Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1987

Vol. 117 No. 14

Libyan Support for IRA: Motion.

Mr. Hogan

I move:

That in view of the explicit statement from the Libyan Ambassador to France of his country's support for the IRA and the continuing interference by that country in the affairs of this island through the supply of deadly weapons to the IRA, Seanad Éireann calls upon the Government to convey to the Government of Libya the demand that it desist forthwith from its policy of interference in this country and failing such assurances to break diplomatic relations with that country forthwith.

The first thing we must acknowledge and put on the record is that we are entirely against terrorism, no matter where it occurs or no matter what form it takes. This has been brought home forcibly to us in recent weeks by the seizure of a quantity of arms and ammunition off the coast of France. Only the size and the estimated cost of the ammunition haul abroad the Panamanian registered trawler the Eksund has led anyone to doubt that this was yet another gun running effort by the Provisional IRA.

The intelligence services have ample evidence at this stage of the IRA's tireless search for arms and explosives from Libya, America, the shady European dealers and, finally, back to our old friend Colonel Gadafi. This arms haul of some 150 tonnes of weapons, explosives and ammunition is an enormous quantity for a terrorist organisation whose active service members is put at fewer than 300. There is one theory that the consignment was to be divided between a number of terrorist groups in Europe. I submit that a more likely explanation is that it was to be stored in Ireland for use over a number of years.

The Provisionals' need for more weapons has been intensified in recent times by the success of the US authorities in breaking Irish gun-running and by seizures by the Army and RUC. Last year, 160 Soviet and German made assault rifles were discovered in the Irish Republic in boxes stamped "Libyan armed forces". Increasingly the IRA had to pass weapons around to carry out attacks. The last rocket launcher captured by the security forces had been used for an operation in Belfast and a few weeks later in Derry.

The IRA's greatest wish has been to acquire surface to air missiles, included in the Eksund catch, to attack police and army helicopters used for surveillance and ferrying supplies and troops. If they did, the security forces would have to rethink their tactics. In the find I am referring to, an estimated £20 million was the cost of the haul. It also appeared to be beyond the financial capacity of an organisation which the security forces suspect need more than £2 million a year to run the type of military and political campaigns of the nature carried out by the IRA. Recent evidence suggests that the Provisionals are short of cash. The kidnapping events, particularly the kidnapping of Mr. John O'Grady, have brought it forcibly home to us that terrorist organisations will go to enormous lengths and use the most brutal tactics in order to achieve their ultimate aim of acquiring sufficient money to carry out whatever military and political campaigns they pursue, related to what they call a struggle in the North.

It may be that the Eksund cargo was gift from Libya. After all, its leader has twice in recent months expressed support for the Provisionals. He had a strong motive for wishing revenge on Britain. However, the fact that the Provisionals' army council was willing to sanction such a hazardous venture, despite the recent history of failure, indicates both determination and desperation on behalf of the IRA to counteract the technically better equipped army and police.

The Provisionals talk about a strategy for the next century designed to break Britain's will to remain in the North. They are aware of the dangers of war weariness infecting their supporters and disillusionment within the ranks. We have had sporadic bombing offences and we even had the recent spectacle of two people being blown up in an attempt to carry out a bombing offence. The real ambition seems to me to kill more British soldiers in the hope that this will hasten British withdrawal. The weapons abroad the Eksund would have helped that ambition and certainly would have given tremendous heart to the terrorists.

The operation carried out on behalf of the Provisional IRA by the Eksund should bring it forcibly home to us the international dimension of terrorist activity. It should enforce the view that the Government have a tremendous responsibility in signing the European Convention on Suppression of Terrorism Act.

I would like to refer to an article that appeared in The Irish Independent on 6 November 1987 when the head of the French police anti-terrorist section, Mr. Alain Marsaud, said there was no doubt that four previous successful operations were carried out by the Provisional IRA. French police were certain that all five arms shipments between 1985 and this year had been gifts from Colonel Gadaffi and had been loaded at the military port of Tripoli. The previous shipments are reputed to have involved a total of 150 tonnes of weapons and ammunition.

The head of the police section also confirmed that the Eksund consignment had been loaded at Tripoli between October 13 and October 15. We see that French intelligence, recently confirmed by Irish police intelligence, has confirmed that Libya was the source of this particular arms haul destined for this country by the very fact that a number of the people captured on that trawler were well known and high ranking officials of the IRA. One of the people on board that trawler was reputed to be the IRA's logistics officer, Mr. Clery. The Government have no option but to admit that this haul was destined for the IRA and that the supporting evidence which I have quoted is surely enough to substantiate the reason why the Libyans are in this particular event up to their eyeballs. In fact, there was an admission by two crew members on the Eksund that the cargo was loaded in Tripoli. This was despite denials by the Libyan Government.

The reason for the immediate placing of a motion on the Seanad Order Paper by the Fine Gael Party was a statement issued by the Libyan Ambassador to France who stated:

My country is quite open about its policies towards national liberation movements.

We all know that Colonel Gadafi has declared his support for IRA activities in Northern Ireland on many occasions. Even in an interview with RTE some time ago, he declared openly his support for the terrorist activity and campaign of carnage being carried out against the British occupation of Northern Ireland. Therefore, Seanad Eireann cannot have any doubt about the efforts the Libyan regime will make to give military support to the IRA in their attempt to "liberate Ireland from British occupation".

It is in this context that we must examine the seizure of the arms cargo on the Irish crewed Eksund off the coast of France recently. The size of the arms find itself begs the question: how many events like the bombing massacre at Enniskillen could take place in Northern Ireland with the assistance of this sophisticated equipment? It should frighten all of us to contemplate the damage to property and human life this would have caused, carried out on behalf of all Irishmen.

However, I have to question the sincerity of the Government and Fianna Fáil in their dealings with this event. In a rushed attempt to distance the Government from Libyan involvement in the Eksund affair, the Minister for Industry and Commerce postponed, but did not cancel, a trade visit to Libya. It demonstrates yet again, the ambivalence we can have and we are prepared to tolerate against international terrorism. I submit that what is wrong now for the Government when they postpone this trade visit cannot be right at any time in the future.

I regret to say that Fianna Fáil have often displayed their special relationship with Colonel Gadafi in the past. The Taoiseach, made a number of visits to meet the Libyan leader in his tent to secure beef deals for Irish meat exporters. I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Taoiseach to display his unique friendship with Colonel Gadafi yet again by asking Libya to desist forthwith from its policy of interference in this country and, if he fails to secure that assurance, immediately to break off diplomatic relations with that country. It is very important for Ireland to show that it will not tolerate gun-running escapades which will lead eventually to the killing of innocent Irish people in our country.

The events in recent history show us that Libyan activity in international affairs goes further than their involvement in supporting the IRA. The record of the Libyan Government on international terrorism, the number of incidents in relation to airline disruption, the bombing of a discotheque in West Berlin, and the number of Libyan students who have had to be expelled by various countries throughout Europe, bear testimony to the unease with which countries should view the Libyan Government under the regime of Colonel Gadafi.

This all came to a head when the US drew the wrath of the Libyan Government by invading Libya two years ago. Whether or not we might agree with the sentiments behind that attack, I have no doubt that the debate which took place in this House at the time bore testimony to the fact that the US were taunted into making an attack on the Libyan Government. The Irish Government shared the concern of the United States about international terrorism at that time. As a neutral country we had to be very careful about the crisis that developed in US and Libyan relations. The tragic events of recent times indicate that Libyan activity could be increasing again in international spheres in order to heighten international tension once more.

I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take whatever intensive co-operative action he possibly can in the European Community in the struggle against terrorism and to ensure that the Libyan activity which brought about a huge find of arms will never again be allowed to recur. We must put our country before party in dealing with international terrorism and we must demonstrate that we are forthright in resisting any attempt at the "softly, softly" approach we often have in this country to issues such as terrorism, particularly involving Libya. If our beef barons have to suspend deals with Libya that is the price we must pay for the protection of our people. We want to remove any ambivalence we may have in order to suppress any form of international terrorism that runs the risk of bringing arms into this country from a country that admits it supports the IRA and terrorism in an international sense. I hope the Government will be happy to support the Fine Gael motion.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I second the motion and reserve the right to speak at a later stage in the debate.

Mr. Lanigan

Before I address the House on this matter may I just say that Fianna Fáil have no ambivalence in our attitude to terrorism. We never have had and we never will have. An attempt is being made here this evening to suggest that we are ambivalent in our attitude to terrorists. We have always fought against terrorism. Indeed, it was said at one stage that Fianna Fáil brought in more legislation to curb terrorism than any other Government did and we were criticised for that.

The motion before us attempts to put the blame on Libya for many things that Libya has never done, and it has never been suggested by anyone outside of this country that Libya did. We agree with the sense of outrage expressed by Senator Hogan here this evening that any country should seek to supply weapons of destruction to an organisation such as the IRA who are committed to a path of violence. We share that revulsion. There is a sense of revulsion against anyone who attempts to bring arms in for use by the IRA or any other body, but it must be said — Senator Hogan mentioned the fact — that guns were found with the words "Libyan armed forces" on the boxes. Who is going to put "Libyan armed forces" in English on a box of arms going to a country in which English is not spoken except by very few. If it were said that "Libyan armed forces" was written in Arabic, I might take the point made by Senator Hogan.

We could, in a sense, but we should not, equate the Eksund with what happened in Enniskillen. On the news this evening the British Army officer in charge of security in the North, produced the actual type of bomb that was placed. A battery was produced and the name of the battery was plainly to be seen. That battery was made in England. Do we blame England for the bombing in Enniskillen? We do not. The battery that was used in the bombing was made in England. It is a very well-known type of dry battery on sale here. Do we stop the importation of these batteries into this country because that battery was used to detonate the bomb in Enniskillen? It was proved that the bomb in Enniskillen was not accidentally set off. It was deliberately set off. The bomb could only have been set off deliberately by the perpetrators of that crime, and they used English material. Do we condemn England for what happened in Enniskillen? If we do not, we should not condemn Libya——

Mr. Ross

There is a difference.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order.

Mr. Lanigan

The arms on board the Eksund, 120 tonnes, came from various countries with which we have diplomatic relations — eastern countries, western countries and also from some countries with which we do not have diplomatic relations. Do we break off diplomatic relations with the suppliers of these arms? We all join with the Taoiseach in sending our gratitude and congratulations to the French authorities for their effective action in intercepting the Eksund and its deadly cargo. It has to be said it was a deadly cargo.

It is stated that possibly the amount of arms found on that boat would equal the amount of arms the Army have at their disposal. The list of weapons read out by the Minister for Justice in the Dáil on 5 November was horrific and frightening and it takes no great imagination to envisage the extent of suffering such a number of weapons could cause had they successfully reached the hands of its intended recipients. There is no proof as yet of where these arms came from.

The Sunday Times of last Sunday week stated that the CIA, who do a monitoring service in Tripoli, showed that that boat may have been in Tripoli, but there is no proof yet. We should wait for proof before we condemn anybody.

I have seen the reports of the Libyan Ambassador's statement and I am aware of reports that indicate that even now the Libyan authorities insist on reiterating a position of moral support for the IRA while denying any connection with this shipment of arms. Senators will be aware of similar statements by members of the Libyan leadership in the past, which in various ways implied a degree of encouragement and support for the aims and objectives of the IRA. Indeed, they have come out in support of what they consider to be liberation movements throughout the world and it has to be seen in the context that they see the IRA as a liberation movement. I do not agree with that position, but we have to suggest that that is their position.

Senators will also be aware that successive Irish Governments have repeatedly sought to impress on the Libyan leadership that any expression of support for the IRA, from whatever source, was totally unacceptable to the people of Ireland. Firm protests have been made on a number of occasions and it is clear beyond any doubt that the Libyan Government have been informed and are aware of the fundamental and principal position of successive Irish Governments in regard to the question of support for the IRA.

There is a further dimension to this matter and one which Senators will also wish to take account of. I refer to the coordinated approach amongst our partners in the Twelve in seeking to combat the menace of international terrorism. This matter of international terrorism was addressed by Senator Hogan in his opening remarks. Unfortunately, he fell into the trap of blaming Libya for many things that Libya were not involved in. Of course, it is easy to find scapegoats when one looks for them.

In 1986, the Twelve, in response to evidence of Libyan involvement in international terrorism, sought to bring home to Libya in a forceful and collective way the need on the part of states with which they conducted normal diplomatic relations to expressly and clearly renounce support for international terrorism. I subscribe to the wish of the Twelve in that. The Twelve's position in this regard remains unchanged. This is a further important element in our bilateral relationship with Libya and one which provides a wider context for the situation which now prevails with regard to the Eksund.

I share fully the widespread concern and public disquiet at the evidence that continued Libyan support for the IRA be reflected in our bilateral relationship with that country. I have no doubt that this concern is also shared by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, and by members of the Government. I also believe, however, that it is the clear duty of the Government in this instance to act in a measured and prudent way. The Government are acting in a measured and prudent way in this instance, as they have been doing in every other instance over the past months. It is often the people who shout most who do the least.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste will not be goaded into action where action might be precipitate and we might not, in the end, find out exactly where these arms came from or where they were going. No doubt when the full facts are established the Government will give careful consideration to the best and most effective course of action open to them and one which will give full weight to the concern and widespread public indignation which this matter has given rise to. In this situation the Fianna Fáil Government have never bowed to commercial pressure when it comes to our relationships with any country, whether it be Libya or anybody else.

It is my view that our best interests will not be served by hasty ill-conceived action based on an incomplete version of the facts. This is not — I hope no one would think otherwise — to be interpreted as in any way suggesting a lack of concern. The unacceptability of providing support for the IRA has been made absolutely clear on several occasions. Indeed, the Taoiseach, as Leader of the Opposition earlier this year, made it clear that he saw it as his duty to prevent support being given to the IRA from any source and in any form and that he would take any steps available to him to ensure this. No one can be a friend of this State and at the same time be a friend of the IRA. I stand over that statement. Nobody can suggest that the Government would support the IRA. We will not do it and we never have. Ireland wishes to enjoy good relationships with the people of Libya. It has to be said that the people of Libya are the people who have kept Colonel Gadafi in power. He has been in power longer than any other leader, apart from Arafat, who has the full support of the PLO. Arafat and Gadafi are the two longest serving leaders of their people in the Middle East.

Mrs. Bulbulia

What does that prove?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order.

Mr. Lanigan

It proves the people of Libya support Gadafi. I said we wish to enjoy good relations with the people of Libya but this is only possible on the basis of mutual respect and understanding. In the light of the previous expressions of support for the IRA such respect and understanding has not been forthcoming from the Libyan leadership. Without that reciprocity of respect there can be no productive relationship between our two countries. I feel that the motion should not be before the Seanad. That does not mean that we do not abhor any attempt to import arms to kill people in this country, but we have to be balanced and we have to wait until the full facts are known to us, not on the basis of rumour or innuendo but we must wait until we know the full facts.

It has happened that a British ship with an Irish captain had arms which were going to the Middle East and that ship called at many European ports on the way. Nobody knows where the arms were put on board but until such time as we find out where the arms were put on board we cannot fully support this motion.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I listened with great interest to Senator Lanigan because obviously this side of the House were wondering what sort of amendment the Government would put down. Of course, there was no amendment so it was very interesting to hear what he said. It appears to me that what he offered by way of contribution was a whitewash of the Libyan involvement in the disastrous, tragic and appalling events which have sickened our people over the last number of weeks.

I understand Senator Lanigan and I believe him when he states that he has an abhorrence and detestation and a total rejection of violence as it manifests itself in this country and around the world. I respect that, but I venture to suggest that his attitude on this occasion is not unconnected with the fact that he is a prominent member of what I believe is called the Euro Arab League. It is no secret that he has warm friendships, close connections with and indeed a warm regard for countries involved in the Euro Arab League. That is all very well in its way, but I venture to suggest that his close involvement and his links in that area have somewhat clouded his judgment in relation to the motion before the House today. If it is not going too far to suggest it, I suspect he may be somewhat prejudiced in regard to all of this. He stated that the Government have never bowed to commercial pressure. I want to know why my Government are not bowing to moral outrage because the Irish people have been morally outraged at what has happened.

I intend, during the course of my statement, to make the point that the links between what has happened and Libya are there, are patently obvious and should have been acted upon with strength, vigour and with commitment by a Government who were on the ball, to use a current phrase. I and many people regret the pathetic reaction to the events. I am prompted to speak on this motion out of that same sense of moral outrage which I speak of and, indeed, a sense of utter and complete revulsion at the happenings which occurred in our country over the past few weeks.

The whole population of the entire island were stunned into disbelief as the most horrific sequence of events unfolded. In addition to expressing profound sympathy and condemnation, strong statements were made calling for an end to ambivalence, an end to double think, an end to the sneaking regarders, an end to the purveying of spurious republicanism and hatred, a multitude of words were spilled over into newsprint, spewed forth on radio and television along those lines. What was required was action, and action of the kind we are talking about in this motion did not flow; there was a gap between thought, speech and action. When those sort of breakdowns occur it is time to ask questions, and it is time to ask questions about ambivalence.

It was a time of national crisis and it is still a time of national crisis. It is a time, if ever there was a time, for the Government to give strong firm leadership and to repudiate utterly, and without ambivalence or equivocation, every aspect of the horrible crimes against humanity which it has been our deep misfortune to witness. The events I speak of are the Eksund affair, or the capturing of the Libyan arms with all due respect to my colleague Senator Lanigan, the O'Grady kidnapping and the Enniskillen massacre. All these events have forced people in both parts of this island to confront a basic ambivalence towards violence which has been and still is prevalent in this country. I regret to say that I found an ambivalence in the response of the Government and an ambivalence in the thesis put forward by Senator Lanigan on behalf of his party indicating why action was not taken on foot of the evidence. There was and there is a case to meet and, in my view, it has not been met.

There has been a challenge to democracy and a very fundamental response from the Government is required. So far it is my view that our Government have not measured up to the challenge posed by these awful, dreadful, appalling events. Reaction to the Eksund affair, the interception by French police of arms from Libya destined for the IRA, has been extraordinarily muted in sharp contrast to the trumpeting of the special friendship between our Taoiseach while in Opposition and Colonel Gadafi.

There was a time, of course, when it was politic to convey images of visits to the tent in the Libyan desert. Whimsical vistas of the Arabian Knights were put before the Irish people and linkages which were profitable in terms of beef exports, live and on the hoof, were shown clearly to have been the consequence of this visit. I am not obivious to the fact that in my city of Waterford beef on the hoof leaves our port and currently, as our port stands, is an important source of revenue. Nevertheless, it is time now to talk about principle and to put principle before commerce. I am not satisfied that the reactions of the Government have shown that principle in relation to Libya is what they are specifically and immediately concerned about.

For quite some time now the Libyan leader Colonel Gadafi has been unequivocal in his support both moral and material for the IRA. His political analysis of this country's affairs is wrong-headed and completely uninformed. Senator Lanigan referred to the fact that he would view the struggle going on in this country as being part of the great liberation struggle going on around the world. Why were visits to the tents in Libya not used to inform the Colonel of the political facts and realities of life in this country? I regard that as a failure, a gross failure on the part of Government knowing that this was the professed, explicit and expressed attitude of Colonel Gadafi.

The wrong-headed analysis of the good Colonel of the political situation in this country has resulted in the shipment of more than 100 tonnes of weaponry into this country leaving a trail of havoc, death, injury and destruction in their wake. One would have expected the Government on all the available evidence to have conveyed to the Government of Libya a demand that it desist forthwith, as this amendment says, from its policy of interference in this country and failing such assurances to break diplomatic relations with that country.

Let us come to the evidence which Senator Lanigan in his speech on behalf of Fianna Fáil chose to feel was not sufficiently hard enough and therefore action could not follow as a consequence. I quote from an article in the Sunday Tribune, 15 November 1987, by Claudia Wright in Washington. Ms. Wright states:

Photographs taken by US intelligence services confirm that a vessel thought to be the gun-running boat Eksund was in the Libyan port of Tripoli shortly before it was intercepted by customs officials off the French coast.

French security sources, who are questioning five Irishmen in connection with the arms haul, have also claimed that the guns came from Libya.

Leaving batteries aside — I do not claim to be an expert on munitions — guns came from Libya.

The US photographs formed part of routine surveillance of Libya. The significance of the sighting of the Eksund in Tripoli was not realised until the French had intercepted the vessel. Only then an effort was made in Washington to trace the ship's course back to Libya.

The US monitors the Mediterranean approaches to Libya and its airspace very carefully, using satellites and aerial patrols.

I am satisfied enough with evidence that comes from that sophisticated surveillance which points to the fact that Libya had been connected with terrorism and the importation of arms and munitions into this country. Given this evidence I would like to pose some questions as to what our Government did on foot of this evidence. My colleague, Senator Hogan, has referred to it. It leaves one breathless. The Government merely postponed the trade delegation's visit. It was not a cancellation, but a mere postponement. I have since been informed that that delegation is going or has gone in a private capacity. Certain questions must be asked.

I hope the Minister of State when he responds can confirm whether that delegation has gone there in a private capacity. I hope he will tell us who is leading that delegation and inform us if any of the Irish taxpayers' money is involved in that exercise which, given all that has happened, is untimely and unsuitable, to say the least. The postponement of that delegation's visit and the withdrawal of the Minister, Deputy Reynolds, was an inadequate response. It is patently just not good enough and does not reflect the views of the Irish people in the face of all that has happened. The decision to postpone the trade delegation was taken on Friday week last, 6 November, but extraordinarily, that decision was not announced when it was made. It was kept secret; it was not bruited about for three days.

I want to know why the secrecy, why the low key almost non-response in the face of the outrages, news of which at that stage was reverberating around the entire world? At that time it had been clearly established by French sources and via the US Department of State that the arms discovered on board the Eksund were loaded in Tripoli. We have the disturbing set-up of our Government which condemns violence and does not approve of Libyan arms shipments to the IRA, making their point by postponing the visit of a trade delegation. This could rightly be called an ambivalent, equivocal response. It is not strong, it is not swift, it is not principled, it is a non-response to events which have appalled the nation and the world. We have seen naked barbarism, lawlessness, culminating in an act of genocide which has sickened and revolted our people.

The Government's statement when it finally saw the light of day read as follows:

In view of recent developments the Government has decided that the trade visit to Libya should not proceed at present.

I do not know who was responsible for wording that statement.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute remaining.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I do not know what political thought went into that. I do not know what human compassion or understanding or even basic intelligence went into the wording of such a communication. To call it low key is almost over-stating what it was. Last year, after the US bombings of Tripoli, which I deplored at the time — nothing justifies naked aggression — Gadafi once again repeated his moral support for the Provisional IRA and despite two visits by the Irish Ambassador to Libya he refused to withdraw it. The Coalition Government then reciprocated by issuing no further visas to Libyan students here. It took a principled stand on foot of the attitude of Colonel Gadafi. What does this Government do? They postpone a trade delegation.

I am aware that Libya is a valuable source of trade and that the balance in Ireland's favour was £29.5 million last year and £26.7 million this year. I want the Minister of State, when replying, to assure me and the nation that no considerations of trade and commerce outweighed the moral outrage of these people and the consideration that a proper political response should have been made on foot of all that had occurred.

Mr. Ross

I am prepared to make time available for a Government speaker. Having heard Senator Lanigan's speech and his extremely weak apology for what is going on, I think the Government, although they may not like this motion——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator moving the amendment?

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Government" where it first occurs and substitute—

"to break diplomatic relations with Libya forthwith and calls upon the Taoiseach to repudiate all claims to friendship with him already made by Colonel Gadaffi."

I call for a quorum.

Notice taken that 12 Members not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. Ross

I am glad to see that Government interest in this motion has increased by about 12-fold since I was speaking last.

Mr. Norris

Let us hope they stay.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order, please.

Mr. Ross

I was speaking, before I interrupted myself, about Senator Lanigan's speech on this motion. I do not believe I have heard a speech in this House in six years which answers less effectively the motion which was put down by the Fine Gael Party here.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ross

I was amazed to hear him come out with the sort of non-answers and platitudes which were only worthy of the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is coming here next week. I hope he will not produce the same sort of answers.

Senator Lanigan said Fianna Fáil had never been ambivalent towards violence. I wonder if they are talking about the same motion as is being talked about on this side of the House. Fianna Fáil have been ambivalent towards the IRA at least for the past 15 years.

Mr. Lydon

Objection.

Mr. Ross

Fianna Fáil opposed the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act in 1976 for reasons which they might like to explain now because when they came into office they purported to implement it. That to me was ambivalence towards the IRA. Fianna Fáil opposed extradition throughout the seventies for reasons which are very difficult to understand and are in the process today of putting extradition into effect. Even now — and I am not privy to what happened at the parliamentary party meeting today but I probably will be in the morning when it will be all over the newspapers — Fianna Fáil are having enormous trouble with their lunatic backwoodsmen in getting this moderate measure through. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party are rightly going public——

Mr. Hussey

On a point of order, it is very wrong of the Senator to refer to Fianna Fáil backbenchers in such a manner and he should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Ross

I have no intention of withdrawing that remark.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is concerned that parliamentary language should be used at all times in the House and I do not think it is acceptable to refer in that fashion to colleagues outside the House.

Mr. Ross

Can I refer to the irresponsible elements of Fianna Fáil then, please? Would that be reasonable?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Provided you withdraw that remark.

Mr. Ross

I withdraw it then.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ross to continue.

Mr. Ross

The Fianna Fáil attitude to extradition now is completely different from what it was when in Opposition and when in power in the seventies. What is the Fianna Fáil attitude to NORAID? I have heard very little on it. Perhaps if we get other Fianna Fáil speakers on this motion — which they seen to find extremely uncomfortable — they will explain to us what their attitude to NORAID is. This is important and this is what the debate is about. I put down this amendment not because I disapprove of the Fine Gael motion but because I do not think the Fine Gael motion is strong enough. I thought the Fine Gael motion gave Fianna Fáil the sort of "out" they were looking for. The Fine Gael motion calls upon the Government to convey to the Government of Libya the demand that it desist forthwith from its policy of interference in this country.

Failing such assurances — I would not believe those assurances if I got them and I am not sure I would believe the Fianna Fáil Party if they told me they got them either — the honest thing for the Fianna Fáil Party to do on an issue like this, which they find acutely embarrassing, is immediately to cut and break off diplomatic relations with Libya. I find no reason in Senator Lanigan's speech why this has not been done already. I find nothing but excuses. Senator Lanigan's speech did not answer one single question about the Eksund. All it gave was a fair few excuses that it is not definite that it came from Libya. That is the most extraordinary statement because it seems to be accepted throughout the international world that it came from Libya and for some reason it is not accepted here. The reason it is not accepted here is that it is politically embarrassing for the Leader of Fianna Fáil to have to accept this because of his so-called “friendship” with Colonel Gadafi. That is why I put down the amendment that the Taoiseach should repudiate all claims to friendship made by Colonel Gadafi.

It is most important that the Leader of this country should not be seen to be having another love-in — which is what he had before — with the leader of a country who is sending arms to subvert not only Northern Ireland but probably this part of the country as well. It is ridiculous that the Leader of this country, for some reason, seems frightened to condemn Colonel Gadafi because of some special relationship which he appears to have cultivated with him while he was in Opposition.

It is important when these matters are being debated that this House should realise that the eyes of the world are looking at Ireland and its attitude to international terrorism. It is amazing for any one outside Ireland — and I have talked to many of them in the past two or three months about these issues — to understand our attitude to terrorism. It is impossible for them to understand the sort of legal niceties which are being provided as excuses for our attitude to the European Convention on terrorism and extradition at the moment. Either we are not genuine about this — we are ambivalent about this and we are providing excuses — or we simply are not sensitive to world opinion which is not interested in this. Gadafi is regarded as an international terrorist in this context at this stage. Gadafi has proved, by his support for the killing of a policewoman in London, the disco bombing in Berlin and many other tragedies, that his support for international terrorism is unequivocal and unambiguous. We may find this difficult and we may find this uncomfortable, but it is there and we should condemn it in the most concrete and obvious way.

The reason we are not doing this is related to trade. The reason, I presume, is meat and no other reason. I presume that those who are making enormous sums of money out of the meat trade to Libya are not unconnected with the Fianna Fáil Party. The pressures are purely financial and pecuniary ones. We have got to ask ourselves what price are we prepared to pay for some sort of morality on this issue. While we are prepared to export meat to Libya, the exchange for that is, apparently, that we are prepared to import terror. That to me is completely unacceptable.

I say this as one — and there are many others in the House — who was in the last Seanad. In that last Seanad we passed an emergency motion condemning the American bombing of Libya. We did this in a spirit of neutrality, in a spirit of what was morally right and morally wrong. It was not in any way indicating support for what had provoked the bombing of Libya but that we are neutral in any military disputes between the US and Libya. Our neutrality does not extend, as it appears here, to some sort of moral neutrality. We apparently are claiming — as neutrality was mentioned on the other side of the House — that in some way we are neutral as between right and wrong. What Colonel Gadafi is doing is quite obviously wrong.

It is particularly important that the Taoiseach should condemn Colonel Gadafi because the Taoiseach, rightly or wrongly, is internationally portrayed as being soft on violent republicanism. He has asked for this by his particular attitude and his particular friendship with Colonel Gadafi. In this context it is important that he should make a personal condemnation of Colonel Gadafi and all his work, that he should cut his ties with him. It is important that we are seen worldwide not to be ambiguous on terrorism and that we take other measures that are necessary in this area. We should look again at Sinn Féin and decide whether we should proscribe Sinn Féin which is purely a mask for the IRA. We should look again at those other organisations which money from Colonel Gadafi supports. We should look again at Sinn Féin's shops and decide whether they should be banned. We should look again at An Poblacht and whether it should be banned because all of these things contribute in a hideous way to the loss of life in Ireland. We should look at section 31 with new eyes to see whether those who preach this sort of gospel should be allowed the freedom of the airwaves.

I put this motion forward in a very disappointed fashion. The Fianna Fáil Party have not shown any interest in it. Senator Lanigan said that he did not think it was something that should be debated in the Seanad. This is the strongest possible condemnation of the failure of the Government to come clean on where these arms have come from because it is uncomfortable for them.

An Leas-Chataoirleach

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr. Norris

I would like formally to second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.

Mr. Lydon

I am astounded that Senator Ross in the course of his speech not alone insulted the Minister for Foreign Affairs but also said that Fianna Fáil supported the IRA. This is blatantly untrue. Any examination of our pronouncements on legislation during the past few years will indicate that that is not true. Furthermore, he used the words "Fianna Fáil backwoodsmen". I have never heard such bullshit talk in all my life.

Mr. Ross

In my book, that is unparliamentary language.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is concerned that, unfortunately, there are some elements of unparliamentary language creeping in from both sides of the House. Let us get back to normal language.

Mr. Manning

On a point of order, is the Chair ruling that the word is unparliamentary because I do not believe it is in the glossary of unparliamentary terms?

Mr. Lydon

It is what makes the grass grow in Texas and it is what was spewing out of that man's mouth.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator like to withdraw the word that the House finds offensive?

Mr. Lydon

I will withdraw the first word but I will not withdraw the second word. I find it extraordinary that he can stand up here and accuse Fianna Fáil of supporting the IRA in any shape or form. Our history as a party should convince him otherwise. The very raison d'être of Fianna Fáil is to secure the reunification of the country by peaceful means, which is the exact opposite of what the IRA stand for.

Mr. Ross

Lip service.

Mr. Lydon

It is not lip service, it is fact. We have never subscribed in any way to what they stand for and, in particular, in recent years we have never subscribed to anything they stood for. The Senator also insulted the Taoiseach. I find it most objectionable that he should have insulted the Taoiseach when he was not present. I have no more to say on the matter at present.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would like to point out to Senator Lydon that the Chair would be alarmed to think that it allowed a direct insult to the Taoiseach to go unchallenged. I did not hear an insult to the Taoiseach. If I had, I certainly would not have allowed it.

Mr. Lydon

Senator Ross said that the Taoiseach was soft on violent republicanism.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is a political charge.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order, I said that that was the image that was portrayed abroad.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We cannot have a debate on it. I want to make it clear that the Chair is impartial and will not allow anyone either inside or outside the House to be personally insulted. I must insist that parliamentary terminology is used by all Senators at all times. Political charges are and have always been allowed but they have to be couched in parliamentary language. Can we have a continuation of the debate on this motion in the normal, orderly manner?

Mr. Manning

On a point of order, the matter which raised the anger of Senator Lydon was, I believe, the remarks made by Senator Ross about the content of Senator Lanigan's speech. I was here for that speech and I agree with everything that was said by Senator Ross. It is difficult for the Senators who were here to have that matter raised by somebody who was not here at that time.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

A point of order is very specific.

Mr. Manning

It was a point of observation.

Mr. Connor

I hope I will remain within the confines of parliamentary language because I will have some harsh things to say. Some of them will be about Colonel Gadafi and some of them will also have to be about the Taoiseach.

In being associated with this motion I am motivated by a strong feeling of revulsion against Colonel Gadafi. I have been observing him since he took over from the medieval King of Libya, King Idris, about 15 years ago. During the reign of this gadfly, Gadafi, in Libya, we have had 15 or more years of uninterrupted international terrorism. Colonel Gadafi is the doyen of international terrorism. We have heard about his attacks on his neighbours. He is not just an international terrorist; he also preys upon his neighbours, for example, Chad which is a peaceful ex-French colonial country beside Libya. He has invaded northern Chad and his forces have gone close to N'djamena, the capital of Chad. He has attempted to stir up internal insurgency in a number of his other neighbouring countries.

In 1977 he launched a sadist crusade to march upon Egypt. He went to the Egyptian border. The then Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat, who was the most moderate Arab in the Middle East at the time called Gadafi — and he was right in saying this — a madman. Whether it is parliamentary or unparliamentary I have to say that I agree with the late Anwar Sadat's description of Colonel Gadafi.

We all know, and he even boasts about the fact, that he is the chief arms supplier to the Hezbullah who have carried out the most hideous crimes in Lebanon. They are the so-called party of God. God help us. He was the supplier of arms to the Black September who carried out that ferocious outrage at the Munich Olympic Games 15 years ago. He was the supplier of arms, and he was glad to admit it, to the Baader-Meinhof gang who carried out many notorious outrages in Western Europe and, in particular, Germany, France and Holland. His involvement in the outrages at Rome airport and Vienna airport immediately after the Christmas of 1985, is well known.

Colonel Gadafi has said on many occasions that he supports the IRA. He has said in at least one interview with an American magazine —Newsweek if I remember correctly — that he supplies them with arms. Colonel Gadafi has said that publicly. He said these things many years ago. In the interim, the Taoiseach — and most of the time when Leader of the Opposition — has had this ongoing friendship with Colonel Gadafi. He has made two visits to Libya where he met Colonel Gadafi. Even after Gadafi had pronounced that he arms and supports the IRA the Leader of the Opposition, now Taoiseach, went to visit that man.

Mr. Hussey

So did your Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Connor

I would also point out that on another occasion when he visited Colonel Gadafi he was left waiting outside the tent.

Mr. Hussey

So did Deputy Austin Deasy.

Mr. Connor

The ambivalence of Deputy Haughey, the Taoiseach, towards this man, who has a reputation as an international terrorist, is — and I am sorry to have to say this because it is a shame to this country — utterly disgraceful. He should have come clean long ago and repudiated all his actions. Two summers ago, we and the whole world saw — and Senator Ross referred to it — the shooting dead of a policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher, in broad daylight at Regent's Park in London, outside the so-called Libyans' "People's" Bureau. She was shot from the window of the Libyan People's Bureau by a so-called diplomat of Colonel Gadafi. That is the kind of thing that this "friend" of the Taoiseach engages in on the international stage. It was also referred to by Senator Lanigan. Senator Lanigan's response to this debate here tonight was weak and pathetic.

Mr. Ross

Hear, hear.

Mr. Connor

His speech on behalf of the Government was full of lame excuses. He referred to a consignment of arms and tried — and this is what amazed me — to say that the consignment of arms found in this country last year did not come from Libya. I would like to inform the House that those arms were discovered in County Roscommon about five miles from where I live. There was every evidence that those arms came from Libya. They were Russian arms of the type we well know are supplied by Russia to Libya. In that consignment there was further evidence that they were issued to the Libyan Army. Proof of that was evident from the Arabic writing on the consignment and nobody can contradict that. All the evidence is overwhelmingly against this man Gadafi and his actions on the international stage. Yet, we trade with him. Yes President Reagan's famous attack on him last year was wrong.

While there might be a certain feeling of support for it, it was wrong. This House and the Fine Gael Party said it was wrong at the time and we still say it was wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right — the greater wrong of Gadafi in the world and the terrible wrong of Gadafi in his actions in this country in supplying these arms.

I condemn — and that is the word I must use — the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins for what he said in the Dáil on this issue a week ago. Pointedly, and it is in the Official Report, he never referred to the arms as coming from Libya. He talked about them coming from a source in the Mediterranean. Why did he not come straight out and tell us what we know and what the dogs in the street are barking, not only here but in every other country in the world: these arms originated in and came from Libya and they came here with the blessing of Colonel Gadafi. That is a fact.

He went on to say that possibly four other consignments came from that area in the past two years and that the Garda are investigating this but he was unwilling to go further than that. Because he obviously knows more than he is telling us I call on him to come forward and let the Dáil and the country know what he knows about the four consignments that were supposed to have come here in the past four years and that were distributed apparently to the IRA, the INLA, or whoever. He should come clean on these issues. He should not hide behind this kind of diplomatic language about the Mediterranean area. There is only one major international delinquent in that part of the world who happens to be the leader of a country and that is Gadafi. The Minister, Deputy Collins, should have the courage to stand up and say exactly who he is talking about. Of course, he may have the tug on his sleeve of his Leader who does not want him to name his friend, Colonel Gadafi.

With my party I call unequivocally for the severance of our diplomatic relations with Libya. I understand that our Ambassador in Rome is accredited to Libya. He should be told forthwith that his diplomatic mission and the carrying on of diplomatic relations with Libya are now terminated. I am not sure exactly what diplomatic relations Libya has with this country or what kind of diplomatic representation it has. Whether he is an ambassador, chargé d'affaires, or whatever, he should be told he is no longer welcome and if he lives in this country he should be told to go home. If he lives in London or is accredited from London he should be told that we no longer wish to have diplomatic relations with his country.

This is a moral question. I have detailed what Gadafi's reputation is like on the international stage. He has caused outrage after outrage all over the Middle East. He has carried out hijackings, murderous attacks, suicide attacks in Lebannon and murderous attacks on innocent bystanders at Vienna and Rome Airports. This is the sort of enormously twisted, grotesque, international mischief this man engages in. He does not engage in it in Ireland by arming terrorists here because he believes Ireland has some kind of a colonial problem but because of the twisted mischief of the man. I am sorry if that sounds unparliamentary or undiplomatic, but sadly it is true. He is not the first monster to be a leader on the world stage.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is perturbed. The motion and the amendment mention the leader of a country with which we have diplomatic and friendly relations. It has always been the case here that people who lead countries with which we have friendly relations are treated with respect. I will have to insist that diplomatic and less emotional language be used in this debate.

Mr. Manning

On a point of order, surely it is because the evidence points to the fact that the descriptions given by Senator Connor are factually accurate that he is using that language.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair does not wish to judge anything. It is not my authority to do that. This has to be a parliamentary debate and I cannot allow the leader of a country with which we have diplomatic relations to be described and referred to in unparliamentary language. That is my ruling and Senators who are not able to abide by that will have to resume their seats.

Mr. Manning

On a point of order, every single word used by Senator Connor was factually accurate. Surely there is no way in which anybody can take exception to any of the words used to so describe him.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is not in a position to make any judgments. It does not have to make any judgments but I have given a ruling. Senator Bulbulia on a point of order.

Mrs. Bulbulia

On a point of order, could I say that I suspect the difficulty which the Chair is experiencing arises from a difficulty with the word "monster". It could be used in its original Latin derivation as being something larger than life——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not going to get into an academic debate either.

Mrs. Bulbulia

——rather than in the connotation I suspect the Chair feels was conveyed by what Senator Connors said. Colonel Gadafi is by any standard larger than life. I suspect that is the way in which it was meant.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have given a ruling and I appeal to my colleagues to respect it.

Mr. Connor

If the Chair finds the description used unparliamentary, I will withdraw it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Thank you Senator.

Mr. Connor

I was making comparisons with Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin and Caligula, who is one of my favourite unmentionables, who have bestrode the world stage. We know what happened in Germany but people like Caligula and Amin had only a very local effect in the evil things they did. The regime in Libya spread its evil deeds, evil doings and evil work all over the world. I fully support the motion that this country should terminate and sever all relationships with this man Gadafi.

Mr. S. Haughey

I was appalled by Senator Ross's contribution to this debate. I listened very carefully to his contribution on the monitor and I was appalled at what he said. I felt personally insulted by his comments and I think he has insulted every democratically elected Member of this Oireachtas by what he said. We all are concerned at the serious events which have taken place in this country over the past few weeks. I understand his concern but I think he could have been more diplomatic. I would like to put that on the record.

I would like to take up Senator Lydon's point about the Fianna Fáil Party. Fianna Fáil were founded in 1926 specifically to achieve a united Ireland by peaceful means. The big break-up of the Sinn Féin party occurred at that time. The people who went with Fianna Fáil were people who were committed to obtaining peace by peaceful means. I suggest that Senator Ross should read again that period of Irish history so that he can see that that was the situation. Eamon de Valera founded the Fianna Fáil Party because he wanted to achieve his aspirations by peaceful means. I would say that Fianna Fáil are the only republican party who at present are committed to achieving their objectives by peaceful means.

It is very important that we have a democratic, republican party who wish to achieve a united Ireland by peaceful means. If Fianna Fáil were not in existence and did not take on that role, the only people who would be committed to achieving a united Ireland would be the IRA and that would be very serious. I put it that Fianna Fáil are fulfilling a very important constitutional role by being a republican party who aim to achieve unity by peaceful means.

I fully condemn, and I think every Member of this House would fully condemn, the outrage which occurred at Enniskillen. I did not contribute to the debate on that matter last week but it goes without saying that every Member of the Oireachtas fully condemns that incident. Every Member of the Oireachtas condemns violence of any sort and we must all be committed to achieving our objectives by peaceful means. Although I was not a Member of the last Seanad, I was pleased to hear from Senator Ross that the Seanad passed a motion condemning the bombing of Tripoli. This was a moral outrage. I condemn the USA and Great Britain for their role in that incident. It is absolutely appalling that such violent incidents should be used by governments. I value human life and I am sure that everybody here values human life. In that regard, I condemn also the horrific incident at Loughgall. Anybody who values human life and peace must also condemn in the strongest possible terms the incident which occured at Loughgall earlier this year.

I had not intended to speak in this debate so I had only a few points put together and those are the main ones. I would also say, in a calm, rational way, that our trade with Libya is important and everybody acknowledges that. The country has serious decisions to take in the light of recent events but we must have a sense of balance and our trade is important. Of course, the gun salvage in France was absolutely horrific and the mind boggles at just how much arms were going to be imported into the country on that ship.

We heard today that the number of arms on that ship, and on the other ships which are alleged to have come into the country, are more than what the Garda Síochána and Army have at their disposal. It is absolutely appalling and I congratulate the French authorities for their role in bringing to the notice of the country the arms found on that ship.

We have to take calm, rational decisions. The motion the Fine Gael Party put down this evening is not the best way to go about what we have to do. We need to take decisions in a calm fashion. We should not be rushed into decisions which will have major consequences for this country. The way the Fine Gael Party are going about this is not the right way. I hope the motion was not put down for sheer party political opportunistic reasons.

Mr. Manning

Fianna Fáil would never do so.

Mr. S. Haughey

Given that that allegation might be made, I believe this is the wrong way to go about it.

Mr. G. Reynolds

I would like to say to Senator Haughey that it was with no vast political motivation that we brought this motion before the House. It deals with a very serious matter and it is regretful that any party should have to bring a motion which deals with such an emotive and bloody issue before a House of the Oireachtas. It is with regret that I have to speak on this motion but after the events of the last couple of weeks and the seizure of arms on the Eksund I think the time has come when we have to take a very tough stance with the people with whom we have diplomatic relations.

We listened emotionally to the speeches that we made in the House last week about the people who were killed in Enniskillen. As an individual who lives very near Enniskillen I was very annoyed to learn that the bomb-making equipment that was found where the disaster took place was the same as that which was found by the French authorities on the ship Eksund. That speaks volumes. We cannot go on accepting the fact that Libya, which is involved in international terrorism, is giving arms to the Provisional IRA. We have to accept that the Provisional IRA are causing a lot of pain and strife, both physically and economically, in this country.

I have lived in the Border area all my life and I know what it is like to see businesses falling away. The people who are to blame for this are the ones who have kept this terrorism going. The countries like Libya that try to ship armaments into this country are the ones that keep the terrorists armed. This has to stop.

The town of Ballinamore is infamous for the shoot-out that took place there in a kidnapping case. As a person from that town I feel strongly about that. We know the pain and strife that the families in the latest kidnap case have suffered. As an individual who lived in a town that was taken over by Garda and Army, where the people lived in fear for one solid week, I feel that if everybody experienced the type of fear the people of Leitrim and Ballinamore experienced, they would do everything in their power to make sure that that would never happen again.

Our trade with Libya is important but there is no way we can put trade above human life. I ask the Government to consider this seriously. We all suffer during times of harsh economic realities but I would gladly suffer on if terrorism is removed from this country. The one hope I have is that terrorism will be removed. I come from County Leitrim and terrorism is a terrible fact of life that the people there have to live with every day. As a public representative I have received threatening phone calls and letters. It is annoying to me and to my family. I do not think any individual should have to experience this.

If Colonel Gadafi in Libya is sending arms shipments which are encouraging acts of terrorism, I have to appeal to the Government to break off diplomatic relations with that country. The Libyan Ambassador to France has stated:

My country is quite open about its policies towards national liberation movements.

Colonel Gadafi has declared his support for IRA activities in Northern Ireland on many occasions — even in an interview on RTE some time ago. Therefore Seanad Éireann cannot have any doubt about the efforts which the Libyan regime will make to give military support to the IRA in their effort to liberate Ireland from British occupation. When you have a representative of the Libyan Government stating that sort of policy, I feel we have to grasp the nettle to offset it. If we have to lose economically, we must be prepared to do so.

Debate adjourned.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. W. Ryan

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.