For the matter under Standing Order 29, as raised by Senator Brendan Ryan, the time limit is an hour and a half. May I suggest that the Minister would be allowed 20 minutes to reply?
Request under Standing Order 29: Libyan Crisis.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I thank you, Sir, for allowing me to raise this matter which concerns the immediate need for the Government to take whatever steps are possible by diplomatic means and through the United Nations to allay the threat to world peace resulting from the American bombing of Libya.
The first thing that needs to be made perfectly clear on this issue is that terrorism in all its forms is abhorrent. Terrorism cannot be justified by either previous experience or anticipated future experience. All of us in this House have had all too frequent occasion to denounce atrocities within this island. I still remember with some terror the first of the series of bombings in Dublin and the one which took place outside Liberty Hall. I had the great good fortune to be ten minutes earlier than I would usually be in walking past Liberty Hall that night. If I had not been ten minutes earlier I would not be here tonight because I would have been dispatched, as was the intent of those who planted that bomb.
None of us therefore is in any position to do other than condemn all forms of terrorism. This can often be unprofitable for us politically in the short term and present difficulties for many of us in various activities we are involved in. Thus the anger of the United States' administration in the face of various acts of terrorism against innocent citizens of the United States is altogether understandable. Their anger is understandable and the frustration of a major power in the face of terrorism is equally understandable. Let it be said, too, that the anger of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland in the face of injustice, and indeed in the face of murder and atrocity on many occasions, is also understandable. The anger of the black South Africans in the face of appalling repression and murder and various other forms of destruction is understandable. In particular also the anger of the Palestinian people is understandable.
But that does not justify or create a moral climate which justifies acts of terrorism on behalf of any of those three groups. Both our own Government and the Government of the United States and all the Governments of the European Community have made this clear again and again. My position has always been that I could not justify to my own conscience the use of force to achieve any objective, however desirable. That has been my position and continues to be my position.
It is therefore in the light of the distinction between justifiable anger and actions taken in the light of justifiable anger that we should discuss the recent activity in Libya. What actually happened in Libya was, in my view, the use of violence to achieve a purpose which is more appropriately achieved by political means. It was a use of violence, in my view, to achieve a political objective. It was a use of violence, in my view, far more designed to satisfy US public opinion than to achieve the objective which it ostensibly set out to achieve. What happened in Libya has been defined as self-defence. I would say that the whole world at this stage knows Article 51 of the United Nations Charter off by heart. It does need to be said that in all the coverage on both British television channels and, given that the British Government did accept the legality of the United States action, no international lawyer could be found by either British television channels who was prepared to say they believed that what the United States did was justifiable in the light of the Charter of the United Nations. I heard almost all of the coverage on both channels last night on BBC and ITV and I neither saw nor heard any international lawyer who was prepared to justify in legal terms what has happened.
Let is be clear, if what was done was unlawful then it deserves to be condemned, however understandable the anger of those who carried it out. Why was the United Nations Security Council not invoked before this action was taken? Why was the evidence that was available not brought before the United Nations Security Council? I must say that my suspicion is because a good bloody nose for an obscure enemy far away is a good way of gaining political popularity at home, particularly when you do not have any messy consequences to be seen at home. The action of the United States television network in declining to broadcast fully pictures of the victims of the US bombings because they were too gruesome for their viewers contributed quite generously to creating that impression.
We are now all to be threatened by the actions of the United States Government. We are not threatened any more by Arab terrorism, by IRA terrorism; we are threatened by the implicit legalisation of the use of force by big powers who are irritated by the activities of small powers, the justification that at some future date an activity which happened today can be dealt with in the name of self-defence by the use of superior force. We have to conclude that in justifying the disproportionate use of savage violence in Libya the President of the United States has engaged himself in the activity of international terrorism because he has justified the use of force to achieve an objective that in my view could have been achieved by other means.
It is in that light that I think our Government should have taken action. Our Government ought to have taken action first of all by addressing the moral issue involved, not by understanding the feelings, the provocation or the frustration but by addressing themselves clearly and unequivocally to the moral question involved — was it right or was it wrong? If the Government want to say that it was right because they understand, then let it be said. It is bad and it is upsetting that an action of violence on this scale has not evoked or elicited from the Government a response which clearly underlines their view on the morality of what was done. Our Government have often and quite rightly denounced acts of violence before. It denounced the invasion of Afghanistan quite rightly; it denounced activities of violence in Central America quite rightly. It refrained in this case from making its own position clear as to whether it believes what was done was right or was wrong. It seems to me a choice ought to have been made and in the interestes of Irish standards of international morality that should have been made clear.
What has been lost in a confused attempt to avoid offence to the United States administration has been our right to take a moral position on international issues. We are now in a position of being part of international compromises where murder is no longer murder when it is done in the name of a great power. When children are murdered because of the deliberate decision to bomb targets that are close to where large numbers of people live, that is murder. It is murder in law, not an accident. If somebody recklessly uses force in a way which threatens the life of innocent people, irrespective of the motive involved, the people who have been killed have been murdered. Let it be made perfectly clear that irrespective of what the Libyans did — and I am prepared to believe that many of the things they are accused of they did do — it does no justify retalatory murder. That is a recipe for barbarism. That is a recipe for international barbarism to replace international law. Let it be said that if you begin to "understand" the use of force as a reply to violence then all sorts of activities, including in some cases the activities of the Provisional IRA, can be justified.
Violence is wrong. The circumstances cannot be used to excuse that violence and should not be used to excuse that violence. I support the struggle for liberation in Southern Africa. I do not condone the use of violence. I support the struggle in Central America. I do not condone the use of violence in the struggle in Central America. I do not approve of violence. It has been counterproductive. Equally, I do not condone the use of violence by the United States administration to achieve objectives of a political nature which in my view will not be achieved and which will simply add to the President's stature in the United States. I regret the fact that somebody who has associated himself proudly with the terrorists who are attacking the brave people of Nicaragua can suddenly draw himself up to his full moral stature and denounce terrorism elsewhere.
I regret the fact that we seem in this country to have lost, unfortunately, the capacity to make independent moral decisions about major international issues. It would be particularly regrettable if issues connected with American aid for this country under the Anglo-Irish Agreement were to cloud our consciences and our capacity to make a choice because this sort of activity, this sort of international terrorism by a superpower is precisely what can lead us down the slippery slope to international nuclear conflagration. It is only the exercise of moral choice and the exercise of moral authority by countries like ourselves that can deter large nations from such activities.
We have now got an opportunity to make up for the opportunities we have lost up to now. I would invite the Minister to begin to take whatever diplomatic actions are possible and to act through the United Nations to say, first of all, that we do not believe that this action was justified, that we do not believe that this action was right. He can use whatever form of words he then wishes as long as he is prepared to say unequivocally that what was done in the name of the United States in Libya was morally wrong and now in fact threatens the security of all of us.
I would like to take the opportunity of outlining the Labour Party's position in relation to the recent events that have taken place in Libya and also to take advantage of the opportunity, which I am glad we have been afforded, to address the questions that have arisen. I very much agree with the previous speaker that the recent events constitute a great threat to the normal procedures of international law and diplomacy. I might say in that regard that the enormous dangers that are now created by recent events are ones that are not confined only to Libya. They extend to Central America. In that regard I want to be very specific and say that some of the difficulties which preceded the recent bombing by the United States planes of Tripoli was a dispute concerning jurisdiction in the Gulf of Sirte. An offer had been made that that matter could have been considered by the International Court of Justice.
The view of the United States foreign policy advisers that has been offered to their President has been one of rejecting the authority of the International Court of Justice. In relation to the mining of Nicaragua's ports where the court heard a case — and this is something that can be confirmed when the President of the Court visits Ireland this week — in that case equally the United States Government denied there was jurisdiction in the International Court of Justice to hear the case. Indeed — and I want to be very specific about this — Jean Kilpatrick, before her departure from the major role which she held in the United States in relation to foreign policy in respect of this issue had taken to the habit of referring to the International Court of Justice as the United Nations Court of Justice. In many ways it is seeking to link it with what is regarded as the less than wholehearted support that the United Nations enjoyed in the United States. It was an attempt to denigrate the work of the court. What we are now witnessing is the full, horrific effect of the events that have taken place this week.
The decision to ignore an international court such as the International Court of justice is really the equivalent to removing, brick by brick, what stands in the way of a reliance on violence and a reliance on force. International law and international diplomacy are built on the concept of reason and it is informed usually by some concept of morality. There is neither morality nor reason in the events that we have witnessed this week. I cannot see how international codes of behaviour can stand intact if the adherence to them is conditional on the perceived threat to itself, of a very large superpower. Of course, the United States has every right to be concerned about terrorism. As Senator Ryan has said, all of us are concerned about terrorism. But is it a response to terrorism to take the actions of individuals and groups and extend them on to an entire country and, if necessary, direct your response at targets that include civilian targets? Is that not in itself an act of gross state terrorism in response to terrorism itself?
Those of us who are believers in democratic socialism have always opposed terrorism for the very simple reason that the reactions that it has encouraged have often been ones of greater repression and oppression. We have seen it as not serving the cause of equality or of liberation or of any of the values of socialism. I refer to democratic socialism. For that reason the Socialist International has again and again condemned terrorism. What is at stake in this case is that an institution had been rejected some time ago in relation to any of the preliminary difficulties. It has been decided that by sheer force of might by arms, one will assert what is presumed to be a response to the threat to one's citizens nationally and internationally. A mockery has been made of the United Nations Charter. It is appropriate that the Minister is here with us this evening because we must remember that the United Nations Charter is not the property of the Soviet Union or of the United States but the property of all of the signatories of that Charter. It has been a very significant achievement that stands between them and the barbarism of the naked exercise of power.
When one reads Article 51 of the United Nations Charter there is no way that it can be construed as justifying the actions of a military kind such as have taken place. It is ridiculous to suggest that one can allow the occasional act of revenge in relation to, say, an act of murder on the basis that the relatives of the dead person had been offended and they are entitled to see something of an example. It is the confusion of revenge with retribution. It is the confusion of both with deterrents. Neither revenge, retribution nor deterrents are accommodated in the concept of self-defence which is included in Article 51. In the spirit of Article 51 the further development of that was that force would not be used as a response by a party that felt that it had action directed against it. It is very offensive in many ways to find that the attitude of the British Government and of the United States Government is effectively one of trying to write their own meaning of words into the very phrases of the United Nations Charter itself.
It is illogical to suggest that by the direction of large scale, indiscriminate strikes against a country one can deal with individuals in that country or individual groups. It is very interesting that West Germany did not ask for this action after the events that had taken place in a place of entertainment within its own jurisdiction. In that regard the statements from the West German Government have been ones which suggested that a response other than a military one would be appropriate.
I know there are many others who want to speak, but I want to warn against what I think is a construction of the events that perhaps the consequences justify the action that was taken. It is too early yet to speak of the consequences. Equally, I know no place in the civilised code of foreign policy of any country in the world that justifies actions on the basis of consequences. That is a very primitive pre-legal type of thinking and it is before reason and it does not include reason itself. I feel that around Colonel Gadaffi there has been constructed an immense demonology. I do not intend to delay the House but in today's Irish Independent, page 10, Richard Lay, who is usually resident in the United States and files his comment on Richard Lay's America but who is obviously not giving the location from which he is writing in today's paper, writes — and we can learn a great deal from the way he writes:
As he sits in his desert tent Ghadaffi is fired by a vision of a different world — this would be one great Islamic state which would combine all that is best in Arab civilisation...
He also says:
The other key to Gadaffi's personality is his family background. He has indeed come a long way since his birth in a goat skin tent in the Libyan desert.
Later, he continues:
Ghadaffi has been married for the past 16 years and has six sons and one daughter who all share his capacity for a relatively frugal lifestyle.
He goes on to paint a picture of a backward, third world country led by a madman that is of little consequence and that therefore on this kind of ethnocentric cultural imperialism you can mock a people and can direct your anger against an entire nation on the basis of a caricature of its leader.
I am not defending Colonel Gadaffi. There are many things about his fundamentalism which I would reject and which the party of which I am a member could not accept. At the same time one cannot move from a gross distortion of a character to justify the actions that have taken place. I am not being naive. Yes, there have been actions of terrorism and yes, some of them have been alleged as having their source in Libya. I think we are entitled to see the evidence for this. If we do not ask for that evidence, by that logic, after the brutal murder of the English Ambassador to Ireland one could have justified the bombing of Dublin. For example, if the Sandinistas had enough air power — which they have not — one could justify the bombing of Miami. The fact is that one cannot operate on a logic like this unless there is the capacity to do so and the moral will to do so.
It gives me no pleasure to say and to repeat something which I feel is necessary for me to repeat, that these comments I am making by way of criticism are directed against the Reagan administration's foreign policy. They are not anti-United States because there are many people in the United States who disapprove of the actions which have taken place in their name. I regret that it has been so often necessary for me to draw that distinction for people who want to confuse what is our criticism and condemnation of actions of an administration such as the Reagan administration with condemnation of the United States people themselves.
I will conclude on this note. I remember very well when President Reagan was visiting this country. I had read his language at that time and the language of the people who advised him on foreign policy. I read it again only three days ago. George Shultz had this to say. I quote:
Nicaragua is a cancer that has to be removed.
That is the language of the people who are accusing Colonel Gadaffi of being a madman and of those who say that the fundamental Islamic statements of Gadaffi something that are incomprehensible to the Western mind. The Western world is led by somebody who refers to a neighbouring country that has a sovereign independence as "a cancer". That is what we have to live with.
When President Reagan visited this country — my opposition to his foreign policies, I regret to say since that time have deepened — I spoke in the name of the graduates of the National University of Ireland, whom I represent in this House. I said that I felt it was a mockery of law itself to confer a doctorate of laws on somebody whose foreign policy views were ones of the rejection of the international fora of law, such as the International Court and the United Nations agencies, the undermining of UNESCO and so forth. I repeat it now. I feel that these actions have brought further shame on all of those within the university system who lent themselves to that process of conferring a doctorate of laws on somebody who has presided over these actions in the last few weeks.
What we have seen is an appalling departure from all the civilised norms of international conflict resolution. Conflict resolution has an old history in international diplomacy and in international law. Around it, after the horror of World War II, were carefully constructed codes of conflict resolution. Within them there were developed certain codes of human rights. The taking together of individual incidents and the appalling consequences of terrorism, when they constitute the justification of the removal of a defence between barbarism and people — which the international codes are — is a retrograde step for humanity.
I equally think — and I say this as my last point because the mover of the resolution made reference to it — that there is a problem in all of this. It is the one that I emphasise: is there any issue which is of no concern to a small country like ourselves? I read quotations about Libya. Those remarks have been written about Ireland by people who were not friends of Ireland in our past history. The fact of the matter is that in regard to all countries who joined the United Nations in the sixties, the countries who developed human rights codes after World War II, the relationship under the United Nations Charter is a relationship between equals; and what people have as equal is their commitment to the morality of interntional conflict resolution. When that is suspended by cynicism, by lies and by deceit you are back then to a relationship of the powerful. That is the atmosphere in foreign policy at the present time, when we see a naked confrontation between two dominant powers, and we are asked to accept a theory of spheres of influence. It is absolutely important in that respect that Ireland, as one of those equals under the Charter, take an independent position in trying to make the case for the morality of international conflict resolution through the accepted procedures, and no consideration of interest.
One of the editorials in the papers this morning said that Ireland has been treated generously by the power involved — the United States. No consideration must temper the moral demands of a country to speak out when events like these take place. I will give an example in domestic law. It is as if some very cruel person perpetrated some appalling actions in different places and you said: "I will understand if the people take the law into their own hands and proceed to eliminate the perpetrator of the crimes". We would regard it as suspending what we had evolved by way of our legal procedures. In the international sphere that is exactly what has taken place. Friends of the United States people are required, I believe, to speak out clearly and unequivocally in condemnation of what has taken place this week and which has resulted in a cruel and uncaring loss of civilian life. In the next few days and weeks it will probably be justified by some other consequences, that it has served to dissolve the fear of the major power that was involved. We have a simple choice: to live life internationally according to the dictates of what will eliminate the fears of the super powers, or to live life according to the tenets of international diplomacy and the courts of justice that have been carefully evolved. I urge the Minister to make a strong statement in defence of these fundamental principles on behalf of the Irish people.
I would like to support this motion. I believe the actions taken by the US in the last few days represented a threat to world peace. I believe the Government should take such steps as it can to allay this threat and to calm down a very serious situation indeed.
There is little doubt that Libya has been concerned in terrorist activities in recent times. I understand the anger of the US that certain citizens have been killed as a result of actions which they consider were either taken by or encouraged by the Libyan Government, but we must try to put that in perspective. Libya is not the only country in that part of the world or in any part of the world that is taking part in terrorist activities of one kind or another. The very word "terrorist" is open to interpretation: an act may be a terrorist act when looked at from one view while from another point of view it may be perfectly justified. I do not want to get involved in that for the moment. I agree that Libya has been guilty of terrorist activities and that the United States Government have considerable justification for feeling angered and annoyed by some of the actions which they attribute to Libya. But certainly Libya is not the only country and cannot be isolated in that way. The US seems to have a kind of fixation about Libya and attributes to Libya every terrorist act at present. It is interesting to see the comment by Chancellor Kohl when he read that the US is quite convinced, quite certain that what happened in the discotheque in Germany recently was perpetrated by Libya. He said it was surprising that the US did not put these facts before Germany in whose territory they occurred.
I am sure every Member of this House deplores terrorism and is anxious that every measure possible should be taken to prevent terrorist acts and to eliminate them as far as possible. But the action by the US has been condemned by every country in Europe, with the exception of the UK, and even in the UK a very strong body of opinion has condemned it in spite of the action of the Government there. In the papers today the word that was used in describing the reaction in countries throughout Europe again and again was "dismay"— dismay that the US, whom most people in Europe regard as a friendly nation, should have used methods which are clearly contrary to international law and to the Charter of the United Nations.
Of course, the suggestion that the US was justified in doing this in self-defence simply cannot be accepted as being anything like a fair interpretation of the UN Charter. There was dismay, not only because the US did something which was contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, but did something which, even if legally permissible, far from solving the problem will only make matters very much worse, will only escalate the violence and encourage further violence in retaliation. So, even if it was permissible, it is something which is reprehensible and unfortunate because it will merely make matters worse. The fact is that one cannot fight terrorism by using terrorist activities or methods. The bombing of a city and the indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians in a city can scarcely be described as anything but a terrorist act.
The assumption that if a country does something which you consider reprehensible that that entitles you to take any military action you think appropriate is a very frightening one indeed in this nuclear age. President Regan said in relation to what he did in Libya "We did what we had to do". The way in which that was said, the kind of assumption that once you made the judgment that a certain thing had to be done then that, in a sense, had to be the right thing, is rather frightening. One cannot but be apprehensive as to how far this approach by the United States will be carried. It is more than likely that the USSR will continue to do things that the United States considers reprehensible. How near are we to the day when the USSR does something which the US considers is going too far and President Regan will tell us he did what had to be done? I am sure we will not be around to know the full details of what had to be done.
Like everyone else in Europe I am astonished and dismayed that a country for which I have such affection and admiration should do something of this kind. I know we in this country have affection and admiration for the United States. It is quite true that we have close ties with them and that we should have and do have a great deal of gratitude to them for the ways in which they have helped us in the past. On the other hand, that cannot blind us to the facts of what has happened and to the lack of morality of what has happened. I believe that what they did was entirely unjustified and entirely misguided. We must speak out, as almost every country in Europe and throughout the world is speaking out at the present time. Not only do we owe it to ourselves because of the threat to world peace, but we owe it to the United States because we do regard them as a friend. I would hope that the world reaction and in a small way the reaction in this country would have some effect on the United States and would help to deter them from taking similar action if a similar situation arises in the future.
I should like to commence by drawing attention to the sharp contrast there was between how the Garda Síochána dealt with the kidnapping of Mrs. Jennifer Guinness and how President Reagan dealt with alleged acts of terrorism by Colonel Gadaffi. I would like to offer sympathy first and foremost in respect of the children of Colonel Gadaffi who were both killed and injured in this outrage and secondly to those other Libyans who were similarly affected and thirdly to Fernando Ribas-Dominicci and Paul Lorence, the two United States pilots who were lost in the attack and whose people will grieve them no less than those who mourn their relatives and dear ones in Libya today.
Senator Eoin Ryan mentioned the word "dismay" in his contribution. He was very fair in talking about the dismay which friends of the United States felt in relation to what happened yesterday. However, one would not be so quite dismayed when one considers the record of the person who ordered this attack. One of the most appalling aspects was to hear President Reagan go on record on the international media and quote such an eminent authority as the great Irishman, Edmund Burke, on the suggestion that all that bad men need to succeed is that good men should remain silent. The implication was that this was an act of a good man. I do not believe that violence, and particularly premeditated violence, can be the act of a good man and certainly not of a good man in a good state of mind. He also said that this strike had won only a single battle in the "world war" against terrorism.
This brings me back to the whole thrust of Senator Michael D. Higgins's address. If unilateral action is to be taken like this and if those who have the most power are most likely to get away with it, we will indeed have a world war on our hands before we know it. It is because the United States is such a strong nation that the little nations of the world, who feel so dearly for their freedom often so hardly won, should make such representations as they can to show the big nations that we will have no truck with this and that if necessary we will form our own organisation of non-aligned and neutral peoples, a United Nations, if you like, of the non-aligned peoples of the world, to bring those who have this terrible quantum of power to their senses before they bring us all to destruction.
It would be worth considering the effect of capitalist penetration with its virus of consumerism on the Third World countries before we become too morally virtuous about how we are going to deal with international terrorism. We are all concerned about terrorism, no one more so than someone who lives in Northern Ireland and particularly at this time. But if the British Government had done a Ronald Reagan on Northern Ireland in response to terrorism Northern Ireland would not exist today; it would be flattened. I am quite certain there have been far more acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland, from many parties, than have been perpetrated by Colonel Gadaffi. If this is to be the way in which we cope with such, then indeed there is little hope.
However, out of this some good may come. It may help us to clarify our ideas on violence, collective violence, international violence and personal violence. It may help us to clarify our perception of the effects of over-centralisation of power and ask questions about what we are going to do in the future to decentralise power. Above all else it will ask us to look at the value of international law and ask us to pose a question to the United States: since when has a so-called peace-loving nation been able to exercise such lethal sentence without first exposing the evidence, then having a reasonable trial and using the agencies which are available and which Senator Higgins has already mentioned?
Above all else, it must ask us to question the way in which the United States is evolving. Most Members of this House have probably had relatives, either in the past or recently, emigrate to the United States of America and most of us have great friendship with the United States. One would have thought that the 600,000 who died in the American Civil War would have been enough to teach a lesson about violence. America entered the First World War reluctantly, the Second World War belatedly. The United Nations Charter was evolved after that war. A Declaration of Human Rights was signed by the United States of America.
There was great hope in the forties that we were moving into a period in which the type of overreaction which we have witnessed in the last 24 hours would be a thing of the past. It is up to our Government, therefore, to remind the United States of America of its international obligations as a leader, and also as the most powerful nation in the world, so that it can provide hope for mankind. Last year there was hope for détente between the USA and the USSR, hope that we might gradually de-escalate violence rather than run the risk of more of it. This is undeclared war, and let there be no doubt about it. If we insist that the police in Northern Ireland be accountable to national law, we must also insist that powerful nations like the United States be accountable to international law. The USA by this action has abrogated its right for the time being to be thought of as a peacemaker. It is time for us all to look at the accretion of power centrally.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Much as I dislike to interrupt the Senator, the Minister comes in at 7.40 and there are three other speakers. I want to get as many speakers in as I can.
I will conclude. I was waiting for a prod from my fellow Senator here. No pun intended. I would just like to make one proposal. This, more than anything else, convinces me that Ireland must remain neutral, must evolve a philosophy of positive neutrality, must join with the non-aligned and other neutral nations of the world to create a great network of peacemaking, positively neutral people throughout the world. We have now learned our lesson. We do not need nor do we want nor should we be under obligation to military alliances of any sort. We should have a distinctive future for ourselves in the affairs of this world. We have the Irish diaspora, we have a great network of goodwill throughout the world. Do not let us squander it in alliances which have been mooted from time to time.
Finally, let me hope that if the United Nations cannot do what was expected of it, we should give the lead to form the united non-aligned nations of the world.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There are three speakers left: Senators Ross, McDonald and Lanigan. I suggest you take six minutes each because the Minister has 20 minutes.
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I have never rejected any of your suggestions and I am delighted to comply with this one. It is with a certain amount of regret that I join in supporting the motion put down by Senator Ryan. I would like to take up a point which Senator Robb mentioned. I see very little point in Ireland remaining neutral if we are not prepared to condemn actions like the American action in Libya yesterday. I see very little point in our even maintaining the farce of neutrality if we will not stand up against the United States on issues like this where the rest of the world believe it is morally wrong. We might as well be in NATO and a pawn of the US and not make any superficial or hypocritical points about being neutral because this sort of action by the Government, this failure to take on the Americans on something like this, makes a complete farce of our neutrality. I am sorry to have to say that but I am afraid it is true.
Yes, I think the United States must certainly be condemned for what they did in Libya yesterday. It is true for two principal reasons. One, because all constitutional parties in this country have always maintained on other issues and ones which are much nearer to home that violence should not be replied to with violence. All the United States is doing on the issue of Libya is swapping innocent lives for innocent lives. It is inconceivable that the United States did not know that this attack would take innocent lives in Libya. They knew that. The other reason is a far more specific one. I no longer believe that President Reagan is sincere about his condemnation of international terrorism. I would like to support what Senator Higgins said on this: President Reagan is currently supporting terrorists in Nicaragua. He is currently supporting terrorists against a legitimately and democratically elected régime in Nicaragua. If there is to be justification and if we are to give President Reagan the benefit of the doubt and say he overreacted, we still have to criticise him on the principle of combating international terrorism because he is not consistent on that himself.
I believe also that the United States carries a special responsibility as the leader of the free world on issues like this. The United States is showing us an example of straightforward bullying in this issue. There is no doubt that if they wanted to they could wipe out Tripoli. There is no doubt that they can kill as many people as they like there. It is a power with which they will completely overwhelm if necessary. This did not need to be proven, but they decided to take this course presumably to pander to opinion.
Having said that, I think Colonel Gadaffi in this debate has got off pretty lightly, to be honest. It is absolutely right that we should in the few minutes left to us equally condemn the acts of terrorism that Libya has been perpetrating. Let us not quibble about whether Libya is guilty of international acts of terrorism, let us not even demand the evidence from the United States. I do not think that in the mind of any reasonable man there is any doubt that Libya has committed some very dreadful acts of international terrorism and there is evidence for it, but the answer to this is not to retaliate with terror. The answer to this is for the international community to get together and make constructive proposals to combat terrorism. I regret the failure of the EC Foreign Ministers to come out with any specific proposals to combat international terrorism on this crisis. What they issued, unfortunately, was a rather weak call to Libya to abide by international law and not to practise international terrorism. That, they knew perfectly well, would not have any effect at all.
The emphasis in this debate, while condemning the United States, should be switched to a certain extent to condemn international terrorism, to condemn all those who indulge in it, whether it is state terrorism from the United States or whether it is cowardly terrorism from a small country like Libya. I would ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to think again about diplomatic activity, to think about sanctions against Libya or any country which supports terrorism of any sort internationally.
It is unfortunate that this motion is in a restricted setting because it is difficult to clarify one's thoughts in a few minutes. I compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the way he has handled this situation from our point of view so far. I listened with interest to his broadcast on "Today Tonight" last night and any fair-minded person could not quarrel with his approach. He was very conscious of the Irish situation vis-á-vis our trade links with Libya. We have important agricultural exports to Libya. On the other hand, if the subsidies that are provided by the EC for exports to third countries were changed, perhaps those trade links might not be as important to us as they are at present.
From listening to the debate, I believe many of our colleagues must not have been listening very carefully or reading the speeches and taunts of the President of Libya especially towards the United States over the past six or eight months and even more. In no uncertain way Colonel Gadaffi has thrown down the gauntlet to the US Government. I am not saying that the US were right to respond, but nevertheless when it comes to international terrorism Colonel Gadaffi has set himself as leader of that world movement. He has made it quite clear that he supports international terrorism in every place possible, including our own country. We should bear that very much in mind. I subscribe to our national policy of neutrality. We should endeavour to live that policy as well as giving lip service to it. There must be a balance here. Many of the speakers here this evening have conveniently, perhaps, been unable to recall the countless numbers of Libyan service people who have been expelled from practically every country in Europe, from France, Germany, Holland, Turkey. Even this year, and it is only in the fourth month now, there must be seven or eight different countries in Europe who are forced to expel agents of the Libyan Government.
It is unfortunate that a power like the United States finds it necessary to fire a shot across the bows of that small country. Indeed, when one looks at the situation on the continent of Africa as a whole and sees where a little more than half of the countries there are unable to feed their own populations, it is a crying shame that so much money is spent on armaments in all of those countries and especially in Libya. Indeed it behoves most of those countries if they can change their warlord situation, to endeavour to put the interest of their own ordinary citizens first.
I find it difficult to condemn the United States action and I am quite sure that they have been tried and it is very difficult to handle acts of terrorism especially when they are taken against interests of a Government on some other national territory. That makes it very difficult for the United States.
We had extremes here this week culminating in a great success by our own Garda this morning in regard to another diabolical act of terrorism. That is the kidnapping of a quite ordinary innocent person. In relation to such actions, there are very few sanctions that can be taken on behalf of the ordinary law-abiding people. We should look with some understanding and feeling towards the United States who, in the main, are the bulwark of the defence of western civilisation. I do not say that the United States were right but certainly they were provoked and it is only a few weeks since Colonel Gadaffi challenged the United States to do something about it. Here in our own country the last arms find was labelled the People's Republic of Libya or whatever. We are not talking about something in the middle of the Mediterranean. We have it here on our own doorstep. I have never been a guest of any of these Middle-Eastern countries, nevertheless, I read on a weekly basis, the propaganda that emanates from the embassies that have many friends on all sides of this House. I should just like to compliment the Minister on the way he approached this difficult problem and I wish him success in his efforts in representing the Irish Government's view.
I had better start at the end rather than at the beginning. Senator McDonald mentioned propaganda coming from various embassies and various interest groups in this country relating to the Middle-East. I should just like to refer him to the Irish version of the word "propaganda". There are two Irish versions, one is "Bréag scéala" and the other is "fíor scéala". I suggest that if he does an analysis on what he gets he will get more "fíor scéala" than "bréag scéala", if he is getting propaganda material. However, the word "propaganda" is misused and over-used. I am very sorry to hear Senator McDonald compliment the Government on their stand on this issue because it did appear to those of us who are against international terrorism, who are against terrorism, that our Government in a sense were prevaricating. They were suggesting that if the Americans did it, it was all right.
It was suggested by the Minister yesterday in the Dáil that the terrorism all over Europe emanated from Libya. It was suggested that he did not say it. There has been no evidence as yet produced that the bombing of a discotheque in Berlin was caused by Libyans. If it was caused by Libyans, I would suggest yes, if the Americans or if NATO are so good at producing and gathering evidence that such an attack was going to take place, if they were so good as to be able, as Mr. Shultz said, to listen from a device in Berlin, to a Russian diplomat brushing his teeth in East Berlin, why were they not able to stop somebody going from East Berlin to West Berlin to commit this atrocious crime against humanity? If they are so good at listening, why do they not act to prevent terrorism instead of going out and indiscriminately bombing the city of Tripoli and indiscriminately bombing Libya? If they had asked the Israelis to take out the positions in Tripoli and the position in Libya that they wanted to take out, the Israelies would have taken them out because they have the knowledge and they have the techniques to do it, instead of doing what the Americans did, indiscriminately bombing a city in which there is an enormous number of people.
We in Europe are a prolific people. We in Ireland have proportionately more children than any other country in Europe but when one goes to a Middle-East country or a north African country, one of the things that one notices is the number of children and there is no way that the Americans took that into account when they indiscriminately bombed Libya. I have no love for Colonel Gadaffi. I have no love for Libya but Libya is a very small country and Libya is being accused of being a training ground for international terrorism. I should like the Minister to get up here this evening and give me one instance of international terrorism which has been proved to emanate from Libya. International terrorism is a horrific fact of life at present. International terrorism is not something that the Americans are going to get rid of by indiscriminately bombing or attacks on a small nation. It may be very good for the home constituency and Jerry Fallwell and gentlemen of his ilk in America can say "we have proved that we are a strong nation". The Americans may be able to justify by this attack the fact that they were beaten in Vietnam, that they were run out of Korea——
The Senator has a minute left.
——that they have no world options but in the internal politics of America President Reagan is now Rambo II, Rambo III and not alone is he Rambo II or Rambo III but he has 80 per cent of the public of America behind him in these attacks on a small neutral nation.
Where do we start? As was said in this debate by Senator Robb, if an American is killed in an accident as happened in Khartoum yesterday, are the Americans now going to attack Sudan? There were 25 people killed in Miami last night and none of them was a shooting accident: they were deliberate provocations; they were deliberate attacks on innocent people. Do the American Government now intend to bomb Miami?
The situation in the world now is one of international terrorism which is not involved with any particular cause. The Middle East is a tinder box and America is trying to light that tinder box. There is no doubt that we have situations in the Middle East. We have the Lebanon if the Israelis moved out of there in the morning, there could be peace. Did the United Nations do what they said they would do in 1948 and create two states? They created one; Israel was the only State to be created by it. They did not go along with Resolution 181 of the United Nations Charter which stated that there should be a separate entity for the Palestinians. The Lebanon is a particular entity. The Palestinians are a particular problem. The Iran-Iraq war is a particular problem. The involvement of international terrorism in the world is a particular problem. The tactics of America at present in going in and suggesting they are going to stop international terrorism by taking out one of the smallest nations in North Africa of six million people, which is very close to the population of Ireland——
The Senator is on borrowed time.
They decided that because Colonel Gadaffi made exaggerated statements he is the person who is going to be "taken out". President Reagan said that he was "a mad dog". I would suggest that the President of America who says of the leader of another country that he is "a mad dog" has to have something wrong with him. I do not think I would call the Minister for Foreign Affairs a "mad dog". I would not call Deputy Garrett FitzGerald a "mad dog". I would not call the leader of any country in the world a "mad dog". That person has the right to lead his country as he sees fit and the people who are behind him follow him. He is there since 1969. He is the longest serving leader, apart from Yasser Arafat, in the Middle East. We may not agree with what he does but the fact is that within his own country he is the leader.
I appeal to the Minister to ask the United Nations to meet and the UN have suggested they will meet next week. Next week? The whole of Libya could be annihilated between now and next week. International diplomacy is something which I cannot understand, particularly when one considers that the daughter of the leader of an independent country has been killed and his two sons are in hospital having been "taken out" as the President of the United States of America has said. It is a sad day for the world.
I am not anti-American. I have the greatest respect for the American people. I have a brother married to an American citizen. He is an American citizen. His father-in-law was the Rear-Admiral who was in charge of the first recovery ship in the satellite situation. But the Americans are being led by a man who decides to take out an independent country without any justification— even though some people may say that there had been justifiable reasons for attacking Libya for individual acts, not acts by Libyans. The only Libyan who was in any way connected with an international act of terrorism was in London when a policewomen was killed by a shot from a Libyan in the Libyan Embassy or whatever it was. If the Minister can get up here tonight and state specifically that the acts of terror that have been committed in the world have Libyan connections, I would say that I would agree with him. President Reagan said that the act of terrorism carried out at Vienna Airport came about because of Libyans. It was proved by the Austrians that the Libyans had nothing to do with what happened there. It was proved that there were connections through Syria, through Hungary——
I have to insist that the Senator resume his seat.
I ask the Minister to give the House day and date of the incidents of Libyan terror in the world. Having said that, I suggest that if there are particular instances, we in this House will condemn them totally. We are totally against international terrorism.
I should just like to reply to what Senator Lanigan has stated. He may remember the incident of the Claudia ten or 12 years ago. That was Libyan. It has been proven to be Libyan. He may not have heard the news tonight at 6 p.m. when Chancellor Kohl said he had independent evidence, irrefutable evidence, of the connection between Libya and the bombing of the discotheque in West Berlin last week.
I have listened very carefully to the debate in this House this evening which has provided us with this important opportunity for a detailed and comprehensive discussion of the tragic confrontation between the United States and Libya. That this has been a matter of great concern in this House is clear from the contributions made. It is also a matter of very grave concern to the Government. I placed that concern on the record of the Dáil yesterday when I had the opportunity to set out the view of the Government about the crisis when I spoke in that House.
The most immediate concern and greatest priority of the Government in present circumstances must be to safeguard the welfare of Irish citizens in Libya. This has been a concern also voiced in the course of this evening's discussions by one Senator, and the discussions yesterday in the Dáil. There are at present about 500 Irish citizens in Libya, most of whom are there on a temporary basis. The information available to us is that most are safe and well and, indeed, we would hope that all our citizens will be able over the next few days to report to us in similar terms. My Department, both directly and through our Embassy in Rome, which as Senators will be aware is accredited to Tripoli, has in fact succeeded in making contact with a number of Irish citizens in Libya in the last 36 hours. The Department of Foreign Affairs has also set up a special emergency telephone service to take calls from members of the public who are seeking information about relatives or friends in Libya. Telephone communications with Libya remain open, though inevitably there are delays. The airport in Tripoli, however, is still closed and there are as yet no indications of when it will reopen. We have sought the assistance of other Community states who have resident Embassies in Tripoli and they have been good enough to help us with our requests.
The current crisis in US-Libyan relations and the tragic events of Tuesday morning have their origins in a recent wave of terrorist attacks directed against the US and against US citizens. These attacks have for the most part taken place in Europe and have also involved death or injury for innocent Europeans. As the Seanad may be aware, a young Irish girl was injured in the bombing of the Berlin discotheque earlier this month. The Americans believe that they have incontrovertible evidence linking these terrorist outrages to Libya and have made some of that information publicly available. Other states, including today in a very clear and emphatic way the Federal Republic of Germany, have publicly pointed to proof of Libyan involvement in terrorism.
The Government share the concerns of the United States about international terrorism. I note that this concern has also been strongly echoed in the debate tonight. I regret, moreover, that this resurgence of international terrorism has provoked the current crisis in US-Libyan relations, leading to the US bombing of Libya and the tragic loss of life which has occurred. For our own part, we believe that political methods provide an effective framework to combat terrorism and to ensure the isolation of all who carry out terrorist outrages or who connive in or support terrorism. That has been a centrepiece to our own response to the mindless folly and savage toll of terrorism in Ireland.
Anybody who looks at the record of my party and of this Government, not just in its present term in office but in the entire history of my party, will find is based on the resolution of the problems of terrorism by dialogue and by politics and not by terrorism. I give second place to nobody in this House or outside this House in my defence of my party in that regard.
Together with our European partners, we have engaged in an intensive cooperation in the struggle against terrorism. The framework of the European approach was set out in the declaration of international terrorism which the twelve Foreign Ministers adopted, against the background of the attacks on the airports in Rome and Vienna at their meeting on 27 January.
I happened to be in Rome airport last Saturday in the aftermath of that attack.
It is not a happy place to go through now where there are soldiers with guns walking in pairs almost every 20 feet of the airport, where people are quite nervous sitting in that airport or moving through it. I think people who mindlessly or who deliberately attack innocent travellers going about pleasure or business in an international airport certainly deserve the title and the odium that has been heaped on them either directly for their part in those attacks or if they support or train the people who engage in those attacks.
(Interruptions.)
In that statement the Twelve strongly condemned terrorism and emphasised that states which give support or cover to terrorists should not expect to have normal relations with the twelve. Furthermore, they adopted a programme of action designed to strengthen their co-operation against terrorism and to protect their citizens against terrorist attack.
Earlier this week in The Hague the Foreign Ministers of the Community states met again to review the problem of recurrent terrorism, once again highlighted in the TWA aircraft bombing and the bombing in West Berlin, and to consider the worsening crisis which was developing, as a consequence of this terrorism, in US-Libyan relations. In their statement, issued following their meeting, the twelve ministers reiterated their strong concern about international terrorism. They emphasised that states clearly implicated in supporting terrorism should renounce such support and respect the rule of international law. They called upon Libya to act accordingly and they rejected as unacceptable the threats made by Libya against member states which deliberately encourage recourse to violence and which directly threaten Europe. In the context of the developing crisis in the Mediterranean and in order to assist the achievement of a political solution, the twelve also underlined the need for restraint on all sides so as to avoid further escalation in the region with all its inherent dangers.
I wish to repeat our deep concern about the serious escalation of tension in the Mediterranean. In addition to the bombing carried out by the United States in Libya, there was in the course of yesterday an attack by Libya on the Italian island of Lampedusa. Fortunately, there were no casualties in that attack. There are reports today, still unconfirmed, of fighting within Libya itself. I take this opportunity to repeat the Government's appeal to all sides to avoid any additional action which would escalate international tensions and lead to further tragic loss of life. We ask that efforts now be pursued in good faith by all concerned to achieve a peaceful outcome of this crisis.
The Security Council yesterday morning resumed its consideration of the crisis. We are not at present members of the Security Council. However, our Permanent Representative is closely following the debate at the council and is in close touch with his Community colleagues, three of whom — Denmark, Britain and France — are members of the Security Council. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Perez de Cuellar, has joined all of those who have appealed for restraint so that a peaceful outcome may emerge. I understand that the Security Council will continue its consideration of the crisis tomorrow.
The Government have remained in constant contact with our partners in the European Community throughout the present crisis. Tomorrow a special meeting of EC Foreign Ministers, which I will attend, will be held in Paris en marge of the meeting of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The convening of this special meeting clearly highlights the profound concerns felt throughout Europe about ongoing developments. It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to preempt the conclusions of that meeting. But the meeting gives to all concerned the opportunity to consider the full range of issues that arise and to make clear the terms of the European response to the present crisis, a crisis which we hope will be peacefully resolved so that stability can be restored in the region.
I thank the Seanad for the opportunity they have given me to contribute to this debate and to present the concerns of the Government about the confrontation which has occurred.
A number of points were raised by Members which I do not think I will be able to reply to in full but I will do as many as I can. Concern was expressed by a number of Senators about the moral position and the legal position of what has occurred. I want to emphasise very strongly the Government's commitment to the place of morality and of law in international affairs. Ireland is fundamentally committed to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to the rejection of violence as a method of achieving any other ends. I repeated that a number of times in the House yesterday and I repeat it again today so that there will be no doubt about our commitment to that.
We are also committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes and our opposition to terrorism need not be in any doubt. We share the concerns of the Americans about terrorism. American citizens have been the victims of terrorist attacks. I do not think it is for Ireland to defend the United States. It is quite capable of defending itself and, indeed, has done so in the Security Council. Because of our own experience in Ireland I think we can understand the indignation of the frustration of the American people faced with the terrible scourge of terrorism. I must stress again that we believe the problems of terrorism can be solved by political means and we hope that will happen in the future.
I made the point that Chancellor Kohl said this evening that he had irrefutable proof of Libyan involvement in what happened in West Berlin.
Senator Robb made the point about a united nations of small nations, nonaligned and committed to peace. That is an idea I should not like to see take root and flourish, because what is important is that we all work within the framework of the United Nations and the provisions of the Charter. Small nations can press their interests by drawing on the political and moral support of the Charter which United Nations membership affords us and any loosening or weakening of that Charter would not particularly be in the interests of a small neutral country.
I would like to conclude by saying that the Government share the serious concern expressed by the Senator about this crisis. We have taken steps to protect the well-being of Irish citizens. We are endeavouring, as soon as Tripoli Airport opens, to get an officer from our Embassy in Rome into Tripoli so that we can be absolutely sure that all Irish citizens are safe and well. We will be encouraging a peaceful resolution to the crisis and we will, of course, be co-operating with our partners in the Twelve in an endeavour to achieve that goal. We share the concern of the US about international terrorism because their citizens have been victims of these tragedies. We believe that terrorism can be defeated by political means. We are working with our partners in the Twelve to try to achieve that.
The Seanad adjourned at 8 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 April 1986.