northern Ireland will be unable to break out from the trap into which we have been pushed for far too long.

Finally, with regard to non-violent action, which was the other contentious issue, I am glad Senator McGuinness dealt with this. It is time we questioned and threw this challenge to people who perpetrate violent acts. A violent act — and I speak from very close personal experience of people who have been involved — does not just affect those against whom it is directed. It also affects the perpetrators both in their spirit and in their minds. Violence is defined elsewhere as the physical, sexual or psychological penetration of one human being by another against their will, and force is the threat to use such violence. It matters not whether one is wearing a uniform or not. You cannot change the definition.

However, I should like to emphasise that a uniform confers legitimacy which helps many people to live with the result of violent acts they have been obliged to do in the course of duty. Once we talk of legitimacy, however, we are faced with awkward questions in a country where there is, as yet, no consensus, where we have not as yet come to an accommodation which would give the forces of law and order the legitimacy of acting on behalf of a united people.

If we are to move towards a non-violent society, we urgently need a constructive political solution to sectarianism in the North, to partition on this island. Only then will we start to get rid of the serious psychological and social problems associated with the guilt of violence which comes to us from our past. Positive neutrality is something that starts in one's own heart. It is to do with peace and it is to do with returning to the hearths in our homes, or, as Schumacher has called it, becoming a home-comer and leaving the ford stampede.

Positive neutrality should be seen, therefore, as an expression of Ireland's message to the world. We are uniquely placed in relation to the Third World, having suffered from colonialism, and having been part of the colonial problem. We have a network of missionaries, to which people have alluded, around the world who relate to what is best in the tradition of service among the Irish people. We have a young generation who require a new lead. Prepare them to meet the youth of the world to promote an anti-nuclear, peace-making pro-life global society. Prepare them to do this by opening up the languages of the world to our Irish school children so that they can go out once again as the new missionaries in the technological age to promote the new technology for constructive purposes and to persuade the youth in the rest of the world that we have had enough destruction in our time.

I should like to thank Senator Ferris for his generosity in allowing me a few extra minutes. I thank him also for highlighting for us the problem of how capital gets caught up in militarism, and how we will need a new politic to divert capital employed for military activity towards the needs of a starving Third World. He referred indirectly to the button brains on the two sides. Button brains are a symptom of the disease which I discovered two years ago of advanced nuclear sclerosis which has affected the aged men and the middle-aged woman who inhabit the Kremlin, the White House and 10 Downing Street.

I should also like to take this opportunity to support the women of Greenham Common. Those women have stood out for something which, if the world is to survive, will be recognised as a turning point in history. Therefore, as I conclude I am disappointed that Senators have not come to terms with our original motion, but I am glad that in the terms they have chosen to discuss it, we have had such a constructive and such a generous debate. I do not intend, therefore, to oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 February 1984.