If I had had enough notice I would have put in an amendment to this motion which might or might not have been accepted. The amendment I would have put down is: "That Seanad Éireann notes the statements made by Libyan political leaders supporting paramilitary groups in this country and calls on the Government to clearly restate the position of this nation and its people." That I believe is acceptable to everybody. Over a number of years past everybody has been aware of the statements that have been made or attributed to political leaders——
Death of Press Gallery Member. - Libyan Support for IRA: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Senator Hogan on 18 November 1987:
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.
Debate resumed on 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 Gadafi."
—(Senator Ross.)
On a point of information, would the Senator mind restating the amendment? I did not hear it the first time.
"That Seanad Éireann notes the statements made by Libyan political leaders supporting military groups in this country and calls on the Government to clearly restate the position of this nation and its people." That would be my simple interpretation of what I think should be said. I am aware that over the years there have been many statements made, some of them made with strong political connotations and for political propaganda here. I have no stand to take other than the one which would generally be supported by a large number of people in this country, that is that we do not need outside interference here in our difficulties. This is the stand that will be unanimously taken if politics are left out of it.
Over the years statements have been made by the Libyan leaders; many statements were attributed to them and some of these were ill-founded. This is to my personal knowledge because I was a member of a parliamentary group that went to Libya. That group was broadly based and covered all political parties over the whole political spectrum here. During our visit to Libya we had discussions about commercial and trade possibilities. We have had one reporter or more from this country who sent back messages stating that a private meeting took place between Colonel Gadafi and named certain members of that parliamentary group. That statement was completely false. I do not know if it was ever corrected but it was completely false and without any foundation. No member of that parliamentary group ever met Colonel Gadafi. They did meet leaders of Libya and attended meetings with them in Government House in Libya but certainly nothing of a political nature was discussed and no indication of Libyan support for paramilitary groups in this country was ever evident or stated during those meetings.
Therefore, I am surprised now that this matter has to be discussed and cleared up. I am surprised that any national leader would make statements of support for a paramilitary group operating in another country. So much is propaganda these days and propaganda is a big part of foreign policy in some countries. We have our political difficulties with Britain and they are very much involved in a struggle with Libya. We can make our own judgments and assessments but certainly the whole area of propaganda is one that we are not very much involved in. We have not got the resources or the finance to get involved on a national scale in that kind of propaganda. I think it is unwise of us to attribute too much importance to the statements alleged to have been made.
I would be very happy if our Government would clearly state the exact position. I think it is unnecessary for our Taoiseach to refute statements that are attributed to Colonel Gadafi or the political leaders in Libya about claiming friendship with our Taoiseach and leader here. It is sufficient for those statements to be ignored. To call on our leader to refute any such claim is totally unnecessary and is purely political propaganda. We should not pay much attention to it.
I would like to say, first of all, that I had to consider for some time whether I would agree to lend my name to the amendment which was put down in the names of Senator Ross and myself because I was aware of the fact that it might be interpreted as being in some sense anti-Arab or anti-Libyan. I would like to make it clear from the start that I regretted that in the debate last week there was detectable some element of an anti-Arab or an anti-Libyan people bias. I would like to make it clear that I do not start from that standpoint and that, quite on the contrary, I respect, honour and appreciate the contribution of the Arab people to the development of civilisation on this planet.
I also would like to say that I certainly do not regard Colonel Gadafi in quite the unqualified way as do some speakers on this side of the House. He clearly has been implicated in a number of negative events, shall we say, but equally he has in the State of Libya very actively promoted things with which I fully agree and heartily endorse and which are quite unusual in the Arab world. For example, despite the impact of the Iranian fundamentalist element in that country, he has very actively promoted the rights and welfare of women. I salute him for that.
I also greatly regret the fact that the Americans took the unjustifiable step of pinpointing, targeting and attempting to bomb his home in retaliation for events, some of which could very much more easily have been laid at the door of the Syrian People's Republic but the Americans were unwilling to take that difficult situation on board. However, it seemed to me last week that we were in a situation of considerable seriousness. Having reviewed the events of the intervening week it had become that much more serious.
I quote, for example, from a press comment in which the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, made very clear the nature of his concern. Referring to the Eksund cargo he commented at his news conference that it had threatened the lives of Irish people. “It also threatened”— and I am quoting directly —“the very safety and security of the State. The power of those highly sophisticated weapons to maim, destroy and kill, was on a scale that we have never before encountered”. I take it that he was referring to the certain existence in the cargo of the Eksund of SAM-7 armour piercing antiaircraft missiles and a very sinister development, that is, a considerable quantity of Semtex explosive which, as I understand it, has a proportionately far higher explosive value than other more primitive forms of explosive, thereby rendering it a far more efficient method of taking human life and destroying property.
It is a very serious matter when the Minister for Justice of this State states categorically that this importation of arms seriously threatens the existence of the State itself, in other words, there is the capacity to undermine the democratic institutions of our State. His view it seems was echoed by the Minister who, I am very glad to see present here this evening, Deputy Lenihan, who is reported in The Irish Times of 24 November as stating after a meeting with Sir Geoffrey Howe that the advanced nature of the weapons involved in this cargo represented — and I quote Deputy Lenihan as quoted in The Irish Times—“a real threat to our Government as well as a real threat to the British Government”. I take this opportunity to remind the House — no, I do not have to remind Deputy Lenihan — of his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 1987, exactly two months ago, when he said, dealing with terrorism:
Despite widespread condemnation by the United Nations and other international organisations and improved co-operation in implementing measures to deal with it, the serious threat posed by terrorism to human life and to international peace and security remains. Ambivalence with regard to terrorism and its perpetrators still persists. Along with our European partners, we have repeatedly and unambiguously condemned all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of the identities of those responsible or their motivations. We must all ensure that the obligations that we have assumed under international conventions are fulfilled; we must also pledge ourselves further to intensify existing bilateral and multi-lateral co-operation on practical anti-terrorism measures. Much of this can be carried out within the framework of the UN and its agencies, as exemplified by the work currently under way in the ICAO and the IMO. It behoves us all to do our utmost to see that terrorism ceases to be a threat to the orderly conduct of international relations.
In the light of those admirable sentiments and considering the developments of this week, I have no hesitation in adding my name to the motion calling upon this Government to break off diplomatic relations with Libya. I say that with the greatest regret because of my respect for the Arab nations and for the Libyan people. I may, however, point out that Senator Lanigan, the Leader of the House, was incorrect in his speech when he referred to two heads of State. He instanced one as being democratic and so on; he instanced Colonel Gadafi who arrived by means of a coup and Yasser Arafat who is not a head of State, who does not have a State, regrettably though that may be, of which to be head and who in recent weeks was denied this status by King Hussein of Jordan.
In calling upon the Minister to implement these signed statements I must draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be the very clear identification of Libya as a source of these weapons. Some of the weapons found earlier this year were identified clearly as being of Libyan origin and it is useless for Members of this House to raise the question of the method of marking. I note that even Ministers of this Government have referred to this marking. It is quite clear.
I would also like to say that the Eksund left Malta empty, was photographed by satellite in the harbour at Tripoli, then again took to the high seas; was, I think, photographed at sea and was certainly intercepted by the French Navy, full to the brim with arms. I may remind the Minister of an old country saying: “If it walks like a duck, if it swims like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is highly likely that it is a duck.” In this instance Colonel Gadafi has been making suspiciously duck-like noises both personally and through his international diplomatic representatives for a very considerable time.
I draw the attention of the House in support of this to the fact that Colonel Gadafi's apparent interest in and support for the IRA really began in June 1972 with a highly inflammatory speech in which he chose to meddle in the internal politics of this island and espouse the cause of the IRA. This naturally attracted some attention in those circles and the Provisional IRA dispatched representatives to Tripoli who were well received. The information I have is that the Provisionals sent full time representatives to Tripoli at the behest of the Libyan Government and were given semi-diplomatic status. It was agreed that economic aid would be given to IRA diplomats My information is that a teacher from County Monaghan — three, rather — another teacher from County Down and an Iraqi-American went to Tripoli under cover of taking jobs as English teachers and that one of these, the most senior of them, was housed in a villa at the centre of Tripoli's foreign embassy area.
This attracted the attention of another group, the UDA, the Ulster Defence Association. It is well known that in November 1974 a deputation from this other terrorist body led by Glenn Barr and including Tommy Lyttle, Andy Robinson and Charlie Chicken arrived and made — I am not responsible for his name.
Mr. Chicken's Christian name is not "Charlie". It is Harry.
I am not interested in that at this stage. A group arrived and whatever their names, the thing that interests me about this — and this is from highly researched work by two distinguished journalists employed in The Sunday Times when it was a really good newspaper — is what they said. In this work Mr. Lyttle is quoted as follows: “They”— that is the Libyan officials —“had the impression that the whole of Ireland was occupied by British troops and they were surprised to hear that there was an independent Southern Ireland. We also got them straight about the Provos. We told them that the Protestants didn't want the British out at that time and that the Provos weren't just shooting military targets but ordinary Protestant people as well.” Lyttle felt, however, that their trip was successful in opening Libyan eyes to the scale of the Irish problem.
I would like to ask the Minister is he satisfied that this kind of remark can be made seriously. What is the current status of our relations with the Libyans? Is it not the case that we have an Embassy at Rome at which the Ambassador is also accredited, although non-resident, to Tripoli? How is it that the UDA can apparently effectively put a stopper on the flow of arms but our Embassy appears impotent to do so? I will refer him again to where he said in his speech to the United Nations that we must be unambiguous in these areas.
The conclusion that one must draw is that the impression given to Colonel Gadafi is not as unambiguous on these matters as it might be. The most unambiguous message we can give to Colonel Gadafi at the moment is to break off diplomatic relations with Libya. It seems extraordinary that we can tolerate a situation in which both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice accept and state in a public forum that the arrival of this enormous quantity of arms of a very sophisticated nature is sufficient in quality and in quantity to precipitate danger to the very fundamental institutions of this State in a situation where there is virtual certainty that this material originated in Libya. I do not accuse Colonel Gadafi of being anti-Irish. It is perfectly clear that he is attempting to pay off Margaret Thatcher for being implicated in the bombing raids on Tripoli which I deplore and which this House, before I was a Member of it, condemned unanimously.
Acting Chairman
You have one minute left.
That one minute is almost too much for me because I have made the points I wished to make and I look forward to the Minister's response.
Having listened with considerable interest to Senator Norris' speech I now wish to take the motion before us as far as the motion goes but not to pursue it as far as the amendment.
I spent some time in Libya about ten years ago and became well aware of what an under-developed area of the world it was then. In fact, at that time and shortly beforehand it was on record that there were fewer than 30 Libyan graduates in spite of the great potential the country had. Most of the key positions in the country and in the kingdom which were in any way involved in production or organisation were held by expatriates.
Another point I would like to make before I deal with the motion is that many of us forget that Libya had a very unfortunate history and within the past 50 years it has been trampled upon by Italians, Germans and by British armed forces to such an extent that one could argue that the Libyans themselves were in a sense incidental to what was going on in their own country for quite a number of years. We had the Eighth Army, the Afrika Corps and Mussolini's armies fighting in that country. After that war and especially since it became known that there were great resources of oil there, it became the playground of those countries who wished to have oil or the power accruing from oil. It was out of all this that Colonel Gadafi emerged.
It must also be pointed out that the Islamic culture was looked upon as a second rate culture in Christendom for a very long time. It is only in recent times that we have come to appreciate what Islam has to offer the world in terms of its art, its culture, its history, and so on. It would be surprising if we could expect the same maturity in a country and its leader emerging so rapidly out of a very deprived situation which existed in the sands of North Africa. In spite of that, of course, the people have a very rich history and the Toureg especially in the southern parts of Libya are a fascinating people.
However, we must not use that as an excuse for what is happening in relation to Ireland and we must focus, therefore, on the effect of these arms shipments. Senator Norris was correct in drawing attention to the fact that there are certain aspects of Libya which look as though the ducks are quacking. He alluded to the relationship between the IRA and Libya and, indeed, to the UDA. He did not enlarge upon the latter association but it was at the time when the first efforts were being made to promote some new independent political ideas for Northern Ireland that the political branch of the UDA went to Libya.
The effects of these arms, as we have only recently seen in Ireland — and two weeks ago the Seanad debated this effect in one isolated incident — have been dire and I do not think it is too much to say that many Irish people would be killed, maimed and many places in Ireland destroyed if four times the arms captured on the Eksund were to be suddenly released on the unsuspecting people, particularly of Northern Ireland, but indeed of any part of Ireland.
It is easy to say, as I am sure Colonel Gadafi would say, that western democracies have been practising violence for centuries, with their armies, air forces, nuclear weapons and so on, but we have all come to realise that if the world is to have any future we have to struggle through all that and come up with some type of pro-life peacemaking philosophy to give mankind some hope. I see no hope whatsoever if we see the answer to everything in terms of role reversal brought about by violence or the implicit use of violence which is implied in "force". It should be made clear to the Libyan people that we now have understandings, structures and methods of communication which can, albeit at a reasonably slow pace, bring about the change which everybody in this House would like to see. It may be a very painful procedure and it may take time, but for certain it will come about.
For those who argue that there is no movement without violence I would argue quite the contrary. If we are seeking movement by violence we are not seeking liberation but role reversal and as one great philosopher in Paris emphasised, the dominant theme of the late part of the 20th century was "domination versus oppression". He said the counter to that must be liberation, not just liberation of the oppressed but liberation of the oppressor so that the oppressor no longer has a fear of the oppressed. That is not brought about if the ruling group feel they are going to be subjected in the same way as they originally subjected the oppressed. In any case, we are not talking about domination and oppression in that degree of severity in the context of Ireland or, indeed, of Northern Ireland. There are very strong arguments against any use of violence to bring about political change in Ireland and the strongest of all is that it is quite abhorrent to 95 per cent or more — probably 99 per cent — of the people who live in Ireland. What we must do is what so many people in this House have been trying to do — reach across the divide and understand each other better.
We must send the message clearly to Colonel Gadafi that we understand the difficulties he has had in the past in relation to colonialism and the way in which his country was so ruthlessly intimidated and, indeed, ignored and his people so marginalised, and their religion not given the respect it was due, but we see the way forward in Ireland not through revenge for what was done in the past but rather by looking in a more constructive way at our politics and new ideas for those politics in the future.
Therefore I suggest that, if we vote for the amendment to this motion we are, in fact, giving no possibility for Colonel Gadafi to understand the position without feeling threatened even more threatened. If we take the motion as it stands which asks 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," this implies the possibility of explanation. It also implies the possibility of obtaining a response, freely given, within the context of what the Provisional IRA are doing to the people, within the context of the need for movement, but not to be brought about by violence because violence eventually is counterproductive to what it is trying to achieve, and it is not necessary to bring it about by revenge.
Finally, the ultimate end for us all if we pursue change through violence is the obliteration of all life on the planet, another factor which I think the Colonel should take on board. Therefore, I appeal to the Seanad to reject the amendment and to vote for the motion.
It is appropriate that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs is present for this debate because, in the final analysis, it is he and his Department who will have to brief the Government on advisability of the text of the motion or its amendment being put into operation. It is appropriate that the Minister has listened to the views expressed by Senators on all sides of the House on this very topical motion and certainly one that has evoked much public opinion which has been expressed to us in our various constituencies.
At the outset I congratulate the Government on the action they have taken in the last number of days to ensure that all our security forces were put on alert throughout the country in the event of the information being correct that shipments of arms had been landed on our shores which would put the security of our own State and Government at risk. The Minister would have the support of everyone in this House for the actions the Government have taken in that regard. How successful or otherwise the operation will be depends on the support the public will give to the armed forces and the security forces of the State. In the kidnapping incident over the past two or three weeks it was questionable as to the amount of sympathisers there were throughout the country for people involved in extraordinary acts which somehow get romantically linked with support for the freedom fighters and other such names given to these subversive organisations. It is in that context that we must at least reprimand Colonel Gadafi for his public statements of support for the IRA. Financial and material support have been given by him, attributed to him and it has been confirmed verbally by him on our media that he has sympathy for the freedom fighters in this country.
It is also rather unfortunate that in the interview he attributed a friendship with our present Taoiseach. We cannot hold it against the Taoiseach if some foreign leader, self-appointed by a coup or otherwise, says he is a very good friend of the Taoiseach. That may or may not be the case, but it behoves the Taoiseach, if that is not the case to put the record straight. That would satisfy many people who have concern in this area.
Further to the comments made by Senator Norris, any comments I make on this issue are certainly not anti-Arab but are the opposite. With the Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan, I have had the closest co-operation with democratically elected Arab Government leaders over a number of years. I compliment Senator Lanigan on his efforts, through the European Euro-Arab dialogue group, which is a parliamentary group, to bring peace to the Middle East over a number of years. He has used his good and influential offices in many ways and in many countries to bring the unfortunate situation in the Middle East to a satisfactory conclusion. He has used his influence in America and has tried to foster the concept of an international peace conference in the area of the Middle East crisis. Never once was Colonel Gadafi present at any of those meetings because, as Senator Norris said, he is a self-appointed military leader following a coup and has nothing whatsoever to do with diplomatic or parliamentary dialogue groups in the Middle East. It is appropriate that the record of the House should show the efforts of Senator Lanigan in that regard.
Many of us realise the importance of trading with any nation and in particular the amount of trade that goes on fairly regularly with the Libyan nation. Many agricultural producers in this country welcome the type of efforts which stimulate markets for agricultural products. We consider that we are a very open and friendly nation and would like to deal with everybody. Certainly we were all at one in condemning the Americans for their indiscriminate bombing of Libya, and other countries which were used as bases. There is a price to be paid for everything and all reasonable people consider that the price of support in a material way for Irish producers who trade with Libya is too great if the Libyans are guilty of condoning the actions of the IRA and supplying arms to them. I am not privy to any information that might be available to confirm it one way or another.
Everything we read in th public press confirms that there is a definite link between the Eksund and the arms found on it which came from Libya and originated in Russia and other arms discovered both in England and on this island. If there is a definite link between them, this Government have a duty to decide whether it is appropriate to have diplomatic relations with such a country. I quote a headline from the Irish Independent, 24 November, page 8:
Gahdafi supplier of arms to the Enniskillen murderers.
The Minister should be absolutely truthful with this House and with the other House, where my party have a motion down for the withdrawal of diplomatic relations. The Minister should reject what Libya has claimed and proclaim the fact that we want nothing whatsoever to do with anybody who will assist any nation, Arab or otherwise, to undermine the security of this State by way of support for freedom fighters.
Perhaps Gadafi has a romantic idea that the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin are in some way freedom fighters. All of us in this House realise that is not the case and that episodes like Enniskillen and other atrocities in the past are in no way linked to the concept of freedom fighters. At one time this country was overrun with Black and Tans and other such militia. This created major problems for many of our people in this part of the island. There is a fundamental difference between what is happening now and what happened when people were really freedom fighters and tried to do everything possible to free our country.
I have no problem with either the motion or the amendment but I would welcome a statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Government, or the Taoiseach who has been named in the amendment, which would set our minds at rest. I opened my comments by congratulating the Minister on the efforts the Government have made over the last two days to trace arms if they were landed in this country. If that is confirmed it is appropriate that the Minister would publicly condemn the leader of the Libyan nation. If Colonel Gadafi has been involved the Minister should make a statement. I would be disappointed if the Minister did not make such a statement. I am not aware yet of what information our agents or representatives who went to talk to our accredited Ambassador in Rome on this issue might have or any other information we might obtain from the French police following their arrest of the ship. Whatever information is available I hope the Minister will act on it instantly because the ordinary people want the Government to be unambiguous in this area.
In bringing forward this motion and the amendment for discussion in this House we are indicating to the Government our concern in this area. Following the views that have been expressed on all sides of the House I hope the Minister will take effective action. If that means breaking off diplomatic relations, that is what we should do.
It is good to have friendly relations with people. It is better still to have diplomatic relations because then you can have dialogue with people. Otherwise you would have no means of communication. If there is any effort whatsoever by Libya to undermine this State we should certainly have nothing to do with them and we would not need dialogue with them. We would not need associations in trade or in trade missions or anything else because that would be too high a price to pay for the innocent people who would suffer from the illicit use of arms that are apparently entering our country and have been so far attributed to Libya. They have not denied publicly that they have been involved in this episode.
I am very grateful to the Seanad for the opportunity to debate this matter. It is a matter which merits debate. I feel this debate has been constructive up to now. The Government's view is that we should treat this matter with a certain caution. Breaking diplomatic relations is a very serious step. It is one that may be warranted in certain situations but when you look at this particular situation in relation to Libya you see that most countries within the European Community, North America and other democratic countries throughout the world are doing substantial business with Libya and have diplomatic relations with Libya. I want to make that point first.
Breaking diplomatic relations is the sort of step you take only as a very last resort. We have made our point of view known to the Libyan authorities. The trade visit that was envisaged to go to Libya has been cancelled and Senators are aware of that. We feel very strongly that no sensible person in this country can stand over any State running guns, munitions and armaments into our country at present, North or South. I want to repudiate that absolutely. Let us reject it. That point of view has been made already by our Ambassador to Libya who travelled from Rome to Tripoli to make it known in a very positive way. That has been done and in my view the further step of breaking diplomatic relations is another day's work.
Trade continues with Libya not just by Ireland but by Britain and by most other countries throughout the world in one way or another. Let us be practical as a small country. We have made our point of view known very clearly. We have told the Libyan authorities that we view with displeasure and we totally reject any attempt to undermine our democratic institutions here. I know that our Ambassador has gone in and made that aspect quite clear to the Libyan authorities.
The debate tonight has been excellent. I read the transcript of the earlier debate last week and I would like to emphasise certain essential principles on which we view our foreign policy in regard to Libya and elsewhere. I want to dispel some of the misapprehensions which some Senators appear to be under with regard to the Government's attitude on this matter and other matters affecting the security of the State. The debate in the Seanad has reflected in a very clear and direct way the widespread public concern which has arisen as a result of the threat posed by the Eksund find to the peace and security of the State.
We have had opportunity in the Dáil also to express our sense of horror at the recent tragic events in Enniskillen. It is clear that the Provisional IRA in seeking to assemble a very substantial and sophisticated arsenal of weapons in this country pose a threat to authority generally North and South. They pose a threat to us as well as they pose a threat in the North. We reject absolutely any attempt by them or anybody else to promote political objectives by violence or by the threat of violence. Recent events have shown our total commitment in that direction. I had occasion yesterday to talk to the British Foreign Secretary and he appreciated the steps we were taking here which are being taken by the British also within their jurisdiction to ensure that any such assemblage of weaponry in both jurisdictions will be sought out, found and people connected with them also sought out, found, apprehended and charged.
The total scale of the recent security operations mounted earlier this week by both the Garda and the Army demonstrates the seriousness with which we view this problem. It is one which was discussed by my co-chairman and me, Secretary of State King, last week in Dublin. The whole potential threat in this matter poses a serious problem to democracy on this island and on both islands. I want to emphasise that. The substantial nature of the landings that have already taken place, apart from the Eksund which was apprehended on route — and I pay tribute to the French authorities for that — of similar scale armaments and ammunition in these two islands give rise to very serious views, by the security people in charge in the two jurisdictions, that something must be done conjointly by the authorities concerned, that there is no real barrier in this respect and that there will be the utmost and maximum co-operation.
Our response is a very careful and measured one and I can assure the Seanad that that sort of careful assessment and balance will be applied in regard to our bilateral relationship with Libya and our bilateral relationships with any other country. It is a question of being measured and balanced in our reaction to it and I respond to the Seanad resolutions in the spirit that we have already made our point of view known to the Libyan authorities. Breaking diplomatic relations is another day's work. Trade aspects will continue between entrepreneurs here and elsewhere and, as I say are being undertaken by most of our partner countries in the EC and throughout the world.
As a first step the Ambassador went to Tripoli, sought a meeting, and put what I have said in hand. Our view is to deal with the reaction to that decision at a later date. We have made our view known in a very positive way and in a very unequivocal way. I can assure the Seanad that on that visit on 7 November the Ambassador reiterated our unequivocal view as a Government that any support for the Provisional IRA from any source, and that includes Libya, is totally unacceptable to us as a Government. I want to assure the Seanad that that was made known by Ambassador Fogarty who went specifically from Rome to Tripoli to make that known on 7 November. The fundamental position of principle was referred to in the course of this debate by the Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan, when he spoke here on 18 November.
I am concerned to note that certain Senators feel it necessary to suggest that the Government handling of the situation indicates a degree of ambivalence. It does not arise as far as I am concerned or the Government are concerned. There is no ambivalence in this matter. There is no uncertainty, ambiguity or lack of resolve on the part of this Government in dealing with this matter. We have already made it quite clear that any support, material or moral, for the Provisional IRA, or any off-shoot of the Provisional IRA, is unacceptable to a democratically elected Irish Government. I underlined this fact earlier in the Dáil this year and I do so again here.
I ask Senators who have questioned our bona fide to recognise the specific manner in which we have presented our position in this respect. Any suggestions to the contrary are harmful and are against our national interests. This Government are totally unambiguously committed in the direction I have mentioned. Anybody who questions that is doing a dis-service to this Government — that may be an indulgence — a dis-service to the Irish nation and the State as a whole. What I am expressing is the view of 99 per cent of the elected representatives of both Houses of this Oireachtas and the view of the great majority of the Irish people, particularly at present when we have a very wide ranging agreement on the fundamental matters among our people.
All 12 members of the European Community are seeking to develop a European strategy to deal with international terrorism in so far as possible in that type of combined way. That is the purpose of the Bill which is before the Dáil and which, as Senators are aware, will be coming up for further discussion. We recall, and Senators can recall, that in 1986 following clear evidence of Libyan support for international terrorism the Twelve adopted a series of measures to discourage Libya from such support in the future. It was made clear to Libya that states which expect to maintain normal relations with them must be totally outright in their renunciation of support for terrorists. We have been careful to reflect this concern in our bilateral relations with Libya. The Twelve dimension is of particular importance in seeking to examine ways and means by which we can collectively work to halt the type of operation engaged in by the Eksund and its crew. At the most recent meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Twelve in the European Political Co-operation context on 23 November — only the other day — I urged that we apply ourselves to further consideration of this matter.
It is important to remember that what will come before us for ratification inside the next few days, by 1 December, is a European Convention for the suppression of terrorism. It is not about extradition. That has been there since 1965. People North and South and in Britain have got their perceptions or images, or their mirrors mixed up in this respect. We have had extradition within our community between Ireland and Britain and enforcement of warrants procedure for 100 years. The Extradition Act was codified in 1965, 22 years ago. What we are talking about on 1 December is a European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, particular and specific offences listed in that measure.
The Government continues to monitor closely developments in the Eksund case. The Garda are in touch with the French police. The primary purpose of this co-operation is to ensure that all relevant information is made available to the Government as the investigation develops. We are certainly aware of the fact that this is a practical example of co-operation and the French Government are due our gratitude and that has been conveyed to them by the Taoiseach. Their legal constraints restrain me to some degree in commenting further on the matter but it is under control as it were there. As soon as the matter was brought to our notice and brought to my personal notice, there was complete co-operation between our authorities and the French authorities.
I appreciate that Senators have been motivated by a sincere concern to ensure, in terms of our foreign policy, that everything possible will be done to reflect the wide degree of public disquiet which has naturally arisen in this matter. We have made the Libyan authorities aware of the disquiet which exists here and emphasised to them in the course of that representation that any support for the Provisional IRA or any subversive body in this island is anathema to the whole democratic process on this island and to the Government of this country, not just our Government but whatever government are legitimately elected by the Irish people.
Some of the remarks made last week seem to indicate in some way that we are not pursuing this matter to the fullest extent. I want to reject that. We have a trading relationship with Libya. We have a trading relationship with Algeria, with Tunisia, with Morocco, with Egypt and the Middle East. Most of the export payments that we secure from our common market involvement arise out of business we do in that area of the world. It is important to look after that too, as other countries do. That is a separate matter. It is notable that, within the framework of agreement among the Twelve that they will not undercut measures taken by the United States, all our partners in the Twelve continue to maintain trading relations with Libya. I want to emphasise that that all our partners within the 12 members of the Community continue their trade and commercial relations. That is a fact of life. That is a matter that must be maintained. I would also regard any attempt to abandon such trade relations or break diplomatic relations with Libya or any other country as an illiberal type of measure. I am rather surprised to hear a liberal Senator like Senator Norris suggesting — sometimes I think there is nothing as illiberal as a liberal in pursuit of his particular point of view——
That is not original.
——you can pursue that aspect and you get into a cul-de-sac situation if you do not have diplomatic relations with illiberal regimes. We have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. We have diplomatic relations with China——
Or South Africa.
They do not export arms into the country.
I feel very strongly that we must continue to talk to people and have dialogue with people, to trade with people and indicate our point of view and debate it strongly with people; maintain our point of view and argue it and try to push our point of view as hard as possible. I am a total devotee of that style of international politics — and I am a devotee of it in national politics as well — because it is very important in international politics.
What has emerged here in the course of a very good debate is that the Taoiseach has already made his point of view quite clear. It has been conveyed quite plainly to the Libyan authorities. I want to emphasise that the management of our diplomatic relations with Libya will continue to be given this careful and sensitive consideration on my part. I appreciate the spirit in which the motion and amendment were put down. They require careful consideration. I would like very much if the Senators did not push the amendment. I am fully aware of the spirit behind the amendment. All I say is that we must assess the situation on a day to day basis and give it the sort of sensitive consideration that it deserves, assess the situation properly and make our decisions by way of response in a calm and balanced manner when that is required.
I take on board fully the point of view that have been expressed here in the Seanad. I fully take on board the spirit of the points of view in the motion. I am very glad of the occasion we have had for this debate.
What I am really saying here to Senators is that, while we fully recognise, as a Government, what is involved, we deplore any attempt to encourage violence in our society. At the same time I feel that the Seanad should recognise that it is a matter for the Government, at the right time, to take the final drastic step which at the moment is not justified, and that if trade — and fruitful trade — is to continue, it should continue on a private basis. It is not the time yet to break diplomatic relations. We have indicated our displeasure to the Libyan authorities and we should leave it at that and make sure that normal business can take place and that they will take cognisance of the fact that we have indicated that displeasure.
Before I call on Senator O'Callaghan, I should like to remind him that he has five minutes only because I have to call Senator Manning at 7.45 p.m.
I will have more than enough time in five minutes to say what I have to say because the Minister has covered in a very substantial way much of what I hoped to say.
At the end of the day the bottom line in this debate is how we can approach it on a practical basis. There is a lot of merit in what has been said here with regard to the suggested motivation in the framing of the motion. During the course of the debate this night week people like you and I were described as "lunatic backwoodsmen". If concern for the wellbeing of the people qualifies one for that I suppose I qualify and accept it.
The Minister's general approach to the debate has been well reasoned and sensible. At the end of the day this is the approach that will have to be taken. We in the Houses of the Oireachtas have a responsibility to be consistent in our approach. Obviously as a party and a Government we abhor and reject vehemently any involvement by the Libyan Government in the importation of arms into this country. The comments made by the Libyan Ambassador to France were quoted here last week. He said: "My country is quite open in its policies towards national liberation movements." This comment could have been made by President Reagan when he made his submission to the House of Congress in the United States and sought their assistance to fund the Contras so that they could bring down a legitimately elected Government in Nicaragua. We should pursue that very obvious line of debate which we are not doing that here——
Hear, hear. I support that.
——if we want to be consistent. Unfortunately there is not great evidence of this. Senator Norris correctly quoted from a book in relation to visits by the UDA and the IRA to Libya in 1974. That is quite a long time ago. All of a sudden people in this House have an inordinate concern that at this given stage in our history we should break off diplomatic relations with Libya, despite the fact that when that party were in Government their Minister for Agriculture went to Libya — as he should have done — in an effort to boost our trade with that country.
The Minister said this evening that we have to be balanced in our approach to this debate. The obvious vehicle for this is in our access to the European Communities and the approach they have taken in this regard. We should be mindful of the fact that France have not broken off diplomatic relations with Libya even though they are fighting them in Chad at present. We should also be conscious of the alleged Libyan involvement in the atrocities of the Bader-Meinhoff group in Germany and in the explosion at an American servicemen's disco in Germany last year. Neither of those two countries has yet seen fit to break off diplomatic relations with Libya. Nor have the Government of the United Kingdom, despite the fact that one of their police constables was shot down in cold blood in London not so long ago.
We should endeavour to be consistent. There is an effort in this debate to put the Fianna Fáil Party in some kind of spotlight, to suggest that we are soft. The actions of the Government during the past few days to redress what appears to have happened in relation to the importation of arms into this country during the period of office of a different Administration are proof positive that they are not soft on the Provisional IRA and never have been. Our concern for the wellbeing of our citizens in other administrations should not be confused with our hardline approach to the Provisional IRA in this case.
I compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his very comprehensive coverage and response to the motion. I should like to be associated with his comments.
This debate is not an exercise in party point scoring. The very fact that the motion we put down does not call for the immediate breaking off of diplomatic relations with Libya is evidence of that. Like Senator Ferris, I accept fully the bona fides and tremendous efforts on the world stage made by the Leader of this House in promoting better relations in trade, culture and political matters. I should like to make those points very clear.
This debate is about a very important principle: the invasion of our sovereignty by a foreign power on an unprecedented scale. It is very strange that those groups who were so vociferous about the dilution of sovereignty threatened by the Single European Act are so silent on this issue.
Hear, hear.
It is strange that those who were so vocal about cross-Border transgressions or aerial overflights are totally mute on this subject. This is strange because what we are talking about is direct interference by another country in the internal affairs of this country. It is interference of a murderous kind. It is as simple and unambiguous as that.
The reaction of Fianna Fáil members to the motion has ranged from embarrassment to resentment that it was put down at all. The reason for this is one which must be addressed and it was mentioned by the Minister in his reply. Members of Fianna Fáil, like many other people in the country, are not aware of the precise relationship between the Taoiseach and the leader of Libya. The Minister went some of the way tonight in his text to clarify this issue but the view is widespread that there is a close relationship or friendship between the two leaders. In truth, Fianna Fáil in the past encouraged this view when it suited them. I remember well the outlandish claims made in the other House in this regard. Until the Fianna Fáil Party first of all, and the country at large, are put in the clear about the exact nature of the relationship between this Government and Libya — and the Minister has gone part of the way this evening — the ambiguity on this question will continue. I can assure the Minister that in the public mind there is a widespread belief that that friendship exists and that it embarrasses and hinders the Government from taking a stronger line on this question.
The basic facts as far as Libya is concerned are very well established. Libya is one of a small number of countries which actively, and as a measure of state policy, promote terrorism in other countries. It is the only country which publicises its policy of financing and often planning indiscriminate terrorism regardless of the waste of human life involved. As late as April of 1986 Colonel Gadafi, on Libyan television, reasserted Libya's right to incite popular revolution more or less where he wishes.
In recent years Libya's trade in popular revolution has taken many forms. Principally these have included the direct organisation, through the Libyan equivalent of diplomatic channels, or specific acts of terrorism abroad such as the murder of a woman police constable in London, the bombing of the La Belle discotheque in Berlin and so forth. It includes assassination at home and abroad of individual Libyan critics of the Gadafi régime. This was described by him as "the elimination of stray dogs". It includes the alleged financing of selected revolutionary parties — and this is what concerns this country — the financing and arming of terrorist organisations such as the Abu Nidal group, other extremist Palestinian murder squads in Lebanon and also the Provisional IRA.
The fact of the matter is that we are a pawn in the continuing row between Libya and the UK and to a lesser extent between Libya and the US. If Colonel Gadafi can embarrass, discomfort or destabilise these countries through arming and training the Provisional IRA then his objectives have been met. He does not care about this country. We are a pawn in his global strategy. If the consequences of his involvement here are death, destruction, suffering and terror, then it matters not one little bit to him. There has not been one expression of sympathy from him to the relatives of those who were killed by material that came from his country over the years. There can be no friendship between this man and our country. There can be no co-existence between our democratic philosophy and his messianic zealotry and disregard for basic international law and decency.
Let us look at the background. As far back as June 1972 he outlined his basic position when he said:
We support the revolutionaries of Ireland, who oppose Britain and who are motivated by nationalism and religion. The Libyan Arab Republic has stood by the revolutionaries of Ireland. It maintains strong links with the Irish revolutionaries. There are arms and there is support for the revolutionaries of Ireland.... We have decided to move to the offensive. We have decided to fight Britain in her own home. We have decided to create a problem for Britain and to drive a thorn in the side so as to make life difficult for Britain.... She will pay a double price. She will pay dearly. We will give her two blows for one received.
That was broadcast on Libyan radio on 11 June 1972. Other speakers here this evening have detailed the visits of the Provisional IRA to that country and the relationship established there. We all remember the Claudia incident where, thanks to the vigilance of the Irish Naval Service, attempts to import an enormous amount of arms to this country were arrested.
Right throughout the seventies the Colonel has made further references to his support for the IRA. In August 1973 he told a conference of Libyan students who were going abroad that he was determined to carry the battle in defence of the Arab nation to the heart of Israel, Northern Ireland and the USA. At a press conference in Paris in November of that year he said Libya intended to continue aiding the IRA because they were representatives "of a little people fighting for their liberty against a great State". Reference has been made here to the visit by Irish parliamentary delegations to Libya to try to dissuade Colonel Gadafi from this evil course. Clearly, their efforts were totally in vain. After the Provisional IRA bombs exploded in London in March 1976, Al Fajr Al Jadid, the Arabic daily paper produced by the official Libyan news agency, claimed that:
These bombs which are convulsing Britain and breaking its spirit are bombs of the Libyan people.... We have sent bombs to the Irish revolutionaries so that Britain will pay the price of her past deeds after we have liquidated her presence from our land.
Surely that language is unambiguous and represents an enormous intrusion in the internal affairs of this country.
That was 15 years ago.
In 1980 at a time when Anglo-Libyan relations had again deteriorated, statements were made by representatives of the Gadafi régime in London — On 3 November 1980, which is only seven years ago, in a broadcast by the Voice of the Arab Homeland — I am coming closer to home, Minister — they gave the reasoning behind the interference. They said:
...it permits us to achieve three objectives simultaneously. It helps us to entrench ourselves in the line of support for all liberation movements. It helps us to prove to the whole world that the Arab revolution is capable of moving from a position of defence to that of attack. Finally, it helps us to pay Britain back for a small part of the harm it caused and causes to our Arab nation.
Later in 1984 — and I am coming closer to the present — at a time of further terrorist attacks in Britain and in parts of Europe, the Voice of the Arab Homeland in a commentary on 22 April 1984 talked about setting up people's committees to form alliances with the IRA and so forth. At that same time the chief Libyan diplomat in London, so-called diplomat, talked about the relationship with the IRA. He said:
The Libyans knew the IRA and its leaders because we co-operated with them in the early 1970s...
If Britain was able to co-operate with mass terrorists — i.e. enemies of Gadafi:
-and stray dogs escaping justice and law, how can we not meet or recognise noble strugglers like the leaders of the IRA. At any rate, we consider their cause just and we can support it as best we can.
I could go on in the few moments left to me to detail other examples. At the beginning of last year the Garda discovered two caches of arms in Sligo and Roscommon and these were mentioned earlier. It was the largest store ever discovered North or South and the weapons seized there are believed to have originated in Libya. In recent days arms have been seized from the Eksund. This has been covered by my colleagues in this debate. There has been a major police effort during the past couple of days to trace other weapons which have come into this country over the past few years. I thought it was unworthy of Senator O'Callaghan to equate the getting in of these arms with any failure on the part of the previous Government. The fact that the Eksund was captured — and thankfully so — had nothing to do with this Government: it had all to do with the surveillance of France and other countries against terrorism. Everybody in this country welcomes what happened.
The basic point is that the evidence is very clear that the Libyan Government are engaged in the export of terrorism. The evidence is clear that the Libyan Government have no respect for the sovereign rights of other countries. The evidence is clear that we are seen as a pawn in the relationship between Libya and Britain and the US. If Libya can destabilise or embarrass those countries, then we are a very useful pawn in all of that. This is the basic situation in which we find ourselves with Libya. That country continues to export arms to this country on a scale so potentially destructive that it baffles imagination and description. Enniskillen would be merely a back page story compared to the potential of what was in the Eksund and the other boats which are reported to have landed arms in this country.
It is clear there has been interference on a massive scale in the internal politics of this country by the Libyan Government. It is clear that the consequences of that interference are murderous. Even if a country was interfering in a peaceful way we would resent it, but interference of that sort is clearly unacceptable. It is unacceptable to any sovereign state that their sovereignty should be breached in this way.
I listened carefully to the Minister. I understand his thinking but I am not persuaded by the case he made here this evening. He expressed his concern, which we all share. He used soft words and diplomatic clichés but there was no evidence of any strong intent on the part of the Government to take the sort of strong action against Libya for which the ordinary people are asking. They signed the books of condolences because they were outraged by what happened in Enniskillen and who were outraged at what could have happened if those arms had come to this country.
The Minister expressed his displeasure this evening. In this case displeasure is not enough. A majority of decent people in this country will applaud the motion before the Seanad this evening. There are many people in the Fianna Fáil Party who would like to be able to support us because they are uneasy at what is happening. They share the unease. They cannot understand why the Government have remained mute, even if they are working feverishly behind the scenes. They cannot understand why in the face of such evil interference in the internal affairs of this country our Government give us soft diplomatic clichés and talk about normal channels and about not rocking the boat. All of these clichés mean that very little is being done.
For that reason I cannot, with respect, accept the Minister's invitation this evening to withdraw our motion. Our motion is in the interests of the Irish people at this particular point. We have to send our message loud and clear from the sovereign representatives of a sovereign State that no interference in the internal affairs of this country will be tolerated from any quarter and most especially that no interference which leads to the death and destruction of Irish people and Irish proprty will be tolerated. For that reason we will be pressing the motion.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Daly, Jack.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Norris, David.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Níl
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Robb, John D.A.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Connor, Nicholas.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Wallace, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ross and Norris; Níl, Senators Fallon and S. Haughey.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Daly, Jack.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Norris, David.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Robb, John D.A.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Connor, Nicholas.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Wallace, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators J. Daly and Cregan; Níl, Senators S. Haughey and Fallon.
Question declared lost.
When is it proposed to sit again?
On Wednesday, 2 December 1987 at 2.30 p.m.