I want to thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for affording me the opportunity of raising this harrowing question in the House. This harrowing question will not be widely known of in Ireland. Indeed, it may not be widely known to Members of the House but it is a question which is not unlike what was called the "Irish question" during the 19th century and the earlier part of the 20th century. It is the question of decolonisation. That to me, as a sometime student of recent decolonisations in the world, is a moral question. It can be called a question of colonialism but it could be more correctly called the question of neo-colonisalism. An example of classical colonialism, as we have known it, would be the European powers holding territories on the continents of Africa and Asia particularly and in America too — particularly the Spaniards — and the phenomenon of the 20th century of he European powers withdrawing in favour of local administrations and local indigeous populations taking over the right to determine their own future.
I am calling in the motion on the Department of Foreign Affairs to endeavour to have this question on the agenda for the next European Council of Heads of State.
The genesis of the problem lies in the Spanish occupation of the territory in question in the 19th and the 20th centuries. In common with the winds of change which blew right across Africa — to use Harold McMillan's famous phrase — Spain, under Franco, decided to leave the Spanish Sahara in about 1975. It is interesting that, while Franco suppressed the independence movement in this territory with great ruthlessness in the forties and fifties he commenced direct negotiations with the Popular Front, commonly called Polisario for the liberation of that area, in 1975. Early in 1975 direct negotiations, on the direction of Franco, who, of course, was ailing very much at this time, were conducted between the Polisario and Cortino Mori who was the Spanish Foreign Minister at the time. But because Franco was ailing, a junta within the Falange — the ruling party in Spain which was declining with Franco's own declining health; in a few years it would be completely out of power in Spain — entered into secret negotiations, it appears, with the adjoining powers of Mauretania and particularly Morocco. Those negotiations were not based on any principle whatever. It was these people getting into these negotiations with Morocco who had designs on this area. Morocco had no historical claim to it nor had Mauretania but they, Morocco particularly, were turning their greedy eyes on the rich natural resources which existed within the territory.
A very rich natural resource which exists there is phosphate. In fact, North Africa, as most people involved with agriculture will know, holds the world's richest resources in phosphate and all the major world agricultural powers, such as the United States, Austrialia, the Soviet Union and so on, imported the vast majority of their phosphates from that region. Of course, a country which would have a major resource in phosphates should be a very wealthy country because of a very and particularly ready market. In the sixties, phosphate, like oil a little later, doubled, trebled and quadrupled in price so that the value of exports of phosphates would be very great. For that reason only did Morocco lay claim to that territory which was south of its own borders, western Sahara. This claim of mine is well backed up because in 1975, prior to the Spanish withdrawal, a United Nations delegation visited the western Sahara. I will quote the findings of that delegation and I go not further than the Minister's own speech the other night in the other House. The UN visiting mission concluded that measures should be taken to enable all Saharans originating in the territory to decide on their own future in complete freedom and in an atmosphere of peace and security. To back up my arguments, we had a ruling of the International Court of Justice in the Hague in October 1975 which concluded that there were no links of sovereignty between Morocco and Mauretania and the western Sahara. It clearly stated that neither Morocco nor Mauretania had any sovereign right to or ethnic claim upon the territory. Nevertheless, because the people led by Arius Nevara in the Falange Government in Spain got their way, they concluded the agreement between Morocco, Mauretania and Spain itself which was called the Madrid Agreement by which Spain withdrew in 1976 and turned over the territory to Morocco and Mauretania, completely forgetting the legitimate claim of the indigenous population to self-determination.
That right of self-determination had been laid down in the conclusion of the UN visiting mission a year prior to that and in a court ruling by the International Court of Justice in the Hague a year earlier, in 1975 also. That, of course, led to a war in the territory in which the Popular Front for the liberation of the territory, Polisario, continued a guerilla war. In Ireland we might not like guerilla tactics but our own independence owes a great deal to guerilla war and, indeed, to a hero of the very party I belong to, Micheal Collins.
We might also have a history of the diplomatic efforts that were made to solve the problem in the intervening years. I might state at this stage that, on the Spanish withdrawal, the Popular Front, Polisario, declared the independence of the Western Sahara, Sadar, which is the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic, on 26 February, 1976. That coincided with the departure of the last Spanish soldier and the last Spanish administrative official.
An impasse existed with guerilla warfare going on in the country from that period until 1979 when Mauretania decided very correctly, to withdraw from the territory. It had after all, no sovereign rights over or ethnic links with the territory. There was considerable diplomatic pressure on Morocco to do likewise but it has failed to do so. Morocco has, if you like, dug in in the territory ever since. One of the ways in which it has dug itself in is by building a large wall 1,500 miles long to cordon off the land which it has grabbed in the territory.
The Organisation of African Unity got involved in the dispute from the very early stages. In the early stages the position of Morocco was not condemned by the OAU. In fact, it would appear that Morocco had many friends among the African community of nations in the early stages, that is the late 1970's and the early 1980's. In 1980 the situation was reached in the Organisation of African Unity when 26 states out of the 50 members then in the OAU decided to recognise Sadar as the legitimate Government of the territory. When you have more than half the members, according to one of the articles of the Charter of the OAU, I believe you are then automatically entitled to membership of the OAU. However, this was a very divisive issue within the Organisation of African Unity and, to the great credit of Sadar, they stood back from this problem within the international politics of Africa, if we may call it that, and did not take the seat they were entitled to because of the objections of Morocco, Zaire and, perhaps, another 20 countries who apparently were neutral on this issue or were not at least supporting the admission of Sadar.
In 1981 at the OAU conference in Nairobi an agreement was reached on the holding of a referendum in the area, a referendum by which the indigenous population of the territory would be allowed, in freedom and without interference, to vote on the future of the territory. Nevertheless, the agreement also called on the parties to the dispute to sit down together and resolve it. It appeared that Morocco accepted the principle of the referendum and also accepted the wording that the parties should sit down and negotiate. But when King Hassan went home from Nairobi he said that they accepted the referendum and the fact that the parties should sit down together but that the parties were not "Polisario and us" but outside forces, presumably, "Algeria and us". This was a neat little trick with words by which he felt he could get himself off the hook. This, of course, led to a tremendous diplomatic impasse within the OAU. In 1983 at the Organisation of African Unity's meeting of heads of State in Adis Ababba they adopted an unambiguous resolution on the issue. The resolution stated:
...parties to the conflict, the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, to undertake direct negotiations with a view to bringing about a ceasefire to create the necessary condition for a peaceful and fair referendum for self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, a referendum without any administrative or military constraints, under the auspices of the OAU and the UN and calls on the implementation of the ceasefire,
Subsequently, we had a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of 1984, Resolution 40/50. This reaffirms that the question of Western Sahara is a question of decolonisation which remains to be completed on the basis of the exercise by the people of the Western Sahara of their inalienable right to self determination and to independence. In paragraph 3 the Resolution requests:
...to that end, the two parties to the conflict, the Kingdom of Morocco and the Frente Popular para Liberacion de Saguia el Hamra y Rio de Oro to undertake direct negotiations, in the shortest possible time, with a view to bringing about a ceasefire to create the necessary conditions for a peaceful and fair referendum for the selfdetermination of the people of Western Sahara, a referendum without any administrative or military constraints, under the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations.
That is a general history of what took place. I want to deal with Ireland's position, which I consider to be far from satisfactory. That is the reason I raised this question here this evening. Ireland, of all European countries, has tried to distance itself from this question. We have tried to see it in terms of a question to be resolved between Morocco and Algeria. Clearly, that is not the question. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution fully recognises that the parties to the conflict are the Western Saharan people and Morocco. Resolution 104 of the Organisation of African Unity clearly recognises that the conflict is between the Western Saharan people and Morocco. But Ireland at the United Nations, when these matters came up, preferred to say that it was a matter between Algeria and Morocco. We will wash our hands like Pontius Pilate and say that we will have nothing to do with it.
Clearly, that is moral cowardice of the first order. It is moral cowardice that Ireland, as an ex-colonial nation with a nightmare colonial past, should not engage in. We should and must take a moral initiative in this area. Let us not forget that we in the nineteenth century tried to take our case for the concept of an independent Irish nation to the then international fora. At that time the nations of the world were, by and large, colonial nations. We tried it again in the early twentieth century. We are mindful that we tried to have our delegation heard at Versailles in 1918 when we felt that the Great Powers were dividing the spoils after World War I and because Britain had gone to war, or so they said, for the protection of the rights of small nations like Belgium that we tried to have our delegation heard at Versailles in 1918. We felt in 1918 that that would be the guiding principle of the Versailles Treaty. But our case was not heard. We went away very disappointed. The people from the Western Sahara are in the same position today. They are seeking internation opinion on Versailles. They have the total recognition of all African states except two, South Africa and Morocco, the other party to the dispute. They have many other nations backing their status — India, Brazil, Mexico, just to mention a few. The nations which are not recognising them are those in that western brotherhood of nations who come under the influence, I would have to say, of the United States of America because the United States of America has a very special relationship with Morocco.
It is not lost on the House or lost on many that Morocco provides special facilities for the United States of America or, should I say, the Reagan administration in America for their famous — maybe infamous — rapid deployment force which is to be used if some problem arises in the Middle East. They went around many countries looking for some location which would be near to that very sensitive part of the world by which they could send their famous anti-terrorist force. Morocco provided them with the service. Many of the very high technology sensory devices and radar devices which are on that infamous wall are provided by the United States and France. Not only just the United States are immoral on this issue.
There is the European position which is a kind of immoral neutrality led by France which has a very special relationship with Morocco. I say again to the Minister that we cannot be a part of this issue. That is not part of our tradition. We are an ex-colonial nation. We do not have to engage ourselves in big power politics. We are not a member of NATO. By our taking a moral stand on this, by raising this in the international forum, by speaking for it at the United Nations, by raising it at the Council of the European Heads of State, we are doing something that is very much in the tradition of what Ireland should be about. I submit to this House, to the Minister, that this Government take a more active stance because we are in a good position to do so. We have nothing to lose. In terms of prestige, and above all, morality we have everything to gain.
