Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1985

Vol. 107 No. 10

Oireachtas Delegation to Nicaragua: Motion (Resumed.)

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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

—(Senator M. Higgins)

Mr. Howlin

The point I was making on the previous occasion when we were discussing this motion was the importance of developing our ties with countries such as Nicaragua, and not only on the diplomatic front. I urge sincerely that we establish diplomatic relations with Nicaragua and, indeed, other Central and South American States with whom we do not have such links. The argument always advanced was one of costings and economics and I firmly put the point that it is not necessary to have a residential mission in each country with which we have links. Indeed, we have diplomatic links with many countries where we do not have residential missions on a full time basis.

The people of Nicaragua are endeavouring in a very determined way to establish a democratic form of government, to advance social services, to start a literacy programme, to make such basic amenities as sanitation and health care available to its people. Our own inter-party delegation, representing the whole spectrum of Irish politics, attest to the fact that the Nicaraguan people have genuinely sought to establish a real and true democracy in that country. They deserve our support and we should give that by establishing diplomatic relations with them, either through our embassy in Canada or Argentina or establishing a new embassy in Central America that could have relations with many of the Central American countries. On the other front — which is equally important — of developing our commercial relations, I believe that Irish agencies have within themselves tremendous potential to help. I said that the most important form of solidarity is to be present on the ground and we have many valuable contributions that we can make.

I totally endorse the report of the Irish inter-parliamentary delegation and commend their hard work and efforts. I commend sincerely to this House and to the Minister the detailed recommendations on page 11 of the report. These recommendations can be followed through by this Government, by this Parliament and I hope that we will see action on them in the very near future.

Mr. B. Ryan

The report is most welcome. It is well written and extremely well presented. What continues to astonish me is the almost total absence of reporting and coverage of this report in the Irish news media. It is quite an astonishing fact that every distortion, lie and slander about the Government and the people of Nicaragua which is passed on by the international news media under the influence of the United States is reported assiduously both by our national broadcasting service and by our national newspapers. A comprehensive and coherent report on the truth of what is happening in Nicaragua compiled by four Irish parliamentarians of very different political views — and all the stronger because of the different views, backgrounds, attitudes on many other issues of the four members — has been virtually buried without trace by the Irish news media. It has surprised and pained me that this report has not been covered in the depth and detail it deserves.

It is difficult to understand why the recommendations cannot at least be accepted in principle. Admittedly we recognise the government in Nicaragua; as far as I know probably the only government we do not recognise is the government in Kampuchea. We recognise the Pol Pot Government as the legitimate government in Kampuchea, which does not say much to our credit. We show an extraordinary unwillingness to get involved in diplomatic links, which is recommendation No. 3. Some of the convoluted reasoning that has been produced has to do with cost We could establish diplomatic links with Nicaragua at very little cost. It has to be said that the real reason why we will not contemplate diplomatic links with Nicaragua is because we are afraid of offending a government who — whatever our pretence to neutrality — would regard it as being of major significance in our foreign policy, that is the government of the United States of America.

On Contadora, without tangling myself up on things I do not understand fully, what is true is that the United States Government, having used enormous efforts to blame the government and people of Nicaragua for not participating fully and accepting the Contadora proposals, promptly changed its mind once the Nicaraguans did so, because obviously the United States Government has no interest in peace in either El Salvador or Nicaragua.

It is welcome that we should increase contact. I have heard at least one member of the delegation suggest that apart from food aid we could give a lot of advice on agricultural development. The proposals are so straightforward that one has to wonder what are the criteria by which we assess our aid decisions that have prevented us from even thinking about implementing that recommendation.

The recommendation that produces the greatest amount of pussyfooting in official circles is what should be the most acceptable recommendation, that we should support a campaign to end support for the counter revolutionaries in Nicaragua. In contrast, given the official stance of successive Irish Governments on terrorism internationally, it seems astonishing that one manifestation of terrorism is circumnavigated with a choice of judicious words quite uncharacteristic of the usual bluntness with which we address the problem of terrorism internationally.

I quote some facts from page 3 of the report because I think they need to be reiterated:

There are in the order of 15,000 counter-revolutionaries operating on the borders of Nicaragua.

Senator Higgins extrapolated the numbers that would be involved if there were similar numbers on the borders of the United States and Canada and it would run in the order of 1.5 million. It is a huge number in terms of the population of Nicaragua. Seven thousand Nicaraguans have died at the hands of these counter-revolutionaries. These are not Nicaraguan soldiers or militiamen. A large proportion of those 7,000 are civilians, nurses, doctors, teachers and, indeed, sometimes children. This is not some sort of romantic soldier fighting soldier. What is romantic about that I do not know, but it is usually seen as a higher form of warfare. This is terrorism plain and simple, with all the techniques and the tactics associated with it. It is a war against children, farmers and aid workers. Aid workers have been killed in this. The war has cost the Nicaraguan economy some $250 million a year.

In spite of that ferocious assault from the outside, the mining of the ports, the increasing economic blockade on aid, the Nicaraguan revolution has succeeded in producing basic health care and basic literacy and a limited supply of food for its people. It is an astonishing and inspiring achievement by a small country in the face of enormous odds. Economic growth has averaged 5 per cent since the revolution reached a high point of almost 11 per cent in 1981, which appears to contradict what the Minister of State said about the revolution having produced enormous damage to the economy. It appears to me that the capacity, of this revolution in the words of Xabier Gorostiaga, S.J., to mobilise the people of Nicaragua has unleashed and has enabled economic growth to be proceeded with in spite of the best efforts of the United States to sabotage it. They have spent more money on health and housing in the last five years than the previous American-approved regime spent in 20 years.

The consequence of these achievements for the people of Nicaragua has been political vilification of a kind that is usually reserved for international terrorism of a most obnoxious kind. Accusations of totalitarianism and persecution of the Church are uniquivocal rubbish. The Church agency Trocaire, still supports and encourages us to support the Nicaraguan revolution. Individual churchmen have come into conflict with the authorities in Nicaragua, but it is not the only country in which there has been conflict between Church and State in recent memory. It is unlikely that we will be accused of persecuting the Church. The accusation of totaliarianism is manifest rubbish. We have now the expressed written opinion of four different Members of the Oireachtas to confirm what most of us suspected, that whatever its deficiencies, inadequacies and mistakes, Nicaragua is most definitely not a totalitarian regime. At a meeting in Dublin the Vice-President of Nicaragua was criticised by some of our own hard leftists for being the leader of a bourgeois democracy and not being involved in a real revolution. The Nicaraguan Government were criticised by the Marxist-Leninist groups during the election for not being sufficiently Marxist, Leninist or sufficiently left wing. What we are talking about is not a country which is a threat to anybody else in terms of either its political ideology or its military activity but about a country which provoked the Government and the administration in the United States to levels of hostility which are unparalleled outside a war. What we are beginning to get now is not distortion, or misleading statements, but lies by the United States Government and by the United States President.

The only people who are fighting for freedom in Nicaragua are the people of Nicaragua. The people who are operating on their borders are international terrorists with a record of repression and slaughter during the period when they operated for the Somoza regime. The United States Government is not as short-sighted as we would imagine in their dealings with Nicaragua because they have recognised that if Nicaragua, with its capacity to reconcile moderation with fundamental change in society, succeeds then it will become an inspiration for Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and, much more threatening perhaps, to the oppressed people of Mexico and the entire continent of South America. The Reagan regime or administration, while it may use distortion, untruth and lies to support itself, is identifying the real problem which is that Nicaragua is an inspiration to the rest of the world. Today's Irish Times contains a very interesting article on the Philippines concerning the oppressed people living in the slums of the major cities who are renaming their slum areas after Nicaragua. The slums of a major city called Mindanao have been renamed Nicaragdao because Nicaragua is becoming an inspiration to oppressed people all over the world and that is why it is a threat.

We have spoken in unequivocal directness about oppression in Poland, oppression and invasion in Afghanistan and quite rightly, but when it comes to oppression and slaughter in Nicaragua we choose the most extraordinary careful choice of phraseology. Take, for instance, the reference in the Minister's speech, "The Government are firmly opposed to outside interference in the internal affairs in the countries of Central America." There are different kinds of outside interference. The only outside interference that is taking place in Nicaragua is the economic, military and political terrorism that is being perpetrated against the government and people of that country by the Government of the United States of America. Why in Heavens name are we so timid? Is it because deep down we are afraid of offending our apparent political masters? Let it be said that if we stand against terrorism and if we choose, as many of our politicians do, to say over and over again — in the words of the Pope at Drogheda — that murder is murder is murder, then the terrorism being perpetrated against the people and Government of Nicaragua by the United States administration is murder. President Ronald Reagan can only be described, considering the relative weight of his position and that of the people of Nicaragua, as a supreme international terrorist because what he is doing is nothing short of terrorism on a grand scale against a brave and vulnerable people.

It is regrettable that our foreign policy in relation to a major fundamental moral issue about the right of a small brave people to be free to develop justice as a model for the rest of an oppressed world should be challenged in the interest of the manoeuvrings and the economic ideology of one major power. Frequently, and quite rightly, we have condemned the abuses of power by one major power. It appears that we are afraid, intimidated, or too cowardly to take an equivalent stand here. Those in the media who suggested recently that our neutrality is either meaningless or undefined, may well have a point because, perhaps for some people in Government, our neutrality does not have a point. For many of us this is a very firm and fine touch-stone on which to make a point of our neutrality, and that is our capacity to speak independently and freely and without looking over our shoulder at apparently half recognised political masters when we see terrorism in the form of the assault on the brave people of Nicaragua by the Government of the United States.

Nicaragua is a fledgling democracy. It is a fledgling revolution attempting to do most extraordinarily brave things for its people. It is not a perfect society any more than we are or, indeed, God knows, any more than the United States is, but it is a major improvement on what was there before in Nicaragua or in Central America. It deserves not some sort of pious, hand-wringing and tears of concern from a safe distance but our full and unequivocal support. The members of the committee in their report, written as it was in careful and moderate but nevertheless quite unequivocal English, have given us a very firm base from which to take a stand on principle and commitment.

That is what a country with a commitment to real, constructive and positive neutrality would choose. Nicaragua is not just one obscure country. It is a touch-stone of whether this country has a foreign policy based on either our own past experience, or concern for development in the world, or for peace, and one that should concern us, particularly in regard to our unwillingness ever to be associated with the use of violence to achieve political ends. What is manifestly clear now is that the United States Government are not interested in small changes or military controls, they are interested in the fundamental destabilisation of the political and economic structures that have resulted from the Nicaraguan revolution. It is, therefore, a matter of moral choice for us: do we support one small step on the way to change in the Third World, do we put our foreign policy where our development theories are and support a minority of people, or do we abandon them in the interests of great power and pressure?

I will quote two lines from somebody who probably has never been quoted in this House, a rock singer named Bruce Springstein. They are the best two lines I can think of to conclude my speech. They represent a philosophy that many of us in this House have adhered to over 20 difficult years. "We made a promise that we would always remember, no retreat and no surrender." As far as I am concerned, the position of one oppressed people is best represented by that. There can be no surrender of a fundamental moral right of a people to develop themselves in the face of international terrorism. I support the motion.

Mr. Ferris

I support the motion moved by Senator Higgins. In complimenting him and, indeed, all the other members of the delegation, Deputy Bernard Allen, Deputy Liam Hyland and Senator Shane Ross, I am expressing the appreciation of all Members of the House for the way they conducted their investigations during the elections in Nicaragua and also the way they presented not alone their recommendations, which are dealt with in this resolution, but also a whole resume of the situation in the country, how the elections took place, the commentary on the elections and the results.

I was pleased to be instrumental in the Inter Parliamentary Union in proposing that the Oireachtas would be represented in Nicaragua during these elections for the very purpose of ensuring that a proper record would be available to those of us, particularly in this country, who have an interest in democracy and in ensuring that democracy survives even in Central America, in spite of the war of attrition that is going on there and in other areas in Central America by very powerful nations who obviously for their own vested interests try to ensure that small nations such as Nicaragua will never have a chance of survival except under the kind of administration to which they were subjected for so many years previously.

The other members of the delegation will not be annoyed if I pick out Senator Higgins particulary for commendation in this regard, not alone for this report but for his tremendous interest down through the years in Central America and, indeed, in both El Salvador, which he also visited, and Nicaragua. He has been part of a whole group of western European politicians who have triggered off in various institutions throughout the world an awareness that something is happening in Central America of which we should be aware, that we should document and on which we should not be afraid to state an opinion. There is no doubt from the results of this election that with the tremendous disadvantages they have had in that country we are satisfied that every effort was made by way of an electoral system and monetary assistance from the State to ensure that everybody who wanted to express an opinion in the elections had the opportunity to do so. I was saddened that the American Government and other institutions tried to defame the results by insinuating in some way that they were not genuine. Some people opted out on the basis that they could not win and those people in their opting out decried the efforts of others who stayed in the kitchen when the heat intensified. The results of the elections are before us and our group are to be commended for doing that.

Senator Higgins, in his efforts throughout the years, has issued many documents on this subject. He issued documentation which he may have even forgotten by now, though he is listening to me here, from a previous group of people who met and expressed opinions about this. They said that it was unacceptable that attempts were being made to strangle the people of Nicaragua by economic isolation and military attack. That is still going on even after those elections. As we know, a war of attrition is going on there. Last week Padre Cortina came here and spoke about El Salvador. The question was put to him which situation created more problems, the intervention of the Americans or, in the case of El Salvador, the intervention of the Cubans. He thought long and deliberately for one or two minutes and then said the intervention of the Americans created the most problems. There is no doubt that they are the cause in the first instance of all the interventions in other countries' affairs because strategically those countries are of importance to them. Continued disruption both to the economy and the development of these countries in that strategic area create a problem for the American people perceived through their President's eyes. In other words, he is not prepared to accept a democratic election result in any of these areas if the people elected do not necessarily believe in his own political philosophy, as has happened in the case of Nicaragua and, indeed, is happening throughout Central America. They have decried what has been going on by these newly elected Governments and the international media.

The Irish media have been favourably disposed towards Nicaragua because of the high profile that has been given to it by Members of this House, particularly, and by members of the Hierarchy, Bishop Casey and other people, with a bit of courage that also comes down to the myth about the intervention of Marxism and all other sorts of totalitarian systems. When they try to link democratic socialism with that particular ethos and create confusion in people's minds it makes our job much more difficult. The media in Ireland, have to some extent, been sympathetic towards this particular case.

It is appropriate to put on the record of this House, in taking into account the recommendations from the committee, that our Government should officially recognise the considerable advances made for democracy in Central America as a result of the free and fair elections in Nicaragua. I will not deal with the other recommendations because it would be repetitive and other Members have already dealt with them. I go along with the idea that even if Nicaragua is not a priority area for diplomatic links, the position certainly calls for some formal link with it, whether at consular level or any other level. Within that group of nations in Central America it is imperative that we as a small, neutral nation should have a link to which we can turn and should keep a dialogue with these non-aligned nations. I hope the Department of Foreign Affairs will seriously look at our recommendations in this regard.

Dealing with the advances that have been made in Nicaragua, it is only fair to say that the educational institutions there, particularly since 1979 have reflected that there are profound problems prevalent throughout Latin America. The illiteracy rate was 50.8 per cent compared to the average of 30.8 per cent on the Continent. As in all countries, the majority of the literate population lived in the cities and the rural regions in general received no educational attention. There has been tremendous progress made already by the elected Government. They have produced statistics. We listened to the Deputy Premier outlining what they had achieved. He said that among their priority projects undertaken in 1980 was the illiteracy campaign which reduced the illiteracy rate from 50 per cent to 12.9 per cent.

If anything can defeat the international press which is stimulated by the Americans, it is the fact that ordinary people can read for themselves the kind of lies that are being printed about them. It is a good thing that the people are being taught to read in their native language. I understand there are two or three minority languages in Nicaragua and it is important that people in various parts of the country would be able to read what the world says about them and to know that there are nations like Ireland who are interested in their survival and in helping them through projects, through various departmental agencies and through international aid. Our committee recommended that we should consider making available supplies of food although I suppose Nicaragua would not be in the same league as the Ethiopian famine, and the famine in Sudan. It is a tragedy that we have to make choices when people are starving and that resources have to be rationed to ensure that those in greatest need are immediately looked after.

I mentioned that the educational system in Nicaragua has improved and the statistics are there to prove it. They have also had a tremendous health programme. In the past the poor were neglected by the previous régime. People literally died on the streets from hunger and disease. The rate of infant mortality was in the region of 121 per 1,000 births compared with the infant mortality rate in Ireland which is 15 per 1,000 births. This figure gives an idea of the dangerously low level to which the health standards in Nicaragua had dropped. The adult mortality rate of the population was something like 16 per 1,000. These people had overcome all the childhood diseases and should have been able to lead a full life but unfortunately that was not the case. It is only since the present Nicaraguan Government came to power that efforts have been made to give any semblance of respectability to the health services. The health problems reflect the living conditions of the population. Thirty per cent of the urban population were without water supply, 94 per cent of the rural population were without water supply, and 20 per cent of the urban population were without any sewerage facilities. That is an indication of how the country was demoralised and neglected into a state of revolution. It is no wonder there was a revolution by ordinary people against such a régime. They did not have food, water or any of the basic human rights we talk about.

I commend the Government of Nicaragua for their programme of education, health services, increased medical care centres, clinics, the provision of proper medical services, the visits to people in trouble, the visits to dentists, how the country looks after its pregnant women, the number who are under medical care and so on. This must be an indication to our Government, to this country and to the media that a gesture is due towards the people who fought a revolution which cost the country a colossal amount economically speaking but which had tragic consequences for the population — and the revolution must have been worth something to have disposed of that kind of government. The newly elected government have given figures to show their interest in their people and we, as a small nation should recognise them for what they are.

Speaking on this subject two weeks ago the Minister did put on the record the attitude to Nicaragua of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government during our presidency of the Community. We also availed of the opportunity arising from the visit of President Reagan to put on record our reservations about the effects of his policies and the continuing effects of his attitude towards Central America. It is appropriate that that should have been done. Many of us looked to America to defend the smaller nations throughout the world and it is disappointing to feel that, because they want to protect a particular right wing philosophy, or because perhaps they have reservations about their territory being subjected to political beliefs from Central America, they will use any power or a war of attrition to ensure that democratically elected governments will fall, that anarchy will take over and that the whole process of military juntas and those chosen by right wing governments elsewhere would fall into place. The Nicaraguan people have started and will continue to come to grips with their problems if they get assistance from us and from the European Community. It will be a tragedy if all that is lost. I hope the debate of this kind of report in this House and throughout the country through county councils, health boards and any other institution which can focus the attention of people on this area will be worthwhile. It will be reassuring for the people of Nicaragua to recognise that there are people who care about them and care for the kind of institutions they have chosen for themselves by democratic electoral process. We commend them for what they have done. I am glad we had the opportunity to discuss this motion and that the Department and the Government will take cognisance of our recommendations.

Mr. McGonagle

I support the motion. I commend all the wonderful, powerful efforts made by Senator Michael Higgins in this matter. The matter is a very simple one. The last war, and the first one, were fought for freedom, the freedom of small nations, the right of self-determination and the right to run their own affairs democratically. Why are the Americans so inconsistent? They took part in these wars. Why are the Americans — the Reagan Administration — so inconsistent when they say "No money for NORAID, no money for the Provos, but money for the guerrillas to bring down a popular government in Central America?" That is a blatant act of hypocrisy and inconsistency and our Department of Foreign Affairs should take note of that, if inconsistency means anything in international language. I know it is right that the Russians were condemned for the Afghanistan invasion but that does not make the Americans right.

From time to time the Americans have taken on the mantle of moral leaders in the world. They cannot drape this mantle around their shoulders, as moral leaders of the world. These Americans seem to be obsessed with the threat of Marxist Communism — to make it sound worse they call it Marxist-Leninist Communism, I do not know what the difference is — but I wonder what they are afraid of. They took action against Cuba and finished up by driving Cuba into the arms of the Communist sphere of influence. They went to Vietnam, and we all know what happened there — a debacle. What is not widely known is that the people who have the popular support in China now made overtures to the Americans and said they were going to conquer China on the new philosophy. They wanted to have some kind of rapport with the Americans, but the Americans turned them down and backed the Kuomintang; so we have Formosa. An American ambassador called Davies who was in Peking at the time advised the American Administration that they would be wise to get together with the people who were eventually going to take over China but they did not do it. The result was the North/South Korean war, for which the Americans are absolutely indicted. That was American influence.

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that Americans will go Communist? At a reception in San Francisco during the Cuban crisis I said the Cuban people have a right to work out their own destination and future, the way they are going, the way they navigate where they are going, their ports of call and where they are going to finish. I believe that John F. Kennedy drove the Cubans into the Russian sphere of influence. I tried to reason with some Americans that night in San Francisco but I was almost physically assaulted. They said, and this is how democratic they are, they would drop an atomic bomb on the island of Cuba. That was the way they would deal with Communism. This is an obsession. If their fear of Communism is not internal, it must be external. If they are afraid of Communist spheres of influence externally, it follows logically that they are afraid of a world war situation where they might be invaded.

I seriously suggest that the Americans are thinking like juvenile delinquents. America is not going to be invaded by the Communists, by the Russians, the Warsaw pact people or the Cubans. The Cubans in Nicaragua came about as counterproductive to American intervention. They are a most unhappy and unfortunate people. The Americans have backed the most reactionary régimes in the world since they began the exercise of creating spheres of influence. They are actually afraid of democratic socialism as well as Communism. In 1962, I was a guest of the State Department in San Francisco. Our hostess that night was the wife of a rear-admiral in the American Navy. A German broadcaster was with me at the opera. During the intermission she got talking and fulminating against the British welfare system. She was convinced that it was Communistic. I tried to explain it was simple social justice. You can put any ism you like on it. That is the American interpretation gone amok, awry.

The Americans do not understand that they must assist the small nations. They must not spend any more money encouraging guerrillas to bring down a democratically elected government which is socialist, whose basis of approach to their own people is one of social justice. Somebody must tell that to the Americans. The Americans are friends of the Irish, and the Department of Foreign Affairs are well placed to say from time to time, "Look, you are a big brother with a lot of money and you are trying to crush the democratically elected government in Nicaragua." The Department of Foreign Affairs must do this and they must pay attention to it. Senator B. Ryan rightly said that the Americans are afraid that the whole socialist justice policy and philosophy will take on in South America. Why do the Americans not like that? Do they not like social justice? Do they not like social justice just because it is carried out by democratic socialists? They will have to make up their minds about this. They have to accept there will be revolutionary change if there is not evolutionary change, and I make that distinction. They should be backing evolutionary change rather than revolutionary change. They should stop the supply of money and arms and intervention in Nicaragua.

I commend the motion and support it.

Mr. E. Ryan

I want to say a few words in support of the motion. I congratulate the delegation who went to Nicaragua on the very thorough way they carried out their mission and it is quite clear from reading their report that their mission was successful. They have given us an excellent report and have informed us very fully and adequately of the situation that exists in that country at present. If it were not for their report and the speeches they have made since their return, we might have been taken in by the propaganda circulated as to the undemocratic nature of the Government in Nicaragua. Having read their report, it would not be possible, whatever one's view may be about the affairs in that country, to believe that there is not a democratic Government in existence there. Having regard to all the circumstances it is very democratic indeed.

The people of Nicaragua are entitled to live their lives in their own way. They are entitled to try to drag themselves up from the depths in which they existed up to a few years ago, from the depths they reached under the tyranny that existed for many years. They have a tremendously difficult task to try to re-establish themselves as a successful nation, as a literate nation, a nation which can live its own life. They have been doing an extremely good job and they are entitled to do that without threats from the United States. They are entitled to our help. We have had experience of threats of economic measures. We should do anything we can to help these people. It is impossible to believe that Nicaragua could be a threat to the United States having regard to the size of the United States as compared with the size of Nicaragua and to the economic situation there. That being so, it is impossible to understand why the United States have adopted the policy it has adopted to that country. In the circumstances, the United States policy must be deplored.

If we can help Nicaragua by speaking out, by upholding their viewpoint, by insisting that they are a democratic country merely doing their best to improve their lot and trying to live their own kind of life, then we should do so. If the life they want is a socialist one that is their business and they are entitled to that kind of country, economy and government. It is their own business and should remain their own business. It would be a tragedy if the recently elected Government should be undermined either by armed invasion or by economic warfare, by economic forces, economic boycotts and so on, and if we in this country can do anything, either through Government representations on the international scene or by our own efforts in this House and throughout the country, to uphold the situation in Nicaragua, then we should do our best because this is a cause to which we should devote ourselves so far as we can be of any help.

Mr. M. Higgins

I want to begin by thanking all the Senators who have contributed to this debate, not only this evening but on the occasion of the moving of the resolution by Senator Ross and me. I want to thank Senator Ross and my colleagues on the delegation, Deputy Liam Hyland and Deputy Bernard Allen, for their commitment and hard work in preparing a report that is now, I am glad to say, very widely accepted as a basic document on the Nicaraguan elections. In that regard I also want to thank the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who, in December 1984, adopted the report in toto and supported its recommendations to the Government. On 10 January, 1985 they issued a press release saying that they had affirmed their support for all the recommendations. The House will be pleased to note also that on 30 January, 1985 I received a letter from the Secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Socialist International, in which he said:

I was very much impressed by the objectivity and thoroughness of the report which will without doubt contribute to a better understanding of the realities in that part of the world.

The report has had very wide dissemination abroad and the colleagues who worked with me have made that possible. I want to thank every Senator who spoke. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, for assuring us that the Department of Foreign Affairs would continue to support the Contadora process and facilitate any technical assistance that might need to be given. I want to thank Senators Howlin, B. Ryan, Ferris, McGonagle and Eoin Ryan for very accurately pointing out the kinds of issues that are involved in essentially a small country that has recently thrown off the shackles of dictatorship, that moved from a 50.3 per cent to a 12.9 per cent illiteracy rate in five years, that has massive participation in adult education which moved from 9,000 students attending pre-school programmes to 66,850 at the time we visited that country, and that has doubled the number of people attending primary and secondary schools. In every sphere — health, education, welfare, housing — its achievements have been enormous. It is a society which is transforming itself. I appreciate the support that the Seanad is giving to this report.

Circumstances have changed in this regard since I introduced the motion. Unfortunately, there has been a series of rhetorical war-like speeches from President Reagan and his aides in which they have stated, in violation of every principle of international law and every principle of sovereignty respected internationally, that it is their intention to undermine Nicaragua's present Government and replace it; that it is their intention to continue support for people who are today murdering and torturing people from the borders of Nicaragua, who are operating a régime of international terrorism, who are piling on the already great offence it is in international law to mine the ports of a neighbouring country, who issue a manual which speaks of the disruption of the economy, the shooting of people, the assassination of judges and the assassination of key officials within the civilian framework. These are breaches of international law. The Irish Times of 4 March, which commented so well on the situation, had this to say:

Washington's behaviour over Nicaragua is a reason for alarm on the part of all the friends of the United States because it is so incoherent, naive and potentially catastrophic. If the US Government can behave so outrageously and foolishly in its dealings with a tiny enclave of a relatively primitive and quite impoverished country at its back door, how can it be qualified to discuss seriously and coherently the global issues of arms control with the Soviet Union in a week's time? The implications are terrifying.

This is a point made by Senators from all sides of the House and by Members of the other House, urging the United States, as friends, to think again about the attitude they are taking to Nicaragua.

In winding up the debate on the motion I would like to go back to the point on which I began. It is very clear that a decision has to be made on the Nicaraguan question on the basis of a fundamental fact. Do you believe that Nicaragua is transforming itself because it is possessed by Communist demons? That is one view and it is the Nicaragua according to Ronald Reagan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, or do you believe that that country, in the immediate wake of a dictatorship, is trying to provide its people with shelter? Since 1979 it has provided more houses than were provided in the previous 40 years. It has provided its people with vaccinations. Seventy thousand people participated one Sunday in a low cost mass vaccination programme. It is now internationally accorded that Nicaragua has made enormous achievements in relation to literacy and now is trying to deal with adult illiteracy. On those facts, is it not easier to believe that it is transforming itself because it wants to meet the needs of its people? Perhaps you do not accept that, and I will take up Senator Ryan's point. In international law we have signed covenants that recognise the integrity of national territory, that accept sovereignty. Under international law the belligerence of the statements being made against Nicaragua are outrageous.

I am personally disappointed that the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs are not here for the conclusion of this debate, but I am delighted that the Minister of State, Deputy Donal Creed, for whom I have enormous respect, is here and I know he will communicate to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the views I am now representing. In opening the debate on this resolution I said there were four points where Nicaragua could be destabilised. One was in relation to the military aggression directed against the country. In that connection we can use our voices to oppose what has been said by President Reagan. While we were in Nicaragua the funeral of the Castellano family occurred. Three children under 11 years were buried alive in buildings that were knocked by an assault from the Contras in the northern part of Nicaragua. President Reagan has compared these people to Simon Bolivar and to Lafayette, saying they are in the great tradition of freedom fighters. What would our reaction be if such an appellation was appended to people seeking to destabilise our society? We must oppose this war-like rhetoric.

Secondly, in relation to the economic assistance there are a number of things we can do, particularly towards facilitating the economic agencies who might want to establish links with Nicaragua. It is practical and sensible to establish a diplomatic presence in the region of Central America. It would be more than acceptable to the Nicaraguan Government if we decided to locate a presence in Costa Rica, for example, which is a neutral country and such a person could be accredited to all of the states in the Central American region. This is a positive suggestion. I know it would be acceptable to the Nicaraguan Government.

The regular war of economic attrition is taking place through the structure of aid, trade and debt renegotiation. I should like to add a new set of facts which I have not used up to now as a number of people have asked me, since I introduced this motion, to give some substance to one point I made in relation to the financial war against Central America. I should like to quote from a document — International Policy Report from the Centre for International Policy, 120 Maryland Avenue, Washington D.C. They published in March 1983 an interesting document and I will give some facts from it. They mention three institutions. One is the Inter-American Development Bank. They make the point early on about how the bank has been politicised to exclude assistance to Nicaragua. They open by drawing a parallel, for example, with the situation in Chile. It is an appalling, horrific parallel in that the Inter-American Development Bank decided to — and the phrase used in 1970 by President Nixon was — and I quote "make the economy scream". Another quotation: "Not a nut or a bolt shall reach Chile". This was translated into economic strategy, and I quote from page 7 of the document to which I have referred:

The bank claimed that Chile's macro-economic policies, not its politics were the grounds for denying the loans. Once the military junta killed Allende and took over, the World Bank, the Inter-American Bank and the IMF all opened up with generosity. Chile's macro-economic policies had changed, they explained.

The interesting side of this is that during the Carter administration, Nicaragua received $175 million from the Inter-American Development Bank and had prospects of getting $149 million more. In early November 1981 the United States led Argentina and Chile in forcing Nicaragua to withdraw its request for a loan which would have brought 50 new fishing boats and spare parts for old ones. I should like to point out that this kind of interference is interesting in that Somoza, to whom I have made reference, left Nicaragua in July 1979 and took with him most of the country's modern fishing boats. He also owned three modern fish processing plants. The point is that the loan was for replacing parts for those plants. It was suggested by the executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank, who is a Salvadorean, that the fishing boats would be used to invade El Salvador, despite the fact that the fishing boats — and I have visited the area where they would be used — were in fact for use on the Atlantic coast. By February 1983 the whole loan was gone.

In January 1982, the World Bank was prepared to consider a $16 million loan to finance storm drainage and low income neighbourhood improvements in Managua. The US executive director of the World Bank and the Treasury Department of the Latin American Bureau were in favour of letting the loan go through; they recommended this in a cable to Secretary of State Haig in the Middle East and from there, and I quote from page 10 of the report: "General Haig said a categorical no." There was to be no $16 million loan in 1982 for storm damage. We visited the areas which were affected by the storm.

In relation to the question of education I quote from page 10 of the report:

In February 1982 the World Bank's country programme paper equally suggested that no IDA resources can be allocated to Nicaragua. Further lending for Nicaragua is not included in our proposed lending programme."

It said about rural roads, and I quote:

Nicaragua's road system is in reasonable shape and it appears that major investments could be postponed... We believe, equally, that we can reasonably recommend suspension of further water lending because of a possible lag in demand for water after the war.

This is in a country where the bank, in the earlier part of the report from which I am quoting, had acknowledged that only 34 per cent of the rural population had access to safe water and only 32 per cent had access to any sewerage facilities. They were cut off from this aid also.

In relation to the International Monetary Fund I should like to make a point: in the Somoza period, from spring 1979 to July 1979, the IMF was implored not to make a planned loan of $66 million to Somoza. It made the loan. Worse than this, under the IMF's compensatory financing facility, if a member state makes a wrong estimate, it has to pay back the under-estimated source. The present Government in Nicaragua has had to pay back in full the Somoza falsified loan.

Therefore, in relation to the military aggression, in relation to the economic issues, aid, trade and debt renegotiation, in relation to the political process, and in relation to the building of links, there are a number of things which we can do. These are not big dramatic things. I repeat a point which I made in opening this debate. It is good and I recommended it and our colleagues put it into our report when, with courage, Ireland behaved with principle at the September meeting in San Jose and resisted pressure from the powerful United States through Germany and through Britain to exclude Nicaragua from aid. The exclusion of Nicaragua from trade is something which goes on at every meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I should like to publicise this. The fact of the matter is that the Caribbean Basin Initiative of the United States, which was effectively not allowed to be the model for the San Jose meeting, requires derogation from the GATT. At those meetings, Ireland will have an opportunity of being consistent with its San Jose policy and of refusing to allow Nicaragua to be isolated.

When history is written I believe that all those groups in Ireland who have supported the non-isolation of Nicaragua, a small country with a population slightly less than ours, will be thanked for their interest because — and this is my concluding point — I am well aware from a meeting of the National Security Council that took place in late summer in the United States that there is a systematic attempt to discredit delegations like that one of which I was a part; to discredit individuals who are interested in Nicaragua and to discredit members of political parties in Ireland and in Europe who are interested in Nicaragua. It is the all-party support which exists in this House that enabled us to make such a strong defence of human rights in El Salvador. Equally, it is this solidarity among all the political parties and the wonderful public support from all sections of the community that says to the United States: We are not simply green Paddies who do not understand the issues in Central America. Our moral position is that we understand them very well and are taking action on them by continuing our interest.

The report, which is the body of the motion before the House, is not a termination point in anybody's interest but a beginning of their interest. Those who have been interested before now will be encouraged to continue their support for this democracy that may not exist should we ignore the challenges which are there to it now, within the next two years. We have an urgent task before us and I hope that there will be opportunities before long of returning to this theme so that we might save people who have established democracy in the wake of the cruellest dictatorship of the century.

Question put and agreed to.