Oireachtas Delegation to Nicaragua: Motion.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move:

That Seanad Éireann urges the Government to implement the recommendations of the report of the inter-party Oireachtas Joint delegation to Nicaragua.

I rise to propose this motion that the Seanad take note of the report of the inter-party delegation to Central America, particularly in relation to the elections which took place in Nicaragua.

I want to raise a point about the authenticity of language itself. In the last two weeks both President Reagan and Ambassador Shultz made statements that it was their intention to replace the government in Nicaragua, to destabilise the government in Nicaragua and this opinion was offered to the international community. Therefore, I pose my first question to the Minister of State, whom I welcome here, as to whether he will specifically comment on the statement by President Reagan and by Mr. Shultz that it is their intention to replace the government in Nicaragua? I stand here as a Member of Seanad Éireann. Senator Ross is another Member of this House. There are two Members of the other House who went to Nicaragua to observe the elections, to witness the election of President Daniel Ortega and Vice-President Sergia Ramirez and a whole assembly of people. I ask a straight question, what is our comment on President Reagan and Mr. Shultz's statement that it is their intention to replace the government in Nicaragua? I want to say a number of things about the report which has been placed before the Members of the Seanad and the Members of the Dáil. It is sometimes asked why should we be interested in distant countries, why should we be interested in countries that have problems when we ourselves have so many problems? The first point I want to make about the report that is before the Seanad is that it has been signed by representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Independent group in both Houses. It is an expression of our view on Nicaragua. It is not my view. It is the agreed view of all the parties in commenting upon the Nicaraguan elections and the Nicaraguan situation.

This debate is taking place in an atmosphere of the greatest danger to Nicaragua. I believe that, as is indicated in the report, the threats to Nicaragua are four. There is the threat of military intervention, there is the threat of the continual war of economic attrition, there is the undermining of the political initiatives in the region towards peace and there is the media warfare that is going on. I appreciate being able to speak freely here about Nicaragua in a way that I cannot on RTE, for example, where we are so dependent on foreign newscasts and so on. I appreciate the freedom to speak here and the appropriate parallel is Spain in the thirties. The Spanish Republic was allowed die because people were silent and ineffectual. The Nicaraguan experiment today survives because of the international interest in Nicaragua. That is what sustains it at the end of the day.

I want to give a quotation from "Policy Alternatives for the Caribbean and Central America" published by the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington DC, 1984. Henry Kissinger is speaking to the Foreign Minister of Chile. He says:

You come here speaking of Latin America, but this is not important. Nothing important can come from the South. History has never been produced in the South. The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo. What happens in the South is of no importance.

That was 1969. What has happened, we may ask, between 1969 and 1985? The experiment in Nicaragua would be regarded as the second most important item, next to star wars, in the United States foreign policy item. What has happened has been the invention of the demonology, a demonology that consists internally in the United States in the suggestion that a fundamentalism that has been the vehicle of that, that suggests that we are fighting a fundamental war for freedom internally, Christ in the classroom, and externally tax exemption for all the fundamentalist, existentialist, evangelical sects that go through Central America and Latin America. It has been the idea that you can wipe out the historical experience of Central America and Latin America and invent it as a new problem area, an area that can be addressed by armaments, deployments and so forth. You have, if you like, and I hope they are present here because they rarely present themselves to the public, the people from the US Embassy, the people who want to offer us facts that they never justify and who refuse to meet us on the position of fact. People like myself who are on their now famous list of critics of the United States foreign policy have made ourselves available at the US Embassy to meet all the different experts on Central and Latin America that they have produced but they refuse to answer fundamental questions about our position in relation to Central and Latin America. I pose these questions again. The world according to Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan is a very interesting one. We are invited to two different views. What has happened in Nicaragua? In 1979, 40 per cent of the gross domestic product was owned and controlled by the extended Somoza family. It was a country in which you had one of the highest child infancy mortality rates. Two-thirds of the population were illiterate. People were totally excluded from participation and decision making.

In July 1979, when the final Somoza flew out of the country, they inherited a debt of $1.6 billion, half of which had never been expended in Nicaragua. The assets of the country had been used by the Somoza family as collateral for borrowings. Despite the request of 27 different institutions, the International Monetary Fund insisted on going ahead and lending money to an organisation which the Somoza family had abused already, the disaster relief fund, following the earthquake in Managua in Nicaragua. They have since then inherited a debt of $2 billion, half of which has been spent on social expenditure and half of which has been spent on economic expenditure. The way it works is this. In five years since 1979 more money has been spent on housing than had been spent in the previous 40 years under Somoza. The illiteracy rate has been reduced to 12.8 per cent. It sticks at around 12 per cent because you are now encountering the adults, and so on.

What is at stake in this debate is the integrity of Irish foreign policy. I want to place a number of specific questions before the people who represent the Minister in this debate. First, do we accept unconditionally the right to sovereignty of Nicaragua? How do we square that recognition with the statement by Ronald Reagan and Mr. Schultz that it is their intention to advocate the destabilisation of the democratically elected Nicaraguan Government? What is the purpose in the Seanad or the Dáil of saying that we accept an international law or convention if we accept that? What is their response to that? I do not want to end this debate without hearing a very specific response to that question. How can you say that you condemn the freedom fighters in Northern Ireland and say in the same speech that the people who represent a threat against the democratically elected Nicaraguan Government are freedom fighters? What is our view on that? We need an answer.

There are four basic dimensions to the report before the House. For a start, we recognise the contribution that was made by the Irish presence during the presidency of the European Community. Our attitude there was one of integrity. Let us record it immemorially. The suggestion in the famous Schultz letter to the four leading members of the European Community was exclude Nicaragua from any aid that is on offer to Central America. A motion to effect that was proposed by Britain, defeated, proposed in an amended form by the Christian Democratic administration in Germany and this was defeated and we behaved with honour.

My second question is how much are we willing to follow on from our position of integrity in San Jose at the end of September. How much are we willing to defend this nation? Will the Minister make a statement as to the status of this question in the Council of Ministers and the European Council? I have been pleased by the response I have got from the Department of Foreign Affairs today. My third question is, will I specifically hear how under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the exclusion of Nicaragua is being manipulated? I demand that details of all the meetings that have taken place in which the implementation of the Caribbean Basin initiative that followed the Kissinger Commission that excluded Nicaragua from all aid, the manner in which the derogations that have been sought by the United States have been either assisted, implemented or supported by the Irish Government, be placed as a matter of public record before the elected representatives of this House.

Why should we be concerned? We should be concerned because we are witnessing in Central and Latin America the undoing of dependency. I spoke of the world according to Ronald Reagan and Jean Kirkpatrick. It asks us to wipe out the historical experience of the countries that comprise Central America and Latin America and asks us to reduce them to the description, in present times, of trouble spots. What our report does is to advert to the history of these countries and their history is one of colonialism, colonialism superimposed on colonialism. There was the 16th century occupation of these countries. There was the response to coffee as a commercial crop. There was the intervention of the United States, and it goes on.

The Vice-President of Nicaragua in this city said, less than two weeks ago, "Our dispute with the people who colonised us is older than the Russian revolution", and that is right because it was in the 19th century that William Walker with a bunch of mercenaries invaded Nicaragua, restored slavery as a principle and said that English would be the language of the country. We move on from that to the point at which despotism had been made safe by the establishment of the National Guard and the establishment of the Somoza family, the exclusion of most of the people of Nicaragua from participation. Now today we face an interesting situation. The United States' view is that the people in Central America are not struggling to own land, to have literacy, to seek participation, to govern their own country, it is that they have been possessed by demons, demons of Communism. They say there are Soviet Union and Cuban people present. I will not delay the proceedings of the House talking about the bizarre attempts of the United States administration to produce a single Cuban in relation to the El Salvador situation.

In Nicaragua the argument is about an economy of simplicity. These are the questions the Seanad must put before itself. Can a country — the parallel is Spain in the 1930s — under our own gaze be destabilised by its most powerful neighbour? What is our attitude to the transformation taking place within that country? You go on from that. I say this to the people from the Department of Foreign Affairs — can you balance for example, potential initiatives in relation to Anglo-Irish relations and bargain off that you will return a country that has overthrown a dictatorship to conditions that are less than a democracy? Is it the price you are going to pay? All right. The position in Nicaragua today is a very interesting one. They have committed themselves to political pluralism, to a mixed economy. What does that mean? It means that every day in Nicaragua there are people wandering up and down complaining about the Government. La Prensa publishes nearly every day criticism of the Government. Archbishop Obando y Bravo appears on radio and television criticising the Government. People who watch for Somoza appear regularly. Then, in relation to the mixed economy, 61 per cent of the economy is in private ownership. Of that 61 per cent 39 per cent is in co-ops and so on.

All right. We look outside at Nicaragua and we say political pluralism, mixed economy. What is the price to be paid for that? The price to be paid is this. The subsidies have ended recently. So there are going to be shortages of soap and basic commodities and so on and so on. There is going to be the capability of creating internal dissent, and I have in front of me a report of the proceedings of the National Security Council of 29 September in the United States, in which they say:

We are going to contact our friends in Europe and our friends in the European Community and the Vatican can be relied on to produce statements about the way that the Pope was mistreated and so on.

What is our attitude towards that in relation to the representation of the real facts within Nicaragua. I believe that we have encountered a crisis of language. I add my next question, which I do not want to be evaded and to which I want an answer. There are four major ways in which Nicaragua can be destabilised. Our report recognises the military aggression. There are people who might be here who do not recognise that. Can you imagine this? A million and a half people massed on the United States border with Canada and 800,000 people massed on their border with Mexico. What would be our reaction? That is the equivalent of the mercenaries supported by the United States in relation to Nicaragua.

The second threat is economic — the exclusion of Nicaragua, particularly since 1982, from most of the sources of international aid. It alone of all the Central American countries — and I hope the representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs will respond to this — is being excluded from aid for roads, rural health and housing from the Inter-American Bank. It has had to dislocate its trade pattern in favour of Iran and Libya, creating all the political repercussions that automatically follow, and it is precluded in relation to debt renegotiation.

The third major element is in relation to the status of the process that is known as the Contadora process.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has two minutes to conclude.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Contadora process is a scruffy, indigenous response to the problems of Central and Latin America. It deserves to be taken seriously. It is heard in the wake of the British Malvinos relationship and the disastrous United States support for that. It has to be explained in this House. My fourth point is the media effect, the whole way in which everything is so difficult for a country in which people die before the age of 50, in which the majority of children suffer all the child illnesses, in which most people are illiterate and do not participate, the manner in which that society will be crushed by our deciding to close our eyes. I want in conclusion to thank my colleagues who went with me to Nicaragua to witness for themselves what was taking place. It is as simple as this. Do you want to live in the comfort of the great lie that people have been possessed by demons? That is what is offered on the one hand by the United States Embassy — it has two elements, possession and the idea that this conflict is part of the East/West conflict — or do you want to believe that people have been struggling for land, for literacy, for participation, for the right to establish their own sovereignty? I do not want this debate to end by our making some concessionary statements towards Nicaragua. Remember all my questions. Can we in 1985 look on as the people did in the 1930s at Hitlerism, at fascism establishing itself? Can we look at an emergent democracy, seeking the transformation of the people who want land and food and participation, witness that experiment being destroyed? Are we just going to exchange memos about it? Other speakers, particularly the seconder of this motion, will no doubt go into detail about the practical implications of accepting our motion here this evening.

I could not emphasise enough the idea that silence and compliance are silence and compliance with the death of a democracy. Nicaragua was referred to last week scandalously by the President of the United States as being under the cloud of communism. Mr. Shultz referred to it as something that had to be destabilised. We have a very clear decision to make on this motion and it is this. Are we to go on with a Tadhg An Dá Thaobh version of a foreign policy. We will have one version for industrialisation purposes and we will have he out-of-the-side-of-the-mouth rumours about those of us who support Nicaragua.

I support Nicaragua as my father supported the Spanish Republic. I support the rights of the sovereign people of Nicaragua to elect their Government. I support their social transformation. I support the transformation that is taking place in Central America and I believe it is the duty of both these Houses to affirm their position in international law, in justice and in solidarity on the transformation that is taking place.

Mr. Ross

I thank my colleague Senator Higgins for coming to Nicaragua with me. I also thank the Labour Party for putting their names to this motion and for supporting it. There are many misconceptions about Nicaragua in this part of the world and they are quite understandable because the sources of the information we get about Nicaragua are obviously by definition very limited. I and I would guess the majority of the Members of this House, had these misconceptions about Nicaragua.

The first misconception which certainly comes from the United States via Britain is that Nicaragua at the moment is a Marxist-Leninist state which belongs firmly in the Soviet bloc. That is not true. In 1979 there was a revolution in Nicaragua and there is a mistake which is very common in America, and which is a misconception in America, that all revolutions against capitalism are by definition Marist-Leninist revolutions. This is not so. One of the reasons for this misconception is that the Somoza regime who were undoubtedly and indisputably a very corrupt regime were supported by the American State and, because they were then overthrown by a revolution, the natural conclusion, the wrong conclusion, was that the overthrow was carried out by those who were Marixt-Leninists.

There was incidentally a Marxist-Leninist party contesting the elections in Nicaragua and it did extremely badly. It was bottom of those contesting the elections there. There is very little understanding here of the revolution. I would say that the revolution was strongly nationalist and that the Government there are strongly nationalist, but not communist. That nationalism is expressed, unfortunately but inevitably, in an almost hysterical, fanatical anti-Americanism. That is undoubtedly the result of American policy, and undoubtedly Nicaraguan nationalism and anti-Americanism have become synonymous in that country. That, as I said, does not mean that it belongs firmly in the Soviet bloc.

Another indication of this is that it is, as Senator Higgins so rightly said, a mixed economy. It is not a purely nationalised economy. Everything is not in the hands of the State. The economy is struggling as a mixed economy in whatever way it can and which is practical. Those of us who went out there to observe the elections came to the unanimous conclusion that the elections there were carried out fairly and freely. That conclusion was not palatable to those who wished to discredit them in advance and afterwards. It is no coincidence and it is worth noting that the four members of the delegation who went out to Nicaragua from Ireland stand for completely different political viewpoints on nearly all issues. Members of three differing political parties and an independent who would disagree about many other things managed to come to a general conclusion that these elections were fairly held.

We were able to observe objectively what happened on election day. It was a very simple process but it was almost certainly impossible to twist or corrupt in any way. We did several spot checks at polling stations where we were allowed in on the day. The security measures which were taken, the checks to see that there was no personation, to see that there was no double voting, were without doubt far more stringent than the rules which apply in elections in Ireland today. The count was also carried out with impeccable care and with a system of French computers which was extremely efficient. There was absolutely no question in the minds of all four of us that there was no effort to pervert the electoral process and there was no unfair counting or anything of that sort.

I do not maintain and never have maintained that the conditions in Nicaragua for elections of this kind were prefect. They were not. But elections have to be held at some stage and there is no excuse for delay, because it is always the common excuse in countries which are ruled by dictators or by oligarchies that the time is not ripe for elections. The elections were held in what were not perfect conditions. The Government deserve a certain amount of credit for holding elections in conditions in which democracy finds it difficult to flourish. They certainly could have delayed those elections if they had wanted to for a long and indefinite period but they decided, despite the cost, despite the difficulties and despite the conditions, to go ahead and hold them. That criticism was not fair criticism because, if the elections had not been held at all, there would have been a heavier criticism loaded against the Government.

There was further criticism of the fact that those conditions were not perfect because the press and the media were in the hands of the Government. That is a fair criticism. The press and the media were in the hands of the Government for a long period of time. Press censorship was lifted for three months before the elections to give as fair a chance as possible at the time. There was an incident during the elections when La Prensa was censored. That was undoubtedly a mistake. It was a pity and it was seized on by any hostile press as a reason why the elections were not fair. It was undoubtedly a blot on the landscape. It does not in any way make the elections void or unfair. We should face it and say yes, it happened. It was a mistake. The Government admitted it was a mistake. The Supreme Electoral Council admitted to me when I was there that it was a mistake. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that the elections were a major step forward despite some hiccups during that period.

The question we must ask is what can the Irish Government do in a situation like this. The Irish Government can show to a large extent that they are not a pawn of the American Government in foreign affairs. It is not helpful to indulge in anti-American hysterics. It is helpful to look at their policy and criticise it rationally and it is open to a lot of rational criticism. The Irish Government can talk to the American Government and deplore some of the things they are doing there. I see no reason why we should be frightened of the American Government. I see no retaliation which the American Government will take against us if we protest at their policy in Nicaragua.

Most American Presidents and congressmen are as dependent on Irish politicians as we are on them. We have a certain amount of clout with them because of the Irish vote there. We should use it if we believe that they are doing the wrong thing, which we do in this case. We, as a neutral nation that traditionally believes in non-intervention, will carry weight if we carry this message to the American Government. It is interesting that the propaganda war over the elections was undoubtedly lost by the Americans. When we went to Nicaragua and asked who we could see we were told we could see whomever we liked. We decided to see some fairly awkward people whom we thought the Sandinista Government would not want us to see. We found that we could see everybody we wanted to see with the greatest of ease. This included the American Ambassador and the archbishop who was hostile to the Sandinista Government. It must be said that when we did talk to those who wanted to discredit the electoral procedure, we found them extremely unconvincing.

Mr. M. Higgins

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ross

It is worth reading onto the record what the recommendations of this report are. The first is that we should recognise the advances which were made for democracy in Nicaragua. It should be accepted that this report is genuine and that great steps were taken towards the establishment of democracy there. The second recommendation as Senator Higgins has said, is that we should support fully the Contadora process as it is the best hope we have at the moment. The third recommendation is that we should open formal diplomatic links with the Nicaraguan Government. At what level this comes does not matter. The Taoiseach was asked a question in the other House recently on this and he did not answer it. He said it was very expensive — I appreciate that — but diplomatic links should be opened at some level to recognise that Government.

The fourth recommendation is that all contacts between Nicaragua — educational, political, journalistic, missionary — and Ireland should be encouraged and, if necessary, funded by the Irish Government. The fifth is in relation to the appeal which was made by the Nicaraguan Government to European countries the week before last when a very high-level delegation came to Europe for emergency aid. The Government should consider this very sympathetically. The sixth recommendation is to encourage international funding agencies to give more money to the Nicaraguan Government. Several of these agencies have boycotted them and refused to give any more money to the Nicaraguan Government recently, under American pressure.

Mr. M. Higgins

We need answers to this.

Mr. Ross

The seventh and final recommendation is to urge the American Government publicly and privately — publicly is more important — to cease aid to the counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua. I second the motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

I welcome the opportunity to address the Seanad this evening on the subject of Nicaragua. The recent visit to this country of the Vice-President of Nicaragua, Dr. Sergio Ramirez, has highlighted the interest and concern felt by people in this country in the affairs of Central America.

I had the honour to meet the Vice-President and his delegation during their short stay in Ireland. The visit of the Inter-Party Oireachtas Joint delegation to Nicaragua last November stems directly, I would suggest, from the fact that in Ireland there is a conscientious, articulate and well-informed body of public opinion concerned about what is happening in Central America. The degree to which voluntary organisations, church leaders, politicians and ordinary citizens are aroused by the events in Central America is quite striking.

Our own history has taught us not to overlook the existence of poverty and malnutrition, particularly where these are closely linked to gross economic and social injustice and its apparently inevitable consequences; conflict, repression, loss of life and the systematic violation or abridgement of human rights. The denial of basic human rights has provoked genuine concern on the part of many. The present situation has its roots deep in history but history cannot serve as an excuse for injustice or absolve those involved from seeking an end to that injustice.

Against this background, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the four members of the delegation on their work in compiling this useful report. Before turning to the question of the recommendations outlined in the report, it is only correct to note that the conclusion of the delegation that the election was a free and fair one is consistent with the general consensus of the various international observers at the polls.

It was, of course, regrettable that some of the Opposition parties found that they could not participate in the elections. Inevitably, in a country with no genuine democratic tradition, the conditions for the elections would not be ideal but on the whole, as the report of the delegation demonstrates, they were conducted properly. The achievement of the Sandinistas in securing some 67 per cent of the valid poll, representing half of the total electoral register in a situation where voting secrecy was maintained, was an impressive one as the reports of the Irish delegation and that of the other European delegations testify.

The election in Nicaragua was a positive development and we hope another step towards the consolidation of a pluralist system in Nicaragua. We hope too that it will prepare the way for full national reconciliation.

I should like now to turn to some of the specific recommendations of the delegation.

The report calls for support by Ireland for the Contadora process. Ireland and the other member states of the European Community have consistently expressed their support for the Contadora process as the best hope of achieving a political solution to the crisis in Central America. This support was most concretely expressed when my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs as President in Office of the European Communities led the Foreign Ministers from the ten member states and Spain and Portugal at the San Jose Conference in September 1984. All the Contadora and Central American states were represented at the conference.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs addressed the opening session of the conference and shared the duties of the chairman with the Foreign Minister of the host country, Costa Rica. The joint communique issued by the conference clearly set out the commitment of all the participating states to the Contadora process and called for a comprehensive agreement which would bring peace to the region. Furthermore, in the words of the communique:

They were agreed on the necessity for a practical commitment to the implementation of any such agreement by all the states in the region and all other countries which have interests there, and on the necessity for the verification and control of that implementation.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is being undermined by the United States at present.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

In October 1984, the representative of Ireland spoke at the United Nations General Assembly in support of a Resolution — 39/4 — which urged each of the five Central American Governments to speed up their consultations with the Contadora Group with the aim of an early agreement to the Contadora Act. The support of the Ten was reaffirmed by the the Heads of State of Government at the European Council in Dublin on 3 and 4 December 1984.

On the report's recommendation that Ireland should seek observer status with the Contadora Group, I should like to point out that there is no provision for such status. Indeed, the particular strength of the Contadora Group in seeking a solution to the problems of Central America lies in two facts, namely, that the Contadora countries are neighbours of the Central American states and that it can conduct its deliberations on a restricted basis.

On the question of the establishment of diplomatic relations, Ireland recognises the sovereign equality of all states. The absence of formal diplomatic relations between Ireland and Nicaragua does not in any way affect that recognition nor, indeed, does it constitute a barrier to the continuing friendly contacts between Ireland and Nicaragua. The visit of Vice-President Ramirez was the latest of such contacts. Ireland was represented at the inauguration of President Ortega and Vice-President Ramirez on 10 January by our Ambassador in Buenos Aires on special mission. Unfortunately, and very bluntly due to limited financial and personnel resources, the Government are not in a position to propose the establishment of diplomatic relations at this time.

There is no question of singling out Nicaragua in this regard of the 150 or so countries who are registered or recognised by the United Nations. We have diplomatic relations with fewer than half of them. In many ways I can see a considerable advantage to this country in an extension of diplomatic relations to many other countries, but we have to bear in mind the financial constraints that exist. The other question that was raised on this issue was the suggestion about a consul but, in a way, that misinterprets the role and function of a consul. Consuls are intended to look after and serve the needs of Irish citizens. The fact is that there is no significant Irish community or consular requirement in Nicaragua.

I welcome the recommendation of the delegation on contacts and exchanges between Ireland and Nicaragua. However, this point is not addressed to the Government and I will confine myself to saying that, of course, there is no barrier to contacts and exchanges between the two countries.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is meaningless

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Turning to the economic situation and in particular to the development assistance requirements of Nicaragua and the region as a whole, the picture is rather depressing. After decades of sustained economic growth and prudent fiscal and monetary management, the economies of the Central American countries have deteriorated markedly over the past six years. The world economic recession and the economic effects of the political crises have caused even further deterioration in the economy of the region. The medium term outlook is bleak. The economies of all the countries have lost their growth momentum and, since all of them rely on commodities to earn foreign exchange, they are faced with depressed foreign markets where their terms of trade may worsen further from already low levels.

Mr. Lanigan

How could the Senator correct facts?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The agricultural sector — perhaps the most important in the whole economy — has only recently begun to show signs of returning to life, although Nicaragua is still not able to meet fully its food requirements. Food aid, especially from the European Community, will continue to be needed and plays an essential part in ensuring minimum nutritional levels for the population.

I promised Dr. Ramirez that Ireland would continue to co-finance projects with Irish nongovernmental organisations and I am certain that, as a result of that visit, many more applications for co-funding will be submitted. I can tell the Seanad that such applications, when received by me, will be looked at sympathetically. On the question of the provisions of finance by international agencies such as the World Bank and the Intercontinental Monetary Fund, the Government fully support the application of equitable treatment to Nicaragua by all such agencies.

Mr. Howlin

I felt I should rise and briefly give my opinions on the motion before the House. As a small nation which has great, varied and many reasons to cherish our independence and sovereignty it is most appropriate that we reach out and encompass in our support and deliberations the state and future of another small nation. It enhances this House that we focus attention beyond our shores and voice our opinion on a situation that pertains in Nicaragua at present. Many commentators would suggest that we address ourselves solely to the affairs affecting the citizens of this country. We know from history how dependent we were in the past on the positive opinions of neighbouring countries and, indeed, of the world community.

Like the Minister of State I, too, had the honour recently to meet the Nicaraguan Vice-President on his brief visit to Ireland and to hear from him and his delegation a first hand account of the perils and tribulations that face that country at the moment. The Vice-President came to Ireland because he recognised a kindred people who had known that there is a price to be paid for independence. He came hoping to find a concerned response. In my view Ireland has a most important role to play on the international stage. It is a role that would redefine and expand our neutral position into one that is not merely blinkered and isolationist, that would show our neutrality to be uninvolved and having no opinion, and to expand our neutrality into meaning something positive rather than something negative; a neutrality that means being involved, being active in providing a voice for democracy and for justice. We have yet to fulfil that role to which, for historical and other reasons, we are singularly suited. I further commend this issue, the struggle of the people for self-determination, as one with which this country should readily associate itself and one which we should champion at every international forum that is open to us and our representatives.

Let me congratulate sincerely the delegation of Irish parliamentarians who produced this excellent report, who caused it to be printed, published and distributed. Other Senators have said that it is a rare occurence to have such a comprehensive, detailed and deeply analytical report from a group sent by the Houses of the Oireachtas to represent us in other countries.

Other speakers have referred to the varying political background and ideologies encompassed in the group. It is a very healthy and good thing that such a broad spectrum of opinion was encompassed by four representatives. It is all the more significant that those four people from different backgrounds, having different views on social and economic issues, would on this issue have a consensus of opinion: that the Nicaraguan people are engaged in establishing themselves on the road to democracy; that they have carried on a system of elections that, almost unique in that region of the world, was fair in the sense that we would be familiar with free elections in the West.

This motion asks the Government to implement the recommendations of the report, to recognise publicly the fairness of the Nicaraguan elections, to back the Contadora initiative, to aid the developing and struggling economy of Nicaragua and to seek to change the policy of the United States towards that country.

I had the honour in 1983 to travel to the United States as part of an all-party Oireachtas grouping. We had, during the course of our visit, many and detailed discussions with the United States Administration and with their State Department. While the primary role we had on that delegation was to advance the cause of Ireland and to renew the friendship that the Irish Parliament and Irish people enjoy in the American Congress and among the American people it struck me most forcibly that the United States Administration and the State Department were extremely anxious at every opportunity to impress upon our delegation, individually and collectively, the correctness of their policy in Central America.

In the White House and in the State Department they returned again and again to the situation in Central America, Nicaragua and El Salvador and they tried to put to us that we had not understood what America was trying to do, that the problem was one of public relations and that if they could explain what they were about we would understand and support them. I believe, as the Minister of State has rightly said, that there is a very strong and well-informed body of opinion in this country on what is happening in Central America. I believe the Legislature is particularly well-informed on the situation there.

I took from the discussions the importance the Americans attach to Irish opinion on this issue. They recognise that Irish opinion is significant and that we have a role to play in not only mobilising public opinion in Ireland but also affecting international opinion. That is the reason they concentrated so much and put so much effort into trying, unsuccessfully, to convince us that the policy they were pursuing was correct, was in the interests of democracy and of the preservation of freedom. I recall the kinship of the Irish and the American people during the visit of the President of the United States to Ireland last year. This underlines the role we can play if we decide to do so, in formulating international opinion and, most important, changing American opinion.

Mr. M. Higgins

If you have the courage to tell the truth.

Mr. Howlin

I welcome the response of the Minister of State to this debate and I fully accept that Ireland, particularly during our presidency of the European Community, has underlined the rights of all nations to organise and determine their own affairs independent of outside pressures and outside coercions. Unfortunately, the real world is somewhat different. I once heard the comment that the present United States Administration seems to see a world of infinite greys in black and white terms. We have a role to educate them into recognising that the world is not divided into them and us, the goodies and the baddies, the goodies to be preserved at all costs and the baddies to be destroyed at all costs.

The people of Central America, emerging from a period of colonialism, struggle and try to nourish the glimmering light of freedom. They deserve our support and we should not be wanting when it comes to delivering on that. We can do many things. In a practical way we have many skills. We have many talents in the field of education, medicine, technology and engineering, talents that are most essential to an economy such as Nicaragua. We should respond by exporting that talent and giving it generously and freely to the Nicaraguan people. The presence of Irish citizens in Managua serves a double role. Not alone do they bear testimony to the moral support of the Irish people to the cause of freedom but also they facilitate the dissemination of truth. Too often we do not get truth but rather a version of truth distilled to us and to the West by the superpowers. We should seek our own channels of communication and there is no better way than by having our own agencies, preferably State agencies, on the ground in Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 27 Feb 1985