Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 1986

Vol. 113 No. 16

Apartheid in South Africa: Motion.

Mr. Lanigan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the system of Apartheid in South Africa, and calls on the Government to impose trade sanctions against the South African regime, while continuing its efforts within the EEC and the United Nations to bring about a peaceful transition to a normal, democratic integrated society.

It gives me no great pleasure to bring to the attention of the people once again the oppression that is being foisted on the majority of people in South Africa. I wish to show solidarity with the majority of people in South Africa who have been condemned for many years to live under this oppressive yoke which was described by my 14 year old child many years ago as a crime against humanity.

We only read about South Africa and it seems the problems that are being encountered daily are subsumed into our national newspapers in a manner in which they can be overlooked. I rise in solidarity with the people of the African National Council who represent the majority of people in South Africa and who are to the forefront of the fight to have South Africa become, as is said in the motion, a normal, democratic and integrated society.

I heard the president of the National Union of Miners in South Africa at a conference in England last week suggesting that one of the problems at present in dealing with South Africa is Margaret Thatcher's right wing attitudes and her belief that if something is right, it is right. Of course, it is not alone that she thinks in this right wing manner but, as the National Union of Miners representative said, she is involved in bedroom politics as well as in other forms of politics in that her husband is very much involved with companies which have invested heavily in South Africa. This is possibly one reason for her not favouring sanctions against the South African Government at present.

In the short time available to us this evening it is very hard to get the urgency of the situation across. I am afraid this urgency is not felt at EC level or, at least, if it is felt it is not coming across as a matter of grave urgency. At the last meeting our Minister for Foreign Affairs attended, the EC Governments could not agree on sanctions and the only soft option they came up with was that Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British Foreign Minister, should pay a visit to South Africa to see if he could establish any further relationships that might help to solve the problem rather than imposing sanctions. It is said by Mrs. Thatcher and, unfortunately, many organs of the media have taken up her cry, that sanctions would hinder the growth of the oppressed African people but she is not listening to the people who live in South Africa who are crying out for trade sanctions against the South African Government. Oppressed people will put up with hardship if they know that by doing so they will get out from under the yoke of oppression that binds them.

The EC is possibly one of the worst places in which to raise a matter of urgency such as the situation in South Africa because in the end the soft option will prevail and we have seen this throughout the life of the EC. I have seen this in terms of the oppressed people of Palestine. The soft option is taken and no decision is made that will harm any of the interests within the EC. It is very hard to suggest practical ways in which we can help our brothers in the fight for the setting up of a democratic society in South Africa. However, there is one practical way that we can do so within the next few weeks. In September an international computer conference is to be held in Ireland and it is important that the organisers should tell the South African delegation that they are not welcome in this country as long as the régime exists and the oppression continues. In a peaceful, practical manner we can tell the organisers of this international computer conference that, irrespective of what losses we might be subjected to if people do not turn up at the conference, we have the courage of our convictions and we do not want representatives from an oppressive race here.

I will not say much more because I want to give my colleague, Senator Eoin Ryan, a chance to speak. We are in solidarity with the people of South Africa and all sides of the House will continue the fight in the hope that the South African Government will see sense in the near future.

Mr. E. Ryan

There is no longer any necessity for people to make the case against apartheid. It is agreed by everybody, or certainly by 95 per cent of the people of the world, that it is an evil system which cannot be tolerated. This has been shown again and again by overwhelming votes in the United Nations apart from the views expressed in many other places. John Hume described it in the last few days as the greatest crime against humanity in the world today. That is certainly not putting it too far.

The extraordinary thing is that, in spite of all these votes in the United Nations and all the pressures, the South African Government continue to brazen the situation out. There is a danger that because of this people will gradually begin to accept it as something that cannot be changed. We must ensure that that kind of attitude does not grow. Sanctions have been agreed in principle by many nations and by the countries of the European Communities but unfortunately, because of the attitude of the United Kingdom, the US and West Germany, nothing tangible has happened.

The present proposed tour of the British Foreign Secretary seems to be merely an effort to save face and to waste time. It quite obviously is going to achieve nothing. Anything like that merely gives the South African Government more time, more excuses to carry on as they have been carrying on up to now. In this country we cannot do anything dramatic. We cannot do much. But we certainly must do everything we possibly can to ensure that this evil is criticised and as far as possible we must do everything we can to undermine it. So we must ask our Government, because they are in a position to do something about it, to press for effective action. All of us in our own small way, must always do what we can by speaking about it and by refusing to buy South African produce. We must do what we can also to play a part in the fight against apartheid.

The situation in South Africa is deteriorating. That it is deteriorating is, in one sense, a good thing. In another sense it means that the measures which are being taken against the blacks there are becoming increasingly harsh, which in turn means that there is a great urgency about taking effective action against this evil. We certainly ask the Government to do what they possibly can, because only the Government can take swift action, quick action, action which will be effective in the present situation. We certainly urge them to continue to do what they have been doing up to now and to do it even more effectively in the future.

Mrs. Bulbulia

It is true to say that parliaments worldwide raise their voices in ritual condemnations of apartheid. This Parliament and this Chamber are no exception. Consequently, I rise to add my voice to what is a growing volume of condemnation from parliaments all over the world. This should be a debate not only involving that ritual, perhaps platitudinist, condemnation of apartheid, involving a certain predictable criticism of the regime, which has been described by Senator Lanigan as a crime against humanity. We should also press, urgently and strongly, that our Government should use every possible means at their disposal to bring about change in that immoral and benighted state. South Africa today is in crisis and this time it is for real. Those of us who have been interested in the situation over the past number of years have perhaps talked about the crisis in South Africa on earlier occasions. This time it is unmistakably at boiling point.

The apartheid state is being threatened not only by internal violence and oppression and unrest, but also from growing and sustained continuous opposition from the international community. What has been the South African Government's response? It has been to introduce so-called reforms which have done nothing to satisfy the needs of the country's majority black population and which have left the rotten core of apartheid intact. The black population in South Africa are still victims of a complex constitution and set of laws which regulate their movements and their access to employment and deprive them of basic, political and human rights.

I believe firmly that the time for ritual condemnation and platitudes has long gone; it has come to an end. We in Ireland, small and all as we are on the perpiphery of Europe, have — and we need to remind ourselves of this more and more — moral authority, and we need to use it now like we have never used it before. We cannot hide behind myths. We cannot hide behind platitudes and, more importantly, we cannot hide in the thickets of EC and Security Council of the United Nations type diplomacy. As matters stand, in Ireland, along with other western states, we are indicted for creating the moral and political climate in which crimes against humanity, like apartheid, are not only possible but inevitable. The problem of South Africa is a global matter. The denouement will be bloody and it will be severe, precisely because it demolishes the morality, to say nothing of the definitions, of the western world and we are part and parcel of that struggle and of the denouement, whether we like it or not. We can help to make it peaceful and speedy; or, by indolence or refusing to take part, we can make it even bloodier and even more severe.

I believe we do hide behind myths. I instance as an example that civilised Europe did not go to war with Nazi Germany because it was morally outraged at the mass murder of Jews and homosexuals and gypsies but only in order to defend itself from direct attack. Self-interest is at the basis of our actions in relation to World War II and in relation to apartheid. It is not enough to make soothing noises about the need for a peaceful solution in South Africa while at the same time collaborating, no matter how slightly, with that régime. Our overriding concern should be about justice, freedom and peace, and considerations of economics and world power play should play no part in our national approach to this evil because apartheid — we must repeat it — is evil. It is the evil of racism which inflicts hatred and rejection upon its victims. Why — for being born with a dark skin?

Many pressures can be applied in many fields, economic, diplomatic, strategic, financial and social. They all add up to one word, ostracism. We must ostracise South Africa. There has been a belief for many years that ostracism is a purely negative and a destructive process in which we should not engage. I would agree that this may be valid, that this criticism may be true in certain contexts, but it is not a line that it is always worthy of pursuit. In the case of the Nationalist Government of South Africa it is not only necessary at this stage, but vital. The softly, softly approach in the matter of sporting links or visas has merely allowed the South African Government to feel that they are still approved of internationally in spite of apartheid. Critics have stated that such actions will drive South Africans even further into what is called in Afrikaans their laager. To these critics I say that the South Africans are in their laager. They are very deeply entrenched in that laager. Over and over again we have seen that the friendly advice type of approach, not backed by strong actions, is seen as weakness and indeed a condonation of the South African Government.

What of Ireland and our approach to this problem in recent months? I am disappointed. It gives me no pleasure at all to say that, because I do believe in the general thrust and motivation and sincerity of this Government. But in the area of South Africa we have not done all that it has been possible for us to do. We do not support comprehensive mandatory sanctions. We subscribe to what I call a formula which supports graduated and selective sanctions. Specifically, it is true to say that we have supported mandatory sanctions through the United Nations Security Council in such matters as the oil embargo, investments, the export of South African arms and the strengthening of the existing arms embargo on the regime. That sounds very impressive, but we as a State have no interest in any of these areas. It is a painless and a high-minded exercise to say that we support these types of mandatory sanctions. The proposed areas in which we are involved are the importation of fruit and vegetables, timber, clothing, furniture and wool, and the export of computers, electronic materials and the large investments of De Beers in the Shannon free trade area, which permits the large scale repatriation of profits to the regime. I have not heard of any statements particularly in that latter matter.

Unlike a number of western European States, we in Ireland have generally declined or refused to take unilateral action in recent years, preferring to involve ourselves in multilateral acts through the EC and the UN Security Council. One notable exception — that I would like to put on record, because it is one that I am pleased to note and it shines like a beacon — was the decision to license the exclusion of South African fruit and vegetables, which was taken as a contribution to the settlement of the long running Dunnes Stores dispute. I am very pleased that this was so and I expressed my pleasure at the time, but I would still have to ask why we have to be pushed into this kind of action, into doing what was manifestly and obviously the right thing to do. Why can we not be out there leading?

Interestingly enough, in announcing their decision to exclude the importation of fruit and vegetables, the Government related it to a further programme of action against apartheid. That announcement was made in March. Since that announcement no further steps, to my knowledge, have been implemented, or indeed even suggested, apart from the involvement and engagement in diplomacy, which I cannot see as having borne any fruit to date. Apartheid is a challenge to every citizen of every country on earth. It is a challenge which should be met with all the ingenuity and all the idealism of which all peoples of principle are capable. It is not simply a regrettable localised aberration, of importance only to South Africa. It is a universal moral crisis and no nation — particularly this one which claims to have moral authority — can stand back and adopt a neutral, passive, or self-interested, or indeed halfhearted attitude towards it. It is an affront to every single member of the family of mankind. For that reason, I am on my feet in this House this afternoon. I welcome the comments and contributions from other Senators and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister of State has to say here this evening.

Mr. B. Ryan

I should like to begin by mentioning to the House that we have in our company here — and I hope the Leas-Chathaoirleach will permit me to say this — a representative of the legitimate trade union movement in South Africa. We are all humbled by their bravery and their struggle. At this stage we can say without equivocation that the South African regime is the worst in the world. In terms of murder, of repression, of censorship and of downright lies, it has exceeded all of those regimes, of both left wing and right wing variety, that many of us here have condemned on many occasions. There is no regime anywhere in the world operating the methods of censorship, of brutality and of thought control that are now in practice in South Africa.

Those who thought that George Orwell's vision of 1984 was a model of the left gone crazy should now stand back and reassess the whole thing. The nearest thing to George Orwell's 1984 that has ever been seen anywhere in this world is what is going on in South Africa today. Words no longer mean what they used to mean a week ago; truth no longer means what it used to mean a week ago; life no longer means what it used to mean a week ago; violence no longer means what it used to mean some weeks ago. We have stories of 11 years old children in detention for three months. I do not believe there is any other State in the world, either of the left or the right that is anything like as appalling as that regime.

Let us remember why this is being done. It is being done, not in the name of privilege because they deny that; not in the name of power, because they deny that. It is being done in the name of western civilisation and western values. That is what we are being told over and over again by what is now a subversive phrase in South Africa — the white minority regime in South Africa. That is now a subversive phrase in South Africa; you can end up in jail for ten years for simply uttering it.

Let me remind this House that there is no such thing as a South African Government. It does not exist. What exists is a minority oligarchy in power by terror and terror alone. It is there because it controls though armed terror, not because it has legitimacy and not because it has right. There is no Government in South Africa and no country has the right to have diplomatic relations with a country that has no legitimate Government. The only legitimate objective at this stage, with respect to the South African regime, is the destruction of that regime. There is no middle ground; there is no room for moderation; there is no room for balance. I am sick to death of clichés being uttered by western politicians about the delicate sensitivities of the white minority in South Africa.

Let us remind ourselves again that there is also a majority in South Africa whose sensitivities have been ignored for 150 years. If there must be a choice of sensitivities, then let us remember whose sensitivities have suffered by our ignorance for the past 20 years. It is not so long ago when talking about apartheid was a mark of left wing extremism. We have shifted a long way now at this stage, but let us not forget where we stood and what we stood for. Less than 15 years ago, Members of this House welcomed the sporting representatives of white racism in South Africa into this House as representatives of good, vigorous anticommunism. We have a shameful record and it is about time we worked out where our allegiances lie. Our allegiances lie with the legitimate Government and the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa.

In that context I do, of course, look forward to and hope for peaceful change in South Africa, but it is becoming too sanctimonious to stand here, 3,000 miles away, and make pronouncements about peaceful change. If ever, in the traditional Christian understanding of the term, there was justification for a just war it exists in South Africa today. Whether the people of South Africa chose that route, or are compelled to chose that route, is one thing, but to stand back here and make moral pronouncements is entirely a different thing. There are the objective conditions which in any manual of Catholic moral theology would envisage a just war. If we want to avoid warfare in South Africa, of course, we are right. I do not accept Catholic moral theology on a just war, I have somewhat pacifist views but the consensus in this country accepts the right of people to use armed force to defend themselves. It is hypocritical on our part to claim the right here to set up an armed force to defend ourselves and then deny that right to the majority of South African citizens.

Let us remember again that there is no legitimate army in South Africa; there is a terrorist force controlled by a racist minority. The only legitimate army in South Africa could be an army organised and led by the African National Congress. There is no such army at present. I will not go so far as to say that I regret that fact. It is true that there is no legitimate army; there is a terrorist force which has military attachés — or had until recently — in most of the capitals of the western world. That terrorist force is at the centre of the problem in South Africa. That terrorist force was armed by the western powers over the last 30 years. When we finally got around to stopping giving it weapons we left it with sufficient information, knowledge and access to back-up equipment to allow it to generate its own armaments.

I want to give way to my colleague, Senator O'Donoghue now, but I repeat that we are not any longer talking about pleasantness or unpleasantness; we are talking about a minority regime held in force by terror alone. We should, of course, encourage ourselves to take sanctions. I did not bother saying I was in favour of sanctions because I do not think there is anybody in this House or probably in this country who has any doubts about my view on sanctions.

We would want to start getting away from moralising about what methods people should use in South Africa to liberate themselves. We should, of course, do everything possible to obviate the necessity for people to use violence to defend themselves. We should stop telling people that somehow they have no option in this direction. There is no Government in South Africa; there is no army in South Africa; there is simply terror installed in the name of democracy. It is time that it was ended and we did everything to end it. It is a moral principle and a moral choice and it is about time we made it.

Dr. O'Donoghue

I welcome the opportunity to lend my support to the motion before the House. As has been made clear by other speakers there is general agreement on our opposition to apartheid. That is not the issue these days. The question is, how do we best bring the ending of that hateful regime and how do we do so as quickly a possible? Essentially, it boils down to whether we can produce change by non-violent methods or whether people find themselves forced in the direction of resorting more and more to violence as the only apparent solution. We have heard Senator Ryan indicating the way in which people might find themselves moving in that direction. Undoubtedly, if the West continues to prevaricate, to drag its feet and pass the time in rather pointless and largely irrelevant discussions, then more and more people, both within South Africa and elsewhere, will find themselves moving in the direction of saying that the only option open is force.

As democratic parliamentarians we should be using every means at our disposal to show that is not the only road ahead, that it is possible to produce effective non-violent change in societies. Our own history should encourage us to look in that direction. We gave a new word to the English language, "boycott". We know that our example was followed by other countries seeking their independence. Many people in the Third World were heartened by the example of our own country and of the movement led and inspired by Ghandi in the case of Indian independence. Surely it is not beyond the wit of ourselves, and our fellow democrats in the Western world today, to devise appropriate effective measures of a non-violent nature.

I express the view of many in this House, and elsewhere, when I say it is not the wit that is lacking, it is the commitment and the willingness. There is a reluctance to face up to awkward, painful decisions and actions. Of course people will be hurt; of course sacrifices will be needed; and of course it is not possible carefully to distinguish the guilty from the innocent and ensure that no innocent party will suffer. The history of all non-violent movements, such as the ones I have mentioned, shows that the innocent had to participate and suffer just as fully as the guilty parties but they were willing to do that for the sake of the principles that were at stake.

We know from the statements made by the African National Congress, and other leaders associated with the struggle in South Africa, that the people there are also willing to accept whatever hardship is necessary in order to bring about the end of apartheid. For that reason we should put aside the careful studied balancing of all sorts of interests, however valid they may be in a local sense. They are local interests which, ultimately, must give way to the superior principles which are at stake in this issue. For that reason I should like to add my voice in urging the Government to take a much more positive role. They will find that they will have support not only in this House, but among the people as a whole if they take their courage in their hands and move in that direction.

Mr. O'Mahony

All that has to be said about apartheid has been said eloquently today and, indeed, on many occasions in the past. In the five minutes available to me, I should like to focus on the central and new element in the motion before us. For the first time, one of the Houses of the Oireachtas will this evening call, unanimously, I believe, for the introduction of trade sanctions by Ireland against South Africa. This decision marks an important development in our national position against the apartheid regime. While the decision we are about to make will not be binding on the Government, it will be a clear indication to them that it is the will of all political groupings in this House, and I believe in the other House, that unilateral economic sanctions be taken now against South Africa.

This point must be emphasised. While this House is fully supportive of recent, however belated attempts by our Government, with others, to bring about a common policy of sanctions within the European Community, we are saying this evening that the continuation of these efforts does not, and should not, preclude unilateral action on our part. A month ago, the eminent persons group predicted a blood bath for South Africa in the absence of decisive economic sanctions from Western nations. The introduction of the state of emergency three weeks ago has brought that horrendous prospect radically forward in time.

Against this background, the procrastination of Britain, Germany and Portugal in blocking effective economic sanctions at the recent European Council stands as a monstrous crime against the majority in South Africa. Sir Geoffrey Howe got his answer this week from that majority, who clearly understand the economic self-interest which lies at the heart of the delaying tactics adopted by the countries I have mentioned.

We do not know at this point when, if at all, the European Community will take effective economic action to minimise or foreshorten war in South Africa. What we do know is that mandatory comprehensive sanctions are asked of us by the black majority without further delay, as the best, and possibly the only, means of avoiding bloodshed in Southern Africa on a scale unprecedented since World War II.

In the context of that dreadful prospect, Ireland has a moral responsibility to act decisively. It is true that the imposition of trade sanctions by Ireland will not, of themselves, affect the South African regime. But the accumulation of sanctions by Denmark, the Nordic countries and ourselves will have an effect economically and politically within South Africa and, more important, they will serve the purpose of demonstrating to those nations which are now equivocating, what precisely is required of them in the face of this escalating tragedy.

I should like to add my voice to that of Senator Lanigan who mentioned specifically the computer conference to be held in Dublin in September. However, in my view, it will not happen that the organisers of that conference will of their own volition take action to prohibit South African participants from coming here. It is not in their power to do so. The only effective action to prevent South African participation in that conference will be action taken by Government. I call on the Government to take that action in the immediate future.

Mr. Howlin

The motion we are discussing tonight condemns the system of apartheid in South Africa and calls on the Government to impose trade sanctions. I do not need to illustrate by the myriad of examples that are available to me, and to every Member of this House, the nature of the barbarous, inhuman regime that exists in South Africa. We have a common view as a House and I believe the Irish people have a view now that is far more radical than the view expressed by the Government. The Irish people have led the Government by their own example in taking action against South African produce. It is time now that we plucked up our own moral courage and took direct unilateral action against this monstrous regime.

We have for a long period talked about the issue, discussed and debated the issue and beaten our breasts in condemnation of the issue, but we have not taken action that would in any way impinge on the Irish economy or hurt us. As a small country, unlike many of our European partners, we do not have extensive trade or economic links with South Africa. We do not have tremendous amounts of economic interest to lose and yet we have lacked the moral courage of some of the Nordic countries in particular — I single out Denmark as an exemplary example — to take unilateral action. We can look for excuses and the GAAT agreement has been used. Denmark have shown that they will take action. Let South Africa sue us if they like; let South Africa take us to whatever court they wish, if they dare. Let us have the moral courage to take that action.

There are two points I want to make in the five minutes I have left. One is that there exists a sponsored subcommittee of the United Nations called AWEPA which is the Association of Western European Parliamentarians for Action against Apartheid of which I and some other Members of this House happen to be members. That is a co-ordinating forum for the western Parliaments and indeed for the western democracies outside of Europe to co-ordinate action, to underline and underscore for western Governments the abhorrence of free people for the system of Government that exists in South Africa. I urge Members of this House, all members of all parties because AWEPA contains members of all the various shades of political opinion that exists within the western democracies, to join, be united and be co-ordinated in an action of solidarity with the oppressed peoples of South Africa.

My colleague, Senator O'Mahony, referred to the recent commonwealth eminent persons group report. The commonwealth sent a cross-section of eminent people to negotiate with the South African regime, not all of whom were by any stretch of the imagination left wing or radical in their views. They included people like the conservative banker, Lord Barbar. They were unanimous in their view. What else could they be when during their stay in South Africa the regime was so contemptuous of their efforts that they attacked the front line states, their neighbours, to show their contempt for any negotiated settlements. Senator Bulbulia mentioned the laager mentality of the South African regime. They are contemptuous of democracy, they are contemptuous of the feebleness of western democracies to tackle them. We can only confront them by a serious, concentrated effort and Ireland should be the moral leader in that crusade.

Before I conclude I want to refer to another aspect of the position in South Africa which has not been referred to by any previous speaker. That is the illegal occupation of Namibia by the South African regime. South Africa illegally occupies the territory of Namibia in flagrant violation of international law and in total disregard for repeated resolutions of the United Nations. They are in the process of raping that country of any vestige of wealth. They have fished out the seas. They have pulled every ounce of ore, every diamond and every ounce of uranium that they can in a mad, desperate effort to leave a wasteland behind them when they withdraw eventually, as they must, to their laager of the South African mainland. The illegal occupation of Namibia should be an integral part of our protest. We should demand that the resolution of the United Nations be complied with. We should equally have nothing to do with the illegally robbed produce of the Namibian people.

The world awaits a calamity. I quote findings of the eminent persons group in their Commonwealth report, The Missions of South Africa. They said:

Negotiations leading to fundamental political change and the erection of democratic structures will only be possible if the South African Government is prepared to deal with leaders of the people's choosing rather than with puppets of its own creation. President Botha's recent statements expressing his determination to "break" the ANC bode ill for the country's future. There can be no negotiated settlement in South Africa without the ANC; the breadth of its support is incontestable; and this support is growing. Among the many striking figures whom we met in the course of our work, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo stand out. Their reasonableness, absence of rancour and readiness to find negotiated solutions which, while creating genuine democratic structures would still give the whites a feeling of security and participation, impressed us deeply. If the Government finds itself unable to talk with men like Mandela and Tambo, then the future of South Africa is bleak indeed.

The conclusions of the eminent persons group are summarised in five issues. They declare that the system of apartheid will be dismantled and that specific and meaningful action will be taken in fulfilment of that intent. They demand the termination of the existing state of emergency. They demand the immediate release unconditionally of Nelson Mandela and all others imprisoned and detained for their opposition to apartheid. They call for the establishment of political freedom and specifically for the lifting of the existing ban on the ANC and other political parties. Finally, they call for the initiation, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides, of a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative Government. The hour of final calamity approaches. We, as a people who have suffered oppression, need now have the moral courage to lead the western democracy in taking action.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

Since the Seanad last had an opportunity to turn its attentions to the subject of South Africa there has sadly been nothing but a continued worsening of the situation in that unhappy country. In spite of the draconian measures taken by the South African administration to prevent the media reporting on what is taking place there, world attention is focussed as never before on the shocking events consequent on the latest declaration of a state of emergency. I welcome the opportunity accorded by this motion to reiterate my condemnation of the white minority's continued repression of the black majority, the denial of their basic political rights, and the whole abhorrent apparatus of apartheid.

In January President P.W. Botha of South Africa said that apartheid is dead. Unfortunately, the realisation did not lead to withdrawal of its life support system. The events of recent weeks are only too clear evidence that we are far from a solution acceptable to responsible opinion in South Africa itself. As well as this, the situation in South Africa is not only a serious affront to international opinion, it is a very grave danger to the peace and stability of the African continent.

The dilemma faced by the regime was never better illustrated than by its action in restricting the media to the extent that the violent clashes occurring daily between the security forces and protesting blacks, the disappearance of thousands of persons black and white into detention and the wholesale destruction of property cannot be reported openly. The South African regime likes to present itself to the world as a defender of western values, including freedom of the press. Yet it attempts to put a blindfold on the world's news media in order to prevent exposure of the grim reality of continuing violent repression and institutionalised descrimination which alas for too many is now the reality of daily life under apartheid.

Since the beginning of this year the South African Government have announced a number of "reforms", which it has presented as representing a significant shift in its apartheid policies. Most recently abolition of the hated system of pass laws has been announced. This system, directed against blacks only, is to be replaced by a common identity document to be issued to everyone, irrespective of colour. The abolition of the pass laws is obviously a development to be welcomed provided — and this is the important carrot — that the new regulations to be introduced do not in practice impose similar restrictions and indignities on the majority population. So far, we have no indication that they will not. The abolition of the pass laws will not of itself have very much impact unless the current influx controls are also radically modified and the South African Government have made clear that they do not intend to do this. The system of apartheid incorporates a number of basic elements developed, adapted and modified over almost four decades of rule by the Nationalist Party. Tinkering with the system, or specific reform of one particular aspect which particularly offends outside opinion is to be dismissed and is valueless if the basic structure of apartheid is left intact. The system is evil and has to be eradicated root and branch. The Government's actions in declaring a state of emergency and the wholesale arrests and repressive measures taken under it clearly indicate that the South African Government are not yet seriously intent on genuine reform. A number of Senators pointed to the coincidence which saw the raids on Zambia, Zimbabwe and on Botswana on the very days that the eminent persons group were concluding their report showing to all, if there were any left in doubt, how lacking in seriousness in reform were the South African Government.

The Irish Government, in their response to the continuing loss of life and offence to human dignity presented by the current situation in South Africa, have maintained a firm and unequivocal stand of total opposition to apartheid. Government policy aims at securing the end of apartheid by peaceful means through the exercise of pressure on the South African Government to persuade them peacefully to abandon the policy of apartheid. In the course of his contribution Senator Brendan Ryan suggested that there had been a significant change of opinion over the years. He commented that, on an occasion in the past, when a South African sports team — I think a rugby team — visited this country, they had been welcomed to this House. That was perhaps a somewhat selective recollection of what happened on that occasion. While it is of course, the case that they visited this building — and that is a source of shame — it is also the case that many more Members of the Oireachtas, including the Leader of my party, were to be found outside Lansdowne Road expressing their condemnation of those who would have any truck with that administration.

That policy toward South Africa is kept under constant review in the light of the Government's aim to help bring about that objective, the objective of an end to apartheid. Ways are examined of maintaining and increasing pressure on the Government in South Africa in the most effective manner possible as well as seeking to provide practical assistance to victims of apartheid to the extent that resources permit. The restriction on imports of fruit and vegetables from South Africa is just the latest measure to be adopted. The net effect of that measure will be that imports of South African agricultural produce into Ireland will cease from 1 January 1987. That measure is to be seen as an integral part of Ireland's national policy. That policy is among the most forward of western countries; Sweden and Norway only have announced similar restrictions on produce imports, while Denmark intends to prohibit all imports from South Africa. Many other features of our policy toward South Africa — our attitude to sporting contacts, to cultural exchanges, our policy of keeping official contact to a minimum, of not assisting trade with South Africa, all of those have long been elements of Irish policy. Some of them have been adopted only recently by other western countries, adopted in part, we would hope, following on our lead. Senator Bulbulia suggested that we should not be found hiding in the thickets of diplomacy, that we should be leading. She asked: why can we not lead?

Mr. M. Higgins

Yes.

Mrs. Bulbulia

Right.

Mr. G. Birmingham

The truth of the matter is that leadership within the Community on this issue has been provided by Denmark and Ireland. Those two countries have spoken out clearly and have made their positions clear.

Mrs. Bulbulia

Can we go as far as Denmark?

Mr. G. Birmingham

That we have not been able to bring all our partners with us is a source of regret. But our position on that is clear. Of course it is the case that Community action is likely to be much more effective than unilateral action, though that does not exclude room for unilateral action. We have already moved unilaterally, as exemplified by our decision with regard to fruit and vegetables, viewing that as the sending of an important signal. To that extent we are leading, we are in advance, with Denmark, of our Community partners. We have indicated to our Community partners the desirability of taking further restrictive measures as a signal to South Africa. We will continue to engage in that task. We will continue to work, within the process of European political co-operation, to seek to find ways on which the Twelve member states of the Community can agree as a means of further applying pressure on South Africa.

Mr. M. Higgins

With the Thatcher veto.

Mr. G. Birmingham

The Twelve have already adopted a common series of measures, both positive and restrictive, with regard to South Africa and have stated that the question of taking additional measures, including sanctions, remains. The measures adopted in September last were regarded as a minimum and were designed to make clear, in unambiguous terms, the seriousness with which the then Ten viewed the situation in South Africa, the need for the abolition of the apartheid system in that country and the opening of a genuine dialogue with the representatives of the black majority population. That was the situation in September last. More recently there have been developments but let me come to them in a moment.

In the statement announcing the measures in September last the then Ten set out a number of specific steps which they looked to the South African Government to take, steps which had been enumerated to the South African authorities during the visit to South Africa at the end of August 1985 by the Foreign Ministers of Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, representing the Community. Those demands are now well known: the lifting of the state of emergency, the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, an end to detention without trial and forced relocation, a firm commitment by the South African Government to end apartheid, to dismantle discriminatory legislation, particularly the pass laws and the Group Areas Act and, lastly real negotiations with the true representatives of the South African people, including those currently in prison.

Those steps were not seen by the Twelve as necessarily sufficing to bring an end to international pressure on South Africa. They were seen merely as constituting the necessary preconditions for the establishment of a genuine dialogue between the communities in South Africa. The Twelve — on this at least — are united and firm in their conviction that apartheid must be abolished in its entirety. When those measures were announced in September last it was stated that if there was no progress within a reasonable time the situation would be re-examined. That re-examination has now taken place. On 26 June the European Council reaffirmed that the main goal of the Twelve was the total abolition of apartheid and they decided to take additional measures. Given the time available to me I will not go through those measures in detail. They have been well reported by the media. Those measures do not represent what we would have sought. The decision of the Council did not go as far as we would have wished. In common with the majority of our partners we argued strongly for the adoption now of further economic measures against the South African administration. Unfortunately, that proposal was resisted by three states who preferred the weaker formulation with regard to future action that has been reported in the press, which involved a commitment to consultation with other industrialised countries on further measures which might be needed.

The Taoiseach has adverted already in the Dáil to the vagueness of the formulation as to future action. He has made clear what is our interpretation. We would interpret it as precluding a veto on the measures suggested in the event of Sir Geoffrey Howe's projected mission proving unsuccessful. It was generally agreed that no member state excluded the possibility of sanctions. It was not the sort of agreement that Ireland would have liked. But if it was not the sort of agreement we would have liked it does at least constitute perhaps a very small step forward. We have agreed to increase assistance to victims of apartheid. We have indicated that further measures, particularly economic ones, are ready for implementation if there is no improvement evident in three months. We have authorised the Presidency to make a further effort to establish conditions for commencement of a dialogue — all clear signs to South Africa of the Community's determination to pursue its action against apartheid.

In the aftermath of the discussions at the European Council the question was posed whether it might not have been better for those countries that were anxious to have seen stronger measures taken to press their case, leaving those countries that wanted to dissent to do so and to justify their decision. I understand the sincerity with which that view is held. I do not dismiss it lightly. But what we are about is the business of sending signals. It seems to me that to have sent a signal that the Community was so hopelessly divided — incapable at any stage in the foreseeable future of bringing all of its members with it — would have been a signal of comfort and reassurance to the Pretoria regime. That should not be the business in which the Community should engage. That we were unable to get as clear a commitment to future action as we would have liked is regrettable. But our view, the view of the then Presidency of Prime Minister Lubbers and the view of the majority of states is that, after three months, the Community should return to the issue. A commitment has been given that no member state will seek to exercise a veto at that stage on future action. So much for the European Community.

Let me look now at our role within the United Nations. The stance taken by Ireland at the United Nations is to support the imposition by the UN Security Council of selected, gradual and mandatory sanctions to be implemented on a universal basis. It is worth making the point that the resolution co-sponsored by Ireland on Concerted International Action against Apartheid was drafted carefully by the sponsors with the aim of securing maximum support from all quarters in the United Nations for a series of measures capable of further pressurising South Africa.

The resolution at UNGA 40 calls for Governments urgently to consider the adoption of a range of measures pending the imposition of mandatory sanctions by the UN Security Council, as well as calling for the Security Council "to consider without delay the adoption of effective mandatory sanctions against South Africa". The success of this resolution can be gauged from the support it secured, being adopted by 149 votes to two with only four abstentions. Ireland's attitude to sanctions remains that we support the imposition of effective sanctions which should be carefully chosen, selective, graduated, properly imposed by the Security Council and fully implemented. In the view of the Government the aim of sanctions should be to achieve peaceful change through carefully applied pressure.

The argument has been put by some who oppose sanctions that sanctions do not work. Former Rhodesia was given as an example. It was possible to evade sanctions there, but it is worth posing the contrast that the sanctions now under consideration in the EC operate on the import side, and to that extent they would hit more effectively at the South African economy and make it substantially more difficult for the South Africans to evade sanctions even if there were those who were willing to assist them. People might unscrupulously seek to profit by exporting. In so far as that argument continues to be put in public debate it is without substance.

With regard to help and assistance to victims of apartheid, including South Africa's neighbours, Ireland already supports the work of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference, which aims to further the development of Southern African countries and to lessen their dependence on South Africa. At the recent meeting between donor countries and member states of the SADCC, in Harare, in January 1986, a memorandum of understanding was concluded between the Community and the SADCC which will provide the framework for future assistance to be provided under the terms of Lomé III. Ireland also includes three of South Africa's neighbours among her priority countries for Development Co-operation, Tanzania, Zambia and Lesotho, the last-named in particular being a country which has had its development choked off by the policies pursued by South Africa.

Ireland also provides practical assistance to victims of apartheid by its support for bodies such as the International Defence and Aid Fund and the Asingeni Fund of the SACC. It goes without saying that, in considering future support for such bodies, the needs of those requiring assistance in the light of the evolving situation in Southern Africa will be kept very much in mind. I might add that it has been decided that for 1986 the grant to the International Defence and Aid Fund, first announced to the Seanad in March 1985 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be increased from £10,000 to £15,000. A further grant will be made this year to the Asingeni Fund of the South African Council of Churches. A number of NGO projects to assist victims of apartheid are currently under consideration in this Department for co-financing assistance.

I assure the House that in formulating policy the Government pay close attention to developments within South Africa through monitoring of the sources available to us and through contacts with those of our partners with diplomatic missions in South Africa. It is important, however, to stress that our policy must remain one of maintaining pressure on South Africa not just pending the introduction of specific reforms, however desirable, but until the whole edifice of apartheid has been swept away and replaced by a democratic and multi-racial society capable of harnessing the energies and wealth of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants. Senators may rest assured that we take every opportunity to work both within the European Community and in the United Nations framework to further this policy.

Senator O'Mahony suggested that in seeking to bring the EC with us we were taking belated action. Factually that is incorrect. The policy of successive Irish administrations has been quite clear; they have taken every opportunity in the EC and elsewhere to express our concern on this subject and to advance the case for collective Community response, including economic measures. The sense of anger, impatience and frustration felt by many Senators at the continuing position in South Africa came through very clearly in the course of the debate. The message of the strength of feeling of Senators from different political groups has not been lost on me.

Mr. B. Ryan

My anger and strength of feeling are directed against the Government for their disgraceful performance. That was a disgraceful script, containing nothing except £5,000. It is a disgraceful response to the most repressive regime in the world today. It is a disgrace, and the Minister should be ashamed of himself. The Minister's speech reflects nothing of the views of this House. The speech was dominated by the Reaganites of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Question put and agreed to.